Posted on 07/20/2012 2:06:28 PM PDT by Seizethecarp
>> That's neither here nor there.
>> Document analysis in this case (especially of a PDF) is pointless
Hmmm, those words don't to seem to precisely reflect your view as represented in post number 58. Your approach actually seems to be something more like,
"When I'm arguing with someone who hasn't taken the time to carefully grasp the evidence of tampering on the pdf, then I'll argue the pdf layers with them. However, if I have the unfortunate circumstance of encountering someone who is articulate about the pdf tampering evidence, I'll shift my argument to contending that the pdf evidence is "neither here nor there" given the Hawaii DOH has verified the information on the document."
I might at some point take the time to argue with you about the verification statements, though I am busy (and Butterdezillion and others have been quite clear about the problems related to HDOH's verifications), but first I want to establish the point that you are no longer arguing that the White House published pdf was produced through some normal automated processes that didn't involve any unusual human intervention. You now think that the question of digital manipulation is ultimately just not germane.
In other words, a person could state your position like this:
"Now that you pin me down on document tampering, to be honest, I am unaware of any evidence that affirms my former contention that the document could have been solely the product of normal scanning and automatic optimization processes. So I will let stand, for now, the evidence that the document has indeed been subjected to some degree of human imposed manipulation. While under normal circumstances, that manipulation would have been in no way been necessary to prepare a downloadable pdf made from a scan of the paper copy released to the White House, I, cynwoody am convinced that the manipulation which evidently did occur in this case was in no way problematic or motivated by an intent to deceive."
Or to put this more succinctly, I'm hearing you say, "Okay fine, the evidence appears to indicate the document was tampered with, but I'm really sure that whatever did happen wasn't the kind of thing that would have compromised it in any way whatsoever, so why should that part matter?"
Now I realize and will admit that the above statement is thinly coated with a splash of my own bias and sarcasm, so please feel free to restate it in a way that better suits your own sensibilities. First let's settle the matter of where you stand on whether evidence of digital image manipulation really matters all that much. Then, if you're up for it, perhaps it will be time to carefully consider the implications of Hawaii's verifications and whether or not the Onaka document you posted offers us clear assurance that the White House pdf was not modified in any deceptive way. Eh?
That is a great post!!!
You made me crack up a few times....
Reminds me of something that I might write.
You can thank Mara for me too!
Not only has she done excellent work, she’s one of only a very, tiny few with the expertise to come forward and give this issue a fair and professional evaluation.
She’s been exceptional.
She will be on soon.....she was on the phone for a radio interview earlier today and she is still waiting for the FR approval.
I am thinking that when she gets on here that she should start a new fresh post and invite a lively discussion on the Obama BC.
I would like to see skeptics on there and have her answer questions or refute their comments?
Any ideas on that?
...Meeting and/or exceeding standards set by Dylan Avery.
You(troll)...long walk....short pier. Start walking.
I think a new thread would be good too. I don’t have any questions for her. She’s preaching to the choir for me.
The trolls are here for a reason. They are not interested in facts but it would be interesting to see if they are brave enough to go toe to toe with her.
The problem is that they like bringing up the same topics over and over, spinning and spinning down the rabbit hole they go.
She should really post for the sake of lurkers, but I think after all this time most of them know the document is a digitally manufactured fraud and are just kind of resigned to the fact.
I just talked to her. Floated the idea of a new post.
I would like to see any and all questions asked of her and have her give a response as I know that there are people on here that have a feeling that the BC is/might be/could be a fake but still have legitimate questions. I did....I still do have some questions. There even might be some questions that I have not even thought about. People have lives to lead and can’t follow everything about this topic in a way to be an expert on it.
I informed her about Rathergate and how FR was instrumental in exposing the so called Bush Letter as a fraud. If I remember correctly, it was within hours of it being released.
Also told her to be prepared for some very good tough questions and even a troll or two. She has experience with trolls. BTW....she used to be a Lib.
BTW....there are some very conservative people out there and on FR that either don’t believe that the BC is fake or don’t know enough about it to draw a conclusion.
Don’t be so fast as to think that everyone that posts on here is a troll that disagrees with Mara’s conclusion.
“Don’t be so fast as to think that everyone that posts on here is a troll that disagrees with Mara’s conclusion.”
The only people I’ve called trolls have been posting here on this topic here for years. Keep in mind we are about 4 years into this subject.
If Mara can convert them, just wonderful. Have at it. :)
"When I'm arguing with someone who hasn't taken the time to carefully grasp the evidence of tampering on the pdf, then I'll argue the pdf layers with them. However, if I have the unfortunate circumstance of encountering someone who is articulate about the pdf tampering evidence, I'll shift my argument to contending that the pdf evidence is "neither here nor there" given the Hawaii DOH has verified the information on the document."
I'm dismissing the "pdf-tampering arguments" as a waste of time. I don't find them convincing. I've personally seen the funny effects PDF optimization software can introduce. They do have a certain technical interest, but it pales before the real crux of the matter, which is whether Zero's short form is true.
If this case got into court, the court would insist on the best possible evidence. That's not the PDF. It's not even the papers Obama's lawyer hand-carried from Honolulu to Washington, depriving at considerable expense FedEx, UPS, or, God-forbid, USPS employees of productive employment. Rather, it's whatever actually exists in the State of Hawaii's files!
Dr. Onaka has spoken! Document analysts are irrelevant (or redundant, as the UK phraseology goes).
To remain relevant, the Sheriff's investigation must now take on the State of Hawaii!
ABC News 15 talks to Mike Zullo (video deleted):
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/07/abc-news-investigator-mike-zullo-talks.html
Not at all. The Sheriff's investigation mistakenly assumed Hawaii would cooperate with them since they were authorized law enforcement and not just random members of the public. When they realized the state of Hawaii was doubling down on unnecessarily locking down Obama's vital records, they figured out part of the reason why. Hawaii's got its own administrative problems with other false registrations, but ... skeptics have already figured this out long ago. It has nothing to do with being "relevant" ... that's really a weak Fogger excuse.
See it's interesting for several reasons that you post Alvin T. Onaka's letter of verification.
1) Onaka does not refer to the original certificate of live birth as a "true copy" ... he only says "the information" matches, but doesn't say whether it's all the information or just some of the information.
2) Onaka puts quotation marks around the term "certificate of live birth" when referring to the PDF posted at the White House website. Now why would he do that?? He didn't put that term in quotation marks in the previous paragraph. Is this a hint that the PDF is NOT a certified or true copy of the original certificate that is on file??
3) When Gov. Abercrombie was hunting for Obama's original live certificate of birth in January 2011, why didn't he produce a letter of verification?? His own health department said they could produce no documentation to confirm Obama's birth or birth certificate, but a year later they produced TWO letters of verification. Why did they hold out when the governor want to verify Obama's birth facts?? Was there NOT an "original" certificate of live birth prior to April 2011 that could be verified?? Why didn't they offer a letter of verification to Orly Taitz when she subpoenaed them for copies of Obama's vital records?? Certainly they could have offered to her or to their own governor.
4) And lastly, why doesn't Obama's "certificate of live birth" contain this same raised seal that is shown on Onaka's letter of verification?? According to the Department of Health rules, this raised seal MUST be placed on such documents in order for them to be legally certified. The PDF doesn't have it and the seal on the photo taken by msnbc newsbabe Savannah Guthrie is not the same as this official departmental seal. The DOH procedures describes what this seal is supposed to look like. The Onaka seal matches that verification, but the Guthrie photo does not. The lack of a proper seal most likely explains why the Kenyan Coward™ will not submit a hard copy of this document in a court of law and why the state of Hawaii will only issue carefully worded and indirect confirmation of what the record indicates. The lack of a confirmation that the Obama PDF is a "true copy" is very telling.
Keep speaking the truth.
We need a moniker or stamp, just as the left has.
Bring the issue up and BANG! They yell “Birther!”.
So we need to drive it home on every news article, regardless of topic.
I suggest “African 9” .
We copy the text as it is and post it to comments in every article that CBS, NBC and ABC put online. No matter the topic. It could be about Olymics. Just post “Birth Certificate is a forgery”. You will get a nasty comment back. Then reply “African 9” . Keep repeating it, and nothing else.
African 9
I posted this link earlier......I like to look at what the De-Bunkers are saying about the evidence that is being put out there by the Sheriff and Mara.
Here is the link and right below it I posted what they said about the number 9.
http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2012/07/joe_arpaios_new_birther_eviden.php
___________________________________
Not only are the theories false — which, unfortunately, we’ll explain — Arpaio and his buddies presented information to the public that they know is false.
The best “evidence” Arpaio and the birthers presented was that penciled-in codes on the birth certificate don’t match federal guidelines, which they claim to believe is clear evidence of a forgery (see their video here).
In one box on Obama’s birth certificate, there’s a box titled “race of father,” which is filled in as “African.” The number nine is penciled in next to it.
Arpaio and lead “investigator” Mike Zullo say that according to the federal guide in 1961 — the year of Obama’s birth — that number nine meant “unknown or not stated.”
That’s false, and it’s nearly impossible that Arpaio’s birther gang didn’t know that.
After approximately two minutes on the Internet — no, we didn’t have to blow $10,000 on a trip to Hawaii — we found this exact theory, and the documentation proving it false, from Obama Conspiracy Theories.
The coding for the number nine in the race meant “unknown or not stated” in the guide for 1968. In 1961, it meant “other nonwhite.”
On top of that, Arpaio’s birther pals conveniently cropped the area of the 1968 guide to omit the fact that they were referring to a section called “race of child,” not “race of father.” (Click here for the whole document.)
The trolls are everywhere.
I posted about the penciled “9” in the “Non-Pool” related section of a billiard forum.
Reply #7 looks like it came from a fogblower.
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?p=3683270#post3683270
Ok, but have we debunked the debunkers?
Did they find their evidence from a credible source or did they just pull it out of thin air?
If they did, then I would call it BenSmithing.
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.