That's neither here nor there.
Document analysis in this case (especially of a PDF) is pointless, given there exists a true copy. As long as the facts laid out in the PDF match Hawaii's records, there is no problem.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/96470103/Document-35-Et-Al
The dentist drilled and drilled and finally she struck a nerve! (In law school they try to teach you not to do that.)
why a different verification for Arizona?
Could a forged BC have been inserted into the Hawaiian records and that they (HDOH) are just verifying they copied it and it matches but not whether its a valid original BC that they copied ? Plausible deniability
DUH
cant see the forest for the trees.
once again need the microfiche everything else is spinning wheels.
>> 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?
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.