Obama Makes Jimmy Carter Look Good

[Jccarlton]

Diogenes, here's the document released yesterday. It looks pretty much identical to what you posted above as what you want. Can you explain your objections that still exist??????

I think this document is going to end the discussion about this issue. (Mostly.) But how can you assert it looks like the other document?

The one which is of more certain veracity attests that it is an "True and Correct" copy of the original record.

The one which Obama has produced has a contemporary rubber stamped weasle clause in it. It OUGHT to say it is a "True and Correct copy of the Original record. "

Instead it says it is either a "true copy of a record on file" or it is an "abstract" of a record on file. Not very confidence instilling words in my opinion. It is "damned by faint praise" if you are familiar with the phrase.


I've already mentioned countless times how the "record on file" gets changed when a Judge orders it. What is wrong with seeing a "True and Correct copy of the Original record? " Why does there always have to be something weasley about this guy?

Diogenes,
The type on both certificates looks as if it was typed with the same typewriter, given photocopy artifacts and the highly smudged apearance of the certificate you posted. I have to think that this is the real thing. It still leaves many unanswered questions.

[Ivy Matt]

I have to think that this is the real thing. It still leaves many unanswered questions.

What kind of parents would name their child "Ukelele", for one.

[bcglorf]

I think we need a "Sharpton's Law": ie anybody who uses racism claims in an attempt to win an argument has already lost the argument.

Indeed. Given how racism is the default response to criticism of the occupier of the white house, we have to assume they have no[sp] proper challenge to much of the criticism.

Right. It's clearly the critics of the birthers that are now desperate to find any shred of evidence to back up their increasingly indefensible claims.


???????

[seedload]

It is a movement that allows racists to publicly chant "Obama can't be president because an African-American is barred by the constitution", so long as they say African loud and mumble the American bit.

Don't give me BS about how it's not PC to point out when an organization is wildly attractive and popular amongst racists wanting to forward their agenda.

News flash - not an "organization"

The term "Birther" is nothing more than a buzz word used with connotation to discredit, and marginalize any person with concerns about the legitimacy of Obama's Presidency.

You are lumping it all together, throwing a buzz word on it, claiming it is organizational, and then attaching racism.

It's the classic "Tea Bagger" defense.




Kinda pointless to go on in these circles. Good luck to you.

[JLawson]

Diogenes, here's the document released yesterday. It looks pretty much identical to what you posted above as what you want. Can you explain your objections that still exist??????

I think this document is going to end the discussion about this issue. (Mostly.) But how can you assert it looks like the other document?

The one which is of more certain veracity attests that it is an "True and Correct" copy of the original record.

The one which Obama has produced has a contemporary rubber stamped weasle clause in it. It OUGHT to say it is a "True and Correct copy of the Original record. "

Instead it says it is either a "true copy of a record on file" or it is an "abstract" of a record on file. Not very confidence instilling words in my opinion. It is "damned by faint praise" if you are familiar with the phrase.

I spent a whole lot of time managing military personnel records. Lots of boilerplate phrases change over time - I'm not at all surprised that in the course of almost 50 years the wording on this would be changed. I think I'd be more surprised if it hadn't. (I remember one time when we had to have 300 letters the members in our squadron had signed redone because Wing HQ had left out one comma and a semicolon out of the document. Wasn't even anything consequential - just a standard briefing acknowledgement. Still had to do 300 more copies, and have everyone resign. Folks were mildly annoyed over that one...)

As far as the paper goes - it looks to me like that was photocopied out onto standard cross-hatched security paper, perhaps preprinted with the boilerplate signatures. The signature at the bottom? Hastily done - perhaps a U. K. E. Lee? I don't see a problem with that - even if some folks do. I've seen no middle names to four middle names (and try fitting THAT on a standard form...) so 2 middle initials? No problem.

I'd say the thing's authentic, and don't see any reason not to. You take something, scan it at 300 to 600 DPI, and run it through a PDF generator, you're going to end up with something that's visually close to the original. It's not the original, no matter how you slice it - but it's good enough.

It's good enough.

But now the birth cert's out of the way... let's see his transcripts![/quote]

[IntLibber]

Try downloading the PDF file from the white house website, then open the image in illustrator. It's got 9 layers to it, its a totally manufactured image, a complete forgery.

[JLawson]

Try downloading the PDF file from the white house website, then open the image in illustrator. It's got 9 layers to it, its a totally manufactured image, a complete forgery.

Of course it's a manufactured image. A forgery? No.

Look, I don't like Obama's politics or policies. I'm looking at this, and what I'm seeing is a xerox onto security paper. Rather, I'm looking at an IMAGE of a xerox onto security paper.

To get that image, you've got to run it through a scanner, correct?

When you run something through a scanner, you've got two choices. You can take out a straight image (jpg, bmp or the like) which will be a pixel by pixel scan of the sheet. Some software allows you to save it directly to PDF format - which is recognized as THE universal format for documents. With me so far?

PDFs aren't simple transcriptions of the document. Go here for the wiki on the tech specs of how they're constructed. They're MADE of objects on top of layers, generated internally. (In the old days w/slower PCs, I remember seeing PDFs actually being 'drawn' on screen. You'd get background, then something here, something there, other things popping up - until the whole thing was there.)

Illustrator is designed to work with layers like that. That the layers aren't there isn't a smoking gun - that's what's supposed to be there with a PDF.

Look, I don't like the guy - but I don't see a problem with this.

And when Fox News doesn't have a problem with it, I'd say the chances of it being legit go up even more.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04 ... ate-legit/

We've come a long way since the days of goatskin parchment and oak gall ink. Technology is great stuff (he said, looking around at all the things which were wild dreams in SF when he was a kid) - but it takes a bit of understanding to get what's going on in the background.

A PDF has layers in Illustrator? Uh... of course?

Where he was born doesn't matter as much as what he's doing. And, (IMHO) if you were looking for someone to ruin the economy, what would the putative economy-wrecker be doing different?

[tomclarke]

Try downloading the PDF file from the white house website, then open the image in illustrator. It's got 9 layers to it, its a totally manufactured image, a complete forgery.

Wow. How sure are you of this? It is a triumph of wish-fullfillment over fact.

You are 100% wrong.

Take a scanned image of any other document saved as PDF. You will find that you get similar layers.

Why? Clever compression algorithms try to segment image and use different compression techniques on different segments. The results are arranged on different PDF layers. Its just the way the software works.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=292673

For a sane analysis of the issue from somone who does not like Obama try:
http://www.newssun.com/opinion/col-0501 ... BIRTH-CERT

[JLawson]

Take a scanned image of any other document saved as PDF. You will find that you get similar layers.

Why? Clever compression algorithms try to segment image and use different compression techniques on different segments. The results are arranged on different PDF layers. Its just the way the software works.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=292673

For a sane analysis of the issue from somone who does not like Obama try:
http://www.newssun.com/opinion/col-0501 ... BIRTH-CERT

Great minds think alike.

[Diogenes]

Try downloading the PDF file from the white house website, then open the image in illustrator. It's got 9 layers to it, its a totally manufactured image, a complete forgery.

Wow. How sure are you of this? It is a triumph of wish-fullfillment over fact.

You are 100% wrong.

Take a scanned image of any other document saved as PDF. You will find that you get similar layers.

Why? Clever compression algorithms try to segment image and use different compression techniques on different segments. The results are arranged on different PDF layers. Its just the way the software works.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=292673

For a sane analysis of the issue from somone who does not like Obama try:
http://www.newssun.com/opinion/col-0501 ... BIRTH-CERT

Why must you characterize people who find it peculiar that there are multiple layers in a scanned document as "insane"?

Wouldn't "Ignorant" be a more accurate term?

[Diogenes]

On the testimony of the woman who presented this for everyone to see, and on the strength of the official witness signatures, and regarding the text that attests that it is an TRUE and CORRECT copy, given the obvious assumption that it is an official document from the state of Hawaii, There is hardly any manner in which it's authenticity can be doubted.


So that's your stance on one image. Is it still true if we change it a touch:

On the testimony of the man who presented this for everyone to see, and on the strength of the official witness signatures, and regarding the text that attests that it is an TRUE COPY or abstract of the RECORD ON FILE, given the obvious assumption that it is an official document from the state of Hawaii, There is hardly any manner in which it's authenticity can be doubted.

It seems you DO take issue with the small change of wording. It seems that it would NOT have been good enough for you if he'd released this exact document even before announcing his candidacy. It seems the most accurate summation you've given is that NOTHING will be good enough. What you won't seem to admit is that this was true from the VERY START!



I don't know nor really care anymore were you stand. Most likely it seems your issue is that he's from the wrong party. Regardless of that, the utterly INSANE ravings of all the birthers like you are being used as a smoke screen by a swarm of racists whose sole problem is the color of his skin. Fortunately America is a country were those masses are too afraid to come out and say their problem is the color of his skin. Lucky for them, there is a whole movement for them to line up behind and vent their hatred through. Although the real unAmerican thing about Obama for them isn't his birth certificate but the color of his skin. The more evidence that is released, the more concentrated the birther movement becomes with people solely there because of their irrational and indefensible hatreds they are too afraid to come out and say directly.

I started writing out a response to this the other day, then I decided to throw the whole thing away. Words will simply not get the idea across. I'm going to have to SHOW you. I've been relatively busy lately, but when I get a chance, i'm going to SHOW you what I mean.

[Diogenes]

Diogenes, here's the document released yesterday. It looks pretty much identical to what you posted above as what you want. Can you explain your objections that still exist??????

I think this document is going to end the discussion about this issue. (Mostly.) But how can you assert it looks like the other document?

The one which is of more certain veracity attests that it is an "True and Correct" copy of the original record.

The one which Obama has produced has a contemporary rubber stamped weasle clause in it. It OUGHT to say it is a "True and Correct copy of the Original record. "

Instead it says it is either a "true copy of a record on file" or it is an "abstract" of a record on file. Not very confidence instilling words in my opinion. It is "damned by faint praise" if you are familiar with the phrase.


I've already mentioned countless times how the "record on file" gets changed when a Judge orders it. What is wrong with seeing a "True and Correct copy of the Original record? " Why does there always have to be something weasley about this guy?

Diogenes,
The type on both certificates looks as if it was typed with the same typewriter, given photocopy artifacts and the highly smudged apearance of the certificate you posted. I have to think that this is the real thing. It still leaves many unanswered questions.

That it is an official record of the State of Hawaii, I have no doubt. That it is an official record as is expected to constitute Barack Obama's birth certificate I also have no doubt. That this is an image of an old record I have no doubt.

What I have doubts about is whether or not it is a true copy of the ORIGINAL birth certificate. Here is what I see that is peculiar about it.

1. It is obviously the image of the top of a page in a bound book. It is not a separate and individual document. It appears they have used a border of some sort to mask off the upper and lower portion of the page, as well as the opposite page.

2. The masked off portion of the page is covering the exact place where the Nordyke birth certificate says:

" This certifies that the above is a True and Correct Copy of the Original Record on file in the Research, Planning and Statistics Office Hawaii State Department of Health."

3. The 2011 era rubber stamp imprint above the current directors signature says that it is a true copy of a record. It conspicuously lacks the adjective "Original." One would think it would be right under the last line on the document (as it is with the Nordyke certificate) yet that exact spot is peculiarly masked off.


I suspect the Original document has been amended, and this is as close as they can come to producing a long form birth certificate without letting on that the original has been amended. I think it is no accident that the word "Original" is omitted, and that the place where it normally would be is covered up with that Anti-copy masking.

[tomclarke]

Try downloading the PDF file from the white house website, then open the image in illustrator. It's got 9 layers to it, its a totally manufactured image, a complete forgery.

Wow. How sure are you of this? It is a triumph of wish-fullfillment over fact.

You are 100% wrong.

Take a scanned image of any other document saved as PDF. You will find that you get similar layers.

Why? Clever compression algorithms try to segment image and use different compression techniques on different segments. The results are arranged on different PDF layers. Its just the way the software works.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=292673

For a sane analysis of the issue from somone who does not like Obama try:
http://www.newssun.com/opinion/col-0501 ... BIRTH-CERT

Why must you characterize people who find it peculiar that there are multiple layers in a scanned document as "insane"?

Wouldn't "Ignorant" be a more accurate term?

When I first heard this I thought "What can this be, its weird, surely it cannot be artificially composed".

Then, because I am sane, I did 5 minutes google research BEFORE I mouthed off about it.

The anti-Obama fringe in US is not, in this sense, sane.

But "not sane" is subtly different from "insane" in this context.

Best wishes, Tom

[Diogenes]

Why must you characterize people who find it peculiar that there are multiple layers in a scanned document as "insane"?

Wouldn't "Ignorant" be a more accurate term?

When I first heard this I thought "What can this be, its weird, surely it cannot be artificially composed".

Then, because I am sane, I did 5 minutes google research BEFORE I mouthed off about it.

The anti-Obama fringe in US is not, in this sense, sane.

But "not sane" is subtly different from "insane" in this context.

Best wishes, Tom

This exact issue of "Layering" was pointed out on the PDF of Obama's short form birth certificate two years ago, and for that reason alone, I was not particularly concerned with it. But it is peculiar to most people who think a scanned document is output as some sort of bit-map.

A lot of people regard it as evidence of tampering, and in fact, I think the document was tampered with, but not in any manner as to manipulate the data which you can see. I think someone added that green anti-copy cross hatch to the document, and made certain to obscure from view anything lower than that last visible line.

The only reason I can think off to cut off that portion is because it has different words at that place than there is on the Nordyke birth certificate, with which it shares it's basic form and design.

[JLawson]

That it is an official record of the State of Hawaii, I have no doubt. That it is an official record as is expected to constitute Barack Obama's birth certificate I also have no doubt. That this is an image of an old record I have no doubt.

What I have doubts about is whether or not it is a true copy of the ORIGINAL birth certificate. Here is what I see that is peculiar about it.

1. It is obviously the image of the top of a page in a bound book. It is not a separate and individual document. It appears they have used a border of some sort to mask off the upper and lower portion of the page, as well as the opposite page.

----------

They may very well have a mask, with arrows and a notation such as "Place Book Here to Fit Birth Certificate in Proper Alignment on Security Paper." This isn't an old copy, after all.

----------

2. The masked off portion of the page is covering the exact place where the Nordyke birth certificate says:

" This certifies that the above is a True and Correct Copy of the Original Record on file in the Research, Planning and Statistics Office Hawaii State Department of Health."

.....................

That may very well have been a boilerplate taped-in place mask on the Xerox. No contemporary pic of the Xerox in question, so we'll never be able to tell, but that's what I'd do (and have done in the past) with documents that needed boilerplate phrases added to them.

.....................


3. The 2011 era rubber stamp imprint above the current directors signature says that it is a true copy of a record. It conspicuously lacks the adjective "Original." One would think it would be right under the last line on the document (as it is with the Nordyke certificate) yet that exact spot is peculiarly masked off.

.........................

If you look at the http://www.scribd.com/doc/17772843/NBC- ... ate-Photos Nordyke cert there (it's in negative, btw) you can see that the boilerplate you're looking for is flat against the xerox glass, while the book page is slightly curved. Plus, there's a slight mis-alignment between it and the certificate itself.

.........................

I suspect the Original document has been amended, and this is as close as they can come to producing a long form birth certificate without letting on that the original has been amended. I think it is no accident that the word "Original" is omitted, and that the place where it normally would be is covered up with that Anti-copy masking.

Diogenes - I have a great deal of respect for you on this forum. However, I'm a bit concerned that you're seeing here what you really, decidedly, passionately WANT to see, not what's really in front of you. If you're invested in the idea that the cert is a fraud, then there's nothing that can be done to dissuade you of that. I've spent a lot of time handling personnel records, and I haven't seen a single thing that's out of the norm on this.

I've seen that the shading on the left side of the cert proves it's a fake. The lack of shading in the right side proves it's a fake. That there's no shading on all four sides proves it's a fake. That it doesn't look like the Nordyke cert proves it's a fake. That the Registrar's signature proves it's a fake. That the differing rubber stamp sizes proves it's a fake. That the funky signature for the registrar proves it's a fake. (If THAT was enough to prove something a fake, god help us all in the military whenever a signature's required...) That the little x's above the 'twin' and 'triplet' boxes proves it's a fake. That the X being misaligned in the 'single' box proves it's a fake, that the varying shading of the typewritten letters proves it's a fake, that the Father and mother's names being in ALL CAPS proves it's a fake. That it's on security paper proves it's fake, that the P.M. in block 5b proves it's a forgery, that the partially missing K in block 16.... you get the drift.

If you want to believe it's fake, I can't change your mind. I won't be able to, for there's no proof that'll bust your certainty that it's fake.

I believe that what you're seeing is a genuine copy. Short of seeing the original record book, I'm going to go with this. It looks real, it looks like it came from the '60s. It's not done in Microsoft Word with non-period fonts. Absent any compelling, visible (not made up or speculative) reason, as near as I can tell and as far as I'm concerned, it's the real thing.

BTW, from your 6:16 post...

I think someone added that green anti-copy cross hatch to the document, and made certain to obscure from view anything lower than that last visible line.

Sigh. As opposed to simply xeroxing the book certificate onto a sheet of security paper? Then scanning said sheet and making it into a PDF?

I've explained my reasons for thinking it's genuine, based on my own records handling experience. I know they won't suffice.

Sorry about that - but I simply can't beat that sort of thinking.