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 ...
The Birth certificate does not say "I certify that Obama was 100% born in Hawaii" it says that This is a copy of the record we are willing to show you.
Till they put down on paper some sort of statement to the effect that this is an EXACT copy of the ORIGINAL birth certificate, they are not matching their public statements. It is AXIOMATIC that not a single one of them can testify they personally witnessed Obama's birth in Hawaii. They can only testify what is in their files. No where are they telling us that his record hasn't been replaced, or that it was not based on an at home birth affidavit.
They are 100% certain in their public statements, but completely ambiguous in their legally binding statements, and THAT is the contradiction.
Now you may say that they simply put that same stamp on all birth certificates, but that is at the Whim of the DOH. They USED to have a stamp which read " I certify that this is a TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL RECORD..." They could use that one if they wanted to. No ambiguity, matches their public statement, and it is entirely up to them whether or not they use it.
Don't tell me they can't make an exception. We are all told that the mere creation of this long form document for the President was an exception, so the least they could have done was to put that legally binding and completely specific stamped statement on it, rather than that weaselly worded ambiguous bunch of puff.
Their public comments are specific, their signed statements are ambiguous and don't affirm their public comments.
It's not Adobe Preview--Preview is the file viewer that comes with Mac OS X, it's an Apple product. It can open a PDF file, but it might not recognize everything another program put in the file, such as embedded fonts. It'd be like losing some of the formatting in a Microsoft Word file when you open it in another, (mostly) compatible word processor. The numbered list might be there in Word, for example, but if you open and save the file in another program, you won't see any evidence of it.
This is as I understand, the policy of the State. How is the state to determine whether or not a child is domestic or foreign born? I suspect it could have easily been gamed by an at home birth affidavit, for either Hawaii or claiming a Washington address.
A new youtube analysis of Obama long form layers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcWQw2AAIho&feature=player_embedded
Birth certificates are self-authenticating documents. As far as courts of law are concerned, whatever the state of Hawaii says is an authenticated birth certificate is an authenticated birth certificate. The Obama short form COLB is a legitimate birth certificate. The long form was released for demonstration purposes.
The following is official state policy since 2001:
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/Policy_Memo_5_15_2001.PDF
The odd thing is your motives. They are pretty obvious.
I guess you aren't getting it. The DOCUMENT which CREATED the COURTS is not SUBSERVIENT to the POLICIES of the COURTS.
The answer that "This is how we USUALLY do it, and this is "self authenticating" is just utter nonsense when it deals with a constitutional requirement of compliance. If it is REAL PROOF, then it is acceptable. If it is NOT REAL PROOF, than we don't care how many people say "it's just as good as real proof." it's still not the same thing.
The public statements by Hawaiian officials are at odds with what their official signed statements say. For this reason, no attention should be paid to the public pronouncements of Hawaiian officials unless they are swearing to them in a court of law. Even then, there might be the possibility that they don't know what the H*ll they are talking about.
That's an interesting video, thanks. He makes an excellent point I hadn't considered before. I agree with him that no one would make a forged document the way people claim this one was made, but I've been focused on how the technology workflow didn't make sense. He asks, instead, why a forger wouldn't have just made a forged paper document and scanned that. Good point!
, can you post some so we can compare with Maya?
___________________
um no. I could but I’m not wasting my time on BS. Why can’t you do it yourself?
Do you find it odd that Barry is wearing a watch on his right hand in the 1972ish photo you posted and yet is wearing a watch on his left hand in this 1971-1972 photo?
______________________________
Not really, for all we know that isn’t even Barry Hussein Soetoro and I doubt the authenticity of any of those photos.
Ridiculous and out of context, of course, as Vattel said children of soldiers serving overseas were defacto born in country - but there we have it.
But you seemed to have conveniently glossed over that the definition you said was somehow axiomatic and known to the founders was immediately contradicted when they completely ignored the supposed requirement of being born in country.
So the definition that supposedly the founders followed wasn't followed.
The definition that supposedly everyone should know - nobody did.
That people now try to claim that anybody who didn't always subscribe to said definition is either a traitor or a dupe just shows the depths of idiocy and historic revisionism necessary towards being a birther.
We have ALWAYS been at war with EASTASIA!!!!
Agreed; we must do both. I’m not so naive as to sit out the elections in 2012, and will do everything I can to see that a true conservative runs against and defeats “Obama”, but at the end of the day, I’ll vote for a Bar O’ Soap/Corpseman GOP ticket before I’ll go third party. The country absolutely cannot survive another “Obama” term. Heck, I’m not even sanguine about our chances after just the first one!
D’ster is doing the usual/only thing it does.
Been there, done that. Gave TheBentOne a term by voting third party. Never again -- unless the "traditional;" GOP has zero chance of winning anyway...
I don’t think it’s a question of “not getting it”, it’s a question of not wanting any one else to “get it”.
A large number of layers would be "absurd," if the document were in fact the product of a simple scan.
That's what I'm asking. How many layers are there? When somebody online says there's fifty layers visible in the birth certificate PDF, is that the right answer or is he just another kook?
Instead, what we find is a poorly done patchwork of bits and pieces taken from a variety of bit mapped image sources and continuous tone invented images pieced together in numerous layers to create a forged composite image. From the point of view of desktop publishing, this alleged birth certificate PDF is the equivalent of a child's efforts to forge a parent's student absence note written in crayon with a mishmash of misspellings.
With all the resources at his disposal is that the best a President of the United States can do?
Do you really think Obama can be brought down over this issue with no assist from the mainstream media? Everyone gave it their best shot and it is now over and done. Don't live in the past - so I think the answer is no.
If you think it’s nothing and people should spend their valuable time on other issues, it’s funny you spend your almost non-existent freep time on 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.