Posted on 07/12/2011 6:06:52 AM PDT by RobinMasters
Another computer graphics expert is questioning the validity of the Obama birth document released by the White House.
Victoria Nicks, who holds both a Bachelor's and a Master's Degree in Information Technology, argues that the presence of "differently sized pixels" in the image released to the public April 27 by the White House indicates that it's not "an exact duplicate of an original document scan."
In a piece on the Decoded Science website, she also points out that there are "misaligned pixels" throughout the document.
"The fact that there are different-sized pixels throughout the document indicates, without a doubt, that the document has been altered from its original state," she writes.While Nicks is not willing to state that the Obama document is a forgery, others graphics experts have come to that conclusion.
Nicks says it's possible that the alteration is solely the result of a standard optimization process, but it's clear that the document is not an exact copy of an original birth certificate.
She says that while most of the Obama document is composed of larger pixels, the layer of pixels that can be removed from the document using the software program Adobe Illustrator is made up of much smaller pixels.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
So you think that Obama and his lawyers are knowingly lying about the origins WH LFCOLB, but the document is legitimate. This document is legitimate, even though it was a cobbled together from multiple sources/scans, because the State of Hawaii did it.
OK - I guess that is possible
How likely do *you* think that scenario is?
I'm going with the most likely possibility: that this is not a forgery.
So, you accept what Obama produces, because it likely represents the truth.
Ok - not exactly Woodward, or ‘Buckhead’, or The Enquirer with a stained blue dress, but it is reasonable to just accept on faith in the office of the president, that what that offices produces is truth.
Thanks for offering up your perspective.
My understanding is that the only thing that a state can falsify on a BC as a result of an adoption is the identity of the parents.
OK - I guess that is possible
How likely do *you* think that scenario is?
At the moment I believe it is highly likely. It fits so perfectly with all of the information of which I am aware. The Document is an obvious paste up. Since it seems incredible that Hawaii would not call foul on something Obama's team did, I must conclude that Hawaii isn't crying foul because it's something THEY did. It is the OFFICIAL document that Hawaii is going to call his birth certificate.
Most states are bound by the ruling of a Judge regarding the creation of a new Fake birth certificate. The Fake Birth Certificates are ostensibly to protect the privacy of both the child and the adopting parents who may not want the child to know he's been adopted. So in the interests of the child and adoptive parents, Courts will routinely seal the original and order the creation of a new birth certificate which becomes the child's "OFFICIAL" document.
Now I'm convinced that in 2008 Hawaii didn't have this document. They just computer printed out the information which was put into their records at that time, thus producing the COLB. This convinced most of the rubes, but more perceptive people cried foul! Demanding the Original was a bit of a problem because Hawaii wasn't allowed to show that document. (Privacy law, Judges seal.) Probably knowing that they would have to produce something eventually, and remember, access to their records HAD to be restricted to only those authorized bureaucrats working in the archives. As the bureaucrats are not likely to be highly knowledgeable about anything but being a bureaucrat, their amateurish efforts in cut and paste image manipulation are plain for everyone to see.
In any case, that is my current working theory.
I don't know about you, but I accept the document as legitimate because the state of Hawaii says it is legitimate. No faith in Obama's word (and I have none) is necessary.
What if the truth is that the LFCOLB is exactly what it's claimed to be, with a lot of weird computer artifacts from the scanning, optimization, and conversion process?
You are two real important steps up the ladder above Zero. His father wasn’t a Yankee and he’s not a natural born citizen either. LOL
First of all, I am not discounting the possibility that Barack really was born in Hawaii. Enough evidence exists to persuade me that this is quite possibly true. However, enough evidence exists to persuade me that he could have been born elsewhere, yet still obtained a birth certificate from Hawaii which claims he was born in Hawaii. What I am instead arguing is that he was quite likely adopted (or custody transfer) at least once in his life, and that this would explain the peculiarities regarding his birth documents.
But to answer your question, I have read through Hawaii's birth certificate laws. They allow some peculiar shenanigans. Unless evidence comes along which disproves the theory, it seems to me that it is quite possible to get a Hawaiian birth certificate by submitting a "born at home" affidavit. If I recall correctly, applicants have up to a year to get a required Doctor's examination of the child. Madelyn Dunham could have submitted the paperwork on behalf of her daughter, (Thereby generating the first official record AND the newspaper announcements.) if her Daughter were in Seattle or Canada. (I think the Kenyan theory is completely unreasonable.) Stanley Ann came back from Seattle within the Year period necessary to meet the Doctor's examination requirement.
My understanding is that the only thing that a state can falsify on a BC as a result of an adoption is the identity of the parents.
I would suggest that if they can falsify that, they can falsify any other part as well. Again, Hawaii has peculiar birth laws. They allow children born on ships to claim Hawaiian birth, they allowed pretty lenient "at home" declarations of birth, I suspect that if Hawaiian's adopt a foreign child, they will give that child a Hawaiian birth certificate anyway. Hawaii has a LOT of foreign contact as a result of it's unique circumstance for an American state.
You wonder how they can falsify stuff on birth certificates? *I* wonder how they got the signature of my original birth Doctor on MY birth certificate, which I know was created 6 years after I was born! Did they send him a copy of the new one 6 years later for him to sign, or did they just "copy" an existing signature of his? What would they have done had he died or been otherwise unavailable?
I have read at least one article from a man alleging he was found as a child and adopted with no information available about him whatsoever. That would imply they had to make up every single piece of information on his birth document.
I am unaware of any bounds regarding a Judge's directive in the creation of a birth document. As far as I know, a Judge can put anything on there that he wishes.
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrs2008/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0020_0005.htm
And here's the relevant text:
The department of health shall establish a Hawaii certificate of birth for a person born in a foreign country and for whom a final decree of adoption has been entered in a court of competent jurisdiction in Hawaii...The new certificate of birth shall show the true or probable foreign country of birth.
So even if Obama's BC is amended by an adoption decree, we know the birthplace could not be changed from a foreign country to Hawaii. Hence we know for sure his original BC said he was born in Hawaii.
But so what? Maybe his original BC said he was born in Hawaii, but listed his birth as unattended, as some birthers have speculated. Could an adoption decree have caused the state to falsify information about an attending physician, hospital, and the like?
The answer is no. State law says that the only information that gets deliberately falsified on an Amended BC when a child registered as being born in-state gets adopted is the child's name and the identity of the parents. The law does not allow for changing the name of the hospital, doctor, date of birth, or anything else. You can find that here:
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrs2008/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0020.htm
Hence we can establish for sure that a) Obama's original BC said he was born in Hawaii and b) it had the same information as the recently-released document regarding the hospital, the doctor, and the like. In the unlikely event it is amended (and there is really no reason to believe it is), the only thing that might have changed are the names of the parents and perhaps the child. But none of that is relevant to Obama's eligibility.
So I'm now at a loss as to why anyone would care that Obama's BC is amended. Why do does it matter so much to you, and why have you invested so much emotional energy in it?
We have already established that an Adoption decree will cause the state to falsify information, now we are just quibbling over the details.
If I recall properly, she had up to a year to get the child examined by a Doctor. Strangely enough, my own birth certificate has a Doctor's signature, 6 years after the fact!
Tell me again what they won't put on a birth certificate because they are too honest?
I find this comment highly amusing. You "verified" by reading what the law says. Obviously no one ever deviates from those.
:)
“So, you accept what Obama produces, because it likely represents the truth.
Ok - not exactly Woodward, or ‘Buckhead’, or The Enquirer with a stained blue dress, but it is reasonable to just accept on faith in the office of the president, that what that offices produces is truth.
Thanks for offering up your perspective.”
What if the “truth” is as simple as Dr. David A. Sinclair, the attending physician named on the birth certificate was asked by the grandparents, the Dunhams or by Stanley Ann Obama or by Obama Senior or all of the above to create a birth certificate for Ann’s new baby and he was willing to send a birth record to the Hawaii Health Bureau thus creating a faux Hawaii “birth record” for the child that has been on file since August 8, 1961?
Perhaps Dr. Sinclair buried the Obama certificate in a stack of birth records for children born over that first weekend of August, 1961 so as not to draw any particular attention to it, which is why the Obama certificate number is out of sequence with the Nordyke Twins who were born after baby Obama.
Hospitals don’t keep records of their admissions or of a routine birthing procedure for 50 years. No one would ever know if a false record had been created back in 1961.
This method has been used recently to create anchor bady records for illegal aliens but it’s much more difficult to accomplish in the age of computers.
Here’s a link to a federal government white paper on the problem of faked birth certificates:
http://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-07-99-00570.pdf
Got any evidence the state routinely and deliberately deviates from those laws?
The place of birth is no detail; it is, in fact, the only thing on the BC that is relevant to a person's citizenship, and the state DOES NOT falsify that.
If I recall properly, she had up to a year to get the child examined by a Doctor.
Then the BC wouldn't list the hospital as the place of birth, and if the birth was registered after a certain number of weeks, it would be marked "delayed."
Since the BC specifically lists a hospital, and the BC isn't marked "delayed," we know for a fact he was born in the hospital and the birth was registered in a timely manner.
Tell me again what they won't put on a birth certificate because they are too honest?
They don't put a false birthplace nor a false birthdate. The only information they are allowed to falsify is the name of the parents and child, and then that only happens if there is an adoption and the court orders it.
The birth record on file with the state says the birth occurred at Kapi’olani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital at 7:24 p.m. on August 4, 1961 with David A. Sinclair as attending physician. The parents both signed the birth record on August 7, 1961 and Dr. Sinclair registered the birth with the state of Hawaii on August 8, 1961.
Birth notices appeared in the Vital Statistics sections of the local newspapers on August 13th and August 14th, 1961. So there was obviously no delayed filing of the record of the birth.
Anyone trying to disprove the information above has a very difficult task in front of them.
I believe that the state of Hawaii does have a 50 year old document with the above information on it on file. Whether a birth actually took place at that place, time and date is anybody’s guess. Any 50 year old birth record is hearsay evidence unless there are still alive actual eyewitnesses to the birth.
Actually, I believe butterzillion does; Not that it would likely make any difference to you. Evidence that people broke (or ignored) the law is not ordinarily easily obtainable because those responsible will generally prevent any of it from coming to light. It is like "PROOF" of adoption. The State won't willingly give you any proof, and people like you point to the fact that you can't get proof from the state as evidence that there IS no proof.
The Cobbled up appearance of Bambi's birth document is possibly evidence the state of Hawaii unwittingly gave everyone of Barry's adoption. That is how I see it currently.
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.