Posted on 05/04/2011 3:23:20 PM PDT by butterdezillion
HOW WE KNOW OBAMA'S LONG-FORM IS A FORGERY - NO COMPUTER KNOWLEDGE NECESSARY TO UNDERSTAND:
The only non-manipulable image of Obama’s long-form that would have to show the certifying seal is an alleged photograph of the certified long-form. Unlike scans or black and white photocopies, actual photos always show evidence of a seal, as I document here through photographs of my own daughter’s death certificate.
But the alleged photo of Obama’s certified long-form shows no sign of a seal.
That proves that what he showed reporters was NOT the certified copy he received from the HDOH. It had no seal, and the reporters totally spaced off what any one of us who researches this stuff would have immediately checked, since it is the only part that gives the paper any legal value.
Obama had certified copies from the HDOH and he chose to present to the entire world something else, while CLAIMING it was what the HDOH sent him. Presumably it was a print-out of the manipulated PDF. If no manipulation had been necessary Obama could have simply shown the media the actual certified copy, as he CLAIMED to do. The absence of the seal gives it all away.
I don't know how to post the PDF here. It has the images and explanation. Here's a direct link to it: http://butterdezillion.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/longform-forgery-for-dummies.pdf If somebody knows how to post the whole thing here, I would be eternally grateful if they did. =)
Either grasp the horns or escape between them.
1. Don’t need to “engineer wear” into the stamp. Instead just place out in direct strong and hot sunlight:
- Would harden the rubber in a matter of weeks.
- Would result in fine cracks in the rubber.
2. Remember, it has to be a raised embossed seal from the frontal view and the exact same size and depth as a real one. That’ll take a lot of man hours to finally duplicate the exact result that occurs on current DOH certified documents. But it is entirely achievable.
3. Typewriters and such are not the hard part. The hard parts are:
- Ink. Extremely hard to prematurely age. Experts will catch that.
- Paper. Extremely hard to prematurely age. Experts will catch that as well.
Despite the hard parts, remember - all you have to do is create a document that is convincing enough to make the judge say to the claimant:
“You haven’t convinced ME enough that what I’m looking at is a fraudulent document.”
In other words - the claimant will have to present a very lengthy, detailed and black/white case item by item, in a manner that creates enough doubt as to authencity before the judge will subpoena the DOH to appear in court and open the actual record on file.
The burden is really on the claimant.
=8-)
It would seem that your position is the ‘artifacts’ in question are a manifestation of contemporary technology.
Or is your position that there should be no difference in the artifacts whatsoever when examined with contemporary technology at extreme resolution?
It would seem that your position is the ‘artifacts’ in question are a manifestation of contemporary technology.
Or is your position that there should be no difference in the artifacts whatsoever when examined with contemporary technology at extreme resolution?
Good question. From the CNN piece, his mother said she thought she remembered seeing the baby Obama at the hospital so I presume Stig was born at Kapiolani.
CNN had Stig ask for a BC copy to supposedly prove that if you order a BC all you get is a COLB. Which wasn’t proven by what they did anyway, unless they had him specifically ask for a long-form and all they would give him is a COLB. So the whole thing was just stupid, but it provided an opportunity to try to defuse the questions about Obama’s BC# being out of order.
If Stig has a long-form BC that he had gotten before, it would definitely be good evidence to have now. I wonder if a person could find contact info for him. Is there anybody who has an outgoing personality and likes doing this kind of thing? (Can you tell I’m squirming? lol)
And before that can happen you have to convince the judge that the rule of law regarding presidential eligibility is any of your business - given that it has already been ruled to not be the business of military officers who have taken an oath to defend the US Constitution from just such usurpers (foreign and domestic enemies of the Constitution), the business of a competing candidate, the business of an elector, or the business of a donor to the DNC.
They are counting on the judges to make sure nobody EVER gets to see those transaction logs. The only way to tell these judges this is OUR country is by at least one state passing a law allowing anybody to challenge presidential eligibility, including the legal right to subpoena the transaction logs and other records necessary to audit the genuineness of birth and citizenship records.
What Obama presented here only makes it MORE obvious that we desperately need such a law. He had certified copies from the HDOH but presented something else to the public. And unless it is legally “somebody’s business”, he can totally get away with that crime of forgery in full view of everybody.
Letting reporters examine Obama’s long form birth certificate in the Hawaii archives would go a long way in putting this Obama long form birth certificate to rest.
This will happen as soon as Mr. Astute at the Social Security Administration Office allows someone to come in and see the application form submitted from Obama for the number he “allegedly” obtained in 1977 which is normally reserved for residents of CT.
What is your opinion of the PDF LFBC offered by the White House? (please feel free to provide color and nuance)
Is is what they claim -a scan to PDF format of a certified paper copy brought back from Hawaii with no alterations? (please answer this with a ‘yes’ or ‘no’)
Thanks in advance,
3
Scanning and OCRing (optical character recognition) are two completely different processes that produce differnt results.
Scanning is the process of taking a physical piece of paper and turning it into an electronic image. It's like taking a photograph of the paper. In fact, when you take a photograph of a piece of paper with a digital camera, you have--from a pure technical definiton--scanned that piece of paper. The result of scanning is always a single, unified graphic file (tiff, jpg, or bmp for example).
A PDF, btw, is not a graphics file. It is a document file in the same class as a word .DOC file. A PDF (like a .doc file) can contain a graphic file (like a jpeg or bmp), but it isn't a native graphic format.
OCR (optical character recognition) is the process of elecronicly examining an image file (such as a tiff) to determine if there is any text or words on the image. The result of this process is always text (that is the entire point of optical character recognition, to "recongnize" the "characters" on the image). The result of the OCR process is never (under any circumstances) an image file (such as a tiff); it is always text in some format.
I hate to be a stickler on this point (as I'm becomming on several threads), but the "official" explination that the PDF's abnomilies are due to the OCRing process make no logical sense. OCR produces text, not images. And scanning doesn't produce multi-part image files, it produces a single, unified image file.
The simple answer is yes.
Now let me qualify that and say that a slightly less-simple but more accurate answer is: Apparently, in that we really don’t have any strong evidence that it is anything else. Theoretically, it could be a forgery either at the Hawaii level or made elsewhere by someone who knew what they were doing, and with the complicity of people in Hawaii. But we really don’t have concrete proof at this time that such a forgery has taken place. All we have is suspicion, based mostly on Obama’s suspicious behavior in not releasing a LFBC about 2 years ago.
It does not matter where peregrine Obama was born he does not meet the citizenship requirements in the 14th Amendment, WKA and the Law of Nations.
The spurious born Obama is not a natural born Citizen based on the foreign citizenship of his father. He was a transient alien student who was deported.
The birth certificate released shows Obama is not a citizen and or a natural born citizen.
Lets concentrate on natural born citizenship...if we do..it means we will save the Constitution.
Trust but verify - we need forensic experts to examine Obama’s long form birth certificate.
The only way any of this makes any difference is if we get a court to admit that it is somebody’s business. If we can get that, then we can make sure we’ve got the accurate facts which will then need to be interpreted according to the law/Constitution.
At this point both the facts and the law are moot unless we the people find a way to hold the government accountable.
Obama’s posting of a very obvious forgery was a kick in our crotch, to say that even if he blatantly breaks the law in everybody’s faces he will get away with it. It’s to demoralize us, to tell us we are absolutely alone and resistance is absolutely futile.
We’re at a critical juncture right now. Either we bend over and let him do this to us, first on this issue and then on everything else - giving up everything this country is. Or we come out with our fists swinging.
Are we going to let him get away with this absolute, in-your-face lawlessness? If so, good-bye America.
It is half on and half off the lower left of the original certificate image. It is very, very poor. But it is there.
It is circular, it has the de-embossed bumps. But it does not disrupt the letter. The letter is laid over it and does deflect at all - perfectly flat.
Something that may be interest if you deep, deep dive into this:
http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/CRVS/IIVRS%20papers/IIVRS_paper40.pdf
“One method currently being employed by several states is to do the coding and data entry at the source. Records are then transmitted electronically over telephone lines, or the data are copied and submitted to the agency on floppy disks. Since in the United States nearly all births occur in hospitals, submitting birth certificate information electronically not only eliminates the workload at the state agency but provides more timely and accurate data. This process employs a microcomputer, generally a personal computer (PC), located at the hospital which contains a software package to display the particular state’s certificate form and to perform certain data editing functions. Hospital staff enter the birth information on the displayed form which then undergoes an editing process on the PC. Edit checks include verifying that data fields contain only alpha or numeric data and that codes for selected variables are in the proper range; logical checking on variables such as mother’s age, weight of infant, and date of birth; and checking for internal consistency of the data.”
This paper was published in 1980. So the computerized technology was taking hold then.
I do not believe this is what was done in 1961 obviously. But if the source came from the hospital in digital format (but still a signed document with details) then the next step would be to digitize the old documents already on file.
Look at the Nordyke twins certified copies - made in 1965. Before any of this. They are really photos that are printed - likely on the security paper of the time. But you can tell it is a photo of a microfiche or paper document. It is laid over a template that that has the DOH and Registrar’s signatures. Such was the technology of 1965 - the time the 1961 LFBC was provided as a ‘certified copy’. But notice that the document or microfiche or what ever held the actual image was not flat - it had what I call the left bend or left curl. As if it was under bright light that dried out the material and caused it to bend like film in the sunlight. Again - a process of the fact that this was a PHOTO of what was holding the image.
But notice that certified copies printed since at least 2000 or later from Hawaii - even for LFBCs from the early 1960s are not photographes and the signatures are of the then current Registrar - via the ink stamp that also shows the date the COPY was created. These more recent certified copies show an original form image (not a photo) that looks scanned and digitized to allow the background to show through - i.e. the security paper can be seen behind the original image. But the image is flat. Some have a very, very slight curl in the lower left. But these are mostly flat. They have been processed and stored - digitally.
I find the left bend or left curve in the Obama certificate strange since it was supposedly printed in 2011. No other recently printed LFBC - even those of the early 1960s shows this - if they were printed recently. Hawaii and likely most states keep their LFBCs in digital format. As seen in this article the technology was already taking off 30 years ago. So why does this supposed 2011 certified copy image look more like a 1965 certified copy than any other recently printed LFBC certified copy?
The creators seem to not know how manual typewriters worked. Maybe they did not understand how the ‘certified copy’ technology changed from 1965 to 2011 either!
Darn that woman ~ she didn't do anything right ~ stupid preggers type anyway eh! (/s)
The curve was bent into the form in 1961 when it was placed in a document holder. When it was subsequently photographed for a microfiche file the “bend” was picked up. No one has bothered to remove that bend and probably hundreds of thousands of others.
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.