But there is something fishy about the Arpaio-Zullo "investigations." This most recent one contains clearly falsifiable information. This little picture summarizes it:
More at Post #34 on this thread.
ML/NJ
Posted on 01/09/2017 2:36:31 PM PST by Nero Germanicus
An investigator who was commissioned by now-retired Sheriff Joe Arpaio to find out whether the document President Obama presented as his birth certificate is real says there’s now a 10th feature of the document that shows it’s fraudulent.
Investigator Mike Zullo, who joined with Arpaio in a Dec. 15 news conference disclosing nine other elements that experts concluded were copied to create Obama’s document, released a video to WND explaining the additional evidence.
It explains that two stamps on the Obama document not only were identical in angle to the stamps on another birth certificate – that of Johanna Ah’nee from the same time period – they also had the identical vertical relationship.
This despite the fact that the “stamps” purportedly were hand applied days apart.
“What are the odds that both the stamps in box 20 and the stamps in box 22 would have the exact same corresponding angles even though they were stamped 16 days apart?” the video asks.
That means they almost certainly were digitally copied from the Ah’nee certificate then dragged together and pasted onto Obama’s, the video explains.
Zullo explained that the fact the two stamps are an exact match vertically reveals that they were taken as a group.
“The fact that there is no vertical displacement indicates the exact vertical and horizontal alignment of the stamps are an exact copy from the Ah’nee certificate … reinforcing the claim that the Ah’nee [document] is without question a source document.”
It eliminates, too, he said, any chance that the date stamps were placed by hand on the Obama document.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
+1
But there is something fishy about the Arpaio-Zullo "investigations." This most recent one contains clearly falsifiable information. This little picture summarizes it:
More at Post #34 on this thread.
ML/NJ
Hang around, your expertise may become valuable.
Simple foto forensics - when you modify a picture pixel density is different than the original so with an error level analysis that they do on this site it shows up as ghosting..
also data file (EXIF) that is included in the file says adobe Photoshop
here is the analysis
http://fotoforensics.com/analysis.php?id=636dc0e946e86ae2e4eab0def3a0d0e8f81244c6.90414
http://fotoforensics.com/tutorial-ela.php
No he doesn't have a State produced document, he would not have received a computerized document, he would have received a printed document that included embossed stamps to prove it was an original.
If he did receive a printed document it was not presented, instead he presented an electronic document that was obviously fraudulent.
Put that lamp away because for you it is a waste of time, you are not looking for truth.
What you have is a theory with no evidence to back it up. That will go nowhere.
Who 55 years later can confirm that a fake was created? The procedures that I have mentioned are 100% consistent with operationalizing Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution. The investigative powers of Congress and Article III courts are still being utilized. A lawsuit is not the way to compel the state of Hawaii to reveal its birth certificate creation procedures under oath. A congressional subpoena could accomplish that.
Those who have challenged Obama’s eligibility have used legal procedural methods in every single instance: civil courts and state election boards. They filed more than 200 civil lawsuits.
I hoped for the issue to be resolved one way or the other, by Congress or by a Grand Jury issuing indictments or refusing to indict. At least a Grand Jury might have uncovered real evidence of the issuing of a “legal fake.”
Hawaii Health Bureau statistical data for the Obama birth was published on August 13, 1961 in the Honolulu Advertiser newspaper. If that 1961 data was fake, I can’t imagine anyone holding anyone from 2007 to 2017 responsible for it.
Just sitting here thinking about the “what if” scenarios...
He will still be considered a former POTUS until he is deemed to not be a former POTUS, it seems to me. My question would be what would be the process for making that official determination? As a sitting POTUS, the constitution spells out the process for removal (and even then, would an impeached POTUS lose his status of “former POTUS”?), but how do we, within the provisions of the constitution, deem a person such as Obama to no longer be a “former POTUS”? Can a person who has left office be impeached after the fact?
Perhaps all it would take would be an act of congress (signed by the newly elected POTUS). Or perhaps it would bring such notoriety that a constitutional amendment could be swiftly offered and approved by the states that would outline the process. Who knows? Talk about uncharted waters!
The Constitution purposely legalized all the Founders.
lol Bozo.
But it’s true.
One of the greatest cover ups by the press in American history.
maybe that is why the Democrats are working overtime to discredit Trump...
That does bother me a little that the investigators tell us the word “Oahu” was lifted in whole from one document to the other, when the misalignment in the vertical clearly is not identical for the letter “O”.
But it’s also possible, or even likely, that the “O” was lifted separtely from the rest of the word. Or, it could have been lifted from another document. The letters themselves appear similar enough that they were likely made from the same typewriter.
But another obvious Obama-document forensic discrepancy that you didn’t point out is the fact that there’s a halo around the bottom “Oahu” with the green background (from the Obama document). You must zoom in to see it, but it’s obvious. That is another indication of a forgery. The word “Oahu” was lifted using an oval lasso/feather technique, then after it was put in place the transparency of the pasted word “Oahu” was decreased so the green background would partially show through, without diminishing the black typeface letters too much. But the green background layer still appears diminished between and immediately surrounding the letters of the word, unlike the document of the yellow certificate shown on top.
The grandfather clause had nothing to do with James Madison choosing to become a Citizen of the French Republic as well as a U.S. citizen in 1792. And he was “The Father of the Constitution.”
Presidents James Buchanan and Chester Arthur had fathers born in Ireland; Woodrow Wilson’s mother was born in England; Herbert Hoover’s mother was born in Canada, Barack Obama’s father was born in Kenya; and Donald Trump’s mother was born in Scotland.
I agree that Martin Van Buren was the first president to ge a natural born citizen. The seven before him were born as British subjects.
Trump’s mother became a citizen 4 years before he was born.
Obama’s father was never a citizen.
Trump’s mother became a US citizen prior to DJT’s birth. Obama’s father remained a Kenyan.
Your dishonesty never ceases to amaze.
That’s not crazy at all.
“It was a racist law to begin with, requiring the President be born in America”
And all the liberals will clap and cheer.
How about a class action lawsuit against him him for defrauding the American electorate?
Obama doesn’t know who his father is or where he was born. His whole life is made up like the “skinjobs” in “Blade Runner.”
Agreed in total.
Since the state of Hawaii has always maintained that Obama was born there, he has plausible deniability from having perpetrated a fraud based on his place of birth.
The U.S. Constitution makes control of the accuracy of public records a state’s right (Article IV, Section 1, the “Full Faith and Credit Clause.”)
“During the campaign of 2008, I was actually in the mainland campaigning for Sen. McCain.
And so I had my health director go personally view the birth certificate in the birth records of the Department of Health, and we issued a news release at that time saying that the president was, in fact, born at Kapi’olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii. And that’s just a fact.
It’s been established. He was born here.” —[former] Governor Linda Lingle (R-HI)
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.