“Has Mike Zullo been granted access to the SSS microfilm record or national archive microfilm records, or is anyone contending that Zullo has been granted or could be granted that access at this point?”
Did he get a court order or search warrant? If not why not?
Or did they just send a letter saying we want to come in and look at your records?
“Are you really telling me that I can only believe tampering would have occurred if I also concede that someone spliced an archival microfilm role?!”
No, but if not than are you claiming that in 2008 the Selective Service Administration, when faced with a FOIA request for Obama’s SSR card, created one from scratch, including adding a DLN from the 1980s, and a paper copy of the Makiki Station PO handstamp (but not a paper copy of the 1980 stamp even though they have thousands of examples of it).
"No, but if not than are you claiming that in 2008 the Selective Service Administration, when faced with a FOIA request for Obama’s SSR card, created one from scratch, including adding a DLN from the 1980s, and a paper copy of the Makiki Station PO handstamp (but not a paper copy of the 1980 stamp even though they have thousands of examples of it)."
Congrats, that's a pretty decent, reasonably challenging question. So, as I said before, I have no way of guessing actual flow of actions nor all the rationales for the decisions made along the way. Nevertheless, I do think that Team Obama relied in part upon some level of cooperation from the SSS (whose director is appointed by Obama) and also utilized the resources of a private firm and/or found a away to justify charging the Secret Service or the FBI with some of the tasks related to getting the forged registration card on file.
I agree that, on the surface, it seems odd that whoever produced the actual forgery would have had any interest in using a literal rubber stamp to make an impression onto paper--given that it seems likely that the forger would have understood that the piece of paper would never, itself be kept on file in the care of the SSS anyway.
What I think might have happened is that the forger was aware that applying a rubber stamp leaves a result with a fingerprint of it's own unique artifacts--each application is like a snowflake in that sense. So, the forger realized that by copying the mark left by the same stamp on some other piece of paper he could conceivably be leaving himself open to a situation in which somewhere somehow the identical snowflake eventually could turn up, casting enormous doubt on the card bearing Obama's name. He was determined, then to build an image that included a universally unique snowflake stamp impression.
According to this theory, the forger was so obsessed with the value of having a uniquely artifact-ed stamping that he compromised on the two-digit year, desperately hoping that people would conclude, as you have, that it's absurd to think someone would go to all the trouble of obtaining so authentic (including it's unique artifacts) a round stamp impression and yet be content to include a chopped up year insert. He told himself, "Most people will accept a 2-digit date stamp without any further thought, but those who care enough will tend to overlook the blaring mistake, because the subtleties are so perfect that they will be forced to assume no forger could be so dissonant with himself.
I know you'll think that I've taken quite a leap in proposing that interpretation, but don't forget that a forgery job by necessity involves trade-offs, calculated risks, strange disparities of resources, and the involvement of imperfect people who may at once weild well-honed skills alongside ill-developed idiosyncratic ones.
Your idea, on the other hand that the missing "19" digits were simply absent due to the fact that such absences often occur randomly when applying rubber stamps might seem more plausible than mine--if it were not for this fatal flaw: While it is true and normal that sometimes parts of a stamp are not visible in its inked impressions, it is most certainly not true that the same phenomenon could account for a year stamp that is offset to the lower right of where it would normally occur relative to the rest of the circle stamp into which it's inserted, nor is it true that the eight would so strongly bear the appearance of having been turned on its head.
One more quick point and then I'll depart this discussion, leaving the last words to you and the discerning onlookers. Thanks for the quote from the MRC compression engine developer. It illustrates a genuine effort on the part of the debunkers to overcome their hardest argument in all of this. Nevertheless, it is simply inadequate. Yes, you have the words of a bonafide expert, but the most he can say is, he sees in the White House pdf some similarities with what some obscure implementation of some version of his compression algorithms might have produced, but he admits that he hasn't taken the time to fully research the matter.
I will continue to contend that it is not too much to ask, when I say that I want to see a demonstration of a normal process using a normal set of tools that could have conceivably been used in the White House in 2011 that would produce principally the same layering scheme and other digital characteristics that can be found in the White House pdf.
There, now as I have said, my time constraints dictate that I will need to leave the rest of this debate for now in your hands and in the hands of others. Have at it. Decimate me; massacre me; do your best.