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....
So the smoking gun is NOT that it has layers, but that some of those layers are monochromatic-
AS if that piece of image was obtained from a black and white scan of something else
I SEE OVER AND OVER THAT WE TRY TO EXPLAIN SOMETHING,M WITH WITH VIDEO AND IMAGE PROOF AND THE LIBTARDS DISPUTE IT WITH WORDS AND *NO* PROOK. PUT UP OR SHUT UP LIBTARDS- MAKE AN IMAGE LIKE OBAMA’S AND SHOW IT CAN BE DONE
Of course, he needs to have two citizen parents, but Scotus is hiding under their desks. It is not likely that Roberts who was more than happy to swear in an ineligible President is going to do anything about the trashing of the Constitution.
Evidently there is not even one politician with the guts to say Obama is a usurper. Really a sad commentary on the caliber of person in DC. If Obama were 100 percent caucasian, this would not be happening. He is black enough to get away with anything, due to the gutless wonders we have in DC.
We just have to get through it until Jan.20, 2013 when we install a new president. I have to believe that, just to get through until then. What a hellish 4 years. And it confirms how ignorant dem voters are. Half of America is too stupid to vote.
At a later time - say, last week - that bit plane was pulled out of the archive and positioned over the modern, color image of the security paper. This can be done to protect the resulting paper copy or the PDF itself, though it should be digitally signed for that. Then the background was imprinted with the negative of the image (to make forgery harder, I guess - but that's silly) and written into the PDF container "as is", without flattening of all layers into one.
At the same time the modern OCR software could have broken the bit plane into chunks, as it tried to figure out what belonged where. I don't know what would be the purpose of that, except that layers are easier to OCR (or ignore during OCR.)
There are still some interesting details. For example, the BC's number '1' is not jagged - it was scanned (or inserted) on a modern grayscale (or color) scanner. How could that happen? One explanation would be that different layers have different compression methods. Most of the jaggedy, monochrome text belong to their own layers... but this particular corner was recognized by the software as color, and promptly compressed. Anyone with a copy of Illustrator can check which layer that digit belongs to.
All this process can and should be done automatically. Adobe products have a good scripting interface just for such cases (and for many more.) I can't say, of course, that this is what happened, but it is technically possible, and is even likely because it makes sense to set up the workflow this way.
You got to "hate it" when Obama employs ignorant kids who have seen a typewriter. LoL.
While this whole "assembled" PDF document the White House put out could be a ruse and trap to further embarrass the "birthers" as Mario considered in his new article, I had another thought. What's to say that the copies given to Obama's lawyer sent to Hawaii, and attested to by Hawaiian officials, actually show the same information on those two paper copies that is now being displayed on the internet in this very badly assembled PDF document.
As I recall the former HI director when interviewed in recent weeks, she said when she saw the alleged original Obama birth registration document she said it was half typed and half hand written. What we are being shown on the net is something that is entirely typed except for the signatures. That does not comport with what the former HI Health Dept Director said.
What if the Obama powers sent the lawyer to Hawaii to provide the necessary cover story that they did get two copies of the Obama vital record there ... but the image on the net now is NOT of the paper copies that they picked up ... say because there is something on it that Obama still does not wish to reveal. So he has a version cooked up once again to put online, and someone screwed up and did not flatten the PDF file prior to release to hide the layers. Would Hawaii officials speak up to affirm or deny that what Obama put on the net is not an image of the copy of what they gave to Obama's lawyer. Or would they keep silent in much the same way they did regarding the Certification document, the short form images on the net since Jun 2008. Remember that Hawaii never confirmed that any of those images on the net were copies of something that they issued. Hawaii has been very willing to cooperate with Obama's stonewalling and game playing regarding the vital records in HI for Obama. And, Obama is playing such a cat and mouse game with the American electorate about all his hidden records that one can never tell with him as to what is real or what is memorex. It is a disgrace how this administration is treating the American citizenry. And the main stream media does not call him out on this and instead helps and enables Obama to conduct such offensive disinformation tactics on the American electorate. Journalism no longer exists in this nation. The media should be ashamed.
Well, freeper Danae received a requested copy of her paper BC recently, from Hawaii Vital Records, and received a photcopy of the original paper document. John Klein tried to float the lie that all papaer had been destroyed when electronic method was adopted. I picked up the phone and called Vital Records in Hawaii and was told that was bunk, that the state spends a considerable sum each year to maintain vaults of vital paper documents, including BC and wills and land titles and ... well, you get the picture. In Barry Bassturd’s case, there was likely never a real BC from an Hawaiian hospital anyway, so the criminals in Hawaii running that government puleld a ‘Bergerizing’ and put some data in for thier little god, probably when Axelcrombie was making all that noise about looking for original documents.
Karl is the best blogger on the web. What a guy.
For starters, the 14th Amendment must be viewed as, at least, modifying the original intent of our founders, and the original Constitution, and the Court cases up to the time of ratification of the 14th Amendment.
Having said that, the term, “Subject to the jurisdiction thereof” would be important for us to enforce, as, for instance, the child born of two illegals, in the US, is NOT under the “jurisdiction” of the United States as pertains to child custody, for instance. A divorce court in MEXICO would probably have to solve such an issue. So, in my mind, the kid would NOT be a Citizen at BIRTH!
The CONGRESS has the power to determine the Jurisdiction of our courts, in the Citizenship matter, to a point, in the Obama case and in the case of “anchor babies” born to illegals.
Congress HAS changed the rules a few times, as far as citizenship, at birth, for a child born outside the United States to a Citizen parent and non-citizen parent. These rules can be found rather easily if you look at a Passport application, or if you Google “citizen born abroad”.
Put down your wizard hat and your magic wand, there is no “magic” in the words, “Natural Born Citizen” other than this is meant to say that “Naturalized Citizens” or Citizens who were not Citizens at the MOMENT of birth, are not qualified to be President.
If you are a citizen? Well you are either Natural Born or Naturalized. This is the ONLY point, today, the only possible meaning of the words.
If Obama was born on US soil, or on a US ship or US plane or US territory, for that matter, Obama would be a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN!
If Obama was not born under the jurisdiction of the United States? Well, Stanley Ann was not old enough to confer automatic citizenship.
Argue with me all you want, but this is what our Country, and our Courts, and our elected leaders will probably decide.
No reference in the law, which predates the 14th Amendment, is really very helpful in this matter.
Yes, because they had a faked COLB, and they scanned it, and then they decided they would alter the scan so people would think it was fake.
I was going to say Karl should stick to something he knows, like the apocalypse.
Means it was constructed electronically.
The blurry “I was” that’s been posted is what a scan looks like.
The zoomed text from the BC is purported to be originally from a black and white image and overlaid on the green back ground. This is why the letters are so solid black (The way I understand this at least.)
I’m no expert either, but getting my crash course.
The ‘media’ should be guillotined and start all over fresh without lying propaganda vermin like John Klein running major networks.
Former Hawaii Health Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino examined President Obama’s original birth certificate twice.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9D4n6_Uifk
Fukino says she has seen the original BC twice. That would makes it seem as though there is still a paper copy. But what 0bama released this week sure did not look like a copy or scan of a paper document.
Go to the application site of the US State Department for a Passport.
That, or use your browser and type in “Citizen born abroad”
There is no magical meaning for “Natural Born Citizen” it just means that you were a citizen at birth.
There are DIFFERENT rules for adopted citizenship, Citizenship born abroad of TWO citizens, and citizenship born abroad of ONE citizen parent.
Unfortunately, that argument isn’t going to go anywhere. The best hope to discredit our liar-in-chief is to consistently show he is a liar.
__________________________________
Sadly, I agree.
Even many of the pundits on our side claim that it is not a problem for Obozo.
There is really no test case, and there is not likely to
be a court that will hear one.
The only thing that would get traction is proof that he was not born in Hawaii, and that still remains a possibility.
I have not been much of a proponent of the Kenyan birth, despite the anecdotal information, simply because of the logistics.
On the other hand, If the birth certificate does not throw him out for not being natural born, why on earth are they obfuscating with an apparently bogus birth certificate, and why have they stonewalled for so long?
I know, there are FReepers that say it is just to distract
from what he is really doing to America, but I do not buy that.
The obfuscation has been going on from day one of his Immaculation, and before anyone knew just how bad he would be.
you are wrong. I wish you were right but you are not.
you are wrong. I wish you were right but you are not.
AS if that piece of image was obtained from a black and white scan of something else
Dennenger doesn't really concede this point as he calls the NRO guy that it is "his layers"
But for argument sake, he'll concede it to show the OBots that he has them on the other points. LoL For the OBots to prove they something here, they have to show that the Odobe Illustrator software has to produce the exact same results on a flat image of a Hawaiian COLB as they claim.
And when he says the innocent use of the "optimized PDF" feature results is the same -- Goulding show didn't even come close. He used some other document that looked more of a fade in section of the document when it was being produced. To prove his point, as I said, he should have used anyone of the Hawaiian COLBs on the Internet to show the exact results we see with Obama's alleged White House COLB. His "demonstration" was not even close.
you are wrong.
Natural born means a citizen not naturalized, but a citizen at birth.
Simple.
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.