A picture is worth a thousand words.

[bcglorf]

Now if you'll notice, ALL of the above examples are white lettering on a black background. The REASON is that they are microfiche negatives. If you noticed, the last one was issued in 1979, and it was a microfiche negative.


It would be reasonable to assume that any Original record from that time would also be a microfiche negative, because that's how they stored them in those days.


It is also obvious that the Verbiage " A True and Correct Copy of the Original..." Was pretty consistent for long before and long after that 1961 time period.


Why you keep INSISTING that the weird green thing produced by Obama looks EXACTLY like these other examples, I simply cannot comprehend.

It isn't even the same COLOR for crying out loud!

It is a later date reproduction of what they have put IN their records, not an original record itself. It does not even CLAIM to be an ORIGINAL record.

No games being played here.

Not a negative - from those days. Also, you can clearly see that the verbiage that you are complaining about was not on the original because it is on a different slip of paper that was copied together.

So, yes, the document is the same. No, the reproduction and certification process is not exactly the same. Yes, the wording was different back in the 60's and 70's. Yes, the tech for making the copy was different than it is today. Yes, the new certified copy is printed on green security paper which is different than decades ago. Yes the 2011 certification wording is different than in the 60's or 70's. No, none of that seems peculiar in any way.

Amen, and more concisely said than I've been able to manage.

[Diogenes]

You are restating what I said. Notice WHAT verbiage is different on Obama's copy of EXACTLY the same document as is in each of the copies you provided.

The ONLY verbiage that is different, is the certification of the COPY, not the original document the copy is of. Every one of the owners of the copies you provided would get exactly what Obama got above if they went there today and asked for another copy of the document in the copies you presented.

Am I not getting this through some how? The only verbiage that changed is the boiler plate certifying the copy, the original documents are identical. The SOLE difference is that over time the state changed the wording they use when issuing copies of official documents. NONE of the people in your examples could get a copy today with the old verbiage that you prefer. Does that mean everyone born in Hawaii that doesn't already have a copy with your preferred verbiage is out of luck?

The verbiage used today allows manipulation. The Verbiage used previously does not. We can't see if it has been Amended. With the original verbiage you could tell instantly. The new verbiage is used to give them legal flexibility in amending the documents. It doesn't allow the truth to be nailed down.

You still haven't explained why records stored on microfiche from 1961 should have green anti-copy background? No one else's records look like that. An Anti-Copy background indicates a record made at a later date. That stuff obviously wasn't on there in 1961.

Get it?

[Diogenes]

It isn't even the same COLOR for crying out loud!

Oh for pity sake, enough already.

Each of your black and white copies are on slightly different shades of paper from each other as well. Oh horrors, different colors!!!!

The procedure for making copies has changed from the days when your examples where copied. Instead of a blurry black and white photocopy they've moved forward to very clear, well focused copies on security paper. I'm pretty sure the Hawaii civil servants would have a good chuckle though hearing your outrageous horror that it was no longer a copy of the same document because the paper the copy is now printed on is green.

Are you just jerking us all around here?

You do understand that the records were stored on Microfiche? Basically they took a picture?

Modern techniques of scanning a microfiche record are still going to show you a black and white negative of the original. Have you NEVER used a Microfiche before?

Explain how the changing procedures are going to produce a record that looks different than the one they took a picture of, and why we should somehow regard a manipulated reproduction as having the same legitimacy as a faithful reproduction?

[bcglorf]

Have you NEVER used a Microfiche before?

One of my first jobs was to write a program to take microfiche records and convert them into html indexed computerized images.

Yeah, I'm familiar.

Modern techniques of scanning a microfiche record are still going to show you a black and white negative of the original.

Unless you copy it with inverted colors again, like when the microfiche was made and thus get back the original colors on the original document. You know, like what happens every freaking day somebody gets photographs developed from negatives...

[Diogenes]

Now if you'll notice, ALL of the above examples are white lettering on a black background. The REASON is that they are microfiche negatives. If you noticed, the last one was issued in 1979, and it was a microfiche negative.


It would be reasonable to assume that any Original record from that time would also be a microfiche negative, because that's how they stored them in those days.


It is also obvious that the Verbiage " A True and Correct Copy of the Original..." Was pretty consistent for long before and long after that 1961 time period.


Why you keep INSISTING that the weird green thing produced by Obama looks EXACTLY like these other examples, I simply cannot comprehend.

It isn't even the same COLOR for crying out loud!

It is a later date reproduction of what they have put IN their records, not an original record itself. It does not even CLAIM to be an ORIGINAL record.

No games being played here.

Not a negative - from those days. Also, you can clearly see that the verbiage that you are complaining about was not on the original because it is on a different slip of paper that was copied together.

So, yes, the document is the same. No, the reproduction and certification process is not exactly the same. Yes, the wording was different back in the 60's and 70's. Yes, the tech for making the copy was different than it is today. Yes, the new certified copy is printed on green security paper which is different than decades ago. Yes the 2011 certification wording is different than in the 60's or 70's. No, none of that seems peculiar in any way.

In 1966 (5 years later) you could probably copy the original document. Eventually they got put onto microfiche, and all the copies thereafter were black and white. (Notice the 1971 birth certificate issued in 1979?) Copies of that document requested more recently are in Black and White.

So are you trying to tell me they had a color copy of Obama's lying around, and the rest of the shmucks only get a black and white copy?

Why would that be?

If YOUR theory is correct, the non-negative copy of the Nordyke certificate would have the same green anti-copy markings on the current Obama document. Funny, I don't see them in that picture.

[bcglorf]

So are you trying to tell me they had a color copy of Obama's lying around, and the rest of the shmucks only get a black and white copy?

Stop trolling.

We are telling you that Obama's black and white image was printed on colored security paper.

[Diogenes]

Now address the fact that the original copies are stored as Microfiche negatives.

Or they are stored as physical original documents, and they are black and white because like most of the Canadian government agencies I've worked with they frequently create official copies with a photcopier. Making them black and white.

But that doesn't matter anyways. Even if it's microfiche, why is it "better" to print copies in negative b/w rather than the original black text white background, and printing on colored paper instead of the precise exact shade of yellowish off white the original maybe had.

Let me try this. Forget what the document says. Let's just see if they use the same paper.





Oh my GOD! They are EXACTLY ALIKE!!!!! Who'da thought that 50 year old documents would use the same paper?

[Diogenes]

So are you trying to tell me they had a color copy of Obama's lying around, and the rest of the shmucks only get a black and white copy?

Stop trolling.

We are telling you that Obama's black and white image was printed on colored security paper.

The original wasn't.

[Diogenes]

Have you NEVER used a Microfiche before?

One of my first jobs was to write a program to take microfiche records and convert them into html indexed computerized images.

Yeah, I'm familiar.

Modern techniques of scanning a microfiche record are still going to show you a black and white negative of the original.

Unless you copy it with inverted colors again, like when the microfiche was made and thus get back the original colors on the original document. You know, like what happens every freaking day somebody gets photographs developed from negatives...

Yeah, the original colors of the Nordyke certificate look just like the colors on the Obama certificate, but that's what you would expect because they were born on almost the same day. What would be really strange is if one were plain and the other had a green cross hatch pattern on it or something.

[seedload]

I know they add a piece of paper to the bottom before they print a copy. The point is, the verbiage is always the same. It says "a True and Correct copy of the Original."

Those are legally binding words. They mean that it hasn't been screwed with. Take away those words, and you have no way of knowing that you are seeing the original document. You will see whatever has been entered into the record. Not necessarily the truth.


Now address the fact that the original copies are stored as Microfiche negatives. They are all White on Black background. Obama's is not. It's been screwed with.

You don't seem to know that that they add a piece of paper to the bottom before they print a copy. You said:

If the document was 50 years old, it would HAVE that verbiage.

Again, document 50 years old. Copy recent. Wording ADDED to the copy.

The wording is from a rubber stamp that is probably used for all kinds of documents, thus the "or abstract" part. It is not exactly the same wording because no one researched the old wording because - THEY DON"T MAKE COPIES ANYMORE! They were just doing it in this case as an exception.

The state only issues the "short form" certified computer generated copy these days. They did this as an exception to their rule.



You are really that surprised that the wording of the text attached to the document at the time of making the copy is different when they haven't done it for 10 years?!?!

[seedload]

Have you NEVER used a Microfiche before?

One of my first jobs was to write a program to take microfiche records and convert them into html indexed computerized images.

Yeah, I'm familiar.

Modern techniques of scanning a microfiche record are still going to show you a black and white negative of the original.

Unless you copy it with inverted colors again, like when the microfiche was made and thus get back the original colors on the original document. You know, like what happens every freaking day somebody gets photographs developed from negatives...

Yeah, the original colors of the Nordyke certificate look just like the colors on the Obama certificate, but that's what you would expect because they were born on almost the same day. What would be really strange is if one were plain and the other had a green cross hatch pattern on it or something.

OMG, the paper it was copied ONTO was green, not the original. It is the same paper that the short form birth certificate is NOW printed on.

[Diogenes]

Now if you'll notice, ALL of the above examples are white lettering on a black background. The REASON is that they are microfiche negatives. If you noticed, the last one was issued in 1979, and it was a microfiche negative.


It would be reasonable to assume that any Original record from that time would also be a microfiche negative, because that's how they stored them in those days.


It is also obvious that the Verbiage " A True and Correct Copy of the Original..." Was pretty consistent for long before and long after that 1961 time period.


Why you keep INSISTING that the weird green thing produced by Obama looks EXACTLY like these other examples, I simply cannot comprehend.

It isn't even the same COLOR for crying out loud!

It is a later date reproduction of what they have put IN their records, not an original record itself. It does not even CLAIM to be an ORIGINAL record.

No games being played here.

Not a negative - from those days. Also, you can clearly see that the verbiage that you are complaining about was not on the original because it is on a different slip of paper that was copied together.

So, yes, the document is the same. No, the reproduction and certification process is not exactly the same. Yes, the wording was different back in the 60's and 70's. Yes, the tech for making the copy was different than it is today. Yes, the new certified copy is printed on green security paper which is different than decades ago. Yes the 2011 certification wording is different than in the 60's or 70's. No, none of that seems peculiar in any way.

And you think it is unreasonable that a document from 1961 ought to LOOK like a document from 1961? Why on earth would anyone want to PLAY this sort of game?

If we are not going to see an unaltered original, what is the point in claiming it is one?

[Diogenes]

I know they add a piece of paper to the bottom before they print a copy. The point is, the verbiage is always the same. It says "a True and Correct copy of the Original."

Those are legally binding words. They mean that it hasn't been screwed with. Take away those words, and you have no way of knowing that you are seeing the original document. You will see whatever has been entered into the record. Not necessarily the truth.


Now address the fact that the original copies are stored as Microfiche negatives. They are all White on Black background. Obama's is not. It's been screwed with.

You don't seem to know that that they add a piece of paper to the bottom before they print a copy. You said:

If the document was 50 years old, it would HAVE that verbiage.

Again, document 50 years old. Copy recent. Wording ADDED to the copy.

The wording is from a rubber stamp that is probably used for all kinds of documents, thus the "or abstract" part. It is not exactly the same wording because no one researched the old wording because - THEY DON"T MAKE COPIES ANYMORE! They were just doing it in this case as an exception.

The state only issues the "short form" certified computer generated copy these days. They did this as an exception to their rule.


You are really that surprised that the wording of the text attached to the document at the time of making the copy is different when they haven't done it for 10 years?!?!

Ah, you got me. I knew they used a different strip. I just thought they photographed it like that when they stored it on microfiche.

You are still ignoring my point. The Original verbiage has no wiggle room for modifying the document. The New verbiage allows the document to be changed, and there is no way to tell this has occurred. Since they are never CLAIMING it is an original record, they can't be held responsible for false witness.


No body is being nailed down on what is the actual truth. Everybody has "wiggle room" and too many people are hunky dory with it.
If Nixon had tried stuff like this, he'd be in jail by now.

[D Tibbets]

I don't know why Diogenes is so fixated on this. It is stupid. The original birthcirtificate would have been on a paper. There is probably some standardization and that can change over time. But the claim that a birth cirtificate is questionable because it has the same form as another example amasing. comparing copies is also biased. The negative copies age just that, copies, done sometime after the original. To say that that invalidates a original copied with different technology is foolish. If a birth cirtificate was copied in 1975, it might be a photo negative. But to assume that this COPY is now the original and that this is the only possibly way that the original was preserved is a leap of faith. If, true , then subsequent copies would look like this- unless it was printed as a positive. If it was ascanned into a computor storage system, it might have any appearence. That a birth cirtificate was recently printed on security paper means nothing but perhaps when the copy was made. It says absolutely nothing about the original.

The copy cold have been engraved on stone. So long as it was certified as a true copy, it is as real and valid as a negative photocopy, a faxed image , a computer generated document, or a hand printed document.

Also, keep in mind that this document is meaningless. The short form released in 2008 has absolute legality. This document serves primarily as a tool to expose and embarrass the Birther's stupidity for digging themselves into this hole.

Dan Tibbets

[bcglorf]

Last try.

The colors on the microfiche or original document, whichever Hawaii stores, will look identical for Obama or anyone else born that same year. Same colors, same pretty much everything.

Copies made on green paper will be on green paper, while copies made on white paper will be on white paper and the copies will look different.

It turns out Hawaii has made the shocking and seedy move of changing their copy process from what they used back in the 70's when your copies were made.

Do you understand and agree with this statement?
If Nordyke or any of the others asked for a copy of the same document today, it would be printed on green cross hatch paper, with the same verbiage as Obama's at the bottom.