Posted on 01/30/2009 10:26:26 PM PST by Jet Jaguar
A new lawsuit is challenging Barack Obama's eligibility to be president, and this one targets Congress as a defendant for its "failure" to uphold the constitutional demand to make sure Obama qualified before approving the Electoral College vote that actually designated him as the occupant of the Oval Office.
The new case raises many of the same arguments as dozens of other cases that have flooded into courtrooms around the nation since the November election.
It is being brought on behalf of Charles F. Kerchner Jr., Lowell T. Patterson, Darrell James Lenormand and Donald H. Nelson Jr. and names as defendants Barack Hussein Obama II, the U.S., Congress, the Senate, House of Representatives and former Vice President Dick Cheney along with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 193,000 others and sign up now!
As WND has reported, dozens of lawsuits have been filed over Obama's eligibility to assume the office of the president. Many have been dismissed while others remain pending.
The cases, in various ways, have alleged Obama does not meet the "natural born citizen" clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, which reads, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
Sorry, I’m right.
What is being disingenuous? The State Department didn’t always require a long form or ANY form birth certificate for a passport.
Obama having a passport does not mean he had to show a birth certificate.
I know it should be an ellipse, because looking at a slanted surface essentially compresses the direction of the slant, either toward or away. A compressed circle is an ellipse. I've used that fact a bunch to draw error ellipses.
But as to the question is it an ellipse, I can't really tell, Some photos look like it is and in others it does not. Complicating matters is that in most images, in addition to the slant caused by the fold, there is "slant" in both directions to the document as a whole, as well as a rotation about the "line of sight" in some photos. The lighting and thus the contrast is so strange it's hard to determine where the edges of things actually are. I notice that in the third factcheck "3D" photo, it doesn't show up at all again. It's also strange that the photos of the seal from the back do not show much if any "compression, and they are cut off so as not to show the bottom fold, which cuts through the top of the seal, at least on the photos of the front. However the back doesn't demonstrate anything, since it contains no information tying it to Obama, it *could* be a photo of anyone's Certification, not saying that it is, but just that it could be.
There's a big difference in the lighting between a scan and a photograph. The seal is visible on the scan, but you have to look for the impressions. It is not side lit like the photos.
I understand that, but all the scans of CoLBs posted show the seal quite well, with no "enhancement" required. According to the photos, the seal is a very prominent one, and really should show up on the scan as more than something that take an edge detection (aka high pass) filter to detect. The same is true of the bottom fold line, it shows up quite well on both the full and partial shots, and on some of those the illumination is not that great.
You are correct you did, but since I'd already found it on my own, all I noticed was the text. And since it wasn't; a hot link, it didn't draw my eye.
Nah. I ‘m sure you know all about it.
The image on the right is simply the gradient (in the vertical direction) of a greyscale copy of the left image, with the lowest gradients omitted (white) and the larger gradients in black.
It should give one an idea of where to look in the colored image.
"Have you checked this yourself or are you taking someone's word for it?"
"I know it should be an ellipse, because looking at a slanted surface essentially compresses the direction of the slant, either toward or away. A compressed circle is an ellipse. I've used that fact a bunch to draw error ellipses."
That's right. Did you notice that Polarik doesn't actually provide any measurements? He pretty consistently fails to do things like that. A real analysis would measure things and provide the measurements.
I've checked. It is an elipse.
did anyone notice that Bruce Springsteen did NOT sing “Born in the USA” at the Super Bowl?
Yes, the Super Bowl Halftime Show is supposed to be upbeat and positive, the song "Born in the USA is bleak view of the American Experience.
Have fun with that projection excercise :) Sorry for butting in. If I understand correctly (I figure about a 30% chance on that), are you investigating what would be the appearance (geometrical outline) of a physical seal on paper in 3D space & how it would be projected onto the flat surface of a photograph, or are you more interested in the transformations required to place/project a circular flatish image onto a 2D image of a (say for instance) piece of paper that is skewed (or even folded) at the time that it is photographed, or something similar? The reason I ask is, if it is the second case, a question I asked myself is: Would it be possible to produce 3 such images (different angles & lighting) which were nevertheless consistent enough with each other to appear to be actual raised seals? I suppose it is possible. But I think the raised seals in the factcheck photographs are physical features of the paper that was photographed. (And I didn't come to that conclusion just to have to avoid doing the geometry. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it!)
I can tell from your post (partially quoted above) that you are taking the important geometrical things into consideration, so I'll butt-out. Have fun!
If I completely missed the boat on what you were after, I apologize, and deserve ridicule. Maybe I just deserve ridicule. (I bet I see that sentence in italics for the rest of the week!)
And I'm certainly not trying to dissuade you from taking another look. I'll be honest, I kind of resent having to look at it (I don't have to, really, it's just a personal problem I guess).
I notice that in the third factcheck "3D" photo, it doesn't show up at all again. It's also strange that the photos of the seal from the back do not show much if any "compression, and they are cut off so as not to show the bottom fold, which cuts through the top of the seal, at least on the photos of the front.
I think I may not have as many photographs as you do; I have 5 from factcheck (#s 1, 2, 3, 5, 9). In other words, I only have one photo of the back (#9. Great. Now I have a Beatles song stuck in my head). If there are others, I'd appreciate a pointer to them if they are purportedly Zero's and show the back. I've seen enough out-ies. Need more in-ies.
I was thinking of enhancing that one photo with the arm shadow over the seal, but it would only make sense to do that if I subscribed to a theory that said the seals were photoshopped-in (can't prove they weren't, but I'd rather spend my time on other stuff). The perps would have had to "forget" to add it for its absense to be meaningful, and I can see that there is something there.
That paper is in pretty good shape. Not too wrinkly. They must have treated it well. Maybe they forgot to subject it to Hawaiian humidity before they applied the seal :)
Which paper? If you look at the FactCheck photos, there is at least 3 different papers used. Different colors as well as different weights.
I haven't heard that theory. Three different papers, different weights and colors? Hmmm...
In order to entertain that theory, I would have to somehow rationalize the consistency between (let's make it simple) the two best photographs (in terms of resolution and focus) which show the seal from the front, namely factcheck #1 and #5. Photograph #2 is also of sufficient quality to throw into the mix. The consistencies I refer to are small-scale features such as tiny creases, relative heights of the individual line segments that make up the paper deformations of the raised seal, variation in height along any one of those line segments, and the location of the paper background pattern with respect to the raised line segments which make up the seal (as well as features to the outside of the seal, such as small bends and defects in the paper, which would also have to be "reproduced" from document to document if in fact more than one piece of paper was used). For "reproduced", we can consider both physical manipulation and image manipulation, either one of which is a modestly technical feat (challenging, but not to be ruled out. IMHO unlikely in this case).
If I were to attempt to provide a set of digital images that would exhibit a high degree of consistency in terms of such features (and for argument's sake, let us say that the supplied factcheck documents are of medium degree), I would probably have to consider mocking up a 3D seal and then use the usual graphics tricks (Pixar-esque to coin a term that will probably never be repeated) in order to provide a superimpose'ble seal that would be suitable for use at different angles. But if I were to go through all that trouble, it would be silly to try to marry such a digital construction to a physical piece of paper when it would be so much less risky to simply model (mock up) the document itself as a designed/virtual object along with the seal.
That is my intermediate working conclusion. I have a few more chores to do on this task.
I urge you to take the time to look at those images again, keeping the above in mind. Don't be distracted by differences in coloring; the key would be in the location of highlights on the individual bumps (which together with focus are probably the main cues for assessing or building up the mind's representation of a three dimensional object in the absence of a stereoscopic view).
I'm not ruling the three-paper theory out, but I think that I will await a report of your re-examination of the images before I persue it, because at this point I think that the time I took took to share my observations with you are a fair exchange. (That is not meant to be snarky). If you believe that they are of no value, then I guess we have concluded our business on this topic :)
I have been following your work on other topics, and I do value your opinion.
For those playing at home, this is a portion of #5. The #1 image is much more detailed, but too big to post. There are regions of the seal that are fairly well in focus in both images, if you want to compare features. The tiny creases along the paper fold are especially fun. Brownie points to the discoverer of paper fibers and such!
FYI . This post and the ones preceding it.
This first picture is an overlay (gradient over original). This particular gradient was made in the same way as the one in the earlier post, except I only used the green component (of the RGB). I slapped it over the original scan in order to see if the background hatching and the seal perforations matched up. You can draw your own conclusions, by comparing it with the second image (part of photo #2 from factcheck, rotated).
Was the scan made from the same piece of paper that was shown in the photographs?
At the very least, I think one could conclude that the position of the seal on the photographed document was a "done deal" before the scan was made and posted ... and that is probably much too conservative of a conclusion :)
enemy of my enemy of my enemy of my enemy PING
Now, on the other hand, if any one of them gets tired of holding onto his money, and has the guts to put it where his mouth is, I'll be more than happy to take it off his hands.
Fools? That is just plain mean. But I won't hit the abuse button, it is against my principles.
I have made no claims as to my expertise in the field of image analysis. I have not claimed to be entitled to an honorific. You apparently have done so. There is a very interesting symmetry at play here. And perhaps my screen name should have been "touch-me-not" :)
I will give you the opportunity to mull that over. In other words, a chance to withdraw your challenge.
The only “rebuttals” Polarik can engage in is to call people names. He thinks the more names he calls people the more effectively he has answered their criticisms. It says a lot about the quality of his work in the first place.
Maybe when I'm done here, I can give you more of my attention... mruhawhaharha....
I can't take anyone seriously when they self-identify like that.
Still waiting for someone to tell me how a real 2007 COLB could have the wrong embossed Seal.
No it is you I suspect is being disingenous....
First, posting this information from the web does not mean the same rules of evidence applied when he possibly received his US Passport.
Second, learn to read further.... the text below your circled text under secondary evidence of US Citizenship.
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.