A picture is worth a thousand words.

[seedload]

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.

I am not ignoring your point. They changed policy ten years ago to not make copies of birth certificates or marriage licenses. They decided to make a copy as an exception for the President of the United States of America. They made the copy and used an official stamp that they have for other stuff.

The new stamp is used in cases of copies and abstracts. So, it applies to "copies" or "abstracts". In this case, it applies to a copy.

As far as wiggle room, they said publicly that this is a copy (one of two) so I am pretty sure that the "or abstract" wording of the stamp doesn't get them off the hook for anything.

As far as why they didn't use the old wording, I would say that the slip of paper that used to be slipped in the copier was lost when the policy changed. Since they didn't have any copies of copies laying around for reference, they probably weren't even aware of the old wording. They just used the stamp they have, which is quite reasonable, and called it a day.

This is so silly.

[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.

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.

Yeah! It's a good thing they didn't use purple swirls and bugs bunny emblems, someone might think they were pulling a fast one!

Why must the original image be tampered with?

Not only that, your assertion that it was simply copied on to green cross hatch paper doesn't make any sense.




How do you get this "boundary" effect (Looks like boundary was cut out and placed OVER the book before taking a picture.) just by copying the image of a book of records onto green crosshatch paper?

[Diogenes]

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.

If your argument is that Hawaii appears to be run by dishonest idiots, then I have no argument. (Alas, I think that is not your point.)

If your point is that everybody should just shut up and accept what Obnoxious bureaucrats and the lyingest President in History keep claiming is just as good as the original, then I simply don't comprehend your credulity.

Obama's release of this thing he claims is the original has closed the case for most people. I personally have little faith that it is the original document, and I no longer care what is on it. If they made an exception to their rules to produce it, they could have made an exception to their rules for putting it on peculiar paper. It's not like they haven't already been bothered by demands to see an unadulterated original.

If I accept it at face value, Obama is illegitimate in my opinion. If I go with the evidence I see, Obama's legitimate, and I don't give a crap about his birth certificate except for the attempts to cover it up.

You may believe whatever you wish.

[bcglorf]

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.

Yeah! It's a good thing they didn't use purple swirls and bugs bunny emblems, someone might think they were pulling a fast one!

Why must the original image be tampered with?

Not only that, your assertion that it was simply copied on to green cross hatch paper doesn't make any sense.




How do you get this "boundary" effect (Looks like boundary was cut out and placed OVER the book before taking a picture.) just by copying the image of a book of records onto green crosshatch paper?

Yep, that confirms it. Clearly they tried to pass off a poor copy that matched right down to the typeset used and would've gotten away with it too if they'd only noticed their forgery was on green crosshatched paper....

Have fun in crazyville, you don't seem interested in leaving anytime soon so enjoy your stay.

[D Tibbets]

In the photo (?), the record label that was supposed to set the date of the photo is unreliable- probably released in ~1955. And, do I understand correctly that any people in the photo has not been identified as Obama's parents? Does this photo have any purpose at all, other than as a foil for this conspiracy?

Have I missed something. I have seen several crops, where is the entire photo? Also, the crops are from at least two separate times. The album in question is not on the end table in one, and the Zebra ceramic on the table is turned around. Were the photos several minutes apart, several months apart? without acknowledging that these are two separate photos, I am even more (if that is possible) suspicious of misleading manipulation.

Is this photo 9?) a certified true copy? After all, if you are arguing about authenticity of the birth certificate, shouldn't the 'evidence' you present meet the same test?

Dan Tibbets

[Diogenes]

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

Dude, this is a STUPID discussion. (The more so since you chimed in.) Why don't you follow your own opinion and ignore it? Hmmm???? You've said enough for me to know that I should exhibit complete apathy about your opinion on this subject.

[seedload]

Not only that, your assertion that it was simply copied on to green cross hatch paper doesn't make any sense.

Actually, that image shows why my assertion DOES make sense. The cross hatch pattern doesn't bend with the book, because the cross hatch is not on the book, it is on the paper that the book is copied onto.

How do you get this "boundary" effect (Looks like boundary was cut out and placed OVER the book before taking a picture.) just by copying the image of a book of records onto green crosshatch paper?

I don't think I understand what you are saying. I think you are talking about the fact that there was some masking used when the copy was made. A frame was placed on the copier, sized to the size of the record. The book was then placed on the frame and the copy was made.

[Diogenes]

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.

I am not ignoring your point. They changed policy ten years ago to not make copies of birth certificates or marriage licenses. They decided to make a copy as an exception for the President of the United States of America. They made the copy and used an official stamp that they have for other stuff.

Really? They used an "OFFICIAL" rubber stamp? Well alrighty then! And a policy Change? SURE! Why should anyone worry about veracity when we have things like Rubber stamps and policy changes?

Take the red pill dude.

The new stamp is used in cases of copies and abstracts. So, it applies to "copies" or "abstracts". In this case, it applies to a copy.

A Genuuiiine Oofffficial stamp! How did Article II ever stand a chance? Hawaiian Bureaucrats are now in charge of the ministry of truth. You can only see what filters through their process.

As far as wiggle room, they said publicly that this is a copy (one of two) so I am pretty sure that the "or abstract" wording of the stamp doesn't get them off the hook for anything.

What, do English words mean something different in the Hawaiian Legal system? The new words give them carte blanche to cover up adoptions or amendments, and only THEY are allowed to say what is the truth.

As far as why they didn't use the old wording, I would say that the slip of paper that used to be slipped in the copier was lost when the policy changed. Since they didn't have any copies of copies laying around for reference, they probably weren't even aware of the old wording. They just used the stamp they have, which is quite reasonable, and called it a day.

This is so silly.

They lost their piece of paper so they replaced it with a new OFFICIAL rubber stamp?

Got it.

[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

Dude, this is a STUPID discussion. (The more so since you chimed in.) Why don't you follow your own opinion and ignore it? Hmmm???? You've said enough for me to know that I should exhibit complete apathy about your opinion on this subject.

As I recall, I said I would try to ignore it. But sometimes the magnitude of the stupidity and bigotry overwhelms my taciturnity.

PS: If you are actually reading my posts, please explain the nature of the two photos that you took crops from. What evidence do you have that they are temporally close together. Or, are yiu going to claim that the crops are only from one photo?

Dan Tibbets

[Diogenes]

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.

Yeah! It's a good thing they didn't use purple swirls and bugs bunny emblems, someone might think they were pulling a fast one!

Why must the original image be tampered with?

Not only that, your assertion that it was simply copied on to green cross hatch paper doesn't make any sense.




How do you get this "boundary" effect (Looks like boundary was cut out and placed OVER the book before taking a picture.) just by copying the image of a book of records onto green crosshatch paper?

Yep, that confirms it. Clearly they tried to pass off a poor copy that matched right down to the typeset used and would've gotten away with it too if they'd only noticed their forgery was on green crosshatched paper....

Have fun in crazyville, you don't seem interested in leaving anytime soon so enjoy your stay.

Cheap and peculiar gimicks don't impress me. Glad for you that you feel differently.

[Diogenes]

In the photo (?), the record label that was supposed to set the date of the photo is unreliable- probably released in ~1955. And, do I understand correctly that any people in the photo has not been identified as Obama's parents? Does this photo have any purpose at all, other than as a foil for this conspiracy?

Have I missed something. I have seen several crops, where is the entire photo? Also, the crops are from at least two separate times. The album in question is not on the end table in one, and the Zebra ceramic on the table is turned around. Were the photos several minutes apart, several months apart? without acknowledging that these are two separate photos, I am even more (if that is possible) suspicious of misleading manipulation.

Is this photo 9?) a certified true copy? After all, if you are arguing about authenticity of the birth certificate, shouldn't the 'evidence' you present meet the same test?

Dan Tibbets

You're batting a thousand dude.

[seedload]

In the photo (?), the record label that was supposed to set the date of the photo is unreliable- probably released in ~1955. And, do I understand correctly that any people in the photo has not been identified as Obama's parents? Does this photo have any purpose at all, other than as a foil for this conspiracy?

Have I missed something. I have seen several crops, where is the entire photo? Also, the crops are from at least two separate times. The album in question is not on the end table in one, and the Zebra ceramic on the table is turned around. Were the photos several minutes apart, several months apart? without acknowledging that these are two separate photos, I am even more (if that is possible) suspicious of misleading manipulation.

Is this photo 9?) a certified true copy? After all, if you are arguing about authenticity of the birth certificate, shouldn't the 'evidence' you present meet the same test?

Dan Tibbets

Catching you up.

The photos are a series of naked photos of a naked young woman very close in appearance to Obama's mother. If it is in fact Obama's mother, she would have been 17 or younger at the time.. I believe that makes it child porn even though it is old and potentially historic. Distribution of this is illegal, to my understanding.

Anyway, the theory is that since it is Obama's mother being photographed naked in an apparently Christian home, that she obviously got knocked up by the guy taking the shots and therefore, Obama can't be the son of a Muslim. His dad ain't his dad. Dad must be Frank Davis, poet, jazz fan, porn lover, and a friend of the families. Plus, Obama has Frank's jutting jaw. Therefore, Obama is not the son of a foreign Muslim. Rather he is the son of an American Communist.

That's the theory.

Of course, we were supposed to still be waiting for more info from the investigatin' that was going on.

[bcglorf]

Yeah! It's a good thing they didn't use purple swirls and bugs bunny emblems, someone might think they were pulling a fast one!

Why must the original image be tampered with?

Not only that, your assertion that it was simply copied on to green cross hatch paper doesn't make any sense.




How do you get this "boundary" effect (Looks like boundary was cut out and placed OVER the book before taking a picture.) just by copying the image of a book of records onto green crosshatch paper?

Yep, that confirms it. Clearly they tried to pass off a poor copy that matched right down to the typeset used and would've gotten away with it too if they'd only noticed their forgery was on green crosshatched paper....

Have fun in crazyville, you don't seem interested in leaving anytime soon so enjoy your stay.

Cheap and peculiar gimicks don't impress me. Glad for you that you feel differently.

Funny, you seemed quite impressed by nude pics of someone's mommy as evidence for citizen ship. I'm not sure that gimmicaks get any more peculiar. They certainly don't get any cheaper.

[seedload]

Final post here.

In 2008, Obama produced a legal and certified birth record which was good enough for anyone that mattered.

In 2011, Obama produced a legal and certified copy of the birth record on file which was good enough for anyone that mattered.

No one here matters

regards

[Diogenes]

Not only that, your assertion that it was simply copied on to green cross hatch paper doesn't make any sense.

Actually, that image shows why my assertion DOES make sense. The cross hatch pattern doesn't bend with the book, because the cross hatch is not on the book, it is on the paper that the book is copied onto.

How do you get this "boundary" effect (Looks like boundary was cut out and placed OVER the book before taking a picture.) just by copying the image of a book of records onto green crosshatch paper?

I don't think I understand what you are saying. I think you are talking about the fact that there was some masking used when the copy was made. A frame was placed on the copier, sized to the size of the record. The book was then placed on the frame and the copy was made.

Great! At least you can sometimes see the same thing I can see. A mask was placed on the copier, very good. The mask covers up the lower portion so that nothing which is written there is visible. It overlays it. It blends in so well on the bottom of the document that you can't even see a seam.

Does it matter? I don't know, maybe not. And you know what? I don't even give a crap. I personally don't consider the copy shown as good enough, I am happy for all of you who think it is, green paper and all, weasel words and all. I do believe the Mother, place and time of birth are correct because I doubt they would fake the doctor's signature, beyond that, I don't know.

I think we will eventually know if what is shown is the truth or not, but as long as they play silly games, I am not going to be very concerned by what they assert or attest. (Hawaii or Obama.)

Those who disagree are entitled to their opinion, even if it is based on faith in people who have given very little reason to believe in their veracity.