Xerox for Dummies

xerox_thumbBy now if you listen to my show or read this blog or the other fine blogs and forums that follow the Birthers, you may have heard or read a lot of discussion about the Xerox evidence in relation to the President’s long form birth certificate.  I thought it would be a good idea if someone would write a concise summary in layman’s terms about what all this means and why it is absolutely devastating to the claims of forgery made by Mike Zullo and the Cold Case Posse investigators. So here goes. Your comments and any corrections would be most appreciated.

“What the heck is a ‘Xerox WorkCentre’?” you ask

That’s an excellent question! A Xerox WorkCentre is an expensive, office quality, all–in-one machine that is typical of what is found in most office locations these days. They do a lot. They copy, print in color, fax, and scan documents to either email or to a network drive. They can cost $10,000 or more but they replace all the separate pieces of equipment that used to be common around offices such as copy machines, fax machines, and scanners. These machines are  typically located in the mail room or some central location on an office floor. One of the nice features is that you can scan to different file formats right in the machine such as JPG, TIFF, or PDF. No computer scanning software is needed. The default is usually a PDF since it is the smallest file size and is the format of choice for exchanging documents. These machines are really modern marvels.

So what does all this have to do with the LFBC?

As I covered in a previous article blogger NBC has shown that it is likely that a Xerox WorkCentre was used by the White House to scan to email the original copy of the LFBC. It created a very compressed PDF file using patented Mixed Raster Content (MRC) compression technology. That PDF was then opened in Preview on a Mac and it was turned to the proper orientation before being resaved as a new PDF.

How do we know this? Tests have been performed by NBC and others using printed copies of the LFBC PDF, scanning them back into a Xerox WorkCentre 7655,  and then opening in Preview. NBC has seen every one of the features that the CCP, in reports by Garrett Papit and Mara Zebest,  used to justify Mike Zullo’s claim that the PDF posted at is “a 100% forgery”. Some of these anomalies that are now explained include:

  1. The existence of one JPEG layer and multiple single color monochrome masks.
  2. The separation of the document into a background JPEG layer with the green security basket weave pattern, the form lines, and pieces of text.
  3. The separation of most of the text into another monochrome layer.
  4. Separate monochrome layers for the date stamp and Alvin Onaka’s seal.
  5. The rotation and scaling of the layers
  6. The creation of pixel for pixel identical letters and shapes.
  7. The ability to open the document in Adobe Illustrator and move around objects separately.
  8. Existence of a background color layer at 150 dpi resolution and monochrome layers at 300 dpi.
  9. The white border and the top level clipping mask.
  10. White holes in the background layer where text was lifted.
  11. The white halo compression artifacts. Update 8/12: Based on NBC’s and Kevin Vicklund’s comments I am changing this one to say that this particular experiment is not well suited to demonstrating the halo effect. However, the process halos can be neatly explained as artifacts of the process of pulling text off the background layer thus leaving a white space. The edges of that white space would get muddled and could expand during the JPEG  process especially since the background is saved at half of the resolution of the monochrome layers. I know NBC is working on some new tests that are designed to demonstrate the halo effect more clearly.

There is even more evidence. NBC found that the Xerox algorithm inserts a nonfunctional comment string “YCbCr” into the JPEG layer portion of the PDF. This comment string appears to be unique to Xerox and has not been found in any other JPEG’s to date. It has been found in every scan known to have been run on a Xerox WorkCentre. NBC first found the string in a completely unrelated PDF document posted on a Danish web site that showed the Producer was a Xerox 7655. He checked the LFBC PDF and sure enough it was there. All the test scans on the Xerox WorkCentres to date contain the string. “YCbCr” isn’t just gibberish. It is actually a technical term having to do with JPEG compression. Update 8/12: Kevin Vicklund pointed out that in gray scale documents the comment is changed to  “linearGray”. It apparently refers to the particular color space used for the JPEG encoding.

Note: These comment strings are not needed for decoding the JPEG files. There are other tags that do that. We do not know what purpose they serve. The might have been somehing a programmer forgot to clean up. However, we know that they seem to show up in every JPEG embedded in every Xerox WorkCentre scan reviewed so far.

If you just have to know the technical details YCbCr has its own Wikipedia article. Go read it and have fun trying to understand color spaces!

Let’s look a the results

NBC ran an experiment in which he attempted to duplicate his best guess at the work flow that was used by the White House to produce the PDF that was posted on April 27, 2011. This is what he did:

The following image is a composite created by scanning the WH LFBC using Xerox WorkCentre 7655 upside down using the automatic feeder. The resulting file was opened in Preview, the image rotated 180 degrees and printed to PDF. The resulting PDF was opened in preview, the layers unlocked and moved to the side. In addition, a close up of the signature was ‘blown up’ to show how the background layer, not surprisingly, has filled in some of the white that resulted from the separation of the background and foreground layers.

Note how for example the signature block is fully separated.

Here are the resulting screen shots from Illustrator: (Click here for a full sized image)


How do you know the exact model WorkCentre that was used?

It is an educated guess. Just a few weeks before the release of the LFBC the White House posted a copy of the President and First Lady’s 2010 income tax returns. It is logical to assume that the same office that posted the tax return would have used the same equipment for scanning the LFBC just 12 days later.

If you download a copy of this file and open the file in Adobe reader to look at the properties this is what you will see:

Obama 2010 1040

You too can do this at home!

Well not exactly, unless you happen to have a Xerox WorkCentre sitting in the basement. Seriously, many offices have them. After reading some of NBC’s early postings on this I noticed that one of the office machines where I work was a Xerox 7535 WorkCentre.

I did my own test scans on the Xerox WorkCentre 7535. I printed copies of the LFBC then scanned them to email. I used the default settings for scanning to email – 300 dpi, color, and with the Edge Erase feature set at 0.1” all around. I downloaded an older version of Adobe Illustrator and opened the PDF. My jaw dropped. What I saw were almost identical layers to the ones in the White House LFBC. It was astounding.

I sent my file to NBC and he ran it through Preview and saved it as a PDF. Preview added the top level clipping mask that is seen in the White House LFBC.

My office doesn’t have a Xerox but I would like do verify the results. What can I do?

If you do not have access to a Xerox WorkCentre try asking a friend if their office has one. Of course explaining what you want them to do might raise some eyebrows. Another option is to try one of the big office supply outlets like OfficeMax, Office Depot or Staples. They sometimes have these machines available to the public for copying and scanning. You could either email yourself a copy or save it to a thumb drive. You can download a limited trial version of Illustrator from Adobe.

If you do not have any access to the Xerox WorkCentre I am posting the PDF files here so that you can at least inspect them and run you own tests in Illustrator or other software.

This is the output of the Xerox 7535 scan of the printout of the LFBC:

LFBC Xerox 7535 HiResPrint

This is the same file opened and saved in Preview:

LFBC Xerox 7535 HiResPrintPreview


The mysteries of the LFBC PDF have been solved. Amazing work by NBC and others before him like John Woodman and Frank Arduini has led to the remarkable discovery of the hardware and the work flow process that produced the LFBC posted at the White House web site. We do not need to invent a vast forgery conspiracy that includes hundreds of shadowy figures and two administrations in Hawaii. All we need is a simple work flow process that goes on every day in thousands of offices. We have known for some time that a compression process was the most likely explanation for the layers and other features of the LFBC PDF. Now we know exactly. Occam’s Razor rules once again.

Links (Added 1/7/2017)

Here are links to some of my other articles on the Xerox WorkCentre as the source for the Obama LFBC:


This entry was posted in Birth Certificate, Conspiracy Theories, Mike Zullo, Xerox and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

112 Responses to Xerox for Dummies

  1. Hektor says:

    Great article RC. I’m sure Grand Mufti Zullo will be by to take the Workcentre into custody soon.

  2. Sterngard Friegen says:

    Now if we can figure out what Soebarkah meant and why the first three digits of the President’s SSAN are what they are we’ll be completely sorted. However, the reasons given by Taitz and her fellow low information birthers are completely preposterous and utter fantasy.

    • RoadScholar says:

      I contend that Soebarkah is an Indonesian honorific “Soe” (which is similar to the Hindu honorific “Sri”) followed by an Indonesian transliteration of his first name, Barack. Voilà, “Soebarkah.” Just like an English nanny might call him “young Master Barack.” Perhaps the local language didn’t typically end words or names with a consonant.

  3. Jim says:

    Great job RC! When they said those halos, which are totally software created by their viewing software when they zoom in, was a sign of forgery…I knew they were trying to bs their way through. In the end, their analysis was of how the software handled the data it received from the original scan…not even about the image.

    • The discussion on the halos gets pretty technical and I did not want to get into that kind of detail in this article. NBC has some other technical evidence that is even stronger such as the 8×8 blocks and the jpg quantization matrices.

  4. NBC says:

    Well done.

  5. NBC says:

    Spell check: My draw dropped

    • Thanks! I fixed it. Proofreading was never my strong point.

      • NBC says:

        I suck at proofreading as I do not like to reread what I wrote but somehow my mind is extremely sensitive to spelling errors. It’s often a curse;

      • NBC says:

        I would change the halo aspect since I am not fully convinced I have done this.

        • I think the halos have been explained before pretty well. I am hoping that when you run a printout of the AP JPG on green security stock that you can clearly demonstrate the creation of the halos.

          • NBC says:

            I think the halos have been explained before pretty well. I am hoping that when you run a printout of the AP JPG on green security stock that you can clearly demonstrate the creation of the halos.

            I can explain it ‘theoretically’ and have seen some early evidence but I want to show it in a manner that is more than speculative although it remains a minor issue by now.

        • Jim says:

          NBC says: “I can explain it ‘theoretically’ and have seen some early evidence but I want to show it in a manner that is more than speculative although it remains a minor issue by now.”

          IDK if this will help or if you’ve already looked into it, but when you decrease the image from 600 DPI to 300DPI you cause there to be missing dots along the line of each letter and when you zoom in and the program attempts to fill in the missing areas, it doesn’t see a solid outer line and attempts to interpret it and comes up with halos. Totally software creation because of the decrease from 600 to 300 DPI.

          • NBC says:

            Yes, it’s a combination of several issues

            The separation creates white pixels behind the monochrome foreground when encoding this in JPEG, the white tends to ‘leak out’ and color tends the ‘leak in’. In addition, the jpeg’s resolution is halved in both directions, again causing mismatches.

          • NBC says:

            Not to forget JBIG2 which may replace a character with a similar looking one, revealing some of the white pixels…

            Had not considered that one…

        • Jim says:

          Sorry NBC, I forgot. You and the Posse aren’t analyzing the underlying data, you’re analyzing the programming it takes to efficiently display the data. Never mind, carry on. 😀

        • Don’t forget… after the JPEG has been down sampled it is also anti-aliased. The same algorithms that “smooth” the edges of remaining text will attempt to smooth the edges left by the missing text that has been stripped out to form the monochrome bitmasks. These edge artifacts have been among the best known and most annoying characteristics of the JPEG format since its invention, and even in simple one layer JPEGs will produce strange distortions to colored backgrounds around text and images. Having to “smooth” between the green basket weave and the otherwise totally white blanks left behind by stripping out the bitmasks cannot do anything other than create what appears to e a halo when the PDF components are reassembled on screen.

          • NBC says:

            Historiandude, you are correct. There will still be a ‘sharp’ edge, which will create the typical ringing effects as the high frequency components are trying to capture it. This is why some MRC approaches use data filling to smooth these edges.

            This is btw one of the main reasons JPEG does not handle text very well.

            We all understand the theory and practice of working with JPEG’s but I want to make it understandable to the lay person.

  6. W. Kevin Vicklund says:

    One minor quibble. It is more accurate to say that a comment detailing the colorspace used is found. I was reviewing some of the older posts by NBC, and in the greyscale pdfs that were found (such as the 2010 tax return), the comment was “linearGray” instead of “YCbCr”. Same idea, just slightly more nuanced. I think we lost track of that detail during Hermitian’s repeated claims that the comment is missing, despite the fact that he refuses to actually look for it.

    • NBC says:

      It is more accurate to say that a comment detailing the colorspace used is found. I was reviewing some of the older posts by NBC, and in the greyscale pdfs that were found (such as the 2010 tax return), the comment was “linearGray” instead of “YCbCr”. Same idea, just slightly more nuanced. I think we lost track of that detail during Hermitian’s repeated claims that the comment is missing, despite the fact that he refuses to actually look for it.

      The 7535 and 7655 documents both contain the YCbCr tags. Yes, the tax form has linear gray in it, for obvious reasons 🙂

  7. fogbowfoggy says:

    Wait, you both started by printing out the LFBC PDF, which we know was already 100% forged before you started!

    Or that’s what a birther would say, anyway. Wow, NBC did some amazing detective work on this one, and I’ve seen the many contributions by others over the years. Has someone told Woodman about the WorkCentre and how it validates virtually everything he ever said about this?

    • Foggy, I know you are joking but I confidently predict that John/JY will bring that up as an excuse as to why NBC’s work is not valid. That boy must have a full size poster of Mike Zullo in his bedroom that stares at as he ummm, ehhhh, you know.

      Yes, John Woodman is aware. He and I have spoken about nbc’s work. He is gratified and feels that what we are doing is validating his work and discrediting the fraud Mike Zullo.

  8. John says:

    “Another option is to try one of the big office supply outlets like OfficeMax, Office Depot or Staples. They sometimes have these machines available to the public for copying and scanning.”

    That is true RC. The CCP has said they tested on low quality and high quality scanner machines. I find it absurd that their findings would not include Xerox machines especially Work Center machines since they are found in most office supply retails and buildings. Perhaps NBC may not be doing his tests correctly.

    • John

      I fixed your typo in your previous comment. Everyone makes typos. I certainly do. Let me know if it reads correctly now.

    • John said

      That is true RC. The CCP has said they tested on low quality and high quality scanner machines. I find it absurd that their findings would not include Xerox machines especially Work Center machines since they are found in most office supply retails and buildings. Perhaps NBC may not be doing his tests correctly.

      I assure you NBC is doing things correctly. I ran tests myself. The Xerox 7535 PDF file I posted was my scan. NBC ran it through Preview for me. I have sent the file to a second source to confirm he did it correctly.

      Would you consider the possibility for just one brief minute that the CCP did not want to find the truth? Call or email Mike Zullo and ask him if they tested a Xerox WorkCentre the way NBC did. Ask them to send you the files of those results. Ask him what they scanned and what were the settings, what model was used. Ask them to post the resulting PDF’s just as NBC and I have done. Cannot you not demand from them he same open and honest pursuit of the truth that we have shown? Why is Mike Zullo hiding Reed Hayes report? Doesn’t that concern you even a little? If you talk to him don’t let him get off with a song and dance routine. Tell him he needs to send you specific information. Impose the same requirements on him that you have asked of us.

      I have posted the files. Won’t you take 30 minutes to download Illustrator using the links I have given you and look at them? Compare them with the LFBC PDF from the White House. If you think NBC is wrong then tell us why. I will post any comment you wish to leave. If you want to write an article I will publish that. Let’s have an open and honest discussion. If you do not trust my scans we have told you exactly the procedure to follow. You said that the office stores near you have the Xerox WorkCentres. How much would it cost to scan a single page?

      Tell Mike Zullo that if he wants to come on my show and explain why we are wrong he will have all the time he needs to do so. If he wants 30 minutes without being interrupted then I will do that. I only ask that we can ask some questions after that. Doesn’t it bother you that Carl Gallups cut me off in less than 15 seconds before I could mention any of this? Who do you think is really after the truth here John?

    • In truth, John, we have no good reason to suspect that anything the MCCCP has said about what they did or did not test is true. We know that they attempted to conceal Tim Selaty’s report (while still trying to take credit for the number of tests he allegedly performed) and we know that Garret Papit’s report consists primarily of technical hand-waving, almost all of which has since proved to be objectively wrong. It is also stunningly sterile of the data that allegedly drove those wrong conclusions. He never names a single one of the ” several different printers and scanners ranging from high quality to low quality” that were used in the claimed tests, and based on the report there is no good reason to suspect he used more than one of each. Papit’s entire “analysis” appears to consist of randomly changing settings on some arbitrary set of PDF creation software packages and eyeballing the results.

      The MCCCP investigation was strictly amateur hour, John. Their egregious shortcomings are not absurd, they are what should be expected. The only absurdity was how easily they managed to gain the allegiance of the birther rank-and-file.

      • Ran Talbott says:

        “Their egregious shortcomings are not absurd, they are what should be expected.”
        I think what you meant was that the shortcomings were “predictable, given the participants”, but I have to disagree violently with the “should be expected” phrasing. It’s claimed (although I don’t know whether it’s true) that, among other things, the CCP investigates murder cold cases. In this state, that means the evidence they present could get people _executed_. What “should be expected” of such a group is the absolute pinnacle of thoroughness and professionalism, not this Inspector Clouseau-style incompetence.
        We can laugh at their fumbling “fogery” investigation, but someone in Maricopa County should be raising 17 varieties of Hell about the fact that they might be allowed to influence cases that could result in someone being wrongfully imprisoned or killed.
        And it’s not really absurd that they won over the birthers: people who believe the likes of Corsi and Taitz would follow Sparky the Sun Devil if he put on a rented cop costume and badge, and told them what they want to hear.

  9. NBC says:

    I find it absurd that their findings would not include Xerox machines especially Work Center machines since they are found in most office supply retails and buildings. Perhaps NBC may not be doing his tests correctly.

    Or more likely, the CCP never really looked that hard or looked in the wrong places…

    But I doubt that the CCP is going to share with us what tests they did do. And I fully understand why.

    John cannot accept the simple facts that all these accusations of forgery and fraud based on PDF artifacts can be explained with a simple workflow.

    The question becomes: How did the ‘experts’ at the CCP miss the tell tale signs? Perhaps we can have an investigation 🙂

  10. arnash says:

    I’m only perceiving one semi-significant difference with the WH pdf and that is that its background layer contains very little text elements while these results have essentially all of the box descriptors shifted to the background. But since the WH pdf was made from a different original, it can’t be concluded that that fact would or could not be the reason for the difference in results.

    The problem with the Obama pdf though is that it is virtually impossible that it was produced by a clerk producing a birth certificate with a typewriter back in 1961. That has been proven by the grid analysis comparison done with a real birth certificate which shows that the spacing of the WH pdf is all over the map, while that of an old Hawaiian bc is essentially perfectly aligned just as a typewriter would produce. If you don’t have that image of the two then you can find it in my album at

    It constitutes clear evidence of forgery, even if the pdf features do not. One is therefore left to conclude that the real counterfeiting took place at an earlier stage and was saved in a flattened form so nothing of the process would ever be visible. That actually makes more sense and gives the master counterfeiter more credit than he got when assuming that he stupidly forgot to flatten his work before uploading to the internet. That would be rather incompetent.

    • RoadScholar says:

      Anyone who thinks that old typewriters produced text that is perfectly aligned and spaced is an utter moron.

    • Another great proof of forgery from A. Nash based on a single data point. I assume he is talking about the half redacted Ah’nee certificate? Wonder if he has compared the Nordyke certificates? Even they do not align with each other.

      • Hektor says:

        The thing I love about it is the birth certificate seems to have been forged poorly in an infinite number of ways. Sure we (and by we, I mean NBC and RC) refuted the CCCP theories about the date stamp layer and other supposed signs of forgery. But that doesn’t prove anything because A. Nash has a new surefire way of showing that the BC is a 100% forgery. That the birthers were wrong about the previous eleventy billion forgery allegations should not be considered for the purposes of discussing this new forgery allegation.

      • NBC says:

        Yes, the idea that a typewriter produces perfect spacings and characters has been laid to rest several times

        part 1
        Part 2
        Part 3

        It is promising however to see the birthers move away from the PDF and are now implying other signs of forgery which are even more trivial to address.

        • RoadScholar says:

          And as far as I know, they have no answer for the objection that kerning never puts letters out of line vertically. It just changes the spacing horizontally. Duh.

          But a typewriter’s vertical alignment mechanism can produce vertical variations, even with an electric. Cripes, I’m old.

    • The “perfect alignment” of any typed document (I put the phrase in quotations, since no manual mechanical typewriter ever produced a “perfect” anything) is entirely dependent on whether or not that specific typist chose to use the tab settings at that particular moment… or even if they were set for that particular document on that particular machine. Since Hawaiian BCs were the products of different typists on different typewriters used to type different documents at different times, there could be no worse detail to compare from one BC to the next in the effort to draw conclusions over authenticity.

      • I am working on an article on the typewriter aspect that I believe will be interesting. I found a few things I think have never been pointed out. Hint: It is another nail in the CCP “100% forgery” coffin. I just have to find the time to finish it.

        • Jim says:

          Reality Check says: “Hint: It is another nail in the CCP “100% forgery” coffin.”

          That coffin’s been nailed shut, cremated, and had it’s ashes spread in the Arizona desert. But hey, go ahead and knock yourself out. I’ll read it! 😀

        • Jim

          You are correct. Sometimes it is fun to piss on the ashes though. 😆 (Metaphorically speaking of course.)

    • A. Nash

      So you now concede that the LFBC PDF could be a scan of a piece of paper on a Xerox WorkCentre that was then processed through Apple’s Preview? Baby steps.

  11. arnash says:

    “The question becomes: How did the ‘experts’ at the CCP miss the tell tale signs?”
    There’s no doubt a good deal of the phenomenon of over self-confidence when assuming that with all of one’s experience and background, when encountering something new and different, it can’t be explained as machine produced when such a result is not in one’s background of knowledge. Hence an alternate explanation is suspected and the only alternate was deliberated manipulation, though no one could say how or why what was seen was a vital part of falsifying a record. Instead, just by being different, it was suspicious and therefore couldn’t be explained as being innocently different.

    As for what Reed might have written his report on, it would logically have to not be on the nature of the pdf since he had no expertise in such technology, but in the content of the image. I can’t imagine what he could have focused on, but it very well may turn out to be either brilliant or sadly stupid, without much in between. I guess we’ll just have to wait for the book.(?)

    • Ran Talbott says:

      “it would logically have to not be on the nature of the pdf since he had no expertise in such technology”
      Since every other “proof” the CCP has come up with has been largely, if not totally, based on a _lack_ of expertise, your assumption is unwarranted.

  12. NBC says:

    As for what Reed might have written his report on, it would logically have to not be on the nature of the pdf since he had no expertise in such technology, but in the content of the image.

    Much was made of him rejecting based on the tell tale signs of it being a composite image IIRC… I can’t wait, but probably will have to, to read his contributions.

  13. RoadScholar says:

    Maybe Nash can be arrested for animal cruelty, seeing as he’s had to kill so many horses so he can then beat them.

  14. There is a thread over at Free Republic where they are discussing NBC’s Xerox research. This article was linked by someone there in a comment. As one would expect there is a great deal of misunderstanding and denial in the comments. Three people actually seem to understand – Seizethecarp, BigGuy22, and 4zoltan.

    I believe Butterdizillion is the most obtuse Birther I have ever seen. She is still trying to claim a certification is not a certification and a verification is not a verification. She and many others there at FR live in a world where Alvin Onaka and other Hawaii officials live in fear and are sending out secret signals with nuances of wording and smiley faces in signatures. About 2/3rds of that thread is that kind of nonsense.

    I will answer one question that BigGuy22 asked “Is anyone in touch with John Woodman? I’d like to know what he thinks of DrC’s [he meant NBC’s] analysis and whether he feels it’s consistent with his own findings.”

    Yes, I have spoken with John Woodman. He thinks that NBC’s work is correct and verifies what he found in his research. Although John didn’t happen to identify the exact hardware he always maintained that the only explanation for the anomalies in the LFBC PDf were a computer algorithm and not human manipulation. John considered reopening his blog to talk about the findings but decided it was not worth the effort.

    One important point the the Freepers do not seem to grasp is the identification of the comment string “YCbCr” in the Xerox WorkCentre scans and in the LFBC. This is almost like a signature in the file. It has only been found in the Xerox originated scans and nowhere else. It means that a forger would not only have to construct a PDF file in the weird fashion that we see but would also have to know to embed that comment in the JPEG layer.

    I am still waiting on just one Freeper to take the time to run a paper copy of the LFBC on a Xerox WorkCentre and then look at it in Illustrator. I think they are scared at what they will find. Nothing is more frightening than to have your comfortable cocoon of delusion threatened.

    • RoadScholar says:

      It is significant that Woodman actually predicted (based on a combination of technical knowledge and common sense) what NBC and RC eventually discovered.

      See, Birthers? One side repeatedly predicts what will happen based on their theories and observations, and it always comes to pass. One side make 1000 predictions that do NOT come to pass. Which side was probably right? It’s not a trick question.

  15. John says:

    I printed out the LFBC on my HP Printer. When I get sometime I do plan on going to Staples or Office Depot to have it scanned to PDF on the Xerox printers they have there. If there is any truth to this, I guess I can expect the PDF to look something like the LFBC. I did try to scan on my HP scanner and printer but got just simple results. – A PDF file with a single jpg layer.

    • Be sure and get the mode; of the WorkCentre and note the settings for scanning. The only two models we have tested are the 7655 and the 7535. You might get different results on other models.

  16. John says:

    Actually Miki Booth has the original hard copy BC. The Ultimate test would to take that BC and scan in the Xerox and see what happens. Miki claimed she gave the CCP her BC along with another one. It’s possible as part their parliminary testing that they took those BCs and scanned them. This would be true test and the basis for further testing of Obama’s BC. It is absurb to think the CCP did not test on Xerox scanners. That would like not testing Magnavox or Panasonic TVs. If NBC is correct, the only rational conclusion could be that not all Xerox scanners use the same scanning technology. Perhaps they are unique only to the Xerox Workcenter 7000 Series.

  17. John says:

    I think you should know Reed Hayes is well-aware of this blog post and has some the PDF that NBC has produced. Hayes has not responded in any way.

  18. John says:

    If the CCP really wants to refute they should scan Miki’s BC on a Xerox. NBC doesn’t posses a hard, orginal copy and simply printing the Obama’s BC and scanning it is simply not the same as scanning an original hard copy. You have to remember the PDF is a “construction” based on specific scanning technology and thus any print out is based on the “construction”. However, an original hard copy BC is based an “actual” document and would yield far more realistic results.

  19. John says:

    Miki doesn’t know it but her birth certificate is now the Holy Grail to CCP. It is the one document out there that can determine once and far whether Obama’s BC is forgery not withstanding NBC’s apparent findings.

    • I am confused about which birth certificate you speak? Miki was born in Japan so it cannot be hers. Her son Alan was born in Hawaii in 1981 and the form was completely different then. Johanna Ah’nee was born on Augst 23, 1961 but when was her BC printed and on what kind of security paper if any was it printed?

      There is no reason that either of these would make a better test specimen than what has already been used by NBC. Obama’s BC was printed reduced in size on modern green security paper. It is different than the other two I mentioned in fundamental ways.

      • John says:

        These birth certificate are critical because they are the same form or construction. Therefore, if they are scanned they should behave very similar as Obama’s long form birth certificate. Yes, the security paper was different, and that might make some difference, but still a scan of them would very accurate representation.

  20. John says:

    Another inconsistancy found on Obama’s birth certificate:
    Obots love to poke fun at Miki booth because the same doctor who delivered Obama, delivered Miki’s son. – Dr. David Sinclair. On Obama’s BC, you see David Sinclair has signed the BC and he is an MD as indicated by the check box. However, On Miki’s BC, David Sinclair signed her BC as well but his title as “MD” is part of his signature. This is not so on Obama’s birth certificate where Dr. Sinclair’s signature lacks the “MD” designation. It might be helpful to find more BCs that David Sinclair signed to further check this inconsistancy. This could explained because he designated his title by checking the box indicated “MD” but alot of Doctors like to include “MD” as part of their signature when they sign documents to give respect to their title and profession.

    • Miki’s son Alan’s BC is from 1981. Yes, in 1981 there was no box for MD. The certificate number is redacted on Alan Booth’s BC. Why aren’t you screaming that it is a forgery, John?

    • John says:

      The “MD” signature missing is rather odd on Obama’s BC. Doctors love to attach the “MD” designation to their signature. Observe:

      I’m not saying it’s proof of forgery but it is questionable because Dr. Sinclair should have added his “MD” designation on Obama’s BC like he did on Booth’s. Really its an incostistancy that hasn’t been explained.

      • Hektor says:

        John, even if you are right and it is “odd,” so what? Dr. Sinclair is deceased and even if he wasn’t, it is far from guaranteed that he would even remember the President’s birth let alone how he filled out the paperwork. The fact that you feel there is an “inconsistency” (which is a very bold statement about a doctor you never met and determined from two single data points decades apart) doesn’t mean that you will ever get an explanation. Life doesn’t work like a bad TV drama where all the loose ends are wrapped up by the season finale.

      • Let’s see .. On the Obama BC he checked the box that said MD. On the other there was no box so Dr. Sinclair put MD after his name. How is that proof of forgery? Why don’t you ask Dr. Sinclair? Oh wait …

        Have you looked at the Ah’Nee BC? Tell where the Dr. Ogami put MD after his name? (Hint, he didn’t. He checked the “MD” box.)

        • John says:

          Actually Dr. Sinclair was officially certified as the delivering doctor on Miki’s birth certificate. So, it would have been redundant to do that on Miki’s BC. But, I am stating it’s matter of preference and its inconstistant. I haven’t seen Ah’Nee BC but I have seen the really old birth certificate Nash just posted. On that birth certificate the doctor does add “MD” to his signature even though the MD checkbox is checked. Doctors like to do that sort of thing and again its inconstistant with that Dr. David Sinclair. If his signature was somehow forged or imported the forger may have forgot the “MD” portion of his signature figuring that checkbox was already checked.

        • Jim says:

          John says: “I am stating it’s matter of preference and its inconsistent.”
          So John, are you saying if I find signatures of yours on different documents and on some of them you use your middle initial and others you do not that these are signs of forgery? And your statement about Doctors like to do that sort of thing, have you checked every doctor across the country to make sure they ALL do that sort of thing, or is that just your opinion because you can’t stand President Obama?

  21. arnash says:

    “the spacing of the WH pdf is all over the map, while that of an old Hawaiian bc is essentially perfectly aligned”
    It is apparent that none of you reviewed the graphic grid comparison. It’s good for you that you didn’t because it would rock your world and expose what an impossibility it is that Obama’s BC was produced by a single typist doing a normal typing job.

    The misalignment is not what some of you referred to. It is the spacing between some lines which don’t match all the other lines, and vertical misalignment between words (not letters) on the same line. The control BC is one that someone carried around in his wallet for ages, so it’s in bad shape, and yet does not show the misalignment seen in Obama’s.
    Apologies for my birth certificate website not having the comparison jpg. that I called for you all to examine. I guess I uploaded to my Photobucket album instead and then forgot. But I’ve now added it to the wordpress album as well:

    The long form is still a fake but probably a paper fake instead of a digital fake. I hope to get around to writing another expose about the phoney press conference in which it was unveiled. Someday soon…, but first I have to finish writing The Da Vinci Code of American Citizenship. Until then, here’s something for you to futilely attempt to rip to shreds, (a fool’s errand) that I’ve just published: Obama & The Time Machine Revelation [engage at your own ideological peril. ~you’ve been warned.]

    • Ran Talbott says:

      Okay, so now we know that “Used a typewriter to fill in pre-printed forms” doesn’t appear on your resume.
      Because anyone who has can clearly see that the typist who did most of the first form just aligned on the bottom of the text boxes, and typed straight through, while the second preferred to roughly center the text vertically, and made several adjustments to get the X marks inside the checkboxes.

      • Jim says:

        Heck, people who never used manual typewriters don’t realize the biggest battle was just trying to get the paper in straight…much less what a pain it was to fill in forms with one. BTW Ran, thanks for the backup for the Zullo running a scam article I posted over at Doc’s, I think attacking the CCP for breaking the law like they’re doing instead of disproving their non-evidence is having a much better affect on them. 😀

    • gorefan says:

      Hey Adrian – on your grid thingy – the entire left side of the President’s LFBC is within the gird lines. On the torn BC the box 12b Porter Service is outside the lines. And if you look at boxes 6d and 7e, the “x” in the check boxes line up vertically on the President’s but not on the torn BC.

      Can you look at the Nordyke BCs and tells us why the names (first, middle and last) of the children are crooked? The rest of the entries are straight in their boxes..

      Any possibility they pre-typed portions of the BC before the birth and the rest after the birth occurred?

  22. Ran Talbott says:

    I’ve seen a posting on another blog, from someone claiming to be an Adobe MVP, that said that that “free” CS2 is NOT authorized by Adobe. Dunno whether it’s true, and I doubt that Adobe would care in this case, but I wouldn’t want anyone to get whacked if Adobe is fussy about it.
    About JBIG2: I’ve seen several postings saying it appears in the WH PDF, but my copy says it’s PDF version 1.3, not 1.4, and the bitmasks all say “FlateDecode”, not “JBIG2Decode” (note to Linux users: running “strings -8” on the PDF gets you most of the structure description, with not much noise). It’s 385354 bytes, with an md5sum of 34a7aeb10b7077520e5a976a02de877b. Do I not have the original version?



    • Thanks for the info on Adobe. If that is he case I will pull that link and leave the Adobe official link for the trial versions. Those should work if all you want to do is look at a couple of files.

      Yes, NBC’s theory (supported by testing) is that the WH LFBC was scanned upside down on the Xerox, rotated 180 degrees in Preview and resaved as a new PDF. Preview does not support JBIG2 compression in output PDF’s because it only supports version 1.3. Therefore instead of JBIG2 you will see FlateDecode since that is what it uses for compressing those layers. If you look at the two files I included article you will see the WorkCentre 7535 scan is version 1.4 and uses JBIG2 while the same file resaved in Preview shows version 1.3 and FlateDecode just like the WH LFBC. Kevin Vicklund found a blog post on a Mac site that confirmed this.

      Some of the effects of JBIG2 remain such as identical letters and check boxes.

      We know the XeroxWorkCentres use JBIG2. Xerox has been in the news lately because some a flaw has been discovered in WorkCentres that can result in numbers being changed in scans done at higher compression (lower quality) settings. The 7535 and the 7655 are in the list of affected models. See this blog post:

      NBC and I discussed on the show last night how the orientation fix in Preview greatly complicated the research into the “mysteries” of the LFBC. If the unnamed staffer had just scanned the document at the correct orientation then the PDF producer would have been “Xerox 7655” or something similar. That would have led to the right answers a lot sooner. Of course that would have taken all the fun out of it too.

      • Ran Talbott says:

        Thanks, RC. I somehow missed the part about Preview re-encoding the bitmasks.
        I don’t know whether you’ll find this useful, but I’ve been describing the JBIG2 layers as being less like “a compressed image” than “a ‘program’ that tells the viewing computer how to draw an acceptable approximation of the original image” (maybe substitute “recipe” for the benefit on non-geeks?). That might be helpful in explaining things like the identical characters that weren’t identical in the original.

        • Ran

          Yes, that is a pretty good description. It is akin to OCR but isn’t exactly that. Letters and numbers are probably often picked up as repeated objects but are not stored as text. I think after the like shapes are identified a lossless file compression scheme is applied on top of that. That is why JBIG2 is such an efficient means of compression.

          To put this in to perspective the Xerox WorkCentre is taking something that would be 8 megabytes if stored as an uncompressed 8 bit color image and shrinking it down to 0.384 megabytes. They can do all this and still maintain something very close to the original document.

        • RoadScholar says:

          “…identical characters that weren’t identical in the original.”

          IIRC, John Woodman’s book had an excelent plain-language summary of this phenomenon.

        • Ran Talbott says:

          JBIG2 can do either lossless or lossy.
          From the little I’ve read about how it works, it’s somewhat like OCR in that it scans for patterns, but it defines its own patterns on the fly, so it’s language- and font-agnostic. That probably helped sell it for standardization in an environment where so many standards are (seen as) U.S.-centric.
          If Woodman has a good description, I would strongly encourage you to use it, rather than mine: he’s put a LOT of effort into solving the puzzle, and deserves some free promotion for his book.

  23. Adrien Nash says:

    If I recall correctly, other LF COLBs also show repeated elements like boxes and letters. That would indicate that their identical nature was a consequence of the software used to originally scan the images of the microfilm and produce a digital file of the smallest size possible in order to save on low-volume, high cost digital hard-drive storage back in the dinosaur age. That is also the reason for the elimination of the imagery of the paper on which a birth certificate was typed. Retaining it would have at least quadrupled the amount of expensive storage needed, and with millions of birth and death certificates to capture, that’s a lot of memory.

    • Ran Talbott says:

      If I recall correctly, you have yet to provide even a microscopic shred of evidence that your notions of how Hawaii manages its records have any connection to reality.
      There is absolutely no rational basis for a belief that they would have stored digitzed images of BCs on hard drives. If they wanted digital copies of such infrequently-accessed records, they would have put them on tape. Or waited for the exciting emerging technology of optical WORM drives to attain practicality.

      • arnash says:

        You’ve falsely characterized about everything that I stated. You instead assert that it is all false, and yet it is all true and you didn’t even attempt to show otherwise because you can’t. You missed the forest for the trees in focusing on the digital medium on which the digitized microfilm images were stored. If you think that in the early 90s or late 1980s that text was not stored on hard drives, then you know nothing about the field of digital memory.

        “There is absolutely no rational basis for a belief that they would have stored digitzed images of BCs on hard drives.”
        As I pointed out, that would have been impractical and so it was NOT done. Instead, all they stored was the imagery of the text alone, NOT the imagery of the birth certificates. I’ve made that clear over and over. Where have you been?
        As for the Workstation results, they can reasonably be assumed to explain just about all of the anomalies of the pdf except one: the registration number whose final digit was separated from everything above the top line and moved to the background layer. If it had happened to two or three digits then there would be nothing suspicious because the two final digits could conceivably produce an inked image that was lighter in color for some unknown reason. But there is no conceivable reason for the final digit alone to be not identical to the other digits that were supposedly produced at the same time by the same means, unless it was not. If it was not, but was produced during the counterfeiting of a real paper document (like all counterfeits [the category of counterfeit pdfs does not exist]) then it very likely would have had a slightly different density of black and that difference was picked up by Preview and separated to the background.
        What other explanation has anyone come up with, or has no one even addressed the issue previously?

        • Ran Talbott says:

          I characterized SOME of what you said as unproven and unlikely. Your failure to grasp the distinction isn’t scoring you any credibility points.
          You keep coming up with hypotheses about how Hawaii manages their vital records that are contradicted by their public statements and/or common sense, and don’t even offer ordinary proof for your extraordinary claims.
          Your latest is that they expended a great deal of cash and effort to archive data for which they would have absolutely no practical use. You’re just making yourself look more ridiculous, and you should find another hobby.

          • arnash says:

            You are simply ignorant of the needs and practices of large organizations. The first thing they need is backup files in case of catastrophe, second they need backup systems that are practical and convenient and quick. Quick means readily available in a form that can be utilized by modern technology, i.e., computers. So how do you get from microfilm backup systems to desktop computer access of all data and all records?
            You must digitize, which they and all state governments began to do about two decades ago. One could determine when Hawaii did that by their switch from issuing photo reproductions of birth certificates such as those of the Nordyke twins, to issuing abstract “Certifications” which they don’t pretend are actual certificates, even though the Obama campaign pretended for three years that the short form was a birth certificate, including Obama himself during the press conference announcing the release of the long form. What a twit.

            The way they digitized the imagery of the microfilm was already explained so I won’t bother repeating just because you are too ignorant to realized that there are facts in this world of which you are not aware. Now they no longer are forced to access old aging microfilm from half a century ago, nor huge archives of paper documents in binders. Everything is available at their fingertips. Now do you care to explain how that contradicts their public statements and/or common sense?

        • Ran Talbott says:

          Again: you SPECULATE about what they do, but offer no actual evidence.
          And your claims conflict with Hawaii’s statements that they maintain paper and microfilm archives, and copied Obama’s BC from the bound paper original.
          The best indication of what they’re doing for computer storage is that the short form BCs have alpha data in all upper case, while the dates are mixed case. If they’d built their database by OCRing the microfilm, that alpha data would be mixed case. So it’s virtually certain that the database was built from the contemporaneously-keypunched data, and the dates are mixed-case because they were encoded and stored in packed decimal, rather than text.

          • arnash says:

            I believe you hit the nail on the head. I’d forgotten about keypunch data storage even though I once worked with it, a looooong time ago. My mind has wandered to a million other places since then. The keypunch data would have eventually been compiled into compact digital-storage data and become accessible via desktop computer.

            The microfilm imagery was not processed via OCR because that would have introduced unacceptable errors. Instead the text was digitally extracted from the page it was entered on and only the imagery of the text was saved, -not that of the paper. That text was either all black or a mix of black and gray-scale. The text in Obama’s document is of an unknown source except to those who have seen the original typed and hand-written affidavit. Surely most of it was from his vital record, but there is every reason to believe that some of it was not. Since the long-form is an Abstract and not a True Copy, there is no way to tell since once text is in the digital domain as imagery, it can be digitally edited by cutting and pasting other imagery in its place.
            That wouldn’t be done except for in a one in 300 million situation of a man elected President who wasn’t born in the United State, which criteria was erroneously viewed by Americans as the basis of citizenship.
            They never ask themselves: What if Obama had been born in the Panama canal zone like McCain? Would he still be viewed as eligible to be President? Or, what if his father’s African wife had given birth to him while visiting Hawaii, would he still be a natural born American citizen regardless? Obamunists want to believe that parentage has nothing to do with natural citizenship and yet those questions can’t be even addressed without a serious involvement of parentage since it is in fact central. And all of them know it.

    • Adrien

      You don’t have a clue do you?

  24. truth seeker says:


    “Tell Mike Zullo that if he wants to come on my show and explain why we are wrong he will have all the time he needs to do so. If he wants 30 minutes without being interrupted then I will do that. I only ask that we can ask some questions after that. Doesn’t it bother you that Carl Gallups cut me off in less than 15 seconds before I could mention any of this? Who do you think is really after the truth here John?”

    The CCP effort has nothing to do with finding the truth. The flawed July 17, 2012 CCP press conference clearly is evidence of their lack of integrity. Confidently using 1968 code charts to falsely depict race codes in 1961 shows what the CCP is all about.

    The Xerox information posted in this article is powerful. If Zullo and his CCP were really interested in finding the truth, he would be asking you for more details. He won’t because it conflicts with his birther mindset and because he may need to edit the conclusion in his new book.

    • Truth Seeker

      Thank you for the comment and welcome to my blog. I agree that the information developed by NBC and others is powerful and places the Cold Case Posse in the deep freeze.

    • Ran Talbott says:

      “Confidently using 1968 code charts to falsely depict race codes in 1961 shows what the CCP is all about.”
      And it’s definitely “lack of integrity”, not just the “lack of competence” that marks so much of their other “evidence”. The fact that they stuck with their “Not stated” claim even after it was revealed to be mistaken (giving them the benefit of the doubt), and after they put the “corrected” instructions that said “Unknown or not stated” into the video, is irrefutable proof of dishonesty.
      And the fact that they’re continuing to use that video to solicit donations from suckers to keep the CCP going after it’s been established that the codes weren’t even for the Feds ought to be grounds for criminal prosecution.

  25. arnash says:

    If Zullo had a book in the works, and why assume that he didn’t (?) then he must be feeling up the creek with the NBC Workstation results. I wonder if he has most of his eggs in that basket. It’s a bitch to have the rug pulled out from under you. Obama supporters don’t have to worry about that happening to them because the truth will never be revealed, at least not while any of us are still alive. Best hope is a death bed confession but even that’s a very long long shot. There is no national authority to question the veracity of what state government officials claim about what they verify so without an insider blowing the whistle to an honest FBI office, no investigation will ever happen, especially after the Xerox results. Congress sure as hell will never do anything, so it’s essentially “mission accomplished” regarding the counterfeiting of his birth certificate. It can be totally ignored as an issue if the Constitution can be so blatantly ignored and hidden by nationwide silence, including the conservative media. Talk about a successful conspiracy. It doesn’t get any more successful than that. Now if only Obama was an American citizen everything would be hunky-dory.

    • We will never have it happen to us because President Barack Obama was born in Honolulu and Hawaii produced two valid birth certificates based on information that has existed in their records since August 1961 when Kapi’olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital sent over the records of his birth.

      It is quite simple. It is only when you deal in delusion and deceit that you are in a position to get the rug pulled from under you.

  26. gsgs says:

    aha, so the magic solution is “Xerox Workcenter 7655”.
    Congrats for finally finding it !
    So much effort was spent on this …
    and it’s only found after the election.
    Could it have been found easily, earlier ?
    By the posse, all the “experts”, the Obots ?
    What was the main mistake, in retrospective ?

    And the Whitehouse could have _easily_ resolved this. They were
    certainly aware of the fuss. I even once asked them how the pdf
    was created – no reply.
    That was another disgusting thing to me in the process, besides
    Zullo,Zebest,Denninger etc.
    And noone here mentioned this WH silence in >1 month and 80 comments.
    Nor in >2 years of birtherism discussion.
    It was considered “natural” that Obama’s people don’t reply, don’t comment,
    dismiss rather than debunk. I don’t understand this America.

    • gsgs

      Yes, NBC deserves most of the credit and you played a part too. I helped a bit with some confirmation tests on another model.

      I think you err in thinking that anyone in the White House was aware of the “fuss”. As far as Obama’s people were concerned it was over when they released a copy of the LFBC. It was unfortunate that the step of rotating the image in Preview was done or the actual work flow would have been discovered earlier.

      Even if they were aware it would have been a mistake to pander to the post LFBC Birthers. They are crazy mostly racist conspiracy theorists who will never believe the document is not a forgery. Look at all the gyrations Adrien Nash has gone through here trying to create a theory that flies in the face of overwhelming evidence. It is pure comedy. Doing anything other than ignoring them would have been a mistake.

      Now it is time to have some fun watching Zullo the Clown and the rest of them try to spin how a Xerox WorkCentre was not involved.

      • Ran Talbott says:

        My guess is that they’ll change the process a bit (different firmware version, different default settings, and/or different version of Preview), produce something that’s not an _exact_ match, and claim “debunked”.
        Just like they did by using Adobe software to “prove” that optimizing wasn’t the cause.

        • gsgs says:

          the coding thing was just an error in a side-field, an issue that they only first
          addressed after more than year. But the pdf-anomalies is their main issue,
          the reason why the posse was formed, why it started.

      • gsgs says:

        they can come up with new arguments,
        but they lost a lot of credibility if it’s finally undeniably proved that their
        earlier arguments were wrong.

        • Ran Talbott says:

          Well, it was “ndeniably proved” that they were wrong about the “African Anachronism” and that they lied about the coding. Doesn’t seem to have affected them a whole lot.
          Gallups mentioned recently that they have a “surprise” about the “Xerox caper”. That’s why I suspect they’re working on a scam “debunking”.

      • gsgs says:

        you’ll have to be concerned about the world’s security if the Whitehouse(WH) had not been
        aware of the fuss. They do have a gigantic spying system and miss the most obvious
        and prevalent. 20% of the population doubted the president’s birthplace and the posse
        was one of the main players of that “birther” movement. (Others maybe Corsi,Taitz,
        Gilbert,..) And their main argument was the pdf. And it was the subject of several trials
        and affidavits.
        How could the WH miss that ?
        It’s more likely that they had a “policy” to not comment. To not resolve it.
        A “Dismissing”-campaign.
        But why ? I think it’s not creditworthy for a government. They want the people to elect them
        but they won’t tell the people what’s going on, won’t reply to questions like this which
        they could easily have answered.
        And there was no horde of journalists keeping to ask them.
        And there was no horde of business owners, secretaries, who were working with such
        a machine who reported about it.
        And Xerox itself should have done it. Early in 2011 when the pdf was published and the
        “discussion” started.
        Did someone of the “Obots” or “Birthers” ask them ?
        Is it really secret, what machines the WH is using ? Some reporter,investigator could have
        figured this out, even with the WH itself refusing to comment.
        I don’t think that episode would have happened in Europe, given the same starting situation.

        There are lots of other “crazy” groups and conspiracies out there.
        You don’t resolve these issues by not commenting,ignoring them.
        You must address it, to stop it. To prevent others from joining.
        We want to teach our children what’s the right way and what not
        and we want to help them to figure it out. That can’t be done by
        refusing to comment. No matter how “crazy” the idea is, as long
        as it is prevalent like this. And if it was that crazy, why all the
        experts and “experts” that went wrong, why did it take us 2 years
        to resolve it ?

  27. Adrien Nash says:

    “Look at all the gyrations Adrien Nash has gone through here trying to create a theory that flies in the face of overwhelming evidence.”

    RC clearly does not understand what “gyrations” actually means, nor, and especially, what “overwhelming evidence” means.
    He dishonestly seeks to conflate facts about the origin of the pdf anomalies with total lack of facts about everything else. He also falsely claims that my theory contradicts some irrefutable facts, -facts which he is unwilling to state because there are no facts that contradicts it, and hence that is why it is so plausible, and explains everything about Obama’s lack of proof of anything. But just to bring it home clearly, please answer for all of the Obama faithful these questions:
    1. What actual evidence is there regarding where Obama was born? There is none, -only lying statements by his flying monkeys in the HDoH.

    2.What actual evidence is there that the document that the White House scanned was anything other than one of tens of thousands of fake birth certificates produced world-wide in 2008 and 2011?
    3. What actual evidence is there that Seattle was not where Obama’s mother was living at the time of his birth? There is none.

    4. What actual evidence is there that she did not kept her child solely because she could not find any adoptive couple for him, -not in Washington State nor in Vancouver Canada? There is none.

    5. What actual evidence is there that his Indonesian passport was not his sole form of official identification well into his adult years? There is none.

    6 What actual evidence is there that he ever had any birth certificate in his life until he had an abstract counterfeit one manufactured in 2008? There is none.

    7. What evidence is there that any Hawaiian official has ever claimed that an original Hawaiian hospital birth certificate exists for Obama? There is none. A claim that some original is located in their archive is not proof of anything, nor is it a claim that what exists is Hawaiian nor from a hospital.

    8. What actual evidence is there that Obama ever took and passed the Illinois State Bar exam? There is none. Being a member does not prove that one took and passed the exam.

    9. What actual law exists by which Obama is even a United States citizen? There is none. His father did not qualify his son for 14th Amendment citizenship since he was not an American immigrant.
    10. By what actual logic could someone potentially with citizenship in four nations be a natural born citizen of any of them? Hmmm…. 1. -a citizen of Canada via jus soli national law 2. A provisional citizen of Kenya via jus sanguinis British law 3. A citizen of Indonesia via adoption 4. and a citizen of the U.S. via a bastardization of the Wong ruling by the Attorney General in 1898, -making him a political policy citizen but not a legal citizen by any law, amendment, or court holding.

    Please explain how any of these circumstances are too complicated for your brain to grasp, and why any of them cannot possibly be true, -an do so without the infantile security blanket of relying on lying fellow redistributionists in the Hawaiian Dept of Health. I’m taking about actual physical evidence.
    11. And please explain why the INS record of flights into Hawaii from foreign origins the week of Obama’s birth is the only one mysteriously missing from the micro-film record.

    12 And please explain why all of his academic records are sealed in secrecy forever? They will not be available in his future library. Won’t that be most curious?
    Such a transparent President, especially about himself (the biggest mystery since the President Kennedy assassination, and the biggest fraud in world history).

    • gsgs says:

      > 1. What actual evidence is there regarding where Obama was born?
      > There is none, -only lying statements by his flying monkeys in the HDoH.

      I stopped reading here. Takes too much time to investigate the issue
      and ATM I consider it unlikely that there is much behind your theory

    • Northland10 says:

      As for passing the Illinois bar examination, the rule for admission to practice in Illinois require passing the examination, or have been admitted in another state and practiced for, I think 5 years. As he was admitted as an attorney by the Illinois Supreme Court in December 1991, right after finishing Harvard Law School, the exam route was the only one available.

      So Arnie, are you jealous that a man of mixed race parents is smarter and more successful than you?

      • Adrien Nash says:

        If you do a little further research you’ll come across a mention that legal instructors were / are admitted to the Bar without taking the test because they will never practice law. Obama took a job at Columbia as a legal instructor, and therefore could have gained admission via that route. Or so it seems.
        Who can prove otherwise? Only those with the records of the State Bar of Illinois, and they ain’t talkin’. Like all of the non-natural citizen’s records, public access is denied. Denied now and denied in the future in perpetuity. The facts about Obama will not even be available in his presidential library. You’ll see.

        • Northland10 says:

          So, a prestigious school like the University of Chicago (not Columbia.. do better research), would hire and instructor who never passed the bar? That would not look good for a school. Let us see what else you failed:

          1. Provide a reference for your claim of a legal instruction admission. The Illinois Supreme Court Rules do not mention that (any limited admission still requires the person to be licensed in another state).
          Article VII – Rules on Admission & Discipline of Attorneys (search on this term.. I wanted to avoid the moderation because of too many links)

          2. His admission was “Date of Admission as Lawyer by Illinois Supreme Court:” So he was fully a lawyer, not some, legal instructor only.

          3. Did he practice law? When he argued Baravati v JLR, Inc. at the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, it sure looks like he practiced law (and, won the case).

          4. Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland would have been surprised that he was not a “real attorney” since he was with them for a number of years.

          He has sealed nothing. The normal privacy laws protect his, and your records. You whine about his records not being available yet you cannot even find information about him that is available.

          Sorry, but the Natural Born President, from mixed race and nationalities, will be your President until January 2017. Live with it.

          • Adrien Nash says:

            Your narrative has the ring of truth but it overlooks reality. A school packed with socialists like the University of Chicago would have welcomed him as one of their own, only superior because of the preferred color of his skin which would fit their affirmative action hiring goals.

            As for their concern about their reputation, his lack of admission to the bar via the test method would be something that no one would know about outside of the school, or the legal profession.
            Also, you can’t simply diss the position of collegiate legal instructor because it would require the completion of a masters and then graduation from a respected law school.

            Such graduates who choose to devote their life to teaching are not mandated to undergo the same rigorous testing as those who will actually be practicing law for a living. Like the difference between someone who teaches brain surgery and one who actually performs it. They live in two different worlds.
            As for the law firm and his role in it, that is a gray area which may or may not prove your assumption that he practiced law as a licensed attorney. Not being an attorney, I have no way of knowing that such a role truly requires more than a diploma from an accredited law school.

            Like Physician’s Assistants who practice medicine but do so under the supervision of a licensed MD, the legal profession I’m betting has a similar role for law clerks to “practice law” under the supervision of a licensed attorney.

            If you know that to be false, I expect you will provide some proof that it is false. I won’t hold my breath waiting for it.

        • Northland10 says:

          You have made claims and are “betting” that the facts are a certain way without one shred of evidence yet state I have to prove a false after I already provided evidence you were wrong. In other words, you are just making things up and are a lying troll. If that is false, prove me wrong.

          The, he must have gotten the job through affirmative action, was a lovely bit of slimy racism.

          • Adrien Nash says:

            I simply told you what I found via numerous internet searches and a lot of reading through the material I found. I’ve written about it in an exposition or two but do not retain in memory (that I can just call up spontaneously) the url of the site where I found the information. But you are perfectly capable of finding what I found regarding the criteria for admission to the Illinois bar.

            As for your mis-characterization regarding affirmative action hiring policies, where is it written that such employee candidates are not equal or even superior to a non-minority candidates?? You owe me an apology for a baseless and unfounded accusation. But then, the Left is champion at throwing that charge like a hand grenade without any legitimate justification. It seems your leftist approach is to draw, fire, aim. It that the kind of person you’re happy being?

            On a separate issue; re: Vattel & natural born citizen; I wrote the following to Mario Apuzzo:
            If anyone with an honest mind looks at the sub-title of section 212 of Vattel’s Law of Nations, the truth will be evident to them. It reads: Des Citoyens et Naturels
            Translation: Of Citizens and Natives.
            “Naturels” does not translate as “natural born citizens” but as natives.

            Were that not the truth then the title would be: Of Citizens and Natural Born Citizens.
            Such a translation is laughable and absurd. That is not the title because that is not the correct translation.
            Vattel’s use of “Les naturels” as a noun can only imply the natural something-or-other. The implication is “inhabitants”, as in “the natural inhabitants” . That alternatively translates as “the natives”.
            The word “indigenes” is not correctly translated as “natives” as claimed but as “the indigenous (population)”. Hence the claim that the French translates as “The natural born citizens, or natives” from “Les naturels ou les indigenes” crumbles.
            It seems self-evident that the French used adjectives as nouns by dropping the implied nouns that they were naturally associated with in the common vernacular.

            “Citizen” is not connected linguistically to either of those two words because they relate to a country, -not a Nation. “Citizen” only relates to nations since it is a legal concept while the others are natural concepts related to natural membership in a common people.
            The French contains no use of the words “born” and “citizen” together as adjective and noun, i.e., “born citizen” nor of the words “natural” & “born” & “citizen” together.

            Vattel wrote about the natural members of countries and natural citizens of nations, but he had no connection to any use of the words “natural born citizen” which John Jay used in writing a warning to George Washington.
            Those words were not only not defined by Vattel but were never even used by him.

            To understand them does not involve Vattel but involves nothing more complex than the English language. No “authority” defines what those words mean because they mean what they mean as common words and nothing more. They never had and still do not have a “term of art” meaning. Their meaning is not a transmutation of the bastardized “natural born subject” as the obots assert, nor a combination of the two completely separate basis of nationality; soil and blood, as the Apuzzians assert.

            The obots are wrong and the Apuzzians are wrong because they attach a meaning that perverts the meaning of the words themselves.

            Any attempt to change their meaning is a perversion of their meaning and cannot be supported by anything but presumptuous imagination.

            ~Natural born criminal~ Is that a term of art? No. “Criminal”, like citizen, is from the legal realm. Natural & born are ordinary adjectives. This is not legal rocket science.

    • What actual evidence is there that you are not a retarded Polynesian Communist child molester?

      I rest my case.

      • Adrien Nash says:

        Mindless morons don’t have a case to rest. Those who willfully ignore facts not to their liking will blindly stumble into the ditch of error. That includes the dogmatic believers on both sides. Ya’ll are great at pointing out the errors of the adherents to the counterfeit PDF theory but as soon as your own pet dogmas are shown to be false, then it’s time to close one’s eyes and ears and turn off one’s logical mind.
        That’s because what is in front of one’s own eyes is unacceptable to one’s sense of political security since it strips away the security blanket of the certainty of one’s own faith in the Democrat messiah.
        Insecurity is a demon that everyone runs away from unless one accepts it as the price of living in the the truth and not in a delusion.

    • Ran Talbott says:

      “5. What actual evidence is there that his Indonesian passport was not his sole form of official identification well into his adult years?”
      Indonesian law.
      Which also happens to be evidence that you’re just pulling stuff out of your ass, and demanding that people refute it, instead of doing the simple research needed to find out what the facts are.
      Since you do that as a regular feature of your “arguments”, it’s time for the serious people to tell you to put all that stuff back where you got it (preferably with significant force), and stop giving you the attention you so obviously crave.

  28. Pingback: Driving the final nail into the Cold Case Posse “investigation” coffin–Part I | RC Radio Blog

  29. Pingback: “God’s Birther: The Fractal Failures of Carl Gallups"-Part VIII | RC Radio Blog

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: Logo

You are commenting using your 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