I had to post this as a JPG since a PNG was 12Mb.
Posted on 05/25/2011 7:02:17 PM PDT by conservativegramma
Billionaire businessman Donald Trump, who staged a weeks-long public campaign questioning Barack Obama's eligibility to be president during March and April – and rose to the top of the pool of potential candidates for the 2012 GOP nomination then as a result – says he believes the "birth certificate" released by the White House is forged.... Trump said his period of almost-complete silence on the issue following the release by the White House on April 27 of the image of a "Certificate of Live Birth" from the state of Hawaii was not because he was satisfied with the document....
During their conversation, Trump told Corsi his own computer expert told him at the release that it was a computer-generated document.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
“For the parents’ race, Hawaii uses whatever the parent or parents supplied.”
Can provide documentation the Hawaii law in 1961 the parents can designate their own race?
No...you type the words...Obama is not a natural born citizen as required by the Constitution. Natural born citizens are born to citizen parents. He is an illegal president.
Can't. I don't know if he was there. It could have been SAD who supplied that race. They were supposedly married. I'd guess she honored his wishes on how he wanted to be listed.
The word African race did not exist in 1961 Hawaii.
Irrelevant. "American" isn't a race either, but there's a real Hawaiian BC with "American" listed as the father's race and "Hawaiian" as the mother's. There's a mixed race child.
See my homepage for details about Kenyans specifying their race as "African" in the 1962 census. "African" is what Senior would've considered himself.
Tell that to your buddies. Y’all started the attacking and mocking back in 2008. I was minding my own business researching the eligibility issue and discussing it with everyone. Then suddenly I was the enemy. Now you’re indignant that you get what you gave?
Is this a test? Type what words? Natural born citizen? I’ve done that numerous times.
IMO, Obama is not a natural born Citizen under the meaning of the Constitution of the United States as the Founding Fathers originally intended the requirement for POTUS, which was a child born on American soil to two citizen parents.
I can point you to a direct quote from an employee of the HDoH. It’s on my home page.
Preface
Recently, I closed my blog out-of-the-blue and without a clear stated reason. However, I did have a compelling reason for my decision to close shop, and it fit the dramatic blog entry I left announcing that decision. The truth is, I emailed Loretta Fuddy, Acting Director for the Hawaii Department of Health (HDOH) earlier the same day I announced that I was closing my blog; and I felt (and still feel) that the content of that email led to the event which prompted me and my husband to have a conversation about the future of this blog and my ‘hobby.’ In that email to Ms. Fuddy, I demonstrated that the document alleged to have been President Obama’s ‘Certification of Live Birth’ (COLB), which was photographed by Factcheck.org, in 2008, was not a legally certified copy of a vital record issued by the Hawaii Department of Health. I also pointed out to Ms. Fuddy that there was really no arguing this fact, and no way to effectively bury the kind of proof I had accumulated. I also bluntly suggested she was foolish for having gotten involved in this controversy. And, I asked one remaining question of Ms. Fuddy, but I didn’t honestly expect her to answer it – and it didn’t matter to me if she did.
Shortly after I sent this email, I received an email through my blog’s former ‘Contact Me’ feature from an individual completely unknown to me. The email was sent from an IP address that traced back to an organization in Atlanta, Georgia, called the “Center for Progressive Training.” I don’t know anything about this organization beyond what you see at the link provided, and it appears at first glance to be an entirely nonpolitical kind of organization. But, the name of this organization struck a chord with me for obvious reasons and in light of the email I received (not to mention the fact that I personally don’t see the connection between the organization’s name and the kind of curriculum the website indicates this ‘school’ offers). [UPDATE: *Poof* ‘The Center for Progressive Training’ website has vanished within 12 hours of posting this.]
On the surface, the email I received was friendly enough – wishing me a happy belated birthday and mentioning my preschooler by first name. *PAUSE* Yes, my very sweet, very young child’s first name was staring back at me in an email from an unknown thug.
Understand that in the two years I’ve investigated the Obama birth certificate controversy, I have never received an email that I could say with certainty was meant to terrify me. I have had some emails that scared me because they referred to violence allegedly perpetrated against other people, but nothing I could say with complete confidence was intentionally threatening.
However, whether or not a direct threat was made by this person doesn’t really matter – this particular email was from a terrorist. This email named a sweet, innocent, bubbly little kid by first name to scare the shit out of me. And it did. Threats or not, this sick person wanted me to fear for my child’s safety. Needless to say, this is what led to the recent decision to close my blog.
http://obamasgarden.wordpress.com/2011/05/24/the_audacity_of_seal/
He said he would not run as a third party candidate and so far I haven’t seen him do something he said he wouldn’t.
When the White House released the latest document, Trump said he hoped it was true and that he was going to look at it.
Well, guess he checked it out and discovered it was not valid. Many others also found it to be lacking in validity.
But then, what do I know. I’m just a girl. :)
A commenter named “harvardoffint” accepts the German guy “Nyatnagarl” claims but makes interesting arguments saying that a digital document passed through OCR is useless as legal evidence, at least in the UK, because the layers can be corrupted and may not be distinguishable from “genuine” software created layers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcWQw2AAIho
Comments by “harvardoffint” 05-23-11:
“Assuming that some OCR software was used on this document before release, why would they do that? OCR alters the document. It also creates a method of easy manipulation. The premise of this argument is that, the document WAS altered but not necessarily forged even though it was altered in such a way that forgery would be easier and untraceable.
“UK law disallows OCRed documents to prove authenticity for this very reason (Civil Procedure Rules Practice Direction 31B Paragraph 34).USA doesnt?
“It just makes no sense to OCR a document that you are submitting to prove authenticity. Law understands and proceduralizes this. OCR is useful to help search large volumes of documents for specific text, but it alters the document so that authenticity can not be verified. OCRing this document is pointless. This administration has to be knowledgeable of such obvious things. I wish Obama would stop stoking the fire so we can just all get past this.
“Just release the original so we can move on
The argument of the video here is the document was indeed altered and in such a way that manual manipulation of the of the document could easily have taken place and is indistinguishable from auto-cosmetic correction. But, there is no proof the manipulation wasn’t automatic and just for cosmetic effect, so we should all just assume this document presented for authenticity, which we all agree was altered, was only altered for cosmetic effect and automatically cuz the party submitting it says so.
“Whether it was OCR’ed or ‘Optimized Scanned’, it’s an unnecessary alteration. The only thing that is shown is that an actual alteration was done. This neither proves nor disproves ‘tampering’. It proves that alteration/tampering DID occur. It is unknown whether the tampering was automatic, or whether a forger used this and tampered such as orangegold1 did. It still begs the question of why the released file was altered/optimized if submitted for authenticity.
“Nyatnagarl, assuming the document was processed as you describe can you admit:
1. An original is indeed altered by the optimize scanning process
2. Furthermore you are unable to tell if the tampering/alteration of this document was automatic and only for cosmetic effect or whether the substance was materially altered manually.
3. Considering that the document was submitted only to prove its authenticity, there is no utility or good reason to have either OCR-ed or ‘Optimize Scanned’ it.
4. By submitting it to an “Optimize Scan” process, you do open the door for making manual alterations to the material substance of the document that could appear identically to how the automatic alterations are made.
5. The release of this processed/altered document for proving the authenticity of the document not being manufactured, really doesn’t do that, so questioning the authenticity of an original complete document is still at least reasonable.”
Holy S***.
Pinging a few of you to the reason why Miss Tickly closed up shop.
How do you know? I’ve never seen anything that says they were not and I have searched endlessly.
How do you know? I’ve never seen anything that says they were not and I have searched endlessly. Link?
I can’t figure out if you’re just playing games or if you’re as ignorant as the logic in your posts seems to indicate.
A != B
I read that the other day.
Are you denying it? You said that you believe the father provided the information. If so, then the birth certificate is a forgery.
OR are you completely ignorant?
That is the original COLB they released back in 2008. It was handed out in the press kit they gave to the press. When AP made the scan of the longform, they had the COLB behind it.
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.