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

Skip to comments.

Tickerguy: 1, ObaBots: 0 (proof of LFBC fraud)
Market-Ticker ^ | 4/29/2011 | Karl Denninger

Posted on 04/30/2011 8:37:33 PM PDT by Triple

(Note:the HTML on the images was tricky for me - if they don't show up it is my fault)

Oh do come on folks. 

There's an old saying: When the facts support your position, use them.  When they don't, or when you get caught lying, throw crap at the wall and hope something sticks!

The latest is the National Review which had this to say about my analysis on the birth certificate:

The PDF is composed of multiple images. That’s correct. Using a photo editor or PDF viewer of your choice, you can extract this image data, view it, hide it, etc. But these layers, as they’re being called, aren’t layers in the traditional photo-editing sense of the word. They are, quite literally, pieces of image data that have been positioned in a PDF container. They appear as text but also contain glyphs, dots, lines, boxes, squiggles, and random garbage. They’re not combined or merged in any way. Quite simply, they look like they were created programmatically, not by a human.

This is what happens when you don't bother actually watching the video I posted, or looking into the provenance of what you're arguing over - you just throw crap at the wall.  Nathan goes on to post a PDF that he scanned which shows his "layers."

Unfortunately, in doing so, he proved that I'm correct.

See, the issue isn't layers.  Yes, the layers are suspicious, but they're not the smoking gun.  The smoking gun is that there are no chromatic artifacts in the Obama document, but the document is allegedly a color scan of an actual piece of paper, and we know it had to be a color scan because the background is allegedly color safety paper.

National Review's document, unsurprisingly, is a scan of a color document.  How do we know?  Because if you simply pull it up in your web browser (which will open the embedded Acrobat Reader) and zoom it up, you will see this:

Note the chromatic aberration.  This document is in fact a color scan.

And here is a blown-up piece of the so-called "scan" of Obama's document:

Note the absence of chromatic aberration.  The Obama White House document is not an unaltered color scan.

Folks, this is physics.  It is "how things work."  It is why you see rainbows.  Light always is refracted slightly differently depending on wavelength when it goes through a lens - as is necessary to focus it so as to make an image. 

Could I scan an image in color and then make this "go away" in an image program?  Probably.  Why would you?  The intent of the release, remember, is to produce an actual image of a physical document and the claim made was that this was a copy of a physical piece of paper.

The Obots were all over me yesterday with the claim that "well, it could have been an electronic copy."  No, it wasn't.  Beyond the fact that certified copies are always printed to paper and then authenticated (e.g. with a raised seal) there is documentary evidence that Hawaii did exactly that.  Look here.  Hawaii produced photocopies - not electronic copies, photostatic copies of the original.

Well, that's even more troublesome, because if they were photocopies how is it that the Associated Press and the White House wound up with two very different-looking documents?  How do you take a photocopy and have two different "versions" of that same piece of paper magically appear - one with a green safety paper background and the other not?  Incidentally, we know factually that the green "safety paper" in question did not exist and was not used in 1961 as there are dozens of close-in-time actual birth certificates from Hawaii that have been floating around the Internet and have been posted.  Therefore, given that Hawaii has stated in a public, signed letter that it issued photostatic copies of the original in the bound book the copy on the White House site has to have been - at minimum - "enhanced."

My next question (which I've tried to get answered without success) is where did the AP get the piece of paper that they put into a scanner?  And note carefully: AP did, in fact, place a piece of paper into a scanner and published what came out.  There is no evidence that AP tampered with the digital representation of what they scanned, while there's plenty of evidence that the White House did, and in fact what the White House produced does not appear to be an actual scan at all but is a created digital document.

The question, therefore, is what was the source and provenance of the document AP scanned?  We know the apparent answer: It came from the White House, and had to, since the correspondence says that there were only two copies produced and both went directly to White House counsel.  What AP presented is only as good as the source of the paper they were handed.

There are others who have noted a number of other problems with the document presented.  Among them are that there are no apparent tab stops used on the Obama "birth certificate."  1961 was the day of the typewriter, and nobody hand-centered things like that.  Production typists used tab stops and if you look at other, known-authentic birth certificates from the time, you'll note that they're tab-aligned.  Obama's is not.  Remember Dan Rather and his little forgery?  20-something idiots in the White House IT department have never used an actual typewriter in their life.  40-something bloggers and their girlfriends (and "Batgirl" deserves recognition for the catch on this one) most certainly did during our school and college years, and we remember how they worked too.  Nobody ever manually centered or manually-aligned production documents in a typewriter.  Can that be explained?  Maybe the janitor typed Obama's birth certificate.  Or maybe he was "really special" compared to the thousands of other births in Hawaii, and a lowly typist in 1961 "knew" he should have a "really pretty" typed certificate because he'd be President 40 years later.  It's also entirely plausible that aliens really did land in Roswell, you know.

Other curiosities include the fact that the time of birth is exactly the same on the (now-discredited - or is it?) Kenyan birth certificate that has been floating around the Internet, and that registration dates on the long-form match the Kenyan "forgery" as well.  How did a purely fraudulent document in a foreign nation happen to wind up with the exact same time of birth and certification dates as the alleged "real" certificate - if Hawaii never released the latter information until now?  That's a hell of a coincidence.  Yes, I know the time of birth was "out there."  The certification dates were not, to the best of my ability to determine, public knowledge.

This debate is not, at this point, about whether Obama was born in the United States.  There are plenty of people who question that, but this case simply isn't about that any more.

This case is about whether a sitting President presented an altered - that is, forged - document to the American public and claimed it was authentic.  You cannot at the same time have Hawaii state that they made two PHOTOCOPIES of an original in a book and then have the White House and AP release "scanned" copies of that document which appear to have been printed on entirely-different paper, never mind that one of them is clearly not a simple scan.

The evidence strongly supports this allegation.  The obvious next question is this: What, Mr. President, are you trying to hide, and we then must turn to whether a sitting President should be permitted to erase the tapes that document his knowledge of a break-in to a hotel....


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: certifigate; enoughalready; naturalborncitizen; stoptheinsanity
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-330 next last
This is an article by the guy with the youtube video that shatters any notion that the PDF image the White House posted was done as they said - without *some* electronic editing.

(My apologies not not being better at HTML.)

1 posted on 04/30/2011 8:37:37 PM PDT by Triple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Triple

Well, the images did not come through - any help from HTML savvy freepers appreciated.


2 posted on 04/30/2011 8:39:21 PM PDT by Triple (Socialism denies people the right to the fruits of their labor, and is as abhorrent as slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Triple

I think are missing a very important point. To be a natural born citizen, BOTH your parent must be US citizen at the time of your birth. The birth certificate obama released proves that his father was not, thus obama is NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. This is no conspiracy. Even if obama is born in hawaii, he still not qualified to run


3 posted on 04/30/2011 8:40:36 PM PDT by 4rcane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Triple

The doctor’s name on a separate layer is the key.

Case closed.


4 posted on 04/30/2011 8:43:34 PM PDT by ILS21R ("Every night before I go to sleep, I think who would throw stones at me?", she said.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 4rcane

Sooo..where’s Trump on this? I thought he’d have his people tearing this apart by now, and would be screaming 24x7 about what they found.

Wondering if Trump was a setup - create cover for release of the BC, then say “yep..that settles it! Guess he was born here after all”..

Hmmmm..


5 posted on 04/30/2011 8:44:45 PM PDT by jstolzen (All it takes for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing - Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: 4rcane
Unfortunately, that argument isn't going to go anywhere. The best hope to discredit our liar-in-chief is to consistently show he is a liar.
6 posted on 04/30/2011 8:45:03 PM PDT by Carling (Obama: Inexperienced and incompetent, yet ego maniacal. God help us all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Triple

Unfortunately, in doing so, he proved that I'm correct.

See, the issue isn't layers.  Yes, the layers are suspicious, but they're not the smoking gun.  The smoking gun is that there are no chromatic artifacts in the Obama document, but the document is allegedly a color scan of an actual piece of paper, and we know it had to be a color scan because the background is allegedly color safety paper.

National Review's document, unsurprisingly, is a scan of a color document.  How do we know?  Because if you simply pull it up in your web browser (which will open the embedded Acrobat Reader) and zoom it up, you will see this:

Note the chromatic aberration.  This document is in fact a color scan.

And here is a blown-up piece of the so-called "scan" of Obama's document:

Note the absence of chromatic aberration.  The Obama White House document is not an unaltered color scan.

Folks, this is physics.  It is "how things work."  It is why you see rainbows.  Light always is refracted slightly differently depending on wavelength when it goes through a lens - as is necessary to focus it so as to make an image. 

Could I scan an image in color and then make this "go away" in an image program?  Probably.  Why would you?  The intent of the release, remember, is to produce an actual image of a physical document and the claim made was that this was a copy of a physical piece of paper.

The Obots were all over me yesterday with the claim that "well, it could have been an electronic copy."  No, it wasn't.  Beyond the fact that certified copies are always printed to paper and then authenticated (e.g. with a raised seal) there is documentary evidence that Hawaii did exactly that.  Look here.  Hawaii produced photocopies - not electronic copies, photostatic copies of the original.

7 posted on 04/30/2011 8:46:48 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Triple
<Img src=http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?get_gallery=1583>

gives you this...


8 posted on 04/30/2011 8:48:00 PM PDT by TankerKC (I feel 271 degrees out of sync today, which isn't half bad.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Triple

Deninger is of course correct that the thing ‘released’ by barry bassturd’s minions is a composit and not a photocpy of an actual paper document. Deninger also notes that Hawaii has vouched for this fraudulent ‘release’. Therefore what was shown to the public has now become either the official Hawaii source data, or the most blatant insult/in your face/piss on the American people for questioning bassturd’s credulity/I won so I can do as I please, laws be damned. Frankly, the amatuerish state of the forgery tells me it is the latter ... We The People have been shown in no uncertain terms that the law we think exists, only applies to we peons not to the democrat oligarchs and their feckless Pubby enablers.


9 posted on 04/30/2011 8:48:54 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Some, believing they can't be deceived, it's nigh impossible to convince them when they're deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 4rcane

That’s not correct, is it? His mother was a citizen, and he was born in the US. That makes him eligible.

Assuming the docs are real, of course. Which is far from a given.

Then there’s the other thing. That is that nothing will be done anyway, even if he isn’t eligible.

You would need cast iron proof, and even then, the case can be dragged out interminably if they want.


10 posted on 04/30/2011 8:48:54 PM PDT by ltc8k6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: 4rcane

I agree with you - if these documents represent the truth, they prove Obama is ineligible. Obama’s father was *never* a US citizen.

I also hold the view that there are troubling elements with the images that were released, and Karl Denninger points out these issues with the images very clearly. I recommend everyone find his youtube video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c93cm17_2C8


11 posted on 04/30/2011 8:49:09 PM PDT by Triple (Socialism denies people the right to the fruits of their labor, and is as abhorrent as slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Triple

img src=”http:www.whatever.com”

enclosed in: < >


12 posted on 04/30/2011 8:49:18 PM PDT by Safrguns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 4rcane

A conspiracy of one.

What would happen to Obama and the DNC if it were proved he was not eligible to be POTUS?

He is fighting for his very life.

Others are fighting for billions if not trillions of dollars.


13 posted on 04/30/2011 8:51:23 PM PDT by NoLibZone (Race? Obama is only 1/16th Black. He is 1/2 Caucasion, 7/16 Arab. He has an Arab name not African.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: TankerKC

that is the first image - would you mind doing that for the second one?

Thanks


14 posted on 04/30/2011 8:53:38 PM PDT by Triple (Socialism denies people the right to the fruits of their labor, and is as abhorrent as slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: TankerKC

that is the first image - would you mind doing that for the second one?

Thanks


15 posted on 04/30/2011 8:53:38 PM PDT by Triple (Socialism denies people the right to the fruits of their labor, and is as abhorrent as slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ltc8k6

I’ve read at several places, BOTH parents must be US citizen at the time of obama’s birth. Yet romney lawyers seem to think you only need one. Obama 2008 resolution which he voted for also define natural born citizen as both parents must be US citizen for Mccain. Also a 1898 court intepretation also ruled that you only need to be born on US soil to be natural born citizen.

Obviously theres a lot of different intepretation, But those who believe in following the original constitutional meaning will can only draw that obama indeed is NOT a natural born citizen


16 posted on 04/30/2011 8:54:38 PM PDT by 4rcane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Triple
National Review's document, unsurprisingly, is a scan of a color document.  How do we know?  Because if you simply pull it up in your web browser (which will open the embedded Acrobat Reader) and zoom it up, you will see this:

Note the chromatic aberration.  This document is in fact a color scan.

And here is a blown-up piece of the so-called "scan" of Obama's document:

Note the absence of chromatic aberration.  The Obama White House document is not an unaltered color scan.

Folks, this is physics.  It is "how things work."  It is why you see rainbows.  Light always is refracted slightly differently depending on wavelength when it goes through a lens - as is necessary to focus it so as to make an image. 

17 posted on 04/30/2011 8:54:55 PM PDT by NoLibZone (Race? Obama is only 1/16th Black. He is 1/2 Caucasion, 7/16 Arab. He has an Arab name not African.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ltc8k6

A natural born American has 2 American parents. The man Obama claims as his father was Kenyan. No matter where Barry was born, his Kenyan father makes him ineligible to be POTUS.


18 posted on 04/30/2011 8:55:13 PM PDT by TheConservativeParty (PALIN 45 The cure for "meet the new boss, same as the old boss.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Triple

The National Review has some brilliant folks...but they apparently are just about as tech ignorant as the Obamaloon crowd. Methinks they just want to get the birth thing out of the say so they can argue other things.

Fine...but they’d better kick the repulsicans in the Obama-end and get some candidates out there......

We don’t want no stinkin’ RINOs. (Ya hear that, Romney?)

We don’t want no stinkin’ “old” repulsicans.

We definitely don’t want ANYONE who’s even spoken to McCain in their lives.


19 posted on 04/30/2011 8:56:00 PM PDT by Da Coyote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Triple

All of you computer-savvy Freepers will love all the comments on the Market-Ticker source site. Go there — these people talk your kinda language. Have fun lots to read.


20 posted on 04/30/2011 8:56:43 PM PDT by bunster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Triple
National Review's document, unsurprisingly, is a scan of a color document. How do we know? Because if you simply pull it up in your web browser (which will open the embedded Acrobat Reader) and zoom it up, you will see this:

Photobucket

Note the chromatic aberration. This document is in fact a color scan. And here is a blown-up piece of the so-called "scan" of Obama's document:

Photobucket

Note the absence of chromatic aberration. The Obama White House document is not an unaltered color scan.

21 posted on 04/30/2011 8:57:11 PM PDT by Doofer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Triple

His video explanation of the chromatic aberration is what convinced me that those who are whining to “move on” and about how “this makes us look like morons” were wrong, and that this whole thing is just one more case of Obama playing the nation for suckers.

The BC pdf file proves nothing about Obama’s legitimacy.

Anyone who still thinks this is a scan of a 50 year old piece of paper has swallowed a heapin’ helpin’ of Obama kool-ade.


22 posted on 04/30/2011 8:57:34 PM PDT by bigbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ltc8k6

PS, you are right that nothing will be done about it. RINOs are gutless, and dems don’t care about The Constitution, and the media are his propaganda cheerleaders. So yeah, we’re still screwed.


23 posted on 04/30/2011 8:57:36 PM PDT by TheConservativeParty (PALIN 45 The cure for "meet the new boss, same as the old boss.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Safrguns
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?get_gallerynr=1584 trying again... second image
24 posted on 04/30/2011 8:57:52 PM PDT by Triple (Socialism denies people the right to the fruits of their labor, and is as abhorrent as slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: jstolzen

Several people have suggested Trump is in the middle of this, you noticed how he has moved on the school records now. I don’t trust that guy, I liked him at first, but now he is looking very complicit in all this, IMHO.

Denninger is the guy that made me do a 180 on this. I was all ready to breathe a sigh of relief and say, finally, Obama has done the right thing. But I’m a dope like that sometimes, I wanted to put all this BC stuff in the past. And I think all our radio guys and gals have done exactly that. We’re sold down the river brothers and sisters.


25 posted on 04/30/2011 8:58:32 PM PDT by West Texas Chuck (Why yes, I do speak Spanglish - "Hasta la later on, amigo. Pardon, would you have any salsa verde?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ltc8k6
That’s not correct, is it? His mother was a citizen, and he was born in the US. That makes him eligible.

Citizenship is passed through the father. His (alleged) father was a British citizen. Stanley Dunham was indeed a US citizen, but the meaning of natural born citizen means that both parents must be citizens. Hence, he is not eligible.

26 posted on 04/30/2011 8:58:39 PM PDT by 17th Miss Regt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ltc8k6
His mother was a citizen, and he was born in the US. That makes him eligible a citizen, at best.

Not NBC, his father, if you take him at his word, was a communist foreigner. Unless you believe anchor babys are NBC.

27 posted on 04/30/2011 9:00:02 PM PDT by MileHi ( "It's coming down to patriots vs the politicians." - ovrtaxt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: TheConservativeParty

If that’s the case, then what is there to argue about? Why haven’t we started the removal proceedings? There must be one politician left in Congress who will not accept an ineligible leader.


28 posted on 04/30/2011 9:00:06 PM PDT by ltc8k6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: 4rcane

I believe that under common law, the citizenship of the Dad is historically the only one that mattered.


29 posted on 04/30/2011 9:00:27 PM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: TheConservativeParty

Some argue that neither were President Arthur’s parents.

And because that generation didn’t enforce the NBC clause the clause becomes null and void!


30 posted on 04/30/2011 9:00:32 PM PDT by NoLibZone (Race? Obama is only 1/16th Black. He is 1/2 Caucasion, 7/16 Arab. He has an Arab name not African.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: bigbob

I share your thoughts on that video. Very convincing - no nonsense


31 posted on 04/30/2011 9:00:40 PM PDT by Triple (Socialism denies people the right to the fruits of their labor, and is as abhorrent as slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: 17th Miss Regt

as I understand it, both parent must be US citizen so if obama’s father was US citizen and mother kenyan, he still not qualified


32 posted on 04/30/2011 9:00:57 PM PDT by 4rcane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: NoLibZone

The issue is no longer about NBC or not. We now have in evidence two forgeries from this filth in the Oval Office, and not one single legal recourse will be allowed to oppose them. If that hasn’t told We The People that we are no longer the sovereigns of this now dead Constitutional Republic, well, we don’t deserve our freedoms.


33 posted on 04/30/2011 9:02:33 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Some, believing they can't be deceived, it's nigh impossible to convince them when they're deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: 17th Miss Regt

where do you get the, citizen is passed through father, because if thats the case, democrats will argue that that is sexist and make it that if mother is US citizen ship then its okay


34 posted on 04/30/2011 9:03:13 PM PDT by 4rcane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Doofer
Note the absence of chromatic aberration. The Obama White House document is not an unaltered color scan

So what does that mean?

35 posted on 04/30/2011 9:03:47 PM PDT by Jim 0216
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Triple

Karl Denninger supported Barack Obama in 2008. I know, I participated on Ticker Forum during the course of 2007 - 2008, and was very put off by it. Ticker Forum doesn’t appear to be the busy place it once was. Maybe “Obot” Karl Denninger is just trolling for site hits like all the others who are cynically stirring the pot with this.

The eligiblity of Barack Obama is in doubt at best, based upon the original intent of the Framers of the Constitution. That much is clear. The birth certificate thing is about as clear as mud. This game of Where’s Waldo, trying to be the next Buckhead of Rathergate fame, leads nowhere but occupies a lot of mindspace and it certainly runs down the clock.


36 posted on 04/30/2011 9:05:08 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ltc8k6

It’s too late to do anything this term. People are keeping their powder dry for 2012.


37 posted on 04/30/2011 9:05:38 PM PDT by ILS21R ("Every night before I go to sleep, I think who would throw stones at me?", she said.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: 4rcane

Agreed. The citizenship requirements for the office of President are more stringent than those for “regular” citizenship. Amazing how easily the ignorant can be fooled. BTW, in 1961 America, Obama Sr. would have been classified as “Negro”, not “African”!


38 posted on 04/30/2011 9:07:37 PM PDT by Frank_2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: 4rcane

Post # 32. You are correct.

As for post # 34, this has long been customary in international law. Sexist it may be, but it is still true.


39 posted on 04/30/2011 9:08:09 PM PDT by 17th Miss Regt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

Agree.

Folks, pay attention: Just as Watergate was about the cover-up not a botched burglary, this story is now about the creation of an official document that was presented to the American public as if it were something it is not.

My theory is that the original paper BC was destroyed long ago when vital records were microfilmed. That film contains the image of the “curl” of the paper in the book, and whatever was originally typed or written on the form. The microfilm was later destroyed when vital records moved to digital form, so now all we have is a scan of a microfilm of a piece of paper. In other words, an electronic image that has no “provenance” or proof that it is what it purports to be.

This is just a theory but it makes sense. What does not make sense is why anyone would accept what the WH put out as anything more authentic than what any Photoshop user creates every day.


40 posted on 04/30/2011 9:09:20 PM PDT by bigbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

So the smoking gun is NOT that it has layers, but that some of those layers are monochromatic-

AS if that piece of image was obtained from a black and white scan of something else

I SEE OVER AND OVER THAT WE TRY TO EXPLAIN SOMETHING,M WITH WITH VIDEO AND IMAGE PROOF AND THE LIBTARDS DISPUTE IT WITH WORDS AND *NO* PROOK. PUT UP OR SHUT UP LIBTARDS- MAKE AN IMAGE LIKE OBAMA’S AND SHOW IT CAN BE DONE


41 posted on 04/30/2011 9:09:51 PM PDT by Mr. K (this administration is WEARING OUT MY CAPSLOCK KEY~!! [Palin/Bachman 2012])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: 4rcane

Of course, he needs to have two citizen parents, but Scotus is hiding under their desks. It is not likely that Roberts who was more than happy to swear in an ineligible President is going to do anything about the trashing of the Constitution.


42 posted on 04/30/2011 9:10:50 PM PDT by Goreknowshowtocheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ltc8k6

Evidently there is not even one politician with the guts to say Obama is a usurper. Really a sad commentary on the caliber of person in DC. If Obama were 100 percent caucasian, this would not be happening. He is black enough to get away with anything, due to the gutless wonders we have in DC.

We just have to get through it until Jan.20, 2013 when we install a new president. I have to believe that, just to get through until then. What a hellish 4 years. And it confirms how ignorant dem voters are. Half of America is too stupid to vote.


43 posted on 04/30/2011 9:11:41 PM PDT by TheConservativeParty (PALIN 45 The cure for "meet the new boss, same as the old boss.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Triple
As I understand it, the original scan of the document was black and white. This explains the jagged edges. That scan had only black and white pixels, and it wasn't compressed (unless with RLE, which is lossless.) This could have been done decades ago. Perhaps all original data is stored as monochrome, 1 bit per pixel scans. It certainly saves storage space (24x is a lot!) and the government probably never cared about finer details of the scan.

At a later time - say, last week - that bit plane was pulled out of the archive and positioned over the modern, color image of the security paper. This can be done to protect the resulting paper copy or the PDF itself, though it should be digitally signed for that. Then the background was imprinted with the negative of the image (to make forgery harder, I guess - but that's silly) and written into the PDF container "as is", without flattening of all layers into one.

At the same time the modern OCR software could have broken the bit plane into chunks, as it tried to figure out what belonged where. I don't know what would be the purpose of that, except that layers are easier to OCR (or ignore during OCR.)

There are still some interesting details. For example, the BC's number '1' is not jagged - it was scanned (or inserted) on a modern grayscale (or color) scanner. How could that happen? One explanation would be that different layers have different compression methods. Most of the jaggedy, monochrome text belong to their own layers... but this particular corner was recognized by the software as color, and promptly compressed. Anyone with a copy of Illustrator can check which layer that digit belongs to.

All this process can and should be done automatically. Adobe products have a good scripting interface just for such cases (and for many more.) I can't say, of course, that this is what happened, but it is technically possible, and is even likely because it makes sense to set up the workflow this way.

44 posted on 04/30/2011 9:12:21 PM PDT by Greysard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Triple
Production typists used tab stops and if you look at other, known-authentic birth certificates from the time, you'll note that they're tab-aligned. Obama's is not. Remember Dan Rather and his little forgery? 20-something idiots in the White House IT department have never used an actual typewriter in their life.


You got to "hate it" when Obama employs ignorant kids who have seen a typewriter. LoL.

45 posted on 04/30/2011 9:15:32 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Triple
A comment and thought from CDR Kerchner (Ret) on the "assembled" PDF document put out on the internet by Obama:

While this whole "assembled" PDF document the White House put out could be a ruse and trap to further embarrass the "birthers" as Mario considered in his new article, I had another thought. What's to say that the copies given to Obama's lawyer sent to Hawaii, and attested to by Hawaiian officials, actually show the same information on those two paper copies that is now being displayed on the internet in this very badly assembled PDF document.

As I recall the former HI director when interviewed in recent weeks, she said when she saw the alleged original Obama birth registration document she said it was half typed and half hand written. What we are being shown on the net is something that is entirely typed except for the signatures. That does not comport with what the former HI Health Dept Director said.

What if the Obama powers sent the lawyer to Hawaii to provide the necessary cover story that they did get two copies of the Obama vital record there ... but the image on the net now is NOT of the paper copies that they picked up ... say because there is something on it that Obama still does not wish to reveal. So he has a version cooked up once again to put online, and someone screwed up and did not flatten the PDF file prior to release to hide the layers. Would Hawaii officials speak up to affirm or deny that what Obama put on the net is not an image of the copy of what they gave to Obama's lawyer. Or would they keep silent in much the same way they did regarding the Certification document, the short form images on the net since Jun 2008. Remember that Hawaii never confirmed that any of those images on the net were copies of something that they issued. Hawaii has been very willing to cooperate with Obama's stonewalling and game playing regarding the vital records in HI for Obama. And, Obama is playing such a cat and mouse game with the American electorate about all his hidden records that one can never tell with him as to what is real or what is memorex. It is a disgrace how this administration is treating the American citizenry. And the main stream media does not call him out on this and instead helps and enables Obama to conduct such offensive disinformation tactics on the American electorate. Journalism no longer exists in this nation. The media should be ashamed.

46 posted on 04/30/2011 9:18:23 PM PDT by shield (Rev2:9 Blasphemy of them which say they're Israelites, and are not, but are the synaGOGue of Satan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bigbob

Well, freeper Danae received a requested copy of her paper BC recently, from Hawaii Vital Records, and received a photcopy of the original paper document. John Klein tried to float the lie that all papaer had been destroyed when electronic method was adopted. I picked up the phone and called Vital Records in Hawaii and was told that was bunk, that the state spends a considerable sum each year to maintain vaults of vital paper documents, including BC and wills and land titles and ... well, you get the picture. In Barry Bassturd’s case, there was likely never a real BC from an Hawaiian hospital anyway, so the criminals in Hawaii running that government puleld a ‘Bergerizing’ and put some data in for thier little god, probably when Axelcrombie was making all that noise about looking for original documents.


47 posted on 04/30/2011 9:19:42 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Some, believing they can't be deceived, it's nigh impossible to convince them when they're deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Triple

Karl is the best blogger on the web. What a guy.


48 posted on 04/30/2011 9:21:02 PM PDT by spyone (ridiculum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 4rcane
There is not solid agreement on your point, in legal circles or among conservatives.

For starters, the 14th Amendment must be viewed as, at least, modifying the original intent of our founders, and the original Constitution, and the Court cases up to the time of ratification of the 14th Amendment.

Having said that, the term, “Subject to the jurisdiction thereof” would be important for us to enforce, as, for instance, the child born of two illegals, in the US, is NOT under the “jurisdiction” of the United States as pertains to child custody, for instance. A divorce court in MEXICO would probably have to solve such an issue. So, in my mind, the kid would NOT be a Citizen at BIRTH!

The CONGRESS has the power to determine the Jurisdiction of our courts, in the Citizenship matter, to a point, in the Obama case and in the case of “anchor babies” born to illegals.

Congress HAS changed the rules a few times, as far as citizenship, at birth, for a child born outside the United States to a Citizen parent and non-citizen parent. These rules can be found rather easily if you look at a Passport application, or if you Google “citizen born abroad”.

Put down your wizard hat and your magic wand, there is no “magic” in the words, “Natural Born Citizen” other than this is meant to say that “Naturalized Citizens” or Citizens who were not Citizens at the MOMENT of birth, are not qualified to be President.

If you are a citizen? Well you are either Natural Born or Naturalized. This is the ONLY point, today, the only possible meaning of the words.

If Obama was born on US soil, or on a US ship or US plane or US territory, for that matter, Obama would be a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN!

If Obama was not born under the jurisdiction of the United States? Well, Stanley Ann was not old enough to confer automatic citizenship.

Argue with me all you want, but this is what our Country, and our Courts, and our elected leaders will probably decide.

No reference in the law, which predates the 14th Amendment, is really very helpful in this matter.

49 posted on 04/30/2011 9:22:31 PM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Triple

Yes, because they had a faked COLB, and they scanned it, and then they decided they would alter the scan so people would think it was fake.


50 posted on 04/30/2011 9:22:45 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-330 next 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