Posted on 08/07/2013 6:29:11 PM PDT by Seizethecarp
The following image is a composite created by scanning the WH LFBC using Xerox WorkCentre 7655 upside down using the automatic feeder. The resulting file was opened in Preview, the image rotated 180 degrees and printed to PDF. The resulting PDF was opened in preview, the layers unlocked and moved to the side. In addition, a close up of the signature was ‘blown up’ to show how the background layer, not surprisingly, has filled in some of the white that resulted from the separation of the background and foreground layers.
Note how for example the signature block is fully separated.
(Excerpt) Read more at nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com ...
But if it was lodged on August 8, 1961, what would be the reason for the non-validity of the record?
Very difficult to respond to that question, I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Are you asking why would a birth entry be created/inserted in place of where the Virginia entry should have been?
The material on your blog shows 'Vital Statistics Instruction Manual 1961' for the US, nothing for Hawaii, which obviously used its own numbering system, and we have no idea what that might have been, right?
Seems to me it's still possible that the number 9 beside AFRICAN could end up as meaning NOT STATED because African wasn't relative.
IF African was in fact even used. That has always been suspect.
I spoke to Corsi about the issue before I put that post up, he was unconcerned that the charts he had given to Zullo to use in the presser were NOT period correct. Basically he said he didn’t care. Zullo cared though, I spoke with him also.
“IMO, the new claims by blogger “NBC” constitute a seemingly credible challenge to the preliminary conclusions”
I just read this entry:
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2013/08/05/wh-7655-experiments/
It looks like NBC scanned the document three times in the same position (WH7655V1.PDF, WH7655V2.PDF, and WH7655V3.PDF). Essentially scanning, rescanning and scanning again. Each of the three created PDFs had different results in terms of the number of layers but in all three the registrar stamp and the “April 25th 2011” date stamp were separated into their own layers.
Let me put it this way - IF the kenyan student had a son in Hawaii, regardless of the date or the name of the mother; with a father who was in prison for at least two years for suspected Mau Mau activities against the Colonial Government of Kenya, the chances that he would allow himself to be described or classified as a NEGRO on his son's birth certificate are ZERO.
“For the time period only 1 person came from Kenya to the US by air and that person was not a US Citizen.”
Seven came by sea. This is a secondary record subject to simple error by only one clerk to render it invalid.
Now does that mean Zullo is faced with trying to get the correct code from Hawaii? What chance has he got? Is that Code available to the public?
“That is the real issue - the lie has never been replaced with the truth or even another lie.”
Not from Barry.
But I haven’t seen any evidence that the INS FOIA documents for BHO Sr. are forged. There is a whole lot of narrative there that replaces the “happy family” story, IMO!
Stanley Ann’s whereabouts are still unknown from early February to late August 1961...when she shows up thousands of miles from Hawaii, obviously having crossed part of one ocean! Who’s to say she didn’t cross one or two more oceans and/or continents to get to Seattle after she left Hawaii, whenever that was? We just don’t know...yet.
That’s a good question too, but what I meant was why would the HDOH consider that record non-valid? They have fraudulent BC’s submitted a lot, according to common knowledge, and as long as the claims are made in a timely fashion, with the right signatures (whether forged or not), the HDOH calls it good. The troubles usually come in when there aren’t the necessary signatures.
This, in my opinion, IS the nucleus of it all. When we look at the actions of SAD traveling though Seattle on her way to Boston with a new born black kid in January of 61 and the fact that she is not seen or pictured with a black kid until the black kid is like 3 or so then it begs the question. Was there some kind of relationship between the mother of the black kid and the Dunhams?
Maddy might have been waiting for an infant to die to take numerical identity to give legitimacy for the little black kid for whatever reason we do not know. But it would make sense if you were trying to give US Citizenship to a baby not born under normal circumstances. Or the death of Virginia just happened to present an opportunity for Maddy to gain legitimacy for a black baby she had in her care and it was a spur of the moment decision on her part. I do think you will find a birth announcement in the January February editions of the newspapers that may seem to us now as strange.
Susan Blake placed the time of the visit from SAD in late August, after Susan had driven back to WA from CA when there were firest-fires, iirc. Susan said SAD had sent her a postcard she was coming to visit, and had borrowed a car from a friend of her mothers to do so. She stayed for half a day, Susan changed the baby's diaper because SAD didn't know how/or want to do it, and then she left to go to Boston, after which Susan never saw her again.
Maddy might have been waiting for an infant to die to take numerical identity to give legitimacy for the little black kid for whatever reason we do not know. But it would make sense if you were trying to give US Citizenship to a baby not born under normal circumstances. Or the death of Virginia just happened to present an opportunity for Maddy to gain legitimacy for a black baby she had in her care and it was a spur of the moment decision on her part. I do think you will find a birth announcement in the January February editions of the newspapers that may seem to us now as strange.
I think I need to point out to you that at that very time SAD was showing little zero to Susan Blake, on Captitol Hill there was a woman with a seven month old child being baby-sat by Mary. Or, alternatively, as Mary first stated, she babysat for Anna Obama when her own daughter, who was born in July 1959, was 18 months of age. Both statements indicate Anna Obama had a child that was born in January 1961. And yes, a birth announcement might have been generated by that birth in January 1961, if the mother allowed it. I don't think every single birth ended up as an announcement in the Honolulu papers...and btw, Madelyn Dunham didn't have to be the culprit, nor was it necessary for SAD to pick the child up from Hawaii, zero could have arrived from anywhere...but the child of Barack Obama and Anna (shown as Ann S Obama in the 1961 Hawaii directory) probably was a Hawaii born child.
Can you follow that it's possible his ID is an amalgum of; (1) the name of the child of the AFRICAN and Anna, born January 1961. (2)The birthdate of Virginia whose death announcement appeared on the date 'his birth certificate' was lodged. (3) providing him with the certificate number ending in 41. (4) and that gave rise to the birth announcement, where, had she lived, Virginia's birth announcement would have appeared...
And, as a result, no one can know who his parents were or when and where he was born?
**BREAKING PING**
Zullo’s pdf expert, Garrett Papit (who collaborated with Mara Zebest), is now collaborating with Obot blogger “NBC” to the extent of helping him to try to get to the bottom of the mysterious halos on the WH LFBC pdf!
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2013/08/15/dr-conspiracy-garrett-papit/
begin NBC blog post
“Some interesting new developments. Dr C discovered a document resembling the WH LFBC PDF but without halos. I have been trying to create such a document myself, so this is a very welcome contribution.
“It was emailed to Dr C by Garrett Papit who also declined to comment on the Xerox ‘forger’ issue:
‘Unfortunately I’m not at liberty to discuss it at this point. But sit tight. It will be covered in due time. … Once I am allowed to discuss it I will be more than happy to address your points.’
“It is good to hear that others may be looking at this issue as well so that we may be able to resolve the claims in the next few weeks.
“He has access to a Xerox WorkCentre 7655
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDaYef36qXo
“He wrote a supplemental report for the Cold Case Posse”
http://www.mcso.org/MultiMedia/PressRelease/Media%20Supplemental%20Report.pdf
end NBC blog post
I have only just now read the Garrett Papit research paper written for Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse
“Comprehensive Analysis, Obama LFBC PDF file”
http://www.mcso.org/MultiMedia/PressRelease/Media%20Supplemental%20Report.pdf
The one main point that NBC appears to have claimed to debunk in Papit’s paper is that MRC (and Papit DOES discuss MRC compression in great detail)...MRC “should” only create ONE 1-bit (black) text layer and that nearly all the text and lines as well as the date stamps and signature stamps “should” be contained in that one layer.
NBC has not yet refuted Papit’s claim that there should be NO halos.
Papit explains:
“The presence of a white halo around the text, and white space beneath the text, on the White House file is inconsistent with optimization or a simple scan. Under normal circumstances, a scanned document will not result in an image that has a white halo around the lettering. Similarly, optimization will not arbitrarily add a white halo or insert white space beneath the text layer. In order to generate such a halo, a user would have to take deliberate action, such as applying an unsharp mask, within a graphics editing program such as Photoshop. Manual editing with such an application would dramatically erode the provenance of this document.”
In this paper, Papit says he created a “control document” described below and this is what it appears he sent to NBC because it was explicitly created to not have the halos that are in the WH pdf but would NOT have been on the original IF THERE WAS ONE. The WH pdf copy cannot be used to simulate an original because it already HAS Halos, thus the need to create a control simulated original without halos:
Papit: “In order to adequately test and analyze the effects of optimization, a control document was created that would be as close as possible to a birth certificate issued by the Hawaii Department of Health. The form data would have been printed onto green safety paper, and then the date stamp and registrar stamp would be manually added via a traditional ink stamp to certify the document.”
These signatures aren’t a good match at all. If the signature on the will is legit, then there’s a pretty strong argument to make that the signature on the alleged Obama LFBC is forged. Look at the difference in spacing and the angle of the handwriting. Look at the i and r in Sinclair. On the will, the i is dotted and the r is very pronounced and finishes with an upstroke of the pen, very deliberately. On the LFBC, if there’s a dot on the i, it’s not very visible and the r is flat and barely discernible, trailing downward.
Thanks, you’ve put into words exactly what I thought when I made the comparison myself, so nice to hear someone agrees with what I was thinking...there’s also the spacing between the fist name and the Inital ‘A’ - and the way that capital ‘A’ is written.
The forgers might have fooled his widow:
“...A proud Obama supporter, Sinclair said she doubts the birth certificate will end the debate.
“I think if you choose to believe it’s not true, you will always find a way not to believe it,” she said. “I hope that people that are reasonable and rational and believe in facts will put the rumors to rest and we move on.”
This story raises as many questions as it seeks to resolve. Mrs. Sinclair says, “Physicians honor the confidentiality of their patients so he never said anything to me about this ...” He delivered a baby. That birth gets announced in the newspaper. There’s not a confidentiality issue. Plus we have the story from the woman who claimed she was told by Rodney West at a dinner in 1961 that a woman named Stanley gave birth that night. That’s not a physician honoring confidentiality. Mrs. Sinclair says she has other pieces of paper with her husband’s signature and is willing to show it. Why didn’t she just do it then and there?? Should have been easy enough. But of course, the real problem is that Mrs. Sinclair is an admitted “proud Obama supporter.” She may simply be fooling herself because of her support for him. Physicians honor the confidentiality of their patients so he never said anything to me about this ...
She wants to believe...and therefor, as far as she's concerned, it's not possible that someone might have forged her husband's signature.
As for Barbara Czurles-Nelson, who told the story about Dr West telling her 'Stanley Ann had a baby' and she wrote the name on a table napkin because it sounded so musical...that she wrote to her father about it (in Buffalo) all I can say to her is, lady, you can pull my finger...
Czurles-Nelson Gallery Dedication
Dr West had been retired from obstetrics for a number of years when Barbara arrived in Hawaii as a student in 1959.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.