Exposed: Sheriff Joe Arpaio Birther Scam — Here’s the Proof that Arpaio’s Posse Fabricated Evidence and Lied to the Nation


The 1961 manual Arpaio’s Posse claimed to have has been found. And it completely contradicts everything they claimed it said.

So why won’t Arpaio’s office either produce their supposed evidence or publicly retract their claims? Because doing so would be admitting they’ve been caught in a major fraud. That’s why.

There's Been a Fraud, All Right -- Sheriff Joe Arpaio and His Lead "Investigator" Michael Zullo Present Their Faked Evidence to the Nation Last Week (July 17, 2012)

There's Been a Fraud, All Right -- Sheriff Joe Arpaio and His Lead "Investigator" Michael Zullo Present Their Faked Evidence to the Nation Last Week (July 17, 2012)

Sheriff Joe Arpaio (“America’s Toughest Sheriff,” Maricopa County, Arizona) has been widely criticized for his “birther” investigation claiming that President Obama’s birth certificate is a forgery. And his “Cold Case Posse” has been widely portrayed as inept.

But the evidence clearly shows that Arpaio’s Posse goes well beyond the “inept” — into the downright fraudulent.

For some important background, see: Statement Regarding Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s July 17, 2012 Press Conference: Part 1

Arpaio and His Posse Based Their Most “Solid” Claim on a 1961 Manual They Claimed to Have, And Obviously Didn’t — But Which They Showed the World Faked Images Of Nonetheless.

Arpaio’s posse was clear and unambiguous in claiming that they had the 1961 Vital Statistics Instruction Manual from the US government, and that that manual backed their claim Obama’s birth certificate was a forgery.

Listen to them claim to have this 1961 “Code Book,” and the 1961 Hawaii codes, too:

Mark Gillar, in the official video presented on July 17: “In order to decipher these codes, the Cold Case Posse obtained information from the 1961 Vital Statistics Instructions Manual for births. Please note that the number ’9′ was the code used to indicate that an answer to a particular question was ‘not stated.’”

Jerome Corsi Says They Searched "For Months" to Find That 1961 Manual. Really, Jerry? He Also Says He's Going to Publish It Any Day Now. Somehow I Have the Feeling He's Going to Be Searching For a Few More Months To Come.

Jerome Corsi Says They Searched "For Months" to Find That 1961 Manual. Really, Jerry? He Also Says He's Going to Publish It Any Day Now. Somehow I Have the Feeling He's Going to Be Searching For a Few More Months To Come.

Jerome Corsi, July 18, Peter Boyles show: “In the 1961 code book, which we worked for months to get ahold of — we finally found it — ’9′ means not reported or not stated.”

Michael Zullo, July 18, KABC Interview: “Number ’9′ — and we have the documentation to prove it from 1961 — that signifies information was not presented, or unknown or not stated.”

Michael Zullo, July 18, Peter Boyles show: “The number 9 for the federal code, and the number 9 per the State of Hawaii’s own statistical code, means ‘information not provided’ or ‘information not stated.’”

Jerome Corsi, July 19, Peter Boyles show: “We’ve got the documentation. We’re just going to release it over the next little bit of time. But [in] the original code book in 1961, if the race of the father was not listed or not recorded or not stated, that was coded number ’9.’ You wrote that in by hand, number ’9.’”

Sheriff Joe Arpaio, July 18, Peter Boyles show: “[It] had a coding system, in pencil. Then we went to the archives and we picked up what that meant. And there’s a couple of things in the blocks that should be unstated, not anything typed in there, when you look at the code system.”

From the official video, prepared and narrated by Mark Gillar:

Mark Gillar, July 18 (Comment posted as “TeaPartyPowerHour” at the official video): “We have the 1961 manual… We have the V.K.L. recording and the manual. Only a few left in the US. Hard to get.”

“Hard to get,” indeed — as we shall soon see.

Let’s See What They Presented to the World As Being Supposedly From Their “1961 Vital Statistics Instruction Manual”.

The following images “morph” from the images they presented, to the originals that they took them from. You may find it easier to view the images if you click on them to display them on a separate page, and then return to the article.

The first falsified image from the official video:

Want the actual 1968 source that this came from? Here it is, sourced from the web site of the National Bureau of Economic Research.

And the page that they pulled their graphic from quite clearly says, at the top of the page:

If you have this document, there’s simply no way that you can miss that it’s from 1968 — not 1961.

The second falsified image from the official video:

This one is even more rich. In spite of their claims to the contrary, they didn’t even get this one from the US government, or any government web site! They plagiarized it right out of a discredited article from birther web site “The Daily Pen.”

In fact, the Posse’s “we have the 1961 manual” claim was originally made by the Daily Pen in the same article that the Posse stole the graphic from. And the claim was already proven to be a fraud last March.

Incidentally, we can find a copy of the original 1969 US government document this image was fraudulently taken from over here. The source, again, is the web site of the National Bureau of Economic Research.

The Actual Manual Has Been Found. And It Directly and Absolutely Contradicts What Arpaio’s Posse Claimed it Said.

Since the United States Department of Health and Human Services told blogger Kevin Davidson — and he asked them twice — that they thought this particular manual no longer existed, the Posse may have been confident it could pull off this little scam without being held accountable for it. All they had to do was just not show the imaginary manual. Right?

Unfortunately for them, blogger ladysforest (who doesn’t even believe Obama is eligible!) asked a different government office, and was able to turn up a copy of the real manual.

According to the real 1961 Vital Statistics Instruction Manual and the closely-related tape specifications, the parents’ races weren’t even coded for the federal statistics. They were simply looked at and then used to determine the race of the child, which was coded for US statistics. The mother’s place of birth was also recorded — but only as “native,” “foreign” or “unknown.”

So that’s another false claim made by Arpaio’s posse, who apparently didn’t even have the 1961 manual.

And if they did, they obviously lied about what it said.

Below is an image from the real 1961 manual, showing the only race codes it has. Again, these are codes for the race of the child. And while some determination of parents’ races was made — in order to code the child’s race — that data was not coded by the feds.

The Real Codes from the Real 1961 Vital Statistics Instruction Manual (Contrast Enhanced for Readability)

The Real Codes from the Real 1961 Vital Statistics Instruction Manual
(Contrast Enhanced for Readability)

By the way, as you can clearly see, “9″ isn’t “not reported or not stated.” It’s “other nonwhite,” which (according to the manual’s instructions) actually happens to be how Obama’s father’s race would’ve been classified.

You can download the complete general instructions part of the manual here.

But that’s not even the full extent of how far the posse’s claims are from reality… because — as we are about to see — that particular manual isn’t even a key to the penciled statistical codes on Obama’s birth certificate at all!

Actually, the States Didn’t Even Have to Do ANY Statistical Coding to Report Their Data to the Federal Government in 1961.

Instead, they sent the US government all of their actual birth records on microfilm, and the statistics information was both classified and transferred to punch cards by workers who referred directly to the actual, microfilmed birth certificates. From page 5-3 of the US government’s 1961 report on birth statistics:

With the exceptions noted in the next paragraph [which didn't include Hawaii], natality [that is, birth] tabulations for 1961 are based on information obtained from microfilm copies of the original certificates. These copies were received from the registration offices of all States, certain cities, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. The statistical information on these records was edited, classified, placed on punchcards, and tabulated in the National Vital Statistics Division (NVSD).

Here’s Where They Likely Change Their Story and Start Claiming, “Actually, Those Were State Codes, and It’s the State of Hawaii Manual We Have.”

But this story won’t fly, either.

First of all, they’ve already quite clearly claimed it was a very specific federal code book they had — the “1961 Vital Statistics Instruction Manual” — so the lie is on record for all time.

Secondly, they’ve publicly mourned a complete “lack of cooperation” for their birther “investigation” from the Hawaii Department of Health.

And third:

The “Hawaii Girl” Certificate Establishes that the Real Hawaii Codes in 1961 Weren’t What They Showed You, Either.

First, This Certificate Posted in a Corsi Article Disproved One of His Major "Forgery" Claims. Now, It's Shown that Their Claimed Code Set Wasn't Used by Hawaii in 1961.

First, This Certificate Posted in a Corsi Article Disproved One of His Major "Forgery" Claims. Now, It's Shown that Their Claimed Code Set Wasn't Used by Hawaii in 1961.

In September of last year, WorldNetDaily published a Hawaii birth certificate from a baby girl born in August of 1961.

I subsequently caught them scrubbing information from their site that contradicted and destroyed one of their major conspiracy theory claims.

That claim was that the certificate number on Obama’s birth certificate was “out of sequence.” I was alerted by a reader that WorldNetDaily had changed the images of the birth certificate, for no apparent reason. Curious to find out why, I fished the original images out of Google’s cache, and was able, by enhancing the image of the back of the certificate, to read the certificate number.

And that certificate number completely destroyed the claim that Obama’s certificate number was “out of sequence.”

The “certificate number problem” claim was based in turn on a clearly and indisputably false claim made publicly by Jerome Corsi, that Charles Bennett, Hawaii’s Registrar General, said that “birth certificates were numbered upon acceptance by the registrar-general, and there was no provision that would allow an accepted birth certificate to be put in a pile for three days before a number was stamped on it.”

By the way — I don’t think I’ve ever mentioned this publicly before, but in the new image they substituted onto the site, they specifically and deliberately copied a section of safety paper from the bottom of the certificate over the upper left corner, in order to hide the certificate number.

So they went to pains to cover up the certificate number — which contains no personally identifying information — but left enough personal information visible that I and others were able to figure out exactly whose birth certificate it was.

Odd, that.

To give you yet another idea of the honesty level of the Cold Case Posse, in last week’s press conference, they even repeated the debunked “certificate number is proof of fraud” claim — even though it was known and verified to be false last autumn, and no new information has emerged to change that. WorldNetDaily hid “Hawaii Girl’s” certificate number of 61-09945 last fall — after Jerome Corsi brought her certificate to the world and verified that it was genuine — and Corsi and the Cold Case Posse are hiding it now, in order to keep claiming that Obama’s birth certificate is “out of sequence.”

“Hawaii Girl” Came From a Hawaiian/ Asian Family.

Of interest to us now is the coding on what I call the “Hawaii girl” birth certificate.

The race fields for mother and father both have the number “3″ written by them. According to the supposed codes from Jerome Corsi, Mark Gillar and the Cold Case Posse, this means that both parents were supposedly (American) Indians.

But they weren’t.

Online genealogical information indicates that “Hawaii Girl’s” mother was born to a (mostly) Hawaiian father and a mother with a Korean surname. [Note: I have now spoken directly and personally with "Hawaii Girl" herself to confirm her background, and deciphered her parents' race entries -- see my next article!]

Her father has a Hawaiian middle name, and a last name of Chinese origin.

There’s no sign of any American Indians anywhere — let alone on both sides of the family.

Lies, Lies, and More Lies

In the course of the past fourteen months, I have personally investigated something well beyond 60 different significant birther claims that President Barack Obama is ineligible to his office.

These include the claims that his birth certificate is a “forgery,” and also the claims that it takes citizen parents to be a natural born citizen.

Out of all that huge mountain of claims, I have never found even one single significant birther claim that actually stood up to scrutiny.

Simply put, there is plenty of evidence that Barack Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii in 1961.

Likewise, the evidence is simply and utterly overwhelming that “natural born citizen” means pretty much what everybody always thought it meant. And Barack Obama, born in the United States, is perfectly eligible from a Constitutional, legal and historical point of view to be President of the United States.

So if you don’t like him, do as I will be doing in November, and vote for somebody else.

In the meantime, there is more than enough evidence for any reasonable person to conclude that the birther movement is not just based on misconceptions, mistakes, or “production errors” — as Mark Gillar so eloquently termed the presentation of the second fraudulent image in his video.

It’s a scam from beginning to end. And it’s a scam — for the most part — on conservatives.

This evidence includes:

  • Corsi’s known false statement about Charles Bennett’s 1955 article
  • the long list of 23 claims in a row, published in my book, that Corsi peddled to the public that don’t hold water
  • the fact that Corsi and WND have never retracted his false statement about Bennett or the disproven “certificate number fraud” theory
  • Loren Collins’ discovery that one of Corsi’s articles was plagiarized from British news sources
  • the fact that Joseph Farah and Corsi and WorldNetDaily practically covered up all of the contrary evidence that I sent them in August of last year
  • the fact that they DID cover up the “Hawaii Girl’s” birth certificate number
  • the most recent lies from the Cold Case Posse
  • and the very long list of transparently false claims made by Mario Apuzzo, Leo Donofrio and others, documented here and elsewhere, to the effect that it takes two citizen parents to be a natural born citizen.

The inevitable conclusion, for any rational person who acquaints himself or herself with the evidence, is that the birther movement is not a mistake. It’s a scam. And while there may have been some honest mistakes on the part of some in the beginning, it is now based on nothing more than lies, lies, and more lies.


Response from Mark Gillar, Producer of the Posse’s Official Video

After an extensive email discussion with Mark Gillar, producer of the official video which contains the falsified images, Mr. Gillar stated that he received all materials and the script from Mr. Zullo of the Cold Case Posse and had no editorial control. A direct request to the Cold Case Posse for a copy of the “1961 Vital Statistics Instruction Manual” resulted in no reply.

Blogger and internet radio host “Reality Check” also reports that he engaged in a series of email contacts with Jerome Corsi. He states that Corsi provided no further evidence to back his claims. He has since issued a written challenge to Corsi and Zullo to produce the documentation they claimed to have.


Update — The Cover-Up Continues: Jerome Corsi has responded to calls for the Posse to show the manual they claimed to have by making excuses as to why they won’t produce it, and by making additional false claims regarding those who’ve asked them to do so.

Jerome Corsi appeared this week in a YouTube video intended to rally the birther faithful. In that video, he characterizes those calling for the Cold Case Posse to back up their claims as wanting some kind of inside window into the investigation — and as asking for all kinds of different documents. He claims that people who have asked for the evidence have “lost their mind.” He also indicates that the Posse won’t back up their fabricated claim; and he makes excuses as to why.

At around the 8 minute mark, Corsi says:

“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 Obots are dying to find out what Sheriff Arpaio has, they’re going nuts over on various Obot websites, demanding we show this, demanding that the investigation produce another document, this document, I mean, they’re, they’ve lost their mind.”

Of course, anybody who doesn’t believe the fabricated evidence produced by Corsi and the Posse — including folks who are supporting Romney, like myself — is an “Obot” — an “Obama robot.”

The key thing here is the excuse Corsi makes for not backing up their clearly fabricated claim. And note the interesting wording Corsi uses to describe the Posse’s evidence:

“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.”

The evidence that’s been created? I always thought evidence was uncovered, or discovered, or revealed. Or maybe found. The word “created” would not normally seem to fit into that particular place — at all.

Unless, of course, evidence actually has been created.

Which we now know it has.

This entry was posted in Birther Scam, Conclusions, New Information, Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Bookmark the permalink.

691 Responses to Exposed: Sheriff Joe Arpaio Birther Scam — Here’s the Proof that Arpaio’s Posse Fabricated Evidence and Lied to the Nation

  1. gsgs says:

    add to that the coverup of the reports from other real experts,
    Zatkovich and Berryhill.
    I think, they probably have some sort of manual/book/article, though.
    But misinterpreted or incomplete or wrong.
    In that one quote Zullo said it was in the federal and in the Hawaii codes

  2. Scientist says:

    It also appear that Zullo has been at least somewhat deceptive about his background. According to this, “For the past 20 years, Zullo has worked in the car sales business, most recently serving as president and CEO of the company, Autotruth. He did not reveal that information during last week’s news conference.”
    http://www.kpho.com/story/19094741/cold-case-posse-lacks-law-enforcement-experience

    • John Woodman says:

      ROTFL!

    • John Woodman says:

      So Michael Zullo has worked in the “automotive industry” for the past 27 years, apparently selling cars for quite a few of those, and running a business in which he did car-shopping.

      Boy, now there’s some professional investigative qualifications for you.

  3. Dr Kenneth Noisewater says:

    Which brings me back to my conclusion that the only qualifications that Zullo had was that he sold Joe Arpaio his beat up pickup truck.

  4. ehancock says:

    It would be good to get high up in the story that “9″ meant “other nonwhite” and not left blank or not filled in, or whatever they claim. And, of course, that “other nonwhite” would be correct in the circumstances.

    Oh, and here is a thought. If there is a recording of them claiming to have a tape recorded call with Verna Lee, and they did, and they did not tell her that they were recording her, it is a federal crime.

    • John Woodman says:

      The one problem with that is that yes, “9″ did mean “other nonwhite” in the federal tape codes for 1961 — which would indeed be correct — but it appears that federal codes were not even needed or written on these certificates.

      Also: where would this be a federal crime? I’m not aware of federal laws on this. And Hawaii is a one-party state.

      • ehancock says:

        I did not know that Hawaii was a one-party consent state. But is Arizona? Isn’t it Arizona that counts, since the recording was made there?

        Federal law makes it unlawful to record telephone conversations except in one party consent cases which permit one party consent recording by state law. What that means is a person can record their own telephone conversations without the knowledge or consent of the other party in those states that allow one party consent.

        Thanks on the “09.” But surely it is unlikely that they were following some other coding than the federal code. To be sure, they must have used their own state codes on some of the items coded, since there was no standard federal coding. But at least there was a good chance that they were following the federal coding on race. I see that the coding on the race of the father and mother of the Nordyke twins was “1″–which is also likely to conform to the 1961 federal coding.

        • Thomas Brown says:

          Doc C has found evidence that they CANNOT have been using the Federal Codes. He covered it on last night’s RCRadio show.

          It’s definitive. Give it a listen. I believe it is at about the 1hr. 10 min. point; the first hour was taken up with Jerry Collette as a guest.

          The 9 meant “other nonwhite.” Get over it.

          • John Woodman says:

            I covered this, or at least thought I did. But my wife tells me I need to add a bit of clear information about the 1961 tape specs. So I will probably try and do that. But it may not be immediate.

        • John Woodman says:

          Arizona is.

          I think a lot of the codes are the same. It may very well be that Hawaii, at some point, based their codes on some federal ones.

          If I had to guess, someone in setting some statistical stuff up may have looked at statistical info from the feds, and used that as a template. But it’s clear that a “3″ for race in 1961 didn’t match the federal race codes for 1961, 1968 or 1969. I haven’t checked the years in between, but I seriously doubt it matched for those years either.

          • gsgs says:

            Usually they take the coding what they had
            the year before. It’s easier and the years
            can be better compared.
            Hawaii became a state in 1959. At that time
            they had to adjust their system to federal needs.
            Before that I speculate that they sorted the
            races by frequencies, so Negroes and Indians
            were at the bottom – if coded at all.
            They had to be included in 1959.
            Hawaii BCs looked quite different from
            the standard ones shown in the Natality
            report. There is some reason to assume that
            they maintained their old system as good
            as possible for continuity and just added
            what was needed for the feds.
            “race not stated” was included in federal
            coding in 1964. Before that unclear races were
            subsumed to one of the other groups.
            As a result there were much fewer Chinese,
            Japanese, births listed in 1964 for USA.
            But not so for Hawaii.
            ————————
            We may soon know more, since DrC ordered the
            Hawaii vital report from 1961/2 from
            a library.
            —————————-
            By the parents–>child rules,
            if “not stated” were coded in 1961 as the CCP
            says, then Obama jr. would have been classified as white (does the CCP want that ?).
            Else as “other nonwhite”.

            • We know from other certificates that the 1961 codes used to code birth certificates in Hawaii included:

              1 – White
              2 – Hawaiian
              3 – Part Hawaiian

              I can assure you that no federal coding system ever published used those codes. The “Hawaiian” responses are never near the top of the list in federal codes. Only in Hawaii when those are the most common responses would they be at the top of the list.

  5. gorefan says:

    Are you enjoying your retirement?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPw-3e_pzqU

    • John Woodman says:

      Really. Yeah, I was asked that earlier today. :lol:

      I have one more post, then I’m done. Yes, I know I’ve said that before. ;-)

  6. mikibooth says:

    Nice try. Please explain why the WhiteHouse.com would post an electronic file that is a proven forged/manipulated pdf instead of just showing what he allegedly received from the HI DOH instead of blogging all your bullcrap. Look here, not there! That’s why!!

    • John Woodman says:

      Miki,

      Welcome to the blog! I am familiar with the fact that you’ve been one of those promoting the forgery claims. Birthers are perfectly welcome to post here as long as they behave even halfway reasonably. We’ve had long dialogues, for example, with Mario Apuzzo.

      First, the initial PDF forgery theories are not only debunked, they’ve been debunked for a long time. Virtually every claim made by Arpaio’s posse in his first press conference in March had already been debunked in my book, published six months before, and prior to the time they even started their “investigation.” The few new ones they made in March were debunked within days.

      True, there may be one or two shiny new “expert” allegations floating around at the moment, but they frankly don’t amount to much. And it’s almost trivially easy to show that the “experts” making them have made totally bogus, almost astonishingly ill-founded claims before.

      I don’t mean to be unkind to your position, I’m just stating the facts.

      That’s Part One.

      Part Two is that many of the chief players behind the claims have now been clearly shown to be liars, cherry-pickers, and frauds.

      As of the time I wrote my book, Jerome Corsi had publicly backed at least 23 different claims of “proof” or “good evidence” for “forgery.” The book looked at each significant claim from a factual point of view and showed that not one of these claims could stand up to honest, rational scrutiny. Some were literally laughable. Others were more complicated. But not one of them held water.

      What do you call someone who presents bogus theories to the public 23 times in a row?

      As this article clearly shows, it seems quite literally impossible that Corsi and Arpaio’s posse actually have the manual they clearly and publicly claimed to have.

      Miki, what do you call someone who makes a high-profile public claim that turns out to be false — and there is no way that the person making the claim could have not known it was false?

      I know what I call that person. I call that person a liar and a fraud.

      So Miki, I am interested in hearing you explain exactly why you are prepared to defend liars and frauds?

    • Scientist says:

      miki, I am afraid you are the one diverting

      Hawaii says the birth certificate is accurate in all its information and has re-iterated that countless times, including certifying that fact to Arizona Sec of State Bennett. So that really leaves only 3 possibilities:
      1. The birth certificate is real.
      2. The birth certificate is a forgery, but one with all the true information on it.
      3. There is a giant conspiracy and Hawaii is in on it.

      #2 makes no sense
      #3-If that is true, Hawaii would construct the document from scratch on paper and it would be perfect, since they are the ultimate experts on how a Hawaiian birth certificate should look. The pencil codes would all be correct, since they know the codes better than anyone (or could reverse engineer them from all the 1961 certificates they have in their vaults).

      The birther case seems to be that some intern created the document in the White House basement. But then why would Hawaii stand behind it?

      #2 and #3 make no sense. Not to mention that a pregnant 18 year old travelling 12,000 miles to have a baby makes no sense either. And if it makes no sense, it isn’t true.

      #1 makes sense. And it’s true.

      Let me ask you why you find it so hard to believe the President was born in Hawaii. His parents lived there. So did his maternal grandparents. So why is it so hard to believe he was born there? Why invent some grand conspiracy? To what end?

    • Miki

      I will play nice out of my respect for Mr. Woodman. Your question is not well framed because it asserts the conclusion. I only have one question right now. Have you read John Woodman’s book? If you have not I will donate John the money to send you a free copy a long as you promise to read it and write a thorough review of it.

      (I might have more questions later.)

      • linda says:

        That is a good idea, generous, too. Will you post if Miki takes you up on the offer?

        • Sure, If she accepts the offer I will send the money to JW and let him work out the details with Miki to get her either version. However, the review has to be detailed and address all the major points in the book. We would have to set an appropriate time limit too.

          • mikibooth says:

            Don’t count on it. If you want my detailed points buy my book, “Memoirs of a Community Organizer from Hawai’i” on Amazon then you won’t need to set a time limit.
            buh by now

            • Dr Kenneth Noisewater says:

              You couldn’t pay me enough to read your book Miki. The preview chapter alone was enough to see you’re delusional.

            • John Woodman says:

              And she may well be.

              The one remaining mystery for me in all of this — both the “Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii/ his birth certificate is forged” claims and the “two citizen parent” claims are fully solved, hence solving the overall factual question of whether Obama is eligible or not — is which of the birthers are delusional and willing to get in bed with the liars and frauds, and which of the birthers are actually bald-faced liars and frauds.

              One has to be extremely careful, of course, first in concluding that someone is a liar and a fraud, and secondly, in publicly stating that.

              Obviously, when somebody clearly states something which is demonstrably untrue, and will not publicly retract that known false statement and apologize for making it, then that person can reasonably be considered a liar, or at least someone who is willing to cover up a past mistake, which is — in essence — a lie by omission.

              Take, for example, Jerome Corsi’s public statement that Charles Bennett’s article stated what order birth certificates were stamped in, and his subsequent refusal to publicly acknowledge and apologize for the falsehood of that statement.

              If someone publicly makes a false statement, and it is not possible for them not to have known that the statement was false, then that is obviously a lie as well, and the person is a liar.

              And at least one somebody in the Cold Case Posse is a liar in this regard. I speak now in reference to the false claim that they have the “1961 Vital Statistics Instruction Manual.”

              It is possible that some member or members of the posse may have simply ignorantly repeated this lie that they were told by another member.

              In that event, such persons are at the very least recklessly negligent for making such a statement without verifying its truth. Mark Gillar is in this category. What Mark needs to do now is clearly state on his video that claims made in the video of possessing a 1961 Vital Statistics Instruction Manual are untrue, and then apologize for having trusted someone who was feeding him untrue information and having spread false claims.

              It is not possible, however, for the original “researcher” — whether that is Jerome Corsi or Michael Zullo or some other shadowy figure — NOT to have known that he was presenting false information.

              That original “researcher” knows for a FACT that he doesn’t have the manual he claims. He knows for a FACT that the one set of specs says at the top, “1968.” He knows for a FACT that he plagiarized the other graphic directly from the debunked Daily Pen article.

              Having based a major claim on that lie makes him a fraud.

              So logically, it is inescapable that there is at least one liar and fraud in the Cold Case Posse woodpile.

              And it seems to me that any other member of the Posse with any authority at all is either — at a minimum — incompetent or grossly negligent in not verifying that claim.

              So the biggest mystery at this point is who in the birther movement are liars and/ or frauds, and who is simply deluded and perfectly willing to get in bed with the liars and frauds. It’s very difficult to prove somebody’s motives, and we should try to avoid asserting that people are liars and frauds without having concrete proof.

              Ironically, this is the very opposite of the modus operandi of birthers.

            • gorefan says:

              Mr. Woodman,

              “Jerome Corsi’s public statement that Charles Bennett’s article stated what order birth certificates were stamped in, and his subsequent refusal to publicly acknowledge and apologize for the falsehood of that statement.”

              In his recent interview with ABC15 in Arizona, Zullo mentions the Bennett article (he gets its publishing date wrong) and he repeats the claim that the article details the way the BCs were numbered.

              At the 2:20 mark.

              http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/region_phoenix_metro/central_phoenix/video-arpaios-lead-investigator-talks-obama-birth-certificate-to-abc15

            • John Woodman says:

              I saw the video and noticed that, gorefan.

              It is plausible that Zullo could be making the claim out of ignorance and incompetence.

              However, where did he get the claim? Undoubtedly, from Jerome Corsi.

              When did he get the claim? Probably before my debate with Corsi in January.

              At that time, if Corsi had been honest, he would have publicly retracted the claim and issued an apology. He most certainly would NOT have allowed the Cold Case Posse to go public with a claim that he KNEW was absolutely false.

              It is in fact pretty clear from this video that Michael Zullo does not have a freaking clue what he is talking about. He claims that the Bennett article was “ten or fifteen years ago,” and repeatedly refers to Charles Bennett as “she.”

              In fact, it seems pretty obvious to me from this video who was running the show, who was on top of the “facts,” and who got played for a fool.

              Actually, while Zullo has every reason to be profoundly embarrassed at his display of utter cluelessness in regard to the Bennett matter, this video is the best evidence I’ve seen that Corsi put one over on him.

              I think I’ll extract the audio clip from this.

            • gorefan says:

              Exactly, Zullo is Charlie McCarthy to Corsi’s Edgar Bergen, the Jerry Mahoney to Corsi’s Paul Winchell, the Madam to Corsi’s Waylon Flowers, the… well you get the idea.

      • mikibooth says:

        I’m still blushing from embarrassment for you, Mr. Woodman. I just listened to the debate where you took on experts all by yourself. I cringed at how you couldn’t answer the questions posed but deflected and made accusations you couldn’t back up. I won’t waste any more of my valuable time here but I have one request and you guys can blog away at it but don’t include me.
        BO/BS’s selective service application form is also a proven forgery and a very poor one at that. Try to debunk the findings and since you like to twist number sequences around, explain why BO/BS signed the form a day after it was received at the Makiki (Airport) post office. How do you do that? Huh? Oh, a simple mistake dating the document. Uh, huh, okay, just like Onaka’s misspelled stamp and happy face. Wow mistakes happen all the time – well at least when it comes to BO/BS. Aloha! And I mean that!

        • Scientist says:

          And yet:

          1. The registration form came from SSS while Bush was still in office. Explain how someone snuck a forgery into the files.
          2. Obama was in the database as having registered. Explain that.
          3. Obama got federal student loans which are cross-checked with the registration files. Explain that.

          Once again we have a supposed forgery WITHOUT A MOTIVE. Crimes need motives, miki. Ask any real cop (car salesmen don’t count).

          By the way, the draft registration form came from a BIRTHER who supposedly got it under FOIA. The entire document could be a BIRTHER forgery. That’s right a BIRTHER forgery. SSS has confirmed Obama is registered but has never confirmed tthat form is his.

        • John Woodman says:

          I’m still blushing from embarrassment for you, Mr. Woodman. I just listened to the debate where you took on experts all by yourself. I cringed at how you couldn’t answer the questions posed but deflected and made accusations you couldn’t back up.

          I routinely get comments like this from hard-core birthers such as yourself. You think that because you characterize a debate in a particular way, that’s how it was.

          Funnily enough, they’re always completely short on any specifics.

          I will confess that I’m not as good at focusing on trivialities in an attempt to run out the clock (such as demanding to know why the White House didn’t release an official statement explaining why they posted the birth certificate in PDF format) as Jerome Corsi is.

          I will confess that I’m not remotely as good at making bald-faced KNOWN false assertions — such as his claim that Bennett’s 1955 article specified the order that birth certificates are stamped in — and then sticking to the BALD-FACED LIE no matter how many times I’m called on it as Corsi is.

          We could also note Corsi’s bald-faced lie covered in this very article. Oh, but you don’t mind BALD-FACED LIARS, because they’re saying the lies that you want to hear — and that you want to spread through the public as well.

          What does that make you, Miki?

          I will confess that I’m not anywhere near as good at dismissing months of careful, accurate, professional-quality research by resorting to unprofessional and childish ridicule (“I’ve seen more coherent arguments from the Unabomber”) as Mara Zebest is.

          And I will confess that I’m nowhere near as good at trying to simply shout down someone who disagrees with me as Karl Denninger is. Take, for example, my willingness to let you and other birthers show up and speak freely at this site.

          I won’t waste any more of my valuable time here but I have one request and you guys can blog away at it but don’t include me.

          I was willing and happy to treat you with respect, if you deserved it. Your last post shows that you’re no more worthy of such respect than any of those you hang out with.

          BO/BS’s selective service application form is also a proven forgery and a very poor one at that.

          The major claim I’ve seen has to do with the postmark; that was factually debunked the day after it was made. But since you only read birther blog (aside from showing up here for about one day to make some false assertion before beating a hasty retreat) you may not even be aware of that.

          Try to debunk the findings and since you like to twist number sequences around, explain why BO/BS signed the form a day after it was received at the Makiki (Airport) post office. How do you do that? Huh? Oh, a simple mistake dating the document. Uh, huh, okay, just like Onaka’s misspelled stamp and happy face. Wow mistakes happen all the time – well at least when it comes to BO/BS. Aloha! And I mean that!

          I haven’t looked at the date, but frankly, this allegation rests on the same ground as most of the other birther claims.

          Here’s how it goes.

          1. We want Barack Obama to be ineligible to be President.

          2. Therefore, the method of evaluating evidence is this: Anything we find that might be even a little bit odd is automatically evidence of fraud.

          3. Specifically, we reject the reasonable and rational method of first asking, “what are the possible causes for this?” and then evaluating each cause objectively and picking the most reasonable cause.

          4. Anyone who uses a rational method of evaluating evidence and fails to reach a conclusion that Obama is ineligible, is part of the conspiracy.

          • Steven Feinstein says:

            John, you have described the very basic flaws in birther “logic”. Every birther “investigation” begins with the conclusion and then works backwards in an effort to prove the conclusion. This is classic inductive reasoning. Along with this, every fact or piece of evidence that does not support the conclusion is rejected or deemed to be part of the conspiracy. In some regards it is a beautiful thing to watch in a very twisted way.

        • John Woodman says:

          Oh, and 5: It doesn’t matter how many DOZENS of claims we make are factually debunked or outright disproven. Obama is still ineligible, because we believe he is. And believing makes it so. We feel he’s ineligible. And our feeling makes it so. It’s a good story. We like our tale. Therefore, it’s true, no matter what the actual facts say.

          We are prepared to lay down with proven liars, again and again, because we like their stories. And we are prepared to insult and ill-treat honest people who tell the truth, because we don’t like the truth they have to tell.

          That’s what it is to be a birther.

        • gorefan says:

          Miki.
          “Onaka’s misspelled stamp”
          LOL, obviously you have never seen the AP’s copy of the LFBC. The”TXE” is actually “THE”.

          “BO/BS’s selective service application form is also a proven forgery and a very poor one at that.”

          Ok, try to follow along. Every Selective Service Registration card has a DLN (10-digit number). For President Obama this number is 0897 080 632. Darrel Oniwa who registered at the Makiki Station PO on July 31, 1980 has a DLN of 0897 080 653 and Bruce Henderson who registered at the Makiki Station PO on August 1, 1980 has a DLN of 0897 080 613. So let’s put those in order:

          Date – JUL 29 1980, DLN – 0897 080 632 (Obama)
          Date – JUL 31 1980, DLN – 0897 080 653 (Oniwa)
          Date – AUG 2 1980, DLN – 0897 080 613 (Henderson)

          ======================================

          Along with the DLN each registrant is given a Selective Service Number. President Obama’s is 61-1125539-1 and Bruce Henderson’s is 61-1125522-7.

          ======================================

          On August 12th, 2008 Bob Owen at PJMedia published an e-mail he received from the Selective Service Administration, it reads:

          —————————————————

          Mr. Owens,

          Barack Hussein Obama registered at a post office in Hawaii. The effective registration date was September 4, 1980.

          His registration number is 61-1125539-1.

          Daniel Amon
          Public Affairs Specialist

          http://pjmedia.com/blog/obama-did-obama-actually-register-for-selective-service/2/

          —————————————————

          On November 13th, 2008, Debbie Schussel published a copy of President Obama’s SSR card obtained through a FOIA request in October, 2008.

          ======================================

          So for your theory of forgery to be true, you would have to believe that either:

          A) the Bush Administration forged President Obama’s SSR or
          B) someone, in a Mission Impossible style operation,

          1) obtained a period SSR card,

          2) obtained an obsolete, round Post Office hand stamp from the Honolulu Makiki Station,

          3) obtained a 10-digit DLN that fits in the range of DLN’s issued in 1980 ,

          4) obtained a Selective Service Number that fits in the range of other Selective Service Numbers issued in 1980,

          5) hacked into the SSA computers and inserted President Obama’s info, and

          6) broke into two separate Federal Data repositories and replaced the original microfilm roll and the working copy microfilm roll of the SSR cards.

          But this same group of covert agents could not find or make a 19xx date plug to put into the hand stamp! LOL

          And you wonder why the news media laugh at you.

        • When one looks at the higher-resolution images of the birth certificate, the so-called misspelled word and smiley face are clearly not really there. They are just smudges. The human brain finds faces in the clouds, but do you think they are really there? Conspiracy theorists do.

    • Dr Kenneth Noisewater says:

      Miki I’m sorry but it’s not been proven to be a forgery. The HDOH backs up the content showing that it is exactly the same. HDOH links to the pdf file on their site. Further they verified the information for Bennett. There is nothing in the realm of reality that supports your delusions Miki.

    • John Woodman says:

      By the way, Miki, I asked you a few questions which you have not responded to, so let’s try again:

      Miki, what do you call someone who presents bogus theories to the public 23 times in a row? (More than that, now, but I’m going by the count as of last August).

      Miki, what do you call someone who makes a high-profile public claim that turns out to be false — and there is no way that the person making the claim could have not known it was false?

      Why exactly do you seem prepared to defend liars and frauds?

  7. Magdalene says:

    I downloaded the file from the WH website the first day and deconstructed it in short time. Of course that means nothing, as I don’t have any letters or credentials. What I do have is 21 years of experience in electronic publishing, including 17 years of owning my own graphic arts business, until I retired in 2009. I was a professional graphic artist before the electronic age as well, back into the 70′s. I taught classes for corporate and government marketing and advertising agencies in the use of Illustrator, Photoshop, and software programs that are now long forgotten.
    My opinion as a professional is that the document provided by the WH is fraudulent and frankly if it had been handed to me as a student assignment, I would have flunked the unlucky sod. It was not only fraudulent, it was sloppily so. Had I produced a document like that it would have been undetectable as fraudulent. I can only surmise that it was intended to be easily debunked. No real pro would have produced something like that.

    • John Woodman says:

      What I do have is 21 years of experience in electronic publishing, including 17 years of owning my own graphic arts business, until I retired in 2009. I was a professional graphic artist before the electronic age as well, back into the 70′s.

      What you don’t have is any experience in programming or file optimization, the knowledge that optimization creates the layers and most of the effects seen in the PDF that people have questioned, and an understanding of the book that I wrote and published last year on the matter.

    • Dr. Kenneth Noisewater says:

      Ah yes another phony argument to authority by a supposed “internet graphics expert”. For being an expert all you had to do is look at the meta data and you would see that the file was never brought into any adobe product.

      Okay Mr Photoshop expert create a pdf file that is “undetectable as a fraud”

    • Scientist says:

      And yet the information on the document is 100% correct, Magdalene. Wouldn’t you say that the information is what is important, rather than the font or the appearance? But I would be interested to see what document you can produce, since you claim to be expert. Why don’t you make one and impress us?

    • It sounds like it was so bad a dumb algorithm on a computer or a copier produced it.

    • Magdalene

      If I “deconstruct” what you said it amounts to this:

      “I downloaded the pdf file from Whitehouse.gov”. I opened in Illustrator. It had layers that I cannot explain. I ignored other evidence like the AP jpg and Savannah Guthrie’s photo. I ignore the fact that Hawaii said it is legitimate. I then declared it to be a forgery.”

      • John Woodman says:

        That’s a basic summary of the entire “PDF is a forgery” theory.

        Here’s the basic fallacy: “I can’t explain exactly how the things in the PDF were created, therefore they must have been created by hand.”

        That basic fallacy ignores the fact (and it is a fact) that while there may be some difficulties in explaining all the technical ins and outs of precisely what produced every observed characteristic of the file, it is, practically speaking, IMPOSSIBLE that they were the result of manual human construction.

        It is the equivalent of looking at the Grand Canyon and saying, “I can’t explain exactly how this great canyon got here. Therefore (since I know that human beings dig holes) it is obvious that the Indians dug it.”

        • Thomas Brown says:

          Taking the Birther Syllogism back even further, you could say:

          1) He’s not like us.
          2) We’re good people, therefore he must be a bad person.
          3) Bad people can’t be trusted.
          4) He published the BC.
          5) Therefore the BC must have something wrong with it.
          6) I see (or imagine I see) something wrong with it.
          7) That proves it’s phony.
          8) It also proves he’s a bad person. QED.

          Can’t argue with logic like that. Literally.

      • nbc says:

        There is another photograph of the Xerox copy, this one taken by a Blackberry 8900

        here

        bit unsharp on the lower right corner…

    • nbc says:

      My opinion as a professional is that the document provided by the WH is fraudulent and frankly if it had been handed to me as a student assignment, I would have flunked the unlucky sod. It was not only fraudulent, it was sloppily so.

      So you are not familiar with the effects of optimize on the document and how this will inevitably separate into layers of foreground/background and monochrome text?
      Good thing that you did not flunk the poor sod as he would have sued your ass for your ignorance.

      • Magdalene says:

        Please. I didn’t come here to be insulted, but perhaps to shed some light. A quick perusal of the comments shows that to be a losing proposition. I see a lot of navel-gazing, ad hominem derisions, and attempts to twist nothing into Pythagorean knots. I have one comment left in me, and this is it.
        You think you’ve been able to explain away every anomaly in the so-called birth certificate, and you’ve done that by working backwards and trying to coax out of the file a series of steps that would produce almost every odd little quirk and quark. You cannot show what *was* done, only what *might have been* done. Your attempt to actually obtain the answer has apparently fallen on deaf ears. You cannot prove anything, not one thing, because you don’t know, don’t have access to anyone who does know, and anyone who does know doesn’t care what you think and is content to let you continue your navel-gazing. All you have is speculation, and you won’t admit it.
        You have derided and insulted me nine ways to Sunday without knowing me at all. You make the assumption that because I spent a couple of hours on the matter a year and some ago that I am as consumed with proving one thing about it as you are with proving the opposite. I am not. I have a life. I am not a “birther” and I actually have no opinion as to where Obama was born. I simply don’t know that. For all I know, the *content* is correct, and I would not have a problem with that at all. You assume that I have a dog in this fight; I do not. I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat, but a registered Independent. I’ve never run for office.
        Back to the guts of the document itself. You think you’ve been able to reverse-engineer the thing to show how it could have been created (or scanned) to result in the digital file that now exists. You believe that using a particular compression algorithm you could obtain the layering effect and even the differing resolutions and color schemes. I frankly don’t have the interest or energy to spend that much time on this issue. I don’t know whether in all the concentration on the matter of layers if you also looked at the links. And before you answer that, I’ll just say I’m not going to look, either. I’ve never seen an algorithm that would produce differing ANGLES OF ROTATION. I’ve never seen it addressed anywhere, I’ve never seen any attempt to reproduce it without some manual interference. And I know of no software that would do that without instruction from a human. Therefore, I believe that the PDF file was not a simple scan. Who did it? Why? I don’t know. Don’t really care. For all it matters, it could have been done to create just the atmosphere it has. Americans, brothers and sisters, fighting over what? Not even a scrap of paper. Stupid. Stupid. Sick.

        • Suranis says:

          John addresses the angles of rotation in his book. Its pretty simple. It was probably scanned in landscape format and then it was rotated 90 degrees to portrait. Pretty simple. Would taken .1 seconds.

          Oh and there is a piece of paper. It was shown at the press conferance and the AP got a photocopy. Here is a scan of the photocopy.

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

        • John Woodman says:

          You came on here purporting to be a knowledgeable professional, and you asserted, based on virtually no knowledge at all, that the document is fraudulent:

          “My opinion as a professional is that the document provided by the WH is fraudulent and frankly if it had been handed to me as a student assignment, I would have flunked the unlucky sod. It was not only fraudulent, it was sloppily so.”

          Now you admit:

          “I spent a couple of hours on the matter a year and some ago “

          A couple of hours? And yet you presume to come on here and speak as if you are some kind of authority.

          The response was fairly predictable, and honestly, in my opinion, 100% deserved.

          If you wanted to actually be informed, you could start by carefully reading and understanding the 221-page book that I wrote on the birth certificate and the forgery theories, as a result of more than 3 months, full-time, of carefully investigating it.

          You falsely assert:

          “… you think you’ve been able to explain away every anomaly in the so-called birth certificate, and you’ve done that by working backwards and trying to coax out of the file a series of steps that would produce almost every odd little quirk and quark.”

          If you had done the very basic research of reading and understanding the book that I wrote on the subject, you would understand that I did no such thing. I began by observing what anomalies were present in the document, listing all possible theories that might explain those anomalies — including two theories that involved fraudulent manipulation and one which didn’t — and then carefully examining the evidence to see which theory or theories matched the available evidence, and which did not.

          “I don’t know whether in all the concentration on the matter of layers if you also looked at the links.”

          That’s the problem. You don’t know. And yet you come on here and act as if you think you’re an authority.

          By the way: Yes, I examined the links. Yes, I examined the rotation. And yes, I examined whatever else it is that you’re going to bring up next.

          “Americans, brothers and sisters, fighting over what? Not even a scrap of paper. Stupid. Stupid. Sick.”

          I agree with you. And while I do think the response you got was deserved, I actually apologize if you feel you have been mistreated here.

          I will also note, however, that I have personally been mistreated by birthers on a continuous basis for the past 14 months.

          Do you want to know what I think is sick, Magdalene? I think it is sick that people like those mentioned in this article have perpetrated an enormous fraud on the American public for the past 14 months, and have profited off of false allegations not backed up by the actual evidence. Some of those people are laughing all the way to the bank. They have scammed you, and they’ve scammed a fair percentage of the American public.

          Meanwhile, those of us who tell the truth are subject to people like you, who know literally almost nothing about the matter, insulting us by representing themselves as if they know something about the matter, and claiming that the truth is “wrong.”

          Not that I am entirely blaming you. You jumped to a conclusion that is not justified by the actual evidence. The far greater fault is with those who know what the truth is, but who continue to promote known falsehood.

        • Arthur B. says:

          @Magdalene — “You cannot prove anything, not one thing…”
          __

          You’re missing something very important here. All that needs to be proved is when and where Barack Obama was born, and that has been done with legal certitude.

          I don’t doubt that you can come up with more “anomalies” in the PDF, so that in the window between the time you come up with them and the time someone figures them out you can claim them to be unanswered questions.

          It doesn’t matter. The PDF is legally irrelevant, as the judge in Purpura explained to Mario.

          Remember the original birther claim? The one that said that the COLB is not a real birth certificate, that it wasn’t even sufficient to get a kid into Little League? You don’t hear that said much now, because that lie was easily debunked. So it was replaced by other lies that were similarly debunked, and the dumb charade continues.

          Place your goalposts wherever you like, but the evidentiary game is long over and you birthers have scored a total fail.

        • Scientist says:

          “Therefore, I believe that the PDF file was not a simple scan.” I don’t think anyone here is saying it was “a simple scan”. It’s a complex document with the security paper background. Turning off all optimization might have produced a document that was poorly legible. So, there was likely some optimization employed so that ordinary non-experts could look at it and read the information on it. There is nothing legally, morally or politically wrong with that. If they hadn’t done that and it was hard to read, the birthers would be complaining that it was no good.

          The statement “No one can produce a document like that by scanning” requires proof. Before Sir Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay, one could have said it was impossible to climb Everest and anyone who says they can is a liar. And scanning documents is a lot easier than climbing Everest.

          You should not be insulted by being asked to prove your assertions. In science, Nobel Laureates have to prove their postulates. They can’t simply say, I’m an expert, so I’m right. You shouldn’t object to being held to a standard we would apply to the most world-renowned expert in the field.

        • nbc says:

          You think you’ve been able to explain away every anomaly in the so-called birth certificate, and you’ve done that by working backwards and trying to coax out of the file a series of steps that would produce almost every odd little quirk and quark. You cannot show what *was* done, only what *might have been* done.

          Sure, the same applies to those trying to argue that the document has been altered or is fraudulent.
          What we have done is shown how simple and known compression methods can explain 95% of the mysteries identified by the CCP as evidence of fraud. While the CCP cannot explain these mysteries other than by some vague hand waving, we can explain the observed artifacts.

          That’s the difference between those who want the data to match their preconceived notions and those who are willing to let the research guide them to a conclusion. The latter requires one to look at the effects of simple compression artifacts which explain the separation into monochrome text and a colored background, the so called ‘halo’ effect, the difference in resolution between the background and the bitmaps, the difference in scaling between the two kinds of objects.
          In other words, simple explanations are sufficient to explain much of these mysteries so no appeal to fraud is necessary. Since there is no evidence presented of any fraud beyond a failure to consider these compression artifacts, the conclusion seems rather straightforward.

          Now the burden of proof lies totally in the hands of the accusers and we have shown that they have mostly failed miserably.

          Now there remain some interesting artifacts yet to be fully explained as we do not know what the exact work flow was.
          1. There are two areas of monochrome bitmaps which show blotches but no text.
          2. So far the limited experiments I have been able to conduct fail to show the exact separation into background and monochrome bitmaps. Not having access to the original document certainly complicates matters.

          So far, a conclusion of fraud is in my opinion poorly supported and given that the DOH of Hawaii has more than once verified and certified the data, I’d say that the CCP has failed.

          I have exposed more recent failures on my blog

          See for instance Mara Zebest – More mysteries solved where I address some of her more recent claims and show how trivial explanations, consistent with the described workflow all explain in a coherent and consistent manner the ‘artifacts’.

        • nbc says:

          You believe that using a particular compression algorithm you could obtain the layering effect and even the differing resolutions and color schemes. I frankly don’t have the interest or energy to spend that much time on this issue.

          Wow, such little interest in pursuing the facts when suddenly the facts turn to be against the birthers’ conclusions.
          And you consider yourself not to be a birther but exhibit the same dislike for research that would help understand how the document was ‘created’?

          Shocking.

        • nbc says:

          Please. I didn’t come here to be insulted, but perhaps to shed some light.

          Pointing out your ignorance is hardly an insult, it’s a matter of observation strengthened by your response where you show yourself uninterested in pursuing these matters.
          And yet you would have failed your student?

          Shocking…

  8. Arthur B. says:

    @Magdalene — “if it had been handed to me as a student assignment, I would have flunked the unlucky sod.”
    __

    Certainly, if this were something produced by a student on assignment, I would agree that the person who did it was not only incompetent but also quite insane. There is no reason for someone to go to the trouble it would take to create such a monstrosity.

    That is the absurdity of your unstated premise that it was constructed from scratch by a human. On the other hand, the premise that it was software-optimized from a digital scan is confirmed by all the other data. It is simple, logical, and uncontradicted by any evidence.

  9. gorefan says:

    @Magdalene – “What I do have is 21 years of experience in electronic publishing”

    With all of your experience can you tell if the artifacts seen on the whitehouse pdf could be duplicated with Mixed Raster Content Compression? If not why not?

  10. Scientist says:

    I think the most amazing thing about the birthers is that they have constructed a parallel universe in which there is never any need to provide a rationale for anything.

    In birther universe people forge documents that the official agency stands behind. That would be equivalent to my taking my own legitimate passport and making an exact copy of it myself. Why would I do that? In birther universe I don’t need a reason.

    In birther universe 18 year old girls travel 12,000 miles to under-developed countries to have a baby and then rush back home. Why? In birther universe, there is no need for a reason.

    • Rich D Valle says:

      I have to disagree with you.

      I am not a birther in that I believe if Obama was actually born in Hawaii (American soil) he is indeed eligible to be president of the U.S. regardless of the nationality of his father. I suspect the validity of the BC he produced. I believe the document was photoshopped. Despite Mr. Woodman’s supposed debunking I am not convinced that the BC is not a forgery because the other side makes a more compelling argument in my opinion.

      Everyone knows that Obama has sealed every record that would show his birthplace and citizenship. An honest person doesn’t hide his past and that causes suspicion. For example, The Maui News reported that Obama attended kindergarten at Noelani Elementary School on Oahu during the school year 1966-67. It released a photo of two teachers, Katherine Nakamoto and Aimee Yatsushiro, with five students. The teachers claim one of the children is Barack Obama. (I looked at the picture and there was no resemblance.)

      According to the Hawaii Department of Education, students must submit a birth certificate to register. Parents may bring a passport or student visa if the child is from a foreign country. So far, no records have been released by the school.

      Also, Obama’s application to Punahou School – now mysteriously missing – would likely contain a birth certificate. And, according to attorney Gary Kreep, “his Occidental College records are important as they may show he attended there as a foreign exchange student.” Indeed, Obama used his Indonesian name “Barry Soetoro” while attending Occidental. Kreep has filed lawsuits challenging Obama’s eligibility to be president and as part of his lawsuit he requested Obama’s records from Occidental. However, Obama’s lawyers quickly moved to stop Occidental from honoring this request. Why would they do that if there was nothing to hide?

      As a matter of fact Obama has sealed ALL of his educational and medical records. He has sealed his passport records as well and he will not answer a few simple questions about his travel to Pakistan at age 20.

      I would like to know what passport he used when he shuttled between New York, Jakarta and Karachi? How did a young man who arrived in New York in June 1981, without the price of a hotel room in his pocket, suddenly come up with the price of an around the world trip just a month later?

      Other documents that remain unreleased include: Complete files and schedules of his years as an Illinois state senator from 1997 to 2004; Obama’s client list from during his time in private practice with the Chicago law firm of Davis, Miner, Barnhill and Gallard Illinois State Bar Association records; Baptism records; Obama/Dunham marriage license; Obama/Dunham divorce documents; Soetoro/Dunham marriage license; Adoption records.

      We also know that he and his wife surrendered their lawyer’s licenses. No explanation is available.

      Obama’s paternal grandmother, Sarah Obama, claims to have been present at Baraks birth in Mombasa, Kenya.

      His SSN was issued in Connecticut even though he was never in Connecticut.

      Obama has his finger on a nuclear trigger and serves in the most powerful office in the world yet he is a man of mystery. He shields his true identity. Shouldn’t we be even mildly concerned about his past? If he lies about little things, can we trust him on the big things? While the NBC issue proves Birthers to be a whacko fringe element they also believe in the issues and missing documents I just mentioned. We deserve answers.

      • Jim says:

        Rich D Valle says: “While the NBC issue proves Birthers to be a whacko fringe element they also believe in the issues and missing documents I just mentioned. We deserve answers.”

        Not really. If you don’t like the privacy laws, get them changed. If you don’t like the answers you get from a candidate, vote for someone else. And if you don’t like the answers you do get, but are willing to believe people who have no shame about lying to you like Corsi and WND, you deserved to be ignored.

        • John Woodman says:

          Rich is one of the “I am not a birther” birthers.

        • Rich D Valle says:

          I don’t know that Corsi or WND lied. What they say makes sense to me. I did not vote for Obama because I DIDN’T like the lack of vetting done on him; I wasn’t too tickled with McShame either! I just wish everyone else expressed the same curiousity AND good citizenship instead of just blindly voting for the democrat.

          Privacy laws are like the 5th Amendment. Only judges and lawyers HAVE to believe people who take the 5th! If someone you didn’t like or support took the 5th or hid their past, I’d bet you a Pat’s or Geno’s Philly Cheesesteak that you’d be upset.

          There is no doubt in my mind that if Obama out and out shot someone personally in the back and killed him, he would not lose a single democrat vote. That is how blind liberals are. IMHO.

          • Jim says:

            Rich D Valle says: “Privacy laws are like the 5th Amendment. Only judges and lawyers HAVE to believe people who take the 5th!”

            I see your understanding of the law and the constitution are evenly lacking…none. Why don’t you complain to the Bush administration, since a lot of these laws were passed in the wake of 9/11.

            • Rich D Valle says:

              How do you know that I haven’t? I think EVERY president since Lincoln violated our constitution – Lincoln in the most damaging way.

            • Scientist says:

              So, maybe preserving the Union was more important than the Constitution. Nations have managed without constitutions (Britain to this day still doesn’t have a written one). However, a constitution without a nation is nothing but a piece of paper.

              “The Constitution is not a suicide pact”

          • Suranis says:

            Remind me when you are calling for the release of Romney’s school records, considering he was born the son of a Mexican citizen so he might have been a foreign student, And Romneys Birth certificate was a “Certificate of live Birth” and if you convert it to a PDF and open it in Illustrator it has layers. And how many pictures of Romney growing up have you seen? I happen to know that he spent several years abroad in a socialist country so he could have been indoctrinated. We need to see all the records from everyone he met! Whats his social security number? WHO IS THIS MEXICAN MORMON WHO KNOWS WHAT OTHER RECORDS HE HAS DESTROYED!!!

            See how easy this smearing is? Oh and “McShame” never published his Birth Certificate. In fact he basically told those that asked that if his word wasn’t good enough for them then sod off and don’t vote for him. And everyone accepted that. What a shock.

          • Northland10 says:

            “What they say makes sense to me”

            In other words, they tell you what you want to hear. You want confirmation, not the truth.

          • Steven Feinstein says:

            Those outside of Philly do not know Pat’s or Geno’s well, but Tony Luke’s is better than both of them.

            You show a lack of understanding of the 5th amendment.

        • Suranis says:

          “I’m not a birther, I just believe every single thing Birthers tell me, and its up to Obama to prove them wrong even when he has. Oh and I believe every birther myth even when its been shown to be bullshit, like the grandmother saying she was present when he was born even when the actual recording shows she said no such thing. And unless a 10 year old looks exactly like the Adult version TO ME there’s no resemblance.”

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-clexilAiBE

          That enough pictures for you, Mr Holmes?

      • Scientist says:

        Is Obama the first President you have lived under, Mr Valle? Can you show me the kindergarten records, school applications, passport records, etc. released by the other Presidents? I didn’t think so.

        There is an election coming up, though. You get to vote for the candidate who releases more information. So, let’s review:

        Obama-10 years of tax returns
        -2 birth certificates, both verified by state officials

        Romney-1 year of tax returns
        -1 birth certificate, unverified, marked “VOID”

        Romney had all his records as Governor not just sealed, but deleted. We don’t know when he left Bain.

        The choice is clear. Obama has been far more open than Romney and more open than previous Presidents. Not even close.

        • Rich D Valle says:

          What you just stated is a total lie.

          We certainly know when Romney left Bain; refer to Washington Post and factcheck.org. for the truth. And who cares about that anyway? That whole Obama campaign against Romney/Bain blew up in his own face! Obama is the true outsourcer!

          The e-files Romney supposedly deleted were not to hide anything but a result of a change in computer systems; he obeyed every law and that has been verified. It is illegal to delete government records and Romney did no such thing.

          Romney released 23 years of tax returns to McCain during the VP vetting, just not publicly yet, and if I were him I would hold up on those until Obama comes clean with his sealed records.

          I am certainly not a Romney fan but I won’t lie to defend my position as you apparently have no problem doing. Lies mean nothing to liberals; one has only to look at you, Clinton and Obama.

          Obama did not deny being born in Kenya prior to his decision to run for president. His wife says Kenya is Obama’s home. So were they lying then or now?

          • Jim says:

            Rich D Valle says: “We certainly know when Romney left Bain; refer to Washington Post and factcheck.org. for the truth. ”

            Is that the same factcheck.org that verified the President’s original COLB in 2008 and said that it was clear the President was born in Hawaii?

            • Rich D Valle says:

              What is your obsession with tax returns? Clearly Romney is a one percenter. So what? He’s not trying to hide it.

              He’s proud of his accomplishments. HE GOT THERE ON HIS OWN! He will produce whatever is required of him – unlike your guy!

              Obama, “you didn’t built that” SNAFU obviously pertains to himself. He didn’t buy his Chicago home on his own, that’s for sure! This man is a socialist and a marxist and hates successful Americans, you support him, so I guess that makes you that as well. You call me cattle? I guess that’s better than being pathetic which certainly describes you.

              You can try a comeback insult but I will not participate any further. If you’re a little guy (stature wise) with little man syndrome you’ll have to have the last word so go for it.

            • Scientist says:

              It’s not an obsession. Every candidate for President in the last 40 years has released around a decade’s worth of returns. None have released kindergarten applications or passport files or birth certificates. Traditions and past precedents count.

              The issue is not Romney’s money, but the overseas banking and such. I think if you want to be President of a country, you ought to keep your money there. Dictators like Mobutu and Mubarak had Swiss accounts. Those who want to be President in a democracy ought not to. In my opinion.

            • nbc says:

              What is your obsession with tax returns? Clearly Romney is a one percenter. So what? He’s not trying to hide it.

              So what is he trying to hide. Why are you objecting to full disclosure?

          • Suranis says:

            That’s funny, he published a book in 1995 where he wrote that he was born in Hawaii. Ever read it?

            And his biography in Harvard says he was born in Hawaii.

            What was that about never denying he was born in Kenya?

            And Romney did actually destroy all his government electronic records. See http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2011/11/17/before-leaving-governor-office-mitt-romney-staff-eliminated-mail-records/xIVEQd87zi0X0tl8KrXKYM/story.html

            Etc etc.

            • Rich D Valle says:

              Your etc. etc. left off the final paragraph in that story:

              “A nine-month investigation by Attorney General Martha Coakley’s office concluded, however, that the destruction of the e-mails was not a crime because Kineavy was not willfully attempting to hide the correspondence from the public.”

              It wasn’t even Romney but an aide of his.

              Is there no deeper level of depravity you liberals will not strive?

            • Rich D Valle says:

              ‘That’s funny, he published a book in 1995 where he wrote that he was born in Hawaii. Ever read it?’
              —————————————
              That’s the book he admitted he was a felon, right?

              His literary agency used the jacket blurb that he was born in Kenya from 1991 until April 2007. That goes well beyond fact-checking error.

              Two opposing statements prove the lie of one of them. Now which one is it?

            • Suranis says:

              My etc etc was not leaving off the end of stuff I’ve quoted becasude, as your keen eye would have noticed. I didn’t quote anything from the article. The Etcs were basicly including all the debunking that I would include to all your claims if I could be bothered.

              And who gives a shit if it was illegal? I never said it was. You were screaming that Obama sealed his records, and we simply pointed out that Romney destroyed his. You think his aide did that without Romney ordering him to? In an intervire with the nashua telegraph Romney admitted as much

              ROMNEY: Well, I think in government we should follow the law. And there has never been an administration that has provided to the opposition research team, or to the public, electronic communications. So ours would have been the first.

              http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/primary/nh2012/mitt-romney

              So Romney admitted doing it. So kindly shove your ” level of depravity you liberals” right up your ass. Your candidate is hiding his tax returns and breaking the precedent started by his own father. Deal with it.

            • nbc says:

              His literary agency used the jacket blurb that he was born in Kenya from 1991 until April 2007. That goes well beyond fact-checking error.

              Why? Once on the jacket, who is going to continue to ‘fact check’ it?

              It’s clear that Obama was not born in Kenya and the error is clearly on the part of the ‘editor’ who admitted to such.

              Any other questions?

            • Scientist says:

              I never said Romney’s destruction of records in MA was a crime-I am not competent to decide that. I said the records were destroyed and they were.

            • Suranis says:

              Well you said he “never denied” being born in Kenya till right before the election. Can you explain how in your brain saying flat out that he was born somewhere else is not denying birth in Kenya? Do you need instructions on how to use toilet paper too?

              That promotional Jacket also got the number of years Tipp O’Neal was speaker of the house wrong. It was also not a promotional jacket, it was an internal bio sent around to other publishing houses giving a brief bio of their authors. And the person who wrote it admitted she got it wrong. AND the Harvard BIO that you ignored me mentioning was published 9 months before that and THAT said he was Born in Hawaii. AND his book was published 4 years after that and that said he was born in Hawaii.

              And as for why it was never changed, well thats easy. Its the same reason no-one bothered to correct the error on Tipp O’Neal. No-one bothered to look at it till the election.

              And that Felon crack really shows that you are not a birther and you are totally neutral to President Obama. Yeah the guy smoked dope until he grew up and knuckled down to study. The horror. He also smocked till he ran for president too. CALL THE FBI!!

          • Scientist says:

            By the way, Rich, when you say Obama’s school records are “sealed”, mine are too and yours. You can’t get mine and I can’t get yours. I like it that way.

            • nbc says:

              Perhaps Rich does not understand the concept of privacy laws?

            • Rich D Valle says:

              I like that no one can force me to reveal my school records; although I think law enforcement might be able to because I believe it is a federal offense to claim you possess a college degree if you haven’t earned one. Forged diplomas account for a large number of credentials. BUT, if I was asked to produce records when running for president, I would release any and all records because my life would suddenly become very important to the COUNTRY. Kerry hid his school records for the longest time and we found out why! After all the dumbing down jokes against Bush, turns out Bush had better grades than Kerry!!!!! As for how dumb Obama is, go to youtube and download HIS bloopers. OMG! No wonder he can’t get this country out of the hole the democrat congress dug in 2006!

              In another post you wrote: You accuse liberals of supporting their guy no matter what, yet you cover for Romney who has released NOT A SINGLE ONE of the things you demand from Obama. Not one. Nada. Zip.

              Hypocrite!!!!!
              ———————
              I did not vote for Romney in my state’s primary, nevertheless he is the only choice AGAINST Obama so I’m stuck with him. I’m not going to vote for a 3rd party candidate and end up with Obama by default. I’m sure Romney will do whatever little he can get away with but he is much less a danger to this country than Obama.

            • Scientist says:

              BUT, if I was asked to produce records when running for president, I would release any and all records because my life would suddenly become very important to the COUNTRY”

              Run and prove it. Until then, you are full of bull.

              The fact is you are voting for Romney and he has released FEWER records than Obama. FEWER.

              So Rich D Valle is a total phony who only pretends that record release is important.

            • Suranis says:

              John McCain released no records whatsoever. Ronald Reagan released no records. Carter The Same. George H W Bush released no records. Bill Clinton released no records. W Bush had his grades leaked as He and Kerry got into a pointless pissing match about who had the better grades. But had he asked for his grades to be released he would have been told no.

              Please tell me how these men are somehow less Presidential because they told people who were asking for their records to sod off.

              Mitt Romney graduated Magne Cum Laude From Harvard. That’s the top 3% of his class. By any standards, that’s brilliant. Obama did the same. That’s all we need to know about their grades, that they show they are both extremely smart men. As for the rest it is none of your business.

              Any bets on how long till the sock puppet here brings up Bill Ayers and Minor V Happersett?

        • Rich D Valle says:

          Oh, and Obama released SEVEN tax returns in March 2008, not TEN according to CBS News.

      • A PDF created by Photoshop contains myriad markup from Photoshop. If you look at the analysis Mara Zebest at WorldNetDaily (which contains Photoshop graphics), it is utterly overflowing with Photoshop and other Adobe software markup.

        None of this is in the White House PDF. A competent investigator would know that.

        • Garrett Papit says:

          You are almost right Dr. C. A PDF edited in PS would have metadata that showed that. However, one the file was opened in Mac Preview and resaved, that metadata would be gone and the code would be identical to what you see on the WH PDF. I don’t assume this…I have proved it.

          This begs the question…why was the file saved in Preview? The layers weren’t created by Preview, because it doesn’t have segmentation capabilities, yet the layers are there. Could it be it was refried in Preview to erase the previous metadata? It’s possible, but just a theory.

          The FACT is that the app that generate the final PDF doesn’t create layers, which means an unkown app did before-hand. This means the digital chain of custody of this document is unknowable.

          Have any of you bothered reading the analysis of the guy you are debating? Bad form…lol.

  11. linda says:

    Well done, Mr. Woodman! Glad you delayed retirement for at least another article or two.

  12. Pingback: Oops ... birth certificate now legally documented as fraudulent - Page 14 - Christian Forums

  13. John Woodman says:

    Breaking News: The actual 1961 that Arpaio’s posse claimed to have has now been found. It completely contradicts their story, and makes the proof 100% conclusive that they lied.

  14. John Woodman says:

    Ladies and gentlemen, I am 95% confident that I have just busted the race entries on the “new girl” birth certificate.

    • gorefan says:

      Excellent, another piece to the puzzle.

      • John Woodman says:

        And one which confirms, again, that Arpaio’s posse lied about the Hawaii codes as well as the federal ones.

        • John Woodman says:

          Update and correction: This turned out to be a bit of an overstatement. As noted in my follow-up article — to be rigorous and accurate about the matter — what it shows is that the falsified codes they presented (government codes from 1968, plus 1969 codes taken from a birther internet article) don’t match the Hawaii codes of 1961, either.

          They may well have lied about the Hawaii codes — and given their track record, one can easily conclude that they probably did. But we must wait for more information as to the 1961 Hawaii meaning of “9.”

    • gsgs says:

      ladies and gentlemen is what Denninger usually said in his videos
      makes me a bit suspicious …

  15. nbc says:

    In an article titled Mara Zebest More Mysteries solved I show how simple compression explains the 2 to 1 scaling and why the background has half the resolution of the bitmaps.

    I have a question for John. One of the minor mysteries is how the text ended up in monochrome bitmaps since the pdf’s with layers appear to code them as jpegs. But I may have the answer:

    Assume that the document was scanned in with compact search which separates the picture in bitmaps and background and adds a OCR layer. This explains why the form is partially ignored and only ‘text’ is captured as the separation tries to optimize text segmentation.

    Then the document is treated to optimize ‘inspect document’ and any hidden text, including the OCR text is removed. Inspect document allows you to remove many hidden data and metadata and other tags.

    Finally the document is exported using quartz.

    I believe that this may explain all the remaining mysteries other than the two blocks with blotches and perhaps the rotation of the bitmaps.

    So far I believe that most, if not everything can be trivially explained by MRC and other optimization used when scanning mixed text/pictures and trying to separate the text from the pictures.

    • John Woodman says:

      nbc,

      I doubt that I’m going to wander any further into attempting to identify the precise algorithm and / or programs used. Since you are technically competent, I would invite you to take that on if you wish. You could also invite others such as Kevin Davidson and Frank Arduini to do some research if they have time to do so.

      One angle I was going to pursue but then never did, was to make an inquiry with the White House as to what software and equipment they used. I did actually make a query to Google Books, as so many of their scanned and optimized documents show most of the “suspicious” characteristics of Obama’s PDF. Unfortunately, I never got any answer from them.

      • gsgs says:

        the background can be removed/separated
        by just deleting everything
        below a certain darkness threshold (?)

        • nbc says:

          Adobe has an option to remove the background I believe. Need to experiment further…
          Google, funny you and I got the same idea here. Their scans are bitmapped, I will check to see if they use JBIG2 encoding. Yes, just checked.

          The step where Quartz was used to ‘print/save’ the document recoded JBIG2 into FLATEDECODE, removing the tell tale signs but maintaining the identical characters generated by the JBIG2 lossy compression.

          It also explains the 72 DPI. It explains why the monochrome bitmaps are encoded using flatedecode and not JBIG2. Need to look at this more.

          • John Woodman says:

            I think you might be the person who ends up cracking the actual series of technical steps that produced the file we have.

            Maybe you can write a major paper (well, as major as it gets in the narrow field of Birtherology) on the subject and get it out there.

  16. gsgs says:

    did you see that 3min-Zullo-video before you gave the telefone
    interview to ABC15 ?
    Since you often had mentioned that Bennett article before,
    I first thought (and somehow expected it) that you were referring to it,
    but instead it was the 1961 coding manual.
    (As the reporter had asked)

    • John Woodman says:

      If you’re referring to Zullo’s ABC-15 interview, no. I missed it until a few days later.

      • gsgs says:

        yes. In the link that we had there first was that
        3min Zullo interview and then immediately yours,
        meant as an opposite view or a reply to Zullo.

  17. nbc says:

    I have added additional postings which show Mara’s errors in her conclusion based on figures 5 and 7.
    More to follow, it hardly takes that much time to rebut these findings.

  18. Steven Feinstein says:

    It is now going on four years and birthers have not been able to prove a single solitary claim, but I want to go on record that even if they did, from an eligiblity standpoint, it is meaningless.

    The Constitution was passed and ratified before social security numbers and birth certificates existed. Obviously, you will find not find any mention of them in the Constitution. Therefore, from an eligiblity standpoint, a person is not required to have either a BC or a SS#. This is exactly what the gentleman in Indiana was attempting to tell Orly, but she was unable to grasp the simple concept.

    I can go into chapter and verse about how the pdf is irrelevant because it is not the original, but it simply does not matter from an eligibility standpoint. I have pretty much reached the breaking point on this. You have one alleged lawyer (Orly) who cannot figure out how to serve a party properly but is sure that she will get Obama out of the WH in 30 days (almost 4 years ago) and another alleged lawyer (Apuzzo) who does not think that a natural born citizen is a citizen of the United States. You have teabirthers and wndbaggers who will blindly accept any story that is against the President and preach it as the gospel despite it being shown to be a complete fabrication.

    I swear that I am in an episode of ‘The Twilight Zone”. Everyday I think to myself, it has to be a gag, people just cannot be this stupid and survive and yet every day I see another call for an armed revolution.

    The greatest promise of the United States of America was that it had no ruling class, that with few exceptions, anyone could grow up to be President. And that was a beautiful promise, until someone did and then all hell broke loose.

    • Thomas Brown says:

      I think I see your problem. You expect the rules of logic, order and sense to apply everywhere, even in the inscrutable swamp that lies festering just beyond the borderline between the real world and Birfistan.

      The rules are different there. Sound documentation has no meaning, but unattributed hearsay and preposterous conjecture constitute rock-solid evidence. Criticisms of the President which contradict each other are nonetheless both completely valid… like saying he is too cozy with the Banks and Wall Street, and also is a Communist. Or that he is too aggressive in killing America’s terrorist enemies overseas, and at the same time is guilty of coddling them. Or, after predicting that Obama would confiscate all our guns and put conservatives in concentration camps, arguing that the fact that none of that has happened is actually a diabolical plot to lull America into complacency so he can do it later.

      It’s like having bees live in your head. But my compliments on coining “teabirthers and wndbaggers,” both of which I intend to commandeer. Just remember: plagiarism isn’t a sin, it’s a compliment.

      Wait… What’s that buzzing sound?

  19. nbc says:

    Poor Rich

    As for how dumb Obama is, go to youtube and download HIS bloopers. OMG! No wonder he can’t get this country out of the hole the democrat congress dug in 2006!

    Rich is hiding his ignorance when he insisted that Obama was hiding his school records. Oh the foolishness. When confronted with the facts, he redirects. His hatred and ignorance know no bounds.

  20. Pingback: An Open Letter and Challenge to Jerome Corsi and Mike Zullo – Show the Code Manual « RC Radio Blog

  21. linda says:

    All by Mr. Rich:

    “Oh, and Obama released SEVEN tax returns in March 2008, not TEN according to CBS News.”

    “Romney released 23 years of tax returns to McCain during the VP vetting, just not publicly yet, and if I were him I would hold up on those until Obama comes clean with his sealed records.”

    “You say: “And since he’s been President, he’s released 3 more [years of tax returns]…making a total of 10. I see facts aren’t your strong suit there Rich.” SOURCE Please?”

    “What is your obsession with tax returns?”

    I think that last one was his sweet little way of conceding that he was wrong. Cute.

  22. Garrett Papit says:

    John,

    With all due respect, you don’t seem to fully understand how segmentation works within PDF compression routines. You claim that optimization can explain many, if not all of the anomalies. In theory, I agree with that statement. The problem is that you fail to understand that optimization never creates more than 1 1-bit layer with text on it. The WH PDF has many 1-bit text layers. The extra layers include things like the registrar date stamp and signature stamp, the local registrar date stamp and the registrar general’s date stamp.

    The fact is, until you provide even one example of optimization creating multiple 1-bit image mask layers, your hypothesis is untenable.

    And it isn’t just an issue of using the right combination of settings. The fact is that both Adaptive compression and MRC compression only create a single 1-bit image mask layer. Therefore it is not possible that these processes created the layers on the WH PDF. The WH PDF defies the characteristics of an optimized file.

    Further, Adobe Acrobat can be ruled out offhand. The WH PDF was certainly not optimized using that application. If it were, the single 1-bit layer would contain text that was monochrome black. As it is, the WH PDF has text that has RGB color values that fall within the range of dark green. This is iron-clad proof that Adobe Acrobat did NOT generate this file.

    • Suranis says:

      Listen Birther, in the first press conference Zullo was forced to admit that Optimization does create monochrome layers like John said it does, but that the BC “had too few” to be crated from optomisation. So you therefore prove you haven’t even seen the sodding press conferance.

      And for the 10 Millionth time, adobe acrobat was NOT used to create the PDF and no-one ever claimed it was accept bithers. No Photoshop was not used either. I told Joe Farah that myself, And told him what program WAS used, and its a pity that he never passed that information down to his serfs like you at WND.

      Since you have therefore proven by these 2 statements that you haven’t read a word of Johns analysis, may I suggest you actually read what John had to say before making a fool of yourself.

      • Garrett Papit says:

        You are mistaken:

        1) Zullo never said anything about optimization creating “monochrome” layers. He admitted, rightly..as I have, that optimization CAN create multiple layers. He said nothing about multiple monochrome layers.
        2) When he said the BC had too few layers for optmization he was referring to the number of 8-bit, non-monochrome, layers that one would expect to see with the standard settings. With Acrobat’s default settings you will get anywhere from 20 to 40 8-bit full color layers. The fact that you don’t understand the difference between 1-bit and 8-bit layers doesn’t make Zullo’s statement false.
        3) You are correct that the final file was created by Mac Preview. I guess you haven’t bothered reading my report. The problem is that Preview does NOT create layers with it’s very primitive compression routine. So where did they come from? Obviously from another application.
        4) Speaking of not passing on info…maybe you should tell Woodman which app created the file. His optimization experiments used Acrobat.

        • Suranis says:

          Actually you are wrong. It was not created with Mac Preview. It was created with Mac OSX 10.6.7.Quartz PDFContext. Ding we have a LOOOSER!

        • nbc says:

          You are correct that the final file was created by Mac Preview. I guess you haven’t bothered reading my report. The problem is that Preview does NOT create layers with it’s very primitive compression routine

          Preview however maintains layers created by previous applications but it does reformat them into a preview signature. This is trivial to show.

          Preview itself is definitely not the creator of MRC compression, and neither is Adobe. But one has to remember that network printers come with their own advanced, embedded software to do a variety of scanning workflows and that most desktop scanners come with a variety of software, sometimes embedded as OEM software, other times a stripped version of the full scanning suite.
          Let’s imagine a reasonable workflow in a legal environment.

          The lawyer is well aware that scanning can result in tell tale signs as metadata is added about the workflow and OCR data could be included. When such documents are sent out, it makes sense to delete such information, including the hidden text OCR layer.
          Using preview as the final exporter, guarantees that the document structure will be reshuffled to hide any information about previous software.
          A nice cloaking exercise and most scanning software allows for workflow settings that handle all this.

          So what if OCR was in fact used and the hidden layer was subsequently removed? What differences would this make on the experiments? Have these experiments been run? With what parameter settings?

          So many variables and so few experiments… It will be an uphill battle in any court setting I believe, to make a compelling case, especially given that all this focuses on a highly compressed PDF document.

      • Garrett Papit says:

        Why did Woodman use Acrobat to prove that optimization can create layers? Simple…because the app that created the WH PDF, Mac Preview, is not capable of doing it. Now tell me…who is being misleading here? John Woodman.

        BTW, I read Woodman’s entire book. He makes some decent points, but mot of his explanations rely on optimization to account for the anamolies. But he has yet to demonstrate how optimization can result in multiple 1-bit layers. There should be multiple 8-bit layers on an optimized file…so that is not the problem.

    • No one argues that Adobe Acrobat made the White House PDF. There’s no Adobe Markup in it. Adobe Illustrator, nor Adobe Photoshop made it either for the same reason. However Acrobat does create multiple one-bit layers and if it does, there’s no justification for saying that such things never happen.

  23. Garrett Papit says:

    1) The main SSS office is in Chicago….you do the math.
    2) See #1 – Except computer records could be changed from anywhere..meaning even less of a problem for us than #1.
    3) If you aren’t a citizen you aren’t required to register for Selective Service, yet you can still receive federal loans.

    http://studentaid.ed.gov/eligibility/non-us-citizens

    • Scientist says:

      Non-citizens living in the US are required to register for the draft, just like citizens. http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/defenseandsecurity/a/draftreg.htm

      So sorry pal. All those non-citizens eligible for student aid would be cross-checked with the registration database, just like citizens.

      Your idea that both the paper records and computer databases were broken into under Bush and no one noticed is absurd. As are you.

    • Steven Feinstein says:

      3 questions, Garret:

      1) Why did you run away like a coward from WND after it was shown that Zullo lied about the 1961 code?

      2) Do you think it is appropriate for the CCP to hire you to part of the alleged investigation when you are an avowed believer in the phony deVattel theory of NBC?

      3) Even if you were not lying about your investigation into the pdf, what difference would it make as the pdf is not the original document?

    • justlw says:

      1) The main SSS office is in Chicago….you do the math.

      Seriously: what the hell?

      Statements like this completely undermine any shred of credibility you may want to have. How does a place being “in Chicago” have anything to do with the price of eggs? Are you saying that a federal government agency “in Chicago” is somehow more vulnerable than one in, say, Boulder, Colorado? Why do you say that?

      That sure sounds like you’re predisposed to a very particular outcome.

      You have no reason to think that his SSS registration is bogus other than you seem to be predisposed to want it to be.

      The scenario the CCP offers for the forgery is ludicrous. It makes me smile every time I think of it. And it is backed by? “Hey, Chicago. You know.” Which undermines any semblance of impartiality or scientific credibility for your case.

      There is not one shred of proof that his social security number or selective service registration are bogus, nor is there any scenario you can offer that is plausible. It makes you look bad. You should seriously consider why you would want to look this bad.

      • CarlOrcas says:

        justlw: How does a place being “in Chicago” have anything to do with the price of eggs? Are you saying that a federal government agency “in Chicago” is somehow more vulnerable than one in, say, Boulder, Colorado? Why do you say that?

        Chicago = Obama. Obama = bad. Get it now?

        • Garrett Papit says:

          When the person in question has power in the very city that one would have to get the documents submitted, that is interesting to note. I didn’t say it proves anything…lol. Why are you guys obsessed with the SSN? ;)

          • justlw says:


            When the person in question has power in the very city that one would have to get the documents submitted

            .

            He was a US Senator for Illinois at the time. What “power” does a US Senator for Illinois have over a regional data processing center? What, specifically, would a US Senator for Illinois do to get an appropriate 1980 document and 1980 Selective Service registration number? Be specific.


            I didn’t say it proves anything

            *facepalm* So, you’re just admitting you’re dinking around and should never be taken seriously. The problem is, you wrote a 30 page document that pretends like it should be taken seriously. Are you apologizing and retracting your document? Because that would be nice.

            I’ll assume the answer to that is “yes.”


            Why are you guys obsessed with the SSN?

            That was random.

            • Garrett Papit says:

              Your points make no sense. Someone asked how the SS reg could be filed. I’m suggesting he could have greased some palms in his home city. Not out of the realm of possibility. I’ve never said it proves anything.

              And that wasn’t random. I’m trying to discuss the digital PDF, you guys keep bringing up the SSN. I’m curious why?

            • Scientist says:

              Romney was governor of Massachusetts and the IRS office for the Northeast is in Andover, MA. So I guess he cheated on his taxes, right?

              How? Do I have to spell it out? He bribed the IRS agents perhaps?

              Do you see how stupid you are Garrett?

          • Orly Taitz is obsessed with the SSN, not me.

          • nbc says:

            Why are you guys obsessed with the SSN?

            For the same reason people are obsessed with analyzing a highly compress PDF while ignoring the original copies.

            Have you looked at Guthrie’s photograph? Have you looked at the higher resolution AP document? Nope, just the highly compressed PDF which shows artifacts you believe are evidence of forgery but which also can be explained, much better, by workflow and algorithms.

    • nbc says:

      You are really intent of not allowing any evidence to contradict your beliefs. Am I close?

  24. Garrett Papit says:

    I completely agree with the feeling of being in the Twilight Zone, but it is due to the equivocation provided by your side. Nobody claimed you have to have a SSN or BC to be eligible. But you do, at a minimum, have to be born in the US. And how would one go about proving that? With a BC. And if someone was proven to have a fraudulent SSN it would raise questions about other documentation and would also raise questions about the ethical standards of such a person. To most voters, a fradulent SSN would make someone a no-go in terms of their vote.

    • Scientist says:

      And what is the proof that the President’s SSN is “fraudulent”?

      Don’t give me nonsense databases. The only ones who can say that an SSN is fraudulent is the SSA. Come back when they say something.

      • Garrett Papit says:

        Lol…I’ve never said there is PROOF that the SSN is fraudulent. However, it is suspicious given the fact that it was issued from CT while he was attending High School in HI. Without access from the SSA, there is no way to PROVE it.

        But yet serious questions remain.

    • Scientist says:

      What is Mitt Romney’s SSN? Why do you not care about his? Biased much???

    • Have you ever been the victim of a clerical error in your life? I suspect everybody has. My father’s name is misspelled on my state birth certificate. My mother’s name is misspelled on my hospital souvenir birth certificate. The bank once changed my address in their database by mistake because someone with a similar name moved. My name has been misspelled more times than I can count.

      That’s normal. Birthers, however, find any nit out of place with Obama and say it’s “suspicious” and warrants investigation and calls into question everything else. That’s just crazy. Anomalies in paperwork are NORMAL.

      • Garrett Papit says:

        Dr. C. – Clerical errors are fine.

        There is no clerical error involved in multiple 1-bit layers though. This is not the product of optimization, despite your ill-informed opinion that you have done such yourself. Please, send me the file and I’ll create a video explaining to you where you are mistaken.

        • I may actually be mistaken on this point. It was a year ago that I did the scans and noticed that separate regions of the document were separate layers — however, there may have only been 1 one-bit layer.

          Now, will you admit that you were wrong about the halos?

          So the Cold Case Posse said you tried about every PDF generator out there for Mac and PC. Did you actually try a Xerox Document Centre with MRC compression? Did you try OmniPage 16? PaperPort Professional 11?

          • nbc says:

            So far I have not been able to generate more than a single monochrome layer with the software I have available but a researcher understands that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, especially since MRC comes in so many shapes and forms.
            There are solutions which generate only two layers and the bitmaps are in rectangles (there is an interesting HP patent on this concept). There are approaches which break down the document in stripes and apply MRC to these stripes. There are instance where text segmentation preceeds, especially when OCR is likely to be part of the workflow.
            Remember that Adobe is a relative latecomer to MRC compression and the Adobe PDF format for some time did not allow more than two compression layers.

            The argument: My limited experiments have failed to show how software did do this, is of little scientific value, unless one can show that one has searched a significant part of the parameter space. 600 hardly gets close to that.

            The simpler argument is straightforward:

            Feature x can be explained by an algorithm or by forgery. In order to show that it was a forger, you have to eliminate, with some relevance that an algorithm could not have generated the feature with a higher probability than a forger.

            Since Papit accepts that we do know little about the forger AND the workflow, conclusions of a forgery appear to be highly premature. Especially when taking into consideration the higher DPI document and the Guthrie photograph.

            The preponderance of evidence does not support a forgery, especially under the rules of evidence in the court.

            But I am not even sure that the CCP wants this to be resolved in the court, or they would certainly have responded in a positive manner to the subpoenas?

  25. Garrett Papit says:

    John,

    How convenient that you aren’t going to “wander any further into attempting to identify the precise algorithm and / or programs used”. I guess the scientific method doesn’t matter. You can’t just propose something, you have to prove it..within a reasonable doubt…via experimentation.

    You don’t have to find the precise algorithm or even replicate the anamolies exactly, you simply need to provide 1 single solitary example of optimization creating multiple 1-bit image mask layers.

    On the other side, I have proven..within a reasonable doubt…that segmentation functions utilized by optimization applications don’t behave this way. In addition, our side has shown that they can be created manually in Photoshop/Illustrator, refried in Preview and end up with the exact same code, file size and layer attributes of the WH PDF.

    I’m sorry, but you have to demonstrate the validity of your argument. Lobbing out theories is not enough.

    • Where could one go to obtain detailed records of your “experiment” sufficient for a third party to reproduce your claims?

    • nbc says:

      You don’t have to find the precise algorithm or even replicate the anamolies exactly, you simply need to provide 1 single solitary example of optimization creating multiple 1-bit image mask layers.

      But my friend. You have to show that there is a better explanation than simple algorithms and so far you have failed to do so. You have confused absence of evidence as evidence of absence while you cannot explain a forgery explanation.

      Look all, or virtually all aspects can be explained by workflow, optimization etc. If your argument is that we have not shown how it could have happened then you have already admitted defeat as there is the undoubtable certification and verification by the DOH.
      So all you have is ‘we don’t know’

      Ignorance. Am I right?
      A while ago it was speculated that the CCP had a suspect but I guess that was also overreaching?

    • nbc says:

      I guess the scientific method doesn’t matter.

      That’s fascinating. Do you understand how the scientific method should work here? Do you really believe that doing a few ‘experiments’ which do not even cover a miniscule fraction of parameter space will resolve the matter of forgery?

      First of all forgery requires evidence that makes the explanation of a forger more likely than the explanation of algorithmic or workflow.
      In order to reject the forger explanation, it is sufficient to show that an algorithm especially one commonly used, can explain the indicators?

      For instance the halo, a common artifact of MRC compression. Check…
      Different scaling for background and bitmap (2 to 1) explained by optimize workflow … check…
      And so on. Of course, anything could be explained by a forger the question is however not just: could a forger have done this but given the probable or possible workflows and algorithms, can an algorithmic/workflow explanation be rejected with sufficient probability.

      So far, there appears to be little that raises to this standard. Perhaps you have a specific example in mind?
      A scientific approach would realize that if one has at least 20 software packages and versions that 600 samples does not amount to much of the parameter space.

      Did you even include OCR workflow? You claim that OCR has been ruled out but that is based on the absence of the hidden text layer, something which could have been removed in the final cleanup workflow as found in lawyer offices?

      See how poorly prepared you are when you make such presumptions too soon?

    • Frank Arduini says:

      Frankly, Garrett, you have proven only a single incontrovertible fact.

      You are not personally competent to recreate the PDF.

      All else is commentary.

  26. Garrett Papit says:

    What does “under Bush” have to do with anything? You make it seem like the republicans were sitting at the SSA office waiting to prevent some dem with POTUS aspirations from sneaking something in. Who is espousing crazy theories now?

    • Scientist says:

      You make iit sound like break-ins at government offices and tampering with the files and no one noticing is an everyday occurrence.

      Romney dodged the draft. Obama registered., but there wan’t even a draft by that point. Which one is the good guy?

    • justlw says:

      Help me out here. We have the Selective Service System Data Management Center (not their headquarters) in Palatine, Illinois. (Not “Chicago,” but sure, I’ll give it to you: it’s within driving distance! Because that’s important!)

      So, a “dem with POTUS aspirations” hops in his car to Palatine, with his handcrafted artisanal forged registration card. He walks in, and because, you know, Chicago, he is able to root around and obtain a document identification number appropriate for 1980, and a registration number appropriate for 1980, because these are things you can do if you’re from Chicago.

      He then puts them on his handcrafted artisanal forged registration card, and “sneaks” the completed card into the computer system.

      Is that about right? Do you have anything to add to your theory, or do you feel your work is complete?

  27. Garrett Papit says:

    Who does NOT have to register for draft?

    “: nonimmigrant aliens in the U.S. on student, visitor, tourist, or diplomatic visas;”

    There seems to be overlap that would allow someone to be eligible for Federal student loans but not be required to register.

    • Scientist says:

      Those in the US on student, visitor, tourist or diplomatic visasa are not eligible for federal student aid. The only non-citizens who are are permanent residents and refugees. And they have to register for the draft (if male). Maybe you are thinking Obama is female?

      • nbc says:

        Pappit is not very consistent in his attempts to apply logic and reason. Everything has to be interpreted in light of his beliefs.

        Poor guy

        • Steven Feinstein says:

          nbc, all birthers do that, they come up with a conclusion and then work backwards, you see this very strongly with Garrett.

  28. Garrett Papit says:

    Steven,

    You say that we start from a conclusion and work backwards, however I have never been fully convinced that Obama was born outside the US. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn’t.

    Based on your statement of starting point bias, however, are you willing to admit the possiblity that he was born outside the US, or do you start with your own presuppostion as well?

    • Steven Feinstein says:

      I start with the understanding that the bc was certified by Hawaii and is entitled to full faith and credit under the Constitution. And while I acknowledge that a certified document can only swear to the validity of the copy and not its contents, I also realize that, as a country we must accept certain things at face value or run the risk of destroying the Country, something birthers do not care about.

    • nbc says:

      Based on your statement of starting point bias, however, are you willing to admit the possiblity that he was born outside the US, or do you start with your own presuppostion as well?

      Sure, anything is possible but given the facts it is very improbable. The DOH has certified his birth, provided a document signed by a physician in a hospital, a few days after his birth.
      So all prima facie evidence puts to rest any reasonable doubts.

      But are you willing to admit the real possibility that President Obama was in fact born on US soil as all the facts support?

      Your words so far suggest to me that you’d rather believe in a myth that the facts.

  29. linda says:

    Enlighten me. Since Hawaii has verified the info contained in the WH pdf BC, what do layers or any of that have to do with Obama’s eligibility?

  30. Garrett Papit says:

    I’m not defending Romney. And you know as well as I do that many politicians are not so upstanding. I’m not saying it’s an everyday occurence that something like this happens, but it certainly isn’t out of the realm of possiblity.

    • Scientist says:

      That something is possible is irrelevant. You have to prove it happened. Prove that someone broke into the paper and computer records and no one noticed. Go on….

      Meanwhile Romney was a draft dodger, And Cheney. There wasn’t even a draft in 1980, so frankly, who cares?

  31. Garrett Papit says:

    I guess you didn’t absorb the info from the CCP press conference. If Obama initially was registered as a home birth, yet was born overseas (just a hypothetical), HI law would allow them to ammend the BC at a later date via affidavit. None of the claims via affidavit were checked for veracity.

    This would result in a BC that matches the info released by the WH, but wouldn’t be enforceable in terms of legal proof.

    Now, add to this the fact that the extra layers contain most of the state verification stamps…and you have a very suspicious set of circumstances. If you are being objective anyway.

    • Scientist says:

      There was no information to absorb at the CCP press conference. Zero.

      • Steven Feinstein says:

        There was never an investigation by the CCP, period.

        • CarlOrcas says:

          Very true. That’s because there are no “investigators” on the posse.

          • Steven Feinstein says:

            They only used birther “experts’. Pastor Gallo quoted Zullo as saying that the Posse had come to the conclusion that the lfbc (when it really meant the pdf version of the lfbc) was forged within half an hour of looking at it). That meant that they spent the next six months trying to prove that conclusion.

    • linda says:

      Oops! Meant to reply to you.

      Enlighten me. Since Hawaii has verified the info contained in the WH pdf BC, what do layers or any of that have to do with Obama’s eligibility?

      Enlighten me. Since Hawaii has verified the info contained in the WH pdf BC, what do layers or any of that have to do with Obama’s eligibility?

      • Obviously, Mr. Papit believes in a conspiracy of vast scope, stretching from 1961 and false HEALTH BUREAU STATISTICS in the newspapers to lies from two Hawaii administrations and the state Attorney General’s office. It encompasses a break in to a secure federal data system and insertion of images on agency microfilm reels. Like all true conspiracy theorists, he sees the object of his fantasies limitless in his resources and able to fool any real expert, but also so totally inept at the same time so that any blogger can see through it.

        The pity is that he hasn’t a clue how insane this all is.

        • linda says:

          Yes, the ability they attribute to Obama, to vacillate from omniscient to incompetent, almost simultaneously, is astounding.

    • First I do not recognize you as an authority on Hawaiian vital statistics practice from 1961. You are making stuff up when you say: “None of the claims via affidavit were checked for veracity.” I have no use for people who make stuff up for their own convenience.

    • nbc says:

      I guess you didn’t absorb the info from the CCP press conference. If Obama initially was registered as a home birth, yet was born overseas (just a hypothetical), HI law would allow them to ammend the BC at a later date via affidavit. None of the claims via affidavit were checked for veracity.

      That is not correct according to HI law. But since we know that it was not registered as a home birth but rather a birth at a hospital, it is safe to accept your hypothetical as nothing but wishful thinking.

      What about Kapiolani hospital as certified by the attending physician do you not understand?

      Show us how this would have happened? Again your competing ‘hypothesis’ has no chance when compared to the simple and obvious facts.

  32. linda says:

    Not really. Obama’s birth certificate shows that he was born in a HI hospital and the doctor signed it.

  33. Garrett Papit says:

    1) Romney’s SSN was issued from the state he lived in at the time.
    2) My focus is NOT on Obama’s SSN as I am a computer systems analyst. I was brought in simply to give my opinion on the digital file released on WH website.

    • Scientist says:

      Excuse me, has Romney’s SSN been made public? How do you know where or when it was issued? What is his #?

    • nbc says:

      2) My focus is NOT on Obama’s SSN as I am a computer systems analyst. I was brought in simply to give my opinion on the digital file released on WH website.

      Which you claim shows evidence of possible manipulation but you cannot really rule out algorithmic manipulation and lack a forgery explanation.

      I see, so in other words you have nothing to contribute as to the factual evidence on President Obama’s long birth form other than that his highly compressed PDF shows what you belief to be evidence of manipulation?

      Thought as much, and yet you want us to believe that therefor the signature of the Doctor must have been forged?

      You are way in over your head my friend. How does it feel to be manipulated?

  34. Scientist says:

    I always like how whenever you mention Romney, the birthers say they hate him too and all politicians are crooks anyway. If that’s true, then everyone should just vote for the crook they like better and be done. Why have the birthers wasted 4 years agitating to get rid of Obama to replace him with another crook?

  35. Steven Feinstein says:

    Garrett, I am still waiting to see the documents you warned me about. Ready to apologize yet?

  36. Garrett Papit says:

    Steven,

    My name has two ‘t’s.

    1) I did no such thing and am not convinced yet that your info is correct. I have a real job and have been busy with that.
    2) Nobody “hired” me. I haven’t been paid a dime. I have technical qualifications that allow me to examine the BC. To be honest, I was prepared to disprove the CCP claims if that is where the facts led me. My belief in a legal theory is neither worthy of ridicule nor exclusionary in terms of my technical analysis. But ridicule is what you do best.
    3) I am not lying. I’ve put it out there for the world to disprove if you think so. And you are merely assuming that it isn’t the original. I don’t start with assumptions. But if it were not the original, does the fact that it shows signs of manipulation not still matter?

    • Scientist says:

      You say you aren’t lying, and yet you say you know where and when Romney’s SSN was issued. How did you get that information? Or were you lying?

    • Steven Feinstein says:

      1-who gives a crap how many t’s are in your name? And you do not get to decide whether the lied, that is a proven fact. Way to duck the question and yes you did run away.

      2-I don’t believe you for a second and even if you are telling thye truth you had no business being involved given your bias.

      3. A pdf can never be an original if it was scanned in and the fact the fact that you do get that sheds a lot of light on your intellect. And I have no doubt that you lied.

  37. Garrett Papit says:

    Lol…have patience Steven. And why would I need to apologize? I don’t have firsthand knowledge of anything in the investigation other than my personal role.

    • Steven Feinstein says:

      You said that in the next few days you would have proof of the manuals. You lied too. You owe the Country an apology and I have no patience for birthers.

    • CarlOrcas says:

      Garrett Papit says: “I don’t have firsthand knowledge of anything in the investigation other than my personal role.”

      What was your “personal role” in the “investigation”? Are you a member of the “Cold Case Posse”? How are you affiliated with the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office?

  38. Garrett Papit says:

    Those who qualify for Federal aid:

    2. You have an Arrival-Departure Record (I-94) from U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services (USCIS) showing

    “Refugee,”
    “Asylum Granted,”
    “Cuban-Haitian Entrant (Status Pending),”
    “Conditional Entrant” (valid only if issued before April 1, 1980), or
    “Parolee” (you must be paroled for at least one year, and you must be able to provide evidence from the USCIS that you are not in the United States for a temporary purpose and that you intend to become a U.S. citizen or permanent resident).

    Are you totally convinced that all of those would classes would require SS registration?

    • linda says:

      Which category do you think Obama is? Other than US citizen, of course.

    • Scientist says:

      Yes, they would if they were of the correct age and gender.

      Anyway, the President is not in any of those categories. He is a US citizen, he got student loans and so he registered. Why is that so hard to believe? It isn’t like filling out a card was so difficult.

  39. Garrett Papit says:

    If you are so adept at research, perhaps you can tell me? I am not against Romney being scrutinized in the same manner as Obama. Where is the harm?

    • linda says:

      Nope. You said his SSN was issued in the from the state he lived in at the time. How do you know?

    • So you are saying that it’s OK by you if people make up fake birth certificates for Romney? OK to post his social-security number on the Internet? OK to call him a fraud over every typo he or anybody else ever made about him? OK for his political opponents under the color of law enforcement to publish fabricated evidence in the form of fake federal vital statistics manuals?

      The question is not the scrutiny, but the integrity of the scrutiny and the integrity of reporting its results. This is where the birthers ally themselves with the forces of evil.

  40. Garrett Papit says:

    It’s really simple folks. An optimized PDF only has 1 1-bit image mask layer. The fact that Obama’s has multiple is evidence of manipulation. Is it possible that it was done as some sick joke, despite the serious issues to focus on? Sure. But until someone demonstrates how optimization can create multiple 1-bit layers..some with very logical separation in terms of content (ie. state reg sig and date stamps)…it can’t be depended on as the holy grail to explain the layers.

    • Steven Feinstein says:

      As long as Hawaii stands behind the lfbc, you are sol.

    • Mr. Papit, you obviously don’t have a clue what you are talking about.

      First, I scanned my own birth certificate with Adobe Acrobat, selected “Optimize scanned PDF” and I got multiple 1-bit layers. So that alone tells me you’re utterly clueless and the claims of all your “experiments” are worthless.

      The Adobe manual says: “Adaptive Divides each page into black-and-white, grayscale, and color regions and chooses a representation that preserves appearance while highly compressing each type of content. The recommended scanning resolutions are 300 dots per inch (dpi) for grayscale and RGB input, or 600 dpi for black-and-white input.”

      Note the word “regions.” This is exactly what I saw in the scan of my own birth certificate.

      You say: “But until someone demonstrates how optimization can create multiple 1-bit layers..some with very logical separation in terms of content.”

      What you see on the Obama PDF is things that are absolutely bizarre in terms of organization, like a signature broken in the middle, and single letters from words on different layers. Perhaps you should explain why any HUMAN would do such a thing. As for your crazy idea that logical organization (such as there is) is strange, I should point out the obvious — that those areas are physically together and surrounded by the background only. DUH.

      Your objections are nothing but a transparent fraud.

    • justlw says:

      According to the folks at Xerox who created MRC (see Mixed Raster Content (MRC) Model for Compound Image Compression 1999, de Queiroz, Robert Buckley and Ming Xu):

      The extended MRC model, then, allows for several planes while relying on foreground-mask pairs.

      That’s multiple pairs of foregrounds and masks. There is nothing in that description that precludes multiple 1-bit layers, other than your flat-out saying this must be so.

      Something else I’m curious about: On page 23 of your report where you dismiss halos as being impossible, the MRC-based example does not use a safety paper background. This is the only place in your report where you don’t use safety paper. Why is this?

      • Papit displays his complete ignorance of MRC compression when he says that “The presence of a white halo around the text, and white space beneath the text, on the White House file is inconsistent with optimization or a simple scan. Under normal circumstances, a scanned document will not result in an image that has a white halo around the lettering”

        Now this is what a scholarly paper on MRC compression says:

        MRC uses a binary selector plane (mask) and therefore is suitable to represent text and graphics with sharp edges. In this way, the imaged text has about the same shape and size as that in the mask plane. When the image is scanned, the edges of text and graphics are not as sharp and we refer to them as soft edges.” Since, the selector plane is binary and the edge transitions are gradual, it is not possible to contain all the background in one plane and all the foreground in another. An illustration is shown in Fig. 3, where a soft edge is depicted in Fig. 3(a) along with the sharp corresponding mask (in dotted lines). The mask determines what is BG or FG. Note that the transition is included in both planes. If, in the BG plane, we replace the parts corresponding to FG with the average of the BG plane for increased compression [10], we would not end up with a
        at line, but with a spike as shown in Fig. 3(b). Same thing occurs with the FG plane in Fig. 3(c).

        The effect in images is that of a halo around the text as illustrated in Fig. 4. In this figure, it is shown zoomed portions of the original scanned image, its corresponding mask, and the associated FG and BG planes. Note the halo around the text in the FG/BG planes. This effect is very damaging to compression. Furthermore, since it occurs inside the
        “useful” region, we cannot do much in this regard using only data filling techniques.

        The halo can be more pronounced in the BG or FG plane depending on how the mask was found. For example, one might want to include the whole letters in the foreground. In this case, the FG plane will contain a strong halo but none would be present in the BG plane.

        Garret is a fraud.

        • justlw says:

          Yep. So my suspicion would be that if his example on page 23 did use safety paper, it would not show what he wanted it to show.

          Because he used a solid color paper for this example, the MRC software he used does something that some birthers have (incorrectly) claimed happens in the WH PDF: you can “see” the background underneath where the date stamp was!

          I assumed — and one of the papers he referenced supports this idea — that what happened is the software did the filling so that it could then compress the entire region as a solid image.

          My further assumption is that if the background had instead not been a solid color, such as, say, safety paper, the software would not have been able to do this and would instead have left a halo, as the paper you quote describes. Which would seriously blow his narrative.

          But we don’t know for sure, because it would seem he has fudged his paper.

        • nbc says:

          Papit displays his complete ignorance of MRC compression when he says that “The presence of a white halo around the text, and white space beneath the text, on the White House file is inconsistent with optimization or a simple scan.

          That is correct. Halo effect is a known side effect of MRC compression as I have documented at my site.

          If Pappit really said this then he is totally ignorant.

    • nbc says:

      It’s really simple folks. An optimized PDF only has 1 1-bit image mask layer.

      As far as you can tell but MRC compression does not preclude multiple 1 bit image layer masks. In fact there is an interesting HP patent which discloses a two layer bitmap/background with multiple monochrome bitmaps.

      It’s ignorance that is guiding you my friend.

  41. Garrett Papit says:

    Prove I am wrong Linda. I can prove that Obama’s was issued from a state in which he never lived. But again, this isn’t my focus. I merely find it interesting and suspicious.

    • linda says:

      No, try again. You said Romeny’s SSN was issued from a state he lived in at the time. I have made no such assumptions. How do you know?

    • Scientist says:

      You can prove no such thing. You can’t prove that Obama was not visiting Connecticut and decided to apply using his temporary address there, which is perfectly legal. You can’t prove that the numbers are always associated with a particular state (Social Security says they are not).

      But I can prove you are a liar because you made claims regarding Romney’s SSN that you can’t back up. And that causes me to disbelieve everything else you claim.

    • But what you CANNOT prove is that there anything fraudulent about having a social-security number from a state where someone never lived. In 1977, social-security numbers were issued centrally, and not by individual state offices. The Social Security Administration says that the area number is NOT a reliable geographic indicator. End of story.

      But if you think Obama stole someone’s social-security number, then whose? Susan Daniels searched all those public databases and found all those entries for the Obama SSN and never ONCE found that it belonged to anyone else. It’s not in the Social Security Death Index either.

      Birthers find any “i” not dotted and yell fraud at the top of their lungs, but they never can put together an alternate reality that works. In real life, stuff happens. Birthers aren’t living in the real world.

    • nbc says:

      Prove I am wrong Linda. I can prove that Obama’s was issued from a state in which he never lived. But again, this isn’t my focus. I merely find it interesting and suspicious.

      So that’s it. You find it suspicious even though there exist perfectly reasonable explanations.

      That explains a lot.

  42. Garrett Papit says:

    I don’t disagree with that Steven. The question is, was he actually born there. I don’t have any allusions that we can remove him from office. Did you? :)

    However, I would like him to submit an actual certified paper copy to a court. He dodges that at every turn. That is not an unreasonable request given the amount of circumstantial evidence and questions surrounding his birth story.

    • Steven Feinstein says:

      He has never had to. The evidence fro birthers is so bad that there is nothing to respond to.

    • linda says:

      It was entered in an Illinois ballot challenge. I am sure that doesn’t count for some reason. The Verification was also enter in the MS case.

  43. Steven Feinstein says:

    Garrett doesn’t have a damn clue about anything he talks about. He is a deVattelist who can often be seen felating Leo the Cowardly lion.

  44. Garrett Papit says:

    Steven,

    You do your side a grave injustice by resorting to name calling. I am being civil and factual. You are simply angry because it is not possible to generate mulitple 1-bit layers via optmization. You believe with all of your heart that ‘birthers’ are crazy. It seems to me that you start with suppositions…not I.

    • Steven Feinstein says:

      I didn’t call you anything. I pointed out your bias.

    • John Woodman says:

      You are simply angry because it is not possible to generate mulitple 1-bit layers via optmization.

      Garrett,

      You’ve ASSERTED that it’s “not possible to generate multiple 1-bit layers via optimization.” You haven’t PROVEN it.

      In fact, the claim is ridiculous on its face. Computers do what people program them to do. If someone writes a program telling the computer to optimize a file by generating multiple 1-bit layers, then that is exactly what that program is going to do.

  45. Garrett Papit says:

    BTW, Leo got angry with most of my posts of his blog because I liked to poke jokes at him. That is a LONG shot from group felatio…lol. It is funny that you feel the need to go there though. Freud anyone? ;)

    • Steven Feinstein says:

      I have seen your posts and you forget the rounds we have gone with each other. I know exactly what you are.

    • Well Leo might have gotten angry because you said he was gay.

      Maybe you remember back in 2008, Leo was saying that Minor v. Happersett “punted” on the question of who was a Natural Born Citizen. That transmogrified into a “binding precedent” a few years later.

  46. Garrett Papit says:

    It’s very simple. The press has dug up his 9th grade report card. Do you seriously think they don’t know his SSN? And do you not think they would point out the ‘birther’ hypocrisy if any existed? 1 + 1 = SSN from state he lived in.

    • Scientist says:

      What are you talking about? You are a liar. Just admit it and stop embarrassing yourself.

    • linda says:

      So when you said you knew Romney’s SSN was issued in the state in which he lived, that was just BS? A figure of speech?

  47. Garrett Papit says:

    Glad you could join in Dr. C.

    I’ve never condoned making fake BC’s for anyone..Obama included. Have I even mentioned the Lucas Smith issue? Strawman.

    I see no problem posting the SSN number of a POTUS candidate if it is done in the spirit of honest inquiry.

    Allied with the forces of evil? Really? I can only laugh at such over the top comments. How about we stick with facts?

  48. Garrett Papit says:

    Please..I didn’t lie in any way. I am showing you why the scrutiny of Obama is logical given his unique circumstances. But I can understand why you’d want to distract from the technical analysis.

    I stand behind my comment. Prove me wrong.

    • Scientist says:

      Which comment do you stand behind?

    • linda says:

      Are you talking about Romney’s SSN? I never called you a liar, I am just asking how you know. Please share with the class.

    • Suranis says:

      There was another guy that was Born in Kansas, kived in Texas and yet somehow has an SSN “from” California. He also had dual German citizenship, and he worked with Commies. He go his first Birth certificate at the age of 60, based completely on the evidence of his brother.

      I’m sure you were screaming that President Eisenhower was ineligible too.

      • Frank Arduini says:

        Actually, he was living in Pennsylvania when he got that California SSN. However… he did also have a home in Palm Springs.

  49. Steven Feinstein says:

    Garrett, computer experts tend to be very good at logic. My experiences with you is that you have tremendous gaps in your ability to think and reason in a logical manner. Sorry dude, you bring nothing to the table but your incredible bias.

  50. Garrett Papit says:

    How do I forget the rounds we have spent? This is why I know your #1 skill is insult and name calling…for anyone who dares offer a contrary opinion. You can’t even be civil.

    • Steven Feinstein says:

      I refuse to be civil to birthers. And I have not called you a name. If you have a problem with my comments about you, perhaps you should loo in the mirror

  51. Garrett Papit says:

    Thanks for the compliment Steven. Nothing makes me happier than knowing you are irritated by a civil discourse.

    My report is available for review. Disprove me if you think my logic is not sound.

    I haven’t even brought up the MANY other problems with optimization as an explanation for the layers.

    1) The form lines should be on the same layers as the text instead of the background.
    2) The text layer color properties are all wrong.
    3) A white halo can’t be explained by optimization. It would require sharpening in an app like Photoshop.

    • Scientist says:

      Your analysis of the pdf is irrelevant to the accuracy of the information contained on the paper birth certificate. Consider your case disproven. And consider yourself exposed as a prevaricator.

    • Steven Feinstein says:

      I did not now, now would I ever compliment you. You do not irritate me, you amuse me.

    • Suranis says:

      All of which shows the PDF is the result of a computer quasi-randomly lifting random buts out of the background layer, assigning them a colour value based on the ink + background colour and then optomising them, RATHER than a deliberate forgery. Who in their right mind would make a forgery like that. Idiot.

      Its something that Mac OSX 10.6.7.Quartz PDFContext would do, not Mac Preview. Or what would happen illustrator pulled it apart in its Vain attempt to read a pdf. Its flat in photoshop, after all…

  52. Garrett Papit says:

    Again, I have no bias Steven. I would have clearly stated that optimization created the layers if it were the case.

    You, on the other hand, could recieve iron-clad proof and wouldn’t waver in your ‘birther’ Inquisition. Try being civil with those who disagree…you will get much better results.

    • Steven Feinstein says:

      When you go into an investigation believing that the president is not eligible, you are biased. Exactly the same way Zullo is biased. So you lied.

    • Rich D Valle says:

      You’ll never convince Finklestein. He is hard core liberal which as you know is a mental disease. No getting through that thick skull. He and all his buddies have swallowed the Kool Aid and are beyond hope.

      • Steven Feinstein says:

        Rich, oooh, the birther mantra. I so am offended, you called me a liberal. Given the fact that you do not have any clue as to what my politics are, your assumption on that is about as valid as any of your other assumptions, now isn’t it?

  53. Garrett Papit says:

    Dr. C.

    I have you dead to rights here. You either don’t understand what a 1-bit layer is or are outright lying.

    Acrobat will NEVER create multiple 1-bit layers. Send me the file and I’ll disprove you. Better yet, let’s get together and optimize a document so I can enlighten you.

    You are simply wrong.

    • Suranis says:

      And we have you bang to rights in that you are simply wrong that the PDF was created with Adobe Acrobat. You are wrong about everything. Even Adobe has publicly stated that Mara Zebest is simply wrong.

      President Obama is sleeping tonight in the white house.

    • Suranis says:

      Mac OSX 10.6.7.Quartz PDFContext is not an acrobat product. LOSER.

  54. Garrett Papit says:

    Do you truly believe you haven’t called me a name? That is plainly a lie as anyone reading this blog can see.

  55. Garrett Papit says:

    Dr. C. How about we video segment together where you show me the multiple 1-bit layers, then I show you how you are wrong and not qualified to discuss such technical issues?

    Are you game?

    • Might be worth the effort for me to do it, but not with you. You’re not an authority, and add nothing to the demonstration. Specifics, references and repeatability are what makes a conclusive case.

  56. Garrett Papit says:

    Had I been alive and of voting age at the time, I would have definitely been critical…assuming your facts are correct.

    • Suranis says:

      Who the hell are you talking to? Is hitting the reply button beyond your computer skill?

  57. Garrett Papit says:

    Gotta go do some work guys…it’s been fun. :)

    • Suranis says:

      Someone has to flip burgers.

    • Steven Feinstein says:

      So you lie about me calling you a name and then, as is your habit, run away when you are called on your bs.

    • Scientist says:

      I bet you’re lying about having to do work too.

    • linda says:

      Convenient?

    • Suranis says:

      This guy does seem to be a drive by excrementor, doesn’t he. Now if he is heading off to work NOW, on a SUNDAY, he probably lives somewhere in Eastern Europe too. Its 9am in Kazakhstan, for example. In Indiana its 11:00 PM. I wonder what Job he is supposed to be heading out for at this time of night/morning?

      Or he is just lying his ass off.

  58. insomnia says:

    Garrett – maybe you can help me out here. I know you are saying the scan of the long form birth certificate is a forgery. But what is your opinion on the short form, the COLB released in 2008? It has the same seals, etc. as the long form. It has the same info and has been verified by the Hawaii DOH. There are photographs (not pdfs) showing the seal and DOH info.
    In your opinion how has this equally valid document from Hawaii been forged? Since you are claiming the long form is forged, surely you have an opinion on the short form?

  59. linda says:

    How does that guy pass himself off as an expert? Makes a wilda$$ statement and says “Prove I am wrong”? Geesh!

  60. Garrett Papit says:

    Suranis…you are betraying your lack of knowledge. Quartz PDFContext is built into the Mac OS X line of operating systems and can be executed from most applications using the Print – Save as PDF option. This was done in Mac Preview…as the metadata shows.

    You are mistaken…and are insulting me at the same time. Nice touch. :)

    • Suranis says:

      Actually the metadata, which I have looked at, does not mention MAC Preview at all. So, bu your own admission, all you can say is that Mac Preview is one of the POSSIBILITIES of the programs that were used.

      But then you wouldn’t know that considering you have no idea what the hell you are talking about.

      After all, Mara Zebest looked at the exact same metadata as we both did and she concluded that the PDF was done in Adobe Photoshop. If the matadata said MAC Preiver how come she made such a bald statement. The logical conclusion is that you BOTH are LYING.

  61. Garrett Papit says:

    Linda,

    I’m a computer expert..not a SSN expert. I’ve repeatedly said the SSN isn’t my focus. You guys would like to change the subject since I have provided strong evidence that the digital file has been manipulated.

    • linda says:

      Nope, again. You are the one who said Romeny’s SSN was issued in the state in which he lived. We just want to you to tell us how you “know”.

    • linda says:

      You still have not answered my question. What difference does it make how the pdf was made or how many layers it has, if HI has verified the information? That information including a hospital and the an attending physician?

    • Suranis says:

      So you have been proven wrong on the SSN and now run away from that saying “You are not an expert.” So we can now say that you admit you are full of shit on the SSN. thanks. we are making progress.

  62. Garrett Papit says:

    Suranis,

    I NEVER claimed it was made in Acrobat. I KNOW it was not. Woodman uses Acrobat for his experiments. You are angry at the wrong person.

    And I already explained that Quartx PDFContext was executed from Mac Preview. Mac Preview created the final PDF, yet it can’t create layers. Care to explain?

    • Suranis says:

      No. you said that the Metadata said Mac Preview. Mara Zebest looked at the same Metadata and concluded Adobe products. I looked at the metadata and saw none of the above. My conclusion, you both are full of shit, and you picked on MAC Preview as the program you think is most unlikely to have created layers.

      And what John did is Use Adobe Acrobat as the most compatible program to Adobe Illustrator to see what would happen to PDFs when opened in Illustrator, a program not designed for viewing BDFs at all. Needless to say, Illustrator mangled mangled them and created layers where none existed. For PDFs created in a non Adobe product on a non windows system, Illustrator would have an EVEN WORSE ability to read the layers in the original product.

      You see, even if you were by accident right about Mac Prieview (you aren’t, but let’s stipulate) it does not matter whether MAC preview can create layers or not, if Layers appear in illustrator when it opens up the PDF. Because Illustrator creates layers where none exist.

      You really are an amusing little specimen of hate, arn’t you?

      • nbc says:

        No. you said that the Metadata said Mac Preview. Mara Zebest looked at the same Metadata and concluded Adobe products.

        The metadata shows that the last product to touch the file was Mac Quartz PDF which is used by preview and also when you save to pdf or print to pdf. One of the telltale signs is the 72DPI.

        Author
        CreationDate D:20110427120924Z00’00′
        Creator Preview
        Keywords
        ModDate D:20110427120924Z00’00′
        Producer Mac OS X 10.6.7 Quartz PDFContext
        Subject
        Title
        AAPL:Keywords ; An Apple specific entry created in Quartz PDF context

        The specific structure of the PDF matches how Quartz reorganizes the ‘layers’. I have seen it when taking layers created in adobe are exported using Quartz. This removes any trace of how the layers were created.

  63. Garrett Papit says:

    Or could it be that I am extremely busy and am working weekends? Care to have my wife verify? LOL

    You guys crack me up.

    • Suranis says:

      Or you are unemployed. You certainty didn’t spend a lot of time “working,” before you came crawling back to the only people laying you any attention, did you?

  64. Steven Feinstein says:

    Garrett is a perfect case in point for birthers. His logical fallacies, coupled with his inherent bias makes his conclusions not credible.

  65. Garrett Papit says:

    Many think that the short-form was fraudulent, but I don’t see any reason that it had to be. But it doesn’t have the same info. It doesn’t state whether he was born at home or in a hospital.

    My contention, if the BC is fake, is that his parents or grandparents fraudulently registered his birth, with the HDOH, as a home birth when it might have happened out of the state or country. This would generate a valid short-f0rm and trigger the newspaper announcements. Later, they could update to include hospital info, etc…via affidavit with no corroboration needed.

    This would allow the HDOH to say they info matches, yet it wouldn’t prove he was actually born there.

    • linda says:

      So why would it show the hospital name and a doctor’s signature? If it was registered as a home birth, it would show that info.

      • Steven Feinstein says:

        In other words Garrett, your report proves nothing about the birthplace of the president, good to know.

    • CarlOrcas says:

      Garrett Papit says: “My contention, if the BC is fake, is that his parents or grandparents fraudulently registered his birth, with the HDOH, as a home birth when it might have happened out of the state or country. This would generate a valid short-f0rm and trigger the newspaper announcements. Later, they could update to include hospital info, etc…via affidavit with no corroboration needed.”

      So which is it: Is the birth certificate (the one bound in the book or the PDF that I suspect is all you have seen) a “fake” or is it – as your “if pigs could fly” speculation might be read to assert – a legitimate document, attested to by the State of Hawaii, that contains fraudulent information?

      • nbc says:

        Later, they could update to include hospital info, etc…via affidavit with no corroboration needed.”

        Show us the specific Hawaiian statutes and rules. Explain the terms delayed, late filing and the concept of amendments.

        The signature by the attending physician soon after President Obama’s birth somehow makes the scenario less than credible…

        Compulsory registration of births. Within the time prescribed by the department of health, a certificate of every birth shall be substantially completed and filed with the local agent of the department in the district in which the birth occurred, by the administrator or designated representative of the birthing facility, or physician, or midwife, or other legally authorized person in attendance at the birth; or if not so attended, by one of the parents.

        Ring Ring

        Hawaii Department Of Health, birth Registrations, how may I help you?

        Obama’s grandmother: Uh, hello, I would like to register the birth of my Grandson Barack Hussein Obama who was born at home.

        DOH: Sure, what time and place? Did a midwife attend the birth? No? I see, so we should get the mother to sign.


        Ring Ring

        DOH: Hello Hawaiian DOH. How may we help you?

        Grandma: Yes hello, we recently filed an at home birth and now would like to register the location to be Kapiolani Hospital and we found a doctor who is willing to sign it.

        DOH: A home birth at Kapiolani. How does that work?

        Duh…

  66. Garrett Papit says:

    There have been zero logical fallacies on my part.

    On the other hand, Dr. C straight out lied about Acrobat creating multiple 1-bit layers via optimization. I would know since I tested versions 6, 7, 8, 9 and X…using every combination of settings.

    But again, Mac Preview created the final PDF and it can’t create layers. Any takers on an explanation for that one?

    Anyway, I can’t waste anymore time on this. Back to SQL Stored Procs…ugh. :(

    • Steven Feinstein says:

      Umm Garrett, I know about your logical fallacies Garrett. I read your analysis of the eligibility issue as it related to the Constitution. Logic is not your strong suit. Do you still think that there is a difference between a native a native born citizen?

      • Garrett Papit says:

        My opinion doesn’t matter when the INS website differentiates between native born and natural born. But I’m not debating that. Woodman wrote a book about technical evidence…blaming everything on optimization. I am here to debunk that…and so far have done so convincingly.

        • Steven Feinstein says:

          clearly it does. And the Supreme Court says you are wrong, a native born and a native citizen are the same thing. You are pointing to a regulation and not a law You need to learn the difference. No opinion from you is credible because of your bias.

        • Suranis says:

          Convincing a grand total of zero people is not my definition of “convincingly.” You are just here to masturbate.

  67. Garrett Papit says:

    BTW, Dr. C. I would suggest you not attack my competency unless you know what you are talking about. All of your claims in terms of the layers and metadata I can easily disprove. You should stick to other areas of debate.

    • Suranis says:

      Big words, little actual evidence. So put up or shut up, big boy.

    • nbc says:

      All of your claims in terms of the layers and metadata I can easily disprove.

      Well you have made the claim that MRC cannot lead to multiple single bitmap layers and a background. I have shown you a patent which discloses exactly such a method. Perhaps you are confusing absence of evidence as evidence of absence? Just because you have tested a few programs with limited parameter space, you can hardly claim that MRC cannot generate multiple monochrome bitmaps now can you?

      You do realize that the task you have chosen yourself to fulfill is a bit more complex than running a few experiments? The problem is that logically speaking there is nothing to prevent an MRC implementation to generate multiple bitmaps, especially when text segmentation is used. But you already have ruled that OCR was not used because there was no OCR text present. But we all know that the layer can be trivially removed. So again, let’s not pretend to be the ‘expert’ here just because you have done a few experiments.

      Let’s talk about the halo again, as you consider yourself to be quite the expert. Are you saying that MRC cannot generate the Halo even though there are countless papers explaining how halos are the unfortunate side effects of MRC?

      Well mr Expert?

      • Garrett Papit says:

        “I have shown you a patent which discloses exactly such a method. Perhaps you are confusing absence of evidence as evidence of absence? ”

        Nope. The patent you showed said no such thing. Again, you don’t understand what a 1-bit layer is apparently. Email me the patent. I give John permission to give you my email address. I will respond and tell you how you are wrong.

        I don’t have to discuss the possibility that MRC can create a white halo, because MRC was not run on the WH PDF because it lacks a color layer. Did you bother reading about color layers in your patent research? Go figure out how MRC compression retains full color within the 1-bit layer and then you will begin to understand.

  68. Garrett Papit says:

    CCP website…press release link somewhere on their news page. I have an even more detailed version going into great detail that will be published at some point. And there will be upcoming interviews released discussing Woodman’s claims as well as a story by the Washington Times.

    • Steven Feinstein says:

      So you are reporting to the moonies now

    • CarlOrcas says:

      Garrett Papit says: CCP website…press release link somewhere on their news page.

      It’s not on the CCP website but it is on the MCSO website. It is not mentioned on either site but I did find it when I Googled your name:

      http://www.mcso.org/MultiMedia/PressRelease/Media%20Supplemental%20Report.pdf

      Questions:

      Who did you submit this to at the MCSO?
      Who, at the MCSO, did you work with on this report?
      Did anyone at the MCSO ask you to prepare this report?
      Did you upload it to their site?

      As it regards the Washington Times: Are you writing a piece for them or is someone news side writing a story?

      Oh….one other question: What is Mitt Romney’s Social Security number?

      • Garrett Papit says:

        Would you like to know what my favorite color is as well? Perhaps my checking account number? :)

  69. Well, there was something John W said way above which has just been glaringly confirmed again. He said:

    [Birthers] It doesn’t matter how many DOZENS of claims we make are factually debunked or outright disproven. Obama is still ineligible, because we believe he is. And believing makes it so. We feel he’s ineligible. And our feeling makes it so. It’s a good story. We like our tale. Therefore, it’s true, no matter what the actual facts say.

    Here is J.B. Williams 2 days ago in response to Sen. Fred Thompson:

    [Fred Thompson]1. “First, this is a legal question. Therefore, the test with regard to a question such as this is, “What would the Supreme Court likely hold if the question were presented to it?”

    [J B Williams] FALSE – It is not a legal question for judicial usurpers to dictate definition upon their political agendas. It is a Constitutional question. The American people, NOT the Supreme Court, are the final arbiters of what is or is not constitutional. Nobody above a 3rd grade reading level needs a lawyer to explain the true meaning of three simple words, Natural Born Citizen.

    http://www.newswithviews.com/JBWilliams/williams200.htm

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    • Steven Feinstein says:

      Yeah, uh, no. That is a shocking amount of stupid there.

    • Squeeky

      Actually the pathetic traitor who posts in Commie newspapers JB may be on to something. You said:

      “Here is J.B. Williams 2 days ago in response to Sen. Fred Thompson:

      [Fred Thompson]1. “First, this is a legal question. Therefore, the test with regard to a question such as this is, “What would the Supreme Court likely hold if the question were presented to it?”

      [J B Williams] FALSE – It is not a legal question for judicial usurpers to dictate definition upon their political agendas. It is a Constitutional question. The American people, NOT the Supreme Court, are the final arbiters of what is or is not constitutional. Nobody above a 3rd grade reading level needs a lawyer to explain the true meaning of three simple words, Natural Born Citizen. ”

      As I have been telling Birthers for almost four years. The American people vetted Senator Obama and not only thought he was eligible but was a better choice that the the other guy. According the polls there is a fair chance they will do it again and think he is better than the really rich guy who won’t show us his tax returns.

  70. linda says:

    What software did HI used when they scanned the BC onto security paper? Could that account for “experts” not being able to replicate it once it was then again scanned to make the WH pdf? Let me just say, I accept HI’s numerous verifications of the info contained in the BC. I was just wondering.

  71. Garrett Papit says:

    Dr. C. I have no beliefs…I simply stated a possibility. My only belief is that the digital file has been manipulated based on multiple 1-bit layers.

    • linda says:

      Again, what does it matter if HI has verified the information on the WH pdf?

      • Steven Feinstein says:

        It doesn’t, which is the entire point. The pdf could have been completely manufactured and it would not mean anything. I, unlike Garrett, do not pretend to be an expert in digital documents. but I do know that the security paper is not on the original document. To the extent that the green background was put on the document and that it may have been enhanced to make it read better, the pdf may have been manipulated, it certainly was not forged, given the fact that Hawaii still stands behind it.

        • linda says:

          Exactly!

        • True. This is a point I made the other day. Mere alteration alone does not equate to forgery. You can have alteration all day long and not get to forgery. Forgery requires either false creation, or material alteration (addition, modification, or deletion) of information COMBINED with an intent to defraud someone out of something.

          There is absolutely no information on the internet image (which is kinda a hard thing to prove forgery with in the first place) which the CCP has substantially proven to be false or materially altered, much less done with any intent to defraud.

          The entire “forgery” claims business is ludicrous when the CCP can’t provide any information which fits into the above requirements.

          Squeeky Fromm
          Girl Reporter

          • CarlOrcas says:

            More to the point: How do you “forge” accurate information?

            If I retype the words from the Declaration of Independence in a Word document have I created a forgery?

            Hawaii says all the information we have seen is accurate. If I retyped all of it on a piece of Bozo the Clown stationary it wouldn’t make a bit of difference…..it would still be accurate.

            • Garrett Papit says:

              If you try to pass that off as a certified photocopy of the original declaration…yes, it would certainly be fraudulent. Are you serious with that argument? LOL

            • nbc says:

              How can a scan be the certified photocopy? The PDF was never passed off as the certified photocopy. Duh..
              Under your scenario, using MRC would result in layers and halos and thus should be considered evidence of a forgery? Are you really arguing this? Or do you realize that a forgery requires a bit more than some irrelevant layers, especially when all the data has been certified and verified, and the original copies, with certification and seal were in fact photographed and xerox’ed. So why ignore these documents and focus on a document which is bound to show evidence of artifacts of compression? Why claim that MRC cannot generate halos?

              So many questions my friend.. No wonder you avoid addressing these real relevant issues.

          • Garrett Papit says:

            Not true Mrs. Manson. In point of fact, any alteration of a purported state document…whether it changes date or not..would technically be illegal if one then tries to pass the document off as original and authentic.

            But why would someone even manipulate the file if not to change information? How is that logical? If they did it to mess with birthers…that is a huge story in my opinion.

            • CarlOrcas says:

              Garrett Papit says: “Not true Mrs. Manson. In point of fact, any alteration of a purported state document…whether it changes date or not..would technically be illegal if one then tries to pass the document off as original and authentic.”

              So all those “original and authentic” copies of the Declaration of Independence are illegal? Who knew?

              Responses ran out on the previous thread where you asserted that a “certified” copy of the Declaration would be fraudulent. Just for the record….there isn’t even a “certified” original.

            • linda says:

              The WH said it was a copy, which of course, they had to scan to post it on the internet. Where do you get “if one then tries to pass the document off as original and authentic”? Again, HI has verified the information on it. If the WH used numerous software programs to make it more legible online, what difference does that make? How is that a forgery of anything?

            • Steven Feinstein says:

              Garrett, once again, you show your ignorance of the law and paper documents. In order for a document to be a certified copy, it must have the certification seal on it. A pdf version, unless it is printed out, and then stamped, cannot be a certified copy. Get the difference yet? The on line document is not evidence of anything other than a digital reproduction.

            • nbc says:

              But why would someone even manipulate the file if not to change information? How is that logical? If they did it to mess with birthers…that is a huge story in my opinion.

              To remove metadata, to remove scanning imperfections, to try to improve legibility?
              If the argument is that the PDF was created to ‘mess with the birthers’ realize that birthers are not constrained by any facts or reason. Just see how they insisted that the COLB showed evidence of forgery.
              And why would the birthers ignore the photographs and the higher resolution xerox? Because they do not support their position…

              So predictable. All it takes to ‘mess with the birthers’ is to release the facts… They will find a way to reconcile their false beliefs with the new evidence. Surprisingly, it seldomly results in a revision of their beliefs.

              Just guessing of course.

    • justlw says:

      You have not proven anything regarding 1-bit masks. Not a thing. There is nothing in your 30-page paper that proves that an MRC-compressed document cannot have multiple 1-bit masks.

      Prove me wrong.

  72. Steven Feinstein says:

    Garrett, you flat out lie when you say you have no beliefs. you are a deVattelist an believe that the President is not eligible to hold the office of the Presidency.

  73. gsgs says:

    the stamps are hard to identify as text, maybe the software
    didn’t detect them as such.
    We can easily write a software to do multiple-1-bit layers,
    (why should it be “impossible ???)
    then it exists (and presumably did before although maybe hard to find).
    Maybe the WH wrote such a program to handle the security paper ?
    The AP-copy had almost no security paper, maybe it had to be
    enhanced in a first step.
    Security paper is unusual, so that could explain why special
    methods were required ?!?

  74. Garrett Papit says:

    Wrong John. I have proven it…read my report. On the other hand, you have yet to prove that they can. It should be simple. Just find one of these mysterious programs that were coded to do it. It should be simple.

    • nbc says:

      Wrong John. I have proven it…read my report. On the other hand, you have yet to prove that they can.

      You have done nothing of the kind. You have shown in an incredibly limited sample that you have not been able to recreate the exact layering effects but you should not consider that proof of anything.

      Any scientist would explain to you that you have covered an incredibly small part of parameter space and failed to even pursue OCR text segmentation. Any scientist would explain to you that you have not shown that MRC could not result in multiple monochrome bitmaps. I have shown how in fact HP has patented exactly such a method. Given that MRC is not a single algorithm but rather a concept which is implemented in a myriad of ways which may further depend on the exact settings of many parameters and you must realize that your position is one of ignorance.

      “I have not been able to explain how software could do this” is hardly the logical equivalence of “Software cannot do this” and as long as software can be shown to be able to do this, your limited attempts to explore parameter space has to be rejected as flawed.

  75. Garrett Papit says:

    I have agreed, if you took time to read, that it doesn’t prove it is fraudulent. It is simply suspicious…especially given the mountain of circumstantial evidence. But again, my focus is the digital file released by the WH. Are you capable of staying on topic?

  76. Garrett Papit says:

    I have already proven you wrong…you just don’t understand I guess. The only types of optimization that utilize segmentation, which is the process that would create layers, only create 1-single 1-bit layer. This isn’t being made up out of whole cloth, it is simply the facts. Research and test…you will see.

    You can scream claims all you want…I’ve done the research and experimentation to back mine up…period.

    • justlw says:

      Is this in reply to me, maybe?

      If so, I reiterate: there is nothing in your document that proves that MRC-compressed documents cannot have multiple 1-bit layers.

      On the other hand, I have referred to a white paper from the creators of MRC that says that MRC-compressed documents can indeed have multiple 1-bit layers.

      Waving your arms and saying, “Wow, I are just too sophisticated for the likes of you” is not proof.

      Prove me wrong.

      • Garrett Papit says:

        Again…I have proven it. MRC compression needs a color layer which Obama’s PDF does not have. How exactly could it be MRC then?

        And provide this link to the MRC white paper if you really have it. :)

        • justlw says:

          Seriously? I made my description about as searchable as possible.

          http://image.unb.br/queiroz/papers/ei99mrc.pdf

          Your own paper highlights that the WH PDF has an 8-bit layer. That would be the color one. The giveaway is how it’s all green and white and black and stuff.

        • nbc says:

          MRC compression needs a color layer which Obama’s PDF does not have

          Nope, it may have a color layer but if the text is monochrome further compression can be achieved by removing the color layer and just adding a color code to the bitmap in question.

          Just think about this. If a text segmentation detects 8 or 9 regions of text based on their similarity in color and other contextual hints, encoding them as 9 bitmaps with an individual color code will result in a better compression than using a color foreground. Your insistance that MRC requires a color layer is a result of your simplified understanding of MRC. Trust me, I and others have probably read more papers on MRC than you or you would have known that halo effect is a common side effect of MRC.

          Sorry my friend but you need to better than this. In fact, I referenced an HP patent which performs a MRC variant which results exactly in multiple monochrome bitmaps and a single background (two layers no color foreground). Anyone would realize that the color foreground collapses when the color variations across the bitmaps is minimal.

          Really, it helps to actually read the papers and understand the origin and development of MRC. It’s a simple idea with countless variations in implementation.

    • gorefan says:

      Are you saying that MRC cannot produce a single background layer, multiple masks (layers) and no foreground layer?

      • Garrett Papit says:

        I’m saying that MRC creates 1 8-bit background layer, 1 1-bit layer and 1 color layer..although other designs are in the works.

        Further, I’m saying that Obama’s PDF has no color layer so it definitely was NOT optimized with MRC. That is a fact whether you like it or not.

        • Suranis says:

          Wrong. The “black” layers are not actually black, therefore they have a colour component that gives information to the computer on what colour to display them. If they were black they would have no colour information at all, just a series of Nulls and Blacks. Therefore the assertion that the PDF does not have a colour layer is simply false.

          you really aren’t any good at this.

          • nbc says:

            You are of course correct. While there is no separate color layer, which would just unnecessarily increase the size of the document, the MRC algorithm detected that the different text regions were closely monochrome and collapsed them into 7 or 8 regions of similar colors. But every region had its own color. And not suprisingly, most of the regions make sense, as they represent stamps and other non typed data. Of course, the algorithm gets it wrong occasionally cause some letters to disappear to the background bitmap.
            While the original MRC compression was based around the concept of 3 or more layers, it is trivial to collapse this to two or even one layer. It all depends on the document being scanned.

            This is not rocket science. Any statement that MRC requires a foreground and background color layer is overly simplistic.

            • Garrett Papit says:

              Any statement that makes claims about MRC without demonstrating it is not just simplistic but assumptive.

              Prove your assertions or you have nothing. It’s simple.

            • nbc says:

              Prove your assertions or you have nothing. It’s simple.

              Ah but dear Papit, I have to prove nothing more than showing that MRC can in principle generate multiple monochrome bitmaps and no color foreground. I have already cited the HP patent but even before this, it was clear to me that any software developer could understand that MRC trivially degenerates to two or fewer layers depending on the characteristics of the document.

              You have your assertions that MRC cannot generate such features and yet I can show you wrong and have shown you wrong. Now you may want to claim that no software uses this method but your limited experiments do not warrant such a conclusion.
              Proving a negative is quite a b*tch is it not but given the standards of proof, you have to do a bit better than “I cannot get the software to behave like this’

              Answer these two questions

              1. Are you using real basket weave paper?
              2. Are you using real high DPI text on the basket weave?
              3. Are you using OCR?

              I predict that the answers will not surprise me.

    • nbc says:

      I’ve done the research and experimentation to back mine up…period.

      You have tested a few potential workflows and ignored countless. Is that your best evidence?

      You cannot even explain why a forger would separate the layers as found.

      You have no idea about experimentation and competing hypotheses now do you?

      • Garrett Papit says:

        A few potential workflows!? I tested many, many applications and tested all available workflows within them.

        When the results are ALWAYS the same, you can make scientific statements based on the sampling.

        On the other hand, you could just say that MRC can do it and provide no experiment whatsoever. If you feel comfortable with that…more power to ya. Especially given the fact that the MRC specs talk about the use of a color layer.

        I guess you guys think there is a magical MRC app out there somewhere that fits perfectly…kind of like Cinderalla’s slipper. I don’t believe in fairy tales.

        • nbc says:

          A few potential workflows!? I tested many, many applications and tested all available workflows within them.

          Really? I just checked Adobe Acrobat and the workflow includes easily a a few thousand possible variations. You can set the resolution at which the jpeg is subsampled, and what resolution it is subsampled to, the same for text. You can select various options for various other options and there are countless options that are binary. Have you really tested all possible combinations? I remember one screen with perhaps 6 binary options. That makes already a few hundred different workflows.
          Surely you are jesting here…
          You have not even touched on a fraction of the possible parameter space.

          I have already punctured your overly simplistic understanding of MRC as requiring a color layer when it would be obvious to any implementer that there are circumstances where the omission of the foreground would lead to improved compression. And it would be trivial to program such a routine.

          As to fairy tales. Still believing that MRC cannot generate halos?

          • Garrett Papit says:

            I tested all combinations that you just mentioned. I jest not. Never more than 1 1-bit layer. I spent hours a day for 6 months doing this.

            • Slartibartfast says:

              Really? And you thought that you were doing scientific research? That would bring down the President of the United States? In a five-year-old that might be cute–in a grown man it’s pathetic.

            • nbc says:

              Can we see the results? This would be an incredible amount of test documents. 20 programs, 700 different parameter combinations, and that’s just one page of parameter settings. That would make 14,000 tests.

              As I said, parameter space is a bit large to be able to claim to have tested any and all combination. Not to mention that we lack the original document.

              I appreciate your diligence but in Court the other side will quickly destroy this approach as it fails to exclude the possibility that the document was indeed created by an MRC like compression. I showed you the HP patent there are countless patents and MRC implementations and optimizations across open source, share ware, commercial desktop and network printer/scanners. Your approach has covered a miniscule space and unless you can exclude a significant part of the search space by showing that MRC could under no circumstances generate multiple monochrome bitmaps and no foreground bitmap, you would have a more valid position.
              But as the party to have to prove forgery, you have failed to exclude algorithmic or workflow generated artifacts.
              I just have to point to the ‘halo’ and show how MRC is notorious for generating such artifacts. You show where data filling has been used which would be seen as evidence of forgery. After all how could there be a background behind black text? Can the scanner see through the text? No if there had been data filling things may have been even worse. So perhaps we can ignore the more advanced implementations of MRC but how can we be sure we have looked at all factors? You already excluded OCR scanning which would result in text segmentation much like we see, focused on the actual text, avoiding horizontal and vertical lines. Too bad that you jumped to the conclusion that OCR could be ignored, failing to appreciate that the hidden text layer could have been removed as part of the workflow, a workflow commonly found in for instance legal offices.

              And you admit the complexity of the task when realizing that the digital chain of custody is hidden

              Since Preview is unable to create layers yet layers exist within the PDF released by the White House, it can be stated definitively that some other unknown application created these layers before the file was saved within Preview. Because of that fact, the ‘digital chain of custody’ of this document is unknown and the integrity of the data is unknowable from a technical perspective. Any number of processes and applications could have been used on this document between the time it was scanned, assuming it was scanned, and the time it was converted to the final PDF file.
              The file could have been manipulated, or even built from scratch, within Photoshop, Illustrator or any graphics editing software application. The other possibility is that the file was optimized by an application such as Adobe Acrobat. Optimization routines can create layers, but it has been demonstrated, in the optimization section of this document, that the characteristics of such layers don’t match what is seen on the WH PDF.

              So you have all but admitted that you cannot exclude algorithmic or workflow generated artifacts and you lack a coherent or consistent forger explanation so all we have is ‘well we do not know really’.

              So why focus on the highly compressed PDF when we have other resources?

              And of course, we still have to deal with Hawaii’s certification and verification of the facts.

              At best I believe you can argue that the document when scanned has undergone a set of unknown workflow steps and one cannot thus exclude the possibility of forgery. But that’s a far step from claiming that the evidence in court would stand up to support forgery. Perhaps the CCP was a bit overly enthusiastic in these conclusions? I understand that experts have stated that without examining the original documents, the PDF’s are quite useless in establishing forgery.

            • Frank Arduini says:

              According to Zullo, you tested about 600 combinations. Is he lying again?

              What you have done Garrett is the functional equivalent of tossing a fishing line into Lake Meade, coming up with an empty hook ten times, and declaring the entire lake devoid of fish.

              The only genuine demonstration of your “report” is that you were personally incapable of recreating the PDF. That you would consider that a compelling demonstration is frankly the most damning indictment on your ability to reason with competence. In fact… the indictment is absolutely Shakespearean:

              Your report “is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

            • Slartibartfast says:

              Frank Arduini said:

              Your report “is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

              Which is pretty much true of every single birther claim out there… The sad part is that the birthers believe that it is original groundbreaking research.

      • Garrett Papit says:

        A few potential workflows!? I tested many, many applications and tested all available workflows within them.

        When the results are ALWAYS the same, you can make scientific statements based on the sampling.

        On the other hand, you could just say that MRC can do it and provide no experiment whatsoever. If you feel comfortable with that…more power to ya. Especially given the fact that the MRC specs talk about the use of a color layer.

        I guess you guys think there is a magical MRC app out there somewhere that fits perfectly…kind of like Cinderella’s slipper. I don’t believe in fairy tales.

        • Frank Arduini says:

          “Many, many” means (according to Mike Zullo) “about 600.”

          Perhaps you should be having this argument with him?

          • Frank Arduini says:

            Here is the direct quote from the first video at the July 17 presser:

            Since March 1st, two experts not associated with our first press conference were brought in toreview the evidence we presented that day. Before issuing an opinion, both independently ran approximately 600 separate tests.

            Here is Zullo’s own comment from the same conference:

            We had two other individuals not utilized by us prior to March 1st, Garrett Papit, Tim Selaty, both of them independently, not knowing of each other, performed over 600 tests a piece on the Long Form Birth Certificate doing computerized forensic analysis.

          • Frank Arduini says:

            And from Corsi’s new video:

            “Over 2 different computer experts ran over 600 tests each on this argument…”

            So again, Garrett. Who’s lying here? Zullo and Corsi or you?

  77. Garrett Papit says:

    I have no beliefs concerning whether Obama was born in HI and whether the underlying BC is legit. I do believe that NBC requires two citizen parents. Care to mock me for it? lmao

    • Half a dozen judges have said you’re wrong about your constitutional interpretation. Take that as a mock or not as you will. The point is that you’re wrong, and not competent to say otherwise.

      • Garrett Papit says:

        Thanks for your opinion. That and a bag of chips will get you a nice snack.

        • nbc says:

          I guess you have a hard time arguing the facts… Judges from the Supreme Court down to judges ruling in favor of Obama have all rejected your ‘arguments’.

          That’s the simple fact. No wonder you fail to respond in manner that one would expect from a researcher interested in the facts.

        • You sound like Mario Apuzzo who is unable to distinguish opinion from fact (or more likely is just lying about it). It is not opinion that multiple courts and tribunals have now verified that President Obama is a natural born citizen and that it does not require two citizen parents to be so. That is a fact.

          Your opinion may be that every one of these courts ruled incorrectly but a rational person would have to conclude that it is now extremely unlikely any court will find merit in your opinion.

          • nbc says:

            Your opinion may be that every one of these courts ruled incorrectly but a rational person would have to conclude that it is now extremely unlikely any court will find merit in your opinion.

            History has not been kind to Papit’s legal position. Much of it was argued in US v Wong Kim Ark and rejected.

            Recently, judges have found that under US v WKA, a child born in the United States, regardless of the status of his/her parents is a natural born citizen.

        • Jim says:

          Well, let’s see what the opinion of a Supreme Court Justice is then, Garrett.

          Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor: “All of our Presidents have, to date, been born in the 50 states. Notably, President Obama was born in the state of Hawaii, and so is clearly a natural born citizen.”

          • nbc says:

            What does she know.. But let’s ask Scalia…

            Justice Scalia: But has not been called natural born citizenship? I mean, isn’t it clear that the natural born requirement in the Constitution was intended explicitly to exclude some Englishmen who had come here and spent some time here and then went back and raised their families in England? They did not want that.They wanted natural born Americans.
            Mr. Davis: Yes, by the same token…
            Justice Scalia: That is jus soli, isn’t it?

            Justice Scalia: Well, maybe.
            I’m just referring to the meaning of natural born within the Constitution.
            I don’t think you’re disagreeing.
            It requires jus soli, doesn’t it?

            Uhoh…

          • Steven Feinstein says:

            How can you quote O’Connor when they have Pat Boone, Pat Boone people.

    • Northland10 says:

      You claim no beliefs about where he was born but then say this above:

      My contention, if the BC is fake, is that his parents or grandparents fraudulently registered his birth, with the HDOH, as a home birth when it might have happened out of the state or country.

      Since you spend all this time trying to show the BC is a fake, that would mean you are following your contention.. i.e. your belief.

      Of course, your true belief is that he is ineligible, so everything else is a fruitless attempt to find facts to back up your belief.

      • Garrett Papit says:

        Do you understand what the word ‘if’ means? I was asked how he could be born outside the US given the certification of HI and I gave one scenario. Unlike you, I don’t assume anything. You believe he was born in HI and that bias will never bend.

        • nbc says:

          I was asked how he could be born outside the US given the certification of HI and I gave one scenario. Unlike you, I don’t assume anything. You believe he was born in HI and that bias will never bend.

          that’s ironic…

          Your scenario however does not make much sense logically speaking. You do understand possible versus probable?
          Under your standards, every president could have been born abroad. It’s all one big conspiracy.

        • nbc says:

          A home birth certified to have taken place at a hospital with the signature of an attending physician.

          Yes, that surely would stand up well in court.

        • Northland10 says:

          I believe he was born in Hawaii because there is evidence, both from multiple statements and certificates from Hawaii, and separate notes found in the FOIA responses to Struck and Allen. Evidence to the contrary is severely lacking.

          So yes, I am biased, to the available facts and evidence.

  78. Garrett Papit says:

    Nope. My control document had a manual ink date stamp. Nice try, but I was already aware of that possibility and tested for it.

    And are you suggesting that the WH wrote PDF optimization software for this particular scan? That is ridiculous.

    Optimization does NOT create multiple 1-bit layers. Period.

    • gorefan says:

      “Optimization does NOT create multiple 1-bit layers. Period”

      Does mixed raster content compression?

      • Garrett Papit says:

        MRC compression can be ruled out offhand because it always produces exactly 3 layers. 1 1-bit layer, 1 8-bit layer and 1 color layer. But I included it in my testing anyway to be thorough. Just read the report with an open mind.

        • justlw says:

          The creators of MRC beg to differ with you.

          Mixed Raster Content (MRC) Model for Compound Image Compression. 1999, de Queiroz, Robert Buckley and Ming Xu:

          The extended MRC model, then, allows for several planes while relying on foreground-mask pairs.

          (Emphasis mine)

          And no, “several” does not mean “exactly three”. They mention a specific case that you describe, and then go on to describe how an arbitrarily large number can also be used.

          • Garrett Papit says:

            Oh really now…lol. I’d like to see that. I’ve done extensive research. There are new MRC technologies in the works by Xerox that create more than 3 layers, but they aren’t production ready yet.

            Regardless, the WH PDF has no color layer…therefore it was not optimized using MRC…period.

            • You keep asserting and asserting and providing ZERO references. If the White House PDF has “no color layer” then how come it is in color? Your paper says that you’re “familiar” with PDFs and compression, but that you are not an expert on the topic, nor that you professionally worked with PDF compression. Your report contains no references. So someone without expertise asserts without authority. Worthless.

              Justlw cites a paper on MRC. You just claim you did research. Who should I believe?

              You’re not making any sense whatever.

            • justlw says:

              “new”

              The paper was written in 1999.

              Let me do this for you, since you won’t.

              You have been trying to claim that because some software you used didn’t do a thing, no software can do a thing.

              Now you are claiming that you know conclusively that no software does this “new advanced” thing that was specified in a paper published 13 years ago. 13 years is “forever” in computer science years.

              Prove it.

            • gorefan says:

              “There are new MRC technologies in the works by Xerox that create more than 3 layers, but they aren’t production ready yet.”

              You sure about that?

              “Actually, the MRC imaging model allows for one, two, three or more layers. ” Ricardo L. de Queiroz, Compressing Compound Documents in The Document and Image Compression Handbook (2005).

              Seems like it was around back in 2005.

          • Garrett Papit says:

            Wrong…several does always equal three. And it doesn’t say multiple 1-bit layers. The foreground mask pairs consist of 1 1-bit layer combined with the color layer. You don’t even understand what you are reading.

            • justlw says:

              several does always equal three.

              Good night everybody! Be sure to tip your waitress!

            • Suranis says:

              several does always equal three

              http://www.thefreedictionary.com/several

              sev·er·al (svr-l, svrl)
              adj.

              1. Being of a number more than two or three but not many: several miles away.

              2. Single; distinct: “Pshaw! said I, with an air of carelessness, three several times” (Laurence Sterne).

              3. Respectively different; various: They parted and went their several ways. See Synonyms at distinct.

              4. Law Relating separately to each party of a bond or note.

              Gosh. A number more than 2 or 3. Fancy that.

    • nbc says:

      Optimization does NOT create multiple 1-bit layers. Period.

      That’s a pretty foolish preposition. Especially since for instance a HP patent proposes that it would. You cannot let your ignorance lead you to conclusions. You need some positive evidence.

  79. Garrett Papit says:

    Is MRC compression optimization? Yes it is…therefore, no it does not.

    • justlw says:

      Pronouns need antecedents. Replies need context.

      • Garrett Papit says:

        And you need a couple more computer degrees and to actually experiment with MRC to understand how it works. Okay, maybe not the degrees…but go check it out rather than just read about it. You will see that I am right.

        • justlw says:

          Heh. Really. You want to go in a peeing match with me on computer science experience?

        • nbc says:

          Just because your limited experiments have failed, this should not be confused with an impossibility. The existence of multiple monochrome images is hardly at odds with mixed raster content.

  80. Garrett Papit says:

    Linda,

    Why would they need to use numerous programs to make the document more legible when it was printed that same week by the HDOH. Does the HDOH have malfunctioning printers? Come on now, that is just plain silly.

    • linda says:

      I don’t know what software HI used to scan the BC onto security paper. Do you? Plus, you didn’t answer my question. If the information is accurate, as verified by HI, how can a copy, posted on the internet, be a forgery?

      • nbc says:

        Excellent point but that’s easily rejected by assuming that the DOH is lying. Of course, there is no explanation for the observed features in the document from a forger’s perspective when compression and other workflow algorithms can explain, in principle. all.

    • linda says:

      If you believe HI had just printed it, and they have verified the information on the WH pdf, again, where is the forgery?

      • Garrett Papit says:

        I’ve answered your question Linda. If the document was updated via affidavit, they couldn’t certify the truth of the statements. And the certification stamps are on the extra 1-bit layers that shouldn’t exist. Do you understand now? I can’t tell you whether he was born there. I can only tell you that the PDF was manipulated.

        • linda says:

          No, you haven’t answered my question. It is still the same one. How can the WH pdf of the BC be a forgery when HI has verified the information on it?

          Also, if the document was updated via affidavit, (like from a home birth) it would not have the hospital and doctor’s signature on the BC.

          • Garrett Papit says:

            You truly don’t get it. The affidavit part was to add that he was born at the hospital. At the time, no verification was done.

            The BC would therefore say he was born at a hospital, but there would be no way to say it’s true. When will you understand? The doctor’s sig would have to be fraudulent…in this scenario.

            • linda says:

              Then you are entirely clueless. Affidavits were not allowed for hospital births. Buy a clue.

            • linda says:

              So, is that your cute way of saying since HI verifies the info on the WH pdf, that it can’t be a forgery?

            • gorefan says:

              The doctor’s signature is identical to other examples. So when was it added to the BC?

              Remember the DOH has sent a certified verification to a Federal Court in Mississippi. And that verification says that all the information on the whitehouse pdf matches what is on the original BC in their vault.

            • Suranis says:

              For a home birth, Hawiin law demanded that the birth had to be registered BY THE PARENTS, not by the grandmother by phone. There would have had to be a tribunal where they would have had to present the baby. That was Hawaiin law since 1921.

              NOR could they have stuck the name of the hospital on it retroactively. for a home birth.

              You are pathetically reaching at this point.

            • nbc says:

              The doctor’s sig would have to be fraudulent…in this scenario.

              There you have it, and since there appears to be a valid doctor’s signature.

              Well you get the point.

              Poor birthers

            • John Woodman says:

              You truly don’t get it. The affidavit part was to add that he was born at the hospital. At the time, no verification was done.

              The BC would therefore say he was born at a hospital, but there would be no way to say it’s true. When will you understand? The doctor’s sig would have to be fraudulent…in this scenario.

              So… let me get this straight.

              You posit that Obama’s birth certificate was altered — by affidavit — at some time after his birth.

              You make this claim, or at least supposition, even though the birth certificate clearly says he was born at Kapiolani, even though it has the doctor’s signature (which is dated 4 days after Obama’s birth), and even though the certificate states that it was accepted by the local and general registrars on August 8, 1961.

              And your basis for making this claim is exactly what?

        • CarlOrcas says:

          Garrett Papit writes: “If the document was updated via affidavit….”

          Do you have any evidence that in fact happened?

          • Garrett Papit says:

            Do you have any evidence that it didn’t. Again, I’m not arguing whether Obama was born in HI…I really don’t care. I’m simply telling you that the PDF file was manipulated.

            • linda says:

              Let’s try it this way. If the WH pdf of the birth certificate was “manipulated”, but the information on it has been verified by HI, how is that significant whatsoever?

            • Suranis says:

              Sorry. The accuser has to present evidence for his accusation to make a case, not make an accusation and then rely on the defense to prove its is wrong to the satisfaction of the accuser. If you have no evidence then you are talking out your ponderous ass.

            • nbc says:

              Do you have any evidence that it didn’t.

              that burden of proof again and the signature of the doctor.

              You do understand that you have no evidence to support your foolish proposal?

              President Obama’s birth was certified by the attending physician a few days after his birth.

              No home birth.

              So simple

            • CarlOrcas says:

              Garrett Papit says: “Do you have any evidence that it didn’t.”

              How silly.

              Even sillier is your assertion that you “don’t care” whether Obama was born in Hawaii.

              Top that off with the notion that a document image containing accurate information was “manipulated” – according to you – and it just gets sillier still.

        • nbc says:

          I can only tell you that the PDF was manipulated

          By software or by a forger. you have failed to provide evidence for either although an algorithmic explanation is far more likely.

        • Suranis says:

          Updating via affidavit was not possible under hawaiin law. Particularly changing a home birth into a hospital one. LOL

    • Frank Arduini says:

      Seriously? I have to use “multiple programs” just to get my Verizon bill scanned and submitted for reimbursement.

  81. Garrett Papit says:

    CarlOrcas – transcriptions of the Declaration are different than actual photocopies. And the Declaration of Independence is not an official identity document. Apples to oranges.

    The fact is, if someone manipulated this document..either to change information, or to make some people think they changed information…it is potentially a crime. Even if no charges would be brought, it would be a scandal…if anyone actually cared.

    • CarlOrcas says:

      Garrett,

      You are all over the map.

      You can speculate until the cows come home about all sorts of things that might have been done to the information but until you can prove that the State of Hawaii is wrong when it certifies that the information we have seen, that it has in its records, is not accurate you’re just blowing smoke.

    • nbc says:

      The fact is, if someone manipulated this document..either to change information, or to make some people think they changed information…it is potentially a crime.

      I think the operative word is “IF” But since the DOH has verified the content, your hypothesis appears to be ill supported.

      But you must have known this already.

  82. Garrett Papit says:

    Dr. C.

    You have no idea what you are talking about with MRC. I didn’t say the BC doesn’t have color…that is ridiculous. I said it doesn’t have a color layer. Go figure out what that means in terms of MRC compression and come back when you are better equipped to debate.

    The document provided backs up what I said…you simply don’t understand what it is saying.

    Read this – http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CFcQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.135.8398%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&ei=ZAoeULP6AYfJqgGDm4Ag&usg=AFQjCNGE8ZXzAGuGehuq-P7A23wk6J0kiQ&sig2=6kTZjtXHsjw7pwyirJ1ScQ

    • gorefan says:

      Are you talking about the foreground layer?

      You do know that MRC can have a background layer (the 8 bit jpeg layer in the BC), multiple masks (the 1 bit layers in the BC) and no foreground layer?

      • justlw says:

        Oh, thanks for decoding what he was saying. That makes more sense, in the sense that now he’s wrong in a different way.

      • Garrett Papit says:

        Wrong…lol. You guys just spout of information like you have a clue. MRC needs a color layer to represent the original color variation within the text of a scanned document. The WH PDF does not have a color layer. Open the file in Illustrator. Extract the image files using an extraction program. There is no color layer. Earth to people who don’t understand color layers…Obama’s PDF file was NOT optimized by MRC compression. I could EASILY prove this in a court of law. But keep pretending you are making salient points.

        • John Woodman says:

          And how exactly are you going to “prove” that, Garrett? By making bald assertions, backed up by no authority and no evidence, as you did in your paper and have continually done here?

        • CarlOrcas says:

          Garrett Papit says: “I could EASILY prove this in a court of law.”

          Have you ever been qualified as an expert on this subject in a “court of law”…..any court?

        • Suranis says:

          You said to me there was a colour masking layer and here you are saying there is no colour layer. Which is it, genius? Or do you get to prove things by saying different things to different people?

    • nbc says:

      Go figure out what that means in terms of MRC compression and come back when you are better equipped to debate.

      There does not have to be a color layer when the color is integrated with the color of the bitmap. Surely you must be aware of the two layer implementation of MRC

      Such a fool

      • Suranis says:

        And, as I said above, the “1 bit layers” are not actually black, so there has to be colour information encoded into them, even if it is for just one colour. So the whole PDF, every layer, is actually technically in colour.

        What a twat.

        • Garrett Papit says:

          Have you ever examined this document or are you basically making claims for which you have no knowledge?

          The 1-bit layers are black. The reason they have color is because there is a 1-bit color fill. Open in Illustrator and check for yourself. ;)

          • Suranis says:

            Soo what your saying is that, as I said, the colour information for the layers was included in the PDF. Thanks for confirming what I said.

            And as for you trying to rubbish MY knowledge, I say back to you, who cares about me? Every claim you have made here tonight has been easily rebuffed by knowledgeable people actually reading the proofs you provided. You are trying to make yourself look big by picking on the words of someone who does not work in the computer industry while ignoring the words of those who are professionally ripping your proofs a new one. Those are your piers that you are going to have to convince to get your report taken seriously. If they are laughing at you now thats not going to change when you release it to the wider world.

            Saying “People who don’t work in the industry could not refute part of my report!!!” wont work in a court of law or in front of an interviewer with any kind of knowledge. That’s why all of Mara Zebest’s reading fell flat. People with knowledge looked at it and rubbished it.

            Just one example from this page

            Remember, for example “MRC compression can be ruled out offhand because it always produces exactly 3 layers.

            and then, hilariously;

            several always means three

            Sounds like solid knowledge there

            And why the hell would opening it in Illustrator prove anything, considering that the CCP admitted in the first press conference that opening a PDF in Illustrator will display layers that do not exist in the original document? Illustrator is not designed to display PDFs, or any kind of pixel based graphics. Its a vector graphics program. All you will get is Illustrator’s bad interpretation of pixel graphics illustrations.

            So I ask you, if your findings are so solid and you are such an expert, how come your findings have already been rubbished by knowledgeable people reading the very papers you rely on and showing that you have mis-read them on the most basic level? How is your earth shattering report going to prove anything when you cant defend your conclusions even here.

          • Suranis says:

            In short, disprove what NBC said, which I was replying to. One os forced to conclude that you ignored NBCs comment as you could not refute it.

          • nbc says:

            The 1-bit layers are black. The reason they have color is because there is a 1-bit color fill.

            Well there you have your degenerate color layer… Truly amazing, you managed to find it.

            [claps his hands in admiration]

          • Frank Arduini says:

            Actually… no. The 1-bit layers are not black at all. They are bitmasks, not bitmaps, and they have no color at all until rendered. At that point they can rendered in any color at all.

    • nbc says:

      This paper even observes that 3 layers is the ‘basic model’.

      The basic 3-layer MRC model represents a color raster image as two multi-level or color image layers (Foreground and Background) and a binary image layer (Mask).

      Any software designer could quickly identify cases in which it could collapse to for instance two layers, with no need for the foreground color layer.

    • justlw says:

      Which says

      The most basic MRC approach, MRC mode 1, divides an image into three layers

      Hmm, that would seem to indicate there might be another MRC approach that doesn’t divide an image into three layers. How can we find out if this might be so?

      Hey, the same paper mentions the ITU-T T.44 standard for MRC. Maybe this standard could shed some light on the question?

      Well, yes. Yes, it does. The 2005 spec mentions there are other standardized MRC modes, modes 2 and 3.

      Mode 3 adds SLC support and extends the model beyond three (3) layers to realize greater capability.

      Now, you’ve already handwaved over this, and said this is advanced magic that no one has implemented yet. Even though we now have two papers that describe this capability, one from 1999 and one from 2005.

      [EDIT: Three papers. Gorefan mentions another from 2005.]

      I do not see, and ask you for help in explaining, how you can definitively state that no software implements this capability. How do you prove this negative?

    • nbc says:

      The most basic MRC approach, MRC mode 1, divides an image into three layers

      Anyone who would have researched this would realize that many variants of MRC exist.

      Such fools.

  83. Garrett Papit says:

    One more – http://image.unb.br/queiroz/papers/icvgip2008_zaghetto.pdf

    Note the number of layers and what a color layer is. The WH PDF does not have one. Therefore it is clear, to anyone who understands MRC, that it was not used on that document…period.

    • justlw says:

      Note that this is one example of an MRC implementation. It does not preclude other implementations, and indeed, I just quoted you the standard that outlines other implementations.

      One great thing about this paper, though: they use a couple of the classic image examples, including the mandrill (figure 8(c)).

      But what cracked me up was figure 8(b), which old-timers will immediately recognize as well. I’d forgotten what her name was:

      Lena.

  84. gsgs says:

    Hawaii should have sent an electronically signed file.
    No security paper, no trip to Hawaii needed.
    Maybe they can still do it.

    • Suranis says:

      At which point all you would be talking about is how many different ways an electronic tag can be faked, ass.

      Haven’t you proven you are not a brain in a Jar yet?

    • justlw says:

      They’ve validated multiple times that all the data conveyed by the PDF (and by the BC released by the Obama campaign in 2008) matches the particulars of Obama’s birth. Why do they need to do anything else?

      • gsgs says:

        did they also validate that nothing was left out ?

        • justlw says:

          Well, no. No they didn’t. They have just said that everything that has been posted in 2008 and 2012 “matches the information contained in the original COLB.”

          So yes, if they cropped out a photograph of Alvin Onaka looking at the camera and pointing and laughing, I guess what they have attested to would still be true.

          There’s still hope! Keep on birfin’!

    • Since Hawaii has verified the birth certificate’s contents, and faking a birth certificate with legitimate information is ludicrous, the only avenue for the birther is that the State of Hawaii is complicit in the forgery and so they’ve already decided that nothing from Hawaii is acceptable proof that Obama was born there.

    • nbc says:

      How do you electronically transmit the seal? Do you even think before you make these claims?

  85. gsgs says:

    the pdf has 385K, when I save it as .jpg it only has 261K.
    What algo is used for .pdf ?
    or .gif
    Are there really only these 2 algorithms MRC,adaptive being used

    —————–
    cheecking wikipedia …
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_compression

    —————-
    “Region of interest coding” makes some sense,
    Could they manually have selected some
    regions of interest before the algo ran ?

    ————————–

    the 2 Papit methods, MRC and Adaptive,
    would they have been more successful here ?
    Had they created .pdfs of smaller size
    than what the WH did ?

    • Suranis says:

      “saving it as a JPG” means jack and shit. What resolution did you use, what dimensions was the image, what compression did you use? The AP copy is 1.97 MEGS in sise.

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

      By saying something so stupid you have pretty much proven you know [colorful term for "absolutely nothing"] about imaging.

    • justlw says:

      I just saved it as .jpg and it was only 5K. Of course, I had it cranked down to the worst possible quality, and 20 px/in. If I save it at best quality, 150 px/in, it’s 2.4 MB. So, not a lot we can prove with this.

      PDF supports multiple compression algorithms. See the WP article on it for a list.

      MRC and Adaptive Compression are not basic compression algorithms per se; they are a way to apply multiple compression methods to a single image.

    • nbc says:

      the pdf has 385K, when I save it as .jpg it only has 261K.

      Duh… You do realize that PDF encapsulates a jpeg?

      Sigh such amateurs.

  86. gsgs says:

    why they separated “non” and “e” either manually or automatically
    is bit hard to understand for me

    • Suranis says:

      Shocking.

    • nbc says:

      why they separated “non” and “e” either manually or automatically
      is bit hard to understand for me

      Automatically is much easier to understand that manually. You may be on to something my friend. Now let logic and reason guide you for once.

  87. gsgs says:

    OK, my 261K jpg has lower resolution than the WH-pdf with 385K.
    I can’t easily create a .jpg of similar resolution than the WH-pdf,
    can someone do it and report the file-size ?

  88. gsgs says:

    what about that new google-WebP compression ?
    John Woodman reported google-books gave similar layers
    as the WH-pdf

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebP

    • gsgs says:

      hmm, WebP in the WH-pdf somehow makes sense to me.
      Could it be that this is the easy solution (and the end) of birtherism
      and none of the experts including Woodman knew about it ?!?!?!?
      Nor did the WH even bother to hint at it. (can’t plaster it on my forehead,
      more important things to do)

      ———————————————
      WebP is based on block prediction. Each block is predicted on the values from
      three blocks above it and from one block left of it (block decoding is done in
      raster-scan order: left to right and top to bottom). There are four basic modes
      of block prediction: horizontal, vertical, DC (one color), and TrueMotion.
      Mispredicted data and non-predicted blocks are compressed in a 4×4 pixel
      sub-block with Discrete cosine transform and (rare) Walsh–Hadamard
      transform. Both transforms are done with fixed-point arithmetic to avoid
      rounding errors. The output is compressed with entropy encoding.[14]
      WebP also has explicit support for parallel decoding.[14]
      ———————————————
      Als solches handelt es sich um ein blockbasiertes (4×4 Pixel Blockgröße)
      Transformationsverfahren mit acht Bit Farbtiefe und einem Helligkeit-Farbigkeit-Farbmodell
      mit Farbunterabtastung im Verhältnis 1:2 (YCbCr 4:2:0).[5] Es verwendet eine vergleichsweise
      fortschrittliche Entropiekodierung – eine Art binärer arithmetischer Codierung (ähnlich CABAC).
      Der obligatorische RIFF-Container führt ohne weiteren Inhalt zu einem Overhead von
      nur 20 Bytes und kann der zusätzlichen Aufnahme von Metadaten dienen.
      —————————————————–

      http://magictour.free.fr/birnone3.JPG

  89. Steven Feinstein says:

    Garrett, you wouldn’t last 10 minutes under cross examination:

    Mr. Papit, isn’t it true that before you became involved with CCP you were an avowed deVattelist and believed that the Barack Obama was not eligible to be President?

    Yes

    Mr. Papit, isn’t it true that on a particular website, you pretended to be the ghost of Emil deVattel in order to explain your two citizen parent belief/

    Yes.

    Mr. Papit, isn’t it true that you did not examine the original document?

    Yes.

    Mr. Papit, because you did not examine the original document, isn’t it true that you have no opinion as to the validity of the original BC?

    Yes.

    Mr. Papit, your opinion is that the digital version of the pdf that was posted on the WH website was somehow manipulated, correct?

    Yes.

    Mr. Papit, isn’t it true that you have no idea how the document was manipulated, only that it was, correct?

    Yes

    Mr. Papit, as you sit here today, isn’t it true that you have no idea whether the information contained on the pdf is the same as what appears on the original BC, correct?

    Yes, that is true.

    Mr. Papit, if the state of Hawaii verifies that the information on the pdf is the same that is one the original bc, you would have no way of disproving that correct?

    Yes, that is also true.

    Mr. Papit, you are aware that Mike Zullo used your research to stand up at press conference and announce to the world that the President’s BC was forged, isn’t that true?

    Yes

    And Mr. Papit, you never came out and to anyone and said that Mr. Zullo had mis-characterized your research, did you?

    No, I didn’t.

    In fact, isn’t it true Mr. Papit that you have supported the findings of the CCP despite Mr. Zullo’s misuse of your research.

    Yes, I have.

    Thank you Mr. Papit, that will be all.

  90. Steven Feinstein says:

    Rich D Valle

    Your words wound me sir, not. I will never apologize for being impolite to birthers, and in this case it is clear that Garrett lied about me calling him names. As for my parents they taught me to stand up for the truth no matter the cost and to not suffer fools well.

    There are only two kinds of birthers sir, evil and stupid. The evil ones know they are lying and the stupid ones follow the lies the evil ones. Garrett has no business being part of any investigation given his pre existing the belief that the President is not eligible. I could have assumed that Garrett was just stupid because he was blindly following the evil rantings of Donfrio and has, in the past acted as a proxy for him. HOWEVER, at this point Garrett knows, without any shadow of any doubt, that Zullo lied during his press conference, not just about the coding and the year of the manual, but about Garrett’s own research and findings. HE HAS DONE NOTHING TO DENOUNCE THAT. At that point, I was forced to conclude that Garrett is evil.

    Garrett, along with all birthers are traitors. If that offends you or him, I could not care less. Don’t ever come at me unless you have more than that son.

    • Steven Feinstein says:

      I will add, Mr. Valle, that unless and until birthers and wndbaggers begin to conduct themselves as human beings that they are not worthy of being treating civilly. When you denounce the racists, those who call for the violent overthrow of the government or worse, the assassination of the President you might get a modicum of respect from me. Until then, birthers collectively, will be treated by me with the same respect that you collectively show the office of the Presidency of the United States. And again, if that offends, too bad. Learn to police your own and then maybe we can talk. You exist in my world because I allow you in and for no other reason. You are so irrelevant that I could shut you out and not look back. But I find evil fascinating and monumental stupidity funny. I love birther theater.

      • Slartibartfast says:

        Steven F. said: “unless and until birthers and wndbaggers begin to conduct themselves as human beings that they are not worthy of being treating civilly.”

        To me, the birthers refusal to debate in good faith constitutes a far greater level of incivility than does calling them out for the stupid, willfully ignorant, and/or dishonest bigots that they are. They lost their right to be given the benefit of the doubt years ago due to their constant duplicity and penchant for wrapping themselves in the flag while calling for the violation of the Constitution.

        • Garrett Papit says:

          Meet me in person and call me a bigot. You coward!!

          I have been nothing but civil in this debate and your side results in incivility because they can’t refute my technical evidence.

          Nobody on your side has the technical knowledge to even understand the difference between an 8-bit layer and a 1-bit layer. It is embarrassing.

          I’ve tried to get Woodman to debate me. He basically said unless there was a lot in it for him..he wasn’t interested. There is your side in a nutshell.

          • Suranis says:

            You’ve shown you don’t understand anything about MRC compression. Along with SEVERAL other things.

            So, having failed all that, you are moving on to acting superior about 8 bit crap now?

            And by the way, big boy, I’m 6 foot 6, 320 pounds and grew up on a farm wrestling cattle and lifting rocks. You are a Bigot.

          • Steven Feinstein says:

            Why do you not denounce the racists on your side of the argument Garrett? In the words of GWB, either you are with us or you are against us. If you are not willing to denounce the racists in the birther movement then you condone their conduct.

          • Slartibartfast says:

            Garrett,

            Do you deny you are prejudiced against President Obama despite your own words here which lead me to that conclusion? Have you, as Steven suggested, denounced the many liars and racists that are your fellow travelers in the birther movement? From the discussion on this thread it appears that you wont even denounce misrepresentations of your own work (as long as they appear to reflect poorly on President Obama). Sorry, but your own comments are sufficient evidence (something I realize the birthers know nothing about) of your prejudice and it has also been shown that you are known to lie and your acceptance of the two citizen parent theory based on the mistranslation of Vattel suggests either lack of the ability to understand the law or a willful ignorance. Have I misconstrued any of your positions? If so, please clarify what you think and I will reexamine my conclusions and retract and/or apologize for anything that was unwarranted, but, failing that, my reasoning is sound and I stand by it.

            On the other hand, you don’t have any basis for calling me a coward. If you would like me to call you a bigot to your face, I live in Michigan and would be willing to buy you a beer and explain why your words paint you as a bigot and either willfully ignorant, unintelligent, or dishonest. I don’t say these things out of anger or for any other reason than to force people like you to face the consequences of your own words–if you don’t want to be called a bigot, then I suggest you stop displaying your prejudice by spreading lies.

            And less you think I’m hiding behind a pseudonym, let me sign this:

            Sincerely,

            Kevin Kesseler

            • nbc says:

              Do you deny you are prejudiced against President Obama despite your own words here which lead me to that conclusion?

              He does self identify as a ” staunchly conservative Christian who is against gay marriage” who believes that Jesus was anti-gay marriage as well.

              Conservatism, Religious extremism and conspiracies all have a lot of features in common. There is a wealth on research that shows how these indicators are all, possibly genetically linked. They rely on group thinking, the in versus out-group and a strong distrust towards those now part of the group. A strong adherence to authority and reluctance to consider data which conflicts with strongly held beliefs.
              In other words, a significant part of what makes someone to be a staunch conservative and a staunch religious person can be traced back to genetic traits.

              So, when faced with an ambiguous situation, conservatives would tend to process the information initially with a strong emotional response. This would make them less likely to lean towards change, and more likely to prefer stability. Stability means more predictability, which means more expected outcomes, and less of a trigger for anxiety.

              and

              Liberals, though, tend toward unpredictability. They don’t mind change, and in fact, they prefer it. They seek it out. This personality type would likely choose “change” over “stability” just because they tend to be more novelty-seeking by nature. The fact that they have a more prominent ACC helps them to deal with radically changing situations, still find the salient points, all without the emotion getting in the way. These individuals are the compartmentalizers, the logic-driven ones, while the conservatives are the ones driven by emotion and empathy.

              Fascinating research.

            • Slartibartfast says:

              nbc,

              Thanks for the link (and thanks for the “edit” feature, John).

            • nbc says:

              Darn.. forgot…
              source

          • John Woodman says:

            Please — let’s not paint conservatives with some one-size-fits-all brush.

            Okay?

            I’ve tried to get Woodman to debate me. He basically said unless there was a lot in it for him..he wasn’t interested. There is your side in a nutshell.

            No — If I had been in this for the money, Garrett, I would’ve thrown my lot in with your buddies Corsi and Farah, written a book claiming Obama’s birth certificate was a fake, backed it up with all the “evidence” you’ve presented and more, sold 50,000 copies through WND books, split the profits with them, and been a heck of a lot better off.

            I’ve put something north of $20,000 worth of my time and effort into this, and made not one single dime.

            It’s YOUR side of the issue that’s the money-grubbing, dishonest frauds — as evidenced by the recent fraud perpetrated upon the entire nation.

            A fraud in which YOUR paper was presented as some of the most important “evidence.”

            As for doing some stupid debate with you — I have a family to support. I’d rather not even waste my time answering you on this blog. But I suppose I will eventually make some kind of response.

  91. Slartibartfast says:

    gsgs says:
    August 5, 2012 at 2:20 am
    why they separated “non” and “e” either manually or automatically
    is bit hard to understand for me

    How do you recognize that the “non” and the “e” belong together? Can you describe the algoritm that you used? Even if you could, I believe that you would find it nearly impossible to implement in code. On the other hand, if you were trying to find simple methods of grouping elements that could be coded but gave similar grouping results, it is easy to believe that the simplification resulted in the grouping mistake* (since, after all, an algorithm doesn’t have the pattern recognition capability of a human–or even a dog).

    * for instance, the “e” could have been touching something else or the other three letters could have been touching (in the scan bitmap, not what you can see in your mind–you have incredibly more sophisticated filters in your visual cortex than any software algorithm)–can you give even one reason a human might have done such a thing?

    • justlw says:

      I don’t see how you can say that imperfect software is in play here. You can see clearly from Figure 16 on page 11 of Papit’s report that a master forger human being is responsible for perfectly isolating the Registrar General’s Date Stamp:

      [squiggle]Date AAUG – 8   6

  92. Garrett Papit says:

    You just called all ‘birthers’…less than human. You can stand by that if you want, but it is disgraceful. The term ‘birther’ is disgraceful to begin with. If either side deserves enmity, it is yours. However, I won’t sink to your level.

    • Scientist says:

      I will agree with you Garrett that birthers are definitely human and not at all like dogs, who are loyal, loving and great companions.

      Now, I made this proposal on the other thread, so let me repeat it here for you:

      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?

    • Steven Feinstein says:

      I never said that birthers were not human, I said that birthers need to start acting like humans. There is a difference. If I thought birthers were less than human I would judge them less harshly because then they would not be capable of acting like them. I told you that you have problems with logic.

    • Slartibartfast says:

      If this comment is in reference to what I said about Elvis the dog doing calculus, then you have serious problems with reading comprehension as I was saying that humans (and dogs) have far more complex “algorithms” than any computer code. How you can construe this to mean birthers are subhuman is beyond me. Is it just that you feel free to misrepresent what I said because I’m mean to birthers or are you so used to twisting your opponents’ words and trying to smear them with lies that you don’t even think about it anymore?

      Actually, I recently demonstrated that I am not capable of solving the calculus problem that Elvis solves instinctually–in a similar situation I lacked sufficient information to determine the solution… ;-)

  93. Garrett Papit says:

    So I guess you are a forgery psychologist? That is great. And you say our side makes radical suppositions? Please, I demonstrated that optimization does not create multiple 1-bit layers…which proves that this file was manipulated. There is no way to know at what stage in the forgery the layers came to be how they are or why the forger would do it this way…assuming it is forged.

    They may have forged it to look optimized to throw off anyone who knows enough to be dangerous, yet doesn’t truly understand the technology. Seems to have worked perfectly to me. You call it dumb…but maybe it is genius.

    But you go on assuming. The problem is, the technical facts disagree with you.

    And I suppose it’s just coincidence that the extra 1-bit layers contain so much certifying information?

    • justlw says:

      Who’s assuming?

      I demonstrated that optimization does not create multiple 1-bit layers

      No, you did not. You demonstrated that some optimization programs do not create multiple 1-bit layers. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

      If I sit by a freeway for two hours and do not see a Chevy Nova go by, I have not demonstrated that Chevy Novas do not exist. Even if I watch for 24 hours, or 3 weeks. Or deploy people at 100 freeways.

      We know that the original MRC concept, as outlined by Xerox in 1999, allows for it. We know that the ITU MRC spec, as codified in 2005, describes it. We know that there is MRC software that you have not tested.

      We know, also, that you have apparently willfully fudged a demonstration of the MRC software that you have tested.

      You have a long way to go from “I haven’t shown you an example of multiple 1-bit layers” to “Obama was not born in Hawaii.”

      • Garrett Papit says:

        You are wrong. I demonstrated how MRC compression and adaptive compression work in all cases.

        And if you want to stick by that argument, then your side has the same problem. You have stated that optimization CAN create the layers we see in Obama’s BC, yet you haven’t provided one single sample.

        And again, I’m not saying Obama wasn’t born in HI. I’m just telling you that the PDF file was manipulated. No matter how much that bothers you…it is the reality.

        • justlw says:

          You are wrong. I demonstrated how MRC compression and adaptive compression work in all cases.

          There is no way you, or anyone, can do that.

          MRC and adaptive compression are not laws of physics. They can be implemented in a vast number of ways. Papers I have cited show that it is entirely possible to have more than three layers in an MRC document, something you have denied is even possible.

          You have no way of knowing, for example, whether proprietary algorithms built into a copier may implement an MRC- or AC-like algorithm unlike any you have ever seen before.

          Which copiers with built-in MRC have you tested?

          Your entire argument is that “because I cannot find a way someone did this with automated software, it must not have been automated software.”

          The fact that Figure 16, just as one example, shows every sign of being the result of automated software, is waved off as “I can’t rule out that a human decided to be exactly as dumb as we’d expect from a piece of software.”

          Well, no. Neither can I. But, you can’t rule out that this was not done by automated software. And you have not ruled that out.

          Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

        • Frank Arduini says:

          That is simply a laughable claim. You don’t even know “all the cases possible” with MRC compression.

  94. Garrett Papit says:

    Steven accuses me of being biased and accusess all ‘birthers’, whom he routinely degrades, of starting from a supposition and working backwards.

    However, he trusts Woodman who simply throws out theories and assumptions without backing them up. Woodman provides one example, using Little Red Riding Hood just to seem professional, of said optimization. And his single solitary sample does NOT have multiple 1-bit layers. This of course makes sense if you understand the technology.

    By contrast, I ran literally hundreds of tests over a 6 month period…all with identical results. I researched all optimization technology that involves segmentation and talked with people who design these technologies first-hand.

    The fact that you just trust his single example, despite the fact that it proves my theory…not his, shows which side is really biased.

    • Steven Feinstein says:

      With all due respect to Mr. Woodman, because I am not an expert in digital documents and I not a computer expert, I could no more tell you whether he is correct in his analysis than you are in yours, so it boils down to trust and credibility. I know that John, like me, is not an Obama supporter. Because he is not a supporter and still has his findings, I give more him credence than I do you and I do not question his motives as I do yours. Even with that, and again with respect to John, the most fascinating thing about his analysis is that he offered his services to the CCP not once but twice and never got as much as a phone call back. This is one of the most glaring things to me about the methodology used by the CCP in conducting its alleged investigation. It refused to look at anything that did not support its conclusion.

      • Garrett Papit says:

        The CCP wasn’t aware of his offerings previously…they are contacted hundreds of times a day. Does Woodman think he’s a rock star that they should just notice him? I have looked at his evidence, and my report is aimed as specifically showing why optimization didn’t create these anomalies. Until you disprove that, you have nothing to add. Our experts have shown the CCP why he is wrong…and convincingly. Why should they be interested?

        And I also happen to know Woodman has lied about himself on multiple occasions (I won’t get into that because the technical facts are all that matter to me). Don’t hold him up as a bastion of truth.

        The fact is, you choose to believe him because he reaches the conclusion you want to hear…plain and simple.

        • Steven Feinstein says:

          Garrett, I told you why I tend to believe John. You choose to reject the reason. But as I said before, it makes no difference because it has nothing to do with whether the original document is genuine, but you still do not get that.

          • Garrett Papit says:

            Of course I get that. I’ve stated it on multiple occassions. I guess you just skim rather than reading. But one has to ask, why would you manipulate a file if you have a legit underlying document?

            In the end it doesn’t matter. I’m not trying to prove what HI has or doesn’t have. Only they can do that. I’ve simply proven that the PDF has been manipulated.

            And obviously that gets under your skin…so much for objectivity.

            • Steven Feinstein says:

              And yet you allowed your findings to be used in a press conference saying that the document is forged and didn’t correct that. And that is mostly what I object to.

            • Scientist says:

              “But one has to ask, why would you manipulate a file if you have a legit underlying document?”

              To enhance legibility. Look if I go to get my portrait taken, I might wear a jacket and tie and comb my hair and let them put makeup over a scar, even though I usually wear a T-shirt and have my hair in a mess. That isn’t being dishonest, it’s simply presenting myself in a good light.

        • CarlOrcas says:

          Garrett Papit says: “The CCP wasn’t aware of his offerings previously……”

          How do you know this?

          “…they are contacted hundreds of times a day.”

          And this?

          And finally you say: “And I also happen to know Woodman has lied about himself on multiple occasions (I won’t get into that because the technical facts are all that matter to me). Don’t hold him up as a bastion of truth.”

          A man who calls another a liar and won’t back it up is…well….a coward.

        • John Woodman says:

          And I also happen to know Woodman has lied about himself on multiple occasions (I won’t get into that because the technical facts are all that matter to me). Don’t hold him up as a bastion of truth.

          Garrett Papit: You are a bald-faced, scumbag liar, and you have just engaged in defamation. If you think you can prove your claim, then do so — or publicly apologize.

          • Garrett Papit says:

            I’m a scumbag but you think I am defaming you? I need some popcorn for this show.

            • Slartibartfast says:

              Yes, Garrett, you are a scumbag who is defaming John. You accused him of lying about himself and provided absolutely nothing in the way of evidence that your allegation came from anywhere besides your ass. That is clearly the act of a scumbag. And I doubt that you are so stupid that you don’t realize calling someone a liar is defaming them–apparently baselessly, in your case. You really shouldn’t call people liars when you can’t back up your claims…

        • John Woodman says:

          Hint: An assertion is not proof.

          I include that point because it’s one you don’t seem to understand.

          • Garrett Papit says:

            Hint…you are right. You have asserted that optimization created the layers in the WH PDF but have not proven it. By contrast, I have shown how segmentation works and have demonstrated why optimization did NOT create these layers.

        • John Woodman says:

          Second hint: Faked “evidence” — of the kind produced by your buddies at the Cold Case Posse — isn’t proof, either.

          So let’s hear what you think you have. Out with it, or apologize.

          • Garrett Papit says:

            You have lied about having already disproven my research on multiple occasions..including to a local PHX ABC affiliate. If either of us should be threatening legal action, it is me. But that is so beneath me it is ridiculous. I can take whatever your ilk want to say about me…and do so with a smile. :)

            • John Woodman says:

              Your claim is false, and an additional false accusation. As far as I can recall, I said nothing at all about you to ABC.

        • John Woodman says:

          Oh — and as for your other point:

          The CCP wasn’t aware of his offerings previously…they are contacted hundreds of times a day. Does Woodman think he’s a rock star that they should just notice him?

          Perhaps you might explain to me exactly why they mentioned me in their first press conference — and also why not only was I allowed no chance to rebut the points they made about my research, I was not even notified that they were going to mention me in the press conference.

          So yeah, they were really unaware of me and my work, all right.

          • nbc says:

            So yeah, they were really unaware of me and my work, all right.

            But they also knew that they could not rebut your findings and since their goal was not as much finding the truth but rather the ‘truth’ that matched their expected outcome, it had to be ignored, just like MRC was initially ignored and Guthrie was ignored and the AP document was never fully considered.

            Such sloppiness… If they were not amateurs, I would be calling it incompetence.

            • Garrett Papit says:

              I can’t believe you guys are still talking about MRC. It’s a dead end…give it up. MRC was 100% not run on the WH PDF file. Extract the image layers using a program like xpdf and you can see that there is no color layer such as MRC uses to retain the color information for the 1-bit layer.

            • John Woodman says:

              If you watch the video, I thought what they did was fairly slick:

              They put my name in there, described one bit of evidence I produced — without ever stating that I disagreed with their conclusions or had come to any conclusions different from theirs, in any way — and then “disproved” the point with an explanation that did no such thing.

              In essence, they said: “John Woodman showed that you can get layers when a file is optimized. But the number of layers he had in his example was too many (or too few, I forget which at the moment) as compared with Obama’s PDF, showing that’s not how Obama’s PDF got its layers.”

              In fact, the number of layers in my example was very much in accordance with the number of layers you would expect in Obama’s PDF. It was in fact a confirmation of my point — but they claimed that it was a disproof of my point.

              All without ever stating that I was in any disagreement with them.

              I was given zero opportunity to rebut the point, zero opportunity to discuss the evidence with any member of the Posse, and zero notification that my name was going to be used.

              I read it this way: They wanted to mention my name and make it appear, to those who had heard of my work, that they had considered it and debunked it — while not ringing any bells among those who hadn’t heard of me that there was anybody who disagreed with their “analysis” and conclusions.

              Slick.

            • Steven Feinstein says:

              When it is intentional, it is not incompetence but malfeasance and fraud.

          • Garrett Papit says:

            Umm…mentioning you doesn’t mean that they saw your offer to join the posse. That is a leap of logic. Is it their responsibility now to reach out to everyone? Come on now.

            • John Woodman says:

              Very early on, I sent them a message identifying myself as someone who had spent a total of some 500 hours, at that time – the equivalent of three months’ full-time investigation into the forgery theories and the birth certificate itself, and the only person to have written a book on the evidence.

              And I offered my assistance with their investigation.

              They ignored that. But when they did their first press conference, for national coverage, they quite specifically mentioned me and my work, as detailed above.

            • nbc says:

              Wow, really wow…

            • Steven Feinstein says:

              Whether they saw his offer to join the investigation is a moot point. They knew about his work, it was inconsistent with their conclusion, and they they igorned it.

            • Frank Arduini says:

              Umm…mentioning you doesn’t mean that they saw your offer to join the posse.

              Were that true, it would be yet another demonstration of professional incompetence on the part of the “investigators” of the CCP.

            • CarlOrcas says:

              Frank Arduini says: Were that true, it would be yet another demonstration of professional incompetence on the part of the “investigators” of the CCP.

              Amen! Real cops, real investigators would have read it and said “Gee, maybe we ought to talk to this guy!

              But….they aren’t, so they didn’t. It’s as simple as that.

        • Frank Arduini says:

          Papit writes:

          The CCP wasn’t aware of his offerings previously…they are contacted hundreds of times a day. Does Woodman think he’s a rock star that they should just notice him?

          In point of fact, John Woodman was mentioned by name during the original March 1st CCP Press conference. So not only were they familiar with him, they had looked at his work.

          Of course, at that point they were still in the process of changing the year long Birther story from “layers prove forgery” to “not enough layers prove forgery.”

          Your “report” is a yet a third contradictory attempt to salvage a complaint (any complaint) about the PDF from what is by all genuine appearance a completely ordinary document scan.

    • Suranis says:

      I researched all optimization technology that involves segmentation and talked with people who design these technologies first-hand.

      And got the most basic details about them wrong when trying to puff yourself up on John Woodmans blog, when every one of the 3 reports you presented showed very clearly how you were wrong. And we added another one for the giggles

      And you got the definition of the word SEVERAL wrong too.

      By contrast, I ran literally hundreds of tests over a 6 month period…all with identical results

      Opening the LFBC in illustrator does not count as a test. John provided multiple exampes on how ordinary PDFs create layers when opened in illustrator even where no layers existed.

      Steven accuses me of being biased and accusess all ‘birthers’, whom he routinely degrades, of starting from a supposition and working backwards.

      Haven’t shown anything to refute it so far.

      • Garrett Papit says:

        You don’t even make any points to refute. I have not gotten any details wrong. You simply assume Woodman is right and I am wrong. In reality, you have no clue what you are talking about.

        Let Woodman try the scientific method. Theories are easy..experimentation and evidence are harder.

        You guys will continue to talk in circles about how Woodman has proven his claims, but he provided one example and it did NOT have multiple 1-bit layers. So he’s only provided more evidence for my claim.

        I am confident in my findings, and nobody at this forum has the understanding to even grasp the argument or provide any meaningful debate.

        BTW, I didn’t just open the file in AI…lol. I analyzed the code, used layer extraction utilities, pdf object examining tools. I can promise you I delved much deeper into this than Woodman. He simply says it’s so…and you all believe him.

        He is wrong, and you guys just don’t know enough to see it. But I’m creating a series of videos that should show those left in the country, who aren’t predisposed to an outcome, that optimization is not at play here.

        Later

        • Scientist says:

          I think you misunderstand. I am not competent to evaluate the technical arguments. I am competent to understand the following:

          1. Hawaii confirms that the President was born there.
          2. Since that is where his parents lived at the time of his birth, it is logical that he would be born there in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary (and there is none).

          Therefore, my scientific conclusion is that Obama was born in Hawaii, to a certainty sufficient for any reasonable purposes. That was my conclusion before the LFBC was released and that conclusion was not affected by a pdf. The pdf is irrelevant to my conclusion. If it didn’t exist, my conclusion would be unchanged.

        • nbc says:

          I am confident in my findings, and nobody at this forum has the understanding to even grasp the argument or provide any meaningful debate.

          I guess this allows you to avoid addressing any arguments… Must be comfortable to hide in ignorance.

          Look Papit, to claim that others lack understanding only reflects poorly on yourself.

          Let’s see:

          Mr Papit. Please explain to the court why you believe the certified copies which the Department of Health provided to President Obama are forgeries?

          Mr Papit: Well, your honor, the highly compressed PDF scan shows indicators or..

          The Court: Mr Papit, we are talking about the original copies which were photographed and provided as b&w copies. Are you saying that a highly compressed PDF which has undergone an unknown workflow with unknown software, should be relevant?

          Mr Papit: But you honor, there are halos and there is no way that an algorithm can explain said halos.

          The Court: But Mr Papit, we have in evidence how Mixed Raster Content involves the separation of text and foreground and the formation of a halo is a known problem and side-effect of such a method.

          Mr Papit: Well, but we do not know what software was used, so how can we be certain that the software in question would produce said halos.

          The Court: So your argument is that a forger would purposely apply a halo, which would lead to claims of forgery? And your argument is that a forger would seemingly random, divide the text in several bitmaps, sometimes including or omitting surrounding text?

          Mr Papit: Well your honor… I tried to recreate the layers and I was unable to do so.

          The Court: And you feel that you have exhausted all software, workflow, parameter settings and options that are offered by the myriad of scanners, either desktop or networked?

          Mr Papit: I have done over 600 experiments with
          ABBYY PDF Transformer, Adobe Acrobat Pro (Versions 6, 7, 8, 9 and X), CVista PDF Compressor, Lead Tools, LizardTech Document Express, LuraTech PDF Compressor, NovaPDF Professional Desktop, Nuance PDF Professional, Pdfforge PDFCreator, Primo PDF, Software602 Print2PDF and many more.

          The Court: So that’s at least 20, perhaps even 30, taking into account different versions?

          Mr Papit; Yeah.

          The Court: So 600 test documents amounts to about 20 to 30 tests?

          Papit: That is correct

          The court: So let’s say there are 5 parameters, for the moment they are binary. That would make for 5 factorial possible settings? Or 120… Now multiply this with 20 or 30 software versions and you get 2400 to 3600 test documents.

          Papit; Uh yes.

          The Court: So 600 is not really that much?

          Papit: uh…

          Well you get the gist.
          Now explain how you evaluated the experiments versus a forgery? How do you establish a probability of forgery of a halo versus the generation of a halo by an algorithm? Remember that the CCP identified various ‘indicators’ of forgery which were laid to rest by Woodman and others as workflow or algorithm generated effects? Have you gone through all these indicators?

          Have you even used real security paper? Your claims about halos are easily rebutted by reading some of the papers on MRC? What papers have you consulted?

          I assume that you start to understand how poorly prepared you appear to be?

        • Suranis says:

          You seem pretty damn eager to reply to someone who raised no points to refute, and pretty reluctant to respond to people who did. Feeling a little uncertain about your proofs there, big boy?

        • Slartibartfast says:

          Garrett,

          Now you are demonstrating that you have no understanding how the scientific method works, so I’ll give you a brief tutorial should you ever want to produce scientifically valid results.

          First you need to make a hypothesis–you have apparently chosen the hypothesis that optimization cannot produce multiple 1-bit layers. So far, so good. The only requirement for this hypothesis is that it is falsifiable–since an optimization algorithm which produces M1BLs would falsify your hypothesis, you are in good shape here.

          Next you’ve got to design an experiment that will either falsify or support your hypothesis (note that I don’t say “prove”–it is impossible to prove a hypothesis scientifically, one can only falsify it or support it). This is where you (like most birthers) jump the tracks. Your “experiment” is to test various cases to determine if they produce M1BLs. Well, “proof by exhaustion” is a valid technique–it was used to solve the four color map problem, for instance–but it depends on first enumerating and then accounting for all of the possible cases–not just trying out a few pieces of software (and I’m guessing it was on a single machine, am I right?). You could have legitimately limited your scope by restricting yourself to the hardware and software indicated by the metadata, but you probably didn’t have a Mac and wanted to play anyway (birthers seem to think that this is like little league–everyone should get a chance to play…). So, what you’ve managed to establish is that a few trials–none of which match the circumstances of the images you are interested in very well–fail to falsify your hypothesis. While this is technically a valid experiment, it has a very weak conclusion which you are dramatically overstating. Of course, you don’t have any problem lying about your conclusions–if you didn’t lie, you wouldn’t be able to avoid the fact that neither you nor any other birther has come up with a plausible reason why the pdf had to be “forged”.

          To give you an example of a strong experiment you could have tried every possible setting on hardware and software which match what is described in the metadata. Here are all of the possible reasons I can think of for NOT doing this:

          1) You didn’t know how to do it right–In other words, you don’t understand the scientific method well enough to apply it effectively.

          2) You did it right, but didn’t tell us–You tried and it falsified your hypothesis.

          3) You couldn’t afford to do it right–but you wanted to pretend you knew what you were talking about anyway.

          The other violation of the scientific method that birthers frequently commit is moving the goalposts–in science, you need to establish what the different possible results will mean before you preform your experiment. Changing the interpretation of the experiment after the fact is a red flag that one’s work lacks scientific rigor.

          If you don’t think I’m right, just give us another scientific hypothesis and explain how you would perform an experiment to test said hypothesis and demonstrate that you understand how to use the scientific method. Personally, I think you have the same level of understanding as the cargo cults that performed rituals to bring back the airplanes (and all the stuff) on Pacific islands after WWII and you can’t demonstrate anything more than your own incompetence, so you have a perfect opportunity to prove me wrong…

          • John Woodman says:

            Kevin,

            You have well highlighted SOME of the deficiencies of Papit’s approach. But even the experiment you suggest is not adequate. It is very plausible — in fact, I think it is most likely — that a completely innocent process took place which resulted in the image being run through other software not recorded in the metadata.

            • Slartibartfast says:

              I admit that my suggestion was not exhaustive, although if it were performed without falsifying the hypothesis I do think it would provide it significant support (I’ll defer to your expectations regarding my experiment–if the birthers were competent I’d say the lack of such a study being done and publicized by some self-proclaimed birther “expert” was evidence that you are wrong, but we’re talking about the birthers… quite possibly the most inept conspiracy theorists ever ;-)

              It’s hard to cover all of the scientific deficiencies in birther analytical methods–there are so many of them. Ultimately I think they all stem from their utter failure to put together a coherent “theory of the crime” which alleges an actual crime and a suspect with motive, means, and opportunity. Without this they can never produce (let alone test) the hypothesis “President Obama (or his agent) committed crime X”–and even that is a far cry from “President Obama is ineligible”.

  95. Garrett Papit says:

    Woodman,

    How about you do an optimization example using a document that has black text on a color background. I wonder why you didn’t do that? We both know the answer is because it becomes clear, under those circumstances, that optimization doesn’t do what you claim it does.

    You have to use a black and white document so that the pieces of text that are on separate layers appear to be isolated from the BG, when really they have the white 8-bit background with them. The experiment is ill-informed at best, or straight out disingenuous at worst.

    And this is what you hang it all on…that optimization explains all of the anomalies that have been pointed out. (Maybe not all…but 80% +). It truly makes me chuckle to think you guys truly believe you have objectivity on your side.

    Twilight Zone indeed.

    • John Woodman says:

      The reason I don’t do such an optimization example, on your demand, is that I don’t have the time, the equipment, the software, the inclination, or the need.

      If you want to front me sufficient cash to pursue the matter, I’ll be happy to work on it. Why not? Go and raise some funds, or pull some cash from your personal assets. If you fund me to do sufficient research, and I change my mind, I’ll publicize your side of the story. If that should happen, you couldn’t have a better ambassador than a former skeptic.

  96. Garrett Papit says:

    Your side likes to say that the layers aren’t logical to how someone would forge a document. First of all, that is complete assumption…which you seem all to eager to point out in others. You have NO IDEA how someone would forge a document unless you know that person’s technical background.

    But since you like assumption so much…let’s look at some options. In terms of the partial dates…suppose someone only need to change part of the date. It would make perfect sense then to alter the existing date rather than completely recreate it.

    The problem is you simply assume you know the truth, without actually analyzing the evidence. Woodman’s book could be 100 pages shorter if he just said…”I assume this was done by optimization, but I’m not going to prove it…nor can I prove it.” :)

    • Suranis says:

      You could just have made your last 10 post shorter by typing “YOU ARE ALL MEAN TO ME WHY ARE YOU MEAN TO MMMEEEEEEE!!!”

      Sorry that people ripped your report to shreds and your last 6 months resulted in a report worth its wieght in compost, but you shouldn’t have worded backwards from a conclusion.

      • Slartibartfast says:

        Suranis,

        I’m shocked that someone who grew up on a farm would undervalue compost so much!

    • Scientist says:

      Why wouldn’t a forger, once the electronic file was complete and the document printed (as your side alleges was done) simply scan the paper document to produce a perfectly clean pdf with (presumably) no layers?

      By the way, why don’t you analyze Romney’s birth certificate? Surely you are fair-minded? He might have been born in Canada which is just across the river from Detroit. Who knows?

    • Steven Feinstein says:

      Some of the birthers have said that the jpg of the certified copy of the lfbc that was taken by Guthrie mispells Hawaii. I contend that it is a low resolution pic and only a blur can be seen. But let us explore the logic of that position. These same birthers claim that the pdf is forged, but the pdf spells Hawaii correctly. Taken to its logical conclusion, the WH would have had to release at least two different forged documents, one where Hawaii was spelled correctly and one where it doesn’t. Does this make any sense whatsoever?

    • nbc says:

      Your side likes to say that the layers aren’t logical to how someone would forge a document. First of all, that is complete assumption…which you seem all to eager to point out in others. You have NO IDEA how someone would forge a document unless you know that person’s technical background.

      So we have the ‘incompetent forger’ who separates text into bitmap and background layers in a ‘haphazard’ fashion, who leaves horizontal lines in the background but moves other text into bitmaps? The hapless forger then adds halos to mask his work?

      Come on Papit… Nothing that the CCP has shown amounts to anything which cannot be explained better by workflow and commonly used compression?

      Even the exact match of letters in the compressed documents can be explained by JBIG2 lossy compression, not to mention that the higher resolution B&W scan shows that these characters are not exactly the same.

      Such simple logic versus a sloppy incompetent forger? Who are you trying to kid here?

    • John Woodman says:

      You have NO IDEA how someone would forge a document unless you know that person’s technical background.

      That’s about like saying I have no idea how someone would drive a car unless I knew whether that person had taken driver’s ed.

      I can tell you that no matter whether a person has had driver’s ed or not, and whether that person is a competent driver or not, he or she doesn’t drive the car from the back seat. He doesn’t drive it from the passenger seat. He doesn’t stand on his head while driving. He doesn’t drive while wearing a blindfold. He doesn’t drive it in reverse, except for short distances to maneuver it into a better position for going forward.

      And he doesn’t drive it with one foot sticking out each window.

      I know how cars are driven. And I know how graphic documents are put together. And all of those analogies above are fairly good metaphors for what someone would need to do in order to hand-create this document — except that somebody doing those things with a car, if anything, may be more plausible than somebody hand-creating — or even hand-altering — the PDF.

  97. Steven Feinstein says:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDc85EiOJCY

    Starting at about 19 minutes and 40 seconds, Gallups talks about how th CCP had made up its mind on the documents within the first 30 minutes of looking at the “evidence’.

    The entire investigation was a sham, it came to a conclusion and then worked backwards to prove its conclusions.

  98. gorefan says:

    Garrett Papit

    Is it possible to have multi-layered MRC that produces seven or eight masks (each containing text of different grayscale values), a background layer but no foreground layer?

    • Slartibartfast says:

      gorefan,

      If it were me, I’d try to make test images that involved black and two different levels of gray scale and see if I could find one that the algorithm would sort into 3 separate layers–then you should be able to engineer one that produces 7 or 8. But I’m not an expert like Garrett… ;-)

    • nbc says:

      Well, there is an HP patent which suggests that this is possible.

      Two layer formatting of documents for compatibility with two layer formatting schemes while maintaining color information and edge sharpness for text. A document is divided into multiple regions based upon bodies of text having the same color. A text layer and a non-text layer are specified for each region. The text layer includes a text color along with binary values for each pixel to specify whether to use the text color or a background color. The non-text layer includes a red-green-blue value for each pixel to specify its color for both image or non-text information including the background color for the bodies of text. The text layer is compressed using a lossless compression method and the non-text layer is compressed using a lossy compression method.

      Source: HP Patent number: 7145676

  99. Steven Feinstein says:

    Garrett, I have given you multiple opportunities to denounce the racists among the birthers and to denounce Zullo for misrepresenting your findings and yet you have not done so, why not?

    • Garrett Papit says:

      LMAO…are you kidding me? :D

      You never cease to amaze Steven.

      • Steven Feinstein says:

        No Garrett, I am not kidding you at all. If you lay down with dogs you get get up with fleas. If you refuse to rise above those around you then you condone their conduct.

        You can claim all you want to that you are not a bigot. I do not know what is in your heart, but when you refuse denounce those you support the same things you do who are bigots then we are forced to come to the conclusion that you agree with them.

        Based on your own comments, the CCP misrepresented your findings, and yet you will not denounce them either, which means that you condone their misuse of your findings, it is as simple as that.

        You sir, are a fraud.

        • nbc says:

          Based on your own comments, the CCP misrepresented your findings,

          I must have missed that admission by Garrett. Any links?

  100. Garrett Papit says:

    So your fearless leader is now threatening me with legal action, claiming I have slandered him. It is particularly ironic given how civil I have been and how nasty all of you have been. But it is a good display of the character of both sides for anyone who cares to come view this.

    John, if you really think I slandered you…do what you must. Don’t expect me to not show all of the quotes where you lie and names that you’ve called me though. Tit for tat and all that. ;)

  101. Garrett Papit says:

    Everybody who thinks that MRC creates mulitple 1-bit layers, provide just one example. Go for it…send me an email with the app used, process undertaken and output file.

    Good luck and God speed!! ;)

    You can grab quotes from web pages all you want. The fact is you don’t understand the process.

    • nbc says:

      You can grab quotes from web pages all you want. The fact is you don’t understand the process.

      Still confusing the burden of proof, the limited value of searching a small part of parameter space to prove a negative and still confused about MRC being a placeholder for a simple concept with countless variations?

      I showed you an HP patent that results in monochrome bitmaps and a color background but no color foreground.

      Just because you cannot find the correct parameters or software used does not mean that it does not exist. Yes my friend you are trying to prove a negative and the best way to do so is to show that MRC could under no circumstance result in multiple bitmaps and no color foreground. But that is of course a failing proposition as it is trivial to do so.

      Yes, you have set out to prove something and made claims about MRC being unable to do ‘x’ when others have shown your claims to be wrong. They need not show any specific examples, it suffices to show that MRC in principle can do result in these artifacts.

      Keep up the good work, I estimate your parameter space to be about 10^12 :-)

      • Slartibartfast says:

        nbc,

        It doesn’t matter how big the parameter space is until he is working in a parameter space which includes all of the possibilities that the White House could have used.

        • nbc says:

          Well, that of course is an even worse scenario. He could very well be using the wrong software and never know it.

          Making claims of forgery based on trying to prove a negative will have an incredible hard time standing up to any court cross examination. Lawyers would rip it to shreds so quickly that the only hope is that the jury would take pity on the poor expert.

          Look if I were to go into court and claim MRC does not create halos and then be shown actual examples of MRC compression doing exactly that, well, I would be somewhat embarrassed to have to admit that I was a bit overzealous in my conclusions.
          Anything beyond that would just fall apart quickly.

          And then the conclusion that

          The only way that layers could exist within a PDF file is by optimization or manual manipulation. The third option, Optical Character Recognition (OCR), has been previously ruled out because the text within the PDF is not searchable.

          Mr Papit, do you know that there is a workflow option to remove the hidden text generated by OCR? Do you know that law firms commonly use such a workflow before sharing documents with their opponents? After all, there is no need to help your opponents by making your files searchable. Let them do the hard work of OCR.

          Papit: Uh… well… now that you mention it.

    • gorefan says:

      Elementary question.

      Is it possible to have multi-layered MRC that produces seven or eight masks (each containing text of different grayscale values), a background layer but no foreground layer?

    • linda says:

      I have a question. Lets say someone in the WH scans the BC provided by HI onto his PC, but has trouble getting resolution good enough to post it online. His buddy, with a Mac, says no problem, email it to me, and I will take care of it.

      Could such a scenario account for the results you found? Have you tested for something like that?

      • nbc says:

        Well, any evidence of the workflow was effectively erased by the Quartz step. So yes, possible… Plausible? I am not sure. The documents remained with the lawyers for chain of custody reasons so it was likely done by someone who worked in a law office or similar.
        The problem for Garrett is that lacking any understanding of the workflow makes recreating it so much more complex and when the burden of proof is in the hands of those who have to prove a negative, that task becomes close to impossible.

        But they had the name of the forger, did they not? Why have we not heard more about that one, that would at least move the case forward…

        Hmmm.. Was it by any chance filed with the 1961 coding manual?… And has gone missing?

        • linda says:

          Thanks for the reply. I also noticed, despite the big build up, that the “forger” was not exposed during the CCP presser.

  102. nbc says:

    Gorefan: Is it possible to have multi-layered MRC that produces seven or eight masks (each containing text of different grayscale values), a background layer but no foreground layer?

    Well Papit? Yes or no? Should not be too hard.

  103. nbc says:

    Papit: If most of the text is separated from the background, most of the form lines should be as well. If only some of the text is separated, only some of the form lines will be. The text and form lines should be evenly distributed between the layers.

    Except when software detects horizontal and vertical lines and ignores them when optimizing for OCR?

    But Papit ignored OCR as there was no evidence of an embedded text layer. But he overlooked the logical possibility that such a layer was removed as part of the delivery workflow, commonly found in legal offices where such data are removed in order to not assist the opponent in providing searchable documents.

    Simple deductive logic. And since the Quartz export removed all tell tale hints, the conclusion that OCR could be ignored may have proven itself to be somewhat premature.

    I’d love to see these issues discussed in Court. It would be so much fun.

  104. gorefan says:

    “Papit: If most of the text is separated from the background, most of the form lines should be as well. If only some of the text is separated, only some of the form lines will be. The text and form lines should be evenly distributed between the layers.”

    Don’t all the form lines intersect each other continously without breaks? Do you think that that is a coincidence or a contributing factor to explain why they are not broken up between the various layer?

    Is it a coincidence that the letters of text that remain on the background layer are all touching each other and form lines?

    • nbc says:

      Hmm. Does the fact that separating text from tables has resulted in OCR software being able to ignore horizontal and vertical lines? Such lines are also often used to ‘align’ the document properly, just in case it was scanned skewed.

      6 months of work and none of the experiments even considered OCR? That’s so unfortunate as the text segmentation and the presence of horizontal lines on the bitmap are such good indicators of a workflow that may have included OCR or at least text segmentation.

  105. Garrett Papit says:

    John,

    If you read my statement where I shared my opinion that you have lied, I specifically stated that personal issues are of no interest to me…just the technical facts.

    And here is a sampling of lies just from this article alone. If you publicly retract these statements, then we can discuss me retracting my opinion that you lied.

    “Out of all that huge mountain of claims, I have never found even one single significant birther claim that actually stands up to scrutiny.” (1-bit layers…my main argument…yet to be disproven)

    “To give you yet another idea of the honesty level of the Cold Case Posse, in last week’s press conference, they even repeated the debunked “certificate number is proof of fraud” claim — even though it was known and verified to be false last autumn, and no new information has emerged to change that.” (BC numbers first by region, then chronologically. This was new info and is important. You can’t simply claim something is false and then say that is proof. And you certainly can’t claim no new evidence emerged when new details in fact did.)

    “It’s a scam from beginning to end. And it’s a scam — for the most part — on conservatives.” (This is a lie and a insult to our character)

    “and the very long list of transparently false claims made by Mario Apuzzo, Leo Donofrio and others, documented here and elsewhere, to the effect that it takes two citizen parents to be a natural born citizen.” (This is a lie because it IS a legitimate legal debate. Even if we are wrong, legal debate is what this country is based on. Suggesting it is unscrupulous is, in itself, unscrupulous. There are many credible sources that agree with this side including Harvard graduate legal scholars, the Boston Globe, Chicago Legal News, etc.. Even Chester Arthur made statements that support this view. The current INS website differentiates between native born and natural born. You can’t simply disregard an argument and ridicule it because you disagree).

    “The inevitable conclusion, for any rational person who acquaints himself or herself with the evidence, is that the birther movement is not a mistake. It’s a scam. And while there may have been some honest mistakes on the part of some in the beginning, it is now based on nothing more than lies, lies, and more lies.” (Here you call us irrational and then say we are liars…repeatedly. Yet you have the gall to get upset when someone volleys your serve back at you. Grow a spine or get out of the game.

    This is just a sampling. Again, if you are willing to admit you have been overzealous, and downright rude, in your claims…I will retract the statement that you have lied and say that you have corrected those lies.

    Otherwise, we are at an impasse. I have gone out of my way to be civil with the people who lob insults and sickening comments at me. You have gone out of your way to be sensationalist and take every jab at the CCP that you can. I can tell you that they have honest intentions and have never intentionally lied about anything. I know these people and they are good people. When you impugn them, you do the same to me.

    So now…I ask for your apology.

    Garrett

    • nbc says:

      You have gone out of your way to be sensationalist and take every jab at the CCP that you can.

      Woodman’s rebuttals have been thorough and without any emotions. But when faced with the behavior of the CCP, them ignoring his work and findings and the poor research by their ‘experts’ and one may come to understand Woodman’s frustration with the CCP. Zullo, Arpaio and others are just making grandiose claims, they present manuals which do not appear to exist, the make assertions that are beyond the plausible and everything is to be interpreted in the light of forgery.

      That people see the work by the CCP, performed by people who dislike Obama, often with a vengeance, as ‘swift boating’ especially given the confirmation, verification and certification by the DOH of Hawaii, should not come as a total surprise.

      If you believe that looking at a PDF can establish if it was a forgery while ignoring all the other data available then I am slightly amused…

    • nbc says:

      “Out of all that huge mountain of claims, I have never found even one single significant birther claim that actually stands up to scrutiny.” (1-bit layers…my main argument…yet to be disproven)

      Ah but you have the burden of proof that no MRC can result in multiple 1 bit layers something I have already shown to be more than suspect based on pure logic and reason as well as the existence of a patent which discloses such a method.

      Yet to be disproven… Is that your best rebuttal to your attempt to prove a negative? You do understand that you have set yourself up for an almost impossible task here? Since there are no clear indicators of forgery or a coherent story of a forger, you have to show that under NO circumstances these indicators could have been caused by workflow or algorithmic processes.

      You made a similarly illogical claim about halo’s I guess it’s time to abandon them? Now that we have a patent which lays to rest your next best indicator of a forgery, and since you failed to pursue OCR, I can only imagine the cross examination in court.

      PS: are you volunteering your research to Orly Taitz? She would love to have you testify in court as to your findings. I would be so impressed.

    • nbc says:

      and the very long list of transparently false claims made by Mario Apuzzo, Leo Donofrio and others, documented here and elsewhere, to the effect that it takes two citizen parents to be a natural born citizen.” (This is a lie because it IS a legitimate legal debate

      Legitimate? It has been long since settled in US v Wong Kim Ark and confirmed as such by various courts. There is limited legal and scholarly support. The exact two citizen parent claim was rejected by the Court in US v Wong Kim Ark, even though the Court agreed that it was perhaps more ‘logical’ but that the court was bound by precedent.

      The Supreme Court went out of its way to explain how it ruled WKA to be a citizen. There is just no real support for the two parent citizen argument when looking at this through the eyes of scholars and judges.

      You may want to disagree with WKA but that’s quite an uphill battle as the case has been cited countless times and it appears several of the Judges on the Supreme Court now understand that jus soli foundation of our nation’s citizenship.

    • gorefan says:

      “(1-bit layers…my main argument…yet to be disproven)”

      Is it possible to have multi-layered MRC that produces seven or eight masks (each containing text of different grayscale values), a background layer but no foreground layer?

      • nbc says:

        Do you really expect an answer Gorefan? We all know what Garrett would have to admit…

        • gorefan says:

          No, I understand why he won’t or can’t answer it. He seems to just paraphrase articles he recently read on the internet.

          But on the off chance that he hasn’t seen the question yet, I will keep asking.

    • John Woodman says:

      Garrett,

      You state that I have lied.

      I have not.

      > “Out of all that huge mountain of claims, I have never found
      > even one single significant birther claim that actually stands
      > up to scrutiny.”
      > (1-bit layers…my main argument…yet to be disproven)

      The statement was absolutely true. At the present time, I consider your claim to be not fully evaluated. As such, it is outside of the scope of that statement.

      To date, I have examined and confirmed well over 5 dozen false and invalid claims made by birthers, including more than half a dozen claims personally promoted by you, which I have confirmed to be without basis in fact.

      To date, I have yet to find one single significant birther claim that could withstand scrutiny. That might change with your MRC claim. It might not.

      > “To give you yet another idea of the honesty level of the Cold
      > Case Posse, in last week’s press conference, they even
      > repeated the debunked “certificate number is proof of fraud”
      > claim — even though it was known and verified to be false last
      > autumn, and no new information has emerged to change that.”
      > (BC numbers first by region, then chronologically. This was new
      > info and is important. You can’t simply claim something is false
      > and then say that is proof. And you certainly can’t claim no new
      > evidence emerged when new details in fact did.)

      I was aware last autumn that certificates were likely divided up into regions before filing — but they were NOT sorted chronologically, and we have good, solid, hard proof of that.

      Nor have Corsi and the Cold Case Posse produced any actual proof that they were sorted chronologically at all. Just an assertion.

      And we have seen how good their assertions are. Do you deny that they fabricated their evidence, and lied about having the federal “1961 Vital Statistics Instruction Manual” that supposedly backed their claim, when the manual has been found and directly contradicts them?

      And as I said, the actual EVIDENCE shows that the certificates were NOT sorted chronologically, and it is HARD evidence.

      We have the following known certificate numbers:

      1) ******* A**** — born at Kapiolani, August 23 — certificate number 09945. This certificate was publicly posted AND STATED TO BE GENUINE by WorldNetDaily/ Jerome Corsi.

      But they DELIBERATELY HID the certificate number, by copying a section of safety paper over the back side image. I wonder why?

      I can get you that image and prove the point if you want — or tell you where to get it, right off of their web site.

      2) Susan Nordyke — born at Kapiolani, August 5 — certificate number 10637.
      3) Gretchen Nordyke — born at Kapiolani, August 5, minutes after her sister — certificate number 10638.
      4) Barack Obama — born at Kapiolani, August 4 — certificate number 10641.
      5) Stig Waidelich — born at Kapiolani, August 5 — certificate number 10920.

      Let’s go over those certificates for babies born at Kapiolani again — by last name, date, and cert number:

      1) A: August 23: 00945
      2) N: August 5: 10637
      3) N: August 5: 10638
      4) O: August 4: 10641
      5) W: August 5: 10920

      The Kapiolani certificates from August 1961 — INCLUDING ONE CERTIFIED AS GENUINE BY WND — were clearly ALPHABETIZED before numbering.

      The statement I made is absolutely true.

      Your third statement in which you claim I lied:

      > “It’s a scam from beginning to end. And it’s a scam — for
      > the most part — on conservatives.”

      The statement is perfectly true. I have given extensive evidence that certain persons, including Farah/Corsi/WND, have presented only one side of the evidence from at least as far back as the end of August/ beginning of September. Corsi actually knew of my counter-evidence at least back in the summer, but never covered any of it.

      And he made his known FALSE claim regarding Bennett’s paper — which has has never retracted in spite of being publicly challenged on it — back in July.

      In September, they covered up ******* A****’s birth certificate number — a literal cover-up.

      “From beginning” is admittedly a bit imprecise and figurative. At least since July. I can’t definitively speak for the first 3 months out of the past 15. But for at least 12 out of the past 15 months, it’s been a scam, in my honest opinion based on a very good deal of evidence that leads me to that reasonable conclusion.

      I do not necessarily imply that YOU personally, Garrett, are in on the scam part of the deal. In fact, I have always tended to personally believe that you honestly believed what you were saying, but were honestly wrong.

      But I don’t have the slightest doubt that it’s a scam. There is PLENTY of evidence to support that claim. And it’s hard evidence, Garrett.

      The statement was true.

      Your fourth instance of claiming that I have lied:

      > “and the very long list of transparently false claims made by
      > Mario Apuzzo, Leo Donofrio and others, documented here
      > and elsewhere, to the effect that it takes two citizen parents
      > to be a natural born citizen.” (This is a lie because it IS a
      > legitimate legal debate. Even if we are wrong, legal debate
      > is what this country is based on. Suggesting it is unscrupulous
      > is, in itself, unscrupulous. There are many credible sources that
      > agree with this side including Harvard graduate legal scholars,
      > the Boston Globe, Chicago Legal News, etc.. Even Chester
      > Arthur made statements that support this view. The current INS
      > website differentiates between native born and natural born.
      > You can’t simply disregard an argument and ridicule it because
      > you disagree).

      There is a great big huge long list of claims made by both Mario Apuzzo and Leo Donofrio which have been shown to be absolutely false.

      I have done my very best to give “their side” as much credit as I could.

      There’s not much to say for their side.

      If you do not understand this, Garrett, it’s either because you haven’t read and researched anywhere near the amount on that particular issue that I have, or because you so badly want Mr. Obama to be ineligible that you cannot see the truth.

      The claim is absolutely true.

      > “The inevitable conclusion, for any rational person who acquaints
      > himself or herself with the evidence, is that the birther movement
      > is not a mistake. It’s a scam. And while there may have been
      > some honest mistakes on the part of some in the beginning, it
      > is now based on nothing more than lies, lies, and more lies.”
      > (Here you call us irrational and then say we are liars…repeatedly.
      > Yet you have the gall to get upset when someone volleys your
      > serve back at you. Grow a spine or get out of the game.

      Again, Garrett, I was not referring specifically to you in that statement, or to all birthers — but I was referring to those for whom I personally have no doubt that they are telling lies, because I’ve caught them in them — repeatedly. And the lies are so blatant that they cannot in any way reasonably claim not to know that what they were saying was untrue.

      The statement was true, Garrett.

      > This is just a sampling. Again, if you are willing to admit you have
      > been overzealous, and downright rude, in your claims…I will retract
      > the statement that you have lied and say that you have corrected
      > those lies.

      Garrett, I will admit that some of the statements I have made have been impolite. I believe the impoliteness is justified. But I will admit to having been impolite to those whom I believed fully deserved it.

      I will go so far as to publicly apologize for having publicly called you a “scumbag,” if you will apologize for having falsely accused me.

      > I have gone out of my way to be civil with the people who lob
      > insults and sickening comments at me. You have gone out of
      > your way to be sensationalist and take every jab at the CCP
      > that you can.

      I will give you this: You have for the most part been publicly civil.

      But not in my case.

      In my case, you have publicly made a false accusation which you have so far been reluctant to admit and apologize for.

      Why, Garrett? If I made a public accusation of somebody, and they showed me that my accusation was false, I would QUICKLY apologize, and do so publicly.

      > I can tell you that they have honest intentions and have never
      > intentionally lied about anything either.

      Garrett, I am sorry, but the very, very clear evidence says otherwise. Again, if you don’t understand that, you must not have enough information.

      I am asking you to please retract your false accusation, made publicly, and publicly apologize for having made it.

      Thank you.

      John Woodman

      • dunstvangeet says:

        Just a little warning, we have a 6th datapoint.

        Virginia Sunhara – August 4, 1961 – 11080

        • John Woodman says:

          Yes — well noted.

          I should have included, should have mentioned, Virginia Sunahara’s birth certificate.

          Virginia Sunahara is the one outlier, the one “data point” that doesn’t seem to fit.

          And do you know what was different about Virginia Sunahara?

          At first I thought it was the fact that she passed away.

          It wasn’t.

          Virginia Sunahara was born in a different hospital, in a different town — Wahiawa — thirty miles away.

          The birth certificates were sorted first by region and/ or hospital.

          And then alphabetically.

        • nbc says:

          which was filed delayed iirc. The death certificate was waiting for a birth certificate to be filed. There is a 8/29/61 annotation on the death certificate and the BC number is hand written.

          Dr C has a picture of the COLB for Sunahara but it fails to show the date filed etc.

          Without the additional data, I find it hard to conclude that the number is out of sequence. I can understand a late filing of birth as she passed away.
          The certificate of death supports such a conclusion

          • John Woodman says:

            You know, I cannot state for certain that the reason her birth certificate is so differently numbered because of where she was born. You could be correct that there was a delay in filing. So there are actually two very plausible reasons for why her number is so much higher.

            I can state that my own personal feeling is that it was probably due at least largely to the hospital. But that is merely an OPINION, and one I do not have really hard evidence for. I could very well be incorrect on that.

            • nbc says:

              Well, Dean Haskins has the COLB, perhaps he could resolve the question… But I doubt he would be interested…

              Two different reasonable explanations. Hmmm love it.

      • gsgs says:

        lacking a clear axiomatic system of English
        language, what is a “lie” is often not clearly defined
        and interpretable. Superlatives or sentences using
        “none,always …” are often technically lies,
        but we know how it was meant and agree nevertheless

    • John Woodman says:

      So Garrett — five more times you have publicly accused me, with no basis for doing so, of lying.

      I have given you the specific information and explanation of why EVERY SINGLE ONE of those statements was a true statement.

      So you have once again falsely and publicly accused me — not once, but five more times.

      Once more, Garrett, I request that you please retract your false accusations and apologize for having made them.

      Thank you.

    • gsgs says:

      if the CCP are so good and honest people, then why don’t they discuss
      at least the problems ?
      Why don’t they have blogs and forums, so you have to come here ?

  106. nbc says:

    “It’s a scam from beginning to end. And it’s a scam — for the most part — on conservatives.” (This is a lie and a insult to our character)

    Is it a lie? You may not consider yourself to be involved in a scam and I can imagine how this may happen. But come on, relying on a highly compressed PDF to prove forgery? And forgery of what? All the data on the document has been verified and certified? So worst case we have a document which shows that it was made to look like the original. Really Garett, this whole fascination with the PDF when there are much better documents and sources to establish the veracity of the document.
    Most of Zebest’s arguments have been rebutted by Woodman or others. My goodness, the 2×1 sampling of the background versus the bitmaps is quite expected given the workflow. Adobe’s scaling is known to be 48% and 24%. All part of the standard workflow for optimization.
    All we have left now is that you have been unable to find an example of software, settings and workflow which would generate multiple monochrome bitmaps. A minor mystery at best but hardly evidence of forgery. Especially since you have failed to show how much of parameter space you have searched and since you have ignored OCR based on the fact that no hidden layer was present. But as you said yourself, the preview/quartz step removed most of the evidence of intermediate workflow, so ignoring OCR is somewhat premature especially when there are hints that OCR was in fact used.
    I cannot speak for you but having heard some of the CCP people describe this, it seems clear to me that their conclusion was decided early on and little effort was given to debunking their hypothesis. They ignored Guthrie’s photos claiming they were no longer available, they paid little attention to the higher resolution B&W document, they failed to pay attention to the DOH certification, immediately implying malfeasance, even when there was no evidence of such.

    Surely you may understand why a person may come to such a conclusion?

    As to your work, I applaud your diligence and effort but I believe you have set yourself up for failure as you are trying to prove a negative, and have so far made clear statements of impossibility that have turned out to be not as impossible. That and ignoring OCR I see as significant short comings of your work and not easily remedied.

  107. nbc says:

    Just to give you an idea of the parameter space:

    Optimize has the following option panels

    Images panel
    Fonts panel
    Transparency panel
    Discard Objects panel
    Discard User Data panel
    Clean Up panel

    Just the images panel has a myriad of options

    Images panel

    The Images panel of the PDF Optimizer lets you set options for color, grayscale, and monochrome image compression, and image downsampling.

    Change the PDF compatibility in the Images panel of the PDF Optimizer dialog box.
    Specify the following options, as needed:

    Downsample
    Reduces file size by lowering the resolution of images, which involves merging the colors of original pixels into larger pixels.
    Note: Masked images and images with a size less than 16-by-16 pixels are not downsampled.

    Compression
    Reduces file size by eliminating unnecessary pixel data. In general, JPEG and JPEG 2000 compression give better results on images like photographs with gradual transitions from color to color. ZIP is the better choice for illustrations with large areas of solid, flat color, or patterns made up of flat colors. For monochrome images, JBIG2 compression, which is available in PDF Optimizer but not in Distiller, is superior to CCITT.

    Quality
    Available only for JPEG and JPEG 2000 formats. JPEG and JPEG 2000 compression methods are typically lossy, a process that permanently removes some pixel data. You can apply lossy JPEG or JPEG 2000 compression to color images at various levels (minimum, low, medium, high, maximum). For JPEG 2000 compression, you can also specify lossless so that no pixel data is removed. Compression for monochrome images is lossless, except for JBIG2 compression, which provides both lossy and lossless modes of compression.

    Tile Size
    Available only for JPEG 2000 format. Divides the image being compressed into tiles of the given size. (If the image height or width is not an even multiple of the tile size, partial tiles are used on the edges.) Image data for each tile is individually compressed and can be individually decompressed. The default value of 256 is recommended.

    Optimize Images Only If There Is A Reduction In Size
    When selected, if the image setting will cause an increase in file size, the optimization for that image is skipped.

    And remember that the order of the workflow can have different outcomes as well. So it is not simple to test the parameter ranges here. Discard objects panel has 11 binary options. Discard user data has 7 binary options and clean up panel has 8 for a total of 26 binary parameters. Since it is not clear that these parameters are independent, there could be quite large. And quite a bit larger than 600. So you see, there are a lot of variables that need to be explored.

  108. nbc says:

    Mixed Raster Content in DJVu

    Most times, this 3-layer separation is not required at all. Depending on the page layout, other chunk combinations are possible:

    Only stencil: This is the most common format, perfect for black/white text without pictures. No background/foreground is included. Stencil pixels are displayed in black over a white background. Keep in mind that pictures should not be encoded in the stencil, but in the background.
    Only background: The page image is encoded entirely using IW44. While this choice is correct for picture-only pages, many times it is incorrectly used for text encoding.
    Only stencil+background: Characters in the stencil are coloured using solid colors according to a character colour list (colour JB2, FGbz). Thus, no foreground layer is required and bytes are saved. The coloured stencil is overlaid on the background.

    Garrett, do you include DJVu? Any examples? Sort of undermines your argument a bit?

    • John Woodman says:

      Very significant post.

      If I understand correctly, we now have definite evidence of Mixed Raster Content algorithms that contain more layers than the number claimed by Mr. Papit.

      If I understand correctly, we now have definite evidence of multiple mask layers being used in Mixed Raster Content algorithms.

      And if I understand correctly, we now have definite evidence of the deletion of foreground layers and assigning color to a mask or “stencil” using a simple list instead.

      So we have, let’s say, 6 mask or “stencil” elements. Most of these are smaller than an entire layer. Most of them consist only of a much smaller block of information, and the program knows the exact dimensions of the block, and exactly where to position the upper left corner of that block.

      Each block of information can be assigned a single color code. Just a few tiny bytes.

      It is abundantly clear to me — particularly as I look again at the data and observe the very small size of the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh “layers” — that such a scheme provides a significant amount of additional “compression” and is likely to save quite a bit in terms of the amount of storage space required.

      Why? It adds very little in terms of the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh “layers” — all of which are small, and all of which are simply “masks.”

      And it DELETES an entire FULL-PAGE-SIZED foreground layer, which is described in full color.

      So it’s a higher-compression algorithm.

      • nbc says:

        And it DELETES an entire FULL-PAGE-SIZED foreground layer, which is described in full color.

        So it’s a higher-compression algorithm

        Yes. The basic MRC approach is a general approach but it can certainly be improved upon depending on the actual document. Such cost functions can be implemented allowing the software at runtime to determine the optimal compression approach.

        What I am trying to show here is that MRC is not a single algorithm, but rather a general outline which can be optimized or implemented in many different ways. I have seen examples where the document is broken up into strips or blocks and each block is then analyzed.
        The other missing component I wanted to add is that I believe that OCR was in fact applied and the text layer was removed in a later step. The reason for my conclusion is that the monochrome bitmaps strongly focus on actual text and even avoid horizontal or vertical lines. This is in my opinion a strong hint as to the use of OCR which has to remove such distractions.

        So we have to consider text segmentation, followed by OCR followed by optimization followed by cleanup followed by export using OSX quartz.

      • nbc says:

        If I understand correctly, we now have definite evidence of Mixed Raster Content algorithms that contain more layers than the number claimed by Mr. Papit.

        Let’s walk through Papit’s understanding of MRC

        MRC in its basic form contains 3 layers:

        1. Foreground (to color the bitmap)
        2. Bitmap
        3. Background

        But there are cases where two layers would be sufficient, however there can be multiple bitmaps depending on how MRC is implemented so you can have

        1. No foreground
        2. Multiple monochrome bitmaps with stroke color set
        3. Background

        Or other variations.

        • Suranis says:

          1. Foreground (to color the bitmap)

          Could that be analogous to Pepits constant references to a “colour masking layer” given that you are just talking about the most basic form of MRC here?

          • nbc says:

            Yes, typically there is a monochrome bitmap and the color of each bit is determined by a foreground color layer. It could be as simple as a rectangle of the same color, resulting in all characters being monochrome but with a non-black color (more efficiently encoded by a rectangular bitmap region with a single three byte value to set the color), or the foreground can vary leading to multicolor variations in the text.

            Depending on the actual document a foreground layer may be more efficient in reduction of size or there may be more optimal approaches where the foreground layer is dropped and each rectangular region is color coded with a single value.

            There is an incredible literature on segmentation, encoding, separation, text extraction which goes into excruciating details as to how OCR and scanning software goes about its business. For instance having closely related characters being encoded by a single object is the effect of lossy JBIG2 which uses distance calculations between two ‘character objects’ to determine if the new object can be represented by an existing one or not. This by itself generates useful OCR information as once the character is identified, all objects will get assigned this character.

            So you have a color layer and a mask, and the resulting image is where the bitmapped mask is assigned its corresponding color. If there is no bit set in the mask, the color becomes transparent. This way one could have multiple such layers stack, or just a single set of layers which sit on top of a background which is an image (8 bit). Since the bitmap is the most important layer for legibility as it contains most likely text, the bitmap is encoded at higher DPI than the background of foreground. We observe in the document in question how the bitmaps are twice the DPI of the background. In fact the scaling 24% and 48% can be explained as they are standard scaling factors found in Adobe but should be generic.
            The dpi of the PDF is 72

            72/0.24=300DPI
            72/0.48=150DPI

            I believe these are standard settings for the optimize. Compress jpeg with 150DPI and text with 300DPI
            All makes sense although Mara Zebest believes that this cannot be explained…

            Sigh..

  109. nbc says:

    pdf2djvu

    pdf2djvu uses the following naïve layer separation algorithm:
    1. For each page, do the following:
    1. Raster the page into a pixmap, in the usual manner.
    2. Raster the page into another pixmap, omitting the following
    page elements:
    · text,
    · 1 bit-per-pixel raster images,
    · vector elements (except fills of large areas).
    3. Compare both pixmaps, pixel by pixel:
    1. If their colors match, classify the pixel as a part of the
    background layer.
    2. Otherwise, classify the pixel as a part of the foreground
    layer.

    Hmmm

  110. nbc says:

    Just to clarify. I am not an expert on PDF, scanning or anything like that. But when faced with some of the claims, I decided to read up, starting with papers. I was one of the early ones to point out MRC as an explanation for layers. I read papers, patents, reports, manuals and then decided to analyze the pdf using pdf-parse.py.
    I noticed that the Quartz export step resulted in a tell tale preview organization of layers and that it would likely hide any previous work flow steps. However, some simple logic led me to the hypothesis that the document was in fact subjected to OCR even though the tell tale text layer was missing. But law firms have work flow which removes any tell tale metadata, including the hidden text layer.
    I love to research things, learn and familiarize myself with the topic. I love the challenge of using reason, logic, and passion to find likely scenarios or reject hypothesized scenarios.
    As with Papit, I have tried to separate into multiple 1 bit layers and failed but I also realize that there are countless products out there, either as standalone packages or as OEM distributed software with the printers. Not to mention the networked printer/scanner which can involve some impressive software solutions not easily found otherwise.

    I also found that many of the indicators of fraud identified by the CCP and others, fail to live up to their claimed status as algorithmic or workflow explanations exist. I documented a few on my website and I am always looking for additional challenges. Since I am unwilling to spend countless dollars on software packages for scanning and since I doubt I will get easy access to the enterprise versions, I have abandoned the hope that I will find direct evidence of software producing such effects. However, I have found several references to DJVu and patents which disclose a two layer solution. Logic and reason lead me to understand how MRC like algorithms could easily have produced the artifacts and why such an algorithm would make sense as it improves compression.

    Simple logic, deduction and lots of sweat learning and reading. I love a good challenge, especially when I hear claims that ‘x cannot possibly be explained by y’…
    And when a ‘forger’ explanation makes even less sense, and when independent evidence exposes many claims about forgery to be flawed, you have got my interest.

  111. Steven Feinstein says:

    Garrett said the following was a lie by John Woodman

    “It’s a scam from beginning to end. And it’s a scam — for the most part — on conservatives.” (This is a lie and a insult to our character)

    “and the very long list of transparently false claims made by Mario Apuzzo, Leo Donofrio and others, documented here and elsewhere, to the effect that it takes two citizen parents to be a natural born citizen.”

    “The inevitable conclusion, for any rational person who acquaints himself or herself with the evidence, is that the birther movement is not a mistake. It’s a scam. And while there may have been some honest mistakes on the part of some in the beginning, it is now based on nothing more than lies, lies, and more lies.”

    Garrett suffers from the very same condition that many birthers do, they confuse an opinion with a fact. For example, I do not know how many times I have seen a birther say “I KNOW FOR A FACT that Obama was born in Kenya” or similar statement. They, like Garrett, know no such thing, they believe this to be true, to them it becomes fact. It merely represents a belief or the opinion of the speaker and no matter how dearly that person holds that belief, it is still not a fact.

    The words that Garrett calls lies are similarly opinions. As opinions, as long as they are honestly held, cannot be lies, they can only be right or wrong. I happen to agree with John in that the birther movement is a scam from start to finish and I can point out dozens of demonstrable lies put out by birthers. But I will hold on that for another time. Right now, I want to address the two citizenship requirement for NBC and Garrett’s objection to being mocked for it. Too bad.

    Donofrio invented to two citizenship requirement with nothing to back it up. He took a meaningless case, Minor v. Happersett, and misinterpreted it, and sold it birthers. Minor not only does not stand for the proposition cited, basic and elementary rules of case interpretation show that it actually stands for the opposition conclusion, which has been hammered home by multiple cases since. You can cling all you want to an INS regulation that appears to differentiate between native and natural born citizens, but the FACT (and this is not an opinion) is that the Supreme Court has repeatedly either equated native, native born and native citizen with natural born citizen in a number of cases. In Minor, the court clearly equated Native and Natural born, in WKA, the Court used native born as a synonym for natural born, and in both Luria and Baumbartner, the court used native citizen as a synonym for natural born. I do not care what an INS regulation did (without defining either term), the Supreme Court is the final say of what is and is not the law in this Country. I am quite certain that if the INS was ever challenged because it gave different rights to native and natural born citizens, it would be struck down.

    Birthers literally have to create fictions in order to make their theory work. For example, Apuzzo has claimed that NBCs are not citizens, others have created the fiction of a 14th Amendment Citizen. In Wong Kim Ark, the Court very clearly said that there are only two kinds of citizens, citizens at birth and naturalized citizens. In order to ignore this very simple and clear statement of the law, birthers have claimed that people can be naturalized by birth. This ignores other language in Wong Kim Ark that talks about the requirement of going through a process to become a naturalize citizen. This is not just bad lawyering (in my opinion), this is a flat out misrepresentation of the case law. When you have to do that to advocate your position, your position is wrong.

    So yes, I do ridicule people advocating the two citizenship belief because there is no case or authority that supports that position. In addition, now case after case that have looked at theory have rejected it and yet you cling to it without the slightest possible belief that you are wrong. And rather than accept the possibility that you are wrong, birthers claim that the Courts are corrupt, judges have been bribed or threatened. That, as much as anything, is why I personally consider birthers to be collectively a laughingstock as the total rejection of a fabricated theory is considered part of the conspiracy.

    Garrett, it is one thing to say that you belief that the law should be something and work toward attaining that goal. It is completely another to say what the law is and to repeat it despite being told by court after court that you are wrong. I tried to explain this to you several times in the past, but you try to pass yourself off as a legal expert, when, it is not even clear that you are a computer expert, as you claim. And you, like so many birthers, puff your chests, and arrogantly insist that you are right in the face of your own ignorance.

    I have said to you before that you lack the ability to think and reason logically. Your blind belief in the two citizen parent theory is just an example of what I am talking about. What has now become clear to me is that you value your birther beliefs more than you value the truth. Your refusal to stand up and say that Zullo mischaractized your findings tells me everything I need to know about you. Your refusal to denounce the racists and those who call for the assassination of the President speaks volumes about your lack of character. Shame on you.

  112. Steven Feinstein says:

    Note to birthers, when you hear hoof beats in Central Park, look for horses, not zebras. In other words, usually the simplest explanation is the correct one. When your conspiracy has to continue to grow in order for it not to fall apart, chances are there was no conspiracy in the first place.

  113. Garret Papit would never make it through a voir dire hearing to be allowed to testify in court. He is not accredited by the American Board of Forensic Document Examiners or any other organization as an expert. He has never detected a forged document in a controlled test. In other words, he is just another Birther self-appointed expert babbling stuff to attempt show he is actually qualified to give an opinion that means more than any average Joe’s opinion. That the CCP would actually listen to folks like Garrett, liar Corsi, and for god’s sake Nellie Freaking Butterdizillion Ristvedt tells you what a complete farce the CCP is.

    (Not to mention that if the President ever actually had to submit something to legally prove he was born in Hawaii his attorney would just obtain another certified verification from Hawaii like the one submitted by the campaign n Mississippi and that would end it.)

    • John Woodman says:

      RC,

      I’m going to defend Nellie Ristvedt a bit here.

      Yes, I believe she imagines conspiracies that don’t exist. But out of all of the birther advocates I have had any real contact with, she is the ONLY one who so far has behaved like a decent human being.

      Of course, I have not dealt with her extensively. But I want to give credit where credit may be due.

    • Steven Feinstein says:

      In fairness to Garrett, one does not have necessarily have to be accredited (unless this is something special that I am not aware of) in order to be an expert witness. One only needs to have speicalized knowledge, training and/or experience in a field that is outside the usual knowlefcge of the average layperson (think about the girlfriend testifying as an expert automotive witness in “My Cousing Vinny”).

      This is not to say that I havce an opinion one way or another about Garrett’s qualifications as an expert (but I am highly suspicious). Garrettt once told me that he could have gone to Harvard, instead he want to some Community College. Let’s just say that I have serious doubts about Garrett’s honesty, something that has been reflected here.

      • John Woodman says:

        According to public information I’ve seen, Garrett went to DeVry University. As a private, for-profit institution, DeVry is sometimes looked down upon, but it seems to be reputable and as far as I can tell appears to be decent and comparable to public universities.

        The one issue that some have with such institutions is that they generally don’t seem to be as good a deal for the student as other universities. In that respect, I would think there are probably some better choices out there that Mr. Papit might have made. But education-wise, it seems to be comparable to other universities.

        • Steven Feinstein says:

          My bad, that is correct, DeVry. And I am not looking down on DeVry, but people who can go to Harvard don’t attend to get a degree from DeVry.

        • Garrett Papit says:

          John,

          Do we really want to talk about better choices that people could have made? ;)

          Keep trying to undermine and insult, rather than address the facts. I take that as a compliment.

          BTW, I went to DeVry undergrad and Keller grad.

          • Steven Feinstein says:

            Why won’t you denouce the racists within the birther movement? Why won’t you denounce the fact that Zullo misrepresented your findings?

          • Suranis says:

            Jogn actually spoke good things about the school you went to. He was actually defending you indirectly. How is that “trying to undermine and insult”?

            Are you so far gone in your “I have to be right” desperation that you cant properly read proper English?

      • I am just saying that Papit would be easily discredited as an “expert” witness. However, I don’t think any court proceeding would get to a point to where it would have to be determined whether Garrett is qualified or not. Why would any discussion about the pdf be relevant when the issuing authority has verified the information is authentic?

        I do not know Butterdizillion other than by her analyses of statements made by officials from the state of Hawaii where she concludes they say the exact opposite of what they say in plain English. She is the poster lady for confirmation bias.

        • Steven Feinstein says:

          Clearly, you are correct. I just like the record to be correct.

          • I understand and I appreciate the correction. I do not claim to be an attorney but I read The Fogbow and Orly’s World. :lol:

            • Steven Feinstein says:

              I think that it is important that we NOT do what birthers do. We need to correct our own mistakes and be vigilant in making sure what we say can be backed up with accurate statements of law and fact.

        • Garrett Papit says:

          1) I think my testimony would be heard
          2) It’s relevant because it was manipulated. Why would it be manipulated given the controversy that created the need to release it. Evidence is always relevant.

          • Scientist says:

            I don’t know about relevant, but there are all sorts of evidence that are inadmissible in courts. Certainly, internet pdfs would be trumped (pun intended) by paper documents backed by state officials.

          • Steven Feinstein says:

            It would only relevant if there was additional information, by itself it is meaningless.

          • CarlOrcas says:

            1) I think my testimony would be heard

            Have you ever testified as an expert in any matter?

            2) It’s relevant because it was manipulated. Why would it be manipulated given the controversy that created the need to release it. Evidence is always relevant.

            “Evidence” of what? What issue – civil or criminal – is there to ajudicate given that Hawaii has, repeatedly and loudly, affirmed his birth?

          • Suranis says:

            What would happen if the court called a real expert witness who conclusively rubbished your testimony. You could not just pretend it didn’t happen like you are doing on this forum.

            • nbc says:

              So far they would not really need a rebuttal witness. A qualified lawyer could rip to shreds the research.
              And then of course, a DOH certified copy of the document will be submitted and shown to be the same as the PDF, without of course the layers and other compression generated artifacts, and of much higher resolution.

              A true Perry Mason moment.

          • nbc says:

            I can’t wait because your ‘evidence’ would be shredded by any capable lawyer.

            As to whether or not it was manipulated. We have seen photos of the original copy and nothing appears to be different from the PDF and the DOH has verified and certified all the relevant data.

            I’d say that your hopes would be shattered quickly and the court would realize the nature of your work and not confuse quantity with quality.

            Personally I am rooting for you to be heard… It would make for a wonderful transcript.

        • nbc says:

          Why would any discussion about the pdf be relevant when the issuing authority has verified the information is authentic?

          *Shock* You mean all this is for a different purpose? ::What could that possibly be?::

          I am still looking forward to a cross of the work done by the CCP, don’t ruin my fantasies…

        • nbc says:

          She is the poster lady for confirmation bias.

          She used to be quite reasonable, until the data refused to abide by her expectations. It was a steep downhill from there. A fascinating case study if ever.

    • Suranis says:

      But he’s done EXTENSIVE research, you know, EXTENSIVE. Extensively. Just ask him.

      • Steven Feinstein says:

        It is being looked into by top men, TOP MEN.

      • Garrett Papit says:

        I know it doesn’t compare to the single optimization sample that Woodman provided, but let’s not talk about that. ;)

        You guys have blinders on…seriously.

        • Suranis says:

          Its a lot better than your “It cant be MRC because MRC ALWAYS HAS 3 LAYERS” that has been pretty much proven to be completely wrong. (Along with your hilariously desperate statement that “several always equals three”) Which if you spent 6 months on this is a funny thing for you to have missed

          AND once again you talk to the guy here who has no knowledge of this particular subject. You feeling a bit hurt that people are proving you don’t know what you are talking about?

        • Slartibartfast says:

          Garrett,

          What you don’t seem to understand is that your lack of understanding of the scientific method has rendered your entire analysis virtually worthless. You are trying to talk about details when the egregious errors in your methodology have rendered your words into little more than meaningless technobabble.

        • nbc says:

          You guys have blinders on…seriously.

          Says the guy who is ignoring simple research, combined with logic and reason and insists that MRC does not create halos and that MRC requires three layers.

          Fascinating Mr Garrett. Anything but facing the reality and the arguments raised I guess. Well, it’s the first step and quite predictable.

      • nbc says:

        One cannot substitute quantity for quality when the basic approach is somewhat flawed.

        Garrett has taken it upon himself to prove a negative: Namely that no known software could possibly explain multiple monochrome bitmaps, just like no known software could possibly explain halos (oops, well, just bitmaps then…).

        Unless Garrett can eliminate the vast parameter search space quickly, his task will be immense and as the burden of proof lies with him, reasonable doubt will be hard to overcome, especially when actual research and patents as well as software references suggest that a two layer decomposition with multiple bitmaps in the ‘second layer’ are well within reach of the software.
        Papit by accepting the fact that preview removed traces of most of the metadata, and rearranged the layer information and removed much of the workflow evidence, has already pointed out how hopeless his task truly is.

        And that ignores of course the existence of certified and verified copies of the original on file.

        I am truly rooting for you my friend. May you make it to cross…

    • nbc says:

      Garret Papit would never make it through a voir dire hearing to be allowed to testify in court.

      Shucks, so we never would get to the fun part of a cross?

    • Frank Arduini says:

      Technically RC, that would not be voir dire. It would be a Daubert Hearing. But you are correct that he would never get within a light year of passing it.

      • CarlOrcas says:

        I’m still trying to understand what he thinks there is to litigate. For the sake of argument….so what if the PDF was “modified” if the information that can be seen on anyone’s computer screen matches what is on the certified copy and in Hawaii’s records is the same…..what is the point???

        It certainly isn’t a crime to modify a unofficial scanned document.

        • Excellent point CarlOrcas! The LFBC has never been submitted in any court as “evidence” except by the plaintiffs in the circus in Georgia and Orly in Mississippi. In Georgia it was submitted to show that Barack Obama’s father was Kenyan. Orly did something with it at the same hearing but I dare anyone to explain exactly what she was trying to do either time.

          • CarlOrcas says:

            As others have noted a state issued, certified birth certificate is prima facie evidence. End of discussion.

            It doesn’t matter what they did to a scanned copy. They could have Howdy Doody sign it and it wouldn’t make any difference.

            Without some real issue all the discussions about layers, etc., is just a giant waste of electricity.

            • Jim says:

              CarlOrcas says: “Without some real issue all the discussions about layers, etc., is just a giant waste of electricity.”

              Doesn’t that describe the whole birther movement?

      • You may be right but I think voir dire is the general term for a challenge while the term Daubert is particular to federal courts following the standard set for expert testimony by the Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc in 1993.

        • Steven Feinstein says:

          Actually, it is both. Whenever an expert is offered to give testimony, he is subject to two tests. The first is voir dire, to see if he/she is qualified to tesitify as an expert. Assuming the Court is satisified about the credentials, the subject matter of the testimony can be tested via a Daubert hearing (upon motion by the opposing party). The hearing is not to determine the validity of the opinion, but rather whether the methodology used by the expert is generally accepted.

          • Thanks Steven. So how would Garrett Papit fair on credentials as an expert and on his scientific methodology at this fantasy trial that will never happen?

            • Slartibartfast says:

              Poorly, one would assume.

            • nbc says:

              One should not assume…

              We know for sure that he is an application developer at a large US retailer.

              My qualifications include a (1) Bachelor’s in Computer Information Systems and a MBA with a concentration in (2) Managerial Information Systems. I specialize in (3)application development and (4)systems analysis and work as a (5) programmer of .com applications for a Fortune 500 company. The main focus of my work involves (6) web and desktop application development utilizing various programming languages. I am also (7) familiar with the methodology involved in PDF optimization and compression.

              (7) has some problem areas but the rest is vague enough to cover a range of expertise.

            • Slartibartfast says:

              nbc,

              His credentials would become moot once his methodology was revealed.

            • John Woodman says:

              I would have to agree.

              I have an entire post in the works on the methodology used to arrive at the conclusions they reached.

            • nbc says:

              His credentials would become moot once his methodology was revealed.

              Well, step by step. Yes, I agree that any cross would quickly focus on the methodology chosen and the insistence on strong statements like “MRC does not generate halos” and “MRC does not create multiple bitmap layers” when the literature clearly contradicts the validity of such a strong statement.

              Furthermore, proving a negative is never simple when one cannot eliminate a large part of the search space involved.

            • Scientist says:

              The Supreme Court has established the Daubert standard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daubert_standard

              More important than degrees or professional experience are the methods used. In particular validation by peer review is essential. A c.v., even one much more impressive than Papit’s, doesn’t meet the test if unvalidated methodologies are used.

            • Steven Feinstein says:

              In my opinion, Garrett would never get to testify because he cannot testify about anything relevant.

            • John Woodman says:

              Furthermore, proving a negative is never simple when one cannot eliminate a large part of the search space involved.

              And the search space is vast. Garrett has essentially examined the shorelines of the Atlantic seaboard and California, and proclaimed on the basis of his failure to discover any that walruses and polar bears don’t exist.

            • John Woodman says:

              And that’s not even the only major flaw in the methodology.

            • nbc says:

              Ok, I will try again:

              He fails to present a competing hypothesis of a forger.

              Or should I wait for your article… Nay, I love to embarrass myself…

        • Ballantine says:

          First, the clown posse is supposed to be talking about a criminatl trial right? No prosecutor is going to try to admit an uncredentialed, self-appointed expert who has no experience testifying as an expert. They wouldn’t want to chance having such witness or their methodology not qualify or risk being embarrassed by a a much more qualified expert on the other side. They would also not trust someone who doesn’t understand the process and has never held up under cross before. Finally, they would also not touch anyone who is clearly biased by being a long time birther as such persons would likely have their credibility destroyed on the stand. Simply not going to happen.

          Next, I am not sure why such testimony would be relevant at all. You need to prove not only that the document was manipulated but that something with respect to the place of birth was changed with the intent to defraud voters. The certified WH copy with the raised seal that was shown last year will obviously be introduced along with another verification from HI and if the information on such matches the PDF, you are done unless you can show the certified WH document to be a forgery too. The PDF simply would become irrelevant once the matching hard copy is introduced.

          You simply have no case unless you get your hands on the original document which we know is far too difficult for birthers to ever figure out.

          • nbc says:

            You simply have no case unless you get your hands on the original document which we know is far too difficult for birthers to ever figure out.

            So why are they focusing on the compressed PDF then? Could they be that unfamiliar with the process of conducting an investigation and how to prepare a case for a prosecutor?

            But they were so insistent that their evidence would stand up in any court? Did they not review the evidence?

            Sloppy…

          • CarlOrcas says:

            First, the clown posse is supposed to be talking about a criminatl trial right?

            I’m not sure they have talked about criminal charges. But even if they have it matters not.

            They have no authority – zip, nada, none. They can’t write parking tickets.

            Theoretically they could prepare material and submit it to the county attorney but the chances of it going anywhere but the garbage can are slim. The last county attorney who got in bed with the Sheriff just lost is law license.

            • Steven Feinstein says:

              You mean that Dr. James David Manning’s trial was not valid? I mean it had Rudy Davis as a juror and everything. Manning announced the verdict even.

              They were forced to take the death penalty off the table because they feared that their hand picked jury would not convict.

  114. Garrett Papit says:

    A challenge to those on this site:

    For the optimization theory to be true, you must demonstrate that it can create multiple 1-bit image mask layers that contain isolated verification content on a control file similar to the WH PDF.

    Please provide just one solitary example.

    • Steven Feinstein says:

      Why won’t you denouce the racists within the birther movement? Why won’t you denounce the fact that Zullo misrepresented your findings?

    • Suranis says:

      Sure, when you recreate the document with all the features of the PDF and no other artifacts, thereby proving that the totality could be forged by an “expert” such as your good self.

      We’ll be waiting.

    • John Woodman says:

      No.

      For the optimization theory to be true, it need only be true.

      And there is every indication that it is.

      You have expressed the opinion, based on very limited knowledge and very limited research that comes not remotely near to exhausting the possibilities, that it’s “impossible” for the items of contention on the PDF to have been the result of optimization.

      Yet we know for certain that the PDF WAS optimized, and we know for certain that a great many of the artifacts present in the PDF are entirely characteristic of optimized files.

      You claim that optimized files only EVER contain 1 1-bit mask. And yet:

      1) It is perfectly possible to program a computer to contain more than one 1-bit mask. Computers do exactly what they are programmed to do. There are thousands of different commercial software packages; many thousands more custom-written programs; and many of the commercial enterprise ones can be customized on demand.

      2) As I understand it, “Mixed Raster Content” (MRC) optimization is really just a description of a basic approach to optimizing files. There is no particular reason why one would have to color a bitmask using a foreground layer; and there is a very obvious savings in compression by not doing so. In fact, I have detailed above exactly why the approach shown in Obama’s PDF would likely provide a higher level of compression than the standard basic model.

      3) As I also understand it, we appear to have written evidence that in fact, people who program Mixed Raster Content optimization schemes DO sometimes create multiple 1-bit bitmasks, and do sometimes omit the use of a foreground layer, substituting instead a color specification for the bitmask.

      4) The above procedure is a very good description of what we see in Obama’s PDF.

      5) We are focusing on a very narrow claim here. There is FAR more evidence that “forgery” is the wrong theory. It had in fact been my intention not to get into this particular technical debate, not because I feared any contradiction of fact from doing so, but because it really is not even that relevant.

      The fact is, the complete approach used by Garrett and Tim Selaty, Jr. was wrongheaded to start with. I have an entire draft post on this point that I probably would’ve had published now if we hadn’t diverged into this thicket instead.

      • Slartibartfast says:

        John said:

        “The fact is, the complete approach used by Garrett and Tim Selaty, Jr. was wrongheaded to start with.”

        I agree–it’s sad how these people fail to understand the scientific method.

        “I have an entire draft post on this point that I probably would’ve had published now if we hadn’t diverged into this thicket instead.”

        I hope you compare it with how you approached the forgery issue–as you yourself have admitted to starting out with at least some bias against President Obama I think it would be instructive to consider how a combination of methodology and integrity prevented your descent into birtherism. It’s just my opinion, but I think if you had lacked an understanding of scientific methodology you could have ended up like Garrett and if you lacked integrity you could have ended up like… I don’t know–there are plenty of birthers who lack integrity, but they all seem to lack competence as well… I suppose that if you lacked integrity you would have just thrown away your results and walked away without ever telling anyone.

        • John Woodman says:

          To at least a small degree, I actually faced the question of whether or not to publish the book. I recall a conversation with my wife in which she said, “People are going to ask you why you are supporting Obama.” My response was: “I’m not supporting Obama. I’m supporting the truth.”

          • Slartibartfast says:

            Well, some of us understand the issue of scientific integrity embodied in your decision, but you can’t deny that your wife was absolutely right… ;-)

          • John Woodman says:

            On the other side of the coin, I’ve also had a guy who was very deeply involved in conservative politics here in Southwest Missouri — he’s mostly retired now, but has certainly been active in a leadership role in the past — thank me for having taken the issue on. He stated his opinion to me that the birthers were a distraction of conservative energies from the real issues, and that they made conservatives look bad.

            A week or so ago, I dropped in to the local Republican Party headquarters here. We have a primary tomorrow, and I ended up chatting with a young man who is a paid staff member for the state Republican Party. I mentioned the birthers, and his reply was basically, “I just try to ignore those people.”

            • Slartibartfast says:

              If the birthers are out there, I’m all for tying them around the neck (figuratively speaking) of any politician who has even flirted with being birther-curious, but I would just as soon have people like you (as well as Republican leaders) shut them down first.

    • Frank Arduini says:

      Papit writes:

      For the optimization theory to be true, you must demonstrate that it can create multiple 1-bit image mask layers that contain isolated verification content on a control file similar to the WH PDF.

      You do realize that what is or is not actually true has never been changed by a demonstration, right? Reality is not dependent upon demonstration, perception or even sentient observation. The universe existed quite well on its own for billions of years before anybody existed who was able to demonstrate it.

      You have made an unsupportable claim… declared an impossibility. It is a classic argumentum ad ignorantiam. A claim’s truth or falsity depends on supporting or refuting evidence to the claim, not the lack of support for a contrary or contradictory claim. Your report fails to offer the former, so any need by us to demonstrate the latter is unripe.

      As Nietzsche mocked, “‘I cannot comprehend it. Therefore it is incomprehensible.’ All fish think like this.”

    • nbc says:

      Please provide just one solitary example.

      So you have learned nothing? Quite interesting to hear you repeat ad nausea your foolish ‘challenge’. You do realize that your task does not change whether we provide such an example or not?

      Sigh… In the mean time, I hope you understand why I believe your ‘testimony’ or ‘report’ would not survive ‘peer review’?

  115. Garrett Papit says:

    The question of which app created the WH PDF file:

    We all know that Mac Preview generated the file…or at least I hope we do. So a question that you apply to me, applies to your view as well.

    Why does every example that claims to prove optimization is the culprit (Woodman, National Review, etc..) use Adobe Acrobat?

    The answer is simple. Mac Preview isn’t capable of creating layers. Quartz PDFContext is not capable of creating layers. Again, I’ve actually tested this rather than simply making the claim.

    Also, why do these samples usually use black and white documents rather than something more analogous to the WH BC? Because the segmentation wouldn’t look correct if you used a simlar document. Specifically, there would only be one layer that had text that was isolated from the background image..as opposed to 6 on the WH PDF.

    This is disingenuous.

    • Suranis says:

      Thats funny, becasue Mara Zebest said it was created on adobe photoshop, after looking at the same Metadata you did. So far the only person that claims that MAC Preview was used is you.

      SO your flat statement “We all know that Mac Preview generated the file” is completely false. It shoild be “I think that Mac Preview generated the file” Because since at least one other person looked at the same metadata you did and did not see mac prieview in it, the fact that It was Mac Preivew is not self evident.

      So stop claiming that your suppositions have been proven. It could just as easily have been propriety software of the printer.

      • nbc says:

        So stop claiming that your suppositions have been proven. It could just as easily have been propriety software of the printer.

        Uh, no, the last software to touch the PDF was most likely preview as the metadata implicates Quartz as the ‘producer’.

        Of course, preview/Quartz also removes much of the metadata and reorganizes the internal structure, effectively hiding most of the information about the workflow.

    • CarlOrcas says:

      The question of which app created the WH PDF file

      What difference does it make?

      Please explain to me why it matters since the information on the PDF matches what we can see in pictures and video of the certified certificate AND since Hawaii has repeatedly said the information is accurate and that Obama was born in Hawaii.

      Do you ever stop and stick your head up out of the weeds and ask yourself…..
      “What is this really about?”

    • nbc says:

      Why does every example that claims to prove optimization is the culprit (Woodman, National Review, etc..) use Adobe Acrobat?

      The answer is simple. Mac Preview isn’t capable of creating layers. Quartz PDFContext is not capable of creating layers. Again, I’ve actually tested this rather than simply making the claim.

      So have I. As to using Adobe Acrobat, this is likely because it is the most accessible software, especially since it can be downloaded as a trial.

      Remember the original claim: Scanning software does not generate layers. That was quickly put to rest by people who researched the topic such as Woodman, Dr Conspiracy and various others.

      You really need to look at the history of the events to understand history, otherwise you may call something disingenuous…

      Such hasty jumps to conclusions do not bode well.

  116. Garrett Papit says:

    A logical problem for those claiming optimization created the layers:

    We know that Preview can’t create layers, or at least I do. So the question becomes what application did create them? But that isn’t the logical conundrum. If another application innocently created the layers, via optimization, what would you have? You would have a file (a PDF mind you) that has been compressed and is ready for distribution on the web for mass download. The output of PDF optimization is a PDF file. Why then, would you need to reopen the PDF and save it again as a PDF (referred to as refrying)? There is no logical reason for this.

    However, if you were trying to cover your digital tracks…it would make complete sense. Preview completely erases any traces of previous metadata because of the way it rebuilds a file.

    Add this little bit of information: Preview is capable of opening native AI and PS files and saving them as PDF file..WHILE RETAINING any layers that were created in those applications.

    There is a serious logical problem there for the claim that an innocent process created these layers. If that were the case, why not post the file after it was initially optimized so the metadata would tell us what optimized it? We have a phantom application creating layers to a document that will be held up to public scrutiny. It’s simply not logical.

    • Suranis says:

      [Removed by moderator.]

      • John Woodman says:

        Suranis: Let’s try to keep the comments appropriate and family-friendly, please. I dare say you probably do not have evidence to back up your claim regarding Garrett’s anatomy, and even if true, the allegation would appear to be irrelevant, anyway.

    • Suranis says:

      Oh and the logical problem for you is that you also KNEW that several meant 3 and that MRC conpression could only EVER create 3 layers. Both suppositions were ripped apart within an hour complete with very detailed and technical rubbishing by NBC.

      Considering this forms the entire basis of your thesis, and your knowlage of the metadata has been called into question as other birther experts have drawn different conclusions, that means your thesis is flawed.

      Therefore that logical conclusion is that your knowlage is flawed in this matter and cannot be relied on whatsoever.

    • Frank Arduini says: