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 ...
“Maybe the DOH’s scanner lets the image be cropped during scanning, but then we’re left with a scan that is almost perfectly centered from side to side with the lines in the certificate almost exactly straight and square. Keep in mind, this is NOT the typical way the DOH produces a certificate, so to come up with something this clean and this precise in one try is extraordinary.”
Actually, I did a little digging, and found out it’s really easy to do this on a Xerox WorkCentre (many models). In no particular order for the first three steps,
1) Under the Copy main tab, select the paper tray with the security paper
2) In the Layout Adjustment tab, select Original Size, select the Custom size button, and input the dimensions of the area you want to copy (here, it was 6.25” x 5.25” or thereabouts)
3) Also in the Layout Adjustment tab, select Image Shift, and select the Auto Center option
4) Place the page you want copied with the upper left corner at the upper left corner of the scanner glass. with the BC, the spine would be aligned with the left edge of the glass, and the top of the page aligned with the top edge of the glass: the frame would assist in keeping everything aligned.
5) Start copying.
That will get you a cropped image, centered on the page, with lines nearly straight and square.
Source: http://download.support.xerox.com/pub/docs/WC4250/userdocs/any-os/en/UG_EN.pdf pages 45-52
Ah, this is the Ah Nee BC, that has BC# digits overlapping and a forged Onaka signature. I guess Fuddy must have ordered them also to do CYA on Obama’s centered text, while also getting a totally fabricated BC# out there to confuse the BC numbering questions.
When forging Onaka’s signature, though, they should have looked at more of Onaka’s signatures from the time period rather than just looking at Onaka’s signature on the Peter Kema COLB, because in trying to copy the Kema signature they exaggerated features that are NOT characteristic of Onaka’s handwriting. Still, it was a nice try at coming up with a pre-Obama BC that did CYA for all the errors they made on Obama’s long-form...
BTW, the fact that they couldn’t get Onaka to just sign the thing for them or use one of his signature stamps supports my theory that Onaka has NOT been cooperating with Fuddy on all her illegal activities. Even the 2001 “memo” (that was created the same day as Obama’s long-form forgery was released) does not have Onaka’s signature on it. There is a reason the AG’s office called in the police to keep Zullo from getting a chance to speak with Onaka directly. It’s the same reason the regime monitors phone calls and emails of whoever they want AND why they have told agency workers across the full regime that they will be held accountable if they don’t spy on their co-workers...
How and why did the 7655 get rid of the cross-hatches on these 2 copies?
So is this Dr. Onaka Stamp also a fake?
http://www.wnd.com/2011/04/285921/
Close up of stamp.
http://www.wnd.com/2011/05/298101/
Or did Dr. Onaka just get a new stamp between 1995 and 2011?
At http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2011/02/the_gops_post-birtherism.html it gives links to images of the front and back side of Edith Coats’ BC. Here are the links where James Coats posted images of the back and front sides of his sister Edith’s long-form:
Edith Coats Hawaii Longform 1962 #151- 62 - 08498
http://passportsusa.com/wp-content/gallery/passportusa/edith_front.jpg
http://passportsusa.com/wp-content/gallery/passportusa/edith_rear.jpg
http://passportsusa.com/?page_id=209
That copy was issued in 1984, 11 years before Johanna Ah Nee’s was supposedly issued. It doesn’t have Onaka’s signature.
Note that the items are not centered. The cross-hatch pattern appears to be authentic.
“How and why did the 7655 get rid of the cross-hatches on these 2 copies?”
As with the other question, I’m not sure which two copies you are talking about. I’ll venture a guess that one of them is the digital photograph Scott Applewhite took of the first page of the press packet, and by cross-hatch you mean the basketweave pattern. To start with, I’m not even sure that the 7655 had anything to do with creating this copy (and it certainly did not take the photograph of this copy). It appears to be a high contrast B&W photocopy made independent of the pdf.
Those signatures look like Onaka’s signature. The Onaka signature on the Ah Nee BC looks totally different. Too curvy, as if somebody was trying to copy the features on the Peter Kema COLB signature and overdid it. Onaka’s signature is an efficient, no-nonsense, no-extra-motion signature similar to mine. My signature looks different every time but you will not find curly-cues on my signature EVER. It goes against my nature. Same with Onaka. I have looked at a lot of his signatures, including in the 1995 timeframe. What’s on the Ah Nee BC is not his signature.
No, I’m talking about the copies that were made for the press. The “white copies”. The Properties for the Snopes COLB copy posted on the white house website list that same Mac OS as Obama’s long-form so it apparently used the same workflow. How and why did the 7655 get rid of the cross-hatches from the snopes image when they printed it out for the press? The same thing happened with the copies of the long-form that they made for the press - hence the “white copy” label.
There is a bend there. It is not perfectly flat. Many of of the LFBCs do have this very slight bend that is still present during the bulk transfer process into the digital library.
But it still lacks two distinct characteristics present in both the Obama LFBC and the Nordyke’s LFBCs.
1. The upper right hand triangular gap from the heavy bending. The image is well cropped in the corners as most post digital library/security paper versions are.
2. The column to the far left inside the heavy part of the bend that contains handwritten values. This is present in the 1960s Nordyke versions (pre-digital library) but not in any post digital library/security paper versions since.
If you held up all all three and asked which two are alike and which is not. This image would still easily be the outlier.
At least this image does not have the troublesome halos - as basic scans never do. The background goes right up to black letters. That is how an actual scan that has little or no manipulation should appear. Even if the image were optimized in Adobe there would not be distinct white halos. The typed letters do align well as you would expect with a manual or electric typewriter. Without being to professionally inspect the original document for authenticity (which is the only real way to provide a true POSITIVE finding of authenticity) this image does appear on the surface to be authentic. And it does have fields that are not tabbed as in the Edith Coats LFBC and the vast majority of others provided. The fields are not perfectly centered - but they are not tabbed either.
Maybe the ‘original’ Obama LFBC was not scanned into the digital archive libraries with the others. Maybe they did have to go back to the hard copy, bound volumes and create one. But why? Why would it not already be in the library like the others?
If it were legally sealed during adoption or identity change this would be the logical explanation.
As they say - One is an anomaly, two is coincidence, three is a pattern. Given that this one still is missing characteristics that link Obama’s image more to the 1960s version vs. the 1980s and beyond version we are still not yet to the coincidence phase.
Thanks for digging this one up.
Also note that there is no bend on the sides of the Coats long-form. As of at least 1984 they had a method of providing copies of BC’s that did not involve using the bound paper copies.
The retention schedules say that the HDOH used working copies of microfilms. The BC’s were microfilmed each month - before being bound in any book - so the HDOH could send the microfilmed copies to the CDC each month. There could be a small amount of curve in the images on the microfilms because the BC’s were photographed rather than held flat as they would be in a copier. But the copies were made before binding in a book.
The Ah Nee BC has a fake Onaka signature and overlapping digits in the BC#. The BC# is also way off what it needs to be, given what Verna Lee and the CDC’s 1961 records say about how the HI BC’s were numbered. This BC is authentic in that it came from the HDOH. But just like Sunahara’s death certificate which also came from the HDOH, this one has been fabricated by the HDOH in a disinformation effort, and the signs of forgery reveal the HDOH’s fabrication. IMHO.
“The upper right hand triangular gap from the heavy bending.”
Maybe because this one was bent differently the curved lines go up, while Obama’s and the Nordyke’s and this 1959 BC bend downward. That upward bend would put the dark triangle at the bottom of the document. We can’t see it because the original BC form doesn’t end at the bottom of box 23. There is possibly more information or a margin.
This 1959 Hawaiian BC also has entries not governed by tab settings.
http://www.wnd.com/2011/05/298537/
Why would they microfilm only part of the birth certificate? Wouldn’t they microfilm the whole document including the information to the left of the demographics section?
Why did WND redact the information on the BC that they previously published?
Why did they cover up the certification number as they know it doesn’t contain personal information?
Why when they found out that you could read the certification number by the bleed through on the backside of the document did they alter the backside green security paper to hide the number?
Isn’t it time for the front of the is BC to be revealed - they can cover up the names?
“No, I’m talking about the copies that were made for the press. The “white copies”. The Properties for the Snopes COLB copy posted on the white house website list that same Mac OS as Obama’s long-form so it apparently used the same workflow. How and why did the 7655 get rid of the cross-hatches from the snopes image when they printed it out for the press? The same thing happened with the copies of the long-form that they made for the press - hence the “white copy” label.”
I was previously unaware of these copies. I found the copy of the Snopes COLB on the whitehouse server. Although it has the Mac Preview overwrite and structure, the structure of the file shows no evidence that it was made on a 7655. I would hazard a guess that this was scanned in from a copy of the press packet after the conference on a non-Xerox scanner, then run through Preview. As to how the basket-weave was eliminated, I would look to a black and white photocopy with high contrast, as I explained for the Applewhite photo. I am not sure where the other file you are talking about is located.
What evidence is there that a digital archive library was ever created? Yes, we know that data was entered so that the COLBs could be generated. But I have not seen any evidence, law, regulation, executive order, or memo ordering a digital archive of the images be made.
“The retention schedules say that the HDOH used working copies of microfilms. “
Ah, thanks. That does show it is possible to create flat images.
Now a question. If HDOH had said that rather than photocopy the original paper record, they instead had printed a digital copy, how well do you think birthers would have reacted? Would it be any different than when Obama posted the COLB, which is an electronic abstract?
“Why would they microfilm only part of the birth certificate? Wouldn’t they microfilm the whole document including the information to the left of the demographics section?”
They may very well microfilm the whole birth record, and just trim the portion outside of the birth certificate form when they print the BC.
Or they probably keep separate the stuff that is considered “for medical use only” - because that would go to the CDC for their analysis but wasn’t typically copied for requestors, but only if they specifically requested that. So they probably microfilmed the BC’s in different portions - the part that is used routinely for certified copies, and the additional part that was to go to the CDC for statistical analysis. Although in 1961 the only required CDC items that were not on the part usually disclosed were the marital status of the parents and the birth weight, IIRC.
The original microfilms are what Arpaio wants to see.
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.
