Posted on 04/30/2011 8:37:33 PM PDT by Triple
(Note:the HTML on the images was tricky for me - if they don't show up it is my fault)
Oh do come on folks.
There's an old saying: When the facts support your position, use them. When they don't, or when you get caught lying, throw crap at the wall and hope something sticks!
The latest is the National Review which had this to say about my analysis on the birth certificate:
The PDF is composed of multiple images. That’s correct. Using a photo editor or PDF viewer of your choice, you can extract this image data, view it, hide it, etc. But these layers, as they’re being called, aren’t layers in the traditional photo-editing sense of the word. They are, quite literally, pieces of image data that have been positioned in a PDF container. They appear as text but also contain glyphs, dots, lines, boxes, squiggles, and random garbage. They’re not combined or merged in any way. Quite simply, they look like they were created programmatically, not by a human.
This is what happens when you don't bother actually watching the video I posted, or looking into the provenance of what you're arguing over - you just throw crap at the wall. Nathan goes on to post a PDF that he scanned which shows his "layers."
Unfortunately, in doing so, he proved that I'm correct.
See, the issue isn't layers. Yes, the layers are suspicious, but they're not the smoking gun. The smoking gun is that there are no chromatic artifacts in the Obama document, but the document is allegedly a color scan of an actual piece of paper, and we know it had to be a color scan because the background is allegedly color safety paper.
National Review's document, unsurprisingly, is a scan of a color document. How do we know? Because if you simply pull it up in your web browser (which will open the embedded Acrobat Reader) and zoom it up, you will see this:
Note the chromatic aberration. This document is in fact a color scan.
And here is a blown-up piece of the so-called "scan" of Obama's document:
Note the absence of chromatic aberration. The Obama White House document is not an unaltered color scan.
Folks, this is physics. It is "how things work." It is why you see rainbows. Light always is refracted slightly differently depending on wavelength when it goes through a lens - as is necessary to focus it so as to make an image.
Could I scan an image in color and then make this "go away" in an image program? Probably. Why would you? The intent of the release, remember, is to produce an actual image of a physical document and the claim made was that this was a copy of a physical piece of paper.
The Obots were all over me yesterday with the claim that "well, it could have been an electronic copy." No, it wasn't. Beyond the fact that certified copies are always printed to paper and then authenticated (e.g. with a raised seal) there is documentary evidence that Hawaii did exactly that. Look here. Hawaii produced photocopies - not electronic copies, photostatic copies of the original.
Well, that's even more troublesome, because if they were photocopies how is it that the Associated Press and the White House wound up with two very different-looking documents? How do you take a photocopy and have two different "versions" of that same piece of paper magically appear - one with a green safety paper background and the other not? Incidentally, we know factually that the green "safety paper" in question did not exist and was not used in 1961 as there are dozens of close-in-time actual birth certificates from Hawaii that have been floating around the Internet and have been posted. Therefore, given that Hawaii has stated in a public, signed letter that it issued photostatic copies of the original in the bound book the copy on the White House site has to have been - at minimum - "enhanced."
My next question (which I've tried to get answered without success) is where did the AP get the piece of paper that they put into a scanner? And note carefully: AP did, in fact, place a piece of paper into a scanner and published what came out. There is no evidence that AP tampered with the digital representation of what they scanned, while there's plenty of evidence that the White House did, and in fact what the White House produced does not appear to be an actual scan at all but is a created digital document.
The question, therefore, is what was the source and provenance of the document AP scanned? We know the apparent answer: It came from the White House, and had to, since the correspondence says that there were only two copies produced and both went directly to White House counsel. What AP presented is only as good as the source of the paper they were handed.
There are others who have noted a number of other problems with the document presented. Among them are that there are no apparent tab stops used on the Obama "birth certificate." 1961 was the day of the typewriter, and nobody hand-centered things like that. Production typists used tab stops and if you look at other, known-authentic birth certificates from the time, you'll note that they're tab-aligned. Obama's is not. Remember Dan Rather and his little forgery? 20-something idiots in the White House IT department have never used an actual typewriter in their life. 40-something bloggers and their girlfriends (and "Batgirl" deserves recognition for the catch on this one) most certainly did during our school and college years, and we remember how they worked too. Nobody ever manually centered or manually-aligned production documents in a typewriter. Can that be explained? Maybe the janitor typed Obama's birth certificate. Or maybe he was "really special" compared to the thousands of other births in Hawaii, and a lowly typist in 1961 "knew" he should have a "really pretty" typed certificate because he'd be President 40 years later. It's also entirely plausible that aliens really did land in Roswell, you know.
Other curiosities include the fact that the time of birth is exactly the same on the (now-discredited - or is it?) Kenyan birth certificate that has been floating around the Internet, and that registration dates on the long-form match the Kenyan "forgery" as well. How did a purely fraudulent document in a foreign nation happen to wind up with the exact same time of birth and certification dates as the alleged "real" certificate - if Hawaii never released the latter information until now? That's a hell of a coincidence. Yes, I know the time of birth was "out there." The certification dates were not, to the best of my ability to determine, public knowledge.
This debate is not, at this point, about whether Obama was born in the United States. There are plenty of people who question that, but this case simply isn't about that any more.
This case is about whether a sitting President presented an altered - that is, forged - document to the American public and claimed it was authentic. You cannot at the same time have Hawaii state that they made two PHOTOCOPIES of an original in a book and then have the White House and AP release "scanned" copies of that document which appear to have been printed on entirely-different paper, never mind that one of them is clearly not a simple scan.
The evidence strongly supports this allegation. The obvious next question is this: What, Mr. President, are you trying to hide, and we then must turn to whether a sitting President should be permitted to erase the tapes that document his knowledge of a break-in to a hotel....
You cannot say that...because it has no clear legible embossed, dated and signed seal of the DOH of Hawaii - that document cannot be used to certify anything FOR or AGAINST Obama.
It has no value except as a public opinion and political manipulation piece.
=8-)
I really wish Freepers would wise up to that fact. You cannot use anything on what Obama releases to prove something FOR or AGAINST him unless it is in original certified form as generated by the State of Hawaii.
You obviously can’t recognize fact. I never said McCain had a problem. I said the dems went after him. Prove me wrong! I also said McCain’s situation was nothing compared to Obama’s obvious ineligibility.
Either you cannot read or you hate the Constitution. I’m not sure which is your biggest problem. But you are not helping at all neither are those like you who are in office and refuse to stand for the Constitution.
I hereby brush aside YOUR interpretation of the Constitution since I think YOU are wrong.
So did the majority of the Country, and they did so without me, as I voted for McCain.
SORRY THE STATE DEPARTMENT DOCS ARE FROM BEFORE HILLARY
Asked and answered.
The Founders used the term “Natural Born” to prohibit any NATURALIZED Citizen from ever being POTUS.
Because they're to stupid to vote, or they gleefully ignored the Constitution to do the "cool" thing and elect the black guy.
You are dense.
What’s your source?
I take it that the 14th amendment was an adjunct to the original adopted Constitution. As such the adopted Constitution still stands on it’s own root. I also believe that ‘natural born’ is distinct from other class of citizen noted in the Constitution and such as ‘native’ born or naturalized. My reading of the discussions of the Founding Fathers in considering and adopting wording for the Constitution is that they intended to set a rock bottom requirement for POTUSA which would not be subverted by any other class. The Arthur case and Obama’s case shows how best laid plans and words of good men sometimes fall to evil persons coniving.
Every typewriter has it’s own type “signature”, resulting from the age of the keys, the manufacturer, whether they are in vertical and horizontal symmetry, force of impact, etc. Many court cases have hinged on establishing the source of the type signature. The purported Obama birth certificate has a type signature that is quite different from the Nordyke twins birth certificates supposedly produced a couple of days subsequent to Obama’s.
Obviously it’s possible that a different machine was used for the Obama certificate, but it appears to have been typed on a much older piece of equipment. Look at the capital K and capital S. They don’t line up in symmetry with the lower case letters or other capitals. The type on the Nordyke documents including the K and S are in noticeably tighter symmetry.
I just don't want to use bad strategy or bad law or stupid arguments in the process.
Doing it the wrong way means it won't get done.
I WANT questions about Obama’s terrible photoshop documents out there, I want to question him about his phony Ayers written book -—
But the idea that his foreign Father disqualifies him is not going to fly.
What we have are lies...not forgeries.
It would be a forgery if:
1. Obama handed you a document as generated by the DOH of Hawaii - not a copy thereof - but the actual document created by the DOH when created.
2. It contained the actual embossed, dated and signed seal.
3. It appears to be alterated, abnormal, “fishy”.
4. You convince a judge of #3.
5. The judge subpoenas the DOH of Hawaii to open the sealed record in court for comparison purpose.
6. And it turns out the two do match and confirming a forgery.
Then you have established a forgery!
All we have now are simple lies -
I’ve already predicted on several threads that Obama being very slick will never present the actual embossed seal containing DOH generated copy as-is (assuming they do) because he will have to alter it to have it say what he wants it to say - thereby putting himself in legal jeopardy.
He will always present a copy of or a scan of that will not meet certification requirements and rely on the media to assist him in maintaining his lie.
=8-)
On this point, we have NOTHING NEW!
The trouble with that is that the founders KNEW what “Natural Born Citizen” meant. They used it SPECIFICALLY there and nowhere else. They realized that the 1790 law was a mistake and took it out by replacing the law in 1795.
Not by your actions on this thread. You're just a disruptor.
But the fact that it happens to be the truth seems to bother you. A lot.
If we have lost, it is because we refused to obey the laws as written. We wouldn't stand up for what is right and fight what is wrong. All of you who refuse to fight are killing this country. Because you would rather lie down and let them trample over you and the Constitution, you are no better than the usurpers who are trying to take this country and ruin it.
Itstoolatetoreadthisnowpingforlater
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.