Helping Kommandante Zullo Once More

Obama Selective Service System Registration form from ObamaConspiracy.org

At the first press conference in May 2012 held to report the interim findings of the Cold Case Posse smear job investigation into the validity of President Obama’s long form birth certificate lead investigator Mike Zullo revived an old conspiracy when he produced the claim that Barack Obama’s Selective Service registration card that was mailed in 1980 was fraudulent. A copy of this application had been obtained through a FOIA request in 2008 filed by J. Stephan Coffman, a retired Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent from Galveston, TX. The FOIA results were first presented at Debbie Schlussel’s blog in this article on November 13, 2008.

Schlussel raised questions about the authenticity of the registration but stopped short of claiming outright  forgery. The two digit year date was mentioned but not much was made of it.  A commenter named Nancy notes that in May 2012 she had sent the article to the Cold Case Posse. Debbie was not happy about the CCP “stealing” her work:

This article was forwarded to Sheriff Joe, incase he and the Posse hadn’t seen it. Thank you Debbie Schlussel for writing it. May the truth be known and the Lord’s Will be done.

N: Nancy, thanks, but come on. You didn’t realize that Sheriff Joe ripped off my work????? Well, he did. He and his subordinate officers (the incompetent, thieving “Posse”), who wasted tax dollars working on this, e-mailed me and told me they were going to steal my work and they did. Your false hero, Joe Arpaio is no better or different than the robbers in his prisons. He stole from me. DS

Nancy on May 4, 2012 at 12:56 am

Zullo’s narrowed his focus to the the date stamp, that it was a USPO stamp, and it had only two digits in the year. It said “80” instead of “1980”. Zullo claimed that the date had been applied by taking a stamp from 2008, removing the “20” and turning the remaining “08” digits upside down. Now there are a number of things wrong with this preposterous forgery claim. First, the copy of the card was obtained when George Bush was still President and his appointee was running the Selective Service System. Therefore, Bush people had to have been responsible for the forgery. Second, it would have quite easy to obtain an authentic cancellation stamp with a four digit year set. Finally many examples have been be found of “USPO” cancellation stamps being used many years after the name change to “USPS” in 1970.

As usual Zullo presented the preposterous and unlikely as the likely explanations when it fit his meme to question any document related to Barack Obama.  He ignored much more likely explanations such as the “19” digits having been missing or worn and not inking. The document was also most likely a scan of a microfilm image and faint markings could have disappeared in the process. Zullo also ignored completely independent records that indicated that Barack Obama had registered for the draft at that time.

Another claim Zullo made was that his investigators searched other Selective Service applications for others a two digit year date on the stamp and could not find one. We do not know how many they searched. He doesn’t tell us. One obvious place to look for two digit years on cancellations is well, stamp cancellations. Apparently, Zullo’s investigators didn’t look very hard.

A stamp collector and Fogbow Forum member named Paul Lentz posted how he had found several examples of stamp cancellations with two digit years.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the basic premise here that the postmark on the Selective Service registration card (which contains only a 2-digit year–“80” instead of “1980”) is evidence of some fraud? And Taitz (as well as Kommandant Zullo) claim that there has NEVER been a 2-digit year postmark EVER in the HISTORY OF USPS POSTMARKS?

As some of you know, I’m a stamp collector (that’s right folks, I philatel around shamelessly and often :mrgreen: ). In fact, I’m a 3rd generation stamp collector, having inherited and continued the collection first begun by my grandfather. Most of the stamps in my collection are “postally used” (that’s my preference in collecting), so almost all bear “kill” marks (and sometimes partial or full postmarks (a “kill” mark is the actual stamp cancellation marks–often bars or wavy lines which deface the stamp; a “postmark” is the mark which typically bears the name (place) of the postal station, the date, sometimes the time). Although most of the stamps (removed from envelopes/cards) in my collection have only partial or no actual postmarks on them, I’ve spent enough time lifting stamps from envelopes (containing full postmarks) to know that the claim that ‘never in the history of the US has a postmark only contained a 2-digit year’ is just stupid crap.

Of course, as any actual police investigation (as opposed to Kommandant Zullo and his Creamy Crap Potty Pals) or the most simple due diligence (such as that with which Orly Taitz is clearly unacquainted) would disclose, through the very simple act of contacting–for example–the United States Postal Service, or even The Post Mark Collectors Club, this is an incredibly stoopid claim. Hell, even the most rudimentary Google image search shows this to be a complete lie.

Paul goes on to provide links to several such cancellations with two digit years.

This one is from Fall River, Massachusetts in 1895:

Is that one too old for you.? How about one from Ord, Nebraska in 1951?

Nebraska stamp

Here are two more from eBay:

Ebay Stamps

Finally, here is another one from Nebraska with no year at all:

Nebraska Stamp2

So there you are Kommandante Zullo and Orly Taitz. I hope you appreciate all the work that we have done for you folks. How is the arrest of the Xerox machine going?

Note: For more debunking of the Selective Service Registration Forgery claims see Obama Conspiracy Theories several articles on the subject, the Fogbow Special Report on the First CCP Press Conference, and this Debunkers.net article. We should also note that the Selective Service System looked into the issue in response to a letter from Sheriff Arapio and replied (from one of the linked Obama Conspiracy Theories articles):

In a letter dated March 22, Richard S. Flahavan, Associate Director of Public and Intergovernmental Affairs with the Selective Service System responded to Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s request for an investigation of Obama’s selective service registration. Flahavan wrote:

This Agency has no evidence that President Obama’s 1980 registration is not authentic. However, if you have any credible evidence to the contrary and believe that a Federal crime has been committed, we suggest that it be turned over immediately to the Federal Bureau of Investigation to pursue.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Barack Obama, Birthers, Mike Zullo and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

56 Responses to Helping Kommandante Zullo Once More

  1. Pingback: Congressman (Chairman Of Homeland Security Oversight Subcommittee) Wants New Investigation Of Obama's Eligibility - Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Conservatives, Liberals, Third Parties, Left-Wing, Right-Wing, Congress, President - Page 8 - City-Da

  2. Pingback: Hawaiian Court Certified Document Fraud Expert Who Has Just Affirmed Obama's Birth Certificate Is Forged Is A Democrat - Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Conservatives, Liberals, Third Parties, Left-Wing, Right-Wing, Congress, President - Page 82 - C

  3. Adrien Nash says:

    Here’s a graphic debunking of the debunking of the debunking of the Selective Service card: http://obamabc.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/ss-postoffice-stamps.jpg
    Let you own eyes and reason be your guide in drawing conclusions.

    It’s a screen capture from my monitor after the program I was producing it on crashed right near completion, -a one third size view that I enlarged 50% after cropping the screen image.

    I can’t wait to see someone debunk my debunking but I won’t be holding my breath since that is essentially impossible. A response that’s totally juvenile and anti-intellect is about all I’m expecting since juveniles have no capacity to hold their tongue when they have an opportunity to say something smart-ass and stupid. Who wants to be first to fit that description?

    • Northland10 says:

      Your “genuine” stamp is missing most of the USPO portion, the Sta part and much of the station name is illegible. Does this mean your “genuine” stamp is also a crude forgery?

  4. I don’t even have to search the internet. I can debunk it with one of the stamps on this very page. Look at the “8”

    Now here it is flipped 180 degrees

    Which part of the “8” is larger? Sorry Adrien, you lose again. Of course there is another perfectly valid explanation that the 8 slug was in upside down.

    This is all nonsense of course. You are filling in the rest of the “8” with your imagination and blowing up a poor quality photo of a microfilm record to do an analysis of an original document you have never scene that has been verified by the Selective Service. It is the height of lunacy to claim this is a forgery but that won’t stop an idiot from being an idiot.

  5. Adrien Nash says:

    Your mind is just riddled with presumption, such as the presumption that anything definitive exists and can be proclaimed as fact in forming a view about the origin of the “80”. The postmark you posted does indeed appear to have been formed from an upside down slug but that is the number for the day, not the year. The year date displays a characteristic that is universal in all two-digit postmarks; -they are centered. Obama’s is not and that alone is evidence of fakery.

    Also, it cannot be seriously argued that such a small area as that occupied by a four-digit unit could have side-by-side numbers in total contrast; -two being fully inked and dark as possible, and the other two being totally uninked and thus invisible. Even boosting the contrast in creating the shared image of the card would not cause a less-than-black “19” to become invisible.
    So for the sake of your own intellectual integrity, you need to accept that the location of the “80” is the result of fakery or else, to believe otherwise, you need to find one or two postmarks that are completely uncentered. Good luck with that because you will never find such a thing because such a thing does not exist.

    “Of course there is another perfectly valid explanation that the 8 slug was in upside down.”
    Where is the perfectly valid explanation for the top of the eight being cut-off? As in sliced off.
    Again, there is none. You’ll never find another one like it.

    “original document…that has been verified by the Selective Service.” Yeah, just like Bill never had sex with that woman, and Nixon was not a crook. Please, Pollyanna, spare us the authority-worship that liberals embrace when it comes to defending one of their own.

    The only definitive evidence of the truth would lie in finding other registration cards from the same era or year, and the same location (the Hawaiian Post Office) for comparison. I believe I recall that Zullo claimed that the CCP has just such examples of other cards which show a four-digit postmark. Do you think he’d make such a claim if it were a bald-faced lie? That would be a baseless presumption to make.

    • Your mind is just riddled with presumption, such as the presumption that anything definitive exists and can be proclaimed as fact in forming a view about the origin of the “80”. The postmark you posted does indeed appear to have been formed from an upside down slug but that is the number for the day, not the year. The year date displays a characteristic that is universal in all two-digit postmarks; -they are centered. Obama’s is not and that alone is evidence of fakery.

      Wow, if that isn’t the pot calling the kettle black. You have presumed that Barack Obama was born in Canada without presenting a single shred of evidence. You have presumed that it two administrations in Hawaii are in on a giant conspiracy w/o any evidence. You have presumed that a ten year old USPO date stamp is always in perfect working condition and stamps perfectly every single time. You have presumed that a mysterious master forged PDF exists that has never been released and you have not analyzed. THat is a lot of presumptions.

      Also, it cannot be seriously argued that such a small area as that occupied by a four-digit unit could have side-by-side numbers in total contrast; -two being fully inked and dark as possible, and the other two being totally uninked and thus invisible. Even boosting the contrast in creating the shared image of the card would not cause a less-than-black “19” to become invisible.
      So for the sake of your own intellectual integrity, you need to accept that the location of the “80” is the result of fakery or else, to believe otherwise, you need to find one or two postmarks that are completely uncentered. Good luck with that because you will never find such a thing because such a thing does not exist.

      No actually I do not have to find anything because the Selective Service has said their records show that Barack Obama registered for the draft in 1980. Nothing else matters. You evidence of fakery is laughable.

      “Of course there is another perfectly valid explanation that the 8 slug was in upside down.”
      Where is the perfectly valid explanation for the top of the eight being cut-off? As in sliced off.
      Again, there is none. You’ll never find another one like it.

      I don’t need to find a another one like it. No one cares. The courts would laugh out of the courtroom what you call evidence. As a matter of fact they already have.

      “original document…that has been verified by the Selective Service.” Yeah, just like Bill never had sex with that woman, and Nixon was not a crook. Please, Pollyanna, spare us the authority-worship that liberals embrace when it comes to defending one of their own.

      Watergate unraveled in less than two years. There was an actual crime from the beginning. The comparisons you make are nonsense. Hawaii issued a birth certificate and as copy was posted on the Internet. Nothing has changed in two years. Obama registered for the draft in 1980 and the Selective Service confirmed and released a copy of his registration card and other records.

      The only definitive evidence of the truth would lie in finding other registration cards from the same era or year, and the same location (the Hawaiian Post Office) for comparison. I believe I recall that Zullo claimed that the CCP has just such examples of other cards which show a four-digit postmark. Do you think he’d make such a claim if it were a bald-faced lie? That would be a baseless presumption to make.

      No the burden of proof is on Zullo to find the who, what, where, how and why of how a registration record was placed in the Selective Service files by the Bush administration. So far he has not done anything towards that. Finding a few 4 digit date stamps on the Internet is meaningless. A two digit number is evidence of a stamp problem not forgery. There are problems with the one you presented as a valid example as has been pointed out to you.

      Also, we have documented proof that Zullo is a bald-faced liar. He presented fake evidence at the second CCP press conference and even though he was caught red handed he continues to lie about it a year later. He has told many more lies too. There is a Facebook page dedicated to documenting his many lies. https://www.facebook.com/TheLiesOfMikeZullo?hc_location=stream

  6. Adrien Nash says:

    “You have presumed that Barack Obama was born in Canada without presenting a single shred of evidence.”
    That’s because there is none, just as there is none that he was born in a hospital that won’t claim him in Hawaii. Both are equally presumptuous. No Hawaiian official has ever sworn under oath that Obama was sent two long-form birth certificates. That will never happen because they sent him nothing. They only handed-over original source materials needed for the production of the unembossed counterfeit image.

    “You have presumed that it two administrations in Hawaii are in on a giant conspiracy w/o any evidence.” More falsehood. The prior governor only parrotted what she was told, but what she was told were lies.
    “You have presumed that a ten year old USPO date stamp is always in perfect working condition and stamps perfectly every single time.”
    More falsehood. When did “invisible”, missing, non-existent, become imperfect? When did zero presence of imagery become merely imperfect imagery? Where are all of the other examples of postmarks with two digits in dark bold ink and the ones side-by-side with them invisible? What ordinary event could cause that? Answer: none, hence no similar examples.
    You are vacillating between two explanations: 1. a two-digit off-center date stamp 2. a mysteriously missing two digits explained only by an inking problem. Neither one of them hold water, and even worse is that you realize that fact but are locked into defending the indefensible.

    WreckingBall at city-data.com/forum/politics-other-controversies asked for Zullo to release his: “results of interviews by the Cold Case Posse of the White House press corps members who personally viewed the President’s original long form birth certificate.”

    “Viewed”? Shouldn’t that be “viewed and photographed”? What possible good explanation could there be for it to not be both? Did not a single reporter present have a camera-equiped phone, or a digital camera? Why didn’t they use them to capture and share dozens of photos?

    Why? Because obuma’s fearful lawyer, knowing full well the thing was a counterfeit print-out of a counterfeit digital file, didn’t want and didn’t allow anyone present to photograph it.

    Why not? Because it lacked an authentic embossed seal from Hawaii and he didn’t want it to be photographed with a high resolution camera and then exposed to close-up examination by internet sleuths. That’s why.

    As for a reason for Zullo to not release all of the things he’s said the investigation has obtained, there is only one good one; it will all be compiled into an explosive book that is hoped will be bought by the millions. Who wouldn’t do the same thing if what he says is true? He probably is thinking about publishing it a year from now, -in the lead-up to the 2014 election. That’s why the investigation is still “on-going”.

    • W. Kevin Vicklund says:

      “Viewed”? Shouldn’t that be “viewed and photographed”? What possible good explanation could there be for it to not be both? Did not a single reporter present have a camera-equiped phone, or a digital camera? Why didn’t they use them to capture and share dozens of photos?

      We know of at least one who did: Susan Guthrie. The fact is, “viewed” is a larger group than “viewed and photographed”.

    • Yo Adrien

      You posted a link – well actually you are too inept to post a link – you tried to post a link to a city data politics forum. When I copy and paste the link, which is what I have to do because you do not know how to post a link, it takes me to the politics forum which has over 1000 pages of topics and no search function. If you think I am going to search through 1000 pages and then through who knows how many posts in a topic think again.

  7. Adrien Nash says:

    “Obama registered for the draft in 1980 and the Selective Service confirmed and released a copy of his registration card and other records.”
    Is there some innocuous explanation as to why Obama’s signature is dated a day after the postmark? That is like the cart going before the horse since only signed cards would be given the postmark. Please enlighten (if possible). I won’t hold my breath.

    • Young Obama signed with the wrong date or the postal clerk stamped the wrong date. The processing clerk at the Selective Service would have ignored such a simple mistake and processed the registration. Next?

    • Northland10 says:

      What would be the point of “forging” a form to register for selective service. The whole purpose of the form is to register, and according to the Selective Service, he did. If they do not see a problem, and it is their area of expertise, why do you?

      We have 2 scenarios,

      1. Obama registers himself for selective service.
      2. Obama forges a form to register himself with selective service.

      The end result , Obama is registered. Exactly what would be Obama’s motivation?

    • gorefan says:

      To: Adrien Nash,most people

      So you have never written down the wrong date on a check or a form? I would bet most people would say they have.

      But since you are asking questions, maybe you could answer some questions for me.

      The President’s SS registration card has a 10 digit number stamped on the card. This is the Document Locator Number (DLN) and was placed on the card when it was processed. Birthers have also obtained the SS registration cards for two individuals who registered within days of President Obama at the same Post Office in Honolulu. Here are the three individual’s Selective Service Information:

      JUL 29 1980 DLN – 0897 080 632, SS 61-1125539-1, Barack Obama
      JUL 31 1980 DLN – 0897 080 653, SS 61-1125556-5, Darrel Oniwa
      AUG 02 1980 DLN – 0897 080 613, SS 61-1125522-7, Bruce Henderson

      All three have an effective registration date of Sept 4th, 1980.

      So all three have DLNs and Selective Service numbers that are within the same range.

      President Obama’s SS registration card was released in October, 2008 (before he was President).

      So here are my questions to you:
      1) Why is President Obama’s DLN and SS number within the same range of numbers from other people from Hawaii who registered at the same P.O in Honolulu in 1980?

      2) How did the forger get an obsolete, round Postal Stamp from the Makiki Station but not a 19xx plug that he could cut the first two digits from?

      3) How did the forger get the forged card onto the Selective Service microfilm rolls?

      4) Why did the Selective service Administration on three occasions before the 2008 Presidential election verifiy the the-Senator Obama did follow Federal law in registering for the Selective Service?

      I look forward to you answers.

  8. Adrien Nash says:

    “2. Obama forges a form to register himself with selective service.
    The end result , Obama is registered. Exactly what would be Obama’s motivation?”

    Seriously? Without having registered when required, he would be seen as either having completely shirked his American responsibility or viewed himself as not required to register because he didn’t view himself as an American citizen. Both are bad but the latter is by far the worst.

    That date is not incriminating because it would have to be assumed that any half-intelligent forger wouldn’t make such a mistake.

    About the other registrations about the same day; have you ever heard of Virgina Sunahara? She was the baby born when Obama was born but died within days. Her birth certificate number is top secret. The judge who heard the suit against the state by the baby’s 50 year old brother ruled against his obtaining a copy of her birth certificate. The judge, like thousands in the government and media, are obama sycophants or are intimidated by information obtained via the NSA. Hence his rightful request was denied by the state and the judge.

    This was because the forger adopted her birth certificate number for Obama’s forgery. Same situation with the SS registration card.
    People die, and their records and identifies are taken over by others. Bill Ayers, Obama’s good friend, neighbor, and fellow director of an Annenberg foundation, wrote all about it in his autobiography.
    No one has the information as to who did or didn’t originally have the number on Obama’s forged card. If it was forged then such a number would be needed, and it couldn’t belong to anyone living.

    “2) How did the forger get an obsolete, round Postal Stamp from the Makiki Station but not a 19xx plug that he could cut the first two digits from?”

    There is no proof that the forger did because no original card has been produced and examined by any document examiner to determine if a real stamp produced a real postmark. You keep forgetting what age you live in. Its the age when anything and everything can be forged in a second generation reproduction copy.
    The image of an old stamp could have been used and manipulated to alter the appearance of the year by the lazy method of erasing a decade date (20**) and leaving only an altered year date. The only logical explanation for the completely off-center, year-only date is the forger’s laziness or over-confidence. No stamp maker in the world would produce a two-digit stamp that was completely off-center.

    “3) How did the forger get the forged card onto the Selective Service microfilm rolls?”
    We don’t start from what we don’t know, and we don’t know that it exists in the microfilm rolls. If it did exist in the rolls then how would we know since no one will be allowed to examine them? Same with the non-existent hospital birth certificate that will never be seen by any non-sycophant of Obama.

    “4) Why did the Selective service Administration on three occasions before the 2008 Presidential election verify that then-Senator Obama did follow Federal law in registering for the Selective Service?”
    Who doesn’t know that government is highly populated by union-loyal, party-loyal devoted Democrats who would have sold their first-born to see their dynamic new messiah elected President? If his entire success in the election hinged on his government documents then it would have been absolutely crucial to validate them or else his candidacy would have gone down the toilet.

    You can’t continue to pretend that we live in a world populated by angels who never lie, who never put the ends ahead of the means. People who are appointed to high government offices are just as likely to lie or pervert the law as the politicians who appoint them due to their party loyalty. Same with Supreme Court justices.

  9. gorefan says:

    To: Adrien Nash – “have you ever heard of Virgina Sunahara?”

    There are several problems with your Virginia theory.
    1) We know her certificate number from when the Hawaii DOH released her BC to her brother. It is 11080.
    2) BCs in Hawaii were collected for the month and then separated into geographic regions before numbering. Virginia was born in a different geographic region then the Nordykes and President
    Obama

    AN-“You keep forgetting what age you live in. Its the age when anything and everything can be forged in a second generation reproduction copy.”

    Your theory about copying and pasting a round postal stamp, Selective Service Administration employees helping in the forgery fails for simple reasons. It is illogical.

    President Obama’s registration card (with the two digits) was released by the Selective Service Administration as part of a FOIA request in 2008. According to you they cut and pasted the round post office stamp, but didn’t cut and paste a “1980” stamp. So even though they had access to thousands maybe tens of thousands of registration cards with “1980” date stamp to cut and paste from, they did it the way they would have done it before computers and physically cut up a “2008” plug.

    AN – “The only logical explanation for the completely off-center, year-only date is the forger’s laziness or over-confidence. ”

    So lazy they had to physically cut a stamp plug when they could have easily cut and pasted one. The only logical explanation is the the “19” is missing for the same reason the “O” in HONOLULU is missing in both President Obama’s card and Darrel Oniwa’s card, ink handstamps do not always produce a clean image and a poor photocopy of it does not make it any clearer.

    • You cannot have an intelligent discussion with Adrien or anyone of his ilk. Their answer to everything is that corrupt Obama supporters are forging documents and covering up for the forgers. His vast conspiracies include almost everyone in government and their numbers would run into the thousands and cross party lines. It is really sad that people are that deluded out there.

      I have had email exchanges with Douglas Vogt and Paul Irey. I had Irey on my show of course. They are equally deluded and buy into every sinister theory imaginable about Obama. They are blinded by hatred. They are willing make up things at the drop of a hat to support their delusions. They probably don’t think they are lying because they are so far detached from rational thinking.

      • gorefan says:

        Oh, I know. I just like pointing out how illogical their scenarios are. You have a forger who has enough access to Selective Service records they could steal someone else’s data, cut and paste P.O. handstamps. But then has to go old school and cut up a 2008 plug by hand, when they could have just cut and pasted one.

  10. Adrien Nash says:

    “There are several problems with your Virginia theory.
    1) We know her certificate number from when the Hawaii DOH released her BC to her brother. It is 11080.”
    Actually, her “BC” was NOT released to her brother. Instead they only supplied him with a counterfeit abstract short-form which used the registration number from another dead baby that is unknown and unknowable except to those with access to the records. They absolutely refused to issue to him her long form birth certificate, and would allow the heavens to fall before issuing him an actual photocopy of the microfilm image of her original hospital generated BC, much less a photocopy of the document itself. That spells cover-up in every language on earth. And I assume that you already know that.

    “Your theory about copying and pasting a round postal stamp, Selective Service Administration employees helping in the forgery, fails for simple reasons. It is illogical.”
    Excuse me, but SS employees would NOT be party to counterfeiting, unless they are high in the administration as political appointees who have power over all below them. As for “illogical”, I’ve adequately illuminated how illogical it is to believe that the two missing digits would not only be faintly inked while those next to them were darkly inked (impossible) but that they were not inked at all and were therefore invisible (also impossible).

    Excuse me again, but you keep mistaking me for Zullo. I never said a word about cutting up a rubber slug of the year 2008. For Zullo to believe that is the best explanation requires ignorance of digital editing. The cutting can be done on a computer. Zullo mistakenly takes the view that an actual registration card was produced in its entirety, including the use of a physical postmark stamp, but that can’t be assumed. One could have been filled out by Obama in 2008 or 2007 and then the postmark image added digitally to a bad photocopy of it. What the heck is so hard about that?
    But that does beg the question as to why one wouldn’t also add the “19” if one is capable of digital image editing. Hence the resort to a presumption of laziness. It could be the actual reason, but logic doesn’t dictate that it is since one would expect more diligence when endeavoring to produce an undetectable forgery. So it remains a semi-mystery.

    The poor inking explanation is fatally flawed, as is one of deliberate manufacturer production of an off-center date. There is no flawless explanation, -only lesser or greater flawed explanations.
    And I don’t understand how the Zullo method would preclude obtaining an old pre-2000 stamp and using its “19” unless the person making the card simply wasn’t interested in going the extra mile.

    The inking problem other than the date can be explained as being due to the age of the stamp. But… the four-digit year stamp was changed yearly, not just the actual year, so both the “19” and the “80” would have been the same age as part of a single piece. Bad inking can’t explain it.

    What is most suspicious is the size of the sliced “8”. If you compare its height to the “0”, it would be notably too large if you closed the upper loop of the 8. It’s unmistakeable. One or both must be fake. And if so, the whole thing is fake. No evidence is public that can counter such a conclusion because FOIA responses aren’t about document authenticity but document information only. Hence such a crappy excuse for what should be a high resolution image that could and would dispel all doubts, or confirm them.

    • gorefan says:

      An – “That spells cover-up in every language on earth.”

      Wow, it’s getting easier to count the number of those not involved in your conspiracy than those that are involved. LOL

      Your entire conspiracy hinges on the forger getting tired. Such stupidity.

      • Adrien Nash says:

        Did I say “tired”? I thought I only said “lazy”. But both are equally bad explanations. The trouble is that your explanations are even worse, and you haven’t even attempted to logically defend them against my counter-arguments. But just to rub your face in a little more unexplainable “stupidity” check out my new graphic comparison. It’s an eye-opener that you haven’t seen before. http://obamabc.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/datestamp2d.jpg

        • I just had to post Adrien’s image here from his blog so you can see just show silly his “eye-opener” is:

          null

          As you can see Adrien draws in his imaginary top of the “8” with rounded curves while the bottom portion has most a rectangular shape. This is just more delusion from Nash.

          Adrien suffers from the same delusion that Paul Irey and Mara Zebest do that you can take an already low resolution image then blow it up with software that smooths out the pixelation then try to do some detailed typographical analysis on it. For examples of this folly I refer you to two additional articles:

          First from my old blog :Paul irey and Doug Vogt’s Incredible Claims and from John Woodman’s blog The Latest Birther Idiocy — Article from Mara Zebest Claims that Savannah Guthrie “Proves She’s Complicit” in Obama Birth Certificate “Forgery”

          • Adrien Nash says:

            gorefan wrote: “The state of Hawaii has verified that the number 151 61 10641 is on President Obama’s original BC stored at the Hawaii DOH.”

            Please, when are you going to grow up and openly acknowledge that statements aren’t proof of anything?
            “The state of Hawaii”. I’ve never met a state. Have you? Who exactly is The State of Hawaii? It’s a big fat obama supporter who wants his or her “native son” white-knight socialist hero protected from the truth no matter what. Why do you continue to pretend otherwise? This isn’t kindergarten. Grow a brain for god’s sake.
            “Verified”? Are you really unaware that the local registrar, Verna Lee, was interviewed by Zullo (she being in her 90s) and she condemned whatever means was used to put the registration number seen on Obama’s bc onto his counterfeit pdf image. She “verified” that that number would never have been given to him because it is out of order. And she was the very fastidious master of that office so it would not have happened under her watch.(!!!)
            That mean’s it didn’t happen, and so the number was in fact stolen from the birth certificate of Virginia Sunahara. Hence the stonewall against allowing her’s to be seen.
            Sherlock Holmes would call that “elementary”. You would call it “coincidence”.

            You point out in a comment that for some reason hasn’t appeared here yet, that others have made biased leaps of logic that go a bridge too far in that they make false conclusions based on false assumptions about overly digitally-processed images of text. My thought is the same, and I wondered from first reading such comments why the authors didn’t realize the same thing. Many fonts are nearly identical, and so digital distortion can’t be ruled out when one is fatter or differently shaped than others. It takes more than that to identify different fonts. But it’s a mistake to assume that the counterfeiter used any text that was not original Hawaiian DoH text from the right period. He had access via someone in the dept. of health.
            You rightly criticize analysis based on comparing letters seen in obama’s LFCOLB but you have now gone one step too far in lumping me in with that analysis as if I’m a part of some hive mind. As a consequence, I’ve taken my latest graphic debunking of BOH’s Selective Service card to another level, -one that absolutely requires no analysis at all.
            You complain that one can erroneously read conspiracy into text overly distorted by digital copying and compression, but here it is again in a form that destroys the idea of analysis being involved in what your own eyes can see without any filter of technical explanation.

            Distortion happens, but not this much. And in addition to the height of the number “8” being too great, pray-tell just how could the supposed 8 and 0 be darkly inked and yet the top of the 8 is missing as it it were not inked at all?
            By what conceivable digital processing effect could either of those things happen?

            That’s kind of a rhetorical question being as you have no possible way to answer it. Nor to answer why the missing digits 1 & 9 could avoid being inked at all.
            Surely they would have been dark enough to not have been completely changed to white via contrast boosting. So, since no manufacturer would produce a stamp with the date completely off-center, lame counterfeiting is the only explanation. And that conclusion doesn’t take a damn bit of “analysis”. Just common sense, which you seem to be avoiding. So the question is, “who ya gonna believe; yer lyin’ bias or yer lyin’ eyes?”

        • gorefan says:

          AN – ” It’s an eye-opener”

          Here is a real eye-opener.

          These are two examples of the same stamps. The first example is a black and white scan of two cancellations and the second is the same two cancellations but a color copy.

          Notice how just the change from color to black and white coping changes the look of the cancellation stamp.

          Black and white copy

          Color Copy

    • gorefan says:

      AN – “Bad inking can’t explain it.”

      Bad inking combined with a poor copy would explain it better.

      And that explanation doesn’t require all the extraneous conspiracy nonsense.

  11. Adrien Nash says:

    RealityCheck wrote: “They are equally deluded and buy into every sinister theory imaginable about Obama.” “They probably don’t think they are lying because they are so far detached from rational thinking.”
    As trusting minds could conclude. But unlike you, I can see that on both sides, while you only recognized it when coming from the opposition. And speaking of rational thinking, from what source do you claim that I embrace “vast conspiracies [that] include almost everyone in government and their numbers would run into the thousands and cross party lines.”?
    That is your imagination running completely wild, -just as you glibly accuse others of allowing. Those included in the conspiracies are only a few at the top who hold the strings and have the access, or have supporters with the access, to obtain the very, very few documents required to produce counterfeit versions of an abstract birth certificate and a SS registration card. Since when does such an endeavor require more than just a few conspirators with broad power?

    Aside from the postmark, how does anyone know where the response to the FOIA came from? On what basis can any sane individual automatically assume that such a crucial, all-important document would simply pass through the ordinary channels? Give me a reasonable basis to believe that it did not originate in and be mailed from the top? From a political appointee loyal to the undocumented President?
    Where is a link to a microfilm image of the original, or to a photo of the original itself, -not some crappy-ass low quality photocopy? We will never be allowed to see such an image because it doesn’t exist even though it could and should be considered one of the most important documents in American history due to how much would ride on its authenticity, or, I should say, -lack thereof.

    • I am sure the Bush administration was more than willing to help fabricate Selective Service records for candidate Obama so he could beat John McCain in the election that was just weeks away in 2008. This was the same Barack Obama who was hammering away at the abysmal record of George W. Bush almost daily on the campaign trail. Did you forget that the FOIA request for the Selective Service records was filled before Obama was President? That sort of blows you “loyal political appointee” theory doesn’t it?

    • gorefan says:

      AN – “From a political appointee loyal to the undocumented President?”

      So now you are claiming that George W. Bush was undocumented.

      • It is pretty neat that Adrien can declare the Sunahara BC a “counterfeit abstract short-form which used the registration number from another dead baby that is unknown and unknowable except to those with access to the records” without a single shred of proof. He has used similar words to describe both Barack Obama’s short form COLB and long form. Yo Adrien has the powah!

        Last time I looked those Hawaii COLB’s were good for whatever purpose a birth certificate would be needed in all the US states and territories and to get a US passport. Maybe Yo Adrien’s powah exists in his mind and no where else.

  12. Adrien Nash says:

    What does a state’s “full faith and credit” powah have to do with literal veracity? State’s can certify a piece of toilet paper and you would accept whatever it says just because the issuing authority works for the government? How pathetically gullible you would be. There’s lots of Nigerians that would love to sell you a bridge.
    “Did you forget that the FOIA request for the Selective Service records was filled before Obama was President?”
    I already addressed the issue by pointing out that Progressive sycophants vastly outnumber constitutional conservatives in government since they aren’t even drawn to government whereas progressives are highly drawn to any position of power over others’ lives and minds. You would be very naive to think that they didn’t exist in the SS organization, and in positions of authority. But you are correct in that I was unaware that the request was filled before Obama was sworn in.

    “Last time I looked those Hawaii COLB’s were good for whatever purpose a birth certificate would be needed…”
    I’m sorry, -it seems I’m failing to see where you’re pointing out how it is impossible for government documents to not be accurate or to be counterfeited. Silly me, all these years I always thought that millions of people have obtain fake ID. I guess I was just overly cynical. From now on I will trustingly place my life and future in the incorruptible hands of political hacks occupying positions in government. In fact, I now believe that distrust of government is “unpatriotic” and we should pass some new Alien & Sedition Acts just to keep the “unpatriotic” among us from getting a little out of hand. Wouldn’t you agree?

  13. Adrien Nash says:

    RC wrote: “It is pretty neat that Adrien can declare the Sunahara BC a “counterfeit abstract short-form which used the registration number from another dead baby that is unknown and unknowable except to those with access to the records” without a single shred of proof.”

    And how exactly is that any different from claiming that the original registration number was not Obama’a adopted number without any shred of proof? You can’t legitimately claim anything that you claim is the truth because all of the proof is kept secret, and that’s fine with you because that way it can’t do any harm to Obama. How pathetic is that attitude when the fraud in question has control over enough power to destroy life on earth? Not that he would, but he shouldn’t be anywhere near being assumed to possess the legitimacy that should be demanded of one in such a position.

    • gorefan says:

      AN – “And how exactly is that any different from claiming that the original registration number was not Obama’a adopted number without any shred of proof?”

      The state of Hawaii has verified that the number 151 61 10641 is on President Obama’s original BC stored at the Hawaii DOH.

      Plus we know the numbers of other children born in August, 1961.

      Kapiolani Hospital
      Name – Cert # – DOB – Registrar Accepted/Filed Date
      Ah’Nee, Johanna – 09945 – August 23rd – August 24th
      Nordyke, Susan – 10637 – August 5th – August 11th
      Nordyke, Gretchen – 10638 – August 5th – August 11th
      Obama, Barack – 10641 – August 4th – August 8th
      Waidelich, Stig – 10920 – August 5th – August 8th

      Wahiawa Hospital
      Sunahara, Virginia – 11080 – August 4th – August 10th

      BTW, Dr, Fukino, who made two formal statements and several interview statements that President Obama was born in Hawaii, is a Republican.

    • Yo Adrien

      There are several terms and topics that you seem to be not familiar:

      1. Exceptions to the hearsay rules of evidence
      2. Prima facie evidence
      3. Occam’s Razor
      4. Full Faith and Credit
      5. Image compression algorithms
      6. Mathematics of probability and statistics
      7. Image analysis

      That is a good start. I could add more.

      • Adrien Nash says:

        “There are several terms and topics that you seem to be not familiar:”
        Clearly, there are a couple things you seem to not be familiar with, and they begin with your own eyes. Which should be followed by an uncorrupted, unbiased, unwarped logic center in your brain. Maybe you should start relying on them.

  14. Adrien Nash says:

    gorefan wrote: “Notice how just the change from color to black and white coping changes the look of the cancellation stamp.”
    Please, get serious. A change in “the look” is not the same as *gross distortion*. All that changed besides absence of color was the density. Color copiers are set to capture everything. Black copying is set to eliminate as much gray as possible and render the output optimized for photocopying as Text, -not imagery which stamps are. (btw,nice stamps) Hence the automatic boost in contrast which eliminates all grayishness for crisp clean text reproduction.
    So, where is the distortion in that? Oh, there isn’t any. What else ya got? I know. Nothing. End of the road.

  15. Adrien Nash says:

    Regarding the other fake, you know, the pdf, I fashioned a little revealing graphic today which debunks the “real birth certificate” as photographed by Susannah Guthrie. She did not photograph anything during the press conference but hours or days later when she, and only she, was allowed to see and handle the Holy Grail of Obama’s fraudulent eligibility. She, being a young and loyal sycophant with nary an ounce of skepticism in her, was granted permission to see it again in private. Wow! What Great Public Vetting!!!
    She saw the seal and touched it!? Problem is it lacked an authentic embossed seal from Hawaii”.

    Why was no one, including Guthrie, allowed, during the press conference, to photograph the print-out of the counterfeit which was embossed with some lame worn-out seal that was acquired after probably being discarded due to wear from decades of use? Because the seal was a fake. Hence a high resolution photo will never, ever be seen of it. No document examiner will ever be allowed to see it much less examine it. But Guthrie’s photo serves adequately to expose just how worthless that embossing device was. It has no center!!! It, like the whole pdf, is a fake, of which the paper copy was just a print-out.

    What Guthrie saw and touched did not have a real Hawaiian seal. Here is what her photo really shows:

    a signed & sealed HDoH security paper -on back of a bc.

    The rubber stamp of the Registrar is a pathetic joke when it comes to certification. Nothing lacking a real signature is certifiable because the certification comes via the signature of a real human official, -not a secretary with a cheap rubber stamper. That constitutes a bastardization of certification of the worst sort. Hmmm, let’s see…is that signature forged or not? Let’s investigate ’cause it looks forged.

    Everything about Obama’s birth certificate is fake. It is not a photocopy of a real hospital birth certificate, it’s just a digital abstract, just like the signature stamp is not a real signature but an abstract rubber-stamp signature, and like the seal which is from an abstract programmable embossing device and not a real die-cast drop-forged sculptured molded metal image in negative. My, how the states love to use the “full faith & credit” clause to cheapen their work and de-legitimize their certification to save a little money and effort. That’s what we’re paying them for?

    • W. Kevin Vicklund says:

      And once again, Adrien claims that something isn’t present in an image, when on close inspection, it is. In this case, there is, despite Nash’s assurances to the contrary, a visibly raised area in the center of the seal on the Guthrie photo.

  16. NBC says:

    Yes, both for the COLB and the Long Form Birth Certificate, one can ‘tease out’ the seal by playing with the color channels carefully.

    Are people still unaware that the seals can actually be found on these documents?

    And why are we still discussing this when we know that the WH PDF was scanned on a Xerox WorkCentre which created all the tell tale signs and the artifacts that some argue to be evidence of forgery?

    • Adrien Nash says:

      Kevin Vickland wrote: “despite Nash’s assurances to the contrary, [there’s] a visibly raised area in the center of the seal on the Guthrie photo.”
      THERE IS NO THERE THERE! Why do you lie and claim you can see something that can’t be seen because it does not exist? If you want the truth then you have to actually open your eyes and comprehend what you see when looking at this image of the actual seal of the Hawaii Dept. of Health: http://obamabc.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/verification-real-seal-of-hawaii.jpg

      Neither the Guthrie photo nor the pdf show a real seal. An embossed ring of some sort is not the official seal of the Dept of Health. IT IS WORTHLESS. IT IS NOT CERTIFICATION. There is nothing seen in Obama’s pdf that is anything remotely describable as true certification. Everything is an Abstract; -the image of the birth certificate itself, the signature, and the seal. And the added layers are counterfeit additions not produced by a copying machine except perhaps the signature stamp and the registrar’s date stamp. The layers from inside the bc form are NOT explainable by what a copier would create because they are not isolated blocks of test or image but are *integrated* into the main body of the text layer , -except they aren’t in fact because they were added by the forger.

      • NBC says:

        And the added layers are counterfeit additions not produced by a copying machine except perhaps the signature stamp and the registrar’s date stamp. The layers from inside the bc form are NOT explainable by what a copier would create because they are not isolated blocks of test or image but are *integrated* into the main body of the text layer , -except they aren’t in fact because they were added by the forger.

        And yet I have shown how a Xerox WorkCentre creates exactly the same artifacts as found in the WH PDF, all caused by a combination of JBIG2 compression and 3+ Layer Mixed Raster Compression followed by a save as a Preview PDF document which removes the JBIG2 encoding but not the identical letters.

        The incomplete separation of text from the background does not make sense when talking about a forger and are easily reproduced by scanning the document on a Xerox WorkCentre 7655 using the send as email programmed workflow.

        This creates all the artifacts seen.

        Contrary to your claim, the document does contain a seal, although you believe that it is not the official seal of Hawaii, even though the DOH of HI produced, certified and verified the document and the information contained therein.

        Sorry my friend but all the evidence speaks against your myths.

  17. NBC says:

    I keep meeting birthers who are so convinced that the documents must be forgeries that they have abandoned logic, common sense, reason and scientific approaches in favor of unsupported claims of fraud on the part of anyone who stands in their ways and shows their claims to be without merit.

    Such lovely sight of confirmation bias.

    • Adrien Nash says:

      I keep confronting obamunists who are so convinced that the documents must be authentic that they have abandoned logic, common sense, reason and scientific approaches in favor of unsupported claims of authenticity. Such pathetic examples of confirmation bias.

      • NBC says:

        I keep confronting obamunists who are so convinced that the documents must be authentic that they have abandoned logic, common sense, reason and scientific approaches in favor of unsupported claims of authenticity. Such pathetic examples of confirmation bias.

        I know that you can cut and paste but you cannot make a reasoned argument that takes into consideration the known data.

        You may want to look at my blog where you can read how the forger is a Xerox Work Centre. All of this has been supported by in depth analysis and not the superficial stuff you see from the Cold Case Posse.

        I fully expect you to ignore the evidence, in light of your display of confirmation bias (obamunists).

        The Document must not be authentic, but the facts all indicate that it indeed is. Certainly there is little or no evidence that the document was forged.

        I am sure you are surprised by this and the shock may take some time to settle but once you are up for a scientific journey into the bowels of the document, let me know and I can show you all the evidence that points to a Xerox WorkCentre…

        Deal?

        • Adrien Nash says:

          You aren’t aware of the extent of my flexibility. I once sent an email to the White House when I thought I’d found an explanation for an anomaly that was being ascribed to forgery. I believe it had to do with the characters that were implanted into the background layer. I saw that they were completely random with no intelligent, deliberate, willful, rationality behind them, meaning they must have been software generated alterations, -not evidence of forgery.
          I’ve been assuming for a long time now that the items moved to the background were ones that were too gray to be converted to pure black along with the main body of text, and so were saved separately as gray-scale imagery. But I now have to seriously doubt that assumption since some of them are essentially pure black and not gray-scale (the left side numbers like 6, 7, etc.)

          I’ve also speculated that there is something secret about Adobe PDF format that allows such alterations of text and imagery items as a form of covert unique counter-counterfeiting measure since it may be something that is so random in nature that it is essentially non-reproducible. One could not counterfeit or alter a pdf document and have all of the same moved-characters be identical in the alteration if that is true.

          Someone should test that theory and see if a reproduction is identical to the original. Maybe two scans of the same document would give two different results. (Some characters moved in one but not in the other.)
          As for your analysis, I would like to read it but simply am too busy with so much to read and to write. Now I have to answer Dr. Conspiracy’s 1000 word challenge to summarize why Obama is ineligible.
          But my reluctance is reenforced by the absence of images of your results, or links to them, or to any claim that the layers added to Obama’s pdf inside the main body of the bc were reproduced. I assume that they were not. That would mean the two registrar’s date stamps and the “non” layer, for which only I have authored an explanation (from a photo-editor’s perspective) are not the result of a copier’s software.
          If your tests did in fact reproduce those three layers, then I absolutely want to know about it because that would change everything, -except…for the lack of a seal and the forger’s secret signature of the smiling face.

          • NBC says:

            If your tests did in fact reproduce those three layers, then I absolutely want to know about it because that would change everything, -except…for the lack of a seal and the forger’s secret signature of the smiling face.

            There is no lack of a seal and the smiling face is just an artifact.

            And yes, I have found how Xerox WorkCentre workflow generates more than 3 layers, in one case I believe 17. Yes. One jpg and 16 bitmap layers.

            As to the color differences between the text. Again, you need to look at if they are part of the background layer where they get a JPEG assigned color, or a bitmap where they get an averaged color.

            My results have images and I provided you with links.

            I await your evaluation.
            Remember that we do not have the original document so we can only fake it by printing out the WH document and scanning it back in.

            but the results, including the format of the actual PDF objects at its lowest levels are all consistent

            And of course, there is a comment embedded in all Xerox WorkCentre JPEG which define the colorspace. I have found that this string YCbCr is found in Obama’s PDF and also in the one generated by the Xerox scanner.

            I have now found many more Xerox Workcentre documents which I will test but so far I have not found any YCbCr comments in the many files I have tested except for those involving a Xerox Work Center.

            You can extract the JPG embedded in the PDF and use a hex editor or any Unix tool to find the string. In Hex it is preceded by 0xff 0xfe which indicates a comment field, followed by a length and then the text in hex.

            Note that MRC will result in different resolutions for the text and the text which remained in the jpeg background layer.

            All fits.

      • NBC says:

        You may have a hard time finding the evidence

        Look here for starters and let me know about any questions you may have.

        • Adrien Nash says:

          OK, thanks for the link. I’ve viewed and saved the significant images and will convert them to negative for viewing and contemplating. I see that objects from within the main text body were extracted and rendered as separate layers. That is probably very significant.

          • NBC says:

            OK, thanks for the link. I’ve viewed and saved the significant images and will convert them to negative for viewing and contemplating. I see that objects from within the main text body were extracted and rendered as separate layers. That is probably very significant.

            Yes, and if you look at the actual PDF and the WH PDF and generate the PDF objects using a parser like pdf-parser.py you see even more similarities…

            And then there is the embedded comment in the jpeg, a signature so to speak.

            Enjoy

          • NBC says:

            Note that the bitmaps render as white on black because they are masks. White means the mask is turned on. The color is determined by the color set. You can see how this works in the various links. Sorry it’s a bit of a mess right now but typically it looks like

            set color of mask
            draw mask

            Black regions are rendered transparent, white are rendered in the color set. This is why different blocks have different colors of text.

  18. Adrien Nash says:

    Since your experiment was using a print-out of the pdf and not the original source file or document, your result can’t be expected to be identical, which it isn’t. It’s different in significant ways. It shows layers that do not exist in the pdf, so what should be done is to scan the print-out on a copier similar to that of the WH and output the result as a pdf so that the results can be compared. If they are also quite different from the WH pdf, then unanswered questions would remain. Including, what was the source of the pdf? Was it from a copier, scanner, or computer?
    The bigger question is whether or not the pdf is a combination of both computer editing as well as software manipulation that is a normal result of the scanning process.

    Before seeing your results, I accepted the possibility that the external signature stamp image and the date stamp could be extracted as separate layers because they are in isolated separate locations, but in your results that is only true of the date but not the signature stamp since it hasn’t been separated as a intact layer but instead has had some of its imagery extracted and removed to the background. No conceivable reason for that to have happened. That shows that the software’s separation process works on some other basis than creating completely intact layers of isolated imagery (text). So the hope of identifying something logical in that process bites the dust.

    The seeming irrationality of the process seems to be somewhat of a validating feature since it shows that you can’t give logical explanations for anything regarding the separation process. Since it can’t be rationally explained as not following a certain expected process since there is no expected process that we know of, that kind of disables any attempt to prove anything for or against manipulation being evident in the layers and background results seen in the pdf.

    That clears the air somewhat by eliminating the need to explain the otherwise unexplainable, such as the “accepted” date stamps that were split and layered, as well as the “none” split.
    What can’t be explained as random irrational software idiosyncrasies is the paleness of the “non” letters. It can’t be assumed that the splitting process would lighten the density of those letters along with separating them into a separate layer from the main text and the background. That paleness is unexplained at best and highly suspicious at worst.

    In order for convincing proof to be produced that software is fully the source of the layers seem in the pdf, including the two layers of specks hidden in the security-paper background, one would have to produce somehow results comparable to the WH pdf, -more or fewer layers would be acceptable as long as they are the same sort of layers. Most of the ones produced in your test are not found in the pdf and so the results are not conclusive. Produce a pdf from a scan with results that simulate the WH pdf and you will have hit the bullseye.
    Until then, it can’t be asserted that the mystery has been solved because many questions still remain even though many may have been answered. The biggest one remains; “Why does the pdf look the way it does and can its look be reproduced without a computer?”
    So far there remains no explanation for the characteristics of the pdf, -for how it’s constituted and for why it does not contain the odd layers that your test produced.
    Perhaps there’s a machine that can replicate the simple layers of the pdf but until it is found and does so, the mystery remains unsolved.
    The take-away isn’t that it’s fully demonstrated that there’s no mystery to the pdf, but that the likelihood of counterfeiting explaining the pdf layers is now far weaker and may be unsupportable if a machine can be found that can produce similar results.

    • Adrien

      I think you are finally getting closer to the truth. However, I love the way the goal posts have been again. TO completely disprove forgery you now want us to create an identical file without access to the original paper document from the White House.

      Need I remind you that the folks whom claim forgery haven’t provided any explanation for the way the PDF is constructed, why a PDF was chose as the vehicle, who did it, what software was used, and how they managed to get Hawaii to go along with the ruse.

      Now let me remind you of some of the anomalies that the forgery proponents of forgery have claimed could not be explained (remember that some of these were invented after the original claims were debunked). This list is just a start from memory. If any commenters wish to add I would like to develop this into an article. Every single one of these claims has now been debunked.

      The White House LFBC is a forgery because:

      1. PDF’s do not have layers.
      2. It doesn’t have enough layers (yes the CCP said that).
      3. Some letters are exact duplicates.
      4. There are halos.
      5. MRC compression never creates more than three layers.
      6. The layers are rotated.
      7. Some of the layers are scaled.
      8. The signatures are broken apart in layers.
      9. You can move the stamp around in Illustrator.
      10. The PDF has a white border.
      11. Alvin Onaka’s signature has a smiley face.
      12. The AP JPG came from the PDF.

      Yes, every single one of these claims has been explained and debunked.

      With all these in mind what would odds would you give of the PDF being a forgery vs. a copy of a real birth certificate?

      • Adrien Nash says:

        RC wrote: “you now want us to create an identical file without access to the original ”
        And again I answer: You need to learn how to read. Honestly, it gets old fast. Quote: “…produce somehow results COMPARABLE to the WH pdf, -more or fewer layers would be acceptable as long as they are THE SAME SORT of layers.”
        Does “identical” mean “comparable” in some warped universe that you frequent?

        “Yes, every single one of these claims has been explained and debunked.”
        Not this one: Alvin Onaka’s signature has a smiley face.

        “With all these in mind what odds would you give of the PDF being a forgery vs. a copy of a real birth certificate?”
        The odds haven’t changed at all because they were never determined by any of those things. The making of unsupported or erroneous conclusions is a separate issue from the odds that a counterfeit was produced, even if the composition of the pdf can be eventually shown to be reproducible. It can not be assumed that a legitimate origin of the pdf also proves a legitimate origin of a document of which it was a scan. Those are two separate issues. No one has been allowed to examine what was claimed to be one of two certified copies from Hawaii. Why? No answer. Is that the way to dispel suspicion? No. That’s the way to create it.

  19. Man, Birthers are hilarious. Here’s what it looks like to the impartial observer:

    One side has faked absolutely nothing. The other (Birthers) has faked dozens if not hundreds of things.

    Fake Kenya Birth Certificates.
    Altered letters from Congressmen.
    Falsified coding manuals to claim the penciled coding on BHO’s BC was wrong.
    Lied about travel restrictions to Pakistan.
    Invented missing travel records.
    Invented conversations where BHO says he was from Kenya and would be President one day.
    Lied about BHO losing citizenship as a child.
    Claimed that everyone learned two citizen parents were required for Presidential eligibility in high.
    school, when not a single textbook has been found that says so.
    Faked pictures of BHO as a young man, ironically to claim the real pictures were frauds.
    Faked transcripts from BHO’s colleges.

    Etc. etc. etc.

    Fake, fake, fake. Lie, lie, lie.

    Meanwhile every mature examination of the facts points to BHO being perfectly eligible, as Congress, every Court, and all sane Americans already know.

    Free comedy. Priceless.

  20. Adrien Nash says:

    Adviso: I’ve just penned a commentary on the issue of illegitimate Hawaiian certification, -in the context of the letter sent to SoS of Arizona Bennet, and those “exchanged between Hawaii and Obama’s attorney regarding producing a long form bc.

    It’s a new thread at city-data forums, and includes links to the re-sized referenced letters with comments. Read and learn a new thing or two.

    http://www.city-data.com/forum/politics-other-controversies/1913236-fraudulent-certification-obamas-legitimacy.html#post30570813

Leave a Reply (Please see the RC Radio Blog comment policy). Your first comment will be moderated

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s