On the Release of Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Report Stating that Barack Obama’s Birth Certificate is a “Forgery”

Virtually Every Claim Made by Sheriff Joe Arpaio's "Cold Case Posse" Had Been Publicly and Factually Debunked Before Their Investigation Was Ever Launched (Photo: Gage Skidmore)

Virtually Every Claim Made by Sheriff Joe Arpaio's "Cold Case Posse" Had Been Publicly and Factually Debunked Before Their Investigation Was Ever Launched (Photo: Gage Skidmore)

Yesterday, Sheriff Joe Arpaio (“America’s Toughest Sheriff”) held a press conference in which he announced to the world his “preliminary conclusion” that President Barack Obama’s birth certificate is a “forgery.”

Working under the assumption that Arpaio had competent investigators at his disposal, that conclusion — based on the evidence that they presented –was frankly the last thing I expected to hear from Arpaio’s office. That they made the statement they did is nothing short of astonishing.

Every single significant point in Joe Arpaio’s posse’s official report on the birth certificate was both thoroughly examined and factually debunked in the book that I wrote and published 6 months ago — before Sheriff Arpaio’s investigation even began.

It is interesting that Sheriff Arpaio’s official report was prepared by birther activist Mara Zebest*; and appearing with the Sheriff in the press conference and actually taking part, to some degree, in the investigation, was WorldNetDaily reporter Jerome Corsi. I personally took part in a debate regarding the evidence with Corsi and Zebest, just over one month ago. That debate was rather a sham, with Zebest offering ridicule in the place of reasoned argument, and Corsi claiming he would answer my charge of his having previously presented indisputably false information to the public — and then failing to do so.

Jerome Corsi and Mara Zebest are perhaps the two most prominent activists in spreading the claims that Mr. Obama’s birth certificate is a fake.

Let me repeat that, for anyone who might have missed it: Of the issue’s two most prominent activists in promoting claims of forgery — one of them was literally involved in the investigation — and the other prepared the posse’s official report. This in itself is astonishing, and suggests a deeply tainted investigation.

But wait… there’s more.

That official report differs little from Ms. Zebest’s own personal charges, published in virtually identical format, months before.

Over the course of my book, I demonstrated that not one of the claims that had been advanced, whether by Mara Zebest or others, or publicly backed by Jerome Corsi, were able to withstand scrutiny. Some were literally laughable. Others were worthy of serious consideration. But in the end, after careful analysis, none turned out to be at all convincing.

Anyone who doubts the truth of that statement should work through the book in detail, and attempt to write a convincing refutation to the evidence presented.

To give you an idea of how difficult it is to invalidate the facts presented there:

Six months after the publication of the book, neither Corsi nor any of those he has presented as experts has factually refuted even one significant point made in it. And even though they attempted to explain away the effects of optimization at Sheriff Arpaio’s press conference and in Zebest’s official report, that statement still remains true today.

In fact, the claim that they made against the optimization scenario was one that I specifically dealt with in the book.

Last fall, I twice contacted Sheriff Arpaio’s office to let him know of my 3-month, 500-hour investigation, and/or to offer my help.

His posse claims to have interviewed dozens of people and examined hundreds of documents during a 6-month investigation. But although my name was actually mentioned in his press conference — in the “concluding” video — I was not among those consulted or interviewed.

Moreover, their investigation seems to have produced very little that had not already been publicly claimed — and debunked — at the time they initiated it.

I see two possibilities as to what yesterday’s press conference was all about.

Either it was a political stunt, or it was actually intended to present the results of a real investigation.

If it was a political stunt, it may have been effective. Time will tell.

If it was intended to present the results of a real investigation, then it appears to have been tragically incompetent — both from a technical point of view, and from an investigative one.

From the technical point of view, the claims that have been presented make no sense at all; and those making them have half-ignored, and half glossed-over, the one technical explanation that does make sense.

From the investigative point of view, as far as I can tell, Sheriff Arpaio’s office has completely failed to meaningfully interview people on both sides of the issue. The Sheriff’s posse had before them an accusation that the President of the United States is a fraud — that he has a forged birth certificate. They quite obviously paid a good deal of attention to those making the claim that the birth certificate is forged.

But they appear to have failed to even TALK to those who were able to explain why those charges don’t make sense — even in an instance in which one of those people contacted their office twice, to offer his assistance.

Following the press conference and my examination of their report, my wife asked me whether I was still confident in the information I have presented to the public. My answer to that question is: “Absolutely.”

For those who would like further technical information on why, despite the “conclusions” of a posse in Arizona, there is still no credible evidence of forgery, I recommend reading and fully understanding the book. For some specifics regarding the posse’s results, I can also recommend the hour-long interview that I conducted last night with Reality Check Radio. That interview is available at this link, beginning at exactly 60 minutes into the show.

John Woodman


*Ms. Zebest’s anti-Obama activism goes way back to the summer of 2008. According to publicly-available information, she was one of the original “PUMA” (“Party Unity My A**”) activists who were supporting Hillary Clinton for the Presidential nomination and who would not “step aside” for Barack Obama.

On July 25, 2008, a poster clearly identifiable as Ms. Zebest — not only from her nickname of “mzebest,” but also from her clear description of who she was and her professional qualifications — wrote, at pumapac.org, “LOL! It’s what I live for – my goal to make [Barack Obama] a mockery of the very crowd he seeks for adulation.

I have nothing at all against anti-Obama activism — as long as it’s based on reality.

This entry was posted in Answering Critics, New Information, What's Happening. Bookmark the permalink.

988 Responses to On the Release of Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Report Stating that Barack Obama’s Birth Certificate is a “Forgery”

  1. John

    This is a very good response. Thanks for your time last evening.

    • John Woodman says:

      You’re welcome!

      • John Woodman says:

        I have deleted a spam comment from a birther advertising his discredited propaganda. I won’t approve those kind of comments.

        Literally every point made at his site has been factually discredited.

        • No, I have noticed that you are only going to allow comments which agree with you, or are only lightly correcting your disinformation — I really don’t see how that does anything but allow you to create a page and structure it so you “look correct.”

          That is fine, the rest of the web has plenty of real information, real investigation and real facts. Good luck!

          When people find you out, you are going to lose the few you have here to pay attention to you! ROFLOL!

          • John Woodman says:

            Winston, I’ve trashed one of your comments because it was simply a spam link to your web site. Actually, I’m pretty sure I also trashed an earlier similar comment from you.

            Just because I don’t approve people who come on here as spammers doesn’t mean there’s not freedom of discussion here.

            If you opened up your eyes and paid any attention, you would know that with limited exception (there are a very few birther sites that actually do allow real conversation), the only places where both sides of this issue are being talked about are the non-birther sites. Ever wonder why there’s not much conversation from both sides of the aisle at The Post & Email, BirtherReport.com, Leo Donofrio’s blog, Mario Apuzzo’s blog, The Steady Drip, The Obama File, and similar birther blogs? It’s because comments there are censored or heavily moderated. For the most part, birther blogs engage in censorship and heavy moderation. Non-birther blogs don’t.

            Talk about your freedom of speech. Talk about truth.

            Once I approve your first comment here, you’re basically in, unless you abuse the privilege. You started out with spam. If you continue with spam, I’ll ban you, and will do so promptly. It’s as simple as that.

          • John Woodman says:

            Oh — and if you want real information, real investigation and real facts — you certainly won’t find it coming from Jerome Corsi (who’s known about both sides of the story since last summer and only tells one side). You certainly won’t get it from Arpaio’s “investigation” — which as far as I can tell, didn’t contact anybody except the birther propagandists and apparently didn’t even bother to phone the State of Hawaii.

            If you want real information, real investigation and real facts, you’re at the correct place. I could also mention the book I wrote, as it has 221 pages of real information, real investigation, and real facts. And although I personally don’t agree with his politics, another place you are likely to find some accurate analysis and open discussion of “both sides” of the issue (though there really is only one real side, as virtually every single point made by birthers is, factually speaking, complete hogwash) is Dr. Conspiracy’s blog, ObamaConspiracy.org.

    • Garrett says:

      John,

      I’ve read your book. I give you credit for trying, but your conclusions are wrong. Neither adaptive nor MRC compression can result in the type of layers seen in Obama’s birth certificate. I’ve been testing this for over 6 months and can prove it conclusively.

      Thanks,

      Garrett

      • John Woodman says:

        I’m not sure how you think you can “prove” that compression doesn’t produce the kind of layers seen in Obama’s PDF when we have hundreds if not thousands of examples of files known to have been scanned and optimized, which display not only the same kind of layers as seen in the PDF, but also display virtually every other “anomaly” observed.

        Sounds to me a lot like theoretically “proving” that black swans “can’t possibly exist.”

        • Garrett says:

          John,

          I can prove it based on the properties of the layers. I can’t say more at this point…but you will soon see.

          Garrett

          • JRC says:

            I love these Birthers…..they never are able to say more. They have the evidence, yet aren’t patriotic enough to share with all of us. *From the CCP to Garrett* I seriously think these people don’t know what patriotic means. It seems it’s not the government hiding evidence. It’s self imposed by the birthers themselves. Just hilarious.

            Honestly if I had the evidence I’d let everyone know. I wouldn’t be worried about debating John or anyone else. I wouldn’t be worried about hiring an agent to do TV interviews. If it was truly worthy, I would let the evidence speak for itself . Sounds like it’s nothing other than Garrett thinking he is so brilliant that none of the other birthers found this property thing. Of course it will probably end up that Garrett will find himself just as one among many of the clowns under the Birther tent. ROFLMAO

      • Garrett

        I look forward to your “evidence”. I think John Woodman is correct to avoid going back on Mark Gillar’s program. We now know Gillar is in bed with Michael Zullo and the Cold Case Posse. He will never listen to reason.

        Are you working with the the Cold Case Posse?

        PS to JW:

        Have you seen this silly new video claiming the numbers are hand drawn on the AP photo of the LFBC?

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuyV7V853kk&feature=youtu.be

        • John Woodman says:

          At this point, I personally think the entire thing is just ludicrously silly. You have a bunch of people — including Garrett here — who simply refuse to accept reality.

          I personally don’t have the slightest doubt that the PDF was created exactly as I outlined. We have large numbers of known EXAMPLES of files that we know for a FACT were scanned and optimized, with virtually identical results to the file uploaded to the White House web site; and for anybody to hand-produce these very specific technical results would’ve been about like somebody who needed to travel from Boston to Los Angeles on business choosing to walk 3000 miles of interstate highway in a suit and tie carrying a briefcase, instead of taking an airplane or a car.

          And yet Garrett and these other fruitcakes still insist the PDF is a hand-made forgery, and by God, they’re going to “prove” it — one way or another.

          Maybe while he’s at it, Garrett can prove that the moon landings never happened and that there’s no such thing as the International Space Station; that all this rocket and space stuff is just propaganda invented by the government to make us think our country is more powerful than it really is. For a man of Garrett’s talents I’m sure this wouldn’t be a problem.

          • Garrett says:

            You can try to lump us in with the moon landing crazies all you want. The simply fact is that you blame optimization for most of the anomalies but I can show you that optimization is not capable of producing the type of layers you see in the WH PDF.

            Furthermore, I never said it was a made from scratch forgery. I simply know that it had to have been manipulated. Perhaps he was born in Hawaii and simply manipulated the correct data to punk birthers. Regardless…it is what it is.

      • nbc says:

        Has it occurred to you that there may be a problem with your ‘testing’ procedures?

  2. What?! says:

    “From the technical point of view, the claims that have been presented make no sense at all; and those making them have half-ignored, and half glossed-over, the one technical explanation that does make sense.” EXAMPLES PLEASE********* JUST OPINION HERE

    • John Woodman says:

      Also, see the hour-long interview on Reality Check Radio referenced in the article above.

      • Garrett says:

        John,

        Would you consider another debate on TeaPartyPowerHour…this time just against me?

        Thanks,

        Garrett

        • John Woodman says:

          Not unless there’s really something significant in it for me. I pretty much finished with the forgery theories months ago. It’s been 9 months since my book was published, and not a single significant point of it has ever been invalidated. Almost all of the Arpaio Posse’s claims were debunked six months before they made them, and the few new ones were promptly debunked as well. At least 3 dozen birther claims of proof of forgery have been debunked; not one of them has ever held water. Unless you’ve come up with something really extraordinary, I consider the matter closed.

          • Garrett says:

            Indeed I have come up with something new John. ;)

            • John Woodman says:

              Knock yourself out, Garrett. Just don’t expect me to hang around to evaluate it. After finding more than 60 false / invalid / meritless claims made by birthers — including 5 past claims publicly made by you personally (see comment elsewhere) that are known to be false, I’m done.

              If you find something, more power to you. Who knows? You might hit the lottery. I seriously doubt it, but hey — it could happen.

            • Northland10 says:

              Have you managed to come up with credible evidence that President Obama was born elsewhere?

  3. What?! says:

    why do you have comment moderation on here?

  4. John Woodman says:

    It is set to WordPress’ default, which is that until one of your comments is approved your comments are moderated.

    After that, comments generally post immediately, until and unless you abuse the privilege by spamming, using obscene language, etc.

    This is far different from many — if not most — of the “birther” blogs, where ALL comments are heavily and continuously moderated on an ongoing basis.

    For example, you can’t post at Leo Donofrio’s blog unless you can prove you’re a lawyer, and the comments may still be moderated even then. Comments posted at Mario Apuzzo’s blog can take an entire day to show up, which is one of the reasons why attempting to discuss things on his site is a worthless proposition. Factual, non-attacking comments posted to The Post & Email have been censored. And while most of my past comments at BirtherReport.com — again, containing only factual, non-attacking, non-spamming, non-profane content — have gotten through, the last such comment I posted never appeared.

    At Parker Shannon’s site, I posted a factual, non-profane, non-spamming comment simply defending myself from false accusations made against me and making other factual, verifiable comments. The comment was immediately removed, and I was banned from making any further posts or contacting any other members of his forum.

    This is similar to how I was literally shouted down in my debate with Jerome Corsi, Mara Zebest and Karl Denninger.

    Yes, there is censorship and repression of truth going on — and heavily so. But not here.

    • I have a Word Press blog and yes, the first comment of a new person always goes into moderation.

    • Thomas Brown says:

      And I can personally attest to the fact that most Birther sites WILL scrub factual comments that show their ideas to be unfounded, even posted in a non-confrontational style. Why is that? Because they are NOT in the “spreading truth” business, but in the “suppressing “truth” and “spreading misinformation” business.

      • John Woodman says:

        I’ve personally had factual, non-confrontational comments scrubbed from BirtherReport, Post and Email, and Obama File, and a couple other places. BirtherReport was pretty good about leaving comments, but when push came to shove they scrubbed as well.

        So far I haven’t personally known WorldNetDaily or Mario Apuzzo to scrub comments. They’re about the only birther sites I can think of in that category. WorldNetDaily ignores any facts that don’t fit their claims and relies on their extensive birther audience to outnumber those who tell the truth. Mario allows comments to post and then “proves” them wrong by twisting words and creating elaborate smokescreens in whatever way he needs to in order to deny the obvious truth.

        In terms of being willing to expend effort, you’ve got to hand it to Mario, as his method of attempting to shut down the truth is far more labor intensive than that of any of the other birthers.

  5. richCares says:

    I found out about your interview on RC at the last minute, I tuned in at round 59 min, so I got all of your stuff, very good comments, Thank you

  6. John says:

    John,
    Your arguments as well as arguments from your fellow anti-birthers like Doc C. are of little or no merit. The proof is in the following simple declarations spoken at the press conference:

    “I want to also be clear, that you understand, this was just not a bunch of ex-cops and lawyers running these tests. We went outside to experts, graphic experts, forensic document examiners, and ran these tests”

    “I think you forgot one thing. We have sworn affidavits from many, many people all over the world on this matter. We’re just not picking stuff out of the sky that people have been reading over and over again. This
    investigation is not over”

    “Thank you, Sheriff. I did neglect to tell you about that. We dohave sworn, numerous sworn, affidavits of people willing to step forward and telltheir truth. We have vetted these people”

    “Has anybody ever come up with thisinformation? Show it to me. Who has come up with this information? No one! …..Until we did it”

    “When you say that fifty states have looked at this – OK. Show me how far theywent. And show me any law enforcing agency that looked into it,”

    “Sir, our investigation is still ongoing, and that’s a great question.I just cannot answer it here for you today”

    • John Woodman says:

      I will give you the same reply that I gave “Rita” over at ObamaConspiracy earlier today.

      Your claim is that since Mr. Zullo states that he went to completely unspecified, unnamed “experts” and “forensic document examiners,” and since he represents the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (never mind the fact that one of the biggest birther propagandists in the country shared the stage with him, and another of the biggest birther propagandists wrote up his official report), then whatever he says must necessarily be true. Because he has a badge. Or, his boss has a badge.

      Or: since Arpaio’s office has some “secret sauce” unavailable to the public, why, any and all conclusions that they present must be unquestionably true. How dare I, a mere Citizen, question the word and the authority of the Sheriff of a county in Arizona?

      All of this from someone, who apparently believes that the unanimous testimony of half a dozen Hawaii state officials regarding records in their possession is utter rubbish and cannot, at any cost, be believed.

      Same birther nonsense. Never engage the actual facts. Why? Because on the factual basis, you don’t have a leg to stand on.

      I will repeat what I have stated elsewhere: As far as I can tell, every single claim in regard to the birth certificate being a “forgery” that has been brought forth this week by Sheriff Joe’s office (while holding hands with their buddies Jerry and Mara) was already debunked before their apparently completely one-sided “investigation” was ever launched. In fact, as far as I can tell, every single such claim was factually debunked in the book I wrote, published 6 months ago.

      And neither Jerome Corsi, nor Mara Zebest, nor any of their associated “experts,” has yet produced a genuine refutation to even one significant point made in that book.

      No “badge” that you present can alter the facts or the truth.

      And your persistence in denying the truth, and using all the force that you can muster against it, is typical hard-core birther behavior.

  7. obsolete says:

    ““I want to also be clear, that you understand, this was just not a bunch of ex-cops and lawyers running these tests. We went outside to experts, graphic experts, forensic document examiners, and ran these tests””
    Who are they? What are their credentials?

    ““I think you forgot one thing. We have sworn affidavits from many, many people all over the world on this matter. We’re just not picking stuff out of the sky that people have been reading over and over again. This
    investigation is not over””
    Who are they? What are their credentials? Where are the affidavits?

    ““Thank you, Sheriff. I did neglect to tell you about that. We dohave sworn, numerous sworn, affidavits of people willing to step forward and telltheir truth. We have vetted these people””
    Who are they? What are their credentials? Where are the affidavits?

    ““Sir, our investigation is still ongoing, and that’s a great question.I just cannot answer it here for you today””
    Why have a press conference in the middle of such an important investigation? Was it really just a PR stunt? (of course it was).

    John, you always fall for smoke-and-mirrors.

    • John Woodman says:

      Reminds me of the scene in Indiana Jones where Major Eaton says he wants to assure Jones and Brody that they have top men working on the Ark right now.

      Jones asks, “Who?”

      The answer: “TOP…. men.”

    • I note that the book written by Corsi and Zullo does not repeat the claim that a “forensic document examiner” vetted their work.

    • Garrett says:

      The experts are many and are from many fields. They include Ivy League computer grads, individuals with Master’s degrees in Information Technology, traditional forensic document examiners, typographers, etc.. There is even someone who has fame from a previous high profile forgery case. You can talk all you want…there is SERIOUS investigative analysis being done.

      • John Woodman says:

        “Top. Men.”

        – from Raiders of the Lost Ark

      • Suranis says:

        Well I’m impressed. And I thought their computer whiz couldn’t even tell that the PDF wasn’t created in an Adobe product, and has gone on to claim that a photo in the situation room was forced because she doesn’t know that you can see through a blurry part of a photo.

        And I’m sure they have a team going through the flight records for New York where all flights to and from Kenya would have arrived. And I’m sure the first thing they did was to talk to the Hawaii DOH. Oh they just sent some guys to Hawaii for the first time 3 months after their big press conference?

        Serious investigative work indeed! TOP men.

  8. obsolete says:

    Imagine a Sheriff having a press conference to discuss an investigation into Bush’s involvement with 9/11, with Michael Moore and the “Loose Change” filmmaker at his side and writing/participating in the report as well.

  9. gorefan says:

    Hi John,

    Just wanted to let you know the link to PUMA PAC is not working.

  10. JL Sherman Oaks CA says:

    I purchased your book from Amazon and read it from front to back. A lot of it went over my head — I am woefully untechnical. But I was able to see that every detail was carefully reviewed from both perspective — forgery or not fraud. That was really what I wanted to know. The truth is that Arpaio has an agenda. Moreover, he is under attack from the Feds and it behooves himself to take the position he did as it is just what his supporters wanted to hear. That makes him shamelessly dishonest. Thanks for your good work.

    • John Woodman says:

      Thanks for your good review, JL, and your kind words. They are appreciated! ;-)

    • LightOfReason says:

      This will probably never be seen on your site but here goes anyway.
      JL She3rman says “The truth is that Arpaio has an agenda. Moreover, he is under attack from the Feds and it behooves himself to take the position he did as it is just what his supporters wanted to hear. That makes him shamelessly dishonest. Thanks for your good work.”
      I noticed he never said that after reading your book I agree with you that and that Obama’s long form birth certificate and military card are genuine and not fake.
      I have personally worked with graphics software for about 17 years and the points about the distortions, noise being unequal the amount of layers, the logical lay out of layers even the naming of layers is compelling and you have given NO evidence to refute these findings that I can read here.
      Explain how you can move the seal around & not take any other bits of graphics if it was just scanned?
      If you think that the sheriff’s people created these layers themselves than just come out and say it.
      But all your comments on this site are weak and only make the promise of being supported if I buy & read your book.

      • John Woodman says:

        Of course it’ll be seen on the site. It’s original and reasonably-presented content, and does not consist simply of spam, bald assertions of things that have already been disproven, etc.

        Generally speaking, it’s the birther sites that censor comments. I am actually not aware of any non-birther sites that engage in such censorship, although some do of course moderate for spam and obnoxious postings.

        I have personally worked with graphics software for about 17 years and the points about the distortions, noise being unequal the amount of layers, the logical lay out of layers even the naming of layers is compelling and you have given NO evidence to refute these findings that I can read here.

        But all your comments on this site are weak and only make the promise of being supported if I buy & read your book.

        At various points I’ve toyed with the idea of trying to republish some of the material in my book actually on the site. It’s a bit of a hassle, and it also kind of dilutes some of the work I put into the book. Mostly for the sake of the hassle, and also because I’ve been investing time into understanding the historical and legal aspects of the natural born citizen claims, I haven’t taken that step.

        I don’t think that the claims that I’ve presented here at the site are at all weak, but they’re probably very, very sketchy. The analysis of the PDF in my book and conclusions regarding that file runs to a total of 89 pages. It’s about $8 to buy in ebook format. I still haven’t even recovered my expenses in producing the book, let alone making money off of the many months of hard and honest work I put into the project (while hoping it would be of some actual benefit to myself and my family) so if you’d be happy to purchase a copy, I’d frankly appreciate it. I can tell you this, with confidence: It’s a heck of a lot better deal than some of the claptrap published by others.

        Explain how you can move the seal around & not take any other bits of graphics if it was just scanned?

        The registrar stamp (not the seal) is on a separate layer because the optimizing program — and by the way, the anomalies claimed to be proof of forgery by some are KNOWN and DEMONSTRATED artifacts of optimization — the optimizing program detected it as being an item of a different color, and split it out into a separate “layer” for the purpose of optimizing the file. That’s it.

        Far more remarkable are the two date stamps that have elements that were split out into multiple layers. Generally speaking, human beings deal with things as conceptual elements. This is a registrar stamp. This is a date stamp. The fact that neither of the date stamps are all on one layer is just ONE small indication, out of a GREAT MANY, that the things seen are the result of optimization and NOT human agency.

        And virtually every tiny detail of the evidence is CONSISTENT. It all goes in the same direction. I literally took three paths, and every one of them led to the same conclusions.

        If you think that the sheriff’s people created these layers themselves than just come out and say it.

        The comment shows that you’re not at all versed in the issues. You really ought to read the book. There are 89 pages there of explanation just of the PDF file alone. Just saying.

      • Thomas Brown says:

        Hi L of R,

        I have read John’s book, and can vouch for its completely answering every objection I have seen raised which if unexplained would point to possible fraud.

        His refutations are easy to follow. To summarize one, there are those who claim that any paper copies were made from the ‘computer-generated forgery’ .pdf image. But that’s impossible, because higher-resolution images are available of that document. You cannot make a higher-resolution document out of a lower-resolution image; the information is simply not there. Therefore, they are mistaken.

        To simplify what John said about the layers, a human forger would have made a stamp image on one layer, lines on another, background pattern on another, the text from the standard blank form on another, and the text that needs to look type-written on another, etc. He would work in a methodical, if deceptive, fashion.

        The computer that separated the scanned document into layers made what looks to us like a big mess. Some parts of many of the elements are pulled into different layers, because of variances in hue and strength of print, or because it ‘thought’ they belonged together. For instance, in the layer containing form lines, anything touching a line was ‘assumed’ to belong on a layer with the lines; but things that really logically belong with the characters touching lines, i.e. other characters, are put on another layer by the computer, just because they aren’t touching the lines.

        In short, no human would make layers the way one sees them in that .pdf. There would be absolutely no point; it would take 50 times as long to make an image that looks half as good.

        I hope I did justice to Mr. Woodman’s work, and that I helped explain why it is a sure bet that the .pdf was generated in a typical fashion, from an authentic document.

        • John Woodman says:

          Thomas, I think especially when it comes to technical stuff, it can often be VERY helpful for it to be explained by more than one person. Different people explain things in different words, and that can help clarify things. I heartily welcome your explanation and comments. ;-)

  11. spiritsplice says:

    Here is the bottom line, the BC has layers. Layers only exist if you create them individually, they do not create themselves when you scan something. The layers prove the BC is fake. No other evidence is needed.

    The real question is, “Why would he put out an obvious forgery, so obvious it would be caught immediately?” This is what no one seems to be asking.

    • John Woodman says:

      As has been demonstrated ad nauseum, the statement is clearly and undeniably false. Layers are routinely created as a known and verified artifact of certain kinds of file optimization. All the important anomalies so often cited as “proof of forgery” in Obama’s birth certificate have a very specific and logical purpose in optimizing the file. And we have clear and confirmed real-life examples of the same anomalies in other optimized files.

      Your comment and question is so relatively uninformed on the issue (I don’t mean to be unkind) that it’s rather like walking into a graduate class on materials physics and proclaiming that you’re here to enlighten them that glass is a liquid that flows at room temperature, and that’s why the windows in old buildings in Europe tend to be thicker at the bottom.

      Which is completely wrong, by the way.

      • spiritsplice says:

        This is, simply, a flat out lie. When you optimize a file with layers, it *gets rid of the layers* it doesn’t add more, which would be the *opposite* of optimization. I guess you go by the Hitlerian adage of telling the big lie. There is no process that adds layers other than forgery. Nor would there be any reason to to use anything but a plain scanner. We are not living in the days of 33k modems when things like bandwidth are an issue.

        • John Woodman says:

          1) I don’t have a way to count them, but there are probably literally thousands of similarly optimized files at google books that display the same characteristics, including the layers, as Obama’s birth certificate. The FACT that a particular optimization process produces layers is so well documented as to be like saying the sky is blue or the earth is round. Your claim is like coming on here and claiming, “It’s a flat-out lie that the earth is round.”

          That’s what it is to be a birther. Birtherism is “true” because you say it is. Black is white, white is black. Your arrogance to come on here and assert that I’m “flat-out” lying, when I’m one of the few people telling the actual TRUTH against the birther lie machine, is pretty amazing. But again, that’s what it is to be a birther. As we’ve seen again and again, birthers don’t have the slightest regard for the truth. Birthers don’t have the slightest hesitation to call truthful people liars, or to publicly call them all kinds of other names, either. Anyone who gets in your way has to be beaten down by force.

          2) There’s a flat-out Big Lie going on here, all right — and it’s on the part of the birthers. I was just thinking moments ago about the astonishing power of propaganda. If you get enough people — particularly if some of them have a “name,” like Joe Arpaio, to publicly claim something, it doesn’t seem to matter how untrue or ridiculous it is. You can get people to believe it. You can push it publicly, and you can profit from it in various kinds of ways. Money, fame… these are convertible to personal advantage.

          There are undoubtedly people in the birther movement who know full well that what they’re saying is completely false — and yet they continue pushing the Big Lie. I find it astonishing. But so powerful is the desire on the part of some that the current President be ineligible that they are willing to tolerate and nurse complete falsehood. It’s like keeping a rattlesnake on the floor of your house. “Oh, it’s just a friendly little rattler. We use him to keep burglars out of the house. Just be careful not to step on him. It’ll be all right.”

          • spiritsplice says:

            You’re a shill, I see. Wonder how much the alphabets pay a guy like you to put these ideas into peoples heads. Hopefully people are smart enough to see though this nonsense.

            • John Woodman says:

              This is not even remotely an untestable claim. Anybody ought to be able to go through the same exercise that Nathan Goulding did, and get the same results. More to the point, ANYONE, for less than $10, can download an electronic copy of the entire book I wrote on the subject, get a FULL technical explanation of what’s going on here, and FIND FOR THEMSELVES the exact example file that I downloaded from google books — and plenty of others, at their own leisure, and see for themselves.

              Every single claim I’ve made during the past YEAR, as far as I know, is perfectly verifiable by ANYONE who wants to go to the effort of verifying it.

              I consider this a zone for (reasonable) free speech, and I don’t like banning people. But based on your continued propaganda of asserting obviously false claims and portraying them as true, I pretty much have to assume that you’re simply a troll. You’re welcome to post any reasonable conversation, but if you continue to engage in trollish behavior, I’ll simply ban you.

            • John Woodman says:

              The exchange is also useful instruction for anyone just checking things out, wondering whether birtherism is correct, or those who say the birthers are fruitcakes.

              Birthers generally seem to have no problem personally attacking others (whose only crime is to tell the verifiable truth), completely denying reality, and publicly promoting known false propaganda at all costs.

        • I suppose by spiritsplice’s astute analysis a BMP file is the most optimized format of all. It doesn’t get any simpler than that. :lol:

          John

          Darn you! That remark about glass sent me on a Google tour before I finished my first cup of coffee. No fair! I found this nifty explanation (debunking) as a result though: Does Glass Flow?

        • gorefan says:

          SpiritSlice

          You must have missed this video from Channel 12.

          http://www.usatoday.com/video/computer-expert-examines-arpaio-birther-documents/1484305946001

          They scanned in a BC and got layers.

          • spiritsplice says:

            They “claimed” to. They showed no such thing, they put up a picture and told you that is what they had done. Then they put a scanner in front of them to try to add credibility. Scanning does not create layers. This is nothing but “Wag the Dog”.

            • John Woodman says:

              Literally almost as soon as layers were reported — WAY BACK LAST YEAR, VERY shortly after the release of the birth certificate — Nathan Goulding of the National Review — the leading CONSERVATIVE publication — did a quick test and got… guess what? wait for it… LAYERS.

              It’s true that SCANNING does not produce layers. But FILE OPTIMIZATION DOES. Your refusal to basically admit that the sky is blue is just patently ridiculous.

              But as I said on another thread just a little while ago — it’s TYPICAL BIRTHER. Facts don’t matter — unless they’re the facts you want. Truth doesn’t matter — unless it’s the “truth” that you want.

              It’s not a case of ignorance. Ignorance can be fixed. It’s a case of determination to somehow reshape reality by repeatedly asserting that whatever false statement is desired, is “true,” and that whatever actual bit of reality that the birther doesn’t like, is “a lie.”

            • John Woodman says:

              It also goes back to the birther Big Lie: “If we only keep repeating that Obama’s birth certificate is obviously a fake, then people will become convinced that it is. If we only keep repeating, with conviction, that it takes two citizen parents to make a natural born citizen, people will believe it.”

              Unfortunately, the Big Lie does actually — sometimes convince some people. It would quite likely convince Chelsea of the now-famous miles-per-hour video — if she doesn’t like Obama.

              But it sure as heck doesn’t fly here.

  12. ehancock says:

    I have been posting as an anonymous poster on this site:

    http://rebelontheright.blogspot.com/2012/04/obamas-magic-scan.html?showComment=1333986558137#c1124344667336650453

    But I think I need some help on the forgery claims.

    • John Woodman says:

      ehancock,

      I think you did fine.

      I did eventually post a comment there, albeit just a general one. Literally every “forgery” claim of which I’m aware has been debunked, the vast majority of them in my book. There are some folks out there for whom no amount of evidence will ever do. Just part of the way things are.

      • Thomas Brown says:

        Someone could make a killing collecting Birthers’ email addresses and selling the list to Nigerian scammers.

        • John Woodman says:

          Why sell the list? I’m sure you and I could come up with an excellent high-yield investment opportunity in, say… commodities trading in Asian countries, using a proprietary and advanced price-predicting computer program developed on the side by a computer scientist at a leading university in Texas. (Our actual PhD computer scientist, of course, must remain nameless because of his job at the university.)

          And the program, of course, is proven. Naturally, we can’t guarantee the results, but over the past four years it’s generated the following returns (after our fees) on money invested:

          Feb-Mar 2008: 6.9%
          Apr-Jun 2008: 11.2%
          Jul-Sep 2008: 9.3%
          Oct-Dec 2008: 14.1%
          Jan-Mar 2009: 7.8%
          Apr-Jun 2009: 9.1%
          July-Sep 2009: 12.4%
          Oct-Dec 2009: 13.1%
          Jan-Mar 2010: 8.5%
          Apr-Jun 2010: 11.1%
          Jul-Sep 2010: 13.4%
          Oct-Dec 2010: 12.6%
          Jan-Mar 2011: 16.4%
          Apr-Jun 2011: 9.1%
          Jul-Sep 2011: 5.3%
          Oct-Dec 2011: 14.2%
          Jan-Mar 2012: 15.7%

          So the average annual rate of return so far has been about 54%, and one of our early guys who got in with $10,000 with us during our second “quarter” 4 years ago has $56,387.63 now. If he’d put in $20,000 instead, it would now be worth $112,775.26.

          And of course if we keep getting the same results his original $10,000 will be worth $317,956.48 in just another four years. So that would be from $10,000 to almost $318,000 in just 8 years.

          Oh, and we’re looking at some new countries where the regulations and fees aren’t as big, and we may be able to make it so our new customers can get from $10,000 to $1 million in about 7 years and 4 months.

          Of course this is not a get-rich-quick scheme. You have to be willing to wait a few years for your $10,000 to turn into a million. And it’s a very low-profile program and we can only handle a limited amount of capital, and we don’t want it to grow so fast we can’t administrate it well. So if you don’t know an existing customer you have to get special approval to join. And we’re thinking about closing it to new customers altogether, or raising the minimum from $2,000 to $5,000.

          And of course it’s experimental so results are absolutely not guaranteed. But we have a good track record so far, and you can’t expect high rewards without some risk.

          Oh, and a percentage of our profits from the business are going out in the form of donations to help drive the usurper from the White House.

          Don’t you think we could put together a program like that?

          • Thomas Brown says:

            Think WND will donate ad space for such a worthy endeavor? Someone should inquire!

            • John Woodman says:

              Are we going to cut them in on the profits?

              I guess if we want ad space, we’ll have to.

            • John Woodman says:

              Second thought: One never publicly advertises schemes… ahem, business opportunities like this one. Marketing happens largely by word of mouth.

              Alas, the project is doomed to failure anyway. I have way too much honesty to run a Ponzi scheme.

              Actually, it might not surprise you to know that over the past dozen years, I’ve spotted one investment opportunity that I had some definite reservations about, and warned a couple of people to be very, very careful regarding, and two others that I was certain were Ponzi schemes, and that I tried to warn some folks away from. All three turned out to be Ponzi schemes.

          • gsgs says:

            I’m in. link ?

  13. John B. says:

    I am sure you are a smart man, Mr. Woodman, but your advocacy of Obama is not easy to grasp. I have a state certified birth certificate from Nebraska–issued in 1953; well, this is of course a copy as I was not born that year. I have a very elaborate one from the little Catholic hospital where I was born that even includes hand and foot prints, my length and weight, parental information and signed by the hospital director. This was in the 1940′s. This document along with the state issued one would leave no doubt as to where I was born and when. [On the several occasions I have needed it for getting a passport it has worked splendidly] And yet one of the most powerful men in American can not apparently duplicate this? Additionally when I was the putative president’s age there were still many who could attest to my childhood. But again at a rather early age all we have is a step grandmother for Barack who says wrong things.
    And I still have an abundance of photographs. I would not object to my school records being released as they are rather something to be proud of.
    I look something like both my father and mother and other relatives on both sides.
    I believe we have in Mr Obama a fantacist. For the most part I have trouble believing he even was much of a law student as his grasp of the law is weak. Intellectually he is not much. He seems to like basketball and junk food and lazing around. As you may have noticed being president has not worn him down as it does most presidents even in four years.
    As far as I can see he gets up every morning, perhaps takes in the number of children and other citizens killed during the night by drones, eats breakfast and wishes he could have some fun instead of dreary meeting with dreary people. Nonetheless he will flash that gorgeous girly smile whenever a camera appears. Personally I think anyone in his position should have a more serious and mature look but that is just my opinion.
    In short, your article is not persuasive. It looks like you have a crush on Barack and can not see who he really is–a criminally minded scoundrel not unlike presidents before him, sadly.

    • John Woodman says:

      I am sure you are a smart man, Mr. Woodman, but your advocacy of Obama is not easy to grasp.

      Where did I EVER state that I advocate Mr. Obama?

      I started on this issue because I was interested in the technical aspects of whether or not his birth certificate was a forgery. I uncovered absolutely no evidence that it was.

      That says absolutely nothing about what I think of the man’s politics.

      I continued because I became interested in whether the Constitutional claims that citizen parents are required to make a natural born citizen. Those claims are false.

      That says absolutely nothing about what I think of Mr. Obama’s Presidency or his politics.

      I heartily encourage you to vote Mr. Obama out of office. And if there were the slightest real sign that he were ineligible to be President, I would encourage his removal by the proper and legal Constitutional process.

      Since that is not the case, I do not encourage the public dissemination of falsehoods either as regards his birth certificate, or as regards the matter of whether citizen parents are required for Presidential eligibility.

      I am for the Constitution and the truth. Is that so hard to grasp?

      For the most part I have trouble believing he even was much of a law student as his grasp of the law is weak. Intellectually he is not much. He seems to like basketball and junk food and lazing around. As you may have noticed being president has not worn him down as it does most presidents even in four years.
      As far as I can see he gets up every morning, perhaps takes in the number of children and other citizens killed during the night by drones, eats breakfast and wishes he could have some fun instead of dreary meeting with dreary people. Nonetheless he will flash that gorgeous girly smile whenever a camera appears. Personally I think anyone in his position should have a more serious and mature look but that is just my opinion.

      All of that is very well, but nowhere in the list of Presidential qualifications does it state that the President is legally required to graduate at the top of his law school class, abstain from junk food, or have a “more serious and mature look.” We are concerned with the legal qualifications for the office here. And being born of citizen parents is not one of them. Being a natural born citizen is, and Obama qualifies. That’s it, whether you or I like it or not. Do you stand for the Constitution, or are you prepared to sacrifice the Constitution just because you don’t like a particular President?

      Do what the Constitution provides. Vote the man out of office. Persuade others to do the same. If you will do that, you will spend your time better and more effectively than you do on an absolutely futile, hopeless, Quixotic crusade to twist and corrupt the Constitution into getting rid of him in a frankly illegitimate way.

      In short, your article is not persuasive. It looks like you have a crush on Barack and can not see who he really is–a criminally minded scoundrel not unlike presidents before him, sadly.

      The facts brought forth in my articles are persuasive to anyone who is interested in the truth, is competent enough to discern the truth, and is willing to accept the truth. Those facts are not and can not be persuasive to those who will not be persuaded by the facts.

  14. Jim says:

    John B. says: “And yet one of the most powerful men in American can not apparently duplicate this?”

    And why should any citizen have to bow to your whims and requirements? Who made YOU lord and master over everyone else in the country? We have LEGAL requirements that must be met, and President Obama has met every one of them. You want to go off and start your own country, go ahead. But, your requirements are not necessary to fulfill and your expectations that ANYONE must fulfill them is not only ridiculous it is down-right un-american!

  15. miss your voices 2012 says:

    I don’t understand why intelligent examination of the birth certifcate PDF is so offensive. It sounds to me like Garrett is doing a thorough objective investigation and not at all one of these conspiracy therorists who goes off half cocked without actually exploring the evidence. I think he has expressed himself well and has been attacked unfairly.

    Obama could have ended this whole issue long ago by simply giving the information needed.

    • John Woodman says:

      I hate to put it this way, but if you want a thorough and arguably objective examination (I maintain there’s no such thing as total objectivity, but that’s another conversation), read the book I wrote.

      I spent the equivalent of 3 months of full time work examining the birth certificate and every forgery theory I could catalog. I began my relationship to the entire issue as an Obama-unfriendly observer under at least a mild presumption that he probably either was born outside of the United States, or had something about his birth record he preferred to hide. If I had found any genuine evidence of forgery, I would’ve called a press conference and announced it to the world.

      I investigated every possible lead I could come up with on possible forgery evidence that had been mentioned by anybody else, and came up with a few on my own. After months of research, I came up completely dry on any genuine evidence for forgery whatsoever, but along the way had deciphered a great deal of what actually was the situation. So I published the results and explanation of anomalies observed, thinking that would be helpful to public knowledge of the situation.

      Instead of being thanked for my efforts, the result was immediate, prolonged and vicious personal attack, along with arguing about many of the conclusions. It seems that quite a few people do not want to accept reality.

      Nine months later, not one single significant point of the extensive analysis I did has been debunked by anybody. I estimate I made around 120 substantive points in the 221-page book, and not a single one of those has been factually debunked. The biggest thing — the ONLY thing, in fact — that I’ve had to retract was my erroneously referring to the Democratic Party as the “Democrat Party.”

      Many of those making the forgery claims have been directly confronted regarding the absolute deceptive garbage they are promoting to the public, and instead of either acknowledging they have no case, or actually refuting the analysis that shows their claims are completely bogus, they have completely ignored the truth, found “authority” to back them up, and continued promoting known and demonstrated falsehoods to the public.

      As for Garrett, he claims he’s going to prove (figuratively speaking) that it’s impossible for black swans to exist. Fine, but we have actual known black swans. Or, to put it more directly, he proposes to “prove” that the anomalies in Obama’s PDF “can’t” be caused by optimization. The problem is that we have hundreds or (far more likely) thousands of files known to have been scanned and optimized, which show virtually identical characterstics to almost all of the “anomalies” in the PDF. And these are very specific and characteristic anomalies.

      Aside from that, you get to a point where you’ve gone over the totality of the evidence so many times, and know it so well, that you understand it’s not just the known examples of optimized files. It’s everything. There is NOTHING that adds up about the forgery theories. It’s all just such obvious — I can’t use the word that comes to mind, as I want to keep this a family-friendly site. Malarkey. Hogwash. Utter nonsense. Complete, unrelenting bogosity. Snake oil. Unbelievable baloney.

      It’s like spending your summer in a West African village, and seeing somebody stand up and tell the public they’ve got this cure for malaria that’s a problem in that part of the world, and it supposedly consists of voodoo dolls made from Australian wallaby hides, because malaria is caused by evil spirits, and the wallaby hides have a special property that drives the malaria spirits away. And you stand up and say, wait a minute — actually, we know for a fact that malaria is caused by germs, not evil spirits, and there is medicine which is mostly effective, which the people can buy if they don’t waste their money on wallaby hides.

      And then someone like Garrett stands up and says, “I’m a very learned scientist, and we all need to be very scientific about this. And I am right now on the verge of proving that these so-called ‘germs; don’t exist, and can’t possibly exist, so you need to buy the wallaby-hide voodoo dolls from my fr… from this excellent professional Doctor here, who undoubtedly knows exactly what he’s talking about.”

      Fine, but the known facts are that the salesman’s claims are utter hogwash — and there’s no doubt about that, and there’s nothing that the “scientist” is going to come up with to disprove the existence of germs, because we KNOW that they exist.

      And that’s about where we’re at with this issue. Perhaps that provides a bit of an explanation for my disdain.

  16. miss your voices 2012 says:

    So basically you are saying that since you were mocked it is okay to go ahead and use the same tactics towards Garrett or others who feel that their evidence proves to be true. I mean is “fruit cake” really effective in showing that you should be listened to anymore than anyone else.

    Your statement:

    “I investigated every possible lead I could come up with on possible forgery evidence that had been mentioned by anybody else, and came up with a few on my own. After months of research, I came up completely dry on any genuine evidence for forgery whatsoever, but along the way had deciphered a great deal of what actually was the situation. So I published the results and explanation of anomalies observed, thinking that would be helpful to public knowledge of the situation.”

    seems to suggest that at one point you were actually willing to be objective and look at every angle. Why not continue to do that? Is it because you have written this book and feel backed in the corner by it? Wouldn’t it be more honest to continue to investigate and see every piece of evidence or explanation out there?

    Often times the old saying “where there is smoke, there is fire” is true. There seems to be a lot of smoke surrounding this PDF. Why did there have to be 3 different iterations of the birth certificate released the day the PDF was released. All three of these differn in one way or the other. I just think that Obama is playing games one way or another. Garrett just seems to be trying to do the same thing you did.

    • John Woodman says:

      Often times the old saying “where there is smoke, there is fire” is true. There seems to be a lot of smoke surrounding this PDF.

      There’s plenty of smoke, all right. I’ve seen smokescreen after smokescreen after smokescreen.

      By my count or estimation, more than SIXTY different false / meritless claims, publicly made. Every single one factually shown to be false / meritless. And again and again, people who keep publicly making the same claims even after they’ve been shown to be false / meritless, even after the falsehood has been publicly pointed out to them, even after it’s clear they can’t support their own claims.

      From what I guess and can see, Garrett’s probably a pretty decent guy. He and I would probably get along well enough at a picnic. Why he wants to side with con-men, swindlers and frauds is beyond me.

      I will say this: Garrett is probably one of the most technically competent birthers around.

      I’m not really impressed with some of his past positions, though.

      Garrett has publicly claimed that kerning is present on the Obama birth certificate. He has publicly claimed that the seal is not visible on the PDF. He has publicly claimed there is a typo in the registrar stamp. He has publicly claimed there is a “smiley face” in the stamp. He has publicly claimed that Minor v Happersett established that Obama is not a natural born citizen.

      All five of those things are false, and known to be false. And yet Garrett has publicly made those false claims in the past.

      At best, this suggests a lack of good judgment on Garrett’s part.

      Anyway, Garrett is free to knock himself out. Who knows? He might hit the lottery. But in light of the birthers’ 60+ to zero record, and what I know of Garrett’s own record, you can count me as skeptical.

  17. I have seen Garrett post here and through a search I found a “Garrett” at ObamaConspiracy.org and a “GarrettP” at National Review. I you are the same Garrett have you ever posted any analysis anywhere that we can review? I do not see you have added anything with the comments here and the other blogs.

    I think what John W. posted cannot be understated. You would have to admit that to carry off a forgery on this grand scale would require a lot of people and expertise so evidence put aside for a minute the odds of any conspiracy existing would have to be much less than say 1%. As JW has said he has investigated of 60 individual claims of manipulation and exactly zero have held up. That tells us that there are many people out there trying to prove it is a forgery who are so motivated as to either outright lie like Jerome Corsi or who have deceived themselves believing what is not and into posting their poor science on the internet for political reasons.

    Therefore, when a new claim comes along the astute observer would conclude that No. 61 is following down the path of the first 60 before. There is another very important point that everyone has missed. Even if someone were to prove conclusively and beyond doubt there was human manipulation of the pdf image this is not a conclusive proof of forgery. There are other valid reasons that such a significant document might have been touched up or tweeked for display on the White House web site. I do not think this is the case but it is a hurdle an investigator out to catch a criminal would have to jump. I can give you an example where this likely happened. The image of the letter that President Obama sent to Kapi’oloni Hospital to commemorate their anniversary appears to have been manipulated to “look good” on the web site. Birthers jumped all over this and made the absurd claim that the President forged a letter he himself wrote! (I never understood just why he would do that but my head hurts when I try to think like a Birther.)

    So Garrett, bring on your experts.

    • John Woodman says:

      I’m aware of some analysis that Garrett did, which was a better cut than most of what I’ve seen from birther “experts.” I’ve also mentioned, however, five known false claims that Garrett has publicly promoted in the past.

      But I will let him point you to whatever he wants to share.

      Since Garrett seems to be in with Corsi, I would guess we might see whatever he thinks he has in the next earth-shattering press release from the Marikopa Kops.

  18. gsgs says:

    http://www.teapartypowerhour.com/videos.html
    video 4
    Mark Gillar (?) optimization produced 45 layers (1.03)
    on his computer

    can’t we figure out, what optimization software WH used ?
    (ask them)

    ———————————-
    John Woodman says: June 2, 2012 at 5:14 am
    > I’m not sure how you think you can “prove” that compression doesn’t
    > produce the kind of layers seen in Obama’s PDF when we have
    > hundreds if not thousands of examples of files known to have
    > been scanned and optimized, which display not only the same
    > kind of layers as seen in the PDF, but also display virtually
    > every other “anomaly” observed.

    can we have one of these examples ?
    ————————————-
    > I personally don’t have the slightest doubt that the PDF
    > was created exactly as I outlined.

    there is always ~some~ doubt. I’m at 20% doubt, currently
    so, I’d bet $80 vs. $20 that it was (basically) created as you outlined
    ———————————–

  19. Pingback: The DC Post » The Argument FOR US Birth

  20. Hermitian says:

    There is strong evidence that the layers in Obama’s PDF image did not result from automatic (or software) scanning. Many of the objects have precise rectangular boundaries the side of which touch on the boundaries of elements (i.e. text) of the objects. Both the vertical and the horizontal sides of the object boxes do this. Moreover for the vertical sides, the points of maximum extent of the object occurs randomly on points along the verticle sides. For the horizonal sides in some cases the sides touch the bottom or top edges of a row of text. No optimization software that is based on automatic scanning that I am aware or can “anticipate” where the points of maximum extents of each object will occur. The scanning (i.e. optimization) program would have to compute the location of the sides after the fact and then readjust each rectangular object box to coincide with the points of maximum extent of each object. This is improbable. It is more likely that a human placed the object boundaries by a rectangle selection tool in a graphics program. The observed object boundaries are more consistent with human manipulation than with automatic scanning.

    • John Woodman says:

      Hermitian,

      I don’t mean to be unkind, but the assertion you make is downright silly.

      It is human beings who create imprecise boundaries, not computer programs. In fact, your observation that boundary areas of elements are trimmed right down to those elements is clear evidence that such trimming was done by a program.

      This alone doesn’t rule out manual manipulation — as some programs will do such trimming when someone is working manually with a file — but it is manifestly no evidence at all of what you claim it is “strong evidence” of.

      Again, I don’t mean to be unkind, but I don’t think you understand what “strong evidence” is. And you are claiming that something which — if anything — is evidence against your position, is “strong evidence” for it. That’s just silly.

      • Hermitian says:

        Here’s a little additional detail on my earlier post regarding the improbability that the nine objects with rectangular boundaries that comprise the Obama LFCOLB forgery were an artifact of file-size optimization. My earlier observation was that the edges of some of the object rectangles coincide with the maximim extent of the contained image. However this observation was not universally true for all nine objects and all four edges of each rectangular object. The details for each object are listed below. These results are from InkScape and Photoshop.

        img0 – background + form matrix lines + sparse scattered text — zero edges touch the maximum extent of the contained image.

        img1 – form text + form check boxes + typewritten text + one partial signature + two handwritten dates — left and right edges touch image, top and bottom edges do not.

        img2 – Onaka’s signature stamp — left and bottom edges touch, top and right edges do not.

        img3 – Onaka’s date stamp — left and bottom edges touch, top and right edges do not.

        img4 – Registrar General’s date stamp — left and bottom edges touch, top and right edges do not.

        img5 – Local Registrar’s date stamp — left and bottom edges touch, top and right edges do not.

        img6 – “Non” — left and bottom edges touch, top and right edges do not.

        img7 – Top white splotches — left, bottom and right edges touch, top edge does not.

        im8 – Bottom white splotches — left and bottom edges touch, top and right edges do not.

        The edges of the nine boxes which do not touch the maximum extents of the contained image vary in distance from the image extents.

        The background (img0) has a uniform white border around it’s four edges.

        Please identify the optimization software that produced these results.

        • Thomas Brown says:

          Nobody needs to pay the slightest attention to any of the trivial, meaningless problems you think you see. Goodness but Birthers are so much fun to watch and laugh at, like seeing an idiot trying to nail jello to a tree. Except that eventually even an idiot might realize it can’t be done, while Birthers never would… They’d be thinking that all they have to do is find the right hammer, or the right tree.

          Any day now. Any day now.

          • Hermitian says:

            But you Obama supporters claim to have long ago debunked all the evidence that the Obama LFCOLB PDF image is a forgery.

            Your main contention is that the WH staff produced the PDF image by scanning a certified paper copy of Obama’s original birth certificate. The certified copy was produced by the HDOH by dry copy onto green cross-hatch safety paper.

            Thus your claim is that the scanned copies are duplicate copies of Obama’s original birth certificate. Thus the PDF image is a scanned and optimized image made by the WH staff by scanning one of the two certified copies of Obama’s original birth certificate.

            Additionally, you claim that the PDF image is not a forgery but is just weird because it was scrambled when it was optimized to reduce the PDF file size.

            Now I have merely posted one of the obvious anomalies which should be easy for you Obamatrons to refute. Namely, that the rectangular boundaries of the nine objects that comprise the image were manually set by the forger during multiple cut and paste operations.

            However, you collectively have no answers for these obvious anomilies. Meanwhile the Mara Zebest challenge goes entirely unanswered by any of you staunch defenders of Obama’s nativity.

            You people are just a bunch of blowhards. You have absolutely no evidence that Obama’s LFCOLB is not a forgery.

            Nor do you have any evidence that the laser copies of the PDF image that Obama’s attorneys have produced to a Federal court are duplicate copies of Obama’s original birth certificate.

            In other words you have absolutely nothing.

            • insomnia says:

              We have the verifications by the DoH in Hawaii.
              If the state of Hawaii repeatedly says “All the information is verified” what evidence do you have there is ANY forgery?
              The state of Hawaii has verified the information contained in the BC is correct and nothing has been added or changed.
              Why don’t you believe them?

            • Suranis says:

              We have more evidence that his BC is genuine than you have that your BC is genuine. After all your parents could have been lying to you, right. The Local DOH could be in on the scam to disguise who you are. They could have run your BC out of the “forgomatic” and that stamp might not have been affixed by the actual head of the dept of records!

              That’s good enough for me.

            • Jim says:

              Hermitian says: “In other words you have absolutely nothing.”

              How about a REAL forensic expert, hired by WND?

              Ivan Zatkovich: Make sure to check out his qualifications and compare them to the CCP qualifications.

              http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Zatkovich-Obama-PDF-report-final.pdf

              “All of the modifications to the PDF document that can be identified are consistent with someone enhancing the legibility of the document.”

              Now, a question for you, Hermy. Why is it that Jerome Corsi had access to a real expert’s report and yet had to use a bunch of amateurs? Could it be because the real experts didn’t come to the “right” conclusion? Doesn’t that put the whole CCP investigation into question?

        • Slartibartfast says:

          Hermie,

          No one is going to even attempt to “identify the optimization software that produced these results” as the methodology of your research is idiotic. What do you think that identifying the software would demonstrate anyway? Why don’t you try using the scientific method sometime? Or don’t you get tired of being wrong all the time?

          • gsgs says:

            there are some who do, e.g. me.
            The reason is to figure out, how this
            controversy could have evolved, who was right,
            and how we could have figured this out early.
            Figure out a strategy to find hints on whom to
            believe in possible similar future controversies.
            (this was also motivated by the 2002 WMD
            controversy)

            • Slartibartfast says:

              gsgs,

              It doesn’t take Clarence Darrow to understand that there is no need to forge a document that Hawai’i has willingly (and repeatedly) verified. If you investigate the issue with the slightest bit of objectivity (as John did), you quickly discover that not a single birther claim has merit and most of them are based on outright lies.

              As for “figuring this out earlier”… learn some critical thinking—it’s not hard to predict that people who have been telling lies for 4 years because they are prejudiced against President Obama will keep telling lies about President Obama. There is absolutely no equivalence between the two sides in this case and if you can’t see that then the odds are that you’re packing your own confirmation bias.

            • John Woodman says:

              Figure out a strategy to find hints on whom to believe in possible similar future controversies.

              If one side analyzes both sides of the issue in great detail, weighing each point carefully, and the other only produces “experts” which back one particular theory, only rarely mentioning those on the other side of the issue, and not dealing with their claims in any detail at all when they do, believe the first side.

              If one side is shown to have repeatedly made assertions — again and again — that don’t stand up to scrutiny, and the other side hasn’t, believe the other side.

              If one side relies on 22-year-old “experts,” and “experts” who write crap like this, believe the other side.

              If one side has web sites that simply censor factual comments against their case, and the other side generally allows discussion on both sides — even if they send you to a somewhat restricted area if you get really annoying — believe the side that generally allows people on both sides of the issue to speak.

              If one side challenges the other in a debate to back up their claims, and the other side promises to do so but never does, and if the side making the challenge produces the facts, and the other side employs diversion tactics, straightforward ridicule and shouting down their opponent in an attempt to “win” the debate, believe the side that didn’t employ the ridicule, diversionary tactics and shouting down, but issued the challenge on the basis of the facts.

              If one side outright hides evidence that they are aware of, in order to push a particular theory, believe the other side.

              If one side is caught in outright lies and fraud, believe the other side.

              And if one side involves WorldNetDaily, Jerome Corsi, Joseph Farah, or Mario Apuzzo, believe the other side.

            • gsgs says:

              slarti,
              and the CIA had repeatedly verified that there are lots of WMDs in Iraq

              > not a single birther claim

              be careful with such statements. Just one counterexample proves you wrong.
              Here, e.g. the delay in the release and the dismissing motions.
              You can’t easily decide which side has the facts right without going into the details.
              Or finding others that did it and are trustworthy.
              If one side made wrong statements, was debunked on some issues
              that doesn’t imply they were wrong in general, on the main issue.
              It may give some evidence, but how much ?

              Many people don’t even know that the AP,SG,OF documents exist.

              Some part could be missing due to a scanner error, coffee over the scan,
              accidental file manipulation, incompatibilities, whatever.

              If not for a crime, but it makes the CCP right with their forgery claim ?
              (had been tampered with)

              ——————————————
              John,
              > If one side analyzes both sides of the issue in great detail, weighing each point carefully,
              > and the other only produces “experts” which back one particular theory, only rarely
              > mentioning those on the other side of the issue, and not dealing with their claims
              > in any detail at all when they do, believe the first side.

              that failed with the WMDs in Iraq. Or at least it was difficult to find those experts of the other side.
              (and Hussein had also been telling lies for years, slarti)

              > If one side relies on 22-year-old “experts,” and “experts” who write crap like this,
              > believe the other side.

              hmm, so a successful strategy would be to include a 22-year-old into the other side
              and let him write “crap like that”

              > If one side has web sites that simply censor …

              counterexample : Iraq again

              Generally, in war both sides often rely on “bad” behaviour as outlined by you.
              Whom to believe ?

            • Jim says:

              gsgs says:”slarti,
              and the CIA had repeatedly verified that there are lots of WMDs in Iraq”

              http://www.salon.com/2007/09/06/bush_wmd/

              Really?

            • Scientist says:

              I am really quite at a loss to see the connection between the WMDs in Iraq and the CCP. Are they going to investigate that next? If so, then yes, I would scrutinize their conclusions very carefully. If I were on a jury in Maricopa County I would certainly not take the words of any of Arpaio’s people without independent corroboration. Beyond that, I don’t see any connection.

        • John Woodman says:

          In what? Illustrator?

          From earlier observations, I don’t think Illustrator is entirely precise in the way it deals with data.

          When you look at the totality of ALL of the evidence, in context, it’s just ludicrous to claim that the PDF is a forgery. Sorry.

          • Slartibartfast says:

            Not to mention the fact that since there is no motive for forging the document and no fraud which would have been committed had the document be created electronically rather than scanned from a physical version, using an inane methodology to investigate abstruse details of optimization in a Quixotic effort that demonstrates nothing so much as how not to do research seems more than a little foolish.

            Unless the intent is not to find the truth, but to smear the president—then it seems both incompetent and dishonest.

            • gsgs says:

              one possible motive could have
              been that they just only had a scan
              with some part missing or not well readable. So the person who did it cheated a bit and filled in the missing parts from another scan or copied it.
              Or deleted some more layers with white dots. Or merged some layers, or changed
              the colors a bit or included a smiley for fun or …
              Does that qualify as forgery ?

            • Slartibartfast says:

              gsgs,

              No—for a crime to have been committed requires an intent to deceive. In the hypothetical you suggest none of the information would have been changed. Not to mention that the notion that “they just only had a scan with some part missing or not well readable” is ludicrous—the State of Hawai’i said they gave President Obama documents, why would they lie?

          • Hermitian says:

            Not interested in proving that Zebest is wrong eh John? You don’t know a single Obama supporter who will take up Zebest’s challenge do you John?

            I didn’t think so. Blowhards never back up their bloviating.

            • gorefan says:

              What is the Zebest challenge? And how do you know that no one has taken it up?

            • Suranis says:

              I’ve never heard of the Zebest challenge. Is it “proving something to Zebest, the person who says something that Adobe itself says she is wrong about, and who said it is her life’s work to bring Obama down long before BCs entered the equation”

            • Jim says:

              Ivan Zatkovich: over 10 years experience as an expert witness providing testimony in Federal Court for criminal and civil litigation involving document validity…

              “All of the modifications to the PDF document that can be identified are consistent with someone enhancing the legibility of the document.”

            • John Woodman says:

              Hermitian,

              What you don’t seem to get is that there are two possible explanations, not just one.

              One of these explanations — given all of the evidence — is entirely and absolutely plausible.

              One of them is not remotely plausible.

              Not even remotely.

              It’s really irrelevant that we don’t know how to immediately fully, absolutely reconstruct the optimization processes. There are literally billions — if not trillions or quadrillions — of possible combinations. There are FAR more possible optimization combinations than there are people on the planet.

              The utter hypocrisy of Mara Zebest is that she demands of others what she won’t provide herself — a full, complete absolute 100% detailed explanation for their theory — but not hers.

              And you simply cannot explain the various characteristics in the PDF as the product of manual manipulation.

              And this is even without recourse to lots of other evidence which is destructive to Zebest’s scenario: The repeated official clarifications from Hawaii that yes, Obama was born there, and the photographic evidence we have that yes, they DID send the White House at least one PAPER certificate.

              This entire brouhaha is — from any rational and reasonable point of view — utterly idiotic. It’s like having people who claim to be experts trying to convince the country that the Grand Canyon “can not” have arisen by natural causes.

              So they put forth the theory that the American Indians, or maybe aliens, dug the Grand Canyon. And then they demand that those who laugh at them create another canyon like the Grand Canyon, using a river. And if they don’t, then it’s “proof” that Indians or aliens dug the Grand Canyon.

              And some of these people are making money off of their quack claims. And not just a little money, either.

              And then they have useful idiots who both give them money and complain that the reasonable, sane people are “blowhards” who really don’t know anything about it.

              It’s frankly beyond ridiculous.

        • Suranis says:

          Wow. Like, there’s NO WAY a computer would repeat the same shape over and over again in a program that was designed to save space. I conputer programmer would never think of telling a program to just copy one graphic across multiple instances by telling the PDF to display THIS SQUARE where marker X appears.

          And of course a forget would manually copy and paste every box in different positions rather than beside one another procedure that would take hours, and laboriously cut a halo around every one in the background layer

          He would also build up words by pasteing the same letters all over the place in the document, rather than just typing the words out. And cut a white halo around those.

          And then create a totally different forged document for the AP with none of those artifacts. And yet another forged document just for Savannah Guthrie with the raised seal. Right?

          Idiot.

        • John Woodman says:

          Here’s my question for you:

          Go back and look at these images again.

          I want to know exactly how many pixels away from the image each and every edge is.

          • Hermitian says:

            Here’s a partial answer. Of those object edges that touch the contained image within each rectangular object the boundary edge coincides with the edge of one or more pixels. Of those edges that do not touch the image within each boundary the distance between the edge and the nearest pixel is variable between edges and objects. I have not verified whether or not these no-touch edges are an integer number of pixel edge lengths or not. For the object edges that do touch the contained image, the coincidence of the edges of the object and the edges of the pixels has been verified at a magnification of 800X. It will require higher magnification to resolve the question regarding the object edges that do not touch the contained image.

            • Slartibartfast says:

              Hermie,

              If you want anyone to care about your inane drivel, you first need to explain why the so-called anomaly would indicate human action rather than an algorithm. Humans do things for reasons—what was the reason for doing this? If you can’t answer, then that is strong evidence that it was done by an algorithm (which could clearly be written to achieve the effect you are seeing).

              Really, focusing on banal minutiae without first establishing its significance is extremely foolish and unscientific. Either you don’t understand the importance of doing so (which begs the question of why anyone should care about what you are saying) or you are unable to do so (which means that you are trying to find a way to smear the president and don’t care whether or not it is true as long as you can con people into believing it). Neither option speaks highly of you.

            • John Woodman says:

              What I want to know is, in each instance where it doesn’t touch, how many blank pixels are there between the non-blank pixel and the boundary?

        • gsgs says:

          seems to me that this “imprecise boundaries” -problem is due to the alignment to 8×8-blocks that I mentioned before. When pixels are lifted to a text-layer then they are replaced with the average color of the non-lifted pixels in that 8×8-block.
          Usually white due to the halo.
          The DCT-compression (JPG) also uses these
          8×8-blocks.
          Hermitian has one error, in img1 the bottom is also touched. So left and bottom are always touched and right is touched in img1 and img7. If you calculate (x,y) of the position, where that layer fits into the whole picture and add to it the size of the layer-pic, then you get 0 (mod 8 ) in all 16 cases.
          probability of coincidence = 8^-16~1:3e14

          • Slartibartfast says:

            gsgs said: “probability of coincidence = 8^-16″

            Nice straw man argument. Logical fallacies are not polite behavior—but they are the birthers’ stock-in-trade.

            The reason your argument is a straw man (since I’m guessing you can’t figure it out on your own) is because the statistic you gave is a red herring—the choices aren’t (A) done by a human or (B) happened by chance, they are (A) done by a human or (B) done by an algorithm. Since there is no conceivable reason that a human would have done this intentionally and it is extremely unlikely to have happened by chance, you’ve just demonstrated that the probability that this is an unremarkable algorithmic artifact is pretty damn close to 1.

            • nbc says:

              The reason your argument is a straw man (since I’m guessing you can’t figure it out on your own) is because the statistic you gave is a red herring—the choices aren’t (A) done by a human or (B) happened by chance, they are (A) done by a human or (B) done by an algorithm.

              I may be wrong but I believe that is what he is suggesting. A human would have no reason to abide by some algorithmic formulation.

            • John Woodman says:

              So it looks like the reason for the extra pixels is not (as I surmised) that boundaries were drawn first and then some pixels were eliminated, but that the data storage is always done in 8 x 8 graphic blocks? Is that what I’m hearing?

            • nbc says:

              Yes, for some reason, the top and right side are aligned with 8×8 boundaries, while the bottom and left are aligned with the bitmap. This means that on these sides the bitmap borders the border while there is space on the right and top side. I have to think about the nature of the algorithm but this is a good find by gsgs

            • gsgs says:

              I put this all here:
              http://letsrollforums.com/birth-certificate-analysis-t28401p2.html
              where I can edit and update and post tables and pictures and longer lines.

            • nbc says:

              Very good finds. You surely have spent your time well and the 8×8 alignment has been a major step forward.

              Thank you very much..

            • John Woodman says:

              Congratulations, Guenter. You seem to be turning into a competent debunker of new birther mythologies. ;-)

            • Slartibartfast says:

              Geunter,

              It appears I owe you an apology for many of the things I said about you—I am sorry, but your approach to this subject was very similar to tactics that birthers have used for years.

              You may disapprove of my methods, but my goal is to foster discussion in good faith. As people who act in bad faith are anathema to such discussions, I feel that pointing out their lack of integrity is necessary.

              You might understand my contempt for birthers if you recognize two facts (and they are facts):

              1. It is inconceivable (and that word means what I think it means ;-) ) that any US court could rule that President Obama was not born in Hawai’i (or that he is not a natural born citizen thereby).

              2. As a consequence, the idea that the images or copies of the LFBC released by the White House are, in any sense, a “forgery” is ridiculous on its face (provided you are aware of #1).

              People like Hermie want to hide amongst abstruse details in order to avoid addressing these two facts. I apologize for mistaking you for one of his ilk. I don’t, however, apologize for anything I said about him—I’m glad he got himself banned so that John and the others (including, I now see, yourself) don’t have to waste your time debunking his nonsense.

              Kevin

            • nbc says:

              gsgs has added additional information that will help use speculate as to the precise workflow used.

          • nbc says:

            Hermitian has one error, in img1 the bottom is also touched. So left and bottom are always touched and right is touched in img1 and img7. If you calculate (x,y) of the position, where that layer fits into the whole picture and add to it the size of the layer-pic, then you get 0 (mod 8 ) in all 16 cases.

            Hmm, sounds like an algorithm here. I was looking for something like you have found. Could you please clarify the exact nature of the calculations?

            • gsgs says:

              the program selected the letters/components that did match some color-triple into a layer.
              The borders of the layers were always aligned to the 8×8-grid.Then the empty lines at the left and bottom (bottom and right before rotating – all the pics were rotated for some reason) were deleted to save space.
              —————-
              This was independent of the 8×8 blocks used for the DCT compression, though. To match that alignment we would need 16×16-blocks for the text-layers because of the double-resolution, but it doesn’t align to 16×16

            • nbc says:

              Yes, that what I concluded as well. Great find. So in other words, the likelihood of an algorithm appears to be quite high here. Will report more but I finally got to understand what you stated.

              8×8 block. Pure genius…

              People, you may not have realized but gsgs has stumbled onto something quite important and it was only self evident after the fact.

              I am impressed.

            • nbc says:

              This was independent of the 8×8 blocks used for the DCT compression, though. To match that alignment we would need 16×16-blocks for the text-layers because of the double-resolution, but it doesn’t align to 16×16

              But the segmentation was probably done on the 300dpi in 8×8 blocks and then the jpeg was subsampled to 150dpi.
              And yes, they do not align to 16×16.

        • gsgs says:

          layer,size,position (distance of layer from (left,below) border)
          ————————-
          1,1819×1454,(373,970)
          2,778×199,(1270,257)
          3,274×42,(710,334)
          4,228×123,(1836,1021)
          5,216×47,(432,1017)
          6,70×34,(1458,1310)
          7,217×243,(735,533)
          8,142×132,(1050,3140)

          size and position add to (0,0) mod 8

          • nbc says:

            Yes. So this explains why the black borders the sides on the left and bottom as this can be fine tuned but the top and right side come from the 8×8 pixel-group used by MRC to segment.

            I have only done a few but all I have to wonder about now is why does it start on the top right? Or did the scan start from the bottom left. I am still trying to figure out the actual algorithm and why only two sides are ‘aligned’.

            Regardless, this is an excellent find.

    • nbc says:

      There is strong evidence that the layers in Obama’s PDF image did not result from automatic (or software) scanning. Many of the objects have precise rectangular boundaries the side of which touch on the boundaries of elements (i.e. text) of the objects.

      Exactly how an algorithmic process would work. Funny how you believe a human can do this more accurately than an algorithm, for which it is trivial. I believe the problem is that you do not really understand how these programs work.

      Hint, for every pixel of a color close to the other text, obtain the (x,y) coordinate. Then update min_x, min_y and max_x and max_y if necessary. In the end the rectangle is the determined by

      (min_x,min_y) as the bottom left corner and (max_x, max_y) as the top right corner,

      Really simple, and it can be done while scanning for matching pixels.

      • Hermitian says:

        So you are suggesting that the nine objects were selected by their color? How ridiculous is that? Eight of the nine layers are one bit layers with a color assigned which is other than black. So you are suggesting that these objects had these unique colors before optimization? You must be joking!

        • nbc says:

          So you are suggesting that the nine objects were selected by their color? How ridiculous is that? Eight of the nine layers are one bit layers with a color assigned which is other than black.

          Exactly. That is how these text segmentation algorithms work. While the original text unlikely had the same color, the color differences were small enough to allow the compression algorithm to represent them as monochrome bitmap with a color code assigned to them. In order to optimize compression one has to use rectangular monochrome bitmaps which requires one to map closely related colors to the same ‘color’ for compression. Trivial.

          So you are suggesting that these objects had these unique colors before optimization? You must be joking!

          Not a very serious argument. While we do not have a document to compare the colors against, it is hardly unreasonable. You on the other hand have to explain why a forger would assign a non-black color to text? You do realize that the text separated involved various stamps?
          Once again, commonly applied algorithms beat an explanation which requires the forger to use non-black colors for text. There is just no credible explanation for forgery and the indicators which are argued to be indicators of such have almost all been shown to be explained by commonly used algorithms.

          • Hermitian says:

            Well Obama claims that his PDF image is a duplicate copy of one the two certified copies that he received from the HDOH on Apr 25, 2011. We know that these two copies were produced by dry copy process on thick cross-hatch safety paper. Therefore the colors would be black on green. Given what we know for a fact your scheme is ludicrous. The most likely scenario is that Obama released the plale-blue paper copies to the White House press core and the green background PDF image on the WH server just to screw with the Birthers. It’s right out of the Saul Alinsky play book.

            • nbc says:

              Well Obama claims that his PDF image is a duplicate copy of one the two certified copies that he received from the HDOH on Apr 25, 2011. We know that these two copies were produced by dry copy process on thick cross-hatch safety paper.

              Surely even you must be familiar with grey-scales?…

              With some stamps which are clearly different from the surrounding text. No wonder that they were separated and colored accordingly.
              Just simple logic. The alternative requires just some incredible steps by the ‘forger’.

              Sorry my friend Alinsky betrays you…

              Here are the stroking colors for the bitmaps
              im2 0.1059 0.17650 0.1216 sc q
              im3 0.34510 0.3922 0.3529 sc q
              im4 0.302 0.34510 0.3216 sc q
              im5 0.2549 0.3373 0.2627 sc q
              im6 0.3412 0.4353 0.3412 sc q
              im 7 0.2549 0.3373 0.2627 sc q
              im8 0.9412 0.9725 0.9216 sc q
              im9 /Cs2 cs ; Grey Scale Gama 2.2

              The color codes are percent codes, multiply them by 255 to get RGB codes.

            • Scientist says:

              So what? It’s his birth certificate and his web site. He can optimize the pdf however he likes to make it easy to read. It’s the information on the certificate that matters. Period.

              Do you have any evidence that any of the information is incorrect? I didn’t think so. Have a nice evening.

            • Scientist says:

              By the way, if Mitt Romney ever releases his tax returns, do you think people will care about the fonts, or would it be the numbers that matter?

            • nbc says:

              The most likely scenario is that Obama released the plale-blue paper copies to the White House press core and the green background PDF image on the WH server just to screw with the Birthers. It’s right out of the Saul Alinsky play book.

              Still confused? The high resolution picture which was printed out fails to show the background of the safety paper. You do realize how safety paper works? You do remember what Savannah’s Guthrie’s photograph looked like?
              Ah…

              As to messing with birthers. It does not take much, they are just too gullible and ignorant.

            • Slartibartfast says:

              Scientist said:

              By the way, if Mitt Romney ever releases his tax returns, do you think people will care about the fonts, or would it be the numbers that matter?

              Personally, if he just released the data and the IRS verified that it was correct, it would be perfectly fine with me.

      • nbc says:

        You may check out the paper:

        “Recursive X-Y Cut using Bounding Boxes of Connected Components” by Ha, Haralick and Philips and the modifications described in “A modified recursive x-y cut algorithm for solving block ordering problems ” by Sutheebanjard

        To achieve the best results from an OCR system, the pre-processing steps must be performed with a high degree of accuracy and reliability. There are two critically important steps in the OCR pre-processing phase. First, blocks must be extracted from each page of the scanned document. Secondly, all blocks resulting from the first step must be arranged in the correct order. One of the most notable techniques for block ordering in the second step is the recursive x-y cut (RXYC) algorithm. This technique works accurately only when applied to documents with a simple page layout but it causes incorrect block ordering when applied to documents with complex page layouts. This paper proposes a modified recursive x-y cut algorithm for solving block ordering problems for documents with complex page layouts. This proposed algorithm can solve problems such as (1) the overlapping block problem; (2) the blocks overlay problem, and (3) the L-Shaped block problem.

        Other algorithms include:

        smearing, whitespace, Docstrum, Voronoi and text-line

        • Hermitian says:

          Except no OCR optimization was applied to the Obama PDF because text cannot be found in the document and the text is not search able.

          • nbc says:

            I am not talking about OCR optimization but rather about optimization of document size. The best way to achieve this is through Mixed Raster compression as it separates text and background. Since the text contains most information, it will be rescaled with higher DPI and will not be compressed using JPG which will cause smearing and soft boundaries. It may be compressed with JBIG2 compression which explains why characters appear to be the same, even though on the high resolution they are only closely similar.
            How familiar are you with the optimization applied to reduce document size while maintaining readability?

            DJVU, CCITT, Mixed Raster Content, text segmentation and more.

            As to no OCR was applied, even that is not self evident as the layer may have been removed by the workflow process. For instance scanning workflow for lawyers typically removes such OCR layers. One does not have to make it too easy on one’s opponent.

            Simple workflow as opposed to an unbelievable forger.

          • Suranis says:

            Where was OCR optimization mentioned in the quoted part?

            I love that birthers are still stuck on the OCR acronym. Anti-birthers looked at OCR optimization and abandoned it as the process within a day, but birthers basically see it as

            We claim it can only have been done with OCR optimization.

            Text is not searchable.

            Therefore its a forgery!

            What do you mean there are other optimization processes??? This is starting to seem like work! Wahhh!

            The program took parts of the image and converted them into simpler monochrome graphics, approximately the colour of the original ink + paper, to take the size of the file right down. And reused the same graphic multiple times around the paper as doing it that way helps reduce the size of the document. The end.

    • nbc says:

      Just found another algorithm which removes horizontal and vertical lines from the text segmentation part. Again something which makes sense and is found in the PDF.
      Check out patent 8,000,535 “Methods and systems for refining text segmentation results “

    • Suranis says:

      This must be the first person to ever claim that a computer cant create mathematically precise images and a human can. Obama hatred truly has magical powers.

      • nbc says:

        To those less familiar with math and algorithms, this may very well appear to be ‘magic’…

  21. Hermitian says:

    The Obama PDF image purports to be a scan of one of the two certified copies of Obama’s original birth certificate that Obama received from the HDOH on Apr 25, 2011. According to AAG Nagamine these two copies were produced by the dry copy process onto heavy weight green cross-hatch safety paper. Both copies then had the Hawaii state seal applied and the State Registrar’s date and signature stamps applied in black ink. The colors of these two certified copies were thus black on green.

    The two versions of Obama’s purported LFCOLB were both released on Apr 27, 2011. One version was the paper Xerox copies on plain pale-blue paper. The raw handouts had course aliasing of the text. Another image of the black on pale-blue background LFCOLB was released by the AP. This was either a scan or a digital photograph made by photographer J. Scott Applewhite. This image was anti-aliased with a smaller pixel size than the raw handouts. The original for the Applewhite image was purported to be the Xerox copy on plain pale-blue paper. The other image released by the White House was the green-background PDF. This image is a color image.

  22. nbc says:

    The colors of these two certified copies were thus black on green.

    Never heard of grey scales? Duh…

    The two versions of Obama’s purported LFCOLB were both released on Apr 27, 2011. One version was the paper Xerox copies on plain pale-blue paper.

    Where they on pale-blue paper or where they color copies? I have not seen it explained. If it was printed on blueish paper then it was likely B&W.

    The raw handouts had course aliasing of the text. Another image of the black on pale-blue background LFCOLB was released by the AP. This was either a scan or a digital photograph made by photographer J. Scott Applewhite. This image was anti-aliased with a smaller pixel size than the raw handouts.

    The AP copy appears to be a high resolution scan of the original. I have so far seen images of 72DPI but the size of the copy was about 4.5 times larger, making the resolution about 300dpi. Quite reasonable

    The original for the Applewhite image was purported to be the Xerox copy on plain pale-blue paper. The other image released by the White House was the green-background PDF. This image is a color image.

    I am not sure what you are alluding to here. The green PDF is the one scanned, the others are a printed version and a photographed version. Given that the document involves security paper, it should not come as a surprise that the weave does not copy very well. I have no idea why you are talking about anti-aliasing.

    Meaningless talking points? Or are you referring to Zebest failing to appreciate the differences in bitmap and background DPI and compression?

    • Suranis says:

      Anti-aliasing is a term used in computer gaming. Basically its where the edges are a bit faded to smooth the appearance of the object a bit

      http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/Aliasing_a.png

      that’s an example of anti-aliased. the one on the right is anti-aliased

      I think he is trying to say that that AP photo has smooth edges therefore FORGERY!!!

      • Hermitian says:

        All high-quality scanners and all digital cameras have anti-aliasing built in. In digital photography, the anti-aliasing is done by the image sensor. Because Scott Applewhite is a photographer, he most likely used a macrocopy stand equipped with a Nikon or Canon 35 mm digital camera and selected either raw image or PDF output to produce the AP image of the purported LFCOLB. The original was a paper copy.

        Knock yourself out…

        http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Digital_Imaging/Aliasing_01.htm

        • Scientist says:

          I don’t get your argument at all. You seem to be saying that a picture taken with a camera under one set of conditions must look identical to a scan made by a scanner under another set of conditions.

          I have photos taken of myself under bright lights, dim lights, indoors, outdoors, by good photoographers and bad ones. They all look different, but they are all me. And by the way, I look great under ALL of those conditions. People tell me I look better than George Clooney.

          • Hermitian says:

            The point Sci is that the two certified copies are Xerox copies. These were produced on green cross-hatch safety paper. You Obots claim that the White House produced the plain pale-blue background handout copies by Xerox onto plain pale-blue paper. You also claim that this process would also remove all traces of the green cross-hatch safety background. The original for the pale-blue handout copies was claimed to be one of the two certified copies. The certified copies would not be pixelated. However the pal-blue copies are pixelated. A Xerox copy of a Xerox copy does not produce a pixelated image unless the original was pixelated. Therefore. In order for the pale-blue copies to be pixelated, the WH would have had to scan one of the two certified copies to make an original for the pale-blue copies. The WH would have then Xeroxed this scanned original. The obvious question is why would the WH do that except to screw the Birthers? If you don’t like that answer, then the most likely scenario is that the original for the pale-blue copies was a forgery. In that case the LFCOLB image released as a pale-blue paper copy was a Xerox copy of a forged original.

            • Scientist says:

              Actually I’m not claiming anything, you are. I didn’t even claim that I look better than Clooney, just that “people tell me that”.

              As for the White House screwing the birthers, that is not only allowed, but mandatory. The birthers are crooks and setting up stings to catch crooks is standard law enforcement procedure.

              So far the White House sting caught Corsi and the CCP in a lie. I caught Garrett Papit in a lie last night right here. Sounds like a successful sting. Don’t get caught yourself.

            • Suranis says:

              You also claim that this process would also remove all traces of the green cross-hatch safety background.

              Well I dunno about you, but I can clearly see the cross hatching on the left hand side where the copy darkens

              http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/BirthCertificateHighResolution.jpg

              The certified copies would not be pixelated.

              Uh, why not? You yourself said that the process used my the HDOH was Xerox. What they did was scan and copy the original from the book, trim the new copy and then scan and copy THAT onto the security paper, which they then stamped and certified. That’s plenty of steps for pixelation.

              A Xerox copy of a Xerox copy does not produce a pixelated image unless the original was pixelated.

              Any xerox produced in the last 10 years would. Why don’t you chat to your copying salesman about it? Assuming you could even see the various levels of Pixelation from a pixel copy.

              This is like arguing with somebody who points at patterns in tea leaves.

              So you have a load of false assumptions leading to a false and illogical conclusion. Its yet another Sunday in Birtherstan.

            • gorefan says:

              “The certified copies would not be pixelated. However the pal-blue copies are pixelated. A Xerox copy of a Xerox copy does not produce a pixelated image unless the original was pixelated.”

              So you actually have an original copy of the xeroxed BC that was handed out to reporters, one of the actual paper copies handed out at the press conference?

              Or are you looking at a copy of the xerox BC that was uploaded to the internet by various news sites and magnifing it to see the pixelation?

            • nbc says:

              The point Sci is that the two certified copies are Xerox copies. These were produced on green cross-hatch safety paper. You Obots claim that the White House produced the plain pale-blue background handout copies by Xerox onto plain pale-blue paper.

              Actually, I always assumed that these were color copies on white paper. The blue hue is consistent with the hue found on Savannah Guthrie’s photograph.

              You also claim that this process would also remove all traces of the green cross-hatch safety background.

              Not all traces. The green basketweave pattern copies poorly and thus attempts to copy will result in tell tale signs.

              The original for the pale-blue handout copies was claimed to be one of the two certified copies. The certified copies would not be pixelated. However the pal-blue copies are pixelated.

              Well, duh, they had to be scanned in or photographed to be displayed on a computer. Both processes generate pixelation.

              A Xerox copy of a Xerox copy does not produce a pixelated image unless the original was pixelated.

              So have you seen the original handout? Do you have a copy? I have only seen electronic copies thereof which of course show evidence of pixelation.

    • Hermitian says:

      Obvious, to all but the logically challenged Obots, what I was alluding to was that all of these faux duplicate copies were supposed to have been produced from one of the two certified copies of Obama’s original birth certificate. We know that these two copies were produced by the HDOH on Apr. 25, 2011. We also know that the process used by the HDOH was Xerox copy onto green cross-hatch safety paper. Therefore HDOH did not scan the original birth certificate to produce the two certified copies. However, both versions of the pale-blue background handout images were scanned. The raw paper handouts had coarse aliased text and the Scott Applewhite image had fine anti-aliasing with uniform pixel size. Consequently, neither of these images is an exact duplicate copy of either certified copy. Therefore, either these plain pale-blue background copies are forgeries or the Whitehouse first scanned the certified copy and then Xeroxed the scanned copy. Obviously if it was the latter, then the WH was just trying to throw the Birthers off the chain of custody. Consequently, if we believe that the WH was playing it straight, then the pale-blue background images were forgeries. It then follows that the PDF image was a scanned color copy of a forgery and the green cross-hatch safety background was added and then the entire image was deliberately manipulated to screw with the Birthers’ minds.

      • nbc says:

        It then follows that the PDF image was a scanned color copy of a forgery and the green cross-hatch safety background was added and then the entire image was deliberately manipulated to screw with the Birthers’ minds.

        The workflow does not match. First of all, the B&W (bluish) version shows evidence of security paper. If the PDF image was a scanned color copy, then explain the existence of multiple layers. Or was the manipulation done to screw with the Birthers’ minds. Well it worked, they have come up with fantastic, but logically inconsistent scenarios which fall on application of reason and fact.

        So let’s revisit what we do know:

        President Obama obtained two certified copies of his long form birth certificate. This was verified by the Department of Health of Hawaii, showing that President Obama was, as had been certified and verified before, born in Hawaii. The documents were shown during a press conference and photographed at least once by Savannah Guthrie who not only felt the seal but also photographed it.
        In addition, B&W/bluish hue, versions of the birth certificate were handed out and either photographed or scanned and distributed on the internet in varying resolution. What is clear is that the document’s DPI, when properly scaled was about 300dpi, much higher than the DPI of the jpeg and the bitmaps. Note that the bitmap’s DPI was twice the one of the jpeg, requiring a scaling of twice the other. Zebest makes some claims that such scaling does not make sense and yet, MRC compression has settings which show 2 to 1 ratio for text and background. Which makes sense since the background can be of lower DPI.
        Then there is a low resolution, highly compressed version which shows, according to some ‘experts’ evidence of possible fraud, even though, as I and others have shown, these indicators can be much better explained by algorithms and workflow, rather than by appeal to a forger. Even Hermitian accepts this as the argument now is that the poor forgery was to mess with the birthers’ minds. As if this would require any effort…

        • Hermitian says:

          “In addition, B&W/bluish hue, versions of the birth certificate were handed out and either photographed or scanned and distributed on the internet in varying resolution. What is clear is that the document’s DPI, when properly scaled was about 300dpi, much higher than the DPI of the jpeg and the bitmaps. Note that the bitmap’s DPI was twice the one of the jpeg, requiring a scaling of twice the other. Zebest makes some claims that such scaling does not make sense and yet, MRC compression has settings which show 2 to 1 ratio for text and background. Which makes sense since the background can be of lower DPI.”

          Well this is typical of the sloppy posting that one finds all over these [DELETED] sites. Lots of bloviating but no facts. There are three different images of Obama’s LFCOLB which I believe can shed light on the discussion at this time. These three images are still available on the internet. The three images are as follows:

          The Associated Press (AP) copy of the WH handout on plain pale paper:

          http://abclocal.go.com/wls/gallery?section=news&id=8096950&photo=1

          TheObamaFile “high resolution” copy of the WH handout on plain pale paper:

          http://theobamafile.com/_images/BirthCertificateHighResolution.jpg

          The White House PDF image on green cross-hatch safety paper:

          http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf

          The AP pale-blue background and WH green background images are both PDF file format.

          TheObamaFile HR image is JPEG format.

          In this posting the two pale-blue images are compared. We will then compare the pale blue and green PDF images in a second posting.

          TheObamaFile HR image is relevant because the ObamaConspiracy web site cited this image to disprove some of the artifacts observed in the WH green background PDF image.

          See: “Long form artifacts vanish at higher resolution”
          By Dr. Conspiracy on June 8, 2011″

          http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/06/long-form-artifacts-vanish-at-higher-resolution/

          For convenience I will refer to the two pale-blue background images as the HR and AP images.

          The statistics for the HR image as downloaded are:

          File Size ….. 1996 kb
          Image Size ….. 56.21in. X 67.37in.
          X Pixels ….. 4047
          Y Pixels ….. 4851
          Resolution 72 X 72 pixels/in.

          So we see that the image size of the HR image is essentially “poster size”. What purpose this large image was intended for is unknown.

          For comparison, the statistics for the AP image as downloaded are:

          File Size ….. 1046 kb
          Image Size ….. 13.49in. X 16.17 in.

          The AP image is PDF and the image is a vector image thus resolution is unknown. The image contains “images” of small uniform pixels. We will report on the “resolution” of the AP pale-blue PDF image and the WH green PDF image in the second posting.

          In spite of the difference in file types, by comparing the image dimensions of the AP and HR images we see that the HR image is exactly 4-1/6 times larger than the AP image. This suggests that both of these images were made either from the same original or at least from identical size originals.

          I compared these two pale-blue background images as follows. The HR JPEG image was loaded into Gimp 2.6.11 and then magnified by a factor of 800. The AP image was loaded into PDF-XChange Viewer and then magnified by a factor of 3333 – 1/3 = 3333.333333333333… The ratio of the magnification factors was thus 4-1/6 = 4.133333333333. The two images were then compared side by side. The two images were of equal size as displayed. Both images exhibit anti-aliasing. The pixels were sharp and appeared to be uniform in both images. The pixel size of the HR image was approximately half that of the pixel size of the AP image. Thus based on minimum relative pixel size the HR image is higher resolution than the AP image.

          To test the image ratio of 4-1/6, the image size of the HR image was reduced to the same size as the AP image to compare the two images directly. I reduced the image size of the HR image by a factor of 1/(4-1/6) = 0.24 to obtain the same dimensions as the AP image. This was easily accomplished by loading the HP file into Gimp 2.6.11 and using the “Print Size” option to scale the image. The new statistics of the HR image after scaling and exporting as a JPEG file are:

          File Size ….. 5401 kb
          Image Size ….. 13.49in. X 16.17in.
          X Pixels ….. 4047
          Y Pixels ….. 4851
          Resolution ….. 300 X 300 pixels/in.

          Comparison of this scaled image at 800X magnification with the AP image as directly loaded into PDF-XChange Viewer at 800X magnification reveals that the two images are the same size but the HR image is less sharp than the AP image. The loss of sharpness was evidently caused by the scanning of the HR image in Gimp to reduce the image size. If the resolution of the scan is doubled to 600 X 600 pixels/in. Then the image size is halved and the following statistics are obtained for the exported JPEG file.

          File Size ….. 5401 kb
          Image Size ….. 6.745in. X 8.085in.
          X Pixels ….. 4047
          Y Pixels ….. 4851
          Resolution ….. 600 X 600 pixels/in.

          Then zooming the HR image to 800X magnification and the AP image to 400X magnification I again obtain equal size images. Inspection of the two images showed that the pixels are not distinguishable in either image. The magnification factors for this case are too small to resolve the pixels in either image. At these magnification ratios, the respective images are therefore indistinguishable.

          We can only conclude a few things from all of this. First the two pale-blue background images were probably produced from identical originals. Second the HR image is of higher resolution than the AP image. Third, at low magnification ratios, the two images are indistinguishable. Finally, the originals for these copies are unavailable to the public and the details of the copy processes were not provided with the images.

          Apparently, all of the pale-blue background paper handout copies issued to the WH press core have not been released outside of the media companies whose reporters received those copies at the WH presser on Apr. 27, 2011.

          • John Woodman says:

            Hermitian,

            The word “Obot” is not allowed here. Any future posts in which you use that word will not be posted.

            Thank you.

            • Hermitian says:

              Why is “O__t” not allowed but Birther is allowed?

            • John Woodman says:

              That is an excellent and intelligent question, sir.

              The word “O__t” carries within it an inherent charge that a person who disagrees that there is any significant evidence at all of Mr. Obama’s ineligibility is necessarily:

              1) a supporter of Mr. Obama, and

              2) a person who is a “robot,” that is, someone who adheres to his position mechanically and without regard to the evidence.

              Neither of these assertions are necessarily true, and in my own case are entirely false.

              1) I do not support Mr. Obama, and in fact encourage you, and others, to vote for Mitt Romney this November. I’m frankly not entirely thrilled about Mr. Romney, either, but am pleased to half-enthusiastically support him as “The Less Bad Choice.”

              2) I am not, and never have been, a liberal. My first vote was for Ronald Reagan in 1980, and I’ve voted for conservatives ever since. In a recent election I voted for one Libertarian, because I frankly didn’t like the Republican. To my recollection, I have never voted for a Democrat. Although it seems very unlikely that I ever would, I certainly won’t say never. Like Sean Hannity, I consider myself more a “registered conservative” than a “registered Republican.” I have met a few Democrats and even liberals that I like and respect. I have also met some “conservatives” whom I cannot respect at all.

              3) I started my investigation with the tendency to think that Mr. Obama was probably either born somewhere other than Hawaii, or that he had something on his long form birth certificate that he didn’t want people to see. The evidence has convinced me otherwise. Along the way, my eyes have also been opened to the fact that not everybody who claims to be on my side of the aisle is a careful, truthful or honest source of information. This is not an entirely pleasant realization. Neither has it been entirely pleasant to be slandered, mocked, vilified and personally attacked by some who claim to adhere to my own conservative values, merely for standing up for the truth as I understand it. Nonetheless, I am still going to stand up for those values.

              “Anti-birther” would be a more descriptive and accurate term that “O__t.”

              I am aware that some people also perceive the term “birther” to be a negative label. Nonetheless — unlike “O__t”) it is fairly accurate as a descriptive term. In every instance, birthers are focused on some aspect of birth in regard to Presidential eligibility. These include, in the main, claims that the current President was born somewhere other than Hawaii, that his birth certificate is a forgery, or that one must be born to two citizen parents in order to be eligible.

              Therefore, the term is accurate. And I do not believe it is inherently derogatory. Nor does there seem to be any viable alternative to that particular term.

              And that is why the word “birther” is allowed here, but the word “O__t” is not.

              Thanks for asking.

          • nbc says:

            I have no idea where H is going with his analysis. Very interesting, the large size AP document at 72DPI converts to a approximately 300DPI picture of the same size as the LFBC.

            There is no way this was created from the much lower resolution PDF.

            Simple…
            And so the story of a forgery appears somewhat complex…
            And there is of course the Guthrie photograph.

            Imagine all these documents all showing the same information.

            Sigh. Is there a time where we can expect something interesting here?

            Lots of bloviating but no facts.

            I noticed. But H. what about addressing my arguments or are you just hiding behind lots of meaningless numbers?

            Make your case my friend.. Need more time? Take all the time..

            • Slartibartfast says:

              Just you wait until he gets to the tranjugation—it will knock your socks off!

            • Hermitian says:

              The poster size 72 X 72 ppi JPEG was from TheObamaFile.com — not from the AP. The AP pale-blue copy is a PDF and has better than 300 X 300 ppi “resolution”. Neither pale-blue copy is the same size as the green background PDF image. The green image is 8.5in. X 11in. The AP image is 13.49in X 16.17in. The HR image is 4-1/6 X larger than the AP image.

              Both the HR and AP images were cropped on all edges relative to the boundaries of the green PDF image.

            • Suranis says:

              Congratulations. You have just proven that scans, copies and photos can be different dimensions to the original.

              Be sure to ring Stockholm to receive your Nobel prize for this astounding discovery.

            • nbc says:

              Both the HR and AP images were cropped on all edges relative to the boundaries of the green PDF image.

              Quite a detective.. And it took you how long to come to this conclusion?

              Really H… Stop impressing us with your abilities.

          • Suranis says:

            So… you have proven that a bigger photograph has a higher pixel to inch ratio than a smaller photograph. Astounding. This discovery well go down in history.

            Unfortunately my copy of the High resolution inage is pale blue.

            http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/BirthCertificateHighResolution.jpg

            You can see the security paper on the left hand side.

            And there was no way that the whitehouse PDF was created from this copy. Its far more likely that they share the same original. Unless you are trying to say that they faked 2 separate images for God knows what reason.

            And this is supposed to prove that WE are waffling?

            • John Woodman says:

              So… you have proven that a bigger photograph has a higher pixel to inch ratio than a smaller photograph. Astounding. This discovery well go down in history.

              :lol:

            • Hermitian says:

              Suran wrapped that one backwards!

              For a given fixed total number of pixels the smaller the image size the higher the ppi resolution of the image. Thus a very large image such as the HR image has a low (72 X 72 ppi) resolution.

            • Suranis says:

              You do know that makes no sense at all? I may not be an expert on Graphics, but I know that PPI (Pixels per inch) means the amount of pixels in an inch line. So 300 PPI would be much larger than 72 PPI in a display which has a standard sises for a Pixel. Its why my 12 Megapixel photos look huge when I have them on 100% resolution in Paint. Its also why the A in Savanah Guthrie Mobile photo only had 12 pixels, but you could blow the pixel sises up as much as you want.

              Its a measure of detail really, like DPI.

        • Hermitian says:

          The image of Obama’s purported LFCOLB shot by Savannah Guthrie has an unreadable seal impression.

          http://theobamafile.com/_Image1/GuthrieBC.jpg

          • Suranis says:

            And? You birthers were also trying to claim that the first A in hawaii was really a U based on the same photograph. 12 whole pixels.

            So are you saying that there were 3 forgeries, one for the PDF, one for the AP and one for Savannah Guthrie?

            • Hermitian says:

              You tell me?

            • Slartibartfast says:

              Hermitian says:
              August 8, 2012 at 11:45 am
              You tell me?

              Sorry, but the burden of proof is on the accuser and neither you nor anyone else has come up with an allegation of forgery that passes the laugh test, let alone is anywhere near credible.

          • nbc says:

            Excellent.. So we know there was a seal…
            Well that sorta ‘seals’ it does it not. But even the regular scan showed some hint of the seal.

            Everything just as it should be… So why this unhealthy focus on the PDF?

  23. Slartibartfast says:

    Hermitian said: “We also know that the process used by the HDOH was Xerox copy onto green cross-hatch safety paper. Therefore HDOH did not scan the original birth certificate to produce the two certified copies.

    *facepalm* Do you not understand that what a Xerox (or any photocopier) does is to SCAN an image and then print it on to the paper provided? The only difference is that the scan is never stored as an electronic file.

    p.s. Do you even know what a Hermitian is? I find it hard to believe you got that far in math…

    • Hermitian says:

      The Hermitian matrix is a square matrix with complex elements. A Hermitian matrix is equal to its tranjugate. The Hermitian matrix is named after the French Mathematician Charles Hermite who recognized its properties.

      Only advanced Xerography machines utilize scanning. These either use laser scanning or traveling bar or strip with linear array of LEDs. In ordinary Xerography the entire image of the original is simultaneously projected onto the photoconductive drum or belt. In the ordinary Xerography no pixelation is seen in the image. Fuzzy pixelation occurs with the more advanced technologies.

      • gorefan says:

        What do all-in-one printers/copiers/scanners use?

      • Suranis says:

        Wow. I haven’t seen a copier like that since I was in college. 20 years ago. The copiers I used in the center I was working in 2001 were all copier/scanners that used the light going down the page method.

        And theres no way a Xerox machine would be a copier scanner

        http://www.shop.xerox.com/shop/office-equipment/multifunctions/phaser-3300mfp

        Now, are you going to keep making a fool of yourself?

        • Hermitian says:

          The HDOH regulations related to vital statistics were last revised in 1976. Obviously the HDOH is state-of-the-art in all aspects of their operation. They probably hand crank their Xerox. They blew off Duncan Sunahara’s request for his sister’s long form based on a 2001 dated memo of a policy change that had zero public review and then lied to the judge claiming that they used the 1976 regs instead of the 2001 memo. These people just make it up as they go.

          • nbc says:

            They probably hand crank their Xerox.

            I guess you have no evidence to support your follies. Now that your pixelation ‘argument’ has been destroyed as well, it’s best to retreat.

      • Scientist says:

        So you are saying that the White House or the Hawaii DoH (and we actually don’t know which one produced the pdf) don’t have advanced copiers/scanners?

        • Hermitian says:

          It wouldn’t matter because nothing works under Obama.

          • Scientist says:

            You mean like getting bin Laden, killing Somali pirates, preventing a 2nd Great Depression, saving the US auto industry and passing major legislation? Not to mention likely getting re-elected (58% on Intrade and around 70% from Nate Silver).

            • Hermitian says:

              Ask the Delphi retirees about that saving the Auto Industry spin. Also all of those long-held, family-owned GM dealerships that Obama’s bailout team dropped the hammer on. Guess who all these folks are not going to vote for?

            • John Woodman says:

              Hermitian,

              All of that is a matter of policy and politics.

              This blog is not about policy and politics.

              If you want to vote against Mr. Obama on the basis of his policies and his politics, go ahead. If you want to stir up 100,000 people to vote against Mr. Obama on the basis of his policies and politics, go right ahead. I encourage you and every other visitor to this blog (every one who can, at least) to vote for Mitt Romney in November.

              What you and other birthers somehow fail to appreciate is that Barack Obama could be the worst President in US history, with the worst policies in US history. He could work actively to undermine the economic welfare and future of the nation. He could sell our secrets to the Chinese. He could neglect his responsibilities and spend 96% of his time on vacation. He could violate his oath of office and deliberately undermine the Constitution. He could play around with interns in the Oval Office while on the phone to our Congressmen. He could growl at babies and make them cry.

              And not one of those things would make his birth certificate a forgery or make him Constitutionally ineligible to have been elected to the office of President. Some of them might well be impeachable crimes, but none of them would mean that he was ineligible to serve in the first place, and not one of them would justify any such claim.

              Just because you don’t like a President — and in my own opinion there are some quite valid reasons for not liking this one and for voting him out — doesn’t mean you get to change the facts, and it doesn’t mean you get to change the meaning of the Constitution without a Constitutional Amendment.

            • Suranis says:

              And that is why I didn’t respond to THAT comment.

            • Slartibartfast says:

              Hermitian says:
              August 8, 2012 at 9:21 am
              Ask the Delphi retirees about that saving the Auto Industry spin. Also all of those long-held, family-owned GM dealerships that Obama’s bailout team dropped the hammer on. Guess who all these folks are not going to vote for?

              Those dealerships were going down anyway (the companies couldn’t support all of those dealerships, so they were pretty much doomed—saving some of them to avoid losing all seems pretty wise to me…). As for Delphi, as someone who’s worked for Delphi-Packard (I was a contract employee automating the thermal modeling of bussed electrical centers) who was married (at the time) to a Delphi-Packard purchasing manager, I can tell you that the company had serious problems long before President Obama was a Senator, let alone president. You seem to be arguing that he should have let the automakers, their dealers, and the auto parts industry in this country fail and take its 30 million jobs down the drain with it. All because you think that because it is what President Obama didn’t do, it must be better. I guess you never learned any critical thinking in the math class where you saw the term “Hermitian”—but we already knew that from your posts…

      • Slartibartfast says:

        Hermitian,

        Thank you for responding (correctly) to my question about your name (I would note that I’ve never heard the word “tranjugate” in my 10 years of graduate education in mathematics–one would normally just refer to the transpose of the conjugate).

        Two points regarding Xerography: Many copiers these days are just scanners and printers combined (I don’t know what the Hawai’i DoH has…) and no matter what the process was (and whether or not it can produce pixellation), it was necessarily a lossy process. In any case, I think that the whole idea that the LFBC was forged is just one big fool’s errand–what would be accomplished if you proved that any or all of the documents/images displayed were created by the White House rather than scans/photographs of images created by the Hawai’i DoH?

        • Hermitian says:

          If is a felony to create a certification document which is ordinarily produced by a State as required by law. The creation of the PDF image was an act of forgery of an identification document. That is the crime that Arpaio and the Posse are investigating. Most likely the forgers will be charged with the act of forgery of a certified identity document.

          • gorefan says:

            The pdf is not a certifed anything. The certified copies are the certified documents. Unless Arpaio can show that the two certified documents are forgeries, there will never be any indictments.

          • Scientist says:

            People put all kinds of stuff on their web sites. Misha on Dr C’s site has posted a birth certificate for his cat. Sorry, if posting imperfect crap on web sites was a crime we would all be in jail.

          • Slartibartfast says:

            Hermitian,

            The crime of forgery requires as an element an intent to defraud–just displaying a document created out of whole cloth could not possibly be a crime if all of the information is accurate. The truth of the matter is that there is no “there” here–there is no theory that can explain what crime was committed, what the motive was for the crime, what means were used to commit the crime, and who had the opportunity to commit the crime. All four of those gets you a conviction–zero of them gets you rightly ridiculed.

            • nbc says:

              Well, you hit on an interesting complication. Even if some of the indicators of manipulation are ‘real’, this need not make the document a forgery when nothing of relevance is altered.

              So far there is no coherent and internally consistent explanation of a forgery which includes all the known facts and evidence.

            • Slartibartfast says:

              nbc said:

              So far there is no coherent and internally consistent explanation of a forgery which includes all the known facts and evidence.

              Which would seem to be a fatal flaw in any honest attempt to find the truth… unless the goal is just to smear the president.

            • nbc says:

              Well, there is always Hermitian approach, where one tranjugate the PDF as an attempt to get the birthers’ go crazy… Of course, birthers need no help in finding crazy arguments so it will be hard to establish if this was done on purpose or just an inevitable outcome of presenting the birthers with evidence they did not like.
              Regardless, I am still looking for a coherent and internally consistent explanation that encompasses all the known facts and evidence.

              What is the exact workflow that was followed, how does it match up with the other evidences?…
              Just typical detective work…

            • Hermitian says:

              Creating a false identity document is a felony if the document is required by law to be produced by a state agency. Every forgery has a forger. Arpaio and his Posse are continuing their investigation to identify, apprehend and prosecute the forgers. They are gathering evidence to prove all the elements of the crime of forgery.

            • Jim says:

              Hermitian says:”Creating a false identity document is a felony if the document is required by law to be produced by a state agency.”

              Ummmm, Hermie, he didn’t. The PDF image has never been used as an identity document. It was only posted as informational for anyone who was curious. There has been no felony committed. Besides, the information has been verified by the State of Hawaii as being accurate…so the information is correct.

            • Scientist says:

              “Arpaio and his Posse are continuing their investigation to identify, apprehend and prosecute the forgers. They are gathering evidence to prove all the elements of the crime of forgery.”

              That wasn’t what Arpaio said at the last presser. He said he didn’t know what to do with his “evidence”. They must not have wastebaskets in his building.

              Anyway, there is a small matter of jurisdiction. Murder is certainly a crime, but if I kill 10 people in New York, I cannot be prosecuted in Arizona. Creating a document in DC and putting it on a federal web site does not make a crime in Arizona. So, you and Arpaio are full of something.

            • Suranis says:

              According to a video released in the last couple of days, Jerome Corsi says that Arpaio’s Cold case posse is NOT gathering evidence

              He said it is CREATING evidence.

              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PseFF1_bzM&feature=player_embedded

              Its around the 8 minute mark.

              What are you going to say about this admission of forging evidence in a criminal investigation, oh champion of the trooth.

            • nbc says:

              Creating a false identity document is a felony if the document is required by law to be produced by a state agency.

              Well there is NO evidence of a forgery and the document was not required to be produced by a state agency.

              Such nonsense. Arpaio has nothing and while they claimed to know the identify of the forger, they must have filed it with the illustrious 1961 coding manual….

              What kind of detective would look at a highly compressed PDF when there are better versions available as well as DOH of HI certified information.

              Such fools

            • John Woodman says:

              What kind of detective would look at a highly compressed PDF when there are better versions available as well as DOH of HI certified information.

              The Marikopa Kops.

          • Slartibartfast says:

            nbc,

            Don’t tranjugate the pdf! It’s not worth it–you can’t drive the birthers crazy… they’re already there!

            • nbc says:

              It’s too late. The PDF has now gone imaginary

            • Slartibartfast says:

              nbc says:
              August 5, 2012 at 7:21 pm
              It’s too late. The PDF has now gone imaginary

              Nooooooo!

              Well, at least it hasn’t gone plaid…

              Wait a sec… I know about imaginary numbers–doesn’t that mean that I’m now a certified birther expert in pdf stuff? Birfer bux here I come! :-P

            • Suranis says:

              But maybe its Schrodinger’s PDF? Its not actualized till the vault is opened!

              Wow, who knew that quantum technology had evolved to the point where they can copy possible BCs!

  24. Hermitian says:

    Obama has never produced a certified paper copy of his original birth certificate to any court or election official. He would only do so if ordered by a judge. He will not voluntarily produce a certified copy because it would reveal that his original birth certificate was either late, altered or delayed.

    • gorefan says:

      Box 6c of Hawaiian LFBCs are label “Hospital or Institution (if not hospital or institution, give street address)”

      Under what “late, altered or delayed” scenario does that box get filled in with an entry that reads “Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital”?

      • Hermitian says:

        You obviously have bought the Obama claim that the purported LFCOLB images are duplicate copies of one of the two certified copies of his original birth certificate that he requested and received from the HDOH on April 25, 2011. I for one don’t buy that.

        • gorefan says:

          No, I buy the certified verification from Dr. Onaka that the original BC on record at the DOH says “Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital”.

          Do you believe that Dr. Onaka is lying?

          • Hermitian says:

            And I suppose you also buy the verification letter issued by Onaka to Ken Bennett SS of Arizona that didn’t verify Obama’s birth date or his Mother or Father’s names?

            You Figure…

            • nbc says:

              And I suppose you also buy the verification letter issued by Onaka to Ken Bennett SS of Arizona that didn’t verify Obama’s birth date or his Mother or Father’s names?

              Hilarious… Is that your evidence of what? This is index data which had already been released. But the question is: Did Bennett request verification of said data? They only verify.

              But interestingly enough I read the following:

              “Please verify that the attached copy of the Certificate of Live Birth for Mr. Obama is a true and accurate representation of the original record in your files.”

              The May 22, 2012 Hawaii “Verification of Birth”, signed by Hawaii State Registrar Onaka, includes the following statement:

              “I verify that the information in the copy of the Certificate of Live Birth for Mr. Obama that you attached with your request matches the original record in our file”.

              Sigh… birthers are such poor readers. As to the list of explictly verified data, I believe that it matches what Bennett requested.

              Yes

              Enclosed please find a request for a verification in lieu of a certified copy for the birth record of Barack Hussein Obama II. In addition to the items to be verified in the attached form, please verify the following items from the record of birth:

              Department of Health File #151 61 10641
              Time of birth: 7:24 p.m.
              Name of hospital: Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital
              Age of father: 25
              Birthplace of Father: Kenya, East Africa
              Age of mother: 18
              Birthplace of mother: Wichita, Kansas
              Date of signature of parent: 8-7-1961
              Date of signature of attendant: 8-8-1961
              Date accepted by local registrar: August-8 1961

              Additionally, please verify that the attached copy of the Certificate of Live Birth for Mr. Obama is a true and accurate representation of the original record in your files.

              Such fools…

            • gorefan says:

              Look at Bennet’s request to Dr. Onaka, Bennett listed the data he wanted verified. He did not request verification of the mother’s or father’s name or the date of birth.

              And Hawaii will not verifiy information that was not specifical requested. From their website

              “The verification process will not, however, disclose information about the vital event contained within the certificate that is unknown to and not provided by the applicant in the request.”

              But there is also the second certified verification that was submitted to the Federal Court in Mississippi. That verification says that all the information on the whitehouse pdf (that would include box 6c) matches the original document on file at the DOH.

              So once again, under what “late, altered or delayed” scenario does that box get filled in with an entry that reads “Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital”?

            • nbc says:

              Why do you keep ignoring the Mississippi verification?

              Dr. Onaka stamped it and initialed.

              I believe there is a very good explanation for ignoring evidence that does not support one’s foolish position.

              But the exact term slipped my mind at the moment.

          • Hermitian says:

            Someone else applied his signature stamp to the Arizona verification letter. The stamp image was initialed by another party. Loretta Fuddy did not sign either verification letter. She is the state officer who holds the state seal for the HDOH. If someone else applied the seal impression then she should have signed the verification letter or else issue a separate letter identifying the signee of the verification letter. This second letter would have the state seal applied.

            • gorefan says:

              Why do you keep ignoring the Mississippi verification?

              Dr. Onaka stamped it and initialed.

            • nbc says:

              Someone else applied his signature stamp to the Arizona verification letter.

              Sigh… wrogn again

              As to your other ‘arguments’ check out rule 1005 and 902(4)

              Certified Copies of Public Records. A copy of an official record — or a copy of a document that was recorded or filed in a public office as authorized by law — if the copy is certified as correct by:

              (A) the custodian or another person authorized to make the certification; or

            • Slartibartfast says:

              gorefan,

              I know, I know, I know!

              Because it completely destroys the plausibility of the argument he’s making?

              Did I get it right?

            • Scientist says:

              Hermy, baby, you promised equal treatment. Who verified Mitt’s data? You need to demand that.

              I will be watching your posts.

            • Scientist says:

              All the bills in my wallet have Tim Geithner’s signature on them. Did he personally sign all the bills in circulation? Man, his hand must be sore.

            • Suranis says:

              Yeah and Sheriff Joe personally signs every letter that comes out from his office. Every letter from the GOP that arrives at your house is PERSONALLY signed by Mitt Romney. Stunningly peopel automate their signatures.

              I know if offends you, but the head of vital statistics of the HDOH has better things to do than validate the crazy demands of Lunatics who will never be satisfied. If Fuddy had signed it you would be bitching that Onaka had not co-signed it, or that it was not witnessed, or that the planet Mercury was in the wrong alignment, or something else. You are just a colossal waste of time for the dept and after 4 years of harassing them you should feel privileged to get a signature stamp.

              Oh yeah and remember when the Head of the HDOH said flat out that she had personally verified Obamas record in the files and trhat the showed that Obama was “A natural Born American Citizen” and you birthers started screaming that meant nothing and she had indirectly confirmed Obama was not eligible by inserting the word American.

        • nbc says:

          They appear to be duplicates of the certified copies:

          1. There are photocopies in B&W that were distributed
          2. The original copies where shown and at least one person felt the raised seal and photographed it.
          3. A scanned, highly compressed version was provided

          The Department of Health of Hawaii links to the document and has, more than once verified or certified all relevant information.

          So we know that President Obama was born on August 4, 1961 in Honolulu Hawaii, making him a natural born citizen of our nation.

          • Hermitian says:

            Then why did Obama’s attorneys produce a non-certified laser copy to the Federal District court in Mississippi rather than one of the two certified copies which he received from the HDOH on Apr 25, 2011? Because he did not produce his best evidence, he violated Federal Rules of Evidence 1003. Producing non-certified copies in lieu of certified copies is an act of bad faith and is unfair to the plaintiffs.

            • nbc says:

              Then why did Obama’s attorneys produce a non-certified laser copy to the Federal District court in Mississippi rather than one of the two certified copies which he received from the HDOH on Apr 25, 2011? Because he did not produce his best evidence, he violated Federal Rules of Evidence 1003. Producing non-certified copies in lieu of certified copies is an act of bad faith and is unfair to the plaintiffs.

              Let’s get the facts straight. It was Orly Taitz who submitted a poorly legible copy and the defendant’s attorneys submitted a more legible document.

              But it gets better

              While the defense never asked the Court to take judicial notice of the certificate, in their defense they nevertheless asked the State of Hawaii to confirm the authenticity of what they and Taitz submitted, under the statute cited above, and have now submitted Hawaii’s original paper documentary response with signature and seal to the Court.

              Read FRCP 1005

              The proponent may use a copy to prove the content of an official record — or of a document that was recorded or filed in a public office as authorized by law — if these conditions are met: the record or document is otherwise admissible; and the copy is certified as correct in accordance with Rule 902(4) or is testified to be correct by a witness who has compared it with the original. If no such copy can be obtained by reasonable diligence, then the proponent may use other evidence to prove the content.

              Surely you must have done your research? So why did you miss these facts?…

              Hmmm something did not tranjugate well perhaps?

              Oh the submission… here

              Explain yourself pretty please? Or perhaps simple apologize would suffice?

              What do you say?

    • Scientist says:

      So, you’re out of luck pal, because no judge is going to order that. However, a birth certificate was provided pretty early on to some US agency, since Obama Sr.’s immigration file notes that he had a child born Aug 4, 1961 in Honolulu.

      You can keep trying but the LFBC shown in April 2011 is not the only birth certificate. And they all say the same thing.

      I actually like your story that anomalies were introduced into the pdf deliberately to screw with the “minds” of the birthers. I don’t believe that, but if it were true, that would be fine. Birtherism has been a purely political ploy from the beginning, so this game is to be played under the rules of politics. I am enjoying it!

    • Northland10 says:

      How dare he not submit something that a judge or election official didn’t ask for. Obvious proof he is hiding something.

    • John Woodman says:

      Obama has never produced a certified paper copy of his original birth certificate to any court or election official. He would only do so if ordered by a judge.

      Okay.

      Neither has any other President in the history of the United States of America, or any other Presidential — or Vice-Presidential candidate.

      So what’s your point?

      • Scientist says:

        We can’t redo the past. I will go so far as to say any documents Mitt Romney presents, I will demand the same from Obama and vice versa. If Romney presents his b.c. to a court, I will demand Obama do the same. If Romney releases 10 years of tax returns, I will demand Obama do the same. I am a very fair-minded person, no?

    • Suranis says:

      A copy of the whitehouse LFBC was presented to the court in Farrar V Obama and was accepted by the court as genuine, and that it proved Hawaiin Birth.

      • John Woodman says:

        Do you have an authoritative source for that?

        • nbc says:

          Dr Conspiracy reports:

          The plaintiff offered in evidence the White House PDF of the President’s long form birth certificate for the purpose of identifying who the President’s father was and that the father was born in Kenya.

          The extent to which the document was admitted is unclear to me. The judge did reject the arguments bu ‘experts’ claiming that there were problems with a highly compressed PDF as counsel had failed to properly certify them as experts and the judge did not find their testimony very credible.

        • Suranis says:

          The argument of 2 of the plaintiffs was that Obamas father was not an American citizen and therefore was not eligible. They presented a copy of the LFBC as proof of such. In His ruling (which I admit I haven’t read in quite a while) Judge Mahili referenced Ankeny V Daniels which said that American birth = Eligibility. Since the LFBC was proof that Obama as born in Hawaii, therefore he was eligible.

          Like I said I haven’t read the case in a while. I’ll have to hunt down the transcript again.

          • nbc says:

            Well, the judge considered for argument’s sake that President Obama were born in Hawaii, to address the claim that NBC requires one to be born to two US citizens.

            I would not claim this as an example where the Court had accepted into evidence the document.

            • Hermitian says:

              So you are saying that just because the Obama legal Beagles included a laser copy of his purported LFCOLB in their memorandum pleading for JOP then it’s not evidence?

              However you are also claiming that a verification letter that was produced in a later supplemental pleading by the same attorneys is evidence.

              And how does it work that the court should accept the verification letter which was intended to authenticate a laser copy of the LFCOLB into evidence when the same attorneys already asked the court not to take judicial notice of the very same laser copy in their motion for JOP?

              Just Asking….

            • Slartibartfast says:

              Hermitian,

              Do you understand that “I’m just asking questions” has been a transparently disingenuous part of the birther modus operandi for over four years now? You may be sincere (I doubt it), but to everyone here, it screams “concern troll” (as does your failure to honestly address and of the rebuttals of your arguments, by the way).

            • nbc says:

              o you are saying that just because the Obama legal Beagles included a laser copy of his purported LFCOLB in their memorandum pleading for JOP then it’s not evidence?

              However you are also claiming that a verification letter that was produced in a later supplemental pleading by the same attorneys is evidence.

              And how does it work that the court should accept the verification letter which was intended to authenticate a laser copy of the LFCOLB into evidence when the same attorneys already asked the court not to take judicial notice of the very same laser copy in their motion for JOP?

              Still having troubles understanding the timeline:

              1. Orly submitted, in true Orly-esque fashion, a poorly scanned LFBC
              2. The attorneys for the defendant submitted a readable version.
              3. The attorneys also submitted an official certification by the DOH of HI which shows President Obama to be born on US soil, exactly where logic reason and facts suggest he was born.

              So no, the defendant did not enter the document into evidence, the plaintiff did. The defendant entered into evidence an official and under FRCP and Evidence a verification of the necessary data showing President Obama to be natural born.

              It’s so simple…

    • nbc says:

      Well, President Obama has never been ordered to do so. He has made his documents available for inspection (COLB) and presented his long form to the press. Furthermore the documents have been fully verified and certified.

      What does the CCF have? A highly compressed scan which they believe shows indicators of possible fraud but said indicators can better be explained by algorithms rather than a forger…
      The CCF ignored the photographs taken by Savannah Guthrie or the long form which could not possibly have been derived from the low resolution, highly compressed color scan.

      Such incompetence..

      • Hermitian says:

        CCF rather than CCP that’s incompetence!

        • Suranis says:

          I dunno. Completely Counterfactual Farce seems like a good name for it.

          • Slartibartfast says:

            Personally, I like “Maricopa CCCP”, but yours is more accurate… ;-)

            It’s funny that Hermie considers a repeated “typo” evidence of incompetence, yet seems to think that the posse’s methods are in any way professional.

        • nbc says:

          Cold Case Fakes?

          Sure, that is incompetence but how does this measure up to the incompetence of those insisting that the PDF is somehow forged?

          Poor Hermitian…

  25. Scientist says:

    Let me make a proposal. Why don’t birthers and anti-birthers join together and work to make ALL candidates release more info. Let’s draw up a list of things ALL candidates should release and then present it to all of them. Birth certificate, 10 years tax returns, medical records, college transcripts if you’d like (no, not kindergarten).

    Come on Hermy, Garrett, Rich Valle, etc., this is fair and balanced (even better than Fox News). Will you join? What is your objection to this?

    • Hermitian says:

      I have no problem with that. There are already many compiled lists of stuff Obama is hiding. Romney needs to address the tax dodge issue.

      • nbc says:

        There are already many compiled lists of stuff Obama is hiding.

        You mean there is a lot of information that President Obama has not released? There is a difference between hiding and not releasing. Much of the data is protected by privacy laws and there is no reason, other than some strange perversion that he must be hiding something, that would require a President to release his kindergarten records etc.

        Such follies.

        • Hermitian says:

          Yes but this guy is hiding all of his information. Additionally His first executive order gave himself more power to do so.

          • Suranis says:

            *sigh* No it didn’t.

            http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/presidential-records

            By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to establish policies and procedures governing the assertion of executive privilege by incumbent and former Presidents in connection with the release of Presidential records by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) pursuant to the Presidential Records Act of 1978, it is hereby ordered as follows:

            Section 1. Definitions. For purposes of this order:

            (a) “Archivist” refers to the Archivist of the United States or his designee.

            (b) “NARA” refers to the National Archives and Records Administration.

            (c) “Presidential Records Act” refers to the Presidential Records Act, 44 U.S.C. 2201-2207.

            (d) “NARA regulations” refers to the NARA regulations implementing the Presidential Records Act, 36 C.F.R. Part 1270.

            (e) “Presidential records” refers to those documentary materials maintained by NARA pursuant to the Presidential Records Act, including Vice Presidential records.

            (f) “Former President” refers to the former President during whose term or terms of office particular Presidential records were created.

            (g) A “substantial question of executive privilege” exists if NARA’s disclosure of Presidential records might impair national security (including the conduct of foreign relations), law enforcement, or the deliberative processes of the executive branch.

            (h) A “final court order” is a court order from which no appeal may be taken.
            Sec. 2. Notice of Intent to Disclose Presidential Records.

            (a) When the Archivist provides notice to the incumbent and former Presidents of his intent to disclose Presidential records pursuant to section 1270.46 of the NARA regulations, the Archivist, using any guidelines provided by the incumbent and former Presidents, shall identify any specific materials, the disclosure of which he believes may raise a substantial question of executive privilege. However, nothing in this order is intended to affect the right of the incumbent or former Presidents to invoke executive privilege with respect to materials not identified by the Archivist. Copies of the notice for the incumbent President shall be delivered to the President (through the Counsel to the President) and the Attorney General (through the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel). The copy of the notice for the former President shall be delivered to the former President or his designated representative.

            (b) Upon the passage of 30 days after receipt by the incumbent and former Presidents of a notice of intent to disclose Presidential records, the Archivist may disclose the records covered by the notice, unless during that time period the Archivist has received a claim of executive privilege by the incumbent or former President or the Archivist has been instructed by the incumbent President or his designee to extend the time period for a time certain and with reason for the extension of time provided in the notice. If a shorter period of time is required under the circumstances set forth in section 1270.44 of the NARA regulations, the Archivist shall so indicate in the notice.

            Sec. 3. Claim of Executive Privilege by Incumbent President.

            (a) Upon receipt of a notice of intent to disclose Presidential records, the Attorney General (directly or through the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel) and the Counsel to the President shall review as they deem appropriate the records covered by the notice and consult with each other, the Archivist, and such other executive agencies as they deem appropriate concerning whether invocation of executive privilege is justified.

            (b) The Attorney General and the Counsel to the President, in the exercise of their discretion and after appropriate review and consultation under subsection (a) of this section, may jointly determine that invocation of executive privilege is not justified. The Archivist shall be notified promptly of any such determination.

            (c) If either the Attorney General or the Counsel to the President believes that the circumstances justify invocation of executive privilege, the issue shall be presented to the President by the Counsel to the President and the Attorney General.

            (d) If the President decides to invoke executive privilege, the Counsel to the President shall notify the former President, the Archivist, and the Attorney General in writing of the claim of privilege and the specific Presidential records to which it relates. After receiving such notice, the Archivist shall not disclose the privileged records unless directed to do so by an incumbent President or by a final court order.

            Sec. 4. Claim of Executive Privilege by Former President.

            (a) Upon receipt of a claim of executive privilege by a living former President, the Archivist shall consult with the Attorney General (through the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel), the Counsel to the President, and such other executive agencies as the Archivist deems appropriate concerning the Archivist’s determination as to whether to honor the former President’s claim of privilege or instead to disclose the Presidential records notwithstanding the claim of privilege. Any determination under section 3 of this order that executive privilege shall not be invoked by the incumbent President shall not prejudice the Archivist’s determination with respect to the former President’s claim of privilege.

            (b) In making the determination referred to in subsection (a) of this section, the Archivist shall abide by any instructions given him by the incumbent President or his designee unless otherwise directed by a final court order. The Archivist shall notify the incumbent and former Presidents of his determination at least 30 days prior to disclosure of the Presidential records, unless a shorter time period is required in the circumstances set forth in section 1270.44 of the NARA regulations. Copies of the notice for the incumbent President shall be delivered to the President (through the Counsel to the President) and the Attorney General (through the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel). The copy of the notice for the former President shall be delivered to the former President or his designated representative.

            Sec. 5. General Provisions.

            (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

            (i) authority granted by law to a department or agency, or the head thereof; or

            (ii) functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budget, administrative, or legislative proposals.

            (b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

            (c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

            Sec. 6. Revocation. Executive Order 13233 of November 1, 2001, is revoked.

            BARACK OBAMA
            THE WHITE HOUSE,
            January 21, 2009

            Only applies to presidential records. And was a lot more open than Executive order 13233, signed by George W Bush.

            So I’m sure you are going to tell us how me pasting the entire executive order here to prove my point is “Misdirecting and telling lies.”

          • nbc says:

            His first executive order gave himself more power to do so.

            More lies I notice… Have you no shame. The executive order overruled an EO which had restricted access too much.

            Do you even believe in researching the facts? Why do you allow people to manipulate you with these misrepresentations of fact…

            And simple research would have clarified the situation.

            Try it some day…

      • Scientist says:

        OK. then what I would expect from you is that starting today, everywhere you post a demand that Obama do x, y or z, you post a demand that Romney do the same. On every birther web site or wherever else you post.

        Do I have your word? because if you say it here and then go off to birther sites and just post about Obama then I will have to call you a hypocrite.

      • Slartibartfast says:

        Hermitian,

        There is no evidence that President Obama is “hiding” anything–there are things he hasn’t disclosed (and neither has any other presidential candidate) which cannot be released without consent–school transcripts, for instance–due to privacy concerns, but nothing that has been actively suppressed nor is there anything commonly released by candidates that he has failed to disclose (something that Rmoney cannot say).

    • Slartibartfast says:

      Scientist,

      That seems perfectly fair and equitable to me–I’d love to be able to compare President Obama’s college and grad school transcripts with Rmoney’$.

      • Suranis says:

        Romney graduated magna Cum Laude from Harvard, same as Obama. Graduating in the top 3% of his class is a pretty big achievement and shows the guy is smart. Thats all I really need to know about it.

        • Slartibartfast says:

          Oh, I don’t need to know any more than that either (and would agree about getting magna at Harvard–I didn’t know that), but, given the opportunity, it would be interesting to compare them. Unfortunately, rather than releasing more than necessary, Rmoney is withholding important information and I’m all for any way of pointing that out…

  26. Hermitian says:

    The items that were not verified on the Arizona verification were on the HDOH request form that Bennett submitted as an attachment to his letter. The letter listed only those items which were on the LFCOLB but which were not on the request form. It was reported that the Hawaii AG required Bennett to withdraw the request form. Thus only those items in the letter which were not on the request form were verified.

    • Suranis says:

      Are you talking about the first request that did not confirm to Hawaiin Law and HDOH rules? Because after a month of wrangling Bennet changed his request to confirm with Hawaii Rules and immediately got a verification, which to no-ones surprise Birthers regected because their coffee was cold or something.

      Complaining that Hawaii did not comply with an invalid request is pretty silly.

  27. gorefan says:

    “It was reported that the Hawaii AG required Bennett to withdraw the request form. ”

    Reported by whom?

    And there is still the second certified verification that was submitted to the Federal Courts, a copy of which can be seen here (page 12 of 12):

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/96289285/Mississippi-Democratic-Party-Motion-v-Taitz

    The information on the whitehouse pdf matches the information on the original BC in the Hawaii DOH.

    [edit: Bennett's verification also says “Additionally, I verify that the information in the copy of the Certificate of Live birth for Mr. Obama that you attached with your request matches the original record in our files”, that would include box 6c, mother's name, father's name and DOB.]

    So under what “late, altered or delayed” scenario does box 6c get filled in with an entry that reads “Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital”?

    • Hermitian says:

      The late, altered or delayed birth certificates are marked as such in the lower left corner.

      • Suranis says:

        That’s not what Gorefan asked. He asked how does a home birth, late reported birth or a foreign birth get altered to show Kaapiolanni hospital, where all births would be reported to the state as a matter of course and no late registrations would ever happen?

        • Hermitian says:

          The LFCOLB is a forgery. The original birth certificate was either late, altered or delayed. These are two entirely different documents.

          • Slartibartfast says:

            Hermitian,

            That has exactly as much credibility as me accusing you of helping Glenn Beck rape and murder a young girl in 1990. Are you guilty until proven guilty like you believe President Obama is?

          • Scientist says:

            Aug 8 for a birth on Aug 4 is not late or delayed. And the same date is on the COLB printed directly from Hawaii’s records.

            Try again…..

            Also please give me a coherent story as to why Ms Dunham would give birth other than in Hawaii, where she lived. Because without that, the default position if no records existed is that babies are born where their mother lives. Birth away from home is highly unusual and those by citizens of developed countries in under-developed countries (when they don’t live there as expats) are essentially unheard of. So, Obama was born in Hawaii, barring clear and convincing evidence to the contrary (i.e., a bona fide foreign birth certificate verified by that foreign government).

            • Jim says:

              Scientist says: “So, Obama was born in Hawaii, barring clear and convincing evidence to the contrary (i.e., a bona fide foreign birth certificate verified by that foreign government).”

              Even that would probably not be enough to convince the courts. As Judge Carter wrote in his opinion in Barnett v Obama…”Plaintiffs appear to assume that should the Court receive a document from Kenya, the Court would give credence to this document over the American birth records of the President and the case would be resolved. Even should the Court permit the issuance of a letter rogatory to Kenya, the Court would still engage in a comparative exercise in which the records of America, which has historically maintained some of the most credible record keeping practices in the world, would be contrasted with the credibility of the records obtained from Kenya. Such an analysis would seemingly favor the records of the United States.”

            • Hermitian says:

              Mixed race marriage at best — no marriage at worst — INS was skeptical that they were ever married and that Obama 1st was the biological Father.

            • Jim says:

              Hermitian says: “INS was skeptical that they were ever married and that Obama 1st was the biological Father.”

              You have any proof for that statement or you just making it up? I’ll assume the latter.

            • Slartibartfast says:

              Hermie said:

              Mixed race marriage at best — no marriage at worst — INS was skeptical that they were ever married and that Obama 1st was the biological Father.

              So a mixed race marriage isn’t as good as a single race marriage? Prejudiced much? And why didn’t you point out that the INS was sure that President Obama was a natural born citizen? That seems kind of relevant if you are going to bring the INS report up…

            • nbc says:

              INS was skeptical that they were ever married and that Obama 1st was the biological Father.

              Did they or are you showing your confirmation bias again.

              There were some concerns that the marriage may not have been ‘legal’ if there was evidence of bigamy but that’s a far cry from what you are suggesting. Poor H….

              Poor H. so confused by what he wants the facts to be… And so unable to do the minimal research to avoid looking foolish.

              I am proud of you my friend.

            • Scientist says:

              Nobody names a kid Barack Hussein Obama II unless the dad is Barack Hussein Obama I. Anyway, who cares? Gerald Ford was born Leslie King. Bill Clinton was born William Blythe. Just wait until the kids of the multiple marriage divorce blended families that have become commonplace reach 35. Who the F cares who someone’s dad is? Most people give the President great credit for surmounting a difficult childhood.

              Get over it!

              This whole dad and birth certificate thing is utter nonsense. Vote for you like better. Romney is a jerk, but if you can stand him, vote for him.

              NO ONE CARES!!!! Did you get that? NO ONE CARES!!!!

            • Northland10 says:

              Herm: Mixed race marriage at best

              Could you elaborate on what you mean by this? How is this relevant to eligibility? How is this relevant to anything?

          • Scientist says:

            Mitt Romney’s birth certificate is probably a fake. It does say “VOID” right on it, His parents lived in Detroit, so I would have to grant that a birth in Detroit is most likely for Mitt. However, unlike Hawaii, which is very far from everywhere else, Detroit is very, very close to Canada and connected by a bridge and a tunnel (both existed in 1947). So, Mitt certainly could be born in Canada. Much more likely than Obama being born outside the US as a glance at a map will show.

          • nbc says:

            No evidence thereof…
            Typical confirmation bias.

  28. Hermitian says:

    Well let’s just take a look at Rule 902 and see what it says.

    “Rule 902. Evidence That Is Self-Authenticating”

    “The following items of evidence are self-authenticating; they require no extrinsic evidence of authenticity in order to be admitted:

    “(1) Domestic Public Documents That Are Sealed and Signed. A document that bears:

    “(A) a seal purporting to be that of the United States; any state, district, commonwealth, territory, or insular possession of the United States; the former Panama Canal Zone; the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands; a political subdivision of any of these entities; or a department, agency, or officer of any entity named above; and

    “(B) a signature purporting to be an execution or attestation.

    “(2) Domestic Public Documents That Are Not Sealed but Are Signed and Certified. A document that bears no seal if:

    “(A) it bears the signature of an officer or employee of an entity named in Rule 902(1)(A); and

    “(B) another public officer who has a seal and official duties within that same entity certifies under seal — or its equivalent — that the signer has the official capacity and that the signature is genuine.

    “(4) Certified Copies of Public Records. A copy of an official record — or a copy of a document that was recorded or filed in a public office as authorized by law — if the copy is certified as correct by:

    “(A) the custodian or another person authorized to make the certification; or

    “(B) a certificate that complies with Rule 902(1), (2), or (3), a federal statute, or a rule prescribed by the Supreme Court.

    According to Chapter 8B of the Hawaii Regulations on vital statistics, a certified copy of a Hawaii original Standard Birth Certificate requires both the raised seal of the State of Hawaii (or the HDOH) and the signature stamp of the State Registrar applied in black ink. The laser printout copies are not certified copies. They have neither the raised seal nor the signature stamp applied in black ink. Instead, the laser printout copies have a green color image of the signature stamp.

    Loretta Fuddy who is the keeper of the Hawaii seal for the HDOH did not sign either verification letter. Alvin Onaka did not sign the Arizona verification letter.

    You may want to be aware of Federal Rule of evidence 1003.

    “Rule 1003. Admissibility of Duplicates”

    “A duplicate is admissible to the same extent as the original unless a genuine question is raised about the original’s authenticity or the circumstances make it unfair to admit the duplicate.”

    The admission by Obama of a purported duplicate copy of his LFCOLB is unfair to the plaintiffs because Obama has two certified copies of his original birth certificate in his possession. The laser printout copies are not certified copies.

    Also, there is a genuine question as to the authenticity of the laser printout copies as testified by sworn affidavit of Sheriff Arpaio that there is probable cause that the copy is a forgery. His affidavit has been produced to the court.

    • John Woodman says:

      Also, there is a genuine question as to the authenticity of the laser printout copies as testified by sworn affidavit of Sheriff Arpaio that there is probable cause that the copy is a forgery. His affidavit has been produced to the court.

      You do know that Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse has been caught red-handed fabricating evidence and lying to the American public, right?

      • Hermitian says:

        That’s your point of view but the race list that you (and ObamaConspiracy) have each posted was for the child and the manuals were for the tape coding and card punching done by federal employees to produce the national data bases for the VSUS report. Only the nativity of the mother and the race of the child were coded. The race of each parent was determined by the operator from information on the microfilm copies. The race of the parents was not coded by the federal employees. The bottom line is that your manuals are not applicable to the question of coding of the parent’s race.

        • Slartibartfast says:

          No, Hermie, the bottom line is that the Party Posse was caught in a demonstrable lie. Being caught lying tends to diminish one’s credibility, does it not? Why are you acting as an apologist for liars?

        • John Woodman says:

          The bottom line is that your manuals are not applicable to the question of coding of the parent’s race.

          Neither is the 1961 federal Vital Statistics Instruction Manual that Corsi and the Cold Case Posse absolutely claimed defined the meaning of number “9,” and that — according to them — provided “indisputable proof” that Obama’s birth certificate was a “forgery.”

          No — the BOTTOM LINE, Hermie, is that YOU’VE BEEN HAD. You’ve been LIED TO — by Corsi and the Cold Case Posse.

          Read the referenced article carefully. Examine every attached resource. Listen to every sound bite.

          They made an outright fraudulent claim.

          Following this, the Cold Case Posse and Corsi were asked to show their supposed evidence. I personally contacted the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office and the Cold Case Posse to request a copy of their supposed “manual.” In response I received nothing but the sound of crickets chirping.

          On Sunday, Jerome Corsi appeared in a video in which he responded to the calls for him to back up his and the posse’s claims with actual evidence. His response was to make excuses for why he won’t produce the manual, and to mischaracterize and vilify his critics.

          In other words, he blustered and bs-ed his way through.

          You’ve been lied to.

          So the question here is: Hermie, why aren’t you beating down the door of those frauds demanding an explanation?

          • Hermitian says:

            Here is Corsi’s race coding list:

            26 1 Race of Father
            27 1 Race of Mother
            28 1 Race of Child (Determined from Parents race)
            Each race item is coded as follows:
            1 … White
            2 … Negro
            3 … Indian (includes Aleuts and Eskimos)
            4 … Chinese
            5 … Japanese
            6 … Hawaiian (includes part-Hawaiian)
            7 … Other Nonwhite
            9 … Unknown or not stated (Race of parents only)

            Here is your race coding list:

            32 1 Race of Child
            1 … White
            2 … Negro
            3 … Indian
            4 … Chinese
            5 … Japanese
            6 … Aleut
            7 … Eskimo
            8 … Filipino
            9 … Other nonwhite
            G … Hawaiian
            V … Part Hawaiian

            Notice how Corsi’s list gives race codes for the parents.

            Notice how your list has zero race codes for the parents.

            I rest my case.

            • nbc says:

              Corsi pretended that he had such a list and it came from a 1961 coding manual. As ‘evidence’ they showed a 1968 manual

              Idiots. And your are a tool for believing this nonsense.
              Have you no self respect?

              And why does the CCP refuse to show the manual? Because they are embarrassed to be caught?

              Ask yourself, why would the CCP be making up data and then fail to provide the relevant manuals and in fact show a known 1968 manual?
              Incompetence? Or what else?

              And why are you so gullible to believe anything the CCP says even when others have shown their arguments to be flawed?

              So gullible, so easily manipulated, such group thinking… Yes my friend you meet all the indicators.

            • Slartibartfast says:

              nbc said:

              Idiots. And [Hermie is] a tool for believing this nonsense.
              Have you no self respect?

              Hermie (and all the other birthers) have made it clear that they have no respect for themselves, logic and reason, this country, the Constitution, the rule of law, the will of the people, the judicial system, and many, many other things.

              It is a sad commentary that the disrespect that Hermie shows is all too common and displays of integrity such as John’s all too rare.

            • John Woodman says:

              I’m not sure what you’re going on about.

              Corsi’s list is 100% fraudulent.

              Are you asserting that if someone produces a bald-faced lie that you happen to like, that lie trumps the truth? Did you even read the article referenced?

              Here. I’ll do it.

              Obama is secretly a serial killer who flies out to various destinations around the country and murders people.

              Yea! It’s a fact! It’s established!

              Let’s try it again.

              Hermitian is a serial killer. We have indisputable evidence of that, including an image that I Photoshopped this afternoon.

              And it’s true because I, and Suranis, and Slartibartfast like that explanation of various unsolved murders.

              So… is that the basis on which we are going to proceed? Because if it isn’t, then you need to explain exactly why you are believing and defending people who are now KNOWN to be frauds.

            • nbc says:

              It is a sad commentary that the disrespect that Hermie shows is all too common and displays of integrity such as John’s all too rare.

              I find it fascinating how easily people allow themselves to be manipulated by rumor and innuendo and unable or unwilling to do some minimal research.

              H. has shown himself to be willing… So sad…

    • Jim says:

      Hermitian says: “Also, there is a genuine question as to the authenticity of the laser printout copies as testified by sworn affidavit of Sheriff Arpaio that there is probable cause that the copy is a forgery. His affidavit has been produced to the court.”

      You mean that amateurish attempt by the home-schooled CSI team? Give me a break. But, what about the most important thing? What about the INFORMATION? Sheriff Arpaio has absolutely NO PROOF that the information is incorrect in any way. In fact, he’s offered NO PROOF that the President was born anywhere but Hawaii. So, the only thing the Sheriff’s affidavit is good for would be as a coffee cup coaster. Sorry, Hermie, you’ve missed the main reason for a BC…it’s the information it contains.

      • John Woodman says:

        Jim,

        I of course agree with all of your major points. But if you will permit, I must lodge an extremely strong objection to your use of the word “home-schooled” as some kind of pejorative.

        All of our children have been home schooled, so far, at least up to 7th grade.

        Except for the minor fact that the two middle ones tend to bicker quite a bit with each other, all are persons of outstanding character.

        Academically, our oldest first set foot in a classroom the fall of her junior year in high school. She scored 34 on the ACT out of a possible 36; and turned down a full-ride National Merit Scholarship at the University of Alabama to study on scholarship at the local state university.

        She is now completing her first year at the university, and in another week or so, will be a junior Chemistry major with a 4.0 GPA.

        Her younger sister likewise has a 5.0 high school record at a good local high school, in all of the advanced courses. She also works at a retail store.

        Their younger brother entered the public school system last year in the 7th grade. His 7th grade GPA was 3.95.

        Home-schooled students on average outperform their peers on both social and academic measures.

        • Suranis says:

          Feel free not to answer John if you dont want to, but did you find it difficult home schooling your kids? And what kind of backup resources were available to you?

          Homeschooling is unknown over here so I’m just curious is all.

        • John Woodman says:

          Difficult? Yes and no. It requires a commitment, and there are hassles, but the commitment is one of joy, and the hassles are largely accepted as a part of family life.

          To be honest, we have not done as good a job with it as I would really have liked to do, simply for lack of resources. It becomes more difficult in a larger family with more children and limited financial resources.

          There is so much more I would love to have had in terms of nice materials, and so much more we could have done, or could do, if only we were well funded.

          Our strongest emphasis has always been on character, with academics considered important but secondary to character and learning how to live a successful life. It is character that will produce life success.

          I would love for all of our kids — or for all of those who would like to — to be home-schooled all the way through high school. With 6 kids, that seems fairly difficult. And I’m glad the oldest enrolled in the good public school as a junior. She was interested in science, and we didn’t have the laboratory resources for her to go any further at home.

          That summer she went and did a month-long special project at the local high-tech advanced sciences/ nanotechnology research center. That was an opportunity that came through the public school system, but her entire foundation was laid at home.

          So far, our kids since then have tended to opt for transferring in to the local public school system at some point. We have some very good public schools here, so they do provide some strong competition to home schooling.

          We actually got started in home education in the UK. It is also a legal and constitutional right in Ireland. There are only about 750 children being home educated in Ireland, but it seems to be growing fairly quickly there.

          • Suranis says:

            Interesting. I can see how home schooling could be getting a leg up over here, as Education like everywhere else seems to be the first place they take a scalpel to when it comes to cuts in public services, so standards have fallen. Anyway, that’s another discussion. Thanks for answering.

            • John Woodman says:

              It’s not just to do with things like funding and standards.

              When it comes to funding, aside from providing personnel (myself and my wife), our “funding” has been darn close to zero.

              And yet we’ve produced a National Merit Finalist and 4.0-so-far chemistry major (and would-have-been National Merit Scholar, except for the fact that she turned it down), a 5.0 high school student (on 4.0/5.0 scale) , and a 3.95 (on 4.0 scale) middle school student.

              It’s more to do with things like individual attention, being able to tailor education to the particular student, being able to effectively transmit your family’s values, a small setting versus an institutional one, and so forth.

              In my view, most of our most important lessons for our children have not been what one calls “academic” at all. It has been the many discussions we have had about character, dealing with people, how to interact in relationships with others, work ethic, and so forth. And, our world view and understanding of life and faith are integrated into the education as well.

              These are not things that appear in any “classroom” curriculum. And yet I would say these have been at the foundation of our education.

              Take today, for example. Today I have had a discussion with my 13-year-old son about a situation in which he will be participating in a competitive situation in a social setting. He could conceivably approach this situation as an individual, and compete as an individual, or he can recruit other boys and serve, in essence, as captain of a small team.

              He has been tempted to approach it as an individual competitive situation, because he knows that some of the other boys will not compete as hard as he will. There are a number of questions here. First of all, how important is winning in this situation, versus the social benefits of involving the other boys? What is more important here, that he compete individually — and excel individually — or that he take the opportunity to learn and practice the skills of leading others, and of encouraging and coordinating their contributions? How does he deal with one potential member of the team in particular, who wants to just play around rather than win?

              The entire discussion has been “non-academic.” And it is this kind of “non-academic” discussions, repeated on an almost daily basis in the middle of doing some math lessons, and some history lessons, and some reading lessons, that have so far produced three good-citizen, productive, high-achieving kids in a row. So even though we have considered the central core of our education not to be “academic” at all, and even though we have never had the money to purchase the very best of materials, we must be doing something well.

            • Slartibartfast says:

              Wow John, it sounds like you’ve produced some pretty impressive empirical evidence for home schooling. It sounds like you are doing an excellent job preparing your children, fancy materials or not (the best materials in the world wont help a bad teacher or a student who doesn’t want to learn).

            • John Woodman says:

              Thanks, Kevin.

              There is also some pretty reasonable research out there that indicates that on average, home-educated students tend to do very well in all areas — both socially and academically. See http://www.nheri.org if you’re interested.

              When home-schooling wasn’t as widespread as it is now, you would tend to occasionally get people saying, “But what about socialization? Aren’t you depriving your kids of the social experience they would get at school?

              One is tempted to answer such a question with, “Well, I suppose I could beat them up and take their lunch money, if you like.”

              The real answer, though, is (in brief) that our kids have been around peers, around younger persons, and around older persons their entire lives. They have been socialized not just to relate to people who happened to be born the same year they were, but to relate to people of all ages. My 19-year-old daughter pretty much has 15 years’ worth of child care experience.

              Also, the end goal was always to produce responsible adults. We always felt that an effective way of doing that was having our kids hang out with, interact with, and observe… responsible adults.

              Not exclusively. Our kids have been socially involved with age-mates — always. But they’ve also been around adults. I’ve taken my kids to work with me. They’ve all had chores in our household from the time they were old enough to carry a wrapped-up dirty diaper over to the trash can. That was the very first regular chore or “job” each of our children was given.

              I can tell you this: When a toddler successfully carries his wrapped-up dirty diaper over and puts it in the trash can, and receives applause for doing so, there is not a more delighted toddler in the world. Makes for a wonderful sense of accomplishment and self-esteem, and a wonderful family experience as well.

              It is a celebration of a young child discovering that he or she can accomplish things in the world.

              In any event, I should probably stop now. This isn’t a blog about politics, and it isn’t a blog about education.

              But I’m glad to have had the opportunity to say a few words on the topic, nonetheless. ;-)

        • Jim says:

          Maybe I should have come up with something like self-taught amateur CSI sleuth? Now John, I’m quite familiar with your home-schooling story, and I realized it would get your dander up when I wrote it! And, as I’m sure I’ve stated before, congrats to each and every one of your clan. But, as I’m sure you know, it depends on the people doing the home-schooling and their dedication to doing it. Neither of my parents even graduated from HS (WWII, Parents passed away at a young age) and still made a good living and raised 5 kids…all of who graduated. But, no way they would have been good at home-schooling us.

          • John Woodman says:

            If that’s the case, my guess is that they probably wouldn’t have tried.

            There’s sort of a self-selecting dynamic at work in home education. It takes commitment to make it work. But if there isn’t that commitment, it usually doesn’t happen in the first place.

            That’s not to say there aren’t truly awful home-schooling parents. But we also have truly awful school systems, don’t we?

            Our experience is only our experience — but I think it does at least demonstrate some of the things that can be good about parents educating their children at home. In regard to home education in general, or overall, home-schooled kids do very well. Research indicates that they seem to be less peer-dependent than “schooled” kids. As adults, they tend to be more engaged in the community than the typical “schooled” kids. They tend to report — as adults — greater satisfaction with their lives. In every measure I’ve seen — both social and academic — they tend to do a bit better than their schooled counterparts.

            There’s also a family relationship dynamic at work as well. Do you want to know part of the reason why we home-school our kids? It’s because we like them. Why would we want to send them off somewhere, all day, every day?

            I also think it makes for closer sibling relationships.

            So there are lots of good reasons to home-school.

            That said, the ideal combination for us has not been home-schooling exclusively. So far, every single one of our students has eventually transferred out of our home-schooling “classroom” and into an institution. The first one transferred out (sort of; technically she was still a home-schooled student just taking classes at the local public school) largely in order to take advantages of the strong academics and science resources available there. The second one wanted to be around other kids, to compete in that environment, and go for valedictorian in a public-school setting. The third one seemed to need a more structured environment.

            So there are benefits and advantages to both; and our best combination has involved first building a strong environment at home, then going out into the world.

            But again, core point: Home-schooled students generally seem to outperform their peers both socially and academically. For anyone who is interested in further exploring the issue, I can recommend the research produced by nheri.org.

            As for Arpaio’s posse… how about “Amateur Hour?” Or “Who Wants to Be a Detective?”

          • John Woodman says:

            Or how about this: “American Gumshoe?”

      • John Woodman says:

        Incidentally, even though our oldest spent her last year and a half attending a good local public school, she did not graduate from that school.

        She graduated high school in our back yard.

    • Suranis says:

      You forgot “…and was rejected as hearsay and of no evidentary value.”

      And I’m sure you think all the letters from Arpaio’s office is personally signed by him too.

      And the laser printouts have not been linked to by the Hawaii DOH. as Certified copies of the LF Birth certificate

      http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/obama.html

      On April 27, 2011 President Barack Obama posted a certified copy of his original Certificate of Live Birth

      And they didn’t release this press release about them

      HONOLULU – The Hawai„i State Health Department recently complied with a request by President Barack Obama for certified copies of his original Certificate of Live Birth, which is sometimes referred to in the media as a “long form” birth certificate.

      “We hope that issuing certified copies of the original Certificate of Live Birth to President Obama will end the numerous inquiries related to his birth in Hawai„i,” Hawai„i Health Director Loretta Fuddy said. “I have seen the original records filed at the Department of Health and attest to the authenticity of the certified copies the department provided to the President that further prove the fact that he was born in Hawai„i.”

      Aside from all that, I think I’ll let the rest of the guys take a crack at you. Rubbishing you has gotten boring.

      • Hermitian says:

        Here’s what Loretta Fuddy actually said. You will find that she said far less than what Abercrombie’s press secretary said that she said. The difference is called plausible deniability.

        STATE OF HAWAII
        DEPARTMENT or HEALTH
        P. O. BOX 3378 4
        HONOLULU, HI 968013378
        April 25, 2011

        The Honorable Barack Obama
        President of the United States
        The White House
        1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
        Washington, DC 20500

        Dear President Obama:

        l have reviewed your request for two certified copies of your original Certificate of Live Birth. As the Director of Health for the State of Hawaii, I have the legal authority to approve the
        process by which copies of such records are made. Through that authority, in recognition of your status as President of the United States, l am making an exception to current
        departmental policy which is to issue a computer-generated certified copy.

        We hope that issuing you these copies of your original Certificate of Live Birth will end the numerous inquiries received by the Hawaii Department of Health to produce this document. Such inquiries have been disruptive to staff operations and have strained State resources.

        Enclosed please find two certified copies of your original Certificate of Live Birth. l have witnessed the copying of the certificate and attest to the authenticity of these copies. A
        receipt for the payment of these documents is attached for your files. Please let us know if we can be of further assistance.

        Sincerely,

        Loretta J. Fuddy, .C.S.W, M.P.H.
        Director of Health

        I personally think that it is revealing that Fuddy personally signed the transmittal letter for the two certified copies of Obama’s original birth certificate but did not sign either verification letter for his purported LFCOLB.

        • nbc says:

          Here’s what Loretta Fuddy actually said. You will find that she said far less than what Abercrombie’s press secretary said that she said. The difference is called plausible deniability.

          THere is that confirmation bias again…

        • Slartibartfast says:

          Hermie said:

          Here’s what Loretta Fuddy actually said. You will find that she said far less than what Abercrombie’s press secretary said that she said. The difference is called plausible deniability.

          First off, what does what Governor Abercrombie’s press secretary said have to do with anything? What is the difference you are alluding to and what is its significance? When you can actually back up your claims, you can answer questions like these instead of being vague and hoping people will naively accept your implied allegations.

          Hermie said:

          I personally think that it is revealing that Fuddy personally signed the transmittal letter for the two certified copies of Obama’s original birth certificate but did not sign either verification letter for his purported LFCOLB.

          Why is this unusual? The letter was an extraordinary event that the director of the DoH was handling at the request of the freaking President of the United States, while verifying a birth certificate is a common function of the office. And where do you see room for the information on the LFBC to be in any way inaccurate?

          • Hermitian says:

            Abercrombie’s press secretary spoke for Fuddy in the Governor’s press release that claims to vouch for the Obama LFCOLB. Those reported comments are therefore hearsay. Whereas Fuddy’s letter is legally binding on her.

            • nbc says:

              Abercrombie’s press secretary spoke for Fuddy in the Governor’s press release that claims to vouch for the Obama LFCOLB. Those reported comments are therefore hearsay. Whereas Fuddy’s letter is legally binding on her.

              Still no point I notice…

              Come on H…. At least pretend you are trying.

        • Suranis says:

          Actually Fuddy issued that press statement in a PREVIOUS press release Months before the april 27th LFBC release, so she DID actually say that. You birthers like to pretend the previous 3 years of stupid birtherism didn’t exist. How about her predecessor, who issued a press statement that said she had seen the Records and they show that Barack Obama “Is a Natural Born American Citizen”

          What you are quoting is the letter to the Whitehouse which was also published along with the BC to establish chain of custody.

          And there is nothing significant in her not personally signing the verification. She allowed her signature to be put on it.. It came from her office it has her authority behind it, just like every letter that comes from the Sherrif’s office has his authority whether he signed it or not. These things happen every single day.

          Are you going to disregard your doctors prognoses simply because his secretary affixed his signature on it?

          You think Mitt Romney personally attaches that “I’m Mitt Romney and I approve this message” to every advert?

          Maybe you think every bowl of Cornflakes is fake because Mr Kellog does not personally sign every packet too

          • Hermitian says:

            Could you post a link which reported this earlier statement by Fuddy?

            • nbc says:

              Do you have no access to the internet and google?
              Are you that unable to find the relevant information?…

              Shocking… No wonder you are so willing to believe anything…

    • Hermitian said:

      The admission by Obama of a purported duplicate copy of his LFCOLB is unfair to the plaintiffs because Obama has two certified copies of his original birth certificate in his possession. The laser printout copies are not certified copies.

      Hermitian complete misread the code. The “duplicate” mentioned in Rule 1003 in the code is a copy of a certified document. Both paper copies obtained by the White House of the LFBC are original certified documents as are the copies of the COLB obtained in 2007 from Hawaii. Also, who are the “plaintiffs” to whom you refer? No court has ordered the President to produce anything.

      • nbc says:

        No court has ordered the President to produce anything.

        And a verification would be more than sufficient… That plaintiffs hold an irrational belief is no reason for the court to force the DOH of HI to produce the original.

        Such follies… But H is already convinced that the long form must be a forgery.

        Can we say confirmation bias with no foundation in logic, reason or fact?

        So amusing,

      • Hermitian says:

        The point RC is that Obama’s attorneys in Mississippi voluntarily produced a laser printout copy of his purported LFCOLB to the court in their memorandum pleading for JOP. Additionally they associated this laser copy with the letter correspondence supporting the request and acquisition of the two certified copies from the HDOH on Apr. 25, 2011. They also associated this same laser copy with the information released by the HDOH on the agency’s web site. This production was actually an act of bad faith because Obama had the very two certified copies in his possession when he substituted the laser printouts of his LFCOLB PDF image for the two certified copies. This is a clear violation of the rule of best evidence.

        “Best evidence rule”

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_evidence_rule

        The issue revolves around whether or not the laser printout of Obama’s LFCOLB is a government document (or even a duplicate copy of a government document).

        A legitimate claim has been raised that the LFCOLB is a forgery. Also the Hawaii AAG Nagamine has refused to authenticate that the LFCOLB PDF image was the same image as on the two certified copies that the HDOH produced and provided to Obama’s attorney on Apr. 25, 2011. The laser printout copies are not certified copies. Only the HDOH is authorized to produce birth certificates and other vital statistic documents for the government of Hawaii. The laser printouts have been represented as duplicate copies of one of the two certified copies. There is an established chain of custody for the two certified copies and the Obama attorneys have stipulated that Obama received these two certified copies from the HDOH by their inclusion of the letter correspondance between Obama and the HDOH in their memorandum pleading. However there is no chain of custody which connects the laser printout copies to the two certified copies.

        See Also: “Evidence: Best Evidence Rule”

        [DOC]

        http://www.elangdell.cali.org/sites/…cali…/Best-Evidence-Rule_Miller_v1_0.doc…

        “A. Rule 1002: The Rule’s Scope

        “Federal Rule of Evidence 1002 contains the Best Evidence Rule: “An original writing, recording, or photograph is required in order to prove its contents unless these rules or a federal statute provides otherwise.” An example of a writing triggering a Best Evidence Rule analysis can be found in United States v. Rivera-Carrizosa, 35 F.3d 573 (9th Cir. 1994), in which the defendant was convicted of unlawful reentry or presence in the United States after deportation. At trial, an agent testified that he reviewed the defendant’s birth certificate from his immigration file and that the certificate stated that the defendant was born in Mexico. Id. On the defendant’s appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed his conviction because the prosecution did not produce his birth certificate at trial, meaning that the agent’s testimony violated the Best Evidence Rule. Id.”

        See Also: http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/

        ■ARTICLE X. CONTENTS OF WRITINGS, RECORDINGS, AND PHOTOGRAPHS
        ■Rule 1001. Definitions That Apply to This Article
        ■Rule 1002. Requirement of the Original
        ■Rule 1003. Admissibility of Duplicates
        ■Rule 1004. Admissibility of Other Evidence of Content
        ■Rule 1005. Copies of Public Records to Prove Content
        ■Rule 1006. Summaries to Prove Content
        ■Rule 1007. Testimony or Statement of a Party to Prove Content
        ■Rule 1008. Functions of the Court and Jury

        • nbc says:

          This production was actually an act of bad faith because Obama had the very two certified copies in his possession when he substituted the laser printouts of his LFCOLB PDF image for the two certified copies. This is a clear violation of the rule of best evidence.

          Still unfamiliar with the rules of evidence? Poor H.

          Rule 1005. Copies of Public Records to Prove Content

          The proponent may use a copy to prove the content of an official record — or of a document that was recorded or filed in a public office as authorized by law — if these conditions are met: the record or document is otherwise admissible; and the copy is certified as correct in accordance with Rule 902(4) or is testified to be correct by a witness who has compared it with the original. If no such copy can be obtained by reasonable diligence, then the proponent may use other evidence to prove the content.

          Honestly, can you not research anything properly?

          Sigh…

          And

          “Federal Rule of Evidence 1002 contains the Best Evidence Rule: “An original writing, recording, or photograph is required in order to prove its contents unless these rules or a federal statute provides otherwise.

          Learn to read.

        • Slartibartfast says:

          Hermie,

          I don’t think you want to make the “best evidence” argument as it makes the original COLB and the official statements and sworn testimony by the DoH insurmountable proof of Hawai’ian birth. (there being no possible “better evidence” of birth elsewhere).

        • @ Hermitian

          The Obama team in Mississippi supplied a readable copy of the LFBC because the worst attorney in the world, Orly Taitz had submitted an illegible copy of it and had claimed it to be a forgery. The defense then obtained the verification letter to show that Taitz claim that the BC was forged is nonsense. I suspect this might have been done to lay a foundation for requesting costs and fees at some point.

          In any case it was not necessary for the defense to produce anything. The defense was merely answering Taitz claims that the LFBC is somehow not accurate. She is the one who first submitted the LFBC. The response by the defense was perfectly valid. The verification latter was enough to show Taitz claims were unfounded.

          • Hermitian says:

            The issue is whether the court is obligated to first rule on the motion for JOP based on the pleadings before the court after that motion. The verification letter was provided in a supplemental pleading after the motion for JOP was requested by the defense. The position of the defense at the point of their motion for JOP was that they had not asked the court to take judicial notice of the laser copy of the purported LFCOLB but rather only the Hawaii official’s statements about it’s validity. The game that the defense is playing is to provide the verification letter instead of providing one of Obama’s two certified copies. The obvious question is why would they need to do that?

            • The motion before the court is a motion to dismiss by the Mississippi Secretary of State. The case is not at the evidentiary stage and will never be.

            • nbc says:

              The obvious question is why would they need to do that?

              Because is far more effective. All the court is interested in is whether or not President Obama was born in Hawaii and thus a natural born citizen.
              Orly had already submitted the long form birth certificate, so all they needed was a verification to meet the Federal Rules of Evidence.

              Clean and straightforward. But of course, anything the lawyers do will be seen by you as serving some ulterior motive. It’s called confirmation bias.

              Why is it so hard to understand that the long form birth certificate accurately describes all the facts?

              Just because some foolish people looked at a highly compressed PDF and believed that they could not explain certain ‘features’?

              They fooled you again. How often can they get away with that my friend? I personally would be outraged if I found out I had been lied to.

      • Hermitian says:

        Reality Check says:

        “Hermitian complete misread the code. The “duplicate” mentioned in Rule 1003 in the code is a copy of a certified document.”

        I didn’t misread anything. Obama’s attorneys have represented to a Federal District Court in Mississippi that they have produced a duplicate copy of one of the two certified copies of Obama’s original birth certificate that he received from the HDOH on Apr. 25, 2012. However, Sheriff Arpaio has provided a sworn affidavit to this same court that there is probable cause that the laser printout of the WH green PDF image of the purported LFCOLB is an image of a forged document. If Sheriff Arpaio is wrong and the laser copy is a duplicate copy of one of the two certified copies then Obama has nothing to lose by producing one of the two certified copies that he has in his possession. However, if Sheriff Arpaio is right then Obama has produced a duplicate of a forged identity document to a Federal District Court.

        • John Woodman says:

          I’m trying to figure out which Sheriff Arpaio you’re talking about.

          Would this be the same Sheriff Arpaio whose “investigative team” faked evidence that they claimed to have, but didn’t? Evidence on the basis of which they claimed “indisputable proof” that Obama’s birth certificate was a “forgery?” Very specific evidence which later actually turned up and completely contradicted their claims?

          I’d just like to be sure which Sheriff Arpaio we’re talking about.

          • Hermitian says:

            So you believe that they provided their evidence to the criminals in a press conference?

            Well Duh!

            • nbc says:

              Is that not what they have done already?

              Duh…. They even claimed that they had the manual and showed pictures.

              But they were from a 1968 manual.

              What are they hiding?
              They already released all the info, other than the evidence…

              Sloppy, or negligence?

              Come on H. Make some effort, this is getting ridiculous. Your lack of reason and logic is somewhat underwhelming, excepted but still underwhelming

              They claimed that they had the manual, showed the wrong manual and have refused to further address the issue.

              Pretty straightforward: They were caught with their pants down. They have no evidence, they have to research worth speaking off and all their claims are contradicted by the DOH of HI and the certificates.

              Not very impressive…

        • nbc says:

          However, if Sheriff Arpaio is right then Obama has produced a duplicate of a forged identity document to a Federal District Court.

          So far there is no evidence that suggests that Arpaio may be right. It is all based on the compressed PDF. In the mean time we have an official verification of all the relevant facts of Obama’s birth in Hawaii.

          The courts could not care less about the musings of a volunteer posse of self proclaimed experts.

          I am waiting for Arpaio to show up to testify in Court. Orly invited him and Zullo but they appear to be unwilling to provide testimony under oath.

          Why is that? Because their evidence would never stand up in any court.

          Are you that gullible that you believe that Arpaio is interested in bringing this to court?

          You are such a tool my friend. No worries, we are here to help you see.

  29. Scientist says:

    Permit me to summarize Hemitian’s arguments in clear and brief form:
    1.Any imperfections in any document relating to Obama, however trivial, are proof of forgery.
    2. Any lack of imperfections in any document relating to Obama are also proof of forgery.

  30. Hermitian says:

    Jim said:

    “Ummmm, Hermie, he didn’t. The PDF image has never been used as an identity document. It was only posted as informational for anyone who was curious. There has been no felony committed. ”

    “Identity document forgery”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_document_forgery

    See also “What is Felony Forgery?”

    “Felony forgery is purposely altering or changing any information on a legal document with the intent to defraud an agency or another person.”

    http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-felony-forgery.htm

    • Slartibartfast says:

      Hermie,

      Which means that if the information is correct, as the Hawai’i DoH has repeatedly verified, then there can be no forgery. Furthermore, as the only information pertinent to eligibility is place and date of birth, it is unclear that any other information, even if changed, could defraud an agency.

  31. Hermitian says:

    Suranis says:

    ” August 8, 2012 at 11:52 am

    “You do know that makes no sense at all? I may not be an expert on Graphics, but I know that PPI (Pixels per inch) means the amount of pixels in an inch line. So 300 PPI would be much larger than 72 PPI in a display which has a standard sises for a Pixel. Its why my 12 Megapixel photos look huge when I have them on 100% resolution in Paint.”

    Load one of your digital pics into Gimp 2.6 and use the Print Size feature to reduce the image size by a factor of 1/2 while constraining the total pixel count. The resolution will double.

    By the way Gimp 2.6 is open source and therefore is free. Gimp 2.8 just hit the street but it apparently doesn’t handle non-Gimp file types yet.

  32. Hermitian says:

    John Woodman said:

    I’m not sure what you’re going on about.

    Corsi’s list is 100% fraudulent.

    Are you asserting that if someone produces a bald-faced lie that you happen to like, that lie trumps the truth? Did you even read the article referenced?

    Your article is based on your assumption that you know where The Posse’s race code list came from. However your 1961 list applies only to the race of the child. Therefore your list proves nothing. Let me say it plainly. Your list does not give you a dog in this hunt. You don’t know what information the Posse is basing their conclusion on or the source of that information.

    You need to give the Posse some slack. They are conducting a law enforcement investigation into the crime of forgery. Since when would law enforcement pursuing a criminal investigation offer up their evidence to the public?

    If you think they would do that then you are sadly mistaken.

    • nbc says:

      You need to give the Posse some slack. They are conducting a law enforcement investigation into the crime of forgery. Since when would law enforcement pursuing a criminal investigation offer up their evidence to the public?

      No law enforcement is really involved here. They have some amateur volunteers who have made flawed assertions about a document irrelevant to Obama’s eligibility.
      There is no interest in bringing criminal charges. Arpaio would never be this foolish.
      The posse lied about the 1961 manual and so far has refused to support its claims. Why is that? Claiming that it would interfere with the investigations is plain silly as they made the information available.
      They even presented the document which was shown to be a 1968 manual.

      And you still take these clowns seriously?

      • Hermitian says:

        I don’t believe that Arpaio is a clown. Maybe a little long in the tooth. But Arpaio would equate his age to his experience. Which by the way is very impressive.

        It’s a fact that all good law men hold their cards close to their chest. That’s all that’s going on here. Four million citizens of Maricopa county can’t be that wrong about their sheriff. Did it ever occur to you that they like him because he stands up against Obama’s disregard for the law and the Constitution?

        The Border Patrol doesn’t know which end is up between the sanctuary cities and Obama’s faux dream act.

        • nbc says:

          A fool cannot recognize a clown. How ironic. You say that he is holding his cards close and yet he holds press conferences, unheard of in real investigations, where he outlines where the ‘criminals’ went wrong, and when shown that he used the wrong manual, he refuses to show the correct one?

          Incompetence is the word you are looking for… This is all about PR, there will never be charges filed, and Arpaio will never allow himself to be cross examined under oath.

          And I don’t blame him, the work done so far is shoddy. Deep down I believe that even you know this.

          As to the people liking him, not so much anymore. Everyone realizes how foolish he is making them look by his fake investigation. If this were a real law enforcement investigation, why do we see amateurs at work, why do we see press conferences where fake evidence is shown, why do we see tax payer money wasted on trips to Hawaii?

          Explain that

          • Hermitian says:

            nbc says:

            ” August 8, 2012 at 6:03 pm

            “A fool cannot recognize a clown. How ironic. You say that he is holding his cards close and yet he holds press conferences, unheard of in real investigations,”

            What planet did you say you hail from nbc? Can you name a single mass shooting incident that didn’t have a press conference? You don’t consider that these are ongoing investigations?

            • nbc says:

              What planet did you say you hail from nbc? Can you name a single mass shooting incident that didn’t have a press conference? You don’t consider that these are ongoing investigations?

              To describe the evidence that led them to the conclusion who the shooter is, although they do not have him in custody?

              You must be kidding. Instead the CCP presented all their evidence for all to see, made claims that they even had the official document to support their claim of forgery, the 1961 manual.
              When they instead showed a 1968 manual (inadvertently they claim), and when a 1961 coding manual was shown that disagreed with their conclusion, they went quiet and refused to show this mysterious document.
              There is no logical argument why they would not present the document, they have given away all their evidence already.

              I ask you again? Incompetence?

              You are not very good at logic and reason now are you?

    • John Woodman says:

      Your article is based on your assumption that you know where The Posse’s race code list came from.

      There are no assumptions here. There’s no ambiguity. There’s no doubt about the fact that they falsified evidence and flat-out lied to the nation.

      This is not speculation. And there’s no room for any other interpretation.

      THEY FALSIFIED THE EVIDENCE AND LIED TO THE NATION.

      Period.

      They claimed to have the 1961 federal Vital Statistics Instruction Manual, and that that 1961 US government Vital Statistics Instruction Manual said that “9″ meant “not reported” or “not stated.”

      In support of that claim, they produced an official video which showed a list of race codes, in which “9″ said “Unknown or not stated (race of parents only).”

      They represented that image as being from the 1961 US government Vital Statistics Instruction Manual, which they claimed they had. They also claimed that they had searched “for months” for it, before they “finally found it.”

      That image is PROVEN to have come from a manual dated SEVEN YEARS LATER.

      And there’s no ambiguity about that. The exact positioning of the letters, and every single smudge on both Arpaio’s image and the 1968 US government document — which is available DIRECTLY FROM THE US GOVERNMENT — are 100% identical.

      And at the top of the page, it very clearly says, “NATALITY TAPE FILES FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1968.”

      As if that weren’t enough, they followed up that FRAUDULENT image in their OFFICIAL VIDEO with a second, different image of the codes.

      THAT image is now KNOWN to have come not from the United States government at all, but from a similarly FRAUDULENT article published this spring on a BIRTHER WEB SITE.

      And the reason we know THAT, is that not only are all of the letters in precisely the same location as those from the 1969 US government document, again, so are the very characteristic smudges.

      So we have not one but TWO known FRAUDULENT images in the Posse’s official video.

      So THEN, the REAL 1961 US Government Vital Statistics Instruction Manual — there was only one, by the way — turns up. And guess what IT says?

      It says “9″ means “Other nonwhite.”

      Obviously, the evidence has been faked, the real evidence provides a direct and absolute contradiction to the Posse’s claims, and the claims are completely and utterly irreconcilable with the actual evidence.

      So then I and others contact both Jerome Corsi and the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, and the Cold Case Posse, and say: “You say you’ve got this evidence. Please produce it.”

      And the response? Nothing but the sound of crickets chirping, until Sunday, when Jerome Corsi posts a video in which he mischaracterizes and vilifies those who asked him for some actual EVIDENCE, and makes EXCUSES for not producing the evidence he and the posse claimed to have.

      There’s no ambiguity here, Hermitian.

      THEY FALSIFIED THE EVIDENCE, AND FLAT-OUT LIED TO THE NATION — INCLUDING YOU.

      So please allow me to ask the question again: Why are you defending known frauds?

      • Hermitian says:

        Calm down Woodman!

        I believe it was reported that the second image came from the 1969 manual.

        But the real point is so what? The Posse is not going to play footsie with you or with any other blogger. These guys are all about catching the perps and putting the hurt on them. If you are smart you best not get in their way. You just need to back off and let law enforcement do their job. They are not going to show their real evidence to anyone except to a grand jury or to a court.

        If you don’t believe that Arpaio knows exactly what he is doing after a totally successful career of over 50 years in law enforcement (most of which was with the Federal Government in assignments all over the world) then I’m not going to change your mind.

        • nbc says:

          You’re funny. You cannot even accept the fact that the CCP already has given away all its secrets and that showing the 1961 manual would add no new information to the ‘criminals’.

          So you have to ask yourself, why did they try to fool the public with a reference to a 1968 manual and are unable to show the real deal?

          Incompetence?

          You are so desperate now that you cannot even see the lack of logic and reason here.
          Poor grandpa. Fooled and misled by people he so desperately wanted to believe.

          Now what my poor imaginary friend.

          • Hermitian says:

            Maybe they preferred not to publish their real evidence for the forger to see?

            Sounds about right to me.

            • nbc says:

              Why would that make any difference? They have already described what it would look like? They claimed they had a 1961 manual which showed that 9 meant ‘not stated’ and they showed a 1968 manual. When pressed they refused to provide any further evidence that they had such a manual. Where they bluffing? Or just misleading the press and the public?

              There is only one plausible reason in my mind: They lied. Simple as that.

              Even you might be able to understand that.

            • Slartibartfast says:

              Hermie,

              Assuming that they had a 1961 manual which said what they claimed, how would showing it in any way help the forger? Showing a 1968 manual, claiming it was a 1961 manual, and refusing to correct the error only makes the Party Posse look dishonest and incompetent and provides ample fodder for defense counsel if the matter ever went to trial. If I were the forger, I’d be pretty happy with that state of affairs.

        • Slartibartfast says:

          Hermie,

          When people are dishonest, ignorant, irrational and unwilling to debate it tends to piss people of good will off. Your behavior on this blog has been completely shameful, even if you are unaware of it.

          • nbc says:

            Yes, that’s another common flaw found in people like H, they significantly overestimate their own abilities.

        • John Woodman says:

          But the real point is so what? The Posse is not going to play footsie with you or with any other blogger. These guys are all about catching the perps and putting the hurt on them.

          No, the real point is that THEY FABRICATED THEIR EVIDENCE AND LIED.

          And the SECOND point is that now that we KNOW that — and now that it’s PROVEN that they fabricated their evidence and lied — it is abundantly clear that their investigation is a complete sham, that they HAVE no genuine evidence — else why would they fabricate evidence at all? — and they are playing YOU for a sucker.

          And you, Hermitian, being very cooperative, are quite happily agreeable to being played for a sucker.

          As far as “catching the perps,” um… no. The fact that they had to FABRICATE THE EVIDENCE is a pretty darn good indication that there ARE no “perps.”

          None outside of the “Cold Case Posse,” at least.

          You apparently do not consider this PROVEN evidence of FRAUD conducted by an official law enforcement agency to be any big deal. Why is that, Hermitian?

          • Garrett Papit says:

            Remember how you got upset about me claiming you lied by saying that you have “debunked” all of the technical issues surrounding the BC? You mentioned that you simply stated your honest opinion and that you would never intentionally lie? Well, I take you at your word and assume that you truly believe what you say.

            It is the same for the CCP. I can tell you that they truly believe the coding information that they presented. In fact, I can tell you that they verified the values with government officials and had numerous witnesses to attest to what the government worker stated. My guess is they have digital recordings to back up this fact. Now I don’t have any inside scoop on whether of not they are correct, but I can tell you that the in no way fabricated evidence nor did they intentionally lie.

            Those are the types of statements that seem too far over board. You can’t know their motives, yet you have no problem impugning their motives as being deceitful and self-serving.

            I could rightly claim that you are lying about them fabricating evidence and lying. Beyond that, you go and accuse them of fraud…which requires intentional deceit..which you have no way of even knowing, let alone proving.

            You claim to want civil discourse, which I respect, but then you level accusations that are based on mere assumption. False assumption at that.

            Look, to the extent that people took my previous statements about you lying to mean that you lied about your personal life…I do apologize. But this is the exact type of thing that I’m talking about. I can’t retract the meaning of the statement because I do feel that you make statements that are way too strong, based on mere assumption. And the assumption, in this case, is just wrong.

            • Garrett

              You see the difference though is that the CCP, which apparently consists of Corsi, Zullo, and Arpaio, went on the national stage and used this bad information to accuse “someone”, the State of Hawaii, and by inference the President of the Untied States of committing a crime based on flawed evidence that amateurs easily debunked. I am sure they think it is all right to smear the President because, after all, he is just a n—ger and a communist according to them. So they deserve every bit of derision and scorn we can heap upon them because instead of offering an apology they are hunkering down and creating more lies.

              Anyone who still supports these degenerates in light of the truth deserves exactly the same treatment in my opinion. Your post indicates that you might be capable of rejecting this vile smear campaign but I am not an optimist.

            • Slartibartfast says:

              Garrett,

              If John has made incorrect assumptions, then you should be able to show us something that he has assumed that is demonstrably wrong, if you cant, you will have proven your words as hollow as we all know them to be—and were you a decent human being you would apologize to John.

            • Slartibartfast says:

              RC said:

              “Anyone who still supports these degenerates in light of the truth deserves exactly the same treatment in my opinion.”

              I couldn’t agree with you more.

            • Garrett Papit says:

              RealityCheck -

              You are disgusting for using the ‘n’ word and attributing it to people that you don’t know whatsoever. Completely disgusting. I hope you are proud of yourself.

              Slarti -

              Did you not read my last post. I did apologize for the statement that was construed as claiming he lied about himself. However, he has made false statements. And I just DID point one out. Namely that the CCP fabricated evidence. He has no basis for that and it can be proved that they were given that information by a government official, who vetted it. So nobody fabricated anything.

              Now, if you want to be angry that they haven’t admitted it’s wrong…that is one thing. First of all, I’m not 100% convinced they are wrong. But you can’t say they fabricated it…that is simply a lie.

              Now tell me, do you think that ’9′ is the code for ‘University’ as well? That is the coding value in the type of business or industry of father’s occupation. Can someone explain, using the values you claim are right, what that code means? I have yet to see it.

              Also, their fundamental point is sound EVEN IF the value of ’9′ means ‘other non-white’. Obama’s father would be considered a ’2′ for ‘negro’. Even if he was only part African, he would be considered a ’2′. So the code still is wrong given the value in the field. Also, they have proven that ‘African’ was not a designation used until the 1980s..over 20 years AFTER this BC was originally created.

              So your explanations don’t change the fact. And that is why I think you attack the CCP, to distract from that truth.

            • Garrett Papit says:

              You call everyone degenerates, yet you are the only one’s calling people names. I think that speaks volumes about who is the real degenerate.

            • nbc says:

              It is the same for the CCP. I can tell you that they truly believe the coding information that they presented.

              Such sloppy work… Of course, once a manual was found, there was no reason to do due diligence… All that mattered was that it would embarrass our President. Thank God it backfired.

              Sloppy research is no excuse for ‘good intentions’. They allowed ignorance to guide them.
              Either through incompetence or through malice, I am not sure although incompetence is easier to believe, they managed to look foolish and mislead quite a few people…

              And no apologies, no explanations… That’s the ‘criminal’ part of all of this.

            • nbc says:

              Namely that the CCP fabricated evidence. He has no basis for that

              It is clear that evidence was fabricated. Now was it incompetence or intentional, I do not know but what really seals it for me is that they have yet to apologize or explain themselves.
              Surely that casts quite a shadow on them would you not agree?

              Why won’t they come clean?

            • nbc says:

              You call everyone degenerates,

              I believe he reserves the term to a select few my friend. Those who made assertions that were based on false information and refuse to explain themselves, correct the record and instead pretend nothing happened.

              That my friend goes beyond just incompetence in my book.

            • Actually, I don’t think I have ever used the term “degenerate” on a blog comment before but after watching Corsi’s videos I think it fits. How about the way they are smearing Stanley Ann Dunham? Yes, degenerates fits.

            • John Woodman says:

              Look, to the extent that people took my previous statements about you lying to mean that you lied about your personal life…I do apologize.

              Garrett:

              I would like to thank you for finally doing the right thing, and apologizing for your statement. It did take you quite a while to do it, but you did finally do it. And I will give you credit for that.

              Thank you.

              I will deal with some of your other points in another comment.

            • Slartibartfast says:

              RC said:

              ” How about the way they are smearing Stanley Ann Dunham? Yes, degenerates fits.”

              I personally find the way that birthers treat Dr. Dunham to be reprehensible—I find her to be a remarkable woman.

  33. Hermitian says:

    nbc says:

    “August 8, 2012 at 3:40 pm”

    “Corsi pretended that he had such a list and it came from a 1961 coding manual. As ‘evidence’ they showed a 1968 manual

    “Idiots. And your are a tool for believing this nonsense.
    Have you no self respect?

    “And why does the CCP refuse to show the manual? Because they are embarrassed to be caught?

    “Ask yourself, why would the CCP be making up data and then fail to provide the relevant manuals and in fact show a known 1968 manual?
    Incompetence? Or what else?

    You would prefer they did which?

    1. Show a blank screen to the press.

    2. Show their actual evidence for the crime of forgery.

    3. Show some information that doesn’t compromise the investigation but convinces the press that they are making progress.

    I vote for 3.

    • nbc says:

      You would prefer they did which?

      1. Show a blank screen to the press.

      2. Show their actual evidence for the crime of forgery.

      3. Show some information that doesn’t compromise the investigation but convinces the press that they are making progress.

      Why would they not show this? They already laid out the evidence in all detail. Why would showing the actual document add anything that could be of relevance to the ‘criminals’. I accept 3) as well, they pretended they had data and now look foolish but it was meant to add credibility to their ‘investigations’.

      As I said H, you are too easily manipulated by your beliefs and those who make ‘authoritarian claims’ of which you approve.

      Have you tried using logic and reason for once? After all, what possible could have be the reason why they would not show the PDF? Especially since we have see the actual 1961 manuals and they fail to support their claims. We also know that their ‘manual’ does not match up with the coding found on another birth certificate.

      Surely you are quite gullible but reason and logic are far beyond your reach. Which is why you jump from one flawed argument to the other, and when disproven you fail to provide any further arguments and move on.

      Quite a level of despair here. I saw the same in Corsi’s latest video…

      So give me one reason why showing the document would tip of these ‘criminals’ any more than announcing that they have a manual which shows that the data for race is coded erroneously?

      Geez H… Have you no self respect? Are you so willing to be used as a tool by people who are smart enough not to expose themselves to anything that would require them to present the information in court? Because nothing shown so far gets even close to anything that would stand up.
      Furthermore, why is the CCP hiding from testifying under oath?… I tell you, because they know that their claims would not withstand scrutiny in a real court. But it’s good that people already have shown most of their claims to be bogus.

      Even Corsi understands…

      • Hermitian says:

        Actually logic is one of my strong suits. But I find that the supporters of Obama are lacking in its’ application.

        • Slartibartfast says:

          Hermie said: “Actually logic is one of my strong suits.

          If logic is one of your strong suits, then I hate to think what your weak ones are like.

          Personally I don’t think you understand the first thing about logic and critical thinking. If you would like to prove me wrong, maybe you could run down the logical implications of the LFBC images having been produced from scratch rather than having been generated from documents issued by the Hawai’i DoH. I’ll do the same and we can see who understands logic better. How about it?

          • Hermitian says:

            Slartibartfast says:

            “August 8, 2012 at 6:30 pm”

            “Personally I don’t think you understand the first thing about logic and critical thinking. If you would like to prove me wrong, maybe you could run down the logical implications of the LFBC images having been produced from scratch rather than having been generated from documents issued by the Hawai’i DoH. I’ll do the same and we can see who understands logic better. How about it?”

            Well Slart I would be happy to do that except I am already convinced for very good reasons that Obama’s original birth certificate is either late, altered or delayed. And I am not about to share my reasoning with you.

            Given that fact, and the additional fact that Obama’s purported LFCOLB is not marked as late, altered, or delayed then it must be a forgery. So the only remaining questions are who was the forger and who hired him to do the forgery? These are the questions that Arpaio and his Posse will answer soon.

            • Slartibartfast says:

              Hermie said:

              Well Slart I would be happy to do that except I am already convinced for very good reasons that Obama’s original birth certificate is either late, altered or delayed.

              Which precludes you from discussing the logical implications of the LFBC being a “forgery” why, exactly?

              And I am not about to share my reasoning with you.

              Presumably because you can’t reason your way out of a paper sack. If your logic and facts were sound, what possible harm would sharing them do to your cause? I’ll give you this—you sure have an overinflated view of your own importance.

              Given that fact, and the additional fact that Obama’s purported LFCOLB is not marked as late, altered, or delayed then it must be a forgery.

              Or your reasoning is flawed. How fortunate for you that you wont reveal it… I wonder why?

              So the only remaining questions are who was the forger and who hired him to do the forgery?

              You need a lot more than that to establish that the crime of forgery has been committed here, skippy…

              These are the questions that Arpaio and his Posse will answer soon.

              At what point will you believe that Arpaio is scamming you if he doesn’t instigate legal action? I’m guessing that you are such a patsy that the answer is “never”.

            • nbc says:

              Given that fact, and the additional fact that Obama’s purported LFCOLB is not marked as late, altered, or delayed then it must be a forgery

              Since it was not filed late, altered or delayed why should it be marked as such

              You and your confirmation bias again.

              Sad really. There are no good reasons as to why the document was filed late, delayed or was altered.

              Are you that gullible?

        • nbc says:

          Actually logic is one of my strong suits. But I find that the supporters of Obama are lacking in its’ application.

          ROTFL… There you go again, showing your lack of logic once more.

          You’re a funny dude but really… You have allowed yourself to be manipulated by known falsehoods, you are unable to do any meaningful research, you are unable to accept evidence that contradicts your beliefs and have strong dislikes of our President.

          You my friend are the consummate birther.

    • John Woodman says:

      This is utterly bogus. There is no POSSIBLE “compromise” from showing the 1961 manual if you actually have the 1961 manual, and are publicly claiming on that basis that the codes mean a particular thing.

      Again, we DO have the 1961 manual NOW. And it shows that THE POSSE FABRICATED THEIR EVIDENCE AND LIED TO THE NATION — INCLUDING YOU.

      So you really enjoy being a patsy, don’t you, Hermitian? You really enjoy being played for a sucker, it seems?

      By the way, this reminds me: Please call me about a hot investment opportunity. You can double your money in just 3 months.

      • nbc says:

        This is utterly bogus. There is no POSSIBLE “compromise” from showing the 1961 manual if you actually have the 1961 manual, and are publicly claiming on that basis that the codes mean a particular thing.

        Poor H has yet to catch up with the logic and reason of this. But he is a loyal puppy to his masters who make him look foolish. What would his grand children think if they were to see grandpa make such a fool of himself.

        • Hermitian says:

          nbc

          Which do you pick?

          1. Show nbc your real evidence.

          2. Present your real evidence to a grand jury or court to convict the forger.

          • John Woodman says:

            There’s no conflict between the two. There’s no valid reason WHATSOEVER to tell the public you have a particular manual, and then show them something different.

            Besides which, we HAVE the manual now that they claimed to have. And we know for a FACT that it doesn’t say what they clearly claimed it said.

            THEY LIED. THEY FAKED THE EVIDENCE. PERIOD.

            • Garrett Papit says:

              False John. With all due respect, this is the type of statement that makes me accuse YOU of lying. NOBODY FAKED ANY EVIDENCE. It was vetted with government officials with no fewer than 3 witnesses present. IF the info is wrong, then they were given bad info or mislead. You make a statement that you would have to by psychic to know is true. You have no way of knowing whether they were mistaken or lied…assuming they are even wrong.

              And as I’ve explained elsewhere here, even if ’9′ means ‘other non-white’ it is still contradictory to the value in the field. What’s more…the value in the field, ‘African’ is a descriptor that wasn’t used until the mid to late 80s.

              So not only do you make a false claim that they fabricated evidence from whole cloth, but you avoid the fact that their underlying point is still valid. The document is in contradiction with it’s self in that the values and codes do not match.

              Is ’9′ also the value for ‘University’? How about being intellectually honest and admitting that there are still discrepancies. We have coding discrepancies, we have SSN discrepancies. How many discrepancies need to exist for you to take them seriously?

            • nbc says:

              False John. With all due respect, this is the type of statement that makes me accuse YOU of lying. NOBODY FAKED ANY EVIDENCE. It was vetted with government officials with no fewer than 3 witnesses present.

              So there was never a manual then? And you claim it was ‘vetted’ but you provide no further details other than parroting the CCP talking points.
              Why not present the manual?

              Sorry Garrett but you are losing a lot of credibility here defending the CCP’s actions. Referencing a 1968 manual as if it were the 1961 manual, no 1961 manual produced and now ‘government sources’ supported it.

              The CCP claimed to have the manual now they suddenly do not have it? Why continue the deception? Why not apologize for misleading the public and admit the mistakes.

              One or three witnesses to false data hardly means anything. What you need is multiple verifications.

              Surely you must understand how one presents ‘evidence’?

            • nbc says:

              And as I’ve explained elsewhere here, even if ’9′ means ‘other non-white’ it is still contradictory to the value in the field. What’s more…the value in the field, ‘African’ is a descriptor that wasn’t used until the mid to late 80s.

              Uh no… Black born in the US is coded as negro, others would be coded as other, non white.

              If the racial entry is “C,” “Col.,” “Black,” “Brown,” or “A.A,” “Afro-American,” and the birthplace is the United States, consider the parent’s race as Negro [for the purposes of determining the child's race]. If the birthplace of parent is not in the United States code as other nonwhite.

              Come on Garrett, your guys have nothing other than some hearsay and pretended that there was a manual.
              Why the deception? And why are you defending them when the facts appear to be so damning?

            • nbc says:

              Is ’9′ also the value for ‘University’? How about being intellectually honest and admitting that there are still discrepancies. We have coding discrepancies, we have SSN discrepancies. How many discrepancies need to exist for you to take them seriously?

              What discrepancies? There are no SSN discrepancies. Please explain? Sorry but if YOU want to be intellectually honest then you should present the ‘evidence’. Until then I call your bluff.

              Your unlikely cross examination would so quickly destroy any credibility my friend. But at the moment, you are doing a fine job.

            • Slartibartfast says:

              Garrett said:

              False John. With all due respect, this is the type of statement that makes me accuse YOU of lying. NOBODY FAKED ANY EVIDENCE. It was vetted with government officials with no fewer than 3 witnesses present. IF the info is wrong, then they were given bad info or mislead. You make a statement that you would have to by psychic to know is true. You have no way of knowing whether they were mistaken or lied…assuming they are even wrong.

              They said something demonstrably untrue (that their table came from a 1961 manual) in a venue where they should be held responsible for knowing that their statements were true.

              And as I’ve explained elsewhere here, even if ’9′ means ‘other non-white’ it is still contradictory to the value in the field. What’s more…the value in the field, ‘African’ is a descriptor that wasn’t used until the mid to late 80s.

              Based on your mistaken classification of President Obama’s father as “negro”—a term which implies American and your ignorance of the fact that “African” is the most likely way for a Kenyan of the time to denote their race. You are just repeating lies—the argument of an imbecile duped by propagandists.

              So not only do you make a false claim that they fabricated evidence from whole cloth,

              The only false claims here are by birthers like you. Evidence was fabricated from whole cloth and it was their responsibility to know that before they repeated it in a press conference and to correct the record afterwards—not to have done so is a serious breach of professionalism. I guess that doesn’t count for anything if they are trying to smear the president. Did you give the same unimpeachable benefit of the doubt to the truthers when they were trying to smear President Bush with lies?

              but you avoid the fact that their underlying point is still valid.

              No, it’s not—you are just too willfully ignorant, dishonest, or stupid to understand. (it is clear that you are willfully ignorant and dishonest, but I’m sure if you try you can make the trifecta…)

              The document is in contradiction with it’s self in that the values and codes do not match.

              Only under your mistaken assumptions.

              Is ’9′ also the value for ‘University’?

              or maybe “other”, or “not reported”—it really doesn’t matter as the Maricopa CCCP has prejudiced the issue and will never be able to use it in court (not that they ever had any intention of going to court…)

              How about being intellectually honest

              Coming from you this is contemptible.

              and admitting that there are still discrepancies.

              Which would matter not at all even if they existed outside birthers’ perverse fantasies.

              We have coding discrepancies, we have SSN discrepancies.

              Which are easily explained by a clerk swapping a “0″ and a “9″ in President Obama’s zip code, but need not be explained as the social security administration says that Social Security numbers can’t be used to determine location. Why do you doubt the SSA saying that the assumption you are making is dubious at best?

              How many discrepancies need to exist for you to take them seriously?

              As I’ve shown, no suspicious discrepancies exist, but you seem to have no problem with any number of discrepancies—so long as they’re coming from people who hate President Obama as much as you do.

          • Scientist says:

            Convict the “forger” of what? What specific act would an Arizona grand jury be able to indict on, let alone convict? Cite me a specific Arizona statute violated by an informational posting on a federal web site with a server in DC or a surrounding state?

          • nbc says:

            Which do you pick?

            1. Show nbc your real evidence.

            2. Present your real evidence to a grand jury or court to convict the forger

            So why lie then? They are spreading falsehoods, gave away their ‘secret’ information and the only thing they refuse to show is the manual. Nothing would interfere with a criminal investigation given that they already have tipped off the ‘criminals’. Incompetence?

            That has nothing to do with going for a conviction as they will never reach that stage. This is not about finding a forger but all about smearing our President.

            What a legacy to leave behind for your grand children.

      • Hermitian says:

        The difference here is that you think the motives of Arpaio are totally political rather than a sincere desire to serve his constituency. I on the other hand prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt. His use of his CCP was the right thing to do for his citizens who after all pay the bills. I Happen to believe that his constituents of Maricopa County have greatly benefited from the investigation so far. Plenty of bang for the buck.

        • nbc says:

          The difference here is that you think the motives of Arpaio are totally political rather than a sincere desire to serve his constituency.

          Why else would he hire only people who dislike Obama and hold a grudge? Why did he ignore Woodman? Why would he produce such shoddy research as done by Zebest, why would he lie about having the manual?

          This is all political and you know it. But unlike me, you still believe that this will result in anything real…
          There will be no charges filed, and the CCP will refuse to testify in court under oath.
          Arpaio has more than once abused his position to smear his opponents.

          do you want to be part of this? What message would this send to your grand children?
          What a legacy to throw away so easily…

          The citizens at this moment believe that the CCP is wasted effort and money.

          But I understand why you have to believe otherwise. Admitting to yourself that you have been made a fool of by the CCP takes some time.

        • Slartibartfast says:

          Hermie,

          Then I guess you’re pro-sex offender, right? After all, Arpaio seems to feel that this is a better use of his time and resources than prosecuting sex crimes committed against his constituants. Good to see that you don’t think money should be spent finding and punishing rapists but you’re fine with Hawai’ian vacations that result in nothing but repeated baseless smears against the president. How long will it take for you to realize that Arpaio will never get anywhere near a court of law with this—he’s dishonest, not stupid (unlike some other people…).

        • Scientist says:

          How about a bet Hermy? $100 says that there will never be an indictment of anyone by the CCP for anything related to this nonsensical claim of forgery. A bet can’t be for an indefinite time, so let’s say no indictment by 1 year from today.

          Are we on, sir? Or are you too chicken excremental to put your $ on your assinine positions?

          • Slartibartfast says:

            Scientist,

            Would it be childish of me to make chicken noises at this point? ;-)

            Bwak-bwak-bwak Hermie!

          • Count me in for another $100 on that.

            • Scientist says:

              It seems that Hermy is not very confident that the CCP is conducting a real investigation that will end in an indictment and trial. If he were, he would gladly take our bets. Who would turn down an easy $100? No, it seems that for all his bluster, Hermy knows the CCP are just playing cop and nothing they say has any actual legal weight.

  34. Hermitian says:

    nbc says:

    “August 8, 2012 at 5:41 pm

    “Because is far more effective. All the court is interested in is whether or not President Obama was born in Hawaii and thus a natural born citizen.
    Orly had already submitted the long form birth certificate, so all they needed was a verification to meet the Federal Rules of Evidence.”

    Too bad they didn’t include their verification in their motion for JOP instead of that laser printout of the LFCOLB that they didn’t want the judge to notice. Instead they had to submit a supplemental pleading in order to introduce the verification letter after the fact. This is what you call pulling their cookies out of the fire.

    • nbc says:

      Too bad they didn’t include their verification in their motion for JOP instead of that laser printout of the LFCOLB that they didn’t want the judge to notice. Instead they had to submit a supplemental pleading in order to introduce the verification letter after the fact. This is what you call pulling their cookies out of the fire.

      The laser printout was to replace Orly’s poorly legible one with one of better quality. Very friendly to help out the plaintiffs. But they were correct that they initially had no reason for the Judge to take judicial notice and then realized that they had a good way that would allow the Judge to take judicial notice: by providing a verification by the DOH of HI. They asked the judge however to take notice of the official statement by the DOH of HI. Since Orly had submitted the Long Form, they had an opportunity to get a certification of the form by the DOH of HI.

      Quite masterful… And all thanks to Orly who submitted the “original document”

      Orly Taitz submitted a copy of Obama’s Long Form Birth Certificate in the Mississippi case of Taitz v. Democrat Party of Mississippi, and when the defense submitted a more legible copy for the record, Taitz demanded sanctions for their asking the court to take judicial notice of a fraudulent document. While the defense never asked the Court to take judicial notice of the certificate, in their defense they nevertheless asked the State of Hawaii to confirm the authenticity of what they and Taitz submitted, under the statute cited above, and have now submitted Hawaii’s original paper documentary response with signature and seal to the Court.

      Masterful I’d say… Then again they were ‘playing’ against Orly… What would one do without an Orly… They would have had a much harder time to introduce evidence of President Obama’s birth into the record.
      Now that the Court is aware of these facts, it need no longer hypothesize about this.
      What surprises me is why noone else ever thought of getting the DOH of HI to verify the facts?

      • Jim says:

        nbc says: “What surprises me is why noone else ever thought of getting the DOH of HI to verify the facts?”

        First off, the birthers are 0-140 in court, so it isn’t like they needed any more help. Second off, in Orly’s filing after the MDEC gave a better copy, Orly begged for sanctions and called it a fake. Once she called it a fake, they then did the verification.

        What’s even funnier, is they probably wouldn’t have EVER bothered with that (since Orly would never get to being able to prove it was a fake) but for the SOS in Arizona, Bennett. And, since the letter to Bennett was “birtherized” trying to prove it was a fake, the letter to the MDEC covered all the bases…right down to ATO’s initials.

        So, while you folks do a WONDERFUL job picking apart all the non-issues that the CCP and birthers throw out there…I am constantly amazed and amused how well these same people are working so hard actually proving to people the President is eligible and the pubs are crazy. Rmoney doesn’t need to worry about getting the swing vote, he has to worry about his side scaring off the swing vote.

        • nbc says:

          First off, the birthers are 0-140 in court, so it isn’t like they needed any more help. Second off, in Orly’s filing after the MDEC gave a better copy, Orly begged for sanctions and called it a fake. Once she called it a fake, they then did the verification.

          Her predictable actions basically allowed the defendants to make their move and get the certification accepted.
          Orly is such a tool…

  35. Hermitian says:

    Scientist says:

    ” August 8, 2012 at 3:11 pm

    “NO ONE CARES!!!! Did you get that? NO ONE CARES!!!!”

    Well you see Sci that’t the difference between you and me. You see I do care a lot about my country. And I care that it’s going to hell under Obama. I want my grandsons to have a better shot than I had and I had a very good shot.

    • nbc says:

      And I care that it’s going to hell under Obama

      Well at least this certifies your bias against Obama. How far would you want to go to prevent Obama running successfully a second time?

      Would that include being a tool for those spreading false rumors and innuendo?
      Is that the kind of role model you want to be to your children or grand children?

      As to our country going to ‘hell’ I guess you have been blind until recently? Poor H… So unable to see the facts.

    • John Woodman says:

      I want my grandsons to have a better shot than I had and I had a very good shot.

      You would appear to have had more than one shot, if you are prepared to still believe the now proven frauds who conducted the press conference in Maricopa County.

    • Scientist says:

      You know it’s funny. Hermy thinks the country is going to hell “under Obama”. Others think it went to hell under Bush. Actually, if you look around the world, the US is doing OK and has done about the same no matter who has been President. The power of the office is very limited. The idea that everything revolves around one person is idiotic.

      But especially the idea that where that person popped out of Mom or who Daddy was determines if they are competent or not in a job is absurd. God knows, Hermy’s parents were probably decent people and look how he turned out.

      • Hermitian says:

        Wrong Ace! The power of the office is intended to be limited. But that dirty little secret that the founders worried about is that the office of the President is unlimited if he disregards the law and the Constitution. Obama has done nothing else for nearly four years.

        • Slartibartfast says:

          The bigotry is strong with this one.

          In what way is President Obama using the power of the office that President Bush (who, I might remind you, lied to the American people to start a war of choice) did not? Because if you can’t answer this, you are nothing but a massive hypocrite.

          • Hermitian says:

            Now! Now! Slart…

            Name calling will get you nowhere.

            • nbc says:

              You really do not understand the concept of name calling now do you?

            • Slartibartfast says:

              I haven’t even begun to call you names (and wont, in deference to John—personally, I think you deserve anything you get and more for your dishonesty). Do you deny that you are prejudiced against President Obama? That you’ve repeated lie after lie about him here? (like the executive order myth earlier today) Everyone here knows that you couldn’t tell if something were good or bad until you knew if it were President Obama who was doing it. You are a disgrace to yourself and every patriotic American.

            • John Woodman says:

              Let’s try a little test, Mr. Hermitian.

              If you’re so proud of your position — if you’re so proud of defending known frauds and being a tool — then why don’t you publish your full name and address here, so that your grandchildren can be really proud of you, for years to come?

        • Scientist says:

          Obama has respected the law and the Constitution better than most of his predecessors. Lincoln “detained” Maryland legislators to prevent them from voting to secede. FDR threw US citizens in camps based on their ethnic origins. Bush approved torture. Nothing Obama has done compares. Drone attacks against terrorists? I have no problem with that, including the few cases where they are US citizens if they set up shop abroad to fight against the US.

          And what’s Romney’s position on drone attacks? Given that he has surrounded himself with neo-con Bush retreads, I would say he plans to continue them.

          • Hermitian says:

            So you would have pulled the trigger on the 16 year old kid?

            • nbc says:

              another non-response poor H

            • Scientist says:

              Did Bush declare a War on Terror? Has there ever been a war in which someone innocent didn’t get killed? If there were another terrorist attack you would be the first to blame Obama for not protecting the country. Tell me Romney won’t do worse……

              Funny how the guy you consider a foreigner has been more vigilant than most at protecting the US.

  36. nbc says:

    Obama has done nothing else for nearly four years.

    Thank God, the Supreme Court disagrees with you here :-)

    Come on, let’s not pretend that you really believe that Obama has been ignoring the Constitution. Stop pretending to be a ‘patriot’, we all know what this is all about: You do not like his policies and cannot stand his successes.

    It certainly explains how easily you were fooled by the CCP…

    Off topic

    Obama has overhauled the food safety system
    Advanced women’s rights in the work place
    Ended Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) in our military
    Stopped defending DOMA in court.
    Passed the Hate Crimes bill.
    Appointed two pro-choice women to the Supreme Court.
    Expanded access to medical care and provided subsidies for people who can’t afford it.
    Expanded the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP)
    Fixed the preexisting conditions travesty [and rescissions] in health insurance.
    Invested in clean energy.
    Overhauled the credit card industry, making it much more consumer-friendly.
    While Dodd-Frank bill was weak in many respects, it was still an extremely worthwhile start at re-regulating the financial sector.
    He created a Elizabeth Warren’s dream agency: The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
    He’s done a lot for veterans
    He got help for people whose health was injured during the clean-up after the 9/11 attacks.

    and

    He’s killed Osama Bin Laden
    Eliminated several other Al-Qaeda leaders
    Ended the War in Iraq
    Begun the drawdown of forces from Afghanistan
    End-run Republican obstructionism by recess-appointing Richard Cordray to run the Consumer Financial Protection Board.

  37. Hermitian says:

    Boy! aren’t the natives getting touchy on this blog!

    The truth is as hard as diamonds.

    • nbc says:

      Yours however are diamonique. Softer and fake.

      I guess you cannot handle facts that well? That was predictable

      • Slartibartfast says:

        nbc,

        Hermie is just getting ready to run away—at least that’s the usual progression when birthers start complaining about being called names.

        • nbc says:

          Yeah and when they realize that they look foolish to those they want to impress such as their grand children. But when they realize they allowed others to manipulate them into believing in foolish rumors then they become angry. Acceptance will take longer.

          That H really believes that the document was filed late, delayed or altered runs counter to any known fact, or logic and reason.
          I guess he must have allowed others to mislead him as well. Such an easy target. The elderly by themselves are easy marks but when combined with a level of gullibility found amongst many of the birthers, well, you get the picture.

  38. nbc says:

    John: That official report differs little from Ms. Zebest’s own personal charges, published in virtually identical format, months before.

    And nothing in the report really survives closer scrutiny. Zebest’s analysis was sloppy at best. In addition to John’s work, I too have contributed my limited knowledge to rebut a few of Mara’s claims. Anyone with a browser and internet connection would be able to do the same. I am amazed how she failed to even properly research her claims.

  39. Slartibartfast says:

    Garrett said:

    Slarti -

    Did you not read my last post. I did apologize for the statement that was construed as claiming he lied about himself.

    You mean how we construed you flat-out saying he lied about himself as you saying he lied about himself? It is a matter between you and John, but I found your non-apology apology pretty pathetic–especially in light of the rest of your comment.

    However, he has made false statements. And I just DID point one out. Namely that the CCP fabricated evidence.

    The CCP presented fabricated evidence in a press conference—if they did not fabricate the evidence, then they displayed egregious incompetence by not verifying their evidence before presenting it. In either case, they have totally ruined the evidence as far as court goes—any competent (i.e. non-birther) defense attorney would have a field day discrediting this line of argument now (not that they couldn’t have rebutted it easily before…). I’d say John is on pretty solid ground here—it’s apparent that the sole function of the posse is to fabricate evidence and repeat fabricated evidence. Why is the party posse entitled to infinitely more latitude than you (or any birther) is willing to give President Obama? As any good American knows, our court system works the other way around: innocent until proven guilty. The only thing the Maricopa CCCP has proven is its own culpability.

    He has no basis for that and it can be proved that they were given that information by a government official, who vetted it.

    Given your credibility, I’m assuming this is a lie unless you can give the name of the official and get them to confirm it. The posse has continually presented fallacious, patently unvetted evidence, arguments, and allegations—the pattern is clear to everyone but the willfully blind.

    So nobody fabricated anything.

    Then why did Zullo say something that was demonstrably false—at some point someone lied about the manual being from 1961, i.e. they fabricated evidence. This is a far more serious crime than the “forgery” you claim to have evidence of—why are you so determined to ignore it?

    Now, if you want to be angry that they haven’t admitted it’s wrong…that is one thing.

    There are plenty of reasons to despise Arapaio and his foul minions—take your pick. But I guess you are incapable of seeing anyone on your side as dishonest.

    First of all, I’m not 100% convinced they are wrong.

    Which, in and of itself, is indicative of a severe confirmation bias.

    But you can’t say they fabricated it…that is simply a lie.

    No, it’s not—the evidence was fabricated and they presented it in a press conference. A person is responsible for what they say in an official capacity in a press conference—even if they weren’t the ones who fabricated it, they are still responsible for repeating it.

    Now tell me, do you think that ’9′ is the code for ‘University’ as well? That is the coding value in the type of business or industry of father’s occupation. Can someone explain, using the values you claim are right, what that code means? I have yet to see it.

    If I had to guess I would say 9 means “other”, “unknown”, or “unreported” or some combination thereof, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

    Also, their fundamental point is sound EVEN IF the value of ’9′ means ‘other non-white’.

    Nope, it completely falls apart—just watch…

    Obama’s father would be considered a ’2′ for ‘negro’. Even if he was only part African, he would be considered a ’2′. So the code still is wrong given the value in the field.

    Completely incorrect—”negro” is a term reserved for Americans of African descent. Barack Obama Sr. was not a “negro” and wouldn’t have been considered such. President Obama does have negro blood, though—through Dr. Dunham.

    Also, they have proven that ‘African’ was not a designation used until the 1980s..over 20 years AFTER this BC was originally created.

    Actually, I believe uses of the term “African-American” contemporary with President Obama’s birth have been found and “African” on its own was a perfectly reasonable way for a Kenyan to describe their race (see a Kenyan census of the time). Once again, you’ve got it totally wrong—not that you’ll ever admit it.

    So your explanations don’t change the fact.

    You are entitled to your own opinions, stop trying to make up your own facts—every one of your arguments can be shown to factually incorrect if not outright lies. That makes you pretty despicable in my eyes.

    And that is why I think you attack the CCP, to distract from that truth.

    Let me ask you this: What would convince you that the Maricopa CCCP is lying about there being evidence of forgery? If you can’t answer this then you lose any claim to an objective, empirical, rational position as the scientific method requires falsifiability.

    • Suranis says:

      He has no basis for that and it can be proved that they were given that information by a government official, who vetted it

      Uh, what proof is this idiot talking about. I guess he learned not to provide any ‘proof’ after his “MRC can only make 3 layers, here’s proof” fiasco.

      The only government official Zullo said they talked to was a 95 year old woman, on the phone, about stuff that happened 50 years ago. And they played none of the recording so they provided no proof of that either.

      Other than that they bitched and complained that they were thrown out of the Hawaii DOH by big hefty hawaiin guards.

      I think we are beyond the “It can be proven, TRUST ME!” stage in dealing with these bigots. If they don’t provide proof, all that needs to be said is “BULLSHIT” They are the accusers, we don’t have to provide proof of anything with 160 odd law cases and reams of technical documents on our side.

      And its fairly obvious that if total proof is provided they wont be capable of understanding it anyway. Too much brainwashing. Reality is just twisted in their heads. SO I’m not wasting my time on them anymore unless it amuses me.

      • JRC says:

        Exactly Suranis. I’ve been reading here but not commenting. These people are so in denial of reality. It hurts reading their stuff because I look at the world in a logical and reasonable way. I’m even a Libertarian. (I know many don’t find that as a logical or reasonable approach to politics, but that is another topic, and if you talk to me about that political philosophy, you might not think it’s just for right-wing nuts.) Anyway, after reading what they’ve posted….I really think that to understand them I need a frontal lobotomy or several bottles in front of me (and yes I mean more than 3.)

  40. John Woodman says:

    Garrett Papit wrote:

    False John. With all due respect, this is the type of statement that makes me accuse YOU of lying. NOBODY FAKED ANY EVIDENCE. It was vetted with government officials with no fewer than 3 witnesses present.

    Garrett, it is crystal clear that they claimed to have the ACTUAL and SPECIFIC “1961 Vital Statistics Instruction Manual” from the United States government IN THEIR POSSESSION.

    They also made very clear, and very specific, ABSOLUTE claims as to what that manual said.

    They also presented two different images to the public which they represented as being from that manual.

    And it is absolutely demonstrated that those images came from NO SUCH PLACE. This isn’t speculation. It’s certain, and it’s irrefutable. You can download images from the United States government, from birther web site The Daily Pen, and from the National Bureau of Economic Research that gives originals for the images that Arpaio’s posse presented in their OFFICIAL VIDEO.

    The 1968 image says with absolute clarity, at the top of the page: “NATALITY TAPE FILES FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1968.” There’s no mistaking this.

    And it’s not possible that whoever obtained the other image — which with complete certainty came from the birther web site “The Daily Pen” — did not know the source of that image.

    And yet Corsi publicly claimed that they had the manual, that they had “searched for months” before they “finally found it.”

    Nor is it at all ambiguous that the REAL 1961 Vital Statistics Instruction Manual from the United States government, now found, directly and absolutely contradicts what the CCP claimed it said.

    So for you to claim — as you just did — “NOBODY FAKED ANY EVIDENCE” — that’s a completely and absolutely insupportable statement.

    I have stated before and will state here again that I believe you are sincere. I also believe that you are sincerely caught up in what pretty much amounts to a cult. And people who are in that mental state are often simply incapable of recognizing the truth. They are incapable of recognizing that they are caught up in a delusion.

    I know you’re not likely to take my advice. But my advice would be to try and take a step back and be much more objective. You might try treating the entire matter as if the exact same accusations were being leveled against George W. Bush. Look at the other side for a change.

    I think the day is likely to come, if you are able to be honest and objective, when you will be a bit embarrassed about some of the positions you hold today.

    • JRC says:

      Exactly John. And on top of that, Corsi said something about everyone ignoring the “created evidence”. What in the world would the birthers do if anyone in the Obama Administration said anything like that. For Example, if the White House Press Secretary said something about everyone needs to look at the evidence we created about Fast and Furious. OMG. ROFL.

      • John Woodman says:

        Extremely interesting wording. Actually, there’s a LOT that interesting in that segment from Corsi. He makes it absolutely clear, for example: “We ain’t releasing no manual!” Not in those exact words, but that’s what he’s saying.

        And he offers the flimsiest of excuses for his failure to do so.

        He also fails to own up to the established fact that the 1961 VSIM cleanly refutes their claims. And there’s more in there that’s of real interest.

        But here’s the interesting part you mentioned:

        “August is still gonna be a research month. You’re gonna find Sheriff Arpaio’s group is gonna get increasingly closed-mouthed about the evidence that’s been created. It’s not gonna be released.”

        The evidence that’s been created? How could anyone, as part of a legitimate investigation, even think of using that particular word in that particular place?

        Here are the words that would fit naturally into that spot:

        “…the evidence that’s been uncovered.
        “…the evidence that’s been discovered.
        “…the evidence that’s been collected.
        “…the evidence that’s been found.
        “…the evidence that’s been revealed.

        But “the evidence that’s been created?” The word absolutely does NOT fit there — unless, of course, evidence actually has been created.

        And we know, from the recent revelations, that evidence has, in fact, been created.

    • John Woodman says:

      I would like to encourage folks to attempt to be as patient as they are able to with Mr. Papit. I hold the opinion that he is sincere in his beliefs. I also personally believe he is sincerely deluded, and perhaps not capable of emerging from that state of mind. But at this point I do hold the opinion that he is sincere.

      It is very difficult for someone who has believed in something, and invested a great deal of their life into it, to begin to discover painful truths that contradict what they were certain they knew.

      • JRC says:

        Okay, I guess I’m one that is different than most. I let evidence and facts lead me. I don’t believe in Santa or the Easter Bunny. I don’t believe that just because margarine is just one molecule away from plastic (though not sure, and don’t care if it’s true, since water is only one molecule away from being hydrogen peroxide) scare me into some irrational belief. I don’t care for this President, but I don’t want a bunch of paranoid maniacs changing our Constitution to fit their paranoia.

        • John Woodman says:

          What? What are you saying about the Easter Bunny?

          • JRC says:

            Sorry, but it’s not the Easter Bunny. I believe in the Easter Chicken though. She actually does lay eggs.

            • JRC says:

              In a different way, but kind of like the CCP.

            • John Woodman says:

              I’m not disputing the source of the eggs. Of course the Easter Chicken lays them. But then the Easter Bunny brings them.

              Everybody knows that. ;-) :lol:

            • JRC says:

              See John, that is information I did not know. So does the Easter Chicken give Easter Bunny the eggs? Or does the Easter Bunny just assume that the Chicken was busy trying to cross the road and took it upon himself to deliver the eggs.

            • John Woodman says:

              No, no. It’s a cooperative venture. The Easter Chicken lays them, and the Easter Bunny delivers them.

              And all that about the chicken trying to cross the road in the first place is just a myth. All the feed’s on this side of the road, the nesting box is on this side of the road, the other chickens are on this side of the road. And chickens are social animals. So why would the chicken even want to cross in the first place? There’s no actual motivation to get over there.

              Plus, chickens are pretty smart about cars. You’ve seen dead squirrels in the middle of the road. Dead skunks. Dead cats and dogs. But when’s the last time you’ve seen a dead chicken? I won’t say it never happens, but it doesn’t happen very often.

              You’ve got to sort out the truth from the myths on these kind of things.

            • JRC says:

              Wow, you are so right John. I can’t remember the last time I saw a dead chicken in the road. I stand corrected. I never did believe the chicken crossed the road to get to the other side. I knew there had to be more motivation than that. Oh, well I stand corrected. Maybe there is an Easter Bunny. I have a lot of thinking to do.

    • Hermitian says:

      You do know that is perfectly OK for law enforcement to lie in order to advance their investigation? It is quite common for investigators to lie to suspects during interrogation sessions. It is also routine procedure for law enforcement to not reveal their sources and evidence to the public.

      Maybe you are setting a ridiculous standard for Sheriff Arpaio and his CCP.

      His duty is to his investigation, the citizens of his county and the broader public. He owes you nothing beyond that duty.

      Your attitude toward law enforcement suggests that your real agenda is to discredit the Sheriff, his Posse and his investigation. I for one believe that the Sheriff and his investigators deserve much better.

      • Slartibartfast says:

        Hermie,

        The problem with that is that the lie they told seriously harms their investigation. They will never be able to use this line of argument in court (not that that was ever their intention), because the defense counsel would point out that they lied and refused to correct the record. Maybe you just don’t understand how being caught lying damages one’s credibility—especially in court. After all, you keep repeating lies…

      • nbc says:

        You do know that is perfectly OK for law enforcement to lie in order to advance their investigation?

        ROTFL, so you accept that they lied but you think it is ok… Why is it ok to claim that they had a 1961 manual when in fact they showed a 1968 manual?
        They lied, lied and lied in a press conference where they were outlining their evidence.

        What else are they lying about?

  41. JRC says:

    Yes, on top of that, as you point out, they are going to be tight-lipped now. You’ve been scheduling press conferences for the last couple months, but now it’s extra super secret. Sorry I have to LMAO at that.

  42. JRC says:

    John, so why do you think that named it the Cold Case Posse? I mean it’s not like this was some unsolved murder 20 years ago. I think it was to attract older people that are the majority of viewers of crime shows. And we all love a Posse. lol :)

  43. JRC says:

    As far as Mr. Papit, I think I can probably beat him in his challenge. I’d like to get paid for it though. So if Mr. Papit is interested in the truth, and is willing to pay. I’ll do what he can’t do and document a process in which compressing a document with text can have multiple 1-bit layers. So Mr Papit, what is the truth worth to you? I know you don’t want to know the truth, but since you are so willing to say there is no possible way without someone manipulating the pdf then you should pay me at least a million dollars for the info. It will be a process for everyone here to see and duplicate as well. So you can’t say I did something to “create” those. Let me know Mr. Papit. Honestly I could use a few more dollars.

    Okay it doesn’t have to be a million, but come on make it worth my time since you can’t seem to do it. Honestly dude.

    • JRC says:

      Contact your CCP and see if they are willing to find the truth. If so, they can pay me for my time showing that your 1-bit layer theory is incorrect, and I’ll use the money for a vacation to Hawaii. Or are they not interested in the truth and facts?

    • JRC says:

      Just so you know Mr. Papit, the reason why I haven’t bothered so far to debunk your theory (which I wouldn’t even call a theory in all honesty) is that it really doesn’t matter in the whole picture. The HDOH has already verified the validity of the birth certificate on multiple occasions. And even if I were to show you that this “theory” of yours is incorrect, it won’t change your mind. You’ll move on to some other “theory”. That’s why I’d like to get paid for showing you. Because I won’t get paid in gratitude for showing you the error of your way or theory.

  44. Hermitian says:

    Here’s the definition of a “duplicate” copy under the Federal Rules of Evidence.

    [DOC]

    “Best Evidence Rule Chapter”

    http://www.elangdell.cali.org/sites/…cali…/Best-Evidence-Rule_Miller_v1_0.doc…

    “Federal Rule of Evidence 1001(e) defines a “duplicate” as “a counterpart produced by a mechanical, photographic, chemical, electronic, or other equivalent process or technique that accurately reproduces the original.” Rule 1001(e) thus refers to four kinds of duplicates: “same impression (such as carbon or so-called `carbonless’ or `formpack’ copies), same matrix (such as offset printing, often called `multilith’; stencil duplication or `mimeograph’; or hectograph or `ditto’), photography (such as micrography or microfiche), and chemical reproduction (such as electrostatic or xerographic `photocopies’).” Courts have used the “other equivalent techniques” language of Rule 1001(e) to qualify, inter alia, facsimiles as duplicates. Essentially, then, “any mechanically created reproduction is a duplicate; a manually created production, because of the risk of human error, is not.” Wellborn, supra at 107.”

    Hence a “duplicate” copy does not just replicate the information of the original but rather must faithfully replicate the exact image of the original. Moreover it must be produced by means which do not admit the risk of human error. A document which merely collects the information from various original records scattered around a vault in Hawaii doesn’t cut it.

    Therefore the creation of a birth certificate using Photoshop and a computer is a definite no no!

    So let’s see the two certified copies of Obama’s original birth certificate that Obama received from Loretta Fuddy on Apr. 25, 2011.

    • Jim says:

      Hermitian says: “Therefore the creation of a birth certificate using Photoshop and a computer is a definite no no!”

      Just a few details that you’ve missed…
      1) The image on the web doesn’t fall under the rules of evidence because it has never been offered as evidence in any case.
      2) A BC is not a “duplicate”, it is a state-issued document reporting the information that the state has on record
      3) You would make a lousy lawyer.

      Don’t you ever get tired of being so wrong ALL THE TIME?

      • Hermitian says:

        That’s nice to know because the laser printout of the WH LFCOLB PDF image has been produced in the MDEC’s filing

        “MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT COUNSEL FOR MISSISSIPPI DEMOCRATIC PARTY
        EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE’S RESPONSE [ECF No. 30] IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF
        TAITZ’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS [ECF No. 25] ”

        The laser copy of the PDF image appears on page 11 and the verification letter from the HDOH for that image appears on page 12.

        The memorandum was filed in

        IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
        FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
        JACKSON DIVISION.

        It’s better for Obama that it’s not really evidence.

        • Jim says:

          Hermitian says: “It’s better for Obama that it’s not really evidence.”

          It’s even better for the President that all the data has been verified as true and accurate by the issuing entity. Since the data is what is the whole reason for even having a document and it’s what the court will take notice of.

          • Hermitian says:

            Too bad you don’t know the rules of evidence Jimbo!

            1. Taitz will formally request that the court take judicial notice of:

            a. The various laser printouts of the WH PDF image that the defense has produced to the court.

            b. The letter correspondence between Obama and Fuddy that the defense produced to the court that proves that Obama requested and received two certified copies of his original birth certificate from the HDOH on Apr 25, 2011.

            2. Taitz will then request a hearing on the items that the court has taken judicial notice of.

            3. At the hearing Taitz will raise the issue of Obama’s violation of the Best Evidence Rule. She will demand that Obama produce both certified copies that he has in his possession but that he withheld from the court.

            These certified copies will reveal that Obama’s original birth certificate is either late, altered or delayed. It follows that, under HAWAII law, the court must establish the probative value of these certified copies.

            Because the laser copies that Obama’s attorneys have produced to the court are not marked as late, altered or delayed, then the court will have proof of the forgery of an identity document. Of course, these laser copies then also cannot be duplicate copies of the certified copies.

            • nbc says:

              3. At the hearing Taitz will raise the issue of Obama’s violation of the Best Evidence Rule. She will demand that Obama produce both certified copies that he has in his possession but that he withheld from the court.

              You live in a dream my friend. First of all Taitz will never be able to get that far. Second of all, there is NO evidence of a delayed filing etc.

              Poor H. So deluded…

              Poor Grand Children…

            • Northland10 says:

              You may want to review Orly’s track record so far. If you actually think accomplish anything, you are seriously deluded.

            • Slartibartfast says:

              Hermie,

              You do understand that there is precedent in the Indiana courts saying the President Obama is a natural born citizen, don’t you? Ankeny stands in the way of any relief that Orly might seek. Which really doesn’t matter since the case will probably be dismissed before it gets that far.

              It’s too bad, really—I’d love to see you try to rationalize the failure of all of your predictions.

            • Scientist says:

              Hermy, Courts should not and will not intervene in a political dispute.

              By the way did you catch this http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/jon-huntsman-sr-calls-on-romney-to-release-his-tax-returns.php?ref=fpnewsfeed
              Now this is big, because Huntsman Sr was finance chair of Romney 08.

              When Romney releases his returns, then the candidates will be more or less even and the campaigns can negotiate what else, if anything, they will BOTH release.

            • Jim says:

              Hermitian says: “Too bad you don’t know the rules of evidence Jimbo!”

              Too bad you don’t know how the law works Hermie! It’s up to Orly to PROVE the President WASN’T born in the US. And what evidence does she have that he wasn’t? Did I hear you say “None”? And do you even KNOW what the best evidence of birth is? How about a letter VERIFYING the birth in Hawaii…by the issuing state! No wonder Orly’s record is perfect…perfectly bad that is. Listening to people like you who haven’t a clue.

              BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

            • Slartibartfast says:

              I just wanted to get my predictions on the record with Hermie’s so we can compare our accuracy later…

              Hermie said:

              Too bad you don’t know the rules of evidence Jimbo!

              1. Taitz will formally request that the court take judicial notice of:

              Taitz, the leading candidate for the title of “worst lawyer in the world”, does not know how to request anything—formally or otherwise—from a court of law. Whatever she submits will likely be incoherent, inappropriate, and incompetent.

              a. The various laser printouts of the WH PDF image that the defense has produced to the court.

              All of which are moot once the court recognizes the state of Hawai’i's certification of any of the documents or images. The gold standard for being born in Hawai’i is the DoH saying so—that obviates the need for a physical document, a vault copy, or microfilm. For a court to rule otherwise would be unConstitutional.

              b. The letter correspondence between Obama and Fuddy that the defense produced to the court that proves that Obama requested and received two certified copies of his original birth certificate from the HDOH on Apr 25, 2011.

              It would be awfully nice of Orly to establish the impeccable chain of custody which the LFBCs have… I’m sure that Orly would see this sort of self-inflicted wound as a personal victory (because it’s all about HER), were she competent enough to achieve it.

              2. Taitz will then request a hearing on the items that the court has taken judicial notice of.

              In other words, the judge is going to let Orly go on a fishing expedition and then regale the court with stories about the one that got away? I’m not a lawyer, but I don’t think that most courts are that casual.

              3. At the hearing Taitz will raise the issue of Obama’s violation of the Best Evidence Rule. She will demand that Obama produce both certified copies that he has in his possession but that he withheld from the court.

              Since all of the versions of President Obama’s BC are consistent with each other, this would end up being another own goal, but President Obama—never having been asked for the originals by the court—cannot possibly be “witholding” them.

              These certified copies will reveal that Obama’s original birth certificate is either late, altered or delayed.

              This is nothing buy your naive fantasy. The allegation has no credibility whatsoever because there is no evidence that you would ever accept as proving it untrue.

              It follows that, under HAWAII law, the court must establish the probative value of these certified copies.

              Gee… and I though Orly was in court in Indiana. You really don’t know nothing about nothing, do you?

              Because the laser copies that Obama’s attorneys have produced to the court are not marked as late, altered or delayed, then the court will have proof of the forgery of an identity document.

              As long as it shows him as born in Hawai’i there can be no intent to defraud with regards to eligibility, but we already know it wasn’t late, altered, or delayed—you simply refuse to acknowledge it…

              Of course, these laser copies then also cannot be duplicate copies of the certified copies.

              Then it’s all over but the frogmarching? That’s what you think Orly’s plan is? Wow—you really have no critical thinking abilities, do you?

            • insomnia says:

              I’ve been trying to follow along here – can someone tell me WHY Hermitian thinks the BC should be marked “late, altered or delayed”? He seems to be saying that since it’s not it shows it’s a forgery.

              Where is he getting that from?

            • Slartibartfast says:

              insomnia says:
              August 10, 2012 at 8:28 pm
              I’ve been trying to follow along here – can someone tell me WHY Hermitian thinks the BC should be marked “late, altered or delayed”? He seems to be saying that since it’s not it shows it’s a forgery.

              Where is he getting that from?

              As near as I can tell, that is pure birther bias—I doubt anything could shake his conviction and I doubt he could tell you why he became convinced of it in the first place.

        • nbc says:

          It’s better for Obama that it’s not really evidence.

          You would not recognize evidence if it bit you on the nose. Fool. H. refuses to accept that the verification is all that is necessary. While H has some foolish beliefs that the document should have been amended or delayed, no evidence exists to support this.

          Poor soul

    • Suranis says:

      Nice work on giving a bad link so we can’t read the rest of it. You guys are learning.

    • Suranis says:

      Oh look, I found it.

      http://elangdell.cali.org/sites/elangdell.cali.org/files/elangdell/Best-Evidence-Rule_Miller_v1_0.docx

      Moreover, courts have given the phrase “their equivalent” an expansive reading, capturing an even broader range of items under the purview of the Best Evidence Rule. For instance, in Seiler v. Lucasfilm, Ltd., 808 F.2d 1316 (9th Cir. 1986), the plaintiff, graphic artist Lee Seiler, “claimed that creatures known as ‘Imperial Walkers1’ which appeared in The Empire Strikes Back infringed Seiler’s copyright on his own creatures called ‘Garthian Striders.’” Seiler, however, did not obtain his copyright until after the movie was released in 1980, but he alleged that he first published his “Garthian Striders” in 1976 and 1977. Id. at 1317-18. At trial, Seiler could not produce his original drawings and instead sought to prove his case through “reconstructions” he created for trial. Id. at 1318. Seiler alleged that the Best Evidence Rule did not apply to his drawings because they did not consist of letters, words, or numbers. Id. at 1318-19. The Ninth Circuit disagreed, finding that his drawings “’consist[ed] not of letters, words, or numbers’ but of ‘their equivalents.’” Id. at 1318-19. It found that the drawings were “equivalents” because “[j]ust as a contract objectively manifests the subjective intent of the makers, so Seiler’s drawings are objective manifestations of the creative mind.” Id. at 1320.

      Federal Rule of Evidence 1001(c) more clearly defines the term “photograph.” According to the Rule, the term “‘photograph’ means a photographic image or its equivalent stored in any form.” Federal Rule of Evidence 1001(d) indicates that “[a]n ‘original’ of a photograph includes the negative or any print from it.” Furthermore, before Rule 1001(d) was restylized, it stated that “if data are stored on a computer or similar device, any printout or other output readable by sight, shown to reflect the data accurately, is an original.” Therefore, if the proponent of the evidence creates data, such as work logs, not on paper, but on a computer, any printout from the computer is admissible as an original and the proponent does not have to introduce the computer or hard drive at trial. The “output readable by sight” portion of the prior Rule covers evidence such as computer-generated displays.

      Rule 1001(d) also defines “[a]n ‘original’ of a writing or recording [as] the writing or recording itself or any counterpart intended to have the same effect by a person who executed or issued it.” Therefore, when a person executes a document such as a contract, will, or deed, the writing that he executed is clearly an original. Moreover, under the Rule there can be multiple originals. To wit, “[i]f each party to a contract, lease, sale or other transaction receives or retains a copy of the instrument that embodies or evidences the transaction, each copy is considered an original, regardless of the mechanism or the chronology of their creation.” Olin Guy Wellborn III, The “Best Evidence” Article of the Texas Rules of Evidence, 18 St. Mary’s L.J. 99, 105 (1986).

      I think the reference to Galthian Striders is kinda cool, don’t you?

      There’s a PDF too! http://elangdell.cali.org/sites/elangdell.cali.org/files/elangdell/Best-Evidence-Rule_Miller_v1_0.pdf

      • Slartibartfast says:

        Hermie,

        Can you explain to us how this source information that Suranis found effects your argument? If not, why should anyone believe that you aren’t a hopelessly biased sycophant of lying con men and smear merchants who is repeating lies trying desperately to validate all of the cognitive dissonance that he is clinging to?

        Suranis,

        Nice. And yes, the “Garthian Striders” reference is cool.

        • Hermitian says:

          I’m glad that you are thrilled that Suranis found and is reading the reference on the Best Evidence Rule that I posted. I’ll help you guys out here and just boil it down for you. From my reference:

          “Essentially, then, “any mechanically created reproduction is a duplicate; a manually created production, because of the risk of human error, is not.” Wellborn, supra at 107.”

          I believe that creating a birth certificate using Photoshop and a computer and taking information from other documents would be a manual process and therefore is forbidden.

          • nbc says:

            I believe that creating a birth certificate using Photoshop and a computer and taking information from other documents would be a manual process and therefore is forbidden.

            But there is no evidence that this took place my poor deluded friend. What is it with making up ‘evidence’ and ‘facts’?

            So desperate, so predictable… You have been had and you blame others for your foolishness.

            What a legacy eh? It’s not too late to save face in front of those who matter, or is it?

            • Hermitian says:

              The laser printouts of the WH PDF image do not have a Hawaii state seal impression or the state registrar’s signature in black ink. Therefore they cannot be certified copies per Chapter 8B of the HDOH regulations on certified copies of birth certificates. It then follows that the laser copies are not legally produced because only the HDOH is authorized to produce copies of Hawaii birth certificates. Because Hawaii did not produce these copies there is no chain of custody between Obama and the HDOH for these copies. Therefore it cannot be proven by Obama’s attorneys that these laser copies are even duplicates of Obama’s original birth certificate. These facts shed light on why Obama’s attorneys have emphatically asked the judge to not take judicial notice of the laser copies that the defense included in their various memorandum pleadings.

              Nevertheless Orly Taitz can request that the court take judicial notice of these laser copies of the PDF image. The Federal rules then require that the court comply with her request. The result would be that the court has taken judicial notice of the forged PDF image which is the basis for Taitz’s claim for sanctions on the defense.

            • Suranis says:

              These facts shed light on why Obama’s attorneys have emphatically asked the judge to not take judicial notice of the laser copies that the defense included in their various memorandum pleadings.

              They “emphatically asked the judge to not take judicial notice of the laser copies that the defense included” by giving the court a far more legible copy of the printout that the Plaintiffs included?

              YOU do know (or whoever you copied that from should know) that the Obama Lawyers are actually the defense in this action, right, and Orly et al are the plaintiffs? Haven’t you ever watched Judge judy?

              Anyway, that’s a very strange way of asking the court to ignore something, isn’t it ? “Hey Judge, completely ignore the document the plaintiffs gave you, but here’s a much clearer copy of the document just in case”

              Fact is that the defense are not in the least bit scared of the “proofs of forgery” that the plaintiffs say are revealed in the document, so they had no problem giving the court a much clearer copy of the Plaintiffs evidence where the proofs would be more clearly seen

              You also realize that you are arguing against Orly and the gang ever introducing a copy of the BC with proofs of forgery, since according to you it would never be evidence, right?

            • Jim says:

              Hermitian says: “The laser printouts of the WH PDF image do not have a Hawaii state seal impression or the state registrar’s signature in black ink.”

              So what? The information on them has been verified as being true and accurate. And, as in Mississippi, when she presents her copy, that she printed, that has no evidenciary value, except for the data, the judge will take judiciary notice not of the printout…but the verified data. Viola, the President was born in Hawaii. End game.

              BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

          • Jim says:

            Hermitian says: “I believe that creating a birth certificate using Photoshop and a computer and taking information from other documents would be a manual process and therefore is forbidden.”

            Well, that’s wonderful news then. You’ll be happy to know that Hawaii has verified all the data on the President’s BC and it is all good. Proving that the information all came from a single document. But, since you are so sincere in not wanting laws broken, how soon before we can expect you to go after multiple birther websites that HAVE photoshopped BC’s to change data and the look of the BC’s to make false accusations? They MUST be breaking the law…according to you. Can we get an idea when such a concerned citizen as yourself will be turning all those sites in?

            • nbc says:

              Hermitian is in the end-game of denial. That he is still allowing himself to be manipulated by the lies of others is fascinating but it is clear to anyone that he has now fully abandoned any hope of logic and reason, let alone fact.

              Sad to watch really.

            • John Woodman says:

              This is not an easy process. For some of these people, birtherism has become something like a religious faith. So for them to abandon their cherished belief, it’s kind of like being deprogrammed from a cult.

              Some of them will make it out. Some of them will simply mentally bend reality as far as they have to bend it, in order to preserve their birther cult religion.

            • John Woodman says:

              And of course, as in any cult, you’ve got the charismatic, kind-seeming leaders, who tell the flock what they want to hear.

              And then someone comes along and points out that the leaders lied. Sacrilege! It simply cannot be believed. The leaders are holy. They would never lie to us. So the person who’s saying this awful thing must be a tool of the enemy, who only wants to confuse and mislead us.

              So then you can demonize and shut off those who are telling the truth, and retreat into the cult or false belief. And some folks will never, ever make it out.

            • Slartibartfast says:

              John,

              I don’t think that many of these poor fools will ever be escaping their delusion—the best they can hope for is that the urgency of their obsession fades after President Obama leaves office. In joining this cult, every birther has necessarily accepted some belief which is known to be factually untrue. In doing so, they have rendered the tool that could have saved them—reason—impotent. Once you’ve admitted a contradiction into your logic, you can “prove” anything. I think that this is why most birthers can’t seem to sort out the completely ridiculous claims from the merely untrue ones—because to do so would require them to question one or more of their base assumptions, something that their confirmation bias makes them incapable of doing. Some of them (Mario comes to mind) can put on a facade of reason via compartmentalization of their arguments, but even then the lack of an overarching logical framework is apparent to everyone besides their mindless thralls.

            • Garrett Papit says:

              The best proof of birth in a state, in terms of courtroom proceedings, is a certified copy of a birth certificate. Instead of providing that, Obama is relying of confirmation that the state has information of file that matches at least some of the info on the purported long-form. Obama has 2 certified copies. He could easily give one to his attorneys…whome he has no problem contacting to render payment…but he doesn’t . None of you find this the least bit odd?

              If the info on file at the HDOH was the result of an update to the records, after the fact via affidavit, then the state of HI can claim that they have records that match that info, yet they can’t legally vouch for it’s accuracy. I’m guessing you guys missed that part of the CCP presser? Oh, that’s right…you just choose to ignore it.

              The question isn’t whether the HDOH has info stating that Obama was born in HI. he question is whether he was actually born there.

              By providing a confirmation of info on file, rather than a certified BC…they are potentially sidestepping the inconvenient fact that they may not be able to legally cerify the accuracy of this information.

              Trust but verify.

            • Slartibartfast says:

              Garrett,

              You’ve got it exactly backwards (in other words, right in the birther sweet spot…). Since the Hawai’i DoH is the gold standard of authentication of Hawai’ian birth, the personal verification by the head of the agency would be the best possible evidence (save having them testify in person).

            • nbc says:

              None of you find this the least bit odd?

              Nope Orly submitted the long form PDF and the lawyers made sure that the DOH certified what was shown on it. What more do you want? Such foolishness…

              Sigh…
              The lawyers have laid to rest any claims of forgery of the PDF.

              Poor Garrett.

            • Hermitian says:

              Jimbo said:

              “Can we get an idea when such a concerned citizen as yourself will be turning all those sites in?”

              The twelfth of never?

              You Jimbo demand truth and fairness from Obama’s critics but you are supporting a Chicago Communist thug who is the biggest cheat and liar of all. Obama wouldn’t recognize the truth if it came to him in a dream.

            • Scientist says:

              Quite frankly the birthers strike me as being Communist-they believe in a one-Party dictatorship with therole of the people limited to ratifying what the one true Party decides. All those not in the elect group don’t count.

            • Jim says:

              Hermitian says: “Obama wouldn’t recognize the truth if it came to him in a dream.”

              Awwww, now you’re getting all upset Hermie. Too bad courts don’t believe your dreams of the President being ineligible are the truth…they demand more tangible evidence.

            • nbc says:

              You Jimbo demand truth and fairness from Obama’s critics but you are supporting a Chicago Communist thug who is the biggest cheat and liar of all.

              There you go again with your confirmation bias. You really do believe anything without doing the necessary research.

              Poor grand children. I hope they grow up less ignorant and fearful.

      • Jim says:

        Thanks, Suranis. Enjoyed the reference.

      • Hermitian says:

        Thanks for reading the reference on the Best Evidence Rule that I posted. Your post indicates a good start but you didn’t read far enough.

        “Finally, Federal Rule of Evidence 1001(e) defines a “duplicate” as “a counterpart produced by a mechanical, photographic, chemical, electronic, or other equivalent process or technique that accurately reproduces the original.” Rule 1001(e) thus refers to four kinds of duplicates: “same impression (such as carbon or so-called “carbonless” or “formpack” copies), same matrix (such as offset printing, often called “multilith”; stencil duplication or “mimeograph”; or hectograph or “ditto”), photography (such as micrography or microfiche), and chemical reproduction (such as electrostatic or xerographic “photocopies”).” Courts have used the “other equivalent techniques” language of Rule 1001(e) to qualify, inter alia, facsimiles as duplicates. Essentially, then, “any mechanically created reproduction is a duplicate; a manually created production, because of the risk of human error, is not.” Wellborn, supra at 107.”

        Too bad for Obama — a birth certificate created using Photoshop on a computer is a definite no no.

        • nbc says:

          Too bad for Obama — a birth certificate created using Photoshop on a computer is a definite no no.

          That’s such a red herring… Poor Hermitian still allowing himself to look foolish to the world and his grand children. And why? Because he dislikes our President’s policies.

          And of course, there is no evidence that the document was created using Photoshop either.

          your such a tool H… Thanks for showing your unwillingness to accept the simple fact.

          You really hate our President don’t you? What else would explain you total disregard for reason, facts and logic, not to mention a total abandonment of what our Nation stands for?

        • Jim says:

          Hermitian says: “Too bad for Obama — a birth certificate created using Photoshop on a computer is a definite no no.”

          Too bad for you that the information being shown on the BC they display has been verified as true and accurate. BTW, when are you planning to go after all those birther websites that have altered, changed, or photoshopped all those BC’s that they used while trying to prove the President’s was a forgery? Seems to me, they’re the ones who’ve been breaking the laws you claim…not the President.

          • nbc says:

            What H. refuses to accept is that the information on these documents have been certified to be accurate. So, that is all what is really needed. The only issue that requires the birth certificate is the date of birth and location of birth. Both show President Obama to be eligible.

            It’s the end… A duplicate confirmed by the DOH of HI.

            Poor H… He is already regressing into ‘but the document must have been created in photoshop’. He is still allowing himself to be manipulated…

        • Suranis says:

          Unfortunatly, here’s whats written after that which you quoted

          C. Rule 1003: The Duplicate Exception

          Federal Rule of Evidence 1003 is consistent with the emerging state trend finding mechanically produced duplicates admissible even when proponents could not account for the nonproduction of originals. It states that “[a] duplicate is admissible to the same extent as the original unless a genuine question is raised about the original’s authenticity or the circumstances make it unfair to admit the duplicate.” Under Rule 1003, duplicates are thus admissible as long as they can meet the liberal authentication test laid out in Rule 901(a), unless one of the exceptions applies. Every state has either adopted a counterpart to Rule 1003 or some version of the similar Uniform Photographic Copies of Business and Public Records as Evidence Act. 28 USC § 1732.

          The exception contained in Federal Rule of Evidence 1003 applies when there are questions about whether the original ever really existed, whether a signature on the original was actually the signature of a party or a forgery, or whether the original was altered before it was copied, such as through photoshopping or the use of white out. See, e.g., Opals on Ice Lingerie v. Bodylines, Inc., 320 F.3d 362, 371 (2nd Cir. 2003) (“Bodylines contends that Opals ‘whited out’ the note below Sautter’s signature…Accordingly, Bodylines has raised a genuine question as to the authenticity of the original.”)

          For instance, in Boswell v. Jasperson, 266 F. Supp. 2d 1314 (D. Utah 2003), in 1974, Marsden and Melva Larsen sold land, including a feed yard, to Garth Boswell. Garth later obtained loans on the property from the Zions First National Bank and the Farmers Home Administration. Id. at 1316. In 1983, Garth filed a bankruptcy petition, which listed the feed yard as part of his real estate property holdings, and his son, William P. Boswell, sought to establish that he had an ownership interest in the feed yard. Id. As support for his claim, William introduced an alleged copy of the original deed from the Larsens to his father, which he claimed was altered with the consent of all parties “to substitute his name, William P. Boswell and his d/b/a Rafter ‘B’ Ranch, as grantees.” Id. William admitted, however, that the loan holders were never notified of this alleged alteration. Id.

          Meanwhile, Garth contradicted himself, alternatively contending that the original deed was and was not altered. Id. at 1316-17. Although the court failed to set forth a test for determining whether there was a genuine question raised as to the original’s authenticity, it concluded that “there [wa]s a genuine question as to the authenticity of the proffered altered deed.” Id. at 1321.

          That said, it is the rare case in which a court has found that an opposing party has successfully raised a genuine question concerning the authenticity of an original. See Wellborn, supra at 114. For example, in Alderson v. Bonner, 132 P.3d 1261, 1264-66, the Idaho Appellate Court found no problem with the prosecution’s introduction of a 35-minute copy of a videotape despite the fact that the officer who made the copy previously reported that the original video was 45 minutes long. In Amin v. Flagston Hospitality Mgmt., 2005 WL 3054599 (D. Minn. 2005), the court found no problem with the admission of a copy of a declaration that a witness denied signing despite the fact that the last page of the copy had printing across the top indicative of a fax while the rest of the document did not.

          The second exception contained in Rule 1003 applies where only part of an original document or recording is reproduced in a duplicate, and the remainder is needed for some purpose cross-examination. Courts have consistently found that the second exception contained in Rule 1003 applies when duplicates fail to fully reproduce important or critical parts of an original document or recording. Such was the case in Amoco Production Co. v. United States, 619 F.2d 1383 (10th Cir. 1980), in which the Tenth Circuit found that the district court properly excluded the photocopy of a deed that did not reproduce the reservation clause.

          So… the writing before and after kind of contradict your interpretation. Quite aside from the fact that hawaii has said what is there matches what is in their files..

          Some interesting case law written in the article there though, enjoyed reading it. And a law book that contains Imperial Walkers has got to be good.

        • Northland10 says:

          To my knowledge, neither Obama or his counsel submitted an electronic version of his BC to any court or legal officer. It is the plaintiffs who submitted the copy. You appear to claim that Orly, Hatfield and Irion committed a no no.

          The only thing submitted by Obama’s team was original verification from Hawaii that the information matches.

  45. Hermitian says:

    Many certified copies of Hawaii original Standard Birth Certificates issued in the 1960s were signed both by the Director of Health and the Registrar General. This is consistent with the Director being the keeper of the seal and the Registrar General being the keeper of the original certificate. Note that Hawaii certified copies have both the raised impression of the Hawaii seal and the Registrar General’s signature stamp in black ink.

    • Jim says:

      Hermitian says: “Many certified copies of Hawaii original Standard Birth Certificates issued in the 1960s were signed both by the Director of Health and the Registrar General.”

      And in the 21st century, most certified copies of Standard Birth Certificates are printed on security paper with the raised seal of the state and a signature by whomever the state determines is the proper authority to sign it. We’re living in the 21st century now.

      • Suranis says:

        Shh, he thinks the records in the files should have been stamped by the Director of Health and the Registrar General. THEREFORE FORGERY!!! aside fron the fact that the records aren’t copies…

        • Hermitian says:

          Surry said:

          “Shh, he thinks the records in the files should have been stamped by the Director of Health and the Registrar General. THEREFORE FORGERY!!! aside fron the fact that the records aren’t copies…”

          “Hermitian says: “Many certified copies of Hawaii original Standard Birth Certificates issued in the 1960s were signed both by the Director of Health and the Registrar General.””

          Notice that “certified copies” rather than “originals” in my post? Nice try but you fail.

          • Jim says:

            Hermitian says: “Notice that “certified copies” rather than “originals” in my post? Nice try but you fail.”

            So, you’re admitting that it being signed in 2012 by the current state registrar gives it the full weight it deserves?

          • Suranis says:

            I fail because I could not see what relevance how they treated SOME (many does not equal all, you know) certified copies in 1961 was to the way they produce certified copies in 2011?

            The only possible relevance there could have been would be to the records in the vault, so I was being kind to you by referencing those, rather than calling you a desperate lunatic.

    • gorefan says:

      “Many certified copies of Hawaii original Standard Birth Certificates issued in the 1960s were signed both by the Director of Health and the Registrar General”

      They stopped doing that in the 1980s, see Alan Booth’s lfbc

      http://www.kerchner.com/images/protectourliberty/alanbooth1981hawaiianlongformbc.jpg

      see Edith Coats lfbc, born in 1962, certificate issued in 1984.

  46. Scientist says:

    Yo-hoo, Hermy I still don’t care how Hawaii made the birth certificate. They could print it on the back of a menu from Don Ho’s luau if they felt like it. By the way I was perfectly satisfied with the COLB. In fact, I was perfectly satisfied knowing Obama’s mother lived in Hawaii to consider him born there because I was born where my mother lived and I bet you were too. And John Woodman, nbc,, Suranis, Jim, slarty and everybody else. Anybody here have a mom who travelled 12,000 miles to give birth? I didn’t think so. Guess what? Neither does the President.

    Now here is what I DO care about. Money. Filthy lucre. $$$. Euros. Yen. Loonies. What have you. Yesterday I offered a bet on an idictment coming out of that super-important lawn forcement organization known as the CCCP. $100 says nada by this date 2013. You chickened out. You want us to believe Shuriff Joe is a big, bad crimebuster yet you won’t put cash on him bringing one measly little indictment. Not even a conviction, just an indictment. You don’t have much faith in your hero, I guess.

    • Slartibartfast says:

      Scientist,

      I cannot confirm your hypothesis that I was born where my mother lived—I was adopted at birth and the names on my birth certificate are those of my adoptive parents. It is likely that I was (and that both my parents were US citizens), but I have no way of proving that.

      Hermie,

      Am I eligible for the presidency? I am over 35 and have lived all of my life in the US and the only available birth records have no information regarding my biological parents.

      • Scientist says:

        Are you thinking of running next time, Slarty? You know my position-if the voters choose you, no court or lunatic fringe should or would stand in your way. The people choosing their leaders is what the US supports in Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Egypt, Myanmar and a bunch of other countries. That seemms like a good idea for here too.

        Slarty-16!!!!

        • Slartibartfast says:

          Scientist,

          Right now I’m just trying to go from being a wannabe inventor to being a wannabe entrepreneur… Besides, it’s too early even to comment on that. If I’m interested I’ll categorically deny it in the run up to the 2014 midterms and form an exploratory committee in early 2015. Plenty of time for the birthers to tool up their smear machine—after all, I may not have dark skin, but if they think that President Obama is a progressive then my pragmatic liberal empiricism will probably make their heads explode… ;-)

          • Hermitian says:

            Obamacare is already producing wannabe entrepreneurs by the thousands. Your timing is a tad late Dude.

            • Scientist says:

              You mean the plan invented by conservative think tanks and put in place in Massachusetts by Romney. He has utterly failed to explain why it was a terrific thing in the Bay State (he crowed about signing it) but bad for the other 49. By the way, the idea that Obamaromneycare hurts employment is belied by the fact that Massachusetts has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country and 98% have health insurance.

            • Jim says:

              Hermitian says: “Obamacare is already producing wannabe entrepreneurs by the thousands.”

              You mean Romneycare? The one that Romney’s own spokesperson said the whole country should have? And now that it was passed by a Democratic President, he runs away from it? Look up “hypocrite” in the dictionary…you’ll see a pic of Romney there.

            • nbc says:

              Yes, Obamacare aka Romney Care aka the conservative plan, has indeed generated much excitement as it has done away with many shameful restrictions.

              Obama does care about his fellow citizens, does he not?

              Too bad the the republicans have nothing to offer…

            • gsgs says:

              I have been wondering whether Obamacare could be the reason for the significant decline in US-deaths in 2012 so far. i.e. deaths from pneumonia in
              the elderly

            • nbc says:

              I have been wondering whether Obamacare could be the reason for the significant decline in US-deaths in 2012 so far. i.e. deaths from pneumonia in
              the elderly

              Or perhaps they got the mixture of strains correct for this year. It’s always a bit of a ‘gamble’ as to what strains to include in the flu-shots.

              Interesting exercise… What are the causes of the decline in pneumonia amongst the elderly? Better immunization, more immunization?

            • Slartibartfast says:

              gsgs,

              I’d be cautious about attributing the decline to the Affordable Care Act unless some sort of potential causal mechanism can be identified (as nbc said, it may just be luck [or skill] in identifying the correct strains). Also, it would be nice if you provided a link to the statistic you’re referring to.

            • gsgs says:

              nbc, it’s not just the flu. We had H3N2 which usually causes more deaths.
              The flu-shots only play a minor role -if any- in preventing P+I deaths in the elderly.
              The decline in deaths well extends into summer this year:
              P+I -deaths relative to all deaths :
              http://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/weeklyarchives2011-2012/images/picurve31.gif
              all deaths:
              http://wonder.cdc.gov/mmwr/mmwr_reps.asp?mmwr_week=01&mmwr_year=2012&mmwr_location=TOTAL&mmwr_table=4A
              previous years:
              http://www.flutrackers.com/forum/showpost.php?p=451614&postcount=41

            • Slartibartfast says:

              gsgs,

              Thanks for the links. Looking at the figure from the first link, the current numbers are somewhat lower than the seasonal baseline, but there’s probably not enough data to draw much in the way of a conclusion about. That would be an interesting statistic to watch to see if the reduction was a one-time event or part of a trend.

        • Hermitian says:

          Those are all good choice foreign countries for Slarty to run in.

          • nbc says:

            I guess H. has no logical or reasoned rebuttal…

            Poor H…

            • Slartibartfast says:

              Hermie,

              I have no claim to citizenship (let alone natural born citizenship) in any country besides the United States—I was born here and cannot legally produce evidence regarding the citizenship of my parents. Am I eligible to be POTUS?

            • Jim says:

              Slartibartfast says: “Am I eligible to be POTUS?”

              Well, first you’ll have to pass a few birther tests. 1) Sight test (Do you LOOK like them)
              2) Pub test (Are you a Republican)
              3) Conservative test (Are you far enough right)
              4) Intelligence test (must score in the lower 3rd of the population)
              5) Paranoia test (Are you scared of everything and everyone who is different or doesn’t agree with you)
              6) Expulsion test (Will you throw everyone who isn’t like them out of the country)
              7) “Boy” test (Will you drop your drawers and bend over to them for everything they want and need from you)
              Then maybe, just maybe, they will be magnanimous and let you run.

            • Slartibartfast says:

              Jim said:

              Slartibartfast says: “Am I eligible to be POTUS?”

              Well, first you’ll have to pass a few birther tests. 1) Sight test (Do you LOOK like them)

              Caucasian, bald (by choice), fat—check!

              2) Pub test (Are you a Republican)

              Um… no?

              3) Conservative test (Are you far enough right)

              If the political spectrum is considered to be a circle I might be far enough to the left to be considered on the right… does that count?

              4) Intelligence test (must score in the lower 3rd of the population)

              According to an online intelligence test I am the stupidest possible genius (IQ 140)—is that low enough?

              5) Paranoia test (Are you scared of everything and everyone who is different or doesn’t agree with you)

              I’m scared of people with ideas that I believe are dangerously out of touch with reality taking political power—how’s that?

              6) Expulsion test (Will you throw everyone who isn’t like them out of the country)

              No, but I’d be willing to compromise and throw both the wingnuts and the moonbats out of the country (or all into one giant cage match…).

              7) “Boy” test (Will you drop your drawers and bend over to them for everything they want and need from you)

              Um… I don’t think I really want this job…

              Then maybe, just maybe, they will be magnanimous and let you run.

              Well? Did I pass? :-P

      • gsgs says:

        now you can prove it with genetics.
        Maybe, if it had been available 2 centuries ago,
        they had put it in the constitution.
        It’s more racist than “natural born”, but maybe
        what the founding father intended.

        Change the constitution accordingly ?
        The president must publish his/her DNA.

        • Slartibartfast says:

          gsgs said:

          now you can prove it with genetics.

          Prove what? I don’t have any candidate parents to compare my DNA to and my adoptive parents have a right to privacy (I know that birthers have no respect for this right in others—only for themselves…)

          Maybe, if it had been available 2 centuries ago,
          they had put it in the [C]onstitution.

          So I take it you are saying that Tom Vilsack and I are ineligible for the presidency. Well… [comment discussing what a vile human being gsgs is refrained from in deference to John's wishes that this be a family-friendly site]. Fortunately for me, foreign scumbag birthers (or seditious domestic birthers, for that matter) don’t get to decide who is eligible for the presidency—the founders wrote it down in words that everyone at the time understood as law that had been settled for 200 years and the SCOTUS confirmed it in US v Wong. The idea that anyone born here can grow up to be president is one of the principles that makes this country great and the birthers attack on this (using the principles which championed slavery in the Dred Scott case, no less) is nothing short of despicable.

          It’s more racist than “natural born”, but maybe
          what the founding father intended.

          There is no evidence that the founding fathers ever meant to exclude children of white aliens from being natural born citizens and much evidence to the contrary. James Madison (who should know what the founders meant) said that the birthers are full of bovine by-product (paraphrasing)—that’s pretty obvious and no birther has ever been able to refute his clear meaning.

          Change the [C]onstitution accordingly ?

          One of the ways that upstanding Americans and polite foreigners show respect for the Constitution is to capitalize the word when referring to it. I’ve always thought that it speaks volumes that a group which commonly characterizes themselves as “Constitutionalists” nearly uniformly neglects this simple show of respect for the document they claim to revere. Why is that?

          The president must publish his/her DNA.

          The president’s genome is not relevant to the voter’s decision and the idea that it should be published is idiotic.

          • Hermitian says:

            My vote is on Papua New Guinea.

          • gsgs says:

            Slartibartfast says:

            > gsgs said:

            >> now you can prove it with genetics.

            >Prove what?

            who are (not) your parents

            >I don’t have any candidate parents to compare my DNA to

            I predict that it will come. There will be large databases

            >and my adoptive parents have a right to privacy (I know that birthers have no respect
            >for this right in others—only for themselves…)

            they are noninteresting for your ancestry

            >> Maybe, if it had been available 2 centuries ago,
            >> they had put it in the [C]onstitution.

            > So I take it you are saying that Tom Vilsack and I are ineligible for the presidency.

            what you take is your problem. I didn’t say such things. I don’t even know who
            you or Tom Vilsack are.

            > Well… [comment discussing what a vile human being gsgs is refrained from in deference
            > to John's wishes that this be a family-friendly site].

            {… [Kommentar diskutieren welche abscheulichen Mensch Gsgs in Ehrerbietung von verzichtet wird
            Johns wünschen werden, dass dies eine familienfreundliche Website].}

            it’s you, not me, who said “vile human being” , “foreign scumbag birthers” , “despicable” ,
            “bovine by-product (paraphrasing)—” , ” idiotic” in this discussion.

            > Fortunately for me, foreign scumbag
            > birthers (or seditious domestic birthers, for that matter) don’t get to decide who is eligible
            > for the presidency—the founders wrote it down in words that everyone at the time understood
            > as law that had been settled for 200 years and the SCOTUS confirmed it in US v Wong.
            > The idea that anyone born here can grow up to be president is one of the principles that
            > makes this country great and the birthers attack on this (using the principles which
            > championed slavery in the Dred Scott case, no less) is nothing short of despicable.

            it’s more the idea, who cannot be president which is important here.
            And which I think is outdated. The world is not the same as 200
            years ago and internationalism and international traveling and
            international communication is much easier and widespread.

            >> It’s more racist than “natural born”, but maybe what the founding father intended.

            > There is no evidence that the founding fathers ever meant to exclude children of white
            > aliens from being natural born citizens and much evidence to the contrary.
            > James Madison (who should know what the founders meant) said that the birthers
            > are full of bovine by-product (paraphrasing)—that’s pretty obvious and no birther
            > has ever been able to refute his clear meaning.

            I think that’s basically what I meant, but I would not have formulated as such.
            Maybe exaggerated

            >> Change the [C]onstitution accordingly ?

            > One of the ways that upstanding Americans and polite foreigners show respect
            > for the Constitution is to capitalize the word when referring to it.

            I’m using ordinary English. I had no idea, that you liked it capitalized.
            Do you also capitalize other country’s constitutions, or do you think
            yours is somehow superior ?

            > I’ve always thought that it speaks volumes that a group which commonly characterizes
            > themselves as “Constitutionalists” nearly uniformly neglects this simple show of respect
            > for the document they claim to revere. Why is that?

            if that is true, I would consider it rather meaningless

            >> The president must publish his/her DNA.

            > The president’s genome is not relevant to the voter’s decision

            it is. E.g. you’d want to know if he has hereditary diseases which might affect his
            thoughts ot health within the next 4 years.
            Remember the speculations about Russian president’s healths an duration
            of presidency during cold war ?
            The race or certain genes may also affect the way of thinking, the average IQ and such things.

            > and the idea that it should be published is idiotic.

            • Slartibartfast says:

              gsgs says:
              August 10, 2012 at 12:13 pm

              Slartibartfast says:

              > gsgs said:

              >> now you can prove it with genetics.

              >Prove what?

              who are (not) your parents

              >I don’t have any candidate parents to compare my DNA to

              I predict that it will come. There will be large databases

              >and my adoptive parents have a right to privacy (I know that birthers have no respect
              >for this right in others—only for themselves…)

              they are noninteresting for your ancestry

              While there will likely be large databases of DNA, there will also certainly be regulations preventing the release of anyone’s genome without their permission. Furthermore, the law guarantees my adoptive parents anonymity unless they choose to waive it. Like most birthers, you are eager to violate anyone’s privacy but your own.

              >> Maybe, if it had been available 2 centuries ago,
              >> they had put it in the [C]onstitution.

              > So I take it you are saying that Tom Vilsack and I are ineligible for the presidency.

              what you take is your problem. I didn’t say such things. I don’t even know who
              you or Tom Vilsack are.

              What you fail to understand or even consider is the logical consequences of your arguments. Your words seem to imply (to me, anyway) that you would bar adoptees and foundlings from the presidency, but all you care about is how your lies can be used to smear President Obama. This is the sort of thing that makes you contemptible in my eyes. Either you are saying that the two-citizen parent arguments only apply to President Obama (making you a complete hypocrite) or you are arguing that people like myself (an adoptee) and Tom Vilsack (a foundling) are unfit for the presidency (or you believe that President Obama is eligible, in which case I’ve misunderstood your position and owe you an apology). Which is it?

            • gsgs says:

              slarty,
              you can’t prevent your relatives (children,wife,wife’s relatives) from releasing their DNA,
              when they want.From this your DNA can be (almost) concluded.
              If you want it or not.
              I’m not
              > eager to violate anyone’s privacy
              I just picture what I see coming.
              >…but your own”
              I’m planning to publish mine.
              >your lies can be used to smear President Obama
              what lies ?
              why should I want to “smear Obama” ?
              I think Obama is likely eligible. But independent of that I think
              the constitution should be changed to allow foreign presidents.

            • Jim says:

              gsgs says: “I’m planning to publish mine.”

              Now that’s really interesting…I wonder if you would do the same if it was discovered that a certain gene was present in every mass murderer of the last 100 years…and the same gene is present in your DNA. And, as you can see by the birthers, suddenly you would lose all your friends, your job, contact with your family…all because you MIGHT become a mass murderer since you have that gene.

            • Slartibartfast says:

              gsgs,

              If you believe President Obama is eligible (and, like using a capital “C” in Constitution*, referring to a head of state by name and title is the common, polite usage), then I do owe you an apology—you were not making the objectionable argument I accused you of and didn’t deserve the comments I made. I find birthers to be contemptible and can sometimes be overzealous at painting those that have been birther-curious with the same brush.

              * In response to your previous comment, I would think that you would capitalize any reference to a specific country’s constitution and refer to their head of state by name and title (e.g. President Gauck is empowered by the German Constitution…). In my opinion, as long as you are consistent, either way is appropriate, but showing respect is the polite thing to do.

        • Northland10 says:

          Using genetics to determine the appropriate eligibility of a candidate? This sounds vaguely similar to another country’s governmental policies around 75 years ago. It did not work out well for them.

          You really do not understand American values.

          • Hermitian says:

            Northland10 says:

            “August 10, 2012 at 5:58 am

            “You really do not understand American values.”

            And Obama does ??? Why would an alien understand American values?

            • Thomas Brown says:

              Gee, I dunno… when BHO was elected, he had one house and one spouse. There is not a trace of sex scandal anywhere in his past. He worked himself from obscurity to the Presidency by his own merits and hard work, with dark skin and an arabic name.

              I think he epitomizes American values.

              And Republicans don’t. Generally. YOU certainly don’t.

            • nbc says:

              And Obama does ??? Why would an alien understand American values?

              ROTFL. Obama has lived in the US for most of his life, he has shown that he does embrace American values.

              Sorry H. Stop sound so foolish and ask yourself what ‘American values’ you represent…

              Stop disappointing your grand children…

            • John Woodman says:

              I still want to see Hermie make his grandchildren REALLY proud of him by going on record as having made a public stance for his views.

              Come on, Hermie. If you won’t put your money where your mouth is, at least put your NAME where your mouth is.

              Like this:

              My name is John Woodman. I live at 3509 E Linwood Drive, Springfield, Missouri, USA. My phone number is (417) 877-0620. I fully believe in and stand by the statements that I have made in the book I wrote, and on this blog, except, of course, in any instances in which I have been shown to be incorrect in my opinions and have issued a retraction or correction.

            • Suranis says:

              I’m John O’Shaughnessy

              From Askeaton
              Co. Limerick
              Ireland

              And I seductively approve this message.

              Of course I’m also well out of you nuts reach, If you want to swim the Atlantic to harass me, be my guest.

            • John Woodman says:

              I don’t know about that, but if I should happen to find myself in Co. Limerick at any time before all this fades into a hazy memory, I’ll certainly try to look you up and invite you down to the local pub for a pint.

              As long as you have a pub around there which isn’t too smoky-choky, that is. ;-)

            • The pubs around Limerick are great. I found one north of Limerick that had a special drink that had the colors of the Irish flag in layers of liqueurs. Of course the Guinness was great too. The first time I ordered a Stout I almost got my hand slapped for trying to pick up the beer before required waiting time to let the foam settle.

            • Suranis says:

              LOL John. Actually Ireland introduced a Smoking ban on all public buildings, including pubs, 6 years ago. Despite all the claims of incoming Armageddon by the Drinks lobby, it actually was really popular and a stunning success. There no more smokey chokey pubs in Ireland THANK GOD. Best thing that the Fianna Fail government ever did, and I’m not a Fianna Fail man at all so that’s saying something from me.

              And Yeah, if you’re ever in Ireland look me up!

              And I have to laugh at your story about stout, RC. Yeah I worked in a pub for a bit. and the first thing I was shown was how to pull a pint of Guinness. Its almost a sacred rite, and I’m not surprised they nearly bit your hand off! :D If your ever in Dublin there a place called the Oyster Bar that brews its own stout that’s well worth sampling. Fabulous stuff.

        • Jim says:

          gsgs says: “The president must publish his/her DNA.”

          Now that’s interesting, considering that you might not like finding out that your DNA goes all the way back to Africa…and your ancestors were all black.

    • Hermitian says:

      Well you see Sci that would not be a smart bet because Arpaio has already indicated that he would gladly take a back seat to Congress if they would pick up the investigation. I believe the possibilty that Congress will act is much more likely if Obama is dethroned before 2013. The Sheriff would then assist the Congress in their investigation. So you could still win that bet even after Obama has been dealt with by the Congress.

      • Slartibartfast says:

        Hermie,

        Does the repeated failure of your predictions ever make you question your reasoning and assumptions? Should President Obama not be reelected (the odds of which 538 currently puts at 26.7%), Congress would never touch a highly partisan and completely moot issue like eligibility even if there were substance to it—given that by then we’ll probably have a dozen or more courts having ruled President Obama eligible I doubt even the most virulent lame duck tea partier would touch it with a 10′ pole.

        Why don’t you try this—set a date by which no action from Arpaio (or instigated by him) means you will accept that he has nothing that he can take to court. Or are you willing to parrot what he says endlessly in the face of ever growing evidence of his impotence?

      • Jim says:

        Hermitian says: ” I believe the possibilty that Congress will act is much more likely if Obama is dethroned before 2013.”

        BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Act on what? Congress will do what they’ve been doing all along…pat you folks on the head like a spoiled brat and say “I’ll look into it”, then get away from you as fast as they can! And NOBODY in Congress, especially politicians from AZ, want ANYTHING to do with the “Most Bigoted Sheriff in America”! BWAHAHAHAHA

        • Hermitian says:

          I believe that you have forgotten about all the new Tea Party candidates Jimbo. Things they are a changing. Big time. And 2012 is on top of the sea change in 2010.

          • nbc says:

            The tea party is destroying our great nation. Such fools. Luckily the public is learning quickly. I found the tea party candidates are divisive, ignorant, homophobic, xenophobic and just well, dumb. They are the last attempt by the poorly informed to get people in power who are equally poorly informed. As the tea party and birthers require authority to tell them what to believe, they take great pride in having ignorance being spouted by elected officials.

            Sad really. But it makes sense that you like them… As with you they are ill informed, and avoid fact, logic and reason.

            I do hope you grand children can find it to forgive you for your follies.

            • Hermitian says:

              The Tea Party folk are just all the hard-working, tax-paying patriots who have to pay the freight for you 50 per-centers who don’t pay for anything. Even the Democrat elites don’t pay their taxes. Just ask Harry Reid and Timothy Geithner.

            • Suranis says:

              Harry Reid provided Tax returns for all of his long years in public office, like every other Senator. I believe Tim Giethner had to provide 10 years to get his public Job. That’s why Reid said that Romney would never get a public job without providing his tax returns, because every public servant has to provide them or he doesn’t get the job.

              And by the way, the demographic for the Tea Party is white, over 60 and on social security. Hard working tax payers are not the tea party base. They also come generally from states that receive more in federal money than they contribute in taxes.

              Heres the list of the moochers vs the providers in states. guess what colour the moochers are

              http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/08/americas-fiscal-union

              http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/11/states-federal-taxes-spending-charts-maps

              Just to be cynical for a second, the best thing that federal government could do to balance the budget is to cut you lot loose. You would be broke in a week but hey, self reliance!

            • Northland10 says:

              Excuse me? I work and pay my taxes which happen to be a higher percentage than Romney. Hermy, your statement above is both wrong and offensive. Just one more thing you are clueless about.

              Note : Both sides do play the tax game, but many of us do not.

            • Thomas Brown says:

              And on the flip side, there are millions of trailer-park-dwelling, beer-swilling, Limbaugh-listening dipsticks who always vote Republican and THEY don’t pay taxes.

              And while we’re at it: how come blue states are net producers of tax revenue, and red states are generally net consumers thereof? I say we end the “Socialism” and cut the red states loose, only giving them back in Federal money what they contribute. Let ‘em pull their own weight; I’m tired of my taxes bailing their backward asses out.

              But you just hug your stereotypes a bit tighter, there, sparky. I know for a fact that my wife and I paid a higher percentage of OUR income that Romney did last year.

      • Scientist says:

        But, Hermy, Arpaio has said he does NOT believe the President was involved in altering the pdf. That implies it is some low-level person in the White House or even at Hawaii DoH, who decided to make the document look more appealling. Arpaio implies the President doesn’t even know about this and may be the victim. Hardly a matter for Congress. Maybe the Secret Service or FBI. Or, more likely, just an internal reprimand for the peon who used the wrong settings on the scanner and maybe a week of making coffee for everybody.

        But, I’ll tell you what, being a generous guy, I will extend the bet. I will put $100 that no one is indicted on this nonsense in any jurisdiction, state or federal. Hell, I’ll even include no indictments in any foreign countries.

        So, since you are convinced there is a crime, you should have no problem taking this bet. Your continued ducking of the challenge shows me that you know very well there was no crime. And so, I think, does Arpaio. By the way, if you speak with him, he is welcome to get in on the bet.

        • Hermitian says:

          Scientist says:

          “August 10, 2012 at 6:16 am

          “But, Hermy, Arpaio has said he does NOT believe the President was involved in altering the pdf.”

          Arpaio was just stating the obvious — which is the President likely has plausible deniability. After all — his press guru made sure that the purported LFCOLB was not even in the room when the President addressed the nation about his nativity trivia.

          • Scientist says:

            You’re right that it’s trivia. Where the President was born and who his parents were is irrelevant. The voters decide who is President and they decided in 2008. The polls are suggesting strongly they will decide on the same guy in 2012.

            Again, you are ducking the bet. All you need in order to win is that SOMEONE be indicted. yet you won’t even put money on that. You obviously don’t think there has been a crime or you would take the bet.

      • Suranis says:

        What, you mean Arpaio saying “Someone PLEASE take this pile of shit off my hands!”

        To which Congress quote wisely said “Sorry fatso, you made it, you get to smell of it”

  47. Hermitian says:

    Boy! That “O” filter thingy sure does slow down the reaction time on his site. Posting here is a real “Ho Hummer” while waiting for the echo.

  48. nbc says:

    Where is he getting that from?

    Ignorance and wishful thinking. Where else?

  49. insomnia says:

    Hermitian said: “The laser printouts of the WH PDF image do not have a Hawaii state seal impression or the state registrar’s signature in black ink. Therefore they cannot be certified copies per Chapter 8B of the HDOH regulations on certified copies of birth certificates….”

    Of course laser print outs of the PDF are not certified copies. No one is saying they are.
    But the DOH in Hawaii has VERIFIED that all of the information on the pdf is accurate – that nothing has been added or deleted. You should read this carefully – especially the LAST page/exhibit:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/96200621/2012-06-06-MDEC-Motion-to-Supplement-Response-to-Motion-for-Sanctions-S-D-Miss

    You do see the seal AND the signature AND the initials, right??

    • Garrett Papit says:

      Why not provide the actual certified copies…since he has two lying around? Do you think a judge would accept a copy of a certified document if you were the defendant? Do you think a police officer would accept a copy of a driver license if yhou were pulled over for speeding? This is just getting silly. Provide the certified copy in court. You had HI make an ‘exception’ to their rule, yet you don’t use the acquired document to clear your name? Why exactly? :)

      • nbc says:

        Do you think a police officer would accept a copy of a driver license if yhou were pulled over for speeding?

        Surely you are not very familiar with the federal rules of evidence.

        Not too surprised really.

      • Suranis says:

        o you think a police officer would accept a copy of a driver license if yhou were pulled over for speeding?

        Ok, lets take you analogy. Lets say someone who wasn’t a police officer pulled you over for speeding. You present your drivers license anyway

        The guy says “I’m sorry that drivers license is not valid”, and keeps demanding that you not drive.

        Finally, to shut him up, you get the dept of traffic to break its rules and give you a certified copy of your traffic records. That still does not satisfy him

        The Head of the traffic department writes a letter stating flat out that your driving license is valid. The guy still does not accept it

        The guy takes you to court 160 times claiming your drivers license is fake with evidence from people with no qualifications in this field whatsoever, and loses every singe time.

        What would you call the guy harassing you?

      • John Woodman says:

        I would have to agree that a specific letter from the officials running the agency personally and specifically attesting to the fact of birth in the State is probably better evidence than the certified copy of the birth certificate.

      • John Woodman says:

        Particularly in a case where it has been claimed there’s something “wrong” with the certificate.

    • Garrett Papit says:

      And is this supposed to be a copy of the certified copy or a copy of the “optimized” copy? Choose your answer carefully. Are you telling me that Obama won’t even let his lawyers have a copy of the actual certified copy? They have to print it out from online? LMAO

      • nbc says:

        Still missing the point…

        That all the data has been verified and certified.

        Such a fool you have become. and why?… What made you become a tool of ignorance?

      • Slartibartfast says:

        Garrett,

        Courts don’t play stupid birther games—there are now about a gazillion ways that the President’s lawyers can use to verify his birth in Hawai’i and thus his natural born citizenship and they are all consistent with each other and they are all valid.

        • nbc says:

          But but but… There is this pdf which I do not understand fully…. Your honor… please listen to me… Pulleeeeeeezze

          Foolish birthers.

      • Jim says:

        Garrett Papit says: “Are you telling me that Obama won’t even let his lawyers have a copy of the actual certified copy?”

        No, actually what we’re saying is the President’s lawyer no longer even needs a copy, printed or otherwise. And he has Orly, the CCP, and you to thank for that. For a so-called “Document Expert” you really haven’t a clue about legal documents, do you?

        • nbc says:

          And he has Orly, the CCP, and you to thank for that. For a so-called “Document Expert” you really haven’t a clue about legal documents, do you?

          Ouch

        • Northland10 says:

          For a so-called “Document Expert” you really haven’t a clue about legal documents, do you?

          They refuse to learn (or simply do not care) what evidence would be of value in a legal setting and that the burden is completely on the Plaintiff. Maybe a reminder from Georgia:

          The Court finds the testimony of the witnesses, as well as the exhibits tendered, to be of little, if any, probative value, and thus wholly insufficient to support Plaintiffs’ allegations. Ms. Taitz attempted to solicit expert testimony from several of the witnesses without qualifying or tendering the witnesses as experts.

          Her evidence and witnesses could not stand up to the opposition of the Empty Chair.

      • Suranis says:

        Why should we answer carefully? The information on all of them is the same and has been verified by Hawaii. Full faith and credit clause of the US Constitution.

  50. Suranis says:

    insomnia says:
    August 10, 2012 at 8:28 pm

    I’ve been trying to follow along here – can someone tell me WHY Hermitian thinks the BC should be marked “late, altered or delayed”? He seems to be saying that since it’s not it shows it’s a forgery.

    Where is he getting that from?

    Hermie here is convinced that the BC was an altered BC that the grandmother phoned in while her daughter was on a skiing trip in Kenya. If this was the case then the BC would be marked as late or amended. A home birth could be registered as late, and if he was adopted the BC would be amended.

    The fact that none of those marks are there means that there is only one logical conclusion. Yes! THEY WERE REMOVED AND THEREFORE THE BC IS A FAAAAKE!!

    This dip into Birther logic is sponsored by Tylenol, for all you headache needs.

    • Jim says:

      Suranis says: “This dip into Birther logic is sponsored by Tylenol, for all you headache needs.”

      Make sure John gets his kickback for the product placement! :D

    • insomnia says:

      :lol:
      Thank you – I couldn’t figure out why he thought it would be amended. I never would have guessed such a ridiculous reason. I guess I fail my “understand birther’s logic” saving throw.

  51. Garrett Papit says:

    And you know the BC wasn’t ammended how exactly? In theory the BC could be a legitimate certified copy and still be ammended….correct? Trust but verify.

    • Slartibartfast says:

      Garrett,

      There is no evidence that it was amended and no reason for it to have been amended. Everything is consistent with the information being unchanged since it was filed on Aug. 8, 1961. The burden of proof is on the accuser—until you can shoulder that burden any allegations are merely fake cries of “wolf!”. You do know what happens to the boy in that story, don’t you?

    • insomnia says:

      If it was amended it would be marked as “amended” ON the certificate. It is not marked, therefore it is NOT amended.

      Hawaii has CERTIFIED & VERIFIED that all of the information in the pdf exactly matches their files – nothing has been added or removed.

      Did you even look at the link I gave above? Have you even bothered to read the verification letter in the Miss. case?

      • nbc says:

        If it was amended it would be marked as “amended” ON the certificate. It is not marked, therefore it is NOT amended.

        It certainly does not show any evidence of late filing or any relevant amendments but that will never stop Garrett who dislikes our president enough to abandon reason and logic.

        Such a tool really…

    • nbc says:

      And you know the BC wasn’t ammended how exactly? In theory the BC could be a legitimate certified copy and still be ammended….correct? Trust but verify.

      Amended… Well, we know he was born on US soil what else would be relevant? Such a fool you are. Unwilling to accept the facts and rather look for unlikely scenarios.

      You’re such a tool and now that your PDF work has been shown to be unable to withstand legal scrutiny, let alone stand a chance of being introduced in a court of law, you may want to start thinking about why you believed that looking at a highly compressed PDF was going to tell you anything about the ‘original’…

      Such a fool. Do you have any evidence that would suggest an amendment?
      Of course not, nor have you shown why this would be relevant.

      Come on Garrett. You do not trust and verify, you blindly accept

    • Jim says:

      Garrett Papit says: “And you know the BC wasn’t ammended how exactly?”

      Now you’re just getting silly, Garrett. You have no proof it was amended so now you want proof it wasn’t? No wonder you’ll never be called to testify, you’d make a TERRIBLE witness! You’d be thrown off the stand after just one question!

      “Mr Papit, would you please define for the court what a Birth Certificate is.”

      After the Judge, the attorneys, and probably most of the court finally stopped laughing at you sophomoric attempt…the Judge would toss you off the stand!

      BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

    • insomnia says:

      I was too tired last night to look it up, but for Hermitian & Garret:

      How do I know the BC has NOT been amended or altered?

      Because of Hawaiian LAW!

      All BC’s that have been altered are marked as such -

      §338-16  Procedure concerning late and altered birth certificates.  (a)  Birth certificates registered one year or more after the date of birth, AND certificates which have been altered after being filed with the department of health, shall contain the date of the late filing and the date of the alteration AND be marked distinctly “late” or “altered”.

      In addition Hawaii only allows alterations to birth certificates for the following reasons (per 338.17.7):

      1. Change in Paternity information
      2. A court decree of termination of Parental Rights
      3. Adoption
      4. Sex Change (gender reassignment)
      5. Witness Protection request

      Unless maybe Hermitian and Garrett are suggesting the President has had a sex change, I don’t see how forgery is possible. :lol:

      • Slartibartfast says:

        Most likely, Hermie believes that President Obama lost his US citizenship via adoption by Dr. Dunham’s second husband. If so, the following facts were no match for his confirmation bias:

        1. President Obama was too old to obtain Indonesian citizenship via adoption.

        2. President Obama was too young to give up his US citizenship (or have it given up for him) for any reason.

        3. Even if President Obama had obtained Indonesian citizenship it would not have affected his US citizenship.

  52. I read an interview with the CCP chief investigator Mike Zullo. He claimed he has worked 60 – 100 hours per week for nine months on the case. That is between 2350 and 4000 hours. I have to wonder just what he was doing when the best that could come up with was a set of codes they faked and analysis by two amateurs that proved nothing. If Zullo would accept my offer to appear on RC Radio I would ask him that. I would also ask him if he took a few of those 4000 hours to read John’s book.

    The interview was with American Free Press http://americanfreepress.net/?p=5432 I have never heard of them and do not vouch for their accuracy.

    • nbc says:

      That many hours and nothing to show for it? Heck, how many hours were spent finding the mythical 1961 manual they claimed they had?
      Such incompetence.

    • Zullo also engaged in the worst case of resume padding [aka lying] I think I have ever seen in this interview. When asked about his law enforcement experience he replied in this exchange:

      AFP: Can you elaborate on your professional background?

      M.Z.: I worked as a detective in Bergen County, N.J. for five years. Keep in mind that this was the metropolitan area across the river from New York City out to Newark and Union City, N.J., an area that includes over a million people with 70 police departments, an area that does not have as much street crime as it does mob crime and a high level of white collar crime. I was also involved with major narcotics investigations.

      After that I worked in the same area for another seven years as an investigative detective with legal firms. This is where I really honed my skills on how to build cases with an ironclad legal foundation that can’t be taken apart in court. I also started my own investigative firm for much of that time.

      In 1993 I moved to Arizona. Since 2005 I have been working with Sheriff Arpaio in an investigative capacity, where I have clocked in over 14,000 hours. That’s over 20 years of hard core investigative work.

      So it sounds like he worked for a huge county or municipal police department, right? Not exactly, he worked for the Borough of Demarest, NJ with a whopping population of 4500, which had more crossing guards than policeman, nine, on staff.

      What about that detective career in Arizona? Actually he spent that time selling used cars and working as a “car buyer” in his dad’s company.

      • John Woodman says:

        You’re kidding. Oh my gosh. I can’t believe he actually said that.

        I’ve read his site, where he claimed to have more than 20 years experience in the car industry. I think it was 27 years, as I recall.

        Everything these guys do stinks to high heaven. And yet in real life they’re wonderful, decent, truthful people. Just ask Garrett. He’ll tell you.

    • John Woodman says:

      If he had been a real investigator, putting in that much legitimate time on the investigation, he would not only have read the book, he would have corresponded and discussed extensively with me over months regarding every single significant point in it.

    • John Woodman says:

      The whole thing is just totally ridiculous.

      Like someone said after their March conference, it wasn’t an investigation. It was a bunch of birthers in a clown car.

    • gsgs says:

      listening to
      http://americanfreepress.net/?p=5774
      “professional investigators”
      “what they all did with these hours”
      bigger than watergate
      repeats the pencil marks, they didn’t know what it means
      until they asked Verna Lee.
      now 3 reviewers
      easier to get Hawaii BC than in all the other states
      “didn’t understand the technical aspects”
      “African”
      “forensic document examiners, expertise”
      “didn’t produce a document, only an electronic file”
      100% sure, not 99.9%
      no documents that prove Obama was born in Hawaii
      created in Cyperspace (100%)

      ———————————————————-
      it only works because they hide, that
      1.) Hawaii has repeatedly confirmed the correctness
      2.) they did show the paper copy and hand out high-res B+W-scans
      that cannot be derived from the pdf
      3.) most of the experts who do understand “the technical aspects”
      (which Zullo,Arpaio,… don’t) come to the opposite conclusion
      4.) they must take care that noone tells them about 1.)-3.) , so i.e.
      no comments allowed to that webpage,
      American free press must censor comments.

      Will people who listen to this do some research to figure that out ?

      • Slartibartfast says:

        gsgs said: “Will people who listen to this do some research to figure that out ?”

        Very few, if any—all long-time birthers are protected from such reasoning by their confirmation biases.

      • From Wikipedia on AFP:

        “The Israelis literally control our press all except a few of us, the American Free Press and The Barnes Review and a few other patriotic, independent publications around the country. They control our Congress… . Any one of them [members of Congress] is liable to rise up on the floor at anytime and deliver a speech praising Jews and Zionists and Blacks and Indians and heaven only knows, but can you imagine any one of them standing up and praising White Christians?”

        — Michael Collins Piper (A regular contributor to American Free Press)

        It sounds like the perfect place for Zullo to hang with racists and antisemitic morons. Why am I not surprised?

        • gsgs says:

          http://www.blogtalkradio.com/deep-earth-bunker-radio/2012/08/05/doomsday-bunkers-and-deep-earth-bunker.mp3
          Aug.4 , Zullo-interview , radio-show by Deep Earth Bunker Radio,
          “preppers”
          6:30 BC , 9:45 Zullo
          13:00 , Zullo in CCP since 2006, 15 members all with law enforcement and legal background.
          Oct.2011, they started, Arpaio said there was probably nothing in this, but they had to
          investigate and clear it up
          14:00 they interviewed Corsi for 16 hours,
          15:11 Zullo saw how the Hawaii stamp could be moved around. – “I didn’t really need to see much more”
          “no way that that document could be relied on”. That started the ball rolling.
          17:00 “African”
          18:00 Verna Lee
          21:00 1982 law , most liberal BC law in the Nation
          22:50 there is no piece of paper , [only the pdf]
          24:50-28:00 Advertisements
          29:00 media is biased
          30:00 natural born
          32:40 socialist agenda, immigrants, Mexican
          (Zullo politically biased ?)
          34:20 no free press in USA
          35:45 corruption problems in the justice department
          36:20 no revolution, since people die
          37:40 no violance but civil resistance (not paying or such ?)
          38:50 socialistic,communist move is going on
          40:00 treaty law
          43:50 thinks it was amended , Abercrombe
          45:00 Obama visited grandmother , Zullo thinks she amended it
          46:30 no paper trail – sealed in Hawaii
          46:50 – 49:10 “commercials” Zullo has 5 more minutes
          50:00 selective service card, social security card , every document that surrounds him has a problem
          50:50 Onaka won’t speak to the public, police,
          52:30 memoirs at 35
          53:00 Davis his father ? don’t know
          53:30 we don’t believe he is the father (AIU?)
          56:00 WND, not familiar where it is, but political separation
          59:10 end

          • Thanks for the summary. It sounds like a good one to avoid. Zullo is really getting his story out there in the main stream! :lol:

            • gsgs says:

              he said they first wanted to show it’s genuine but then surprisingly
              found it’s a forgery.
              But he shows a clear political agenda here.
              It was enough to show him how the registrar stamp could be moved around.

            • he said they first wanted to show it’s genuine but then surprisingly
              found it’s a forgery.

              In the words of PFC Gomer Pyle: “Sur-prise! Sur-prise! Sur-prise!”

              (You may have to Google it, gsgs; that is a strictly American trivia reference.)

            • John Woodman says:

              he said they first wanted to show it’s genuine but then surprisingly
              found it’s a forgery.
              But he shows a clear political agenda here.
              It was enough to show him how the registrar stamp could be moved around.

              I have never found the claims that they started out wanting to prove it wasn’t a forgery, or that they wanted to “clear” the President, to be even remotely credible.

              If they had had the slightest desire to find it wasn’t a forgery, they would’ve very actively sought and spoken to the entire list of those of us who’ve analyzed all of the technical “anomalies” and found innocent explanations for each and every single one. Their behavior completely belies the claim.

            • Zullo knows fraud when he sees it. …. and does it.

            • gsgs says:

              Hawaii might want to initiate
              that process or Dr.C or
              Mexican drug bosses or
              Arpaio-haters or such.
              Or do you need some sort of
              “standing” ?

          • gsgs says:

            another Zullo interview
            http://www.trunews.com/Audio/9_6_12_thursday_trunews2.mp3
            this time at a religious radioshow. He seems to read from a prepared
            paper (?) I’d prefer them to release those papers or publish transcripts
            so we can quote. Well, that’s maybe just the reason why they make
            videos/audios rather than blogs or statements on websites.

            Zullu at ~20:00 seems to say, that even if all the information in the pdf
            matches, what Hawaii has, it’s still fraudgulent, it’s still a crime,
            (because of the compression, the halo, the layers, moving the
            registrar stamp around)
            So is this all that remains ? That’s why they are 100% sure it’s a forgery or fraudulent ?
            Maybe they have another definition of these words

            (I didn’t listen to the whole audio – does he mention the pencilmarks)

            • gsgs says:

              maybe someone can fill in the ~ – words
              http://www.trunews.com/Audio/9_6_12_thursday_trunews2.mp3

              13:17 Zullo comes
              15:10 no bias
              16:20 at the 14th hour in the Corsi-interview he changed mind , white halo
              if the very ~embord print of the state registrar stamp
              certifying the document on ~cank looked to be placed on the
              document erroneously then the document will not itself has
              no legal value, the document in fact would be a fraugulent document
              20:17 and I hate to call this computer generated file a document
              because it’s not,…,
              20:27 but the only person that would have the authority to make a
              birth certificate from the state of Hawaii would in fact be the state of Hawaii
              and we have no indication, even after I interviewed the attorney general from
              the state of Hawaii, that the state of Hawaii in fact made that electronic file.
              That’s a crime. Noone has right ..no ~diplit to make a driver’s licence. Only the state issuing the
              driver’s licence has the ~daughty to make a driver’s licence. If someone else makes
              a driver’s licence even not it looked perfect and even no it represents the truth it’s
              a fraudgulent document. And that’s what we’re trying to say. This document cannot be relied on.

            • Slartibartfast says:

              gsgs,

              It’s pretty sad that Zullo apparently doesn’t understand the elements of the crime of fraud (which requires information to have been changed and damage to have resulted from it), but it is not surprising as his only goal all along has been to smear the president.

            • gsgs says:

              I no longer think he reads from a prepared paper,
              maybe keywords

              22:00 newspapers not evidence
              22:30 common abuse, birthrate exponentially increases in the 60s
              ( he thinks due to fake births ?! but the census confirms)
              24:00 original document sealed , here is the trick : ,,,
              lots of Japanese fake births
              Abercrombe , Queen,Kapiolani
              25:50 Obama’s grnadmother likely amended it
              amended document no legal evidence
              27:11 Perkins Cole has an amended certificate, they know it
              28:30 Bennett, tricky legalese
              30:00 crime
              30:30 no evidence that he was in Hawaii before the age of 5
              32:00 manipulated childhood photos , black hand , …
              32:45 Sunahara
              34:30 doctor who delivered
              35:50 layers just on critical information –> intentional not by computer
              36:10 he thinks they loaded up in error, working file, uploaded the wrong file,
              not the final version, but then couldn’t replace it because it was already
              downloaded multiple times
              39:40 repeats the driver’s licence example
              42:00

            • gsgs says:

              44:00 Republicans prefer Obama over Hillary Clinton
              46:00 DNA
              47:00 “grande jury” ?
              48:00 no arrest warrant
              50:00 not FBI-office
              52:00 news channel 5, director –> Perkins Cole
              54:00 moderator believes (?) conspiracies …(I didn’t understand exactly)
              Zullo somehow confirms
              56:00 detained in Russia as British spy
              57:00 ~ so e Barker
              57:30 3 names –> evil
              59:00 end

              ———————————–
              so no more mentioning of the pencilmarks
              no proof of textual manipulation, just
              suspections. Still they can be 100% sure it’s
              fraudulent, because of their interpretation
              of that word. (manipulated by software)

            • JRC says:

              gsgs, down below you speak of Zullu saying that only the state can reproduce a driver’s license. Sorry to tell him that most employees that have company vehicles will asked to make a copy of an employers driver’s license for insurance purposes, and the like. So this idea that any replication would be criminal is just silly, but that’s what birtherism is anyway, so no surprise.

            • JRC says:

              lol, well I guess after posting it is up above, not down below. :)

            • Northland10 says:

              Many companies will make a photocopy of a drivers license to attach to the I-9 as a record of the document they inspected.

            • JRC says:

              Sorry I notice now that I had employees and employers backwards. Anyway, I hope everyone got the point of my post.

            • gsgs says:

              that’s a minor point. The main point is, that Zullo has no expertise in image-processing
              and has a clear political agenda and bias. He choses the “experts” that he consults
              according to their political views and biases, and not according to the level of
              their expertise. They make things up,
              as with the pencil marks, the choice of layers according to their bias.
              I’m not so familiar with US-laws, but to my examination and
              understanding he did perjury in 11.) of his affidavit.

            • John Woodman says:

              gs,

              Perjury is lying under oath.

              Where is the affidavit you’re referring to?

            • John Woodman says:

              I’m not a lawyer, but I don’t think there’s enough there to charge Zullo with perjury.

              Do I think Zullo has misrepresented himself? Absolutely. From the available information, he’s closer to being a professional car salesman than to being a professional law enforcement officer.

              Do I think Zullo has inflated his resume? Yes, I do.

              And do I think he has lied to the public about his evidence? Absolutely.

              But I don’t think there’s enough in that affidavit to charge him with perjury.

            • Slartibartfast says:

              I’m not a lawyer either, but I would think that for any affidavit to be the basis for a perjury charge, it would need to be used in a legal proceeding of some sort, right?

            • John Woodman says:

              I’m not a lawyer, but I would think so.

              IMO these guys know they’re never going to appear in a court of law testifying this baloney. So they can say whatever they want.

            • Slartibartfast says:

              I agree—in my opinion, the only purpose of this dog and pony show is to distract from Sheriff Joe’s legal troubles, smear President Obama (helping raise money for Sheriff Joe), and enable the playing of the “victim” card should any evidence of misconduct come to light.

  53. gorefan says:

    Here is a piece of trivia I didn’t realize. In 1955 Charles Bennett wrote an article for the Hawaiian Medical Journal about Vital Statistics in Hawaii. Charles Bennett also signed both Nordyke sisters 1965 birth certificates as the Registrar General of Hawaii.

    • And Jerome Corsi lied about what was in the article. Small world.

      • gorefan says:

        And Zullo continued the lie in his interview with ABC15.

        • John Woodman says:

          Can’t be. Garrett Papit assures me that these are decent, well meaning men who haven’t lied or falsified anything.

        • John Woodman says:

          Mr. Papit also assures me that I am a liar.

          • Slartibartfast says:

            John,

            I think that says volumes—about Mr. Papit. I believe that since he has forfeited his reason to bigotry, he doesn’t understand the difference between you (and others) calling people out for lying (after catching them in lies) and calling you a liar because what you say is inconsistent with the lies they are convinced are truths. I think he sees you saying mean things to others and people saying mean things to him and believes that this makes it okay for him to make up mean things to say about you.

            • John Woodman says:

              I’m going to make a confession here, Kevin.

              I was fairly naive.

              I thought — this was last year when evidence starting coming forward, including evidence from me, that was contrary to the “it’s a forgery!” claims that were flying rampant — I honestly thought, at the beginning, that certain persons would cover both sides of the story, do the right thing, and so forth.

              The ironic thing is that I started out being just as nice as I could to everybody. Even in my book I tried to be respectful and to speak in as measured tones as possible. There was one passage in particular that I rewrote I think twice, to be as “nice” as I could, before I finalized it.

            • Slartibartfast says:

              Yeah, I used to be naive too—then I got into a massive flame war with a truther who wouldn’t accept that work converts one form of energy into another form of energy and that this energy could be measured (sort of like a birther refusing to acknowledge James Madison’s refutation of Vattel birtherism—by the way, I’ve never seen a birther even respond to this quote…).

              I really don’t understand how people can succumb to such irrational beliefs. It seems to me that a birther or truther would have to see so many red flags that something was wrong with their reasoning that it boggles my mind that people can be that ignorant, stupid, and dishonest. Personally, I find your example very comforting—I came to the issue from exactly the opposite position as you. I first encountered the birthers on Texas Darlin’s website (the PUMA/birther site which gave us drk(H)ate…), I was worried that they might be correct and investigated hoping to find out that they weren’t. While I quickly found out what birther claims were made of* (much less rigorously than you did…), we all have confirmation biases and the birthers demonstrate how subjectively plausible cognitive dissonance can sometimes be. Besides, I’ve always felt that, in science, one must be one’s own worst critic (if I find my mistake it’s no big deal, but if someone else does it is). That is doubly true when you get the conclusion that you want, so having someone that wanted a different conclusion apply scientific methodology (which perhaps I value a little too much…) in a much more rigorous way and come to the same conclusion is very reassuring.

              As far as being nice goes, I don’t believe that constructive discussion can exist when one or more of the parties is acting in bad faith, and to me this is rudeness of the worst sort. I view interactions with birthers as a prisoner’s
              dilemma—I choose whether I’m going to be nice or mean and they choose whether they are going to engage in good faith or not. And the we do it again—until they run away or I get distracted by something shiny. So far, no birther has decided to engage in good faith, but it’s always good to get more data… ;-)

              Maybe there is some technique to getting through to a birther, but I don’t think that anyone that they see as an O–t has much chance of doing it. Like most cults, it is often necessary for outside intervention to deprogram people and definitely requires someone who doesn’t accept the delusion inside of their circle of trust. I think once you spoke out against their false idol you’re on the outside and no amount of “nice” will get you back in…

              * approximately 50% lies, 20% bigotry and hatred, 15% stupidity, 10% ignorance, and 5% sedition ;-)

            • John Woodman says:

              I really don’t understand how people can succumb to such irrational beliefs. It seems to me that a birther or truther would have to see so many red flags that something was wrong with their reasoning that it boggles my mind that people can be that ignorant, stupid, and dishonest.

              I have some difficulty understanding that as well.

              If Papit were really honest and objective — in my thinking — he would be able to see instance after instance in which he has made claims that were incorrect, and that in the exact same instances, when I spoke on the same issue, I had correctly analyzed the issue. (Examples: the presence of a seal on the PDF. The presence or absence of kerning. The presence or lack of a typo in the certification seal. The presence or lack of a “smiley face.”)

              In my final email to him, I even gave him an example of this.

              He would then say to himself, “I have repeatedly been wrong, and in the exact same instances, John Woodman has been correct. Something must be wrong with my thinking on this matter.”

              But he doesn’t. Instead, he says: “John Woodman is an idiot. John Woodman is intellectually dishonest. John Woodman is a liar.”

              Maybe the prospect that he is wrong is simply terrifying to him. I don’t know. Like you, I don’t understand how such people think.

              Oh, by the way: I was wrong. He did call me a liar, again, in his final email to me. I guess I missed it somehow. I’m both a liar and a pompous a******.

              He said: “You are a liar John. Nothing was fabricated.”

              I simply don’t see how anybody can make that statement, when we have the images presented by the CCP, purportedly as being from 1961, and we know beyond any doubt whatsoever that they came from 1968 and 1969; AND we also know that the manual they claimed to have directly refutes them.

              The statement just does not seem logically possible.

              Maybe there is some technique to getting through to a birther, but I don’t think that anyone that they see as an O–t has much chance of doing it.

              It’s a thinking loop from which there is no escape. “X is true. Anybody who says X isn’t true is an O___ and a liar. So if anybody tells me X isn’t true, they’re lying to me.”

            • Northland10 says:

              Slarti:I really don’t understand how people can succumb to such irrational beliefs. It seems to me that a birther or truther would have to see so many red flags that something was wrong with their reasoning that it boggles my mind that people can be that ignorant, stupid, and dishonest.

              John: If Papit were really honest and objective — in my thinking — he would be able to see instance after instance in which he has made claims that were incorrect,

              It would appear that they are incapable of separating their dislike/hatred of the man or symbol he represents to them, from any specific facts of this actual issue. This is similar to many truthers who highly disliked Bush, the neocons, the 2000 elections issue or just government in general. To admit they were wrong and the President is not bad/evil in this single issue is incomprehensible.

              With them, “it’s all or nothing.”

            • Slartibartfast says:

              Northland10,

              I agree about birthers being unable to separate the facts and the law from their feelings about President Obama—as evinced by their thinking that an enumeration of all the “bad” things they say he’s done (usually wildly inaccurate) is somehow an argument that he is ineligible.

              John,

              The loop can be broken if a birther accepts “X is not an O__t and is telling the truth” before X tries to contradict their beliefs. I admit this is highly unlikely and I don’t have any examples of it happening, but I hypothesize that it could work…

          • John Woodman says:

            Well, that might be a bit outdated. Let’s see.

            He did admit that I had not lied in regard to personal statements made about myself, and did apologize for that. That being the case, I do retract the statement I made that Garrett was a lying scumbag; and I even apologize for having made it. I do not presently regard Mr. Papit as a lying scumbag. I do, however, regard him as deeply deceived and out of touch with reality, at least as far as the Obama issues go. And I suspect he is probably quite rational and reasonable in other areas of his life.

            I told him I thought he was trapped in cultlike thinking. He urged me to look in the mirror.

            Mr. Papit has assured me (in all caps) that the CCP DID NOT FABRICATE EVIDENCE, that if anything’s wrong it was simply bad information, and that that is NOT FABRICATION AND [I] KNOW IT.

            Okay… well, let’s see if the CCP does the right thing and comes forward and announces a correction and an explanation.

            Believe me, I WON’T be holding my breath.

            Let’s see… he is disgusted by my lack of integrity… I am beyond foolish [to state that Herb Titus is no expert on NBC status]. Herb is much more knowledgeable about that issue than I am. I have a lack of objectivity and intellectual honesty… insanity… I am a racist for saying that hearsay tends to be epidemic in Africa.

            Now I will say this: That particular comment was based on my own experiences in a particular subsaharan African country, where education is so bad that only about 1/3 of the population is capable of even minimal literacy. Folks appear to be much more literate over in Kenya.

            But my statement had absolutely nothing to do about the color of people’s skin.

            Never mind, I’m a racist. Garrett says so.

            Let’s see… nothing was fabricated. I have a reading comprehension problem (in regard to his previous email). Oh, and I’m a pompous… well, I won’t print that word here. Let’s keep it family friendly.

          • John Woodman says:

            BUT — and here’s the biggie. In his latest email to me (and his last one, since we’ve both now given up on each other), he at least did not call me a liar.

            And I do appreciate that.

            • Slartibartfast says:

              Well, considering what you’ve put into this site as well as what you’ve revealed about yourself personally here, I think you’re a pretty impressive individual* even if Garrett is too deluded by the lies he’s swallowed to see that.

              * Homeschooling your kids because you want to spend time with them really put it over the top for me—what a great justification!

            • John Woodman says:

              Thanks, Kevin.

              Regarding Mr. Papit: I must admit that I am just a little bit disappointed in the outcome. I had thought that it might be possible (not necessarily likely, but possible) to get through to him.

              There was not a lot of reason for optimism, though. His claiming last November that there was no seal visible on the PDF, that kerning was present, that there was a typo and a smiley face in the certification stamp, that there were multiple typefaces, and that Minor v Happersett defined “natural born citizen” — those were all indicators of his eagerness to believe just about anything, as long as it was “birther.”

            • Slartibartfast says:

              John said:

              Regarding Mr. Papit: I must admit that I am just a little bit disappointed in the outcome. I had thought that it might be possible (not necessarily likely, but possible) to get through to him.

              The only thing that I can think of is if you can get them to set a standard ahead of time and then demonstrate that it is met. One similarity between you and Squeeky Fromm, is that you both set your goals ahead of time—she with the “long form” and you when you designed your investigation to test your hypothesis that President Obama was an usurping mofo (the scientific method may be a one-trick pony, but it’s such a useful trick…). You can’t be a birther if you can’t move the goalposts and, as I see it, a refusal to change your standard is what prevented you from becoming a birther and rescued Squeeky from their clutches. It seems unlikely that any of the entrenched birthers would be willing to set any standard which might possibly be achieved at this point.

              I do understand how there is almost a compulsion to try to convince birthers of the truth. I tried for a while with one of the few birther bloggers that didn’t moderate, “Itooktheredpill”, but stopped after he seemed to think it was just fine when another poster tried to smear me with lies and threatened me. Actually, I’m about 30% convinced that our very own Hermie is one and the same (a similarity in style and “Hermitian” might be a Matrix reference), but I can’t figure out any way to easily test the hypothesis.

              How about it Hermie? Are you really Mr. Anderson?

              I think most of the birthers that come by here and other anti-birther sites have long lists of aliases strung out behind them…

  54. gsgs says:

    John Woodman wrote:
    > He did admit that I had not lied in regard to personal
    > statements made about myself,
    > and did apologize for that. That being the case,
    > I do retract the statement I made that
    > Garrett was a lying scumbag; [Drecksack]
    > and I even apologize for having made it.
    > I do not presently regard Mr. Papit
    > as a lying scumbag.

    tit for tat ?
    A lie remains a lie … scumbagism could be temporary, I’m not sure.
    With so many statements being made, almost everyone occasionally
    lies. Intentional or unintentional or sloppy research.
    How many lies does it need to be a liar ?
    That probably just depends on whether that person who says “liar”
    likes that alleged liar.

    why can’t you