Just filed Obama ineligibility AMICUS CURIAE

http://wthrockmorton.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/joyce_anderson-amicus-final.pdf ^

[dascallie]

No. 08-570 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- ♦ --------------------------------- PHILIP J. BERG, Petitioner, v. BARACK OBAMA, et al., Respondents. --------------------------------- ♦ --------------------------------- On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari Before Judgment To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Third Circuit

"A potential constitutional crisis under President Barack Obama now looms more and more with each passing day. This Court must recognize that its duty to the nation and to the law in the instant case is far greater than that duty which Chief Baron Pollock faced in Byrne v. Boadle. "

[Las Vegas Ron]

Okay, have fun in your echo chamber wearing your tinfoil hat. Ya know, if you would have read any of my posts you would see that I question his eligibilty and belive it warrents an answer, no one knows for sure if he is or isn't.

So screw you and your tin foil hat accusations. Your tactics are indicitive of a 0bot and a troll using the same talking points over and over.

You'd make Alan Colmes proud

[Las Vegas Ron]

I was in Jakarta in 1986 and there was no problem getting into the country.

Not questioning you, but do you have any links so I can research?

At least your tone is in the spirit of learning and debate which is more than I can say for some here.

[curiosity]

Sorry. Forgot to ping you. See post #220.

[trumandogz]

Not questioning you, but do you have any links so I can research?

Actually, you are the one saying that there was a law against travel to Indonesia. So, if you believe there was a law against such travel, I am sure that you can find that law.

That would seem to be quite a bit easier than my finding documentation of a law that never did exist.

[mlo]

One of the pillars of Polarik’s forgery accusation is an alleged absence of green pixels between the letters of the word “BIRTH”.  This instance appears at the end of the phrase “CITY, TOWN OR LOCATION OF BIRTH”.  There are several interesting things to note about this accusation.

It’s part of a header which would be constant.  If someone forged the birth certificate by using a real one and replacing the personal data, why erase the header just to put it back?

Why did Polarik pick this one word to build the forgery case, out of all the words on the birth certificate?

There are plenty of other words with plenty of green between the letters.  What about them?  Aren’t they forged too?

And, what proof is there that a shortage of green pixels between letters is a certain indicator of forgery?

But for now, let’s just focus on whether the observation of missing green pixels is true.  Because, if it isn’t true, none of those other questions matter very much.  Is there a green pixel shortage between these letters?

The green colored pixels come from the background pattern on the birth certificate stock.  It is a hatched pattern of green strokes on white (Or a very light green. Calling it white is good enough for our purposes.)  The strokes are alternately aligned vertically and horizontally, in pairs.

The black letters are printed on top of this pattern.  Whether a pixel between two letters is white or green depends upon the position of that pixel within the hatch pattern.

Note the relative position of the word “BIRTH” with respect to the background.

Simple visual examination reveals that the base of the word is over one horizontal green mark.  This mark is the top mark of a pair.  The left edge of the first letter, “B”, and the right edge of the last letter, “H”, are just touching a vertical green mark.  In each case the second mark of the pair is further out from the word.  Finally, the top of “BIRTH” just touches the bottom of a vertical pair of marks just above.

This means that upper two thirds or more of the word “BIRTH” are printed on white space, not on top of any green marks.  The only place you would normally expect to see green pixels between the letters is at the base of the word where it overlaps the horizontal green mark.  And we do see it there, just as expected.

There is no anomaly here.  It looks just as it should look.  All that’s happened is that Polarik has picked one of the words that was mostly printed on white, where he could attempt to make this argument.

Let’s look at some of the other ones he ignores.

If someone forged this certificate they definitely had to change the name to “BARACK”.  But there’s plenty of green between letters here.  Why?  Well, because the letters obscure both members of the pairs of horizontal marks it overlaps, and there are vertical pairs that overlap the word too.  It’s printed on plenty of green space, it isn’t printed on mostly white space.

And the word right above, “FATHER’S”.  Plenty of green there too.  Again, because it is printed on green, not mostly white space.

All Polarik has done is pick out a word that is mostly printed on white space, and tried to make people think something is wrong with it because the background is mostly…white.

Need more?

The allegedly improper “BIRTH” image can be recreated by simply superimposing the black letters along with the white “ringing” artifact over a part of the background without any printing. This should not be possible, according to Polarik, because if we don't erase the underlying image first we aren't removing any green pixels, and our replication should have more green between the letters.

First, using Photoshop use the selection tools to select the letters in the word “BIRTH” and then expand that selection around each letter.  This is to capture the white “ringing” around the letters.

That gives this image.  This is pasted onto a red background so you can see where it is transparent.

Now take that image and paste onto an unprinted area of the certificate.  There’s plenty of unused space.  Right under the source “BIRTH” will work fine.

Position the pasted in letters so that they line up with the green hash marks just the same as the original “BIRTH” does.  Left edge of “B” just touching the vertical mark, right edge of the “H” just touching the vertical mark, base of the word over the horizontal mark.  Aligned just like the original.  The original is on top, the copy on the bottom.

Now if Polarik’s is correct, there should be some extra green in between these letters.  Because to make this, we didn’t go erase any old lettering and replace it.  That’s what is supposed to account for the missing green.  Does that happen?  Is there more green in our newly printed “BIRTH” than in the original “BIRTH”?  Let’s bring up the color for a good look.

No, there is no missing green in the original (top) “BIRTH”.  Just like the bottom version, the white comes from being printed on a white part of the paper, and the pixelization from the “ringing” artifact.

We should emphasize that Polarik has never demonstrated that “missing green” is proof of forgery.  He just says so.  But that question needn’t concern us now because the observation of “missing green” is false in any case.

[mlo]

"There is no reasoning with an autopilot plant."

Why don't you try using some reason?

JimRob
Sunday, January 11, 2009 2:12:36 PM · 437 of 526
Jim Robinson to MHGinTN

FReeper mlo:

Signup 1998-09-18
Messages 9 articles, 3779 replies

Looks like mlo was in on the ground floor of building FR’s credulity. Suggest FReepers lighten up a bit on attacking other FReepers who don’t agree with them.

[canaan]

“IMPORTANT: You must attach a photocopy of your baby’s official state-issued birth certificate; we cannot print your announcement without it.
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/current/oh/births “

Just curious, but did you pull this from the 1961 archive, or is this the current rule and we don’t yet know what the 1961 rules were for this newspaper in the brand new state of Hawaii?

[mlo]

"FYI, taking pride in the length of a piece is another telltale sign of a crank. Real scientists strive for brevity and concision, and try to make their point in as few words as possible, with simple language that does not overstate their case. Polarik's prose, with all verbosity, and not to mention it's posturing and magisterial language, is about as unscientific and cranklike as it gets."

Exactly right. And a lot of the verbosity is just repetition. There are even entire sections repeated verbatim.

A real scientific work also produces measurements and describes methods and procedures. Polarik doesn't. Most of his claims ultimately rest on taking his word for it.

For example, if a real analyst wanted to say something wasn't an elipse he would measure and include the measurements. Polarik doesn't do basic things like that.

[Las Vegas Ron]

So, if you believe there was a law against such travel, I am sure that you can find that law.

I do recall reading it but don't remember where, I thought maybe you'd be willing to help and provide a link to what you are saying. I would like to get to the truth of this matter, what ever way it turns out, I am just not convinced either way.

[trumandogz]

Sorry, but at the moment, I am not able to put my hands on the book that lists “Laws That Never Existed.”

[curiosity]

Just curious, but did you pull this from the 1961 archive, or is this the current rule and we don’t yet know what the 1961 rules were for this newspaper in the brand new state of Hawaii?

The website that found that link ("What's your evidence?") says they received verbal confirmation from the newspaper that they had a similar policy back in 1961.

http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/2008/09/reports-that-ob.html

The same newspaper also published an article in which they confirm that back in the 1960's, they published birth announcements on information filed at the Hawaii departmentof health. The link is in one of my posts above.

I don't see how Hawaii being a new state at the time is relevant to anything. Before it was a state, it had been a territory for a long time, and territories have governments with things like public health departments as well.

[Las Vegas Ron]

Fact: a JPG image of an official document is not an official document.

By golly you're right, except when it has been altered.

Why would it be altered?

[Las Vegas Ron]

Sorry, but at the moment, I am not able to put my hands on the book that lists “Laws That Never Existed.”

What a jackass reply, thanks a lot for the help, jerk

[Red Steel]

Nope. They have a very clear policy:

Oh, not clear at all. They guy does not say that the news agency that feeds the newspapers would only accept birth announcements from the state. And besides, Obama's COLB is a forgery so I do not trust the dates on it.

IMPORTANT: You must attach a photocopy of your baby's official state-issued birth certificate; we cannot print your announcement without it.

Sorry a statement from February 4th, 2009 doesn't fly either. You'll have to go back 48 years.

[Red Steel]

10/27 Update: The Honolulu Sunday Advertiser requires proof, via official state-issued birth certificate before printing a birth announcement. See here ("IMPORTANT: You must attach a photocopy of your baby s official state-issued birth certificate; we cannot print your announcement without it."). We are awaiting written confirmation, but have received verbal confirmation that the practice in 1961 was to report on births based on Health Bureau Statistics only.

Again not good enough. Show me something in writing from (microfilm) the newspapers back in 1961 not from some obscure blogger who claims that he got "verbal confirmation." And I doubt the news people who put birth announcements in their newspapers were not concerned of using their birth section as an official Hawaiian birth count.

[Polarik]

Jeremiah, don't you just love it when a bonehead, who cannot read nor spell, quotes two other boneheads, one of whom is the King of Boneheads?

http://hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/235-Bad-Science-How-Not-To-Do-Image-Analysis-Part-II.html

...was thoroughly trashed my me at...

http://bogusbirthcertificate.blogspot.com

How's "STFU" for brevity?

[Red Steel]

"And I doubt the news people who put birth announcements in their newspapers were not concerned of using their birth section as an official Hawaiian birth count. "

[little jeremiah]

I just won’t “step in it” any more...every now and then I’m irritated enough to say something. Then the little stream of irritant issues a few repeat replies, etc.

I will just avoid the little steaming piles in future.

It’s pretty interesting that what they accuse me and others of, is exactly - precisely - what they are doing!

[conservativegramma]

It’s pretty interesting that what they accuse me and others of, is exactly - precisely - what they are doing!

Amen and preach it!

[ReignOfError]

>>>Fact: a JPG image of an official document is not an official document.
By golly you're right, except when it has been altered.

Um, no, not then, either.

Why would it be altered?

Because someone, at some point, thought it was a good idea to obscure info before posting it on the Web. Whether obscuring the certificate number was necessary or not, someone thought it was a good idea.