Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Garnering attention after alleging that Sen. Barack Obama was not born in U.S.
Times Herald ^ | 9/6/08 | Keth Phucas

Posted on 09/06/2008 9:31:56 AM PDT by pissant

WHITEMARSH - In a society criticized for being too litigious, lawsuits filed by local maverick attorney Philip Berg rank as some of the most sensational. In the past decade, Berg challenged the results of the 2000 presidential election, sued the Bush administration in 2004 for alleged complicity in the Sept. 11 attacks and filed a suit recently claiming that Sen. Barack Obama is not really a U.S. citizen.

After the U.S. Supreme Court's election decision, the Lafayette Hill lawyer demanded that three Supreme Court justices be disbarred for alleged conflict of interest. Several counts in the Sept. 11 lawsuit were eventually dismissed, Berg said, and the plaintiff, William Rodriguez, eventually withdrew the suit.

But the 64-year-old's legal challenge to Sen. Obama's birth records is currently percolating across the Internet blogosphere and has generated near 8 million hits on the attorney's Internet site, www.obamacrimes.com, he said during an interview Friday.

He has received about $2,500 in donations to help support the legal action.

Berg, a former Pennsylvania deputy attorney general and Montgomery County Democratic Party chairman, was prepared for an onslaught of e-mail messages and phone calls attacking him. However, the opposite has occurred. "I'm totally amazed by the positive responses we're getting," he said.

(Excerpt) Read more at timesherald.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption
KEYWORDS: barrydunham; barrysoetoro; berg; bergvobama; birthcertificate; certifigate; citizenship; colb; colbaquiddic; dnc; dunham; larrysinclairslover; lawsuit; obama; obamacolb; obamafamily; obamatruth; obamatruthfile; passport; philberg; philipberg; puma; soetoro
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-58 last
To: Proud2BeRight

not


41 posted on 09/08/2008 10:35:31 PM PDT by BooBoo1000 (Some times I wake up grumpy, other times I let her sleep/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Polarik

polarik wrote:

“I created a two photo overlay. First I made BC #9 partially transparent and reduced it to be exactly 80 percent of its original size — a significant discovery. Then, I copied it and pasted it over BC #7. the last step was moving the date stamp of BC #9 over the date stamp of BC #7. They aligned perfectly. Another significant discovery.”

They don’t look to me like they perfectly aligned. In the second overlaid picture I see two dots by the J and two dots in the crook of the 7 and two dots down by the bottom of the 7. But in the first overlaid picture where you can see the dates separately there is only one dot by the J and one dot by the crook of the 7 and one dot down by the bottom of the 7. If they perfectly aligned there would just be the single dots and not the pairs of dots.


42 posted on 09/09/2008 6:48:51 AM PDT by Trallfaz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Polarik

Why do you say “not TechDude anymore”? Berg’s complaint specifically cites to THREE experts, and includes the allegations that the posted Birth Certificate was issued to Maya Kasandra Soetoro, born in 1970. Isn’t that Techdude’s analysis? Do you disagree with that analysis?


43 posted on 09/09/2008 7:14:24 AM PDT by Sibre Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Trallfaz
It looks like the bumps in the seal are getting light at a different angle which makes them look brighter.

I've tried to replicate it all sorts of ways using a 2008 COLB, and it cannot be done without either editing the image, or flattening down the inside of the Seal (not likely).

Here is their Seal image with only the outer ring illuminated:

Here is my best attempt to recreate that effect:

As you can see above, all of the embossed area on the Seal above the fold is illuminated.

HOWEVER

Go back and look at the background above the fold and compare it to the background below the fold. The bottom half of the COLB in this photo looks as if the fold through the middle caused at least a 20 degree angle between the area above and below the fold.

Look at the same photo under edge detection:

See the angle?

Photo #6 is a continuation of Photo #5, and should have been illuminated in the same way as Photo #5, but it's not.

Here's Photo #5 taken before it:

Now, how is it that just that outer rim of the Seal above the fold is lit in Photo #6 when it was taken simply by moving the camera further down???

44 posted on 09/09/2008 7:47:49 AM PDT by Polarik ("The Greater Evil")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Sibre Fan
Why do you say “not TechDude anymore”? Berg’s complaint specifically cites to THREE experts, and includes the allegations that the posted Birth Certificate was issued to Maya Kasandra Soetoro, born in 1970. Isn’t that Techdude’s analysis? Do you disagree with that analysis?

I know that it's hard to keep up with everything that has happened with this COLB business for the past three months, but a few weeks ago, I broke the news about how TechDude fabricated his evidence and pretty much lied about everything else. I knew it from the beginning, and all the time, I kept it to myself, as a favor to TexasDarling, who had done an "Exclusive" on his work just as Pam Geller had done, as well as Israel Insider, too. He suckered a lot of people an tarnished not only himself, but everyone else who trusted him.

It was not until Israel Insider gave him the boot that I came forward with the news.

What blew his cover was when he said that he "received some 2007 COLBs" and that they had the same border as the 2008 COLB. He figured that nobody would be the wiser.

Only problem was that I had a genuine 2007 COLB and its border did resemble the one on the Obama COLB (which did not affect any of my research conclusions as I had already conceded that the border from someone else's 2007 COLB was copied onto the forgery.)

See for yourself:


45 posted on 09/09/2008 8:03:38 AM PDT by Polarik ("The Greater Evil")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Polarik
Oops...wrong image.

Try this one:

and this one:


46 posted on 09/09/2008 8:34:05 AM PDT by Polarik ("The Greater Evil")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Polarik

polarik wrote:

“Here is their Seal image with only the outer ring illuminated:

Here is my best attempt to recreate that effect:

As you can see above, all of the embossed area on the Seal above the fold is illuminated.”

I’m confused. You originally asked “how it is that the top of this seal is reflecting light when no other part of the paper around it is lit?” I answered and said that it was lit but that the bumps in the seal are getting light at a different angle which makes them look brighter. And now you post a picture that answers your own question.

” Photo #6 is a continuation of Photo #5, and should have been illuminated in the same way as Photo #5, but it’s not.

Here’s Photo #5 taken before it:

Now, how is it that just that outer rim of the Seal above the fold is lit in Photo #6 when it was taken simply by moving the camera further down???”

I don’t think it was just the camera moving further down. I still don’t know how to post pictures here but here’s the URL for photo 5.

http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg

And here’s the URL for photo 6.

http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg

In photo 6 someone has their thumb pressing down on the corner of the birth certificate. I don’t think they had their thumb on it when photo 5 was taken. The middle and bottom parts of the birth certificate are darker in photo 6 than in photo 5 and the borders in photo 6 look straighter at the fold than in photo 5. It definitely looks like the angles of the middle and bottom parts of the birth certificate had changed between photo 5 and photo 6. The middle part of photo 6 looks like it was angled more away from the light so that only the bumps of the outer edge of the seal caught the light.

I really don’t know what you’re trying to say here. It all looks to me like someone just took some photos of the birth certificate.


47 posted on 09/09/2008 11:36:03 AM PDT by Trallfaz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Trallfaz
I’m confused. You originally asked “how it is that the top of this seal is reflecting light when no other part of the paper around it is lit?” I answered and said that it was lit but that the bumps in the seal are getting light at a different angle which makes them look brighter. And now you post a picture that answers your own question.

I'm sorry. I think I gave you too much information to process. If you go back and read what I said, you'll see that what puzzled me is the following: The outer ring, and ONLY the outer ring, of the Seal is illuminated, but not the inner ring, not the top of the crest, nor anything else above the fold.

There is no reason why this should happen. The outer ring of the Seal is no more raised than any other part of the Seal above the fold.

I tried my best to replicate the effect. I tried to illuminate ONLY the outer ring of the Seal, but I couldn't, and I concluded that it cannot be done without modifying the image, flattening the other parts of the seal, or aiming a thin slit of light on it (but, from where would it come?).

Look again. Here's the Seal in #6

Here's the Seal in #5, and as you can see, all is lit equally.

They moved the light. They moved the camera. They did not the subject.

Does that clarify it now?

48 posted on 09/09/2008 6:38:51 PM PDT by Polarik ("The Greater Evil")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Trallfaz
They don’t look to me like they perfectly aligned. In the second overlaid picture I see two dots by the J and two dots in the crook of the 7 and two dots down by the bottom of the 7. But in the first overlaid picture where you can see the dates separately there is only one dot by the J and one dot by the crook of the 7 and one dot down by the bottom of the 7. If they perfectly aligned there would just be the single dots and not the pairs of dots.

Sorry, but you'll have to use visuals here if you want me to see what you see, and also, define what you mean by "dots."

49 posted on 09/09/2008 6:42:48 PM PDT by Polarik ("The Greater Evil")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Polarik

polarik wrote:

” I’m sorry. I think I gave you too much information to process. If you go back and read what I said, you’ll see that what puzzled me is the following: The outer ring, and ONLY the outer ring, of the Seal is illuminated, but not the inner ring, not the top of the crest, nor anything else above the fold.

There is no reason why this should happen. The outer ring of the Seal is no more raised than any other part of the Seal above the fold.

I tried my best to replicate the effect. I tried to illuminate ONLY the outer ring of the Seal, but I couldn’t, and I concluded that it cannot be done without modifying the image, flattening the other parts of the seal, or aiming a thin slit of light on it (but, from where would it come?).”

Basic physics says that it can be done without modifying the image or flattening the other parts of the seal. Since light travels in a straight line, if that portion of the seal is at slightly greater angle as the incoming light then only the outer ring will be illuminated because the outer ring will block the light from hitting anything inside the ring.

If you look at photo 6 you can see that the outer ring is actually made up of two rings and that pieces of the inner ring are being illuminated by light hitting them that’s coming between the spaces of the outer ring.

Because the birth certificate wasn’t being held down by someone’s thumb in photo 5 the light came in at a higher angle and allowed all the parts of top part of the seal to be illuminated. I don’t see anything unusual at all.


50 posted on 09/09/2008 8:42:11 PM PDT by Trallfaz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Polarik

polarik wrote:

“Sorry, but you’ll have to use visuals here if you want me to see what you see, and also, define what you mean by “dots.””

If someone could tell me how to post pictures here I would. But the dots are clearly visible so I don’t know why it would be necessary. And what I mean by dots is dots. Like the period at the end of this sentence. A dot. And if you look at the date stamp in photo 7 there is a dot between the J and the U at the tops of the letters. There is also a dot at the crook of the 7 where the horizontal part of the 7 meets the vertical part of the 7. And there is a dot just to the right of the bottom of the 7. These are clearly visible to me and should be clearly visible to others.

But if you look at your overlaid picture, there are pairs of dots in those locations. If the date stamps perfectly matched then there should only be the three dots that I mentioned above and not three pairs of dots. The letters and numbers don’t look perfectly matched either. The easiest to see is the bottom ends of the two J’s don’t match. One is offset from the other. The dark parts appear to be where the date stamps of the two images overlap each other and the lighter parts are part of one date stamp or the other and show that the date stamps aren’t perfectly matched.


51 posted on 09/09/2008 8:55:14 PM PDT by Trallfaz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Trallfaz
OK, I know now what your talking about. One of the date stamps has a very slight tilt to it - which is what happens with a hand-held camera -- and I'll try another overlay after I remove the skew. These photos should have been taken with the camera mounted on a tripod.

That should take care of the extraneous dots.

52 posted on 09/10/2008 8:23:48 AM PDT by Polarik ("The Greater Evil")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Trallfaz
Basic physics says that it can be done without modifying the image or flattening the other parts of the seal. Since light travels in a straight line, if that portion of the seal is at slightly greater angle as the incoming light then only the outer ring will be illuminated because the outer ring will block the light from hitting anything inside the ring.

If you look at photo 6 you can see that the outer ring is actually made up of two rings and that pieces of the inner ring are being illuminated by light hitting them that’s coming between the spaces of the outer ring.
Because the birth certificate wasn’t being held down by someone’s thumb in photo 5 the light came in at a higher angle and allowed all the parts of top part of the seal to be illuminated. I don’t see anything unusual at all.

Of course you don't, because what you said is total nonsense. I've dealt with your nonsense before, but no more.

53 posted on 09/10/2008 8:35:51 AM PDT by Polarik ("The Greater Evil")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Trallfaz
Basic physics says that it can be done without modifying the image or flattening the other parts of the seal. Since light travels in a straight line, if that portion of the seal is at slightly greater angle as the incoming light then only the outer ring will be illuminated because the outer ring will block the light from hitting anything inside the ring.

If you look at photo 6 you can see that the outer ring is actually made up of two rings and that pieces of the inner ring are being illuminated by light hitting them that’s coming between the spaces of the outer ring.
Because the birth certificate wasn’t being held down by someone’s thumb in photo 5 the light came in at a higher angle and allowed all the parts of top part of the seal to be illuminated. I don’t see anything unusual at all.

Of course you don't, because what you said is total nonsense. I've dealt with your nonsense before, but no more.

54 posted on 09/10/2008 8:36:05 AM PDT by Polarik ("The Greater Evil")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Polarik

polarik wrote:

“OK, I know now what your talking about. One of the date stamps has a very slight tilt to it - which is what happens with a hand-held camera — and I’ll try another overlay after I remove the skew. These photos should have been taken with the camera mounted on a tripod.”

Yes that’s what happens when you shoot pictures with a hand-held camera. No two shots are ever quite exactly the same. And if you have to play with one of the the pictures to “remove the skew” then what was your point in the first place?

You said “The odds of being able to move the camera from its position in BC #7 to another position to take BC #8, and then moved once again to take BC #9, such that the date stamps on #7 & #9 align perfectly when the size of BC #9 is reduced 80 percent, are rather slim.”

But if you have to “remove the skew” then obviously they didn’t align perfectly in the original pictures and I don’t see what your point here is.


55 posted on 09/10/2008 8:53:40 AM PDT by Trallfaz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Polarik

polarik wrote:

“Of course you don’t, because what you said is total nonsense. I’ve dealt with your nonsense before, but no more.”

How is basic physics “total nonsense”? Anyone can demonstrate this for themself.

Just take two identical round pencils and lay them side by side on a desk or a table. STand so you can look straight down on the pencils and then take a flashlight and shine it on the pencils at about a 45 degree angle. You can see the tops of both pencils are highlighted by the light. Then gradually decrease the angle from 45 degrees and you’ll see there comes a point where only the top of one pencil is highlighted and the other is not. Also it doesn’t take much of a change in the angle to go from having the tops of both pencils highlighted to just the top of one pencil highlighted.


56 posted on 09/10/2008 9:13:09 AM PDT by Trallfaz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Trallfaz
How is basic physics “total nonsense”? Anyone can demonstrate this for themself.,/i>

Here's the problem in a nutshell. All of my critics, except for one, try to use anecdotal observations to counter tangible evidence. They'll also say something like, "Well, it looks real to me," as if the mere mention of their opinion carries the same weight or level of proof as an experiment performed with a real, paper COLB.

They also fail to fully read what I write when they start harping on something I explained in what was read.

I'm not trying to be a hard-ass here, but you have to understand that there are also a lot of people out there who criticize my research simply on the basis of some "thought exercize," that they think is equivalent to tangible evidence. Especially, when that exercise does not address to the problem. That's the nonsense.

What was particularly irksome to me, as someone with a Doctorate in Experimental Psychology, is implying that I don't understand "basic physics," after telling you that I tried all kinds of lighting scenarios (which included using a different angle of the camera, or the light source, or the orientation of the subject) to replicate the effect in Photo #6. It's not simply a matter of whether the thumb is on the corner of the COLB in #5 as it was in #6.

Especially, when the test to verify that does not involve the Seal at all. I'll let you think about what test I performed to answer that question.

Except for passing a light through a slit with the width of a proton, I found no other viable ways to replicate the effect.

Rather than unsuccessfully arguing your point without any tangible evidence, you're not going to get much response to it on here.

Comparing a pencil that's a 1/3 of an inch high, to an embossed seal that is about 1/180 of an inch high, could be called, a "nonsensical comparison," if you like.

When I have genuine 2007 and 2008 COLBS to use as test subjects, and I said that I could orf could not replicate an anomaly, I'm not BS'ing or lying, but accurately reporting the results of an experiment as I am trained to do.

I do not expect everyone to see the same things that I see in the FactCheck photo, because of differences in experience moreso than any differences in opinion.

It certainly is not for any lack of know-how on my part, even through my critics constantly try to paint me with that, old brush.

I have over 700 photos and images of COLBs that I've created to empirically test out my theories. I do not engage in heresay or making anecdotal reports, or using my opinion as a substitute for pragmatic research.

There is precious little that someone can use to counter my assertions when I have in my hands genuine, paper COLBs with which I can recreate pretty much all of the conditions under which FactCheck had their photos taken.

To the extent that they don't match, within what I consider a reasonable tolerance level, I'll admit it -- just as I admittd to you earlier that one of the photos of the date stamp is slightly tilted off to the side.

So, unless someone publically presents, for all to see, a compelling example that runs counter to mine, I really have no reason to take someone's word for anything, prima facie.

I would expect the same of me as of anyone else.

57 posted on 09/10/2008 11:35:28 AM PDT by Polarik ("The Greater Evil")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Polarik

polarik wrote:

“I’m not trying to be a hard-ass here, but you have to understand that there are also a lot of people out there who criticize my research simply on the basis of some “thought exercize,” that they think is equivalent to tangible evidence. Especially, when that exercise does not address to the problem. That’s the nonsense.”

You’re saying that I have to provide “tangible evidence” that light travels in a straight line? Is this a joke? So if I say that a 25 ohm resistor with 5 volts across it has 200 milliamps of current flowing through it, I would have to take a photograph of an ammeter measuring the current through the resistor instead of simply citing Ohm’s Law?

“What was particularly irksome to me, as someone with a Doctorate in Experimental Psychology, is implying that I don’t understand “basic physics,” after telling you that I tried all kinds of lighting scenarios (which included using a different angle of the camera, or the light source, or the orientation of the subject) to replicate the effect in Photo #6.”

Your photographs don’t change the underlying physics which dictate that because light travels in a straight line there is an angle at which only the outer edge will be illuminated. Your claim here is tantamount to claiming that light does not travel in a straight line. That’s quite an extraordinary claim in the context of little bumps on a birth certificate.

“Except for passing a light through a slit with the width of a proton, I found no other viable ways to replicate the effect.”

You do not have to pass light through a slit the width of a proton. You just have to understand that light travels in a straight line in order to understand the effect.

“Rather than unsuccessfully arguing your point without any tangible evidence, you’re not going to get much response to it on here.”

Since no one has bothered to tell me how to post pictures here I guess I will have to rely on those reading this to have a basic understanding of light.

“Comparing a pencil that’s a 1/3 of an inch high, to an embossed seal that is about 1/180 of an inch high, could be called, a “nonsensical comparison,” if you like.”

The principle is the same whether you’re talking about little bumps on a birth certificate, or pencils, or skyscrapers in Manhattan.

“When I have genuine 2007 and 2008 COLBS to use as test subjects, and I said that I could orf could not replicate an anomaly, I’m not BS’ing or lying, but accurately reporting the results of an experiment as I am trained to do.”

Ok. You’re not BS’ing or lying. But unless the basic properties of light have changed very recently then the problem is with your experiment.

“There is precious little that someone can use to counter my assertions when I have in my hands genuine, paper COLBs with which I can recreate pretty much all of the conditions under which FactCheck had their photos taken”

The basic properties of light counter your assertions. Or to put it another way your assertions are counter to the basic properties of light.

“So, unless someone publically presents, for all to see, a compelling example that runs counter to mine, I really have no reason to take someone’s word for anything, prima facie.”

Just tell me how to post pictures here.


58 posted on 09/10/2008 8:09:50 PM PDT by Trallfaz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-58 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson