Posted on 08/02/2011 4:21:47 PM PDT by RobinMasters
Detailed technical analysis of the PDF file the White House released April 27 indicates it is not a scan of the original document, as claimed by the White House, but instead is the final form of an electronic file used to forge the birth certificate on Adobe software, according to reports by experts.
Failure to demonstrate how a simple computer scan can produce the effects observed in the Obama birth certificate PDF lends support to arguments that the Obama birth certificate is a forgery, the experts contend.
OBOTs jump to defend Obama birth certificate
The radical Obama supporters known as OBOTs have repeatedly asserted that experts cited by WND have ignored evidence that the effects observed in the White House-released PDF can be explained by utilizing various tools, such as running Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software and by optimizing the PDF.
Frank Arduini, an OBOT who works at CareFusion and frequently posts argumentative pro-Obama comments on WND forums, made the charge in a recent WND-published article, as seen in Exhibit 1.
Exhibit 1: OBOT poster accuses WND of ignoring evidence
Arduini's LinkedIn.com profile lists him as an IT Business Partner at the health industries company CareFusion, headquartered in San Diego.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
I think I understood your post as saying, in so many words,
Preservation, adherance to and defense of our Constitution (all of it) trumps any political concern -- even that of wining the next election.
If so, I agree with you -- except that America cannot survive another term of the Øbama regime. Øbozo must not win re-election!
~~~~~~~~~~~
Those who object to others striving toward either of the above "because we need to focus on..." out themselves as mentally incapable of chewing gum and walking simultaneously -- or as subversive trolls.
IMHO, anyone who belittles or impedes those who are working diligently toward either end is not deserving of the title of "Conservative" -- because failure in either effort may well spell the end of conservatism -- and of our Nation itself.
Perhaps we need another term for those who continually attack the efforts of other FReepers:
-- because they are working against the Constitution and for Øbozo!
~~~~~~~~~~~
And "A second computer software expert has submitted to WND a report, seen here in its entirety, that concludes the White House-released PDF could have been created in Adobe Illustrator or Photoshop, even if the final PDF was created by Mac Preview on an Apple computer using the MacOSX operating system." Again, duh. I said that here some weeks ago.
The report referred to is interesting nevertheless. The author manages to reproduce several of the anomalies in the BC, such as smudges left behind when you move black areas, PDF optimization creating multiple objects, and differing resolutions. Given what he could reproduce and what he couldn't, his conclusion is appropriately restrained:
Some dedicated document- processing workflows may result in the piecemeal nature evident in the official birth certificate. But given what I know (as a Photoshop, Illustrator, and Acrobat ACE), I’d say that it was doctored.
Of course, the doctoring could have been performed with the most innocent of intentions, just to produce a clean-looking file. Given the scrutiny it was bound to receive, though, it would have been foolish and ill-advised to fiddle with it at all. It would have been far better to supply a TIFF or JPEG of the original scan....
I can only speculate on what’s been done to produce the file as we see it. But, in my opinion, the supplied PDF is not a pristine scan simply enveloped in a PDF wrapper. It’s been touched by other processes. We may never know the true genealogy (pun intended) of this document.
However, each one of these Hawaiian issued BC’s show the actual place of birth. They will only list a Hawaiian birth if the individual was actually born in Hawaii.
Do you have an example of one such of these? I have looked at a lot of Hawaiian birth certificate images, but I don't recall seeing one listing a birth place other than Hawaii. If such exist then it is evidence that Hawaii WILL note this information on the document.
This makes it less likely that such a thing may have occurred with Obama's document. It doesn't eliminate the possibility, but it does make it less likely.
You can make an OCR scanned document without embedding fonts, but it wouldn't show up the same for every user. This isn't a concern here, because it was scanned in a way that preserves the look of the original as an image, with a hidden text layer on top of it.
1. The two 1961 newspaper birth announcements
As there is sufficient evidence to indicate that some sort of birth document was filed for Obama in early August of 1961, and as the newspaper announcements were generally thought to have been generated by the list from the DOH, I don't know anything peculiar about the newspaper birth announcements. From what I recall, they have been verified by several sources as being in those Newspapers.
2. The two 1971 Obama Sr airport photos
I have read people speculating that the Airport photos were photoshopped or something, but I know of no actual evidence that they are faked or why they should be faked. Apart from that, there exists a photo of Barack Obama Sr, Stanley Ann, and Barry all sitting around the Christmas tree, presumably at the Dunham home. As this would be the exact same time period during which the Airport photos were taken, why should the Airport photos be considered peculiar?
3. ‘Dreams from My Father’ written by identity theft expert Bill Ayers.
That much has been pretty well established by the research work done by Jack Cashill and other biographers, and by the subsequent (possibly joking) admissions by Bill Ayers himself. I count that claim as basically proven.
This leads me to conclude that there really is NO reason to believe Obama Sr and Ann Dunham are Barry’s parents.
And see here is where you lose me. One thing of no significance, coupled with another thing of no significance does not prove any far reaching claim which is not supported by other information, and in fact is contradicted by other existing information. You have a leap of faith here that I am not quite able to follow.
Thanks for the further explanation. It is news to me that the OCR part of a scan-to-PDF process generates a font specification, even a Multiple Masters one. I don’t completely understand why, since as I understand it the text layer will never be printed—I would have thought it would be simpler and more compact to just use the ASCII designations. But maybe it’s more compact or efficient to specify the characters as part of a font, I dunno.
It does, however, seem plausible to me that the font info got stripped out when the file was opened in Preview. It’s clear the PDF that was posted was generated from Preview, for whatever reason—the fact that there’s no font info in that file when opened in Acrobat doesn’t prove there was no font info in whatever file was opened in Preview.
That is pure nonsense! There are literally millions of invalid U.S. birth certificates in circulation. Puerto Rico just invalidated a huge fraction of all the birth certificates issued prior to a recent date, because there is so much rampant birth certificate fraud. The U.S. Government published a Birth Certificate Fraud report in 2000 discussing the rampant nature of the birth certificate fraud.
I had a conversation about the birth certificate fraud with an illegal alien in a Walmart store one night. He volunteered the information that he was an illegal alien from Eastern Europe with a birth certificate issued from the State of Missouri. He took his Missouri birth certificate out of his pocket and briefly showed it to me. I asked him how he got it. He said it was easy.
He said that he first went to Canada, which was easier to enter than the United States, and established residency in Canada. The Canadian residency gave him the Canadian identification he needed to cross the border into the United States. He went to Missouri and applied for a Missouri birth certificate using a false name. To avoid discovery, he said all he had to do was find the name of a Missouri hospital that had long ago shutdown. Since the hospital's records no longer exist, they could not be checked for verification.
I asked him how that could work, when all the county had to do was ask for other supporting evidence?
He replied saying it was no problem at all, because all he had to do was pay someone else to sign as a witness for him. I asked what would have happened if someone had asked him for more information about his Missouri family or other information he couldn't supply?
He laughed, and said the county staff have been instructed not to challenge or ask any questions about the delayed birth certificates. The local Democrat prosecutors, judiciary, and county staff know they are helping illegal aliens and refuse to stop the issuance of the fraudulent birth certificates to the illegal aliens, he said.
Later, I looked around to find more information about the government fraud, and I found the Birth Certificate Fraud report that confirmed what the illegal alien had said about the policy of non-prosecution of the birth certificate fraud even when discovered and complaints made.
Hawaii issues fraudulent birth certificates to illegal aliens. Hawaii also issues birth certificates to people born beyond the territory of the State of Hawaii. The applicable law is on the State of Hawaii website.
“The truth has come out. The BC is a cut and paste collage of crap. Most people are in denial. Its too disturbing too accept that the president is a documented fraud.”
The reason that no judge and no member of Congress will touch this issue is because two administrations in Hawaii have verified the birth certificate as authentic and nobody except the previous Health Director, the current Health director and the Registrar of Vital Statistics have ever seen the original, vault copy, long form certificate.
Scans and copies of that document are legally irrelevant. Its the vault copy that matters and the state of Hawaii has stood by it since 2008.
“Health Director, Dr. Chiyome Fukimo ‘Obama was 100 percent born here’”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9D4n6_Uifk
Let me see what I can find.
Adobe® Acrobat PDF Searchable Image (Exact) (formerly known as PDF Original Image with Hidden Text) embeds fonts.
I'm not familiar with Adobe Preview and what it can and cannot do, but I will be surprised to learn that it can strip embedded fonts from a PDF file. These kinds of PDF files are notorious for making it extremely difficult to extract the fonts from the file. Anyone familiar with Preview?
You made a mistake. You should have said "Unless you accept the CORRECT definition that was well known to the founders..."
“Health Director, Dr. Chiyome Fukimo ‘Obama was 100 percent born here’” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9D4n6_Uifk
Again, what they say in public contradicts what they put down on that document. Since the two statements are completely contradictory, which one do you suppose we should believe? The Stamped and Signed statement, or the Vocal Public comments?
I personally would put more weight to the stamped and signed statement, because there are legal repercussions for the individual if THAT statement turns out to be false.
The first Congress, made up of many of our founders, wrote in the Naturalization Act of 1790 that citizens born overseas of citizen parents were natural born citizens.
While that comports with the “two citizen parents” requirement of the post 2008 popular definition - it certainly doesn't comport with the “born in country” requirement.
Prior to the election this was not a well known or popular definition of “natural born citizen” - most eligibility debates focused on the dual citizenship angle - or the authenticity of the Hawaii abstract COLB.
Now, of course, we have people claiming that they learned this in grade school - but were somehow conveniently forgetful of that fact until sometime after the election in 2008.
The child of two Hawaiian citizen/residents born in Hoboken, New Jersey while on vacation will as a matter of policy be listed on a Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth with a place of birth in Hawaii. The Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth for a foreign born adopted child is required to use the foreign location as the place of birth.
Unfortunately, the later 19th Century to 21st Century public and politicians have forgotten and/or ignored the past and its evolved applications of the doctrines and their purposes.
Again, what they say in public contradicts what they put down on that document. Since the two statements are completely contradictory, which one do you suppose we should believe? The Stamped and Signed statement, or the Vocal Public comments?
I personally would put more weight to the stamped and signed statement, because there are legal repercussions for the individual if THAT statement turns out to be false.
I’m not understanding how “I certify that this is a true copy or abstract of the record on file in the Hawaii State Department of Health” contradicts what has been said in public statements and media releases.
How is the statement on the Registrar’s stamp different from “Obama was 100% born in Hawaii?”
The first Congress, made up of many of our founders, wrote in the Naturalization Act of 1790 that citizens born overseas of citizen parents were natural born citizens.
And they immediately said thereafter that not even BASIC CITIZENSHIP of ANY SORT shall be given to the children of Fathers who were not residents in this country.
They SPECIFICALLY said the children born of foreign fathers are OUT! NOT EVEN CITIZENS!
While that comports with the “two citizen parents” requirement of the post 2008 popular definition - it certainly doesn't comport with the “born in country” requirement.
I have long regarded it as evidence that the First Congress didn't care where the children were born, but they were absolutely insistent that the child have an American Father. I interpret this to mean that "Jus Sanguinus" was the standard, and that "Jus Soli" is irrelevant.
Prior to the election this was not a well known or popular definition of “natural born citizen” - most eligibility debates focused on the dual citizenship angle - or the authenticity of the Hawaii abstract COLB.
Most debate focused on people's false understanding of the meaning of the 14th amendment which many people mistakenly thought trumped and repealed Article II. It did not. The ignorance of people is no excuse to baring the admission of the actual facts, whether they be made known to some people before or after the election.
Now, of course, we have people claiming that they learned this in grade school - but were somehow conveniently forgetful of that fact until sometime after the election in 2008.
Nobody gave a crap until it was too close to the election to do anything about it. I don't know about you, but I wasn't wasting my time chatting people up on the Internet. I was out campaigning and working to defeat that incompetent fool who may represents the IDIOT Democrats perfectly, but who is the bumbling destroyer of our nation. If you had time to discuss this crap then you were goofing off on the sidelines. (Or more like trying to help the idiot, as you are now.) McCain should have challenged him, but McCain was too much of a Gentleman to point out what an incompetent nitwit Barack was, let alone challenge his eligibility.
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.