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 ...
No, the image and information are exactly the same.
How do you know it’s an original document?
Um... because you can see it's a paper document? Because Savannah Guthrie said she felt the raised seal, and you can see that it's got a seal?
And the cross-hatches on that photo don’t match the ones that the HDOH uses either...
Really? How do you know exactly what safety paper the Hawaii Department of Health uses? And did you ever think that they might use different batches or even different brands of safety paper from time to time?
Aside from all of which, the State of Hawaii has confirmed again and again that yes, they have Obama's birth certificate on file. Yes, it's the original birth certificate. Yes, he was born in Hawaii. Yes, they sent him two copies.
They even linked to the image supplied by the White House.
But let's waste some more conservative resources on the birther mythology. Heck, there's nothing important to talk about. Nothing like actual abuse on the part of this government, or coverups of scummy stuff they did in the Benghazi affair, or the IRS targeting tea party groups for special mistreatment, or anything like that.
Of course they're all lying.
Everyone in the country who isn't a birther is either lying, a paid shill, intimidated, corrupt, an Obot, a troll, a traitor, or just downright evil.
That includes pretty much all of the judges and courts in the country, all of our Congressmen and Senators of both parties (except for MAYBE Yoho and Stockman), every conservative talk show host, and everybody in the State of Hawaii, except for Reed Hayes.
Oh, and their spies are literally everywhere. They even patrol here on FreeRepublic, just to make sure nobody says anything birther.
Because a brilliant comment made here by a birther with no access to any official documents, at a site that doesn't even have the attention of the major media, just might bring down the President of the United States at any moment.
Until someone files an actual criminal complaint with a law enforcement agency and that law enforcement agency conducts a real criminal investigation, we’ll never know for certain if there is a paper, hard copy vault edition of a birth vital record.
In the six and a half years since February, 2007, when Obama first announced his candidacy, no law enforcement agency has conducted a forgery investigation. A volunteer, tax-exempt educational posse’ that is adjunct to a sheriff’s office doesn’t count.
I have seen the security paper that they used 2 weeks after Obama’s was supposedly printed, and it does not match what is on the White House image - which Onaka refused to verify was a “true and accurate representation of the original record on file.”
Why won’t you believe the legal disclosure of the official custodian of the original record - the only person authorized and legally required to verify what is and isn’t contained on a legally-valid record?
And talk about wasting time. Tell me one scandal that hasn’t been a “waste of time” in the same way that you say this is a waste of time. People are dead in Fast & Furious and Benghazi, just like people are dead from the eligibility issue, and none of them makes a hootin’ hill of difference to the DC guttersnipes. Because they have all said to hell with the rule of law - starting with letting this usurper in office in the first place. Once you’ve given up the rule of law, it’s just a political free-for-all, which is exactly what we’ve got right now. IOW, on all these other issues and everything else we are now eating the lawlessness sh!t sandwich that folks like you said was a waste of time confronting. Tastes real good, huh? There’s no going back to the rule of law until folks like you admit that you made a big-time mistake and reassert that the rule of law DOES matter. Does it matter, Jeff, or do you echo Hillary’s dimissal of the deaths she is responsible for, with “At this point, what difference does it make?”?
If the rule of law doesn’t matter, then why are we even wasting our time on stuff like the Constitution or feigning outrage over stuff that doesn’t even matter? The rule of law is the foundational principle of civilization. When a society says nothing matters, they have become less human than the animals and all that’s left is survival of the fittest.
I believe the disclosure of the official custodian of the original record. I just don't believe your characterization of it.
As far as the rule of law goes, I'm with you on the crap like the IRS scandal and the Department of Justice scandal and the NSA scandal. Believe me, I'm with you. If I were in Congress and could do it, I would probably vote to impeach this son of a bitch.
On the other hand, I have seen birthers clamoring as hard as they can for us to set aside the legitimate Constitution of this country and the legitimate laws of this country and reinterpret our Constitution and laws in ways that the Founding Fathers NEVER intended. And anyone who stands in the way of their savaging our Constitution and the rule of law and the real intentions of our Founders is a "traitor" who some of these idiots would literally execute if they could.
So don't talk to me so much about the rule of law. When birthers start respecting it, then maybe we can have that conversation.
What difference does that make? The law is the law. HRS 338-14.3 says that HI SHALL verify what is submitted, with the condition that if they verify something it means that it is true. IOW, they must verify it if it is true; they must not verify it if it isn’t legally considered true.
And wanna know something about Ken Bennett? He told a Freeper that the reason the date wasn’t verified in that letter was because Onaka’s letter of verification had mistakes in it. IOW, Bennett claimed he knew better than the custodian of the record what was contained on that record. He DISAGREED with what Onaka said in the letter of verification and that is why he didn’t do anything about what Onaka actually said. IOW, Bennett said he DIDN’T believe the letter of verification and was going to go on what he believed rather than what Onaka actually said.
The KS SOS never had to make a determination because the challenger withdrew the challenge out of fear for his and his loved ones’ lives because of the threats he was receiving. Sound peachy to you? Is that the America you believe in? Sure as heck isn’t the America I’ve known and loved my entire life. Looks more like the Amerikkka that Snowden, Hastings, Rosen, etc are revealing that this regime is all about...
“Onaka refused to verify was a “true and accurate representation of the original record on file.””
How do you know he refused?
And as far as the security paper goes, guess what? Government offices don’t always necessarily use the same security paper.
They just don’t.
The HDOH and the State, and two governors of both parties have been very clear - at least to everyone except birthers, for whom the rule is “If there is any POSSIBLE way on earth we can read this to mean they aren’t confirming the birth certificate, then that’s exactly what it means.”
They’ve been about as clear as possible that Obama was born in Hawaii, that his birth certificate is valid, and that it’s the same thing as the image that was posted on the WH web site.
The “No True Scotsman” fallacy. Jeesh.
And I know that a law enforcement agency was prepared to make an arrest but was stopped for political reasons, out of fear of retaliation. So that is now TWO law enforcement bodies that you have to write off as “not counting”.
See my previous post.
The standard birther way of interpreting words is: "If there is any possible way on earth that we could read this as a failure to fully, absolutely confirm in every specific possible point, that Barack Obama was born in Honolulu on August whatever of 1961, and that the HDOH received at that time (August 1961) the required paperwork from the doctor, and issued a true and genuine birth certificate, then that equals a 'refusal to confirm the details of Obama's birth.'"
Why did Onaka not verify the date of birth? Why did he not verify the mother and father? Why did he not verify the gender? Why did he not verify the island of birth?
The statute says he SHALL verify the submitted facts upon request. That is imperative. Why wouldn’t he?
Then why, when Onaka was asked point-blank and legally required to say yes if he could, did Onaka fail to verify any of the facts submitted on the actual request application AND that the White House image is a “true and accurate representation of the original record on file”?
He was asked point-blank, and his response was to be a certification - the legal equivalent of being put under oath. Why would he not verify any of those things? He is the only one legally authorized to confirm what was on the real document and he wouldn’t. That is the LEGAL answer we’ve been given.
The others are not legally authorized to disclose anything. They have made their carefully-parsed comments out of one side of their mouth and out of the other side of their mouth they say they are legally prohibited from disclosing anything. So which is it? Can they legally disclose what’s on the BC or not? If they confirmed a Hawaii birth as you say, then they are disclosing what is on the BC and broke the laws by their own stinking admission. Are those the people you’re going to trust over and above the legal custodian of the record who contradicts the claims of the illegal disclosures?
Because he never verified that when requested to do so. He had to verify what was requested of him if he could, and he did NOT verify it.
Show me your proof that Hawaii used different kinds of security paper in their office within a 2-week time period in May of 2011. Security paper is supposed to help expose forgeries; how can it do that if the HDOH randomly uses some paper with security features and some without? You act like you know how these offices do things; tell me your credentials and why we should believe what you say.
That information “matches” is meaningless. It is incomplete.
To illustrate:
I have a sheet of paper with 5 items on it.
You have a sheet of paper with 3 items on it.
Those three items match 3 of my 5.
What about those other two items?
What kind of items? Amendments.
We need the FACTS, not what they were made to appear as circa 2006.
Jeff, you’re being stupid. The date of birth was not on that letter of verification. When Ken Bennett was asked why not he said he assumed it was an error. He assumed that what he received from Onaka was wrong. Even Bennett doesn’t deny that Onaka failed to verify what was asked of him. He just assumed that Onaka MEANT to verify it. Sounds a whole lot like “judge’s knowledge” - the sharia method of naking legal determinations... But Bennett acknowledged that Onaka did NOT verify the date of birth.
And the statute says he must verify what is submitted if he can.
Why wouldn’t he? Do you agree with Bennett that Onaka’s letter of verification was a mistake and he actually MEANT to verify all that stuff even though he didn’t verify it?
I say this as a friendly well-intentioned warning:
The Birther movement is grossly ignorant of electronic document processing technology and management attitudes in use during the period the BC was most likely digitized and subsequently destroyed.
Don’t attack me, hear me out or lose the fight.
In the 80s, document automation was a corporate fad. Bureaucracies were smitten with converting warehouses of paper to computer files. Enormous sums were spent doing so, confidently destroying paper records by the truckload.
One problem: the technology was there like Space Invaders was a game - barely. Far from the high res 300+ dpi whole page scans of today, those systems went thru extreme contortions to fit whole legal pages in today-unbelievably small space. Guided by bizarre legalistic rules determining what pixels were important, this extremely lossy compression - and their decades-later reconstruction in far superior technologies - results in strange visual artifacts which the ignorant & suspicious interpret as proof of conspiracy.
I know many will attack, insult, and demean me for saying this. What do they know but cheap high-res scanners and cheaper terabyte-scale storage? I was there when what I describe was newsworthy and lauded as futuristic breakthroughs fetching many millions of dollars when that was a LOT of money. I’m trying to make a helpful point, warning of the enemy’s capabilities to eviscerate opponents a way our advocates think absurd. When the Obama’s minions get their act together, the “photoshop conspiracy” crowd will look very, very stupid if they don’t get a realistic grip on mid-80s document processing.
There's that word "likely."
It was my understanding that Hawaiian long-form birth certificates were stored on microfilm. They were not digitized.
My analysis has never depended on anything computer related. The security paper that the HDOH used in May 2011 is different than the security paper on the White House image. And the HI state registrar was asked point-blank to verify that the White House image is a “true and accurate representation of the original record on file”. He would not, nor would he verify the birth facts submitted on the actual verification application. He was legally required to verify upon request any submitted claims that he could verify as true. He wouldn’t verify any of the facts or the genuineness of the White House image. We’ve got our legal answer, and it doesn’t take any computer skill to see that answer for what it is.
Also, what makes you think that the paper records were destroyed after digitizing? If you’ve followed this issue at all you know that the HI folks were all talking about the BC being in a bound volume with all the other BC’s. They did not destroy the paper records even if they digitized them.
And if you believe the excuses that Deputy AG Jill Nagamine gave for not allowing Duncan Sunahara to see a certified copy of his sister’s original BC, they must not have digitized anything because they couldn’t give a certified copy without causing gross damage to those fragile paper birth certificates in that bound volume. If they digitized those records then the condition of the paper records was no issue whatsoever. And actually we know that this was just an excuse on Nagamine’s part because they had not only the paper documents but master and work copies of the microfilmed BC images.
So they have paper copies, microfilm masters and multiple copies, and (from what they say on their website about still having to create records from old documents) digital files of all the BC’s. There is no reason for them to not allow Duncan to see his sister’s long-form, and they are making excuses. Typical of the lying scummery I’ve seen first-hand from the officials in Hawaii.
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.