PDA

View Full Version : The Birth Certificate Redux


Golf and Horses
03-12-2012, 05:32 PM
Mr. President....ummm...about that birth certificate....
http://www.brasschecktv.com/videos/obama-watch/maricopa-county-sheriff-joe-arpaio-sayspresident-obamas-documents-are-not-authentic-.html

Greyfox
03-12-2012, 06:09 PM
Pravda, Russia's main newspaper, is wondering why the American mainstream media has virtually ignored these accusations.

Op ed columnist Dianna Cotter has stated:

"The silence from the main stream media in the US is deafening. It almost seems as if the press is terrified to even think the question, let alone ask it: Is the President a criminal? The press in Arpaio's audience were certainly asking him to state precisely that, yet nowhere has the question been asked of the White House by the press. Instead the American Press is aggressively protecting the presumed President of the United States, pushing the fraud upon both America and the world, supporting a man who may well have usurped the office."

More opinion at link : http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/07-03-2012/120708-arizona_sheriff_obama-0/

NJ Stinks
03-12-2012, 06:26 PM
Pravda, Russia's main newspaper, is wondering why the American mainstream media has virtually ignored these accusations.



Pravda sounds a lot like the New York Post.

Greyfox
03-12-2012, 06:33 PM
Pravda sounds a lot like the New York Post.

Maybe it is. It's supposedly an English version whether or not it has actual ties to Pravda in Russia, I can't be sure. It's English version is PravdaR.U.

PaceAdvantage
03-12-2012, 07:00 PM
Here's the link to the six short videos, and the entire press conference itself:

http://www.westernjournalism.com/sheriff-joe-arpaio-obama-eligibility-investigation-results-live-stream/

boxcar
03-12-2012, 07:29 PM
PA, I'm curious: Did you watch the vids, and if so have you formulated an opinion one way or the other?

Boxcar

PaceAdvantage
03-12-2012, 07:39 PM
PA, I'm curious: Did you watch the vids, and if so have you formulated an opinion one way or the other?

BoxcarI have watched the videos, although I did not watch the video of the entire press conference (I only watched up to the point where they themselves start playing the six separate videos also shown in that link).

They present a compelling case, and as much as people like to mock Arizona and Sheriff Joe, the men behind the investigation are all highly trained law enforcement officials, which gives additional weight towards their conclusions.

I'm still a little confused on the evidence presented regarding the Selective Service Registration form controversy. The stamp in particular.

Greyfox
03-12-2012, 08:03 PM
I've watched the video's now as well. (Thanks for posting them PA.)
Unfortunately, my computer literacy is very low and I have to assume that they seem to have uncovered "something's rotten in Denmark" about the BC.
Surely forensic FBI computer geek types could check this out, but unless they're pressured, I doubt that they will.

TJDave
03-12-2012, 08:21 PM
They present a compelling case, and as much as people like to mock Arizona and Sheriff Joe, the men behind the investigation are all highly trained law enforcement officials, which gives additional weight towards their conclusions.


None of this means anything. Those for whom this is an issue have already decided how they will vote and the Supremes have said they want no part of it. Obama will still be the president come election day and will be listed on the ballot in all 57 states. ;)

boxcar
03-12-2012, 08:27 PM
None of this means anything. Those for whom this is an issue have already decided how they will vote and the Supremes have said they want no part of it. Obama will still be the president come election day and will be listed on the ballot in all 57 states. ;)

"Mental masturbation"? Wow. What a great reason for perpetuating a fraud who is openly mocking the American people.

Hopefully, something can be done on the state level to keep Obama's name off the ballot.

Boxcar

hcap
03-12-2012, 08:28 PM
Name of this thread should be The Birth Certificate Reduxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

As in Roman numerals

boxcar
03-12-2012, 08:31 PM
I have watched the videos, although I did not watch the video of the entire press conference (I only watched up to the point where they themselves start playing the six separate videos also shown in that link).

They present a compelling case, and as much as people like to mock Arizona and Sheriff Joe, the men behind the investigation are all highly trained law enforcement officials, which gives additional weight towards their conclusions.

I'm still a little confused on the evidence presented regarding the Selective Service Registration form controversy. The stamp in particular.

My wife plays around with graphics quite a bit. Not an expert, mind you -- but a pretty darn good amateur who understands the graphics' parlance, what it means, etc.. She said months ago that the BC was a phony.

Boxcar

boxcar
03-12-2012, 08:33 PM
Name of this thread should be The Birth Certificate Reduxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

As in Roman numerals

Great defense. Thanks for your valuable input. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Boxcar
P.S. Yeah, yeah, I know...it's another settled issue, right? :rolleyes:

hcap
03-12-2012, 09:06 PM
Great defense. Thanks for your valuable input. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Boxcar
P.S. Yeah, yeah, I know...it's another settled issue, right? :rolleyes:What'sdaMattaBunky? Gotta renew your subscription to WorldNutDaily, and can't decide to send them dollars or sheckels?

Btw, I am not 100% certain it is settled, but it is getting long in the tooth. About the age of The 6,000 year old earth.

Give or take.

bigmack
03-12-2012, 09:13 PM
What'sdaMattaBunky? Gotta renew your subscription to WorldNutDaily, and can't decide to send them dollars or sheckels?

How can you be so outraged at the use of blood libel and not know how to spell shekels?

JustRalph
03-12-2012, 09:35 PM
They came to the same conclusion that many did when the document was presented.

This is just a "for the record" objection so Arizona can use it in court in the future. That's all it is. Arizona has several cases going with the DOJ and they did this to use legally in the future, should they find a way to invalidate sanctions leveled by the DOJ. It's all smoke and mirrors for the lawyers in the future.

I see it as an end run around a hurried court date, or perhaps a matter to use as a delaying tactic should they end up in front of a sympathetic judge. Somebody had to make the "official" determination and Sheriff Joe is the highest profile guy to do it.

hcap
03-12-2012, 09:36 PM
How can you be so outraged at the use of blood libel and not know how to spell shekels?My spellchecker was created 6,000 years ago along with the rest of the Universe, as box would say, all in one piece :cool:

bigmack
03-12-2012, 10:12 PM
This vid has a better explanation of the irregularities than the others.

2eOfYwYyS_c

mostpost
03-12-2012, 10:17 PM
Joe Arpaio is a moron. His investigation pointed out the same things that were pointed out months ago when the document was first released. All of which were proven false at that time.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/29/expert-says-obamas-birth-certificate-legit/

Arpaio is a bully and a bigot who uses the power of his office to target those he is bigoted against. He is also really stupid if he thinks most people won't see this for what it is. I said most people. There will always be those who will believe what they want to believe, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
For the names of those people, search the 72 billion threads on this subject in this forum. :bang: :bang: :bang: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Tom
03-12-2012, 10:27 PM
What happened to all that world-wide respect for Obama we heard wbout before the election?

Looks like Obama is more of an ass-clown to the world.
This just in...Kenya says he was NOT born there, and if we keep saying that, there will be WAR!!!!!




:lol::lol:

Greyfox
03-12-2012, 11:15 PM
There will always be those who will believe what they want to believe, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.


Sorry Mostie, I'm still undecided on this issue.
The problem that I'm having is that there isn't overwhelming evidence to the contrary, as you say. If anything there is evidence building up that something fraudulent may have taken place. I'll wait and see before ditching that idea.

PaceAdvantage
03-12-2012, 11:45 PM
Joe Arpaio is a moron. His investigation pointed out the same things that were pointed out months ago when the document was first released. All of which were proven false at that time.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/29/expert-says-obamas-birth-certificate-legit/

Arpaio is a bully and a bigot who uses the power of his office to target those he is bigoted against. He is also really stupid if he thinks most people won't see this for what it is. I said most people. There will always be those who will believe what they want to believe, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
For the names of those people, search the 72 billion threads on this subject in this forum. :bang: :bang: :bang: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:That link you post...where they claim that the use of OCR software is the cause of the "artifacts and anomalies" is pretty well addressed by Sheriff Joe and his band of merry men...do you have anything to dispute the empirical evidence they presented in those videos?

You must admit that this now has moved beyond "lone nuts on the Internet" making the case...these guys are trained law enforcement officials for the biggest county in the state of Arizona. Hardly a case of just "some guy with some website and a webcam."

hcap
03-13-2012, 12:29 AM
How long until The Donald jumps in?

FantasticDan
03-13-2012, 12:30 AM
They present a compelling case, and as much as people like to mock Arizona and Sheriff Joe, the men behind the investigation are all highly trained law enforcement officials, which gives additional weight towards their conclusions.
:lol: :D :lol: :D :lol:

I know you didn't intend that as a joke, but it's just really, really funny.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/03/birtherism-is-the-least-of-sheriff-joe-arpaios-sins/254145/

PaceAdvantage
03-13-2012, 12:40 AM
:lol: :D :lol: :D :lol:

I know you didn't intend that as a joke, but it's just really, really funny.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/03/birtherism-is-the-least-of-sheriff-joe-arpaios-sins/254145/I thought you guys were all about keeping an open mind?

No comment on what was presented in the videos? I'd be happy to read any links that actually discredit what was put on display in those videos. Like how the control document they use for comparison purposes was wrong in some way. How what they claim can't possibly be true, and here's why. You know, actually addressing what they put out there. Stuff like that.

You link me to somebody making a case against Sheriff Joe going back as far as 1992? What does that really show me? Not much...

It's probably best that you avoid threads that you have no interest in participating in, other than hogging bandwidth with the use of innumerable emoticons.

NJ Stinks
03-13-2012, 01:00 AM
I thought you guys were all about keeping an open mind?

No comment on what was presented in the videos? I'd be happy to read any links that actually discredit what was put on display in those videos. Like how the control document they use for comparison purposes was wrong in some way. How what they claim can't possibly be true, and here's why. You know, actually addressing what they put out there. Stuff like that.

You link me to somebody making a case against Sheriff Joe going back as far as 1992? What does that really show me? Not much...

It's probably best that you avoid threads that you have no interest in participating in, other than hogging bandwidth with the use of innumerable emoticons.

Speaking for FantasticDan, so sorry, Mr. Trump. (Stick Out Tongue icon will not be inserted here because I read what you wrote!)

PaceAdvantage
03-13-2012, 01:02 AM
I'd be curious what the people who blamed the anomalies on OCR software have to say about the presentation given by the law enforcement officers....

Or are they stumped?

chickenhead
03-13-2012, 01:54 AM
I'd be curious what the people who blamed the anomalies on OCR software have to say about the presentation given by the law enforcement officers....

Or are they stumped?

To reduce my line of thinking to its most basic...

I would not spend any time thinking anything about the artifacts in the image matter in the way presented here....is in the simple knowledge that in order to create a foolproof forgery with no identifiable digital processing artifacts is so excruciatingly simple, that any forger would actually do so.

You print the image out, and you scan it back in. Just like they did with their control document. Doing so erases the digital history of the document as you've cycled it through the digital > analog > digital process. You would do it multiple times. It smooths everything out and you get one flat and final analog to digital conversion in the end.

You wouldn't release the digital master of the most interesting forgery in the world, it's a crazy idea, but so far as I can tell that's the contention.

Whoever processed it wasn't concerned about being caught, or being found out to have cleaned it up or optimized it, of whatever. They do not care. They aren't sneaky about it, at all. It has multiple layers, it has been post processed, and was released as such.

That doesn't point to a forgery, it points to it being cleaned up prior to release, by someone who isn't concerned about anything, because its actually real.

Maybe they embedded secret codes and shit into it. Maybe they moved shit around to drive certain people crazy. Who knows. But it's purposeful, not an oops, we accidentally posted the digital master of the forgery.

chickenhead
03-13-2012, 02:37 AM
not to mention...this would totally destroy my hopes that things actually do work somewhat like they do in the movies...

President wants to forge one of the simpler, more easily forged documents in existence:

Two old guys from NSA and one young tech genius from CIA get together for six weeks. Guys that know a thing or two. The guys that forge all the other shit that looks real or field agents die.

But this is big. No room for mistakes.

They scour the markets in eastern europe and find the actual vintage equipment used to print those old Hawaii birth certificates, now in use printing out time cards in Hungary. They buy them, through a bearded agent.

They find an unused ream of period correct paper, same weight, same color, leveling out a jewelers desk in Haifa. They steal it.

They perform electron scanning in order to determine the specific makeup of the ink used, and determine it comes from a rare type of squid found only off the cost of Kona that is thought to be extinct. They find one anyway (the last one), and squeeze the juices out of it.

And these three glorious basterds actually make the President an actual damn Hawaiian birth certificate, circa whenever.

And afterwards, both NSA guys have heart attacks within 4 hrs of each other...and the tech guy is in a car crash....but not before he mails a mysterious package to his old college buddy...

bigmack
03-13-2012, 02:56 AM
Chick is like that oddball dude in the basement we've all known.

Talk about a killjoy on this potential caper.

It's the classic... "It's too easy to forge so why bother forging it poorly" angle.

http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ljht7c5TYG1qe0eclo1_r5_500.gif

PaceAdvantage
03-13-2012, 03:25 AM
To reduce my line of thinking to its most basic...

I would not spend any time thinking anything about the artifacts in the image matter in the way presented here....is in the simple knowledge that in order to create a foolproof forgery with no identifiable digital processing artifacts is so excruciatingly simple, that any forger would actually do so.

You print the image out, and you scan it back in. Just like they did with their control document. Doing so erases the digital history of the document as you've cycled it through the digital > analog > digital process. You would do it multiple times. It smooths everything out and you get one flat and final analog to digital conversion in the end.

You wouldn't release the digital master of the most interesting forgery in the world, it's a crazy idea, but so far as I can tell that's the contention.

Whoever processed it wasn't concerned about being caught, or being found out to have cleaned it up or optimized it, of whatever. They do not care. They aren't sneaky about it, at all. It has multiple layers, it has been post processed, and was released as such.

That doesn't point to a forgery, it points to it being cleaned up prior to release, by someone who isn't concerned about anything, because its actually real.

Maybe they embedded secret codes and shit into it. Maybe they moved shit around to drive certain people crazy. Who knows. But it's purposeful, not an oops, we accidentally posted the digital master of the forgery.That doesn't address the acceptance of the "well, it's OCR-related anomalies."

People accepted that as the explanation. Now we see what OCR is supposed to do in those videos, and the effect it's supposed to have clearly isn't present on the file released on the White House website.

I mean, you can throw whatever theory you wish out there...that they "wouldn't have done such a poor job..."

Or maybe, they did such a poor job on purpose, thinking nobody would ever believe they would actually release something so piss poor, thus, like chicky says, IT HAS TO BE REAL! :lol:

PsyOps at its finest... :eek:

I mean, just look at the car chickenhead drives!

LJFj6jfeus4

Greyfox
03-13-2012, 10:47 AM
Whoever processed it wasn't concerned about being caught, or being found out to have cleaned it up or optimized it, of whatever.



1. You are agreeing that the document has been processed, for whatever reason, by someone.

2. You say that the person wasn't concerned because "it is real."

3. The alternative explanation would be that if the document was doctored,
the forger did not realize how to make the identifiable digital artifacts foolproof.
In effect, an altered document was processed by an incompetent.

Tom
03-13-2012, 11:07 AM
Break out the damn original and be done with this all.
What is so hard about that?

mostpost
03-13-2012, 03:32 PM
Here is an article that does a much better job than I could raising questions about the validity of the so-called investigation.
http://rcradioblog.wordpress.com/2012/03/05/michael-zullo-is-afraid-to-appear-on-rc-radio/

Basically the article states that Mike Zullo was invited to appear on RC radio and accepted, but later backed out on orders of Jerome Corsi-not Sheriff Arpaio, Jerome Corsi.

The article also presented several questions which the Author wished to ask Zullo.

Some of those are:
Could you briefly describe the mission of the Cold Case Posse?
The answer to that is simple. It was to create a phony investigation that would find the results they wanted to find. The investigators were volunteers. Would you want volunteers conducting an investigation into a crime at your home? And that name. "Cold Case Posse :rolleyes: Is this an official investigation or an old "Hopalong Cassidy" movie?

Did you contact any officials at the White House or the State of Hawaii as part of your investigation?
That is something I have been wondering about. Obama requested a copy of his Long Form Certificate. That was mailed to him. It was scanned and put on line. If there were differences between that and the original, would not someone from whatever department in Hawaii have noticed the differences and commented? If he never sent for the document wouldn't someone have said so?

Did you attempt to obtain verification as an official government body of the place of the President’s birth under Hawaii statute 338-18(g)(4) that allows government attorneys to seek official verification of vital records information for purposes of legal proceedings. If so what was the response?
Apparently the Maricopa County Sheriff's Department has a legal right to view the original paper document as part of an official proceeding. They did not do so. I wonder why. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Did you contact Ivan Zatkovich, Neal Krawetz, Jean-Claude Trembley, or John Woodman as part of the investigation? If not why not? Did you pick only “experts” who support a conclusion you had already reached?
Of course they did not. You don't want actual experts on a witch hunt.

Did you contact any of the reporters who were at the White House briefing on April 27, 2011 who handled a paper document? That would include WND’s own reporter Les Kinsolving.
All of these electronic forgery theories leave out the "Inconvenient Truth" that people have seen the original paper document.

You guys really need to stop embarrassing yourselves with this nonsense.

bigmack
03-13-2012, 03:36 PM
You guys really need to stop embarrassing yourselves with this nonsense.
This, coming from the biggest Water Boy in history who 'went to bat' for BO, claiming Hawaii is part of Asia.

mostpost
03-13-2012, 03:36 PM
That link you post...where they claim that the use of OCR software is the cause of the "artifacts and anomalies" is pretty well addressed by Sheriff Joe and his band of merry men...do you have anything to dispute the empirical evidence they presented in those videos?

You must admit that this now has moved beyond "lone nuts on the Internet" making the case...these guys are trained law enforcement officials for the biggest county in the state of Arizona. Hardly a case of just "some guy with some website and a webcam."

I am the furthest you can get from an expert on OCR and how documents are scanned. I am sure we will eventually get a response detailing why the CCP is wrong on these allegations. Or why their so called facts are simply made up.
I will keep an eye out and keep you informed. :kiss:

Greyfox
03-13-2012, 03:51 PM
Or why their so called facts are simply made up.


The question remains: "Who is making facts up?"
The President or his accusers?

Tom is correct. Show the original certificate.
There are serious doubts about the bona fide nature of the one on display.

Personally, I'm not a big fan of the "Birther Movement."
Politically, it makes a segment of the "Right" look like wingnuts, although indeed they may be onto something.
This President has performed so poorly with respect to jobs, energy, the various wars, the economy, the Gulf Oil leak, the Keystone Pipeline and the National Debt, the decline of the dollar, that he does not deserve another chance in Office, even if he was born at the foot of The Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C..

Tom
03-13-2012, 03:57 PM
Maybe Obama can't show anyone the original because it was LOST IN THE MAIL! :lol::lol::lol:

johnhannibalsmith
03-13-2012, 04:00 PM
... it was LOST IN THE MAIL! :lol::lol::lol:

Ji-cT58rgNc

whiptastic
03-13-2012, 04:11 PM
Maybe I can help...I am, after all, from the internet.

The file that was released was an optimized PDF. Basically, what that means is the program used to convert the scanned image from it's original form to the PDF (Portable Document Format) applied different algorithms to different parts of the image and then "published the results". The reason this is done is to create a smaller document than would other wise be possible using a traditional (older) PDF.

Think of it this way... scan something, say a picture of a horse in the winner's circle. The image is comprised of different things. The raw format of the scan can be converted to something smaller, like a JPEG or TIFF (both are compressed data formats). The difference between this and the optimized PDF is that different processes are used at different places in the PDF (layers), whereas the whole picture is processed by the same algorithm in, say, a JPEG.

This is why there are "layers" in the PDF. The document was scanned, and then fed through a program (I would imagine some Adobe product) where it was "optimized" using its proprietary functions. This was then reassembled into a single PDF file. The thing is that PDF is not the same as JPEG or other image format. The layers you see in the videos were assembled by a program as is suggested. The thing is that this isn't some nefarious skulduggery, but rather an intended effect of the software. In layman's terms, Adobe made it better for you. All of the artifacts and what not described in the video are a result of this conversion process.

As an aside, you could create a simple PDF in a similar way from a JPEG image of the document simply by wrapping the picture in the PDF header/footer and it would net out the same (only it would be a bigger size and a bit klunkier). You could release it as a JPEG or TIFF, too... but those formats also have artifacts. You could release the raw scan data, but then that would be huge and the general public would have to convert it to something readable... So, there you go.

whiptastic
03-13-2012, 04:32 PM
So, I went and looked at the PDF from the Whitehouse website and it was made on a Mac using Quartz PDFContext, not an Adobe product. It looks like it was a direct "save as..." from the scanner.

bigmack
03-13-2012, 04:47 PM
So, I went and looked at the PDF from the Whitehouse website and it was made on a Mac using Quartz PDFContext, not an Adobe product. It looks like it was a direct "save as..." from the scanner.
How does that fit with your previous theorem?

whiptastic
03-13-2012, 04:54 PM
It works out the same way, just instead of blaming Adobe we should blame Apple. It's just a bunch of dumb compression routines picking and choosing.

FantasticDan
03-13-2012, 06:09 PM
It's just a bunch of dumb compression routines picking and choosing.Which jives nicely with the fact that birthers are a bunch of dummies who, at one time or another, have suffered prolonged head compression. :ThmbUp: :p

chickenhead
03-13-2012, 06:34 PM
It works out the same way, just instead of blaming Adobe we should blame Apple. It's just a bunch of dumb compression routines picking and choosing.

Not sure I believe that the teapartypowerhour youtube channel would have missed such a simple explanation in the search for truth.

bigmack
03-13-2012, 07:32 PM
Not sure I believe that the teapartypowerhour youtube channel would have missed such a simple explanation in the search for truth.
What explanation do you have for over 50% of Democrats believing 9/11 was an inside job?

Who's more nuts, Truthers or Birthers?

PaceAdvantage
03-13-2012, 07:34 PM
Maybe I can help...I am, after all, from the internet.

The file that was released was an optimized PDF. Basically, what that means is the program used to convert the scanned image from it's original form to the PDF (Portable Document Format) applied different algorithms to different parts of the image and then "published the results". The reason this is done is to create a smaller document than would other wise be possible using a traditional (older) PDF.

Think of it this way... scan something, say a picture of a horse in the winner's circle. The image is comprised of different things. The raw format of the scan can be converted to something smaller, like a JPEG or TIFF (both are compressed data formats). The difference between this and the optimized PDF is that different processes are used at different places in the PDF (layers), whereas the whole picture is processed by the same algorithm in, say, a JPEG.

This is why there are "layers" in the PDF. The document was scanned, and then fed through a program (I would imagine some Adobe product) where it was "optimized" using its proprietary functions. This was then reassembled into a single PDF file. The thing is that PDF is not the same as JPEG or other image format. The layers you see in the videos were assembled by a program as is suggested. The thing is that this isn't some nefarious skulduggery, but rather an intended effect of the software. In layman's terms, Adobe made it better for you. All of the artifacts and what not described in the video are a result of this conversion process.

As an aside, you could create a simple PDF in a similar way from a JPEG image of the document simply by wrapping the picture in the PDF header/footer and it would net out the same (only it would be a bigger size and a bit klunkier). You could release it as a JPEG or TIFF, too... but those formats also have artifacts. You could release the raw scan data, but then that would be huge and the general public would have to convert it to something readable... So, there you go.All of what you just wrote was directly addressed in the link I posted that contained the videos from the Maricopa County investigation.

Did you view the videos? I'd be interested in your take on how they presented all the stuff you just wrote about.

I'm actually pretty astonished you wrote what you did given the fact that it is directly addressed by this investigation.

PaceAdvantage
03-13-2012, 07:35 PM
Not sure I believe that the teapartypowerhour youtube channel would have missed such a simple explanation in the search for truth.Was all this not addressed in the videos? If you're going to participate in the discussion, at least watch the videos. Then perhaps we won't be repeating the obvious...

They went over this "optimization" process...the very one whiptastic talks about in his/her reply.

They present clearly that their optimized document behaves RADICALLY differently from the document presented by the White House (which according to some, was also optimized, and this accounts for the anomalies that are seen).

They seem to concentrate on the fact that the green background in the official White House release is all contained in one layer. The all important date and registrar's stamp are also contained each in their own single layer. This simply should not happen when a document has been optimized. Optimization tends to create many, many, many layers...but only nine are found on the official White House file.

In case you're too lazy, it's video #4 at the following link. It's less then a five minute video...I'd love to get whip's take on it...

http://www.westernjournalism.com/sheriff-joe-arpaio-obama-eligibility-investigation-results-live-stream/

sammy the sage
03-13-2012, 07:45 PM
the cow's OUTTA the barn... :lol:

PaceAdvantage
03-13-2012, 07:48 PM
Here is an article that does a much better job than I could raising questions about the validity of the so-called investigation.
http://rcradioblog.wordpress.com/2012/03/05/michael-zullo-is-afraid-to-appear-on-rc-radio/These are all excellent questions. However, are they valid questions (you're assuming much in a couple of these questions...you realize that, don't you)?

For instance, weren't we already told that only Obama could request a copy or a viewing of his actual birth certificate?

What exactly does this mean:Did you attempt to obtain verification as an official government body of the place of the President’s birth under Hawaii statute 338-18(g)(4) that allows government attorneys to seek official verification of vital records information for purposes of legal proceedings. If so what was the response?Does it mean they can call and ask? Hasn't this been done multiple times already? And hasn't a Hawaiian official already confirmed the President's Birth Certificate?

You aren't telling me that someone from the Arizona Attorney General's office could request a copy or an actual viewing of the original document, are you? I thought we've been through this a million times already that only Obama himself could do that under Hawaiian law.

whiptastic
03-13-2012, 08:19 PM
I watched the one that (I think) Tom <er... Bigmack> posted. He said that one was a good summary of all the technical stuff. I'll take a look at the others when I get a minute.

PaceAdvantage
03-13-2012, 08:38 PM
I watched the one that (I think) Tom <er... Bigmack> posted. He said that one was a good summary of all the technical stuff. I'll take a look at the others when I get a minute.Video #4 directly addresses the whole optimizing issue. Again, I'm curious on your take.

chickenhead
03-13-2012, 08:42 PM
Was all this not addressed in the videos? If you're going to participate in the discussion, at least watch the videos. Then perhaps we won't be repeating the obvious...

Easy big fella -- I watched all the videos before I posted anything in this thread.

Being that it is apparently quite easy to see what SW was actually used in the document posted by the Whitehouse, wouldn't a worthwhile "control" of the type used in the demonstration be to actually use the same piece of SW, at the very least?

And maybe use it on a real Hawaiian birth certificate? There must be a Hawaiian down with the cause, for science..

Wouldn't the very idea of a control be to prove that a real document, processed in the same exact way -- somehow looks different than what was posted by the Whitehouse?

Otherwise, what in the hell exactly are you controlling for? I watched the videos, I'm at a loss what your answer is for that.

Is a valid control too much to ask from a crack cold case squad who wants to post on the teapartypowerhour, before we begin demanding from each other we accept conclusions from said video, without question as to whether anything in the video is in fact relevant in any way?

Because, you know, IS IT?

PaceAdvantage
03-13-2012, 08:46 PM
Easy big fella -- I watched all the videos before I posted anything in this thread.

Being that it is apparently quite easy to see what SW was actually used in the document posted by the Whitehouse, wouldn't a worthwhile "control" of the type used in the demonstration be to actually use the same piece of SW, at the very least?

And maybe use it on a real Hawaiian birth certificate? There must be a Hawaiian down with the cause, for science..

Isn't the very idea of a control be to prove that a real document, processed in the same exact way -- somehow looks different than what was posted?

Is an valid control too much to ask from a crack cold case squad who wants to post on the teapartypowerhour, before we begin demanding from each other we accept conclusions from said video, without question as to whether anything in the video is in fact relevant in any way?

Because, you know, IS IT?I never said we should accept anything. But your last reply made it seem that none of this was discussed in the videos that were presented....when in fact Video #4 is all about the subject of optimization and I believe Video #3 is all about OCR.

I'm just looking for resident experts in OCR and Optimization to weigh in. You bring up a good point about the control. Do we know they didn't use the same software? Do we know what difference it would make to scan the actual document as opposed to what they did (since they have no access to the actual document, it kind of makes that kind of control next to impossible).

Their case would have been much stronger had they scanned a Hawaiian birth certificate from that era (didn't have to be Obama's...)

Tom
03-13-2012, 09:25 PM
Produce the real one and shut us up.
Simple.

So simple, even a democrat can do it.


I am reminded of the phony document about Bush that the left held up as the Holy Grail not too long ago.

chickenhead
03-13-2012, 10:08 PM
So I've created my own control document for my birth certificate. The "real one" should look exactly like this, because its my control.

Once I get my "real one" scanned in, we can compare and see if my momma has been lying to me all these years about what's what.

http://i41.tinypic.com/2uhbl8w.jpg

While I refuse to mail my real one to anyone, the above is available upon request for a small shipping and handling fee.

johnhannibalsmith
03-13-2012, 10:23 PM
Hmmmmmmmmm... forgery....

chickenhead
03-13-2012, 10:37 PM
“A paranoid is someone who knows a little of what's going on. A psychotic is a guy who's just found out what's going on.”
― William S. Burroughs

whiptastic
03-13-2012, 10:58 PM
Video #4 directly addresses the whole optimizing issue. Again, I'm curious on your take.

OK. I took a look at videos 1-4. There are some problems with the methodology and the logic. I'll get to that in a second, but let me first tell an anecdote that might help clarify what I mean.

Last year, I got a hold of Dave Schwartz's New Pace product. I studied it and ran a bunch of simulations with it. Pretty good stuff. My results weren't identical to what he was getting, but were close enough that I was satisfied. Over the next few months, I saw some threads here where folks were taking him to task because they weren't getting the same results he did. One inference might be that the product was flawed. However, the critical piece that was missing in most cases was the data. Some guys were using paper and pencil to get he factors, while others were using a different data source from a different application. The point is that one needed to use the same source data and then see if the results were the same.

Back to the videos. One big problem I see is that they were using a Windows PC and a completely different software package. Further, we don't know if the scanner they used was the same or not. The PDF released by the Whitehouse was created on a Mac using their built-in PDF creation utility. I don't have a Mac, but what I understand is this is their native back-end that comes with the OS -- so I would expect a different set of optimization algorithms than a purchased application. Adobe Illustrator is an expensive piece of software written by the company that came up with the PDF standard. I wouldn't be shocked in any way that one would see different results using a different setup like this. This would easily explain the different number of layers. They were comparing Apples to PCs -- so to speak.

I can tell you for sure that OCR wasn't used, but they way it's presented in the video is a bit of a red herring. Since it wasn't used, what's the point of talking about it. Anyway, the rest of the stuff here is all easily explained by their methodology. The stuff about the white noise distribution around the letters is kind of silly because their source document isn't the same as the source document that was scanned by the Whitehouse. If you want,I can get into it a bit more when I have some more time, but I just don't see anything here that is very compelling.

There are lots of reasons to be critical of the President, but honestly, this just isn't one of them.

PaceAdvantage
03-13-2012, 11:03 PM
One big problem I see is that they were using a Windows PC and a completely different software package.I'm just curious of the source that detailed what type of OS and software package the White House used to generate their document. Perhaps that was explained in the full press conference? As I mentioned earlier, I did not watch the entire Sheriff Joe press conference...and I guess I should scold myself if it was mentioned somewhere in the full press conference video, or else I risk becoming just another hypocrite.

So you don't find it interesting at all that the White House document, if optimized as is claimed, generates a layer with nothing but the green background, another layer with nothing but the date stamp, and another layer with nothing but the registrar's stamp? That doesn't ring any bells in your head?

You can see where layers produced as described above would appear rather odd if the document were indeed optimized...almost as if it was slapped together that way originally, item by item...I have some experience in document editing and manipulation, so it comes off as odd to me...but I will defer to you, as you appear to have more experience than I do in this arena.

Greyfox
03-13-2012, 11:08 PM
There are lots of reasons to be critical of the President, but honestly, this just isn't one of them.

I'm open minded about this and I agree that:
"There are lots of reasons to be critical of the President,"

but having stated that:

whiptastic, you said"

"Anyway, the rest of the stuff here is all easily explained by their methodology."

That begs the question of :

What methodology would you suggest as an alternative , if any?
For proving the veracity of either groups claim.

chickenhead
03-13-2012, 11:19 PM
So you don't find it interesting at all that the White House document, if optimized as is claimed, generates a layer with nothing but the green background, another layer with nothing but the date stamp, and another layer with nothing but the registrar's stamp? That doesn't ring any bells in your head?

You can see where layers produced as described above would appear rather odd if the document were indeed optimized...almost as if it was slapped together that way originally, item by item...I have some experience in document editing and manipulation, so it comes off as odd to me...but I will defer to you, as you appear to have more experience than I do in this arena.

The impression that gives isn't exactly accurate. When they "grab" the text and move it, there is no green behind the text, it leaves white space.

So it is not a solid green layer, it is just the green. On a layer. Not a solid green background layer.

If they were created as separate layers by our hasty forgers, they had been "merged" at some point, no? Otherwise the green layer would be solid green, no?

Ergo,

our hasty forgers must have drawn it up on separate layers. Merged the layers. And then unmerged them prior to publishing.

To create crumbs for the cold case crackers. Diabolical.

Greyfox
03-14-2012, 12:10 AM
our hasty forgers must have drawn it up on separate layers. Merged the layers. And then unmerged them prior to publishing.

.

According to Post 18 of this thread, that is apparent in the video that bigmack
posted. But the new videos show more.

JustRalph
03-20-2012, 01:36 AM
http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/postman-ayers-family-put-foreigner-obama-through-school/

This making good copy for some.......... :lol:

Sheriff Joe's guys interviewed this guy? How did they find him?

"POSTMAN: AYERS FAMILY PUT 'FOREIGNER' OBAMA THROUGH SCHOOL
Claims he met young Barack who boasted he would someday be president"

bigmack
03-20-2012, 01:45 AM
The postman reported - The man as being in his early 20s, noting that he was tall, thin, had a light complexion and that his ears stuck out.

As Mosty will point out, they'll have a hard time proving that was BO.

Fact, it sounds more like Chickenhead. :cool:

PaceAdvantage
03-20-2012, 03:41 AM
Are we sure the retired postman cited in the piece ISN'T Mosty? :lol:

I smell a plant to make WND look bad (like that's hard to do)... :lol:

BTW, speaking of chickenhead:

LJFj6jfeus4

newtothegame
04-04-2012, 02:47 AM
Government plans to sue Arizona sheriff for targeting Latinos

WASHINGTON | Tue Apr 3, 2012 6:20pm EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Obama administration on Tuesday said it was preparing to sue Arizona county sheriff Joe Arpaio and his department for violating civil rights laws by improperly targeting Latinos in a bid to crack down on illegal immigrants.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/03/us-usa-immigration-arizona-idUSBRE83213Z20120403

I'm sure Sheriff Joe, (being on the border with Mexico) should be targeting...ummm...ummm,...Italians??? LMAO.....
You just knew Sheriff Joe would get something like this for bringing up that Birth Certificate Issue....(and I think ive heard he has more to come).....
Coincidence???
C'mon Mosty, Cap, NJ....tell us all how the two are not related....lol,.