So far, the people with their hands over their eyes and their fingers in their ears still can't see or hear anything.
Here are the people who take your side.
Posted on 06/06/2013 4:04:57 PM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
During the video presentation beginning at the 16:55 mark, the narrator talks about the typewritten entries on Hawaii birth certificates and Obama's birth certificate in particular (this is from an unofficial transcript).
Narrator: There is one thing of which we are very certain; the forger obviously had no experience using a typewriter perhaps because of their age. They did not understand the concept of a left margin, did not grasp the concept of setting up tabs, did not understand that as a mechanical device a typewriter would have fixed spacing, they furthermore did not understand that typewriters in 1961 would have had only one letter style. They also seemed ignorant of the fact that typewriters contained unique identifiable characteristics and that mixing letters originally typed on different typewriters would be readily detected. Compare the left margin of Barack Obama’s long form birth certificate with three others from 1961 and one from 1962. (video paused)
Zullo interrupts video to have someone block the screen from the audience view.
Narrator: You’ll undoubtedly notice that (video paused)
Zullo: What I’m afraid of is this is being recorded and this is also being live streamed and I don’t want cameras moving in, trying to get the identification of the persons on these birth certificates. This will be the last time he’ll have to do this.
Narrator: …unlike Obama’s long form birth certificate, the others show obvious signs of tabs being set up.
Zullo: For those of you who couldn’t see, what it is that the tabs are set up and they are left to right justified with a typewriter and on Obama’s it is like a zigzag snake. That is not the characteristic we have seen with dozens of birth certificate that we’ve examined from the state of Hawaii in varying years from 1955, before it was even a state, to present time. The tabs were all opened up. So whoever placed this information on this certificate didn’t have this concept. And you know it, it, it is one of these things that’s going to be very difficult for somebody to explain. The thing that they will use to try and get away from all this is nothing more than just the element of doubt. They’ll just try to create doubt to explain it away. So what we have done is we’ve collected I think we got almost 20 or 25 birth certificates that are all left and right justified perfectly and that’s the way they are suppose to be. So this is just another element to this. And this is almost like building a circumstantial case in a way. You do it for lack of better way to say it layer on layer, you just start building layer upon layer (garbled).
Narrator: Here are just a few examples of letters found in different shapes and sizes on Barack Obama’s long form birth certificate. If the document were typed with a single typewriter as it should have been, this would be impossible.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUJOSNZpZEU&feature=player_embedded
So he is saying that the typewritten entries on the birth certificate should all line up along the left margin and within the various boxes. But we know this is not true. The Nordyke twins birth certificates also zigzag along the left margin.
We know tht Zullo is aware of the Nordyke BCs because he used their certification numbers in his affidavits.
So what is going on? Why would he say that Obama's is different from all the other BCs they have examined?
And this guy has some gall. He is the most inaccurate, the most deceptive, and least competent person to engage in this issue of which I have ever come across. He cannot make an argument but it not be some sort of classic fallacy, and he deliberately ignores hard serious facts that utterly contradict him. He is Non-credible and non serious; A Clown act with a small moron following.
At the moment, we have much more important fish to fry. The IRS affair, the AP reporter affair, the Benghazi affair, and the fact that this government has been spying on YOU are REAL issues, and IMO they could, possibly, literally bring down this President, or at least (together with the unpopularity of Obamacare) fuel a change in political fortune that could sweep conservatives back into power beginning with the Congressional elections next year.
If *YOU* have any involvement in it, i'm pretty sure it is going to get gummed up.
And, as always, I’ll be falsely labeled a “troll” and a “liberal” and an “Obama operative” by the idiots, for advocating that we conservatives focus our energies in the places where we actually have a chance to succeed, versus zero chance at all.
And yet every argument you make is always on the side which helps Obama. With that in mind, how could anyone ever mistake you for a troll?
So far, the people with their hands over their eyes and their fingers in their ears still can't see or hear anything.
Here are the people who take your side.
Seems you need to take some of your own medicine!
It's obviously important that he be here sowing obfuscation amongst us, because otherwise he would be elsewhere frying bigger fish. His own presence puts the lie to his commentary.
SHUT UP JEFF, and GO AWAY.
Here is what one of the developers of the mixed raster content model said,
“I took a birth certificate which has a similar background pattern, scanned and compressed using an older DjVu tool. It has shown the same problems as POBC, like text letters that were missed and sent to background, and multiple text styles. It didn’t have halo, though, because its algorithm decided to obliterate the whole background pattern. Perhaps if I had time to toy around with packages and parameters I might find something very close to what was used to generate the document shown by the WH, but I unfortunately do not have the time right now.”
“In summary I can only say I see much stronger signs of common MRC algorithmic processing of the image rather than some intentional manipulation.” Ricardo L. de Queiroz
Why is the “R” in Barack in the child’s name on the background layer but the “R” in Barack the father’s name not on the background layer?
Could it be that on the original document the “R” is fainter then the surrounding typed letters?
And why are some of the labels in the birth certificate boxes broken up? Why do some of the letters in the box 6c box go to the background layer, but others stay on one of the text layers?
Sometimes we can glean the truth from existing knowledge. As I have pointed out, the Founders were brilliant men. Why would they have adopted a principle which is not only contrary to America's founding principles but which also produces nonsensical results such as "anchor babies"?
That the founders ever intended "anchor babies" is one of those absolute lies of which you speak.
The closest process of which I can suggest to resemble this is tokenization of the data, but tokenization generally replaces data chunks consistently throughout a file. What that would mean is that all "R's" would look exactly alike in the decompressed file. That is not the case.
My understanding is that the mixed raster content compression model breaks a complex image (one with both images and text like a magazine page) into different layers. The background layer contains the images or graphic elements while the text masks contain the text elements.
The background layer is compressed using one method (lossy) and the text layers are compressed using another (lossless) method.
Why would a forger copy and paste individual letters for the label in box 6c? Why put some on the green background layer and some on a text layer?
Here is what the label in box 6c says
6c Name of Hospital or Institution (if not in hospital or institution, give street address)
You can almost predict which letters are going to stay with the background layer and which are going to go to a text layer.
Zoom in any of the capital letters or letters that are taller (l,d for example) that come close to the vertical line were put on the green background layer. Is that because the software could decide if the letter was text or image?
Looking further into your argument, you are suggesting that image data is handled differently from text data.
Well if you will examine Stanley Ann Dunham's signature in high resolution, you will note that her signature is composed of both higher pixel depth, lower resolution image data, and lower pixel depth higher resolution image data.
It cannot be argued that any portion of her signature can be mistaken for text characters, it is unrecognizable as text to any sort of OCR, so apparently image data is being handled in two completely different ways.
How does that jive with your explanation? It would seem to contradict it.
Look at box 19a the doctor’s signature. The capital “D” in David. The “D” is touching both the top and bottom horizontal lines of the box. And the label letters that the “D” crosses (”of A”) are also on the green background layer. The rest of his signature sits on the bottom horizontal line and was also sent to the background layer. That is except the dot for the letter “i” in his name.
So here is a prediction anytime the text or a label’s letter touches a vertical or horizontal line or anytime the a typed letter is fainter than the other letters, it was sent to the background layer and compressed using the lossy algorthym.
Important question. I don’t see some of the main sites reporting what seems to be major news. Why not? Did the strategy of never mentioning the probably fake birth certificate turn out to be a good one? Rush never mentioned it. Romney never mentioned it. Hannity never mentioned it. How did that work out?
The Nordykes certificates don’t have different letters and numbers of different sizes as Obama’s does. Also we don’t know what Hawaii court certified document expert Reed Hayes has found in his 40 page report confirming Obama’s document a forgery. We will have to wait and see.
What is illegal about Obama's presidency?
No, it isn't.
People have looked at it in great detail, including a number of bloggers both liberal and conservative, a guy who wrote an entire book on it (who says he's a conservative and shows no obvious signs of being otherwise), and one of the world's top experts who developed the kind of technology used to compress the PDF file.
And they have explained all of the "anomalies" and shown why none of them mean "forgery," and shown that the theory that someone constructed the PDF by hand is a completely idiotic idea. Woodman in particular went into great detail on this.
They have also taken apart all of the previous technical claims made by the Arpaio Posse's merry band of "experts," and shown that they were nothing more than bulls***. Their last "expert," like all of their "experts," said a bunch of stuff that turned out not to be true. This was from the clear statement of Ricardo de Queiroz, who invented most of the compression technology.
And THAT is why they won't publish the report from this new expert. Who, by the way, does seem to be a genuine expert, in handwriting, but without expertise where it actually counts.
You seem to be reaching all the same conclusions reached by Woodman, de Queiroz, and others.
Zullo was specifically talking about the tab settings. His comment that Obama’s “zigzags like a snake” and that that’s unlike other Hawaiian BCs that are left justified is false.
He has the Nordyke BCs and has referenced them. In his statement before the Sheriffs, he said that they have examined 20 or 25 BCs and they are all justified the same way. So why did he not mention the Nordyke’s?
He also didn’t mention this 1959 Hawaiian BC that also is not left justified.
http://www.wnd.com/2011/05/298537/
Just for clarification here is a perfectly left justified BC.
http://passportsusa.com/wp-content/gallery/passportusa/edith_front.jpg
Looks to me like whether a certificate was left justified or not would depend on the person who typed it in.
Weren’t the Nordykes born just about the same time as Obama, and at the same hospital?
So it stands to reason that the same person who typed Obama’s certificate, probably typed the Nordyke ones.
So like literally everything from birthers, once again, for the 1,987th time, it’s bullsh*t.
“Looks to me like whether a certificate was left justified or not would depend on the person who typed it in.”
That’s eactly right, there is no rule that requires the BCs be left justified.
“Weren’t the Nordykes born just about the same time as Obama, and at the same hospital?”
They were born the next day (August 5th) at the same hospital.
“So like literally everything from birthers, once again, for the 1,987th time, it’s bullsh*t.”
In this example, ignoring exonerating evidence looks more like they are encrouching on Micheal Nifong territory.
So here is a prediction anytime the text or a label’s letter touches a vertical or horizontal line or anytime the a typed letter is fainter than the other letters, it was sent to the background layer and compressed using the lossy algorthym.
What you say appears to hold true in many instances of which I have looked. It does not appear to hold true in box 20, "Date of Acceptance." The "1" in 1961 appears to be of the same resolution as the rest of the numbers, but of differing bit depth. It appears to be touching nothing else, as do the "196" part of the date. Also in the box 13, Where the "S" in Stanley is of differing resolutions and bit depths. The "S" doesn't look fainter than the other letters, just in a different format.
But you have made a good point. You have presented a mechanistic methodology and purpose for discriminating between these peculiar anomalies of differing image structures within the same document; A logical explanation as to why they might exist outside of being copied and pasted from differing file formats.
But there is still a problem with it. Does this methodology accomplish the purpose for which it is intended? It's purpose is to compress the file into a smaller size, but does it do so?
If a pixel has a bit depth of 1, then it can be represented by a single bit. If a pixel has a bit depth of 4, then it must be represented by four bits, which will produce 16 shades of grey.
What I see, are examples of images with a bit depth of one, but four times smaller pixel size. (Meaning it takes four pixels to equal one of the other format's pixel size.)
The Larger pixels have a bit depth of four, (16 different shades of gray) but a size four times as large per pixel.
Unless i'm missing something, Both formats are the same size, memory storage wise, and so there is no discernible benefit to be had by using one format over the other, and a great deal of complexity is added to the process by using both at the same time.
If both formats use the same data storage space, why have two formats mixed together? Where is the savings or benefit?
I know Mara....she comes to our local Tea Party Meetings.
She might still be a registered Democrat (I am not sure) but she is no longer in the mindset of a Liberal Mind.
She told me that she used to be a Liberal.
Why is it that the older that people get, the more likely they are to be Conservative? (rhetorical question)
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.
