Posted on 04/27/2011 8:58:36 AM PDT by grundle
I don't consider myself to be a "birther," but I am not a fool either.
The document that Obama released today says that it is an "abstract" of the record on file.
In law, an "abstract" is defined as "a brief statement that contains the most important points of a long legal document or of several related legal papers."
So it's not the actual form.
Also, it's printed on modern computer paper.
And it's dated "April 25 2011."
Ping!
Someone said that it was copied onto patterned paper. I am going to look around and see if I have any patterened paper and then copy an open book page and see what it looks like.
Simple. The security paper comes in blank sheets. Take a blank piece of security paper, load it in a copier, and then make your copy of the original.
****************************
i understand that. however, if you load the blank security paper into the printer and then photocopy the BC onto the security paper, the BC or any photocopied document would block out the portion of the security paper relative to the photocopied document UNLESS the BC or other document is itself is a transparency. can someone please explain that???
Huh? The image would just be printed on the security paper. I don't see what's confusing you or what you think should be blocked out.
Looks to me like they pulled the bound book of BCs from 1961, put a piece of security paper in the paper tray, laid the book on the copier and made a B&W copy. They then took that copy, stamped it with Monday's date, had the registrar sign it to make it official, then scanned it as a color pdf and e-mailed it to the White House.
I honestly don't see any thing funny here.
In 1961 you couldn't just fly anywhere at the drop of a hat. You had to be immunized to travel overseas so you could come back. I doubt seriously a prego that far along could be immunized.
Zippo would have been born a Kenyan so they probably wouldn't let him into the country without his shots, and he would have been too young to get shots.
Not to mention the time it would take to go to and from Kenya.
In 1961 I'm not even sure they would let a newborn that young on a plan.
“I honestly don’t see any thing funny here.”
what’s funny here is that you can see the green paper THROUGH the BC. the BC is NOT be a transparent image. the ONLY way for that to occur is if you PRINTED a document onto the green paper. that would not be possible if you COPIED the BC onto te green security paper. can’t you understand that? anyone else know what I’m referring to???
OK. Try a little experiment. Take a piece of colored paper. Put it in your printer paper try. Then take a printed document on white paper. Copy it in b&w onto the colored paper.
What color is the background of that document on the copy?
On b&w copiers, the printer only sees and copies very dark images. If it does not see something, it does not lay any ink or toner in that area of the copy. Even if the original bound certificate was on a security paper, the background would not copy in b&w. They is the idea of using security paper in the first place.
“On b&w copiers, the printer only sees and copies very dark images. If it does not see something, it does not lay any ink or toner in that area of the copy. Even if the original bound certificate was on a security paper, the background would not copy in b&w. They is the idea of using security paper in the first place.”
you’re EXACTLY right. the design on the security paper would NOT show through on a copy. Rather, it would appear as solid white, as you indicated. however, looking at the attached image (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/barack-obama/birth-obama-certer-movement-098513?page=2), you can see the green security paper THROUGH the BC which indicates to me that the BC would have to be transparent in order for that to happen. the entire portion of the BC should be white and therefore block out the underlying green security paper. the image appears to be PRINTED on green security paper rather than an a photocopied image SUPERIMPOSED onto green security paper. do you see?
It would appear as whatever color the paper it's being printed on. The copier just picks up the dark parts and moves them over to the new paper.
Uh.... my friend.... copy machines do not have white ink. They can't print white. The can't see white. They can only copy images. White is the absence of an image.
the BC or any photocopied document would block out the portion of the security paper relative to the photocopied document UNLESS the BC or other document is itself is a transparency.
********************************************
The white sections would not be copied ,, only the black or dark sections ,, what I don’t understand is the “curve” in the left of the copy ... the security paper should be flat and undistorted with print as scanned (distorted at scan time due to the binding) being “bent” .. the security paper cannot be “printed” at the time the document is produced ,, you quite simply don’t have the ability to keep the template secure and you cannot incorporate the security features..
Sequence numbers are WRONG compared to Nordyke ,,, Nordyke’s local registrar is different although they were at the same hospital at the same week... 8-8-61 was a tuesday , 8-11-61 was a friday ... I would like to see the microfilm these records were originally copied onto ... a single sheet would contain perhaps 120 images and would be far too large a job to fake convincingly... It appears as if the microfilm record was converted into a computerized record sometime in the (somewhat) recent past ,, large capacity optical storage (nobody would use dasd to store images in the 1980’s or 1990’s ,, FAR FAR too expensive.. IBM 3380K’s were only 2gb in capacity and cost $250k each ) came into use in the mid 1990’s ... As the microfilm is compact and easy to store it is usually RETAINED even after conversion ,, the conversion allows decentralized offices to re-create documents ,, especially important in an island environment where inter-island travel slow or expensive...
I would investigate whether the group surrounding his number also lists African. That's how I would investigate it.
African at that time makes no sense.
Don't forget Hawaii was a pretty new state so I'm sure they set standards because it was NOW required.
So the doctor signed it on the 8th and it got recorded on the 8th?? That doesn’t sound right. Someone ran it to the registrars...local and state? and this all got done in one day. Not in my world.
That's definitely significant!
bump for later
Except that, according to both British and American law, Barack Hussein Obama and Stanley Ann Dunham could not have been married because Barack Hussein Obama was already married to Kezia.
Again, according to British law, American law, and the common law, any child born to the unmarried Stanley Ann Dunham could not have inherited nationality from any man, because the law in 1961 in all relevant places only recognized "putative" fatherhood for bastards. Without an acknowledgement of paternity BY THE MAN, there is no way the child of Stanley Ann Dunham could have inherited his nationality.
And, in this very strange matter, there is no evidence whatsoever that Barack Hussein Obama EVER acknowledged paternity. There is some suspect evidence that he told Kezia and others that he had taken another wife, but none that he had a son.
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.