Replies

"I also opened up the White House PDF file in WordPad so I could see the codes and headers in the file. There I discovered the evidence for the nine layers embedded in the code," Vogt writes. "The big surprise I discovered was that the file was finished or created on April 27, 2011, and the copy I had downloaded from the White House web site was modified on April 28, 2011, at 9:58 a.m., the day after the news conference."

This seems to be something easy to verify, as to be honest, when a 'document expert' starts making claims identifying specific creation software (Adobe Illustrator or Photoshop), my BS indicator pegs. So I downloaded the copy of the long form off of the Doug Vogt website, a copy off of the White House website (yep, you can still save the document, no problem..), a turner website, the azstar website, and finally, the copy I downloaded off the first links that appeared on FreeRepublic when the story broke.

I opened each file using notepad++, a very common text editing program, and discovered something interesting. Four of the copies are formatted exactly the same, one is not. The Doug Vogt copy has a dramatically different formatting in the start and end of the file. All five files share the exact same creation timestamp string (though the Doug Vogt one somehow leaves off the time zone portion of the string following the Z), the Doug Vogt file includes a separate modified string.

So one copy is dramatically different in formatting, and includes a separate modified string. I have to speculate, as I'm being kinda lazy here and not actually testing, that Doug used the 'save as' feature on whatever PDF viewer he had and this created the modified timestamp. And in doing so, it created different formatting for the PDF file as well. The only significant change between the five files appears to be the formatting and the modified timestamp.

Anyone interested is welcome to give it a go themselves, as I said, all of this is easily available online to try out. Wordpad should work just as easily as notepad++. Did Doug Vogt find a special smoking gun version of the document? Or did he inadvertently contaminate the document he was going to examine? Or did some ubersecret conspiracy go out and make sure that all the other documents including the one on my personal computer exactly matched so I'd question Doug Vogt's methods of handling the archival of the very document he planned on examining?

There is absolutely no question that the document originally released to Obama's attorneys in HI was a
(1)copy of a
(2)digitally created abstract, created by the HIDOH. HIDOH said so. The WH said so.
(3)Then the WH copied that for release
(4)They merely allowed everyone to assume that what they released was a
(4) certified copy of an original document.

There is nothing wrong with an abstract, if everyone in, e.g. a real estate transaction, agrees to it. The problem is, one never knows if everything one might want to know was abstracted, or whether it is accurate. A certified copy and an Abstract may serve the same purpose if everyone agrees, but, they are hardly the same thing legally. If there's a question, believe me a good attorney wants a certified copy, not the abstract. Repeat: abstracts and certified copies are two different things.

Of course digitally creating documents, and then scanning them to make copies will create layers. That's not the question, IMHBOWO. The question is, "Why the Hell would anyone bother doing all of this in this day and age?" There's a document in Hawaii you want to see? OK. Fine. You pay the fee. The clerk makes a certified copy (properly notarized, signed by the right people, etc.) and Fedexes the damn thing to where you need it to go: a closing, a press conference, etc. It is done literally thousands of times a day (or was when the economy was good).

Again the question:"Why the Hell would anyone bother NOT doing this in such a clean, efficient, and legal way in this day and age?" There is no good, clean answer.