Skip to comments.Tickerguy: 1, ObaBots: 0 (proof of LFBC fraud)
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. Thats 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 theyre being called, arent 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. Theyre 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....
I was replying to the post where the poster mentioned that typical common law only cares about the citizenship of the father.
I gave an example of that being true.
Often, if one looks at what a post is in reply to, the question of what and why ‘x’ is being answered is answered.
Therefore, was this document altered? You're damn right it was.
Notice the H,V scaling data: this background was scaled to 48% of its original size in the Horizontal and Vertical axes. Now, here is the links data from the black and white "text" overlay:
Notice the H,V scaling data in this link: 24% in H,V of original image. Therefore, if you were to know nothing else about this document, you would know that these two images are from two completely different scans, as it would be impossible to have two different scaling rates from a single scanned document that matched up the way these do in the final composite. Now, as to whether the document was altered in any way: you can find further proof that it was if you open the "Actions" window in Illustrator that saves a history of what was done to the document. Here is that window:
Therefore, was this document altered? You're damn right it was.
anyone know the penalty for perjury for a government official who attests a document is a "true and valid copy" when we know this one isn't?
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! ...Unfortunately, in doing so, he proved that I'm correct... 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... 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: [img] 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." ...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.
I actually typed a good bit of my life and you are correct....unless I did the same form over and over.....but this would have been a form that the clerks typed over and over. You will note that the other BCs viewable on the web all show tab stops. It could be that Obama's BC was typed by someone who only used this form occasionally. Could be.
The Supreme Court addressed the issue in several cases early on using the language used in "The Laws of Nations" by Vattel. The Supreme Court quoted parts of the following in those cases:
§ 212. Of the citizens and natives. The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
If you read the writings of the founding fathers it is obvious that they were influenced by Vattel (among others).
Like the assassination of JFK...this is one of the lies everyone is going to agree to for the sake of society going on.
Killed by a lonenut assassin...who in turn was killed by a lonenut assassin. Not likey, but an acceptable lie.
Of course you are assuming that the document that he attested to is the one that Obama put up and that the image with his stamp didn't come from another document.
Awesome. Just awesome.
Also, there was no change in the text of A2S1C5 after the 14th, or any other Amendment or ‘Act of Congress’, it has remained unchanged since adoption of the USC.
I took it upon myself to do a little test. I entered the line, "Barack Obama's LFBC is a fraud!" in my word processor.
I then printed that short line of text out on a color ink jet printer using only black ink, so as to remove any color artifacts from printing.
Here is how that image looks after scanning it as a 24 bit color TIF file converted to PNG format (for upload) at 300 dpi:
Now, here is that same sheet of paper scanned as a 1 bit black & white TIF file converted to PNG for upload:
As you can see, with no other alterations made on these two scans except their conversion to PNG format, there's a huge difference in the quality between the 24 bit file (top) and the 1 bit file (bottom).
The edges of the letters in the 24 bit file have much smoother edges owing to the fact that each pixel in the image has 8 bits of color data (even from a black and white document). That provides the image processor with 256 shades of gray per RGB channel with which to work, providing smoother gradations between the blackest text and the whitest background.
The 1 bit black & white TIF file has only 1 bit of data per pixel: a pixel is either all white or all black. There is no gray scale to create the smooth edges that the 24 bit file has.
Next, I brought these raw TIF scans into PhotoShop and, using the Magic Wand tool, selected the white background of each then enlarged them for the purpose of getting a screen capture of the area on each I wanted to highlight. (I had to promote the B&W image to gray scale to get the Magic Wand to work, which accounts for the solid gray fringe on the lower images letters.)
Here are those PNG images after retouching and enlarging (24 bit image first):
Compare those to this image enlarged and grabbed from Obama's new BC:
The green background layer is the result of a 24 bit color scan (look at the number 1 far right), while the overlaid text is the result of a 1 bit black and white scan with the white background removed for transposition over the color background layer.
There's no question that this document consists of at least two separately scanned images composited together.
To what end, I have no idea.
He is not a “natural born” citizen, but his supporters, if they could understand the term, are now saying that “natural born” is the equivalent of “native born,” and that is good enough for those tens of millions of the uninformed.
///Let’s not go after the terrorists, it might make them mad, mentality.///
I spent most of the last ten years, directly or indirectly, putting missiles through terrorist roofs or boots through their doors. My only regret is that we didn’t do more. I’m not at all shy about going after enemies of the republic. What I am is tired beyond measure of working for people that employ failed tactics and refuse to see it.
While we no doubt share the same goal in the defeat of Obama and his worthless, toxic, socialist nightmare, the birther tactic has no more chance of success than our kinder, gentler ROE and foreign policy has of curbing the growth of Islamism. Just like our misguided but noble way of war, birthers focus on details and metrics that are correct in specific, but irrelevant on the whole.
Birtherism is the Konar valley of political issues. We can spend years bleeding troops, money and time over a victory that will feel barren by the time we ever see it, because in the meantime we will have lost everything else. I’m tired of winning local battles and losing wars. Believe in this battle all you like, but it’s a diversion that can cost us the war.
Where is that other thread you were talking about?
Immigration law is a major business in this country. 60% of those receiving green cards in the US result from changes in status.
I guess the JOKE is on you.
///What do you think? I want the truth, the consequences be damned.///
Noble enough. Problem is, you arent gonna get either, because you have no hard evidence. Suspicions alone are easy to discredit, and Obama loves the easy targets birthers present.
You can’t beat something with nothing. Trump almost turned public opinion on Obama, but in the end, Obama has paperwork to support his point, and birthers do not.
There’s plenty of proof that Obama is raw poison for America as we know it. Trying to prove by implication what can be objectively demonstrated is not a winning strategy. In fact, it discredits serious attacks on Obama by painting all critics as wide eyed conspiracy theorists. That’s the only “consequence” that birtherism leads to.
James Madison: It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other...
If I walk into a bar in Pittsburgh and speak against the Steelers I can expect to be in the minority, in that bar. However, that bar is not a good sample of the truth, the law, or the last contest between them and the Packers.
You want to be right in your own little world, how about you show us how to WIN something on the National stage?