Birther “Expert” Albert Renshaw now retracts his analysis

Could it be? An honest Birther? By chance I recently viewed a video made by Albert Renshaw four years ago after the release of the President’s long form birth certificate. You may recall that Renshaw was the 16 year old who made a video showing that when the LFBC PDF file posted at the White House web site was opened in Adobe Illustrator it had layers and also had duplicated characters. The video went viral and has gathered over 1,500,000 views to date.

Renshaw’s analysis and other similar analyses performed by self proclaimed amateur experts using Illustrator were used by Sheriff Joe Apraio’s Cold Case Posse led by Mike Zullo to form the basis for a claim that the President’s long form birth certificate released on April 27, 2011 was a forgery.

As we now know the layers were the result of the equipment and software used to scan the certified copy of the Obama birth certificate to generate the highly compressed PDF file that was posted for public viewing and downloading at the WhiteHouse.gov web site after the April 2011 press conference.

Now Renshaw, who is 21 now realizes his analysis was wrong. He has added the following note on the video:

Renshaw readact 2

While Renshaw wrote “redact” it is clear that he meant “retract”. I would speculate that one reason Renshaw saw the light is that I and some other commenters made him aware of the results of the Xerox investigation that blogger NBC and others including me conducted. Earlier John Woodman had addressed the problems with Renshaw’s flawed analysis in his excellent series of videos and in his book Is Barack Obama’s Birth Certificate a Fraud?

It’s nice to see that the young Mr. Renshaw has grown up and has seen that he made an error. It takes character to admit you were wrong. I think he should do a little more than just leave the videos up with a small note at the beginning of one video. A good start would be to apologize to the President and his staff.

Now we await the other self proclaimed experts to follow suit and admit they were wrong? Are you listening Mara Zebest? What about Karl Denninger? Garett Papit? Mike Zullo? Time to man up!

[Updated 12/13/2015: Renshaw has now corrected the video to read “I retract”. I assume he did so based on a comment I left.]

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Birth Certificate, Birthers, Cold Case Posse and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

80 Responses to Birther “Expert” Albert Renshaw now retracts his analysis

  1. stevor says:

    so, why is barry still HIDING so much of his personal info if he’s so “transparent”? Trump and Cruz have been vetted further than he ever was (and the one who claimed to vett him was Nancy Pelosi, but she changed the wording on the document to eliminate the part about the Constitution so she wouldn’t have to worry about FRAUD.)

    • Please stay on topic. Future comments like this will be deleted.

      • stevor says:

        gee, I thought the whole EXISTENCE of this site was to counter that the BC was real!

        • COMALite J says:

          You weren’t talking about the birth certificate just then. You tried to go off on a red herring tangent about “Barry” supposedly “hiding” other things.

          Please don’t believe things that you read on WND and other Birther blogs and such. Obama did not spend millions nor even 1¢ to hide anything. His campaign paid about $2 million for post-campaign legal expenses to their law firm Perkins-Coie. All political campaigns rack up post-campaign legal expenses. There are lots of things involved in starting up, running, and winding down a major national political campaign, especially for the Presidency (for instance, campaign headquarters in various States must be disposed of). John McCain’s campaign racked up a roughly similar level of post-campaign expenses.

          Chelsea Schilling posted on WorldNetDaily at 8:42 PM on August 10, 2009 an article in which she noted:

          Federal Election Commission records for “Obama for America” show that the lobby organization has paid international law firm Perkins Coie exactly $1,352,378.95 since the 2008 election.

          She followed this with what appear to be images of amounts paid at various times. Using weasel words such as “may be using” (first ¶), as well as the subtitle (which she may not have written, as editors usually write titles and subtitles) which “asks the question” “‘Grass-roots army’ contributions being used to crush eligibility lawsuits?”) she implies that all of this money was being spent specifically and solely to defend against eligibility claims, hiding records, and such. It wasn’t.

          • stevor says:

            So, o’bama spent over a million dollars on lawyers AFTER his campaign. Gee, why would somebody need to do that? (Just wondering but I don’t want to be led down that tangent). I’d like to see his college transcripts, which most (if not all) others willingly give, even bush with his “gift” passing grades.
            But, still, as I asked on my last response: There are white areas around the black lines and black letters. If each color is in a separate layer, the green background would be on one layer and the lines/text on other(s) layer(s). To have that white over the green background, it would have to be on some layer. But where did the white come from? Why is there patterned (not just bled over) green behind the white and black?
            But getting back to this guy who redacted his “effort”. I suspect he was heading to college and was easily bought off.
            Since Arpaio has been mentioned in regard to all this, I find it real strange that he said he’d expose the person who posted that “document” over TWO YEARS ago but hasn’t done it. I figure he got a “call in the night” that made him reconsider his “efforts”.

            • Why did John McCain or Mitt Romney pay that much on lawyer fees after their campaigns? That’s normal expenses when it comes to winding down a campaign. Lawyers are hired for various reasons including contracts whether employment or media contracts, legal disputes etc. You don’t deserve his college records since most presidents haven’t shown theirs. Maybe you’ll get them when he opens his presidential library?

              • stevor says:

                So, I don’t DESERVE to know his college records? HE IS a “servant of the people” (supposedly). Don’t his EMPLOYERS deserve to know about their EMPLOYEES?

                • If you weren’t satisfied with what you knew about President Obama you had a choice to vote for the guy who wouldn’t release his tax returns. You are not anyone’s employer.

              • That is correct. You don’t deserve to know his college records. Just as you don’t deserve to know Romney’s or McCain’s. They’re personal records released at the discretion of the person involved. You want to know them but you don’t actually need to know them. Why should you get to know more about Obama than any previous president?

            • COMALite J says:

              No, no other President nor Presidential candidate willingly gave their college transcripts to the public. Bush’s were illegally leaked by an investigative reporter. He did not release them of his own free will.

              The Constitution does not require that the President even have spent so much as one day in preschool, let alone have a college degree. It only requires that s/he be a Natural Born Citizen and be at least thirty-five years old as of inauguration.

              As for Arpaio, this is “Americas Toughest Sheriff™” we’re talking about here. Nobody would scare him with a “call in the night.” He hasn’t come up with anything else in two years because the analysis that proved that the White House .PDF was scanned on a Xerox WorkCentre Model 7655 which accounts for every single last one of the Birther alleged “evidences of forgery” promoted by Birther “experts” (as in without a single exception) has left him with nothing to come up with, and he knows it.

              Birtherism is dead. It’s been dead for awhile now. Stick a fork in it.

              The Cold Case Posse’s last hope for a document forensic expert who would back them up, Reed Hayes, has failed them miserably. He mouthed off about “layers” which proved beyond any doubt that he was working from the White House .PDF, which alone disqualifies anyone who does so from being a real truly qualified forensic experts. Real forensic experts won’t waste their time and effort trying to analyze a heavily compressed and optimized low-bandwidth digital representation of a document when a higher quality, less-optimized version is available, and a simple Google search would show in seconds that one such is available and has been all along — it actually went online a few hours before the White House .PDF did!

              On the morning of April 27, 2011, after pressure from Donald Trump helped Obama convince Hawaii to violate their own State laws regarding how they store and to whom they release vital records such as birth certificates (even the President doesn’t have the power to force a state to violate their own laws, which is part of what took so long), Obama held a press conference during which he announced the release of his Certificate of Live Birth (“long form”) in addition to the Certification of Live Birth (“short form”) that he had released in 2008.

              He brought with him three physical paper certified copies of the Certificate, each printed on green basket-weave security paper from the microfilm of the original vault copy (which is not on security pattern paper — only the copies are printed on such), each signed and emboss-stamped. Two of them he handed to major press agencies the Associated Press (AP) and United Press International (UPI). They then scanned them on their own, using high-resolution scanners that did not produce layers (though they did produce some other scanning artifacts as any scanner will do) and distributed them to their own client press agencies.

              Within a few hours tops, the AP had already distributed their scans to, among other of their clients, ABC News, who posted their copy of that scan on their own website (note the date, then click on the blue one-sentence second ¶ that says to view it), Like the White House .gov .PDF, that one is a .PDF file, but it was not scanned on a Xerox WorkCentre. It was scanned on a professional journalism scanner at high contrast which washed out most (but not all) of the security background (you can still see some in the shaded area near the top left), saved as a flat image, and that image was opened and saved from Adobe Acrobat and thus shows as its metadata “Adobe Acrobat 8.26 Image Conversion Plugin”. The file is over a full megabyte (1,071,451 bytes to be precise), and it was saved starting at 9:28:48 AM and was re-saved again 13 seconds later at 9:29:01, again on April 27, 2011. The article was published shortly thereafter.

              This file has no layers despite being a .PDF. It did not get passed through the MRC and JBIG2 algorithms built into either Xerox WorkCentres or Adobe Acrobat when scanning a document directly into Acrobat (as opposed to opening from disk a .JPG or other image format of a previously scanned document which was scanned using some other software), MRC is what generates the layers.

              Anyway, Obama’s people handed the third certified copy to their own website people. Apparently one person’s job was to scan it, and s/he did so using a Xerox WorkCentre 7655 using its sheet feeder accessory, but had inserted the document in backwards (wrong end first, not flipped upside-down). This makes no difference when making a regular copy onto paper, since all you have to do is turn the copied pages around. Most people wouldn’t even notice that it’d happened. But when doing a Scan-to-Mail, if the document is rotated 180° when scanned, it will come out that way in the generated .PDF.

              The scanner Emailed that .PDF to the web content team, whose job it was to put it on the website. When that person got the Email, s/he was using an Apple Macintosh running Mac OS X 10.6.7 “Snow Leopard.” Mac OS X has always been based on Adobe Display PostScript, and so, unlike Windows, had the smarts built right in to display .PDFs without needing Adobe Acrobat Reader nor any other such software. Mac OS X includes a “Preview” application capable of displaying any of a very wide variety of document formats, mostly using the OS’s own handlers for same. So Preview can open .PDFs since the Mac OS understands them directly through what is known as the “Quartz PDFContext” (“Quartz” being the codename of the optimized and extended implementation of Display PostScript and other display handling used in Mac OS X).

              Some time very shortly before 12:09:24 PM, this web person, as I said before, got the Email and opened up its attachment, and up pops Mac OS X Preview, displaying the .PDF. But oopsie, it’s upside down because the person who scanned it inserted it into the sheet-feeder backwards! No problem. Like most other image viewing software, rotating a document by increments of 90° is built right in. 180° is a multiple of 90°­ (90×2=180), so there’s a built-in command to do that. Well, this person did just that, and re-saved the .PDF into the staging directory for website uploads. Here’s the kicker: that final version was saved from Mac OS X Preview, not from Adobe Acrobat! Mac OS X Preview has a bit of a design flaw: when it saves a .PDF file, it basically creates a new file, and as such considers itself the “.PDF Creator” and so puts its own signature in that metadata field, regardless of what had been there before. So, the metadata which would otherwise have proven right from the getgo that it had been scanned on a Xerox Workcentre had been overwritten by metadata saying “Mac OS X 10.6.7 Quartz PDFContext” as the creator. Remember, Preview is little more than a user interface wrapped around Mac OS X internal subsystems such as Quartz and its PDFContext.

              Anyway, this file was saved at 12:09:24 PM on April 27, 2011 — as I said, several hours later than the AP version that ABC News had already uploaded and made publicly available before then! Because the White House version had gone through the Xerox WorkCentre’s MRC and JBIG2 as well as the DCT compression typical of .JPGs, it was much more highly optimized and so much smaller in file size than the AP / ABC version — only about a third the size (385,354 bytes to be precise).

              All of this information is easily available in the metadata to anyone who knows how to view it (even Adobe Reader lets you do this: just do File ⇒ Properties when the desired .PDF is open).

              Anyway, my point in all of this is that every Birther so-called “expert” who spent any time at all trying to analyze the White House .PDF when there was a much better version available (which had been available all along, starting hours before the White House version!), namely the AP/ABC version, is automatically disqualified from being an actual digital document forensic analyst expert for that reason alone! No real expert (or even non-expert) forensic analyst would waste time on an inferior copy of some claimed evidence when a better version was available. This holds true regardless of the nature of the evidence. If they get a blurry copy of a fingerprint, first thing they ask is, “do we have a better, less blurry copy of this same fingerprint?”

              Any real expert would’ve looked at the White House document for no more time than it takes to realize how optimized it is, and ask if there was a better version available. And there was. All along.

              Do you even know how Birtherism got started in the first place? I do. No, not Hillary Clinton. This predates even the alleged actions supposedly done by her supporters by about ½ a year.

              • COMALite J says:

                (Test to see if I can embed images here.)

                This is a .JPG version of the Associated Press scan. It’s much higher quality than the White House version.

                RC: You should be able to embed an image using “Less than sign”img src=”http://imagexxxyyy.jpg” alt=”Image title” “Greater than sign”
                (Replace the words with the actual symbols)

                Test:
                Test

              • stevor says:

                Since I downloaded the version that ABC news made and that you gave a link to, it ought to have all the layers and such? If not, why not?

            • The WND article includes payments starting October 16, 2008 almost three weeks before the election. Since billings for a major law firm can run months behind and then actual payments can lag 30 or even 60 days or more its likely that these payments included the bulk of the work for the general election. Also there are FEC reports that had to be done after the election.

              Presidential campaigns are billion dollar enterprises now. $1.5 million in legal fees is a very reasonable amount equivalent to 0.15%. These FEC reports and the WND article provide no proof that Obama spent a single dime on a Birther case. Neither does an examination of the actual cases. The defense in most of the cases included filing a simple motion to dismiss by the US Attorney’s office in whatever district it was filed. These were paid for by taxes because that’s what happens when you sue the president. The government defends him. Its their job. I believe Perkins Coie defended in one or two of the early cases pro bono.

              Of course none of these plain facts have stopped Birthers from repeating the lie for six years that Obama has spent $2 million or as much as $10 million keeping his records hidden.

              The reason I wrote this article is that when a birther actually faces up to the truth it is such a rare event that it is news.

            • Each color is not in a separate layer. I never said that.

              Here is how the compression algorithm works on a complex document with both color graphics and text. First the document is scanned to a bit map image at a higher resolution like 600 or 1200 dpi. Then it is processed and a background jpg layer is created with most of what the algorithm recognizes as the “background” with color. Then other parts of the document are broken up into objects of text, numbers and shapes that tend to be all the same color and show repeated patterns like text does. These 1 bit monochrome layers can be highly compressed because only one color has to be stored and only one copy of similar shapes as to be stored. These layers also tend to group objects that are located in the same part of the document.

              The jpg background layer can be compressed to a lower resolution without losing much useful information. Image compression algorithms make use of the fact that the human eye doesn’t resolve colors as well as shades of grey.

              So if we apply this to the Obama LFBC we can see that the green background and the form were chosen to go into the lower resolution jpg layer. This also included bits of text that happened to be touching the form. The signature seal and the date stamp got pulled into separate layers respectively because they were first isolated from other parts of the document and second because they were made up of parts that were the same color. This process was repeated to make the 8 foreground monochrome layers.

              This process explains how Xerox can take an 8,000,000 byte bit mapped raw scan and compress it down to 384,000 bytes,

    • So much? Since when are presidents required to provide any of the stupid crap you guys are asking for?

      • stevor says:

        Since when do Presidents HIDE all their info, especially when they tried to be known as the “transparency president” and so many people are curious as to what his history is? (You don’t care to know? Do you prefer to remain ignorant? Wayne Allen Root, who was at Columbia when obama was there and who was quite gregarious didn’t remember obama and could find nobody who remembered him, even at the reunion. That doesn’t make you curious? When there was a ban on Americans going to Pakistan, obama somehow managed to go. You aren’t curious as how he managed to do that?)

        • COMALite J says:

          First off, I’ll address a Reply you posted directly to me, but in another place in this thread because the nesting had gotten so deep that there was no Reply link on your post (it had reached maximum thread nesting). You wrote there:

          Since I downloaded the version that ABC news made and that you gave a link to, it ought to have all the layers and such? If not, why not?

          Because, as I stated in that comment, it had been scanned on a different scanner by different people.

          The White House .PDF was scanned on a Xerox WorkCentre, which is a midrange office-class scanner (and copier) that has some “smarts” built in to not only scan documents but also optimize them into a .PDF without having to be connected to a computer nor running Adobe software (Xerox licensed the .PDF software from Adobe, who in turn licensed the optimization algorithms from Xerox for use in Adobe Acrobat, which is why the experiment I told you to try and gave you full steps for, and which YouTube ex-Birther “trident3b” also followed and videoed the results of, works and produces all these artifacts on any document scanned directly into it [unless you tell it not to do document-type optimizing, e.g. by scanning in Image or Photo mode instead of Document mode, but it defaults to doing it]), and even to send the document by an attachment in an Email to one or more recipients of your choice, right from the scanner/copier itself, again without needing a computer (it basically has a computer built in).

          Here’s a video demonstrating this Scan-to-Email function on a lesser model of Xerox WorkCentre:

          The Associated Press (AP) on the other hand is a journalism organization. They have more expensive prepress-level scanners with higher quality optics and sensors and such, but which don’t have the “smarts” to do such optimization, nor do they have the need for that because they don’t typically send scanned documents by Email straight from the scanner. That’s not what they do. Businesses such as law firms and accounting and government offices and such would have such needs, but journalism does not. Such “smarts” would actually be counter-productive for them.

          The result is that the AP document at ABC.com is much higher quality than the White House document. It was scanned on a much better scanner (in terms of actual scanning resolution and quality, not in terms of fancy features such as Scan-to-Email and automatic document feeders and such) by people who knew what they were doing, and it didn’t go through the suite of optimization algorithms which reduce the resolution and file size of the document by messing with it in ways including separating layers.

          Watch the original Albert Renshaw video (when he uploaded it, Google hadn’t bought out YouTube yet let alone tried to force Google+ on YouTubers, so he uploaded it under his original YouTube videoname, “orangegold1.” Starting around 3:25 he’s talking about how the birth certificate was “supposedly” scanned into a computer, and about ten seconds later he claims that there is no technology for scanners to scan into multiple layers. That claim was not only false in 2011 when the long form was released and when he uploaded that, it wasn’t true when then-16-year-old Albert was a grade schooler! Such technology does exist and did exist at the time!

          Click here for USPTO Patent Application #US 20070140571 A1 entitled “Method for image segmentation from proved detection of background and text image portions” by co-inventors Zhigang Fan, Stuart Schweid, and Martin Banton and assigned to Xerox Corporation. Note the Filing Date: December 21, 2005! And it had to have been invented before then! Mr. Renshaw was only about nine years old at the time, and few people had even heard of Barack Obama!

          Quoth the application’s Claim #1:

          A method for processing scanned data representative of a document image comprising segmenting the data for achieving high compression ratios with improved reconstructed image quality, comprising:

          segmenting the scanned data into background and foreground layers;

          • windowing the scanned data comprising foreground layer candidate data into a plurality of windows, wherein each of the windows includes a selected region identifiable as contiguous to background layer data;

          • extracting objects from the plurality of windows wherein the objects comprise text, graphical and pictorial objects; and,
          • classifying the object based on imposition of predetermined contrast levels between the object and object surroundings.

          This isn’t even the oldest patent re: automatic separation of scanned docs into layers! They date back to 1997!

          • COMALite J says:

            (Urk! I wish I could edit that! Messed up on the HTML.)

            Anyway, moving on to the comment from you that this comment of mine is actually in Reply to:

            Since when do Presidents HIDE all their info, especially when they tried to be known as the “transparency president” and so many people are curious as to what his history is?

            You don’t get to ask “why” or “since when do…” questions until you have first established that the thing you’re asking “why” or “since when do” about has actually happened. We’ve already addressed repeatedly in this very thread the assertion that Obama spent millions to cover up or hide his records. He did not. At all. Period. That never happened. So there is no need for us to answer “why” it happened or “since when” does it get to happen when it didn’t even happen in the first place.

            (You don’t care to know? Do you prefer to remain ignorant? Wayne Allen [sic] Root, who was at Columbia when obama was there and who was quite gregarious didn’t remember obama and could find nobody who remembered him, even at the reunion. That doesn’t make you curious? …)

            Wayne Allyn Root’s claims have been thoroughly refuted. We know of quite a few people who were students and professors at Columbia when Obama was there who do remember him and have written and spoken accounts of their memories of their time with him. We know who his roommates were, and we have numerous photos of him at Columbia in the presence of other students and teachers. We also have printouts of the University Directory and graduation records of him there.

            Click here for a post by yours truly from way back in 2013 (on a sadly now shuttered forum) that permitted images in posts.

            (… When there was a ban on Americans going to Pakistan, obama somehow managed to go. You aren’t curious as how he managed to do that?)

            There was no such a ban at the time. That’s more Birther B.S. Click here for a travel article by assistant news editor Barbara Crossette published in the New York Times dated June 14, 1981, around the time Obama traveled there. Ms. Crossette talks in quite extensive detail of the many sights that American tourists could see in Pakistan. Why would the NYT publish such an article during a travel ban?

        • Since every previous president. He didn’t “hide” his info. He wrote two books before he was even president and gave multiple interviews over his career. His birth certificate was released before he was even President. Transparency has to do with how the administration conducts business. You seem to be confused. Personal records are already protected under state and federal law. You knew more about this president than you knew about the last one.

          Wayne “Allyn” Root who goes under an alias was on a different track than Obama. He graduated at a totally different time and admitted he only hung out with white kids. He didn’t bother looking very far since many of Obama’s classmates came forward saying they knew him. In fact Wayne Allyn Root knew this since one of his classmates confronted Root on it at a convention.
          http://www.thefogbow.com/special-reports/people-remember-president-obama/friends-2/#Columbia

          You didn’t do much research on this did you?

          As for the Pakistan travel ban. You’re an idiot. There was no travel ban. There was a travel advisory which allowed for Americans to travel to Pakistan on a 30 day travel visa. The travel advisory is similar to what we have for Mexico.

          http://www.factcheck.org/2009/06/more-birther-nonsense-obamas-1981-pakistan-trip/

          You’ve been misled.

          • stevor says:

            Wow, you guys are so knowledgeable of all this stuff so you MUST be able to explain the discrepancy involving birth certificate numbers in relation to the Nordyke twins and why he was using a social security number assigned to Connecticut!

            • COMALite J says:

              I already answered your first question and several other Birther-type charges in this thread in the aforementioned now-sadly-shuttered forum. It allows photos, and I show photos of the Nordyke Twins BCs, among other things.

              As for the Connecticut SSN, that is actually true, but it doesn’t mean what you think it does. When Social Security was in its early days before computers, the two-digit region code in the middle was pretty important to help in filing. But as computers became available, those became much less important, and if a SSN was assigned with the wrong region code, it would not be re-issued.

              As it turns out, the region codes are assigned based on ZIP codes, and the ZIP code for the area of Honolulu, HI where Obama lived at the time differs by exactly one digit (the first) from the ZIP code of a town in Connecticut. Hawaii’s ZIP codes all begin with a “9” and Connecticut’s all begin with a “0.”

              Now look at the number keys along the top row of your keyboard. Most early computer keyboards didn’t have numeric keypads, so that row was the only way to enter numbers. Look at where the [9(] key is. Now look at where the [0)] key is. They’re right next to each other. How many times have you seen someone type “tje” instead of “the” or some other obvious typo caused by one hand being off by one key and thus hitting an adjacent key from the one intended? Can you honestly say that you personally have never made such a typo unintentionally?

              There’s another possibility here as well: Obama is left-handed. That means that when he writes his digits, those formed using clockwise loops such as a “9” would tend to have a larger loop than a right-handed person would make, all else being equal. Make the loop of a “9” large enough and it can be easily mistaken for a sloppily written “0” which would mean yet another reason why a clerk might have mis-entered his ZIP code.

              Either way, the Social Security Administration will not generate a new SSN for such trivial reasons. They will do if the card is lost or stolen, but you can only do it once within a given time frame (I think a few yeas), and only a few times total in a lifetime. They won’t waste that on an improperly assigned region code, especially since the region code isn’t used for actual filing anymore.

            • There is no discrepancy. The numbers were arranged each month by last name. It’s why the nordykes’ have a lower number because N comes before O on the alphabet. It’s why Stig Wadelich who was born hours before the nordykes’ has a way higher number than Obama and the Nordykes’ despite being born after Obama and before the Nordyke’s because W comes after N and O on the alphabet. It’s also why Johanna Ah’nee has a much lower number than the Nordykes’, Obama’s and Wadelich’s certificate despite her being born weeks later. Because A comes before N, O and W on the alphabet.

              As for the Social. Social security is a federal program.

  2. COMALite J says:

    I remember posting numerous comments on his video (and Denninger’s and many others) back in the day showing that Adobe Acrobat Standard or Pro v6 or later (or v5 with the free Adobe Paper Capture subsystem added) would do the same thing due to the MRC and JBIG2 algorithms (of course we now know that it happened on a Xerox WorkCentre Model 7655 which has the same algorithms [indeed, Adobe licensed them from Xerox] when doing Scan-to-Mail).

    One then-Birther named “trident3b” accepted my challenge and followed my instructions to scan any known-genuine document directly into Adobe Acrobat Standard or Pro, with “Recognize text (OCR)?” unchecked but everything else left at defaults, and was honest enough to upload video of his results. Note that he mentions me by handle.

    Unfortunately, when Google tried to stuff Google+ down our throats by making us sign up for Google+ in order to even post comments on YouTube, I stopped posting there. Since I went for a long time without logging in there, they apparently deleted all my hundreds of comments (at least dozens on birther vids) some months ago. But you can still see one of my comments in the above video itself.

    • Thanks for the link. No I had not seen trident3b’s video. It appears that most any software that uses MRC and JBIG2 will yield similar results.

      I agree on YouTube’s comment system.It sucks. I thought I was doing something wrong when all the comments vanished.

    • stevor says:

      Can this be explained? (how did the copier know what was behind the upper images?

      • Yes, the compression process did this. The background layer is the only layer that has more than a single color. The other layers a single color objects mostly consisting of black letters. When these objects are removed from the background they tend to leave a white background but due to the lossy compression of the JPG background this tends to smear around the edges. This is the cause of the white halos you see in the complete image.

        The other layers are a single color but not always black. Layer 1 appears to be consist of white or very light colored objects (a bit of dust on the glass or just noise in the compression process). They are so small that the compression of the background layer could have smeared the green completely together in the background. The compression process appears to replace the background with white but around the edges it consistently smears with the background at the edges.

        I can tell you that when I did the test scans on a Xerox WorkCentre 7535 I see colors that appear behind letters when I turn the layers on and off in Illustrator. Without having access to the code and spending a lot of time that as good an answer as I can give you.

        The green behind the white border is much easier to explain. There are actually two white borders. The larger one is a mask that is added by the Quartz Preview program in OSx. This border is placed at the edges of whatever the default printer happens to be. We know the WH LFBC was last saved using Preview. The smaller 0.1″ wide white border that appears when the mask is turned off in Illustrator was placed by the Edge Erase feature in the Xerox. It is turned on by default. This is one of the many clues that the original file was generated by scanning on a Xerox.

        • stevor says:

          I thought you had all this PROOF from when you did your study. You didn’t bother to save your proof to show us now (so you don’t have to take all that time that you say it would take to show the matter of coloring behind objects)? How convenient.

          • Since you asked. Here is the same are of one of my test scans with one of the objects turned on and then off. Notice how content previously hidden appears.

            Object 8 on

            Object 8 off

            Notice how the “hidden” grey lines appear.

            • stevor says:

              Thanks, but I notice white around all the black lettering or lines, which seems to indicate that behind the black lettering or lines, it would be totally white!

              • COMALite J says:

                When you do the experiment I gave you instructions for, you’ll see the very same thing happen with your own eyes to the scan of your own physical paper known-genuine document scanned on your own scanner on your own computer running your own copy of Adobe software.

              • William Rawle says:

                Here is a PDF with the same layer characteristics as the White House PDF.

                http://www.birtherreport.com/2015/12/video-sheriff-joe-arpaio-hammers-alan.html#IDComment1006698116

                It has the stuff hidden behind layers (look at the signature).

              • If you posted it in a comment at Birther Report the links to comments do not work once the comments are collapsed. After around 100 comments Intense Debate closes up the replies. Since BR hasn’t posted any articles for a while the number of comments is over 300 on the last article. Also some people there post nothing but video links and they gum up the works and makes it take forever to load.

                If you want to email me the PDF I will post it here.

              • William Rawle says:

                Sorry i posted the wrong link to the PDF.

                http://www.lowrynews.com/pictures/demand%20letter%20n%20response/Scanned%20from%20a%20Xerox%20multifunction%20device001.pdf

                That other link was for the comment by PVSYS.

                • stevor says:

                  Thanks for posting the PDF link. It looks like I see the same whiteness around the black letters but the background is so pale that it’s hard to tell. Being that I’m so busy and like to save time and haven’t downloaded the Adobe program to examine it, I’ll ask you the same question that I asked elsewise. Is that whiteness around the black layers on a its own layer? (the background is supposedly on its own layer and the black text is supposedly on its own layer, so that whiteness ought to be somewhere!)
                  I guess I’ll download Adobe but still interested in an answer to the above question from you.

              • COMALite J says:

                In addition, you can go to Google Books and find literally millions of scanned pages, including many whose online availability predates the Obama birth certificate being uploaded in any form, which you can download as .PDFs and also see similar layers and other such artifacts. Google Books has scanned at least tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of books, averaging hundreds of pages each.

                There are two main ways that a book can wind up in Google Books (or similar archives such as Project Gütenberg or the Internet Archive [more famous for its Internet Wayback Machine, but they scan old books and artworks as well]): for newer books whose authors want to make electronically available, usually the book has been digitally published to begin with, using software such as Quark XPress or Adobe PageMaker or (somewhat more recently) InDesign. Such books do not need to be scanned since they already exist in digital format. Usually they just get exported to .PDF directly from the software that made them.

                But for older books predating the mid–late 1980s when then-Aldus PageMaker came out and the Apple LaserWriter printer with Adobe PostScript made “desktop publishing” affordable and accessible to the masses, and of course before Adobe Acrobat and the .PDF file format were themselves invented, the only way to get a physical-ink-on-physical-paper book into .PDF form is to scan it. Without optimization, such scans would be huge in terms of disk storage. Lossless compression can help some but not much. Even the typical lossy DCT (Discreet Cosine Transform) algorithm which forms the basis of the famous .JPG file format isn’t so good for scanned documents (it’s really designed for photographs, thus the “P” in “JPEG” [Joint Photographic Experts Group], inventors of the .JPG file format]). If you try to use .JPG to reduce a scanned document very far, the typical blocky DCT artifacts will start to obscure the text.

                Enter MRC, or Mixed Raster Content. This is an algorithm which, thanks to the patents I linked you to already, separate the background paper (which can be colored) from the foreground ink. Since the resulting background layer isn’t considered important, it can usually be safely compressed with DCT at high compression ratios, and also have its overall resolution reduced drastically, saving even more space. The foreground layers are then converted to monochrome transparent layers, eliminating the shades of gray in the original scanned letters and resulting in solid black pixels. This allows each pixel to be represented by a single bit, thus packing eight pixels in a single byte. A pixel in such a layer is either black (or some other color if colored ink was used) or fully transparent aka invisible (allowing the background layer to show through, which will be heavily blurred because of the aforementioned reduction in resolution combined with high-compression-ratio lossy DCT compression applied only to that layer).

                Another means of saving space in models of scanners until very recently was JBIG2. Like JPEG, JBIG stands for a Joint Experts Group, but in this case it’s Bi-Level Images (meaning 1-bit images where there are only two possible values or “levels” that any pixel can be: 0 or 1, which can map to transparent or black, for instance). Joint Bi-level Imaging experts Group. Version 2. Compressing bi-level images such as text and keeping the text nicely legible whilst saving as much space as possible is a very different technical challenge from compressing a photograph with potentially millions of shades of color.

                JBIG2 seeks to provide further space savings to the bilevel foreground layers produced by the MRC algorithm by searching for blocks of similar pixel patterns, on the grounds that those would likely be instances of the same letters or digits in the same fonts. By keeping a sort of index of such shapes and replacing each instance of a detected shape with its index number in said index, it can save potentially quite a lot of additional space. This is why some of the letters in the scanned document look bit-for-bit identical when, given how scanners work, they shouldn’t be. The JBIG2 algorithm found similar patterns and made them all identical.

                This has actually caused some serious real-world problems in which JBIG2 algorithms built into Xerox WorkCentre and other copiers mistakenly identified as the same letter or digit some similar but different letter or digit. Say, for instance, a “6” with some sort of dark speck or something on its upper right loop could get mistakenly detected as an “8” and replaced with the pixel pattern of another real “8.” So, you scan or copy some bank report or bill or blueprint or some such, and a “6” gets replaced by an “8” (or vice-versa if the upper right part of the top loop of an “8” printed extra-faintly for some reason).

                This could cause results ranging from someone being misbilled to subtle but serious bank or investment errors to police being sent to the wrong address to patients receiving the wrong dosage of medication or radiation (with potentially fatal results) to buildings or bridges or such being built to wrong (and thus dangerous) specs to missiles being aimed at the wrong targets, etc. For this reason, JBIG2 has fallen out of favor and is not found in many of the newest models of scanners (especially now that memory and storage are a lot bigger and cheaper than they were back in the day when these algorithms were invented). But it was present and active in the Xerox® WorkCentre™ Model 7655 that we know for a fact was used to scan Obama’s birth certificate for the White House website.

                • stevor says:

                  Thanks. I downloaded Adobe Acrobat and Adobe Illustrator, printed up the “official” o’bama BC, and then scanned it in. Yeah, I got layers.
                  But then your talk about letters being replaced by being mistaken for other letters (you mentioned “6” and “8” is garbage. If the directions that I got here are followed, the “Recognize text” box is to be unchecked and thus nothing is trying to identify a “6” or “8” so there can’t be any “mistakenly replacing” one for the other. Thusly, all text ought to be the same shade unless manipulated, as seems WAS done on the white house version.
                  I also find it funny that whomever put that “document” on the white house site put a “smiley face” on the “A” of Alvin Tonaka as a JOKE and the white house folks didn’t catch it. (yeah, though the matter of layers is unimportant but it’s STILL A FAKE unless Alvin made that smiley face. So, does anybody believe Alvin put a smiley face on a formal document?)

              • The “holes” that are mostly white are part of the color jpg background layer. I will post some screen shots from COMALiteJ’s file later today. That’s a very good example of how more than just white can appear to be hidden and revealed when layers are turned off.

                • stevor says:

                  Thanks but no need since I got Adobe Acrobat and Illustrator, printed up the white house version of the BC, scanned it in, and got the layered result with the white below where the letters are instead of a background pattern.

              • COMALiteJ, that is an excellent summary of how MRC and JBIG2 compression work.

              • COMALite J says:

                Printing out the Obama birth certificate on a home inkjet or even laser printer is not a good test for this. What you need is a real pre-printed form printed on a printing press, preferably with some sort of colored security pattern background.

                Your printer only prints in four actual colors of ink: Cyan, Magenta, Yellow, and blacK (CMYK — “K” is used for “blacK” to avoid confusion with Blue, as is in RGB [Red, Green, Blue] used for color-mixing with light-emitters such as a computer monitor or TV).

                The Obama Certificate of Live Birth certified copies presented on April 27, 2011, were printed on green basket-weave security pattern paper. That green was printed with actual green ink. Your home printer almost certainly can’t do that (a few models of Epson photo-quality inkjets from some years ago could). Instead, it most likely “fakes” green by printing halftone patterns of microdots of cyan [greenish-blue, like the background color of our generic avatar images here] and yellow ink. This may look like green to you and me, but not to a scanner. This will affect the results.

                Also, the text and form fields and such have already been processed through MRC and JBIG2 algorithms, with the background processed through MRC and DCT. In effect, you’re making a copy of a copy, and the quality gets worse with each such generation. To mention one effect that you brought up: the letters in the White House .PDF already have white halos around them due to the MRC separation of foreground from background, so scanning a printout of that will exacerbate that, and obscure the blurring aspect that causes a partial fill-in of the background (which is what your “football” video was about). Indeed, the Adobe algorithms even include an “anti-halo” process that reduces (but does not eliminate) the halos precisely by filling in the whitish pixels with colors from surrounding pixels. If you watch the status bar carefully while it’s processing the scan, you may even see it briefly say, “Halo removal…” or some such.

                So this is not a reliable test. Please follow the instructions that I gave you exactly. I do know this stuff pretty well, and I said what I said for very good reasons. I did not tell you to print out anything, let alone the Obama White House .PDF, and then scan that. I specifically told you to obtain a known genuine physical paper document and scan that. Heck, a canceled check will do.

          • William Rawle says:

            I think you misunderstand about the 6 and 8. What it means in the case of the BC is that you get pixel-for-pixel identical elements. There are letters on the BC that are pixel-for-pixel identical and there are several check boxes that are also identical. This is a result of the software creating an index of shapes, storing a copy of a shape and replacing the same shape throughout the document. It takes less memory to store the address of a shape than the shape itself.

            You can see the same thing in the Lowry PDF I linked to above. Letters that are pixel-for-pixel identical (Co-Chair and LRRPP in the headings for example)

            There is no smiley face. Look at the AP News copy of the LFBC. The smiley face is an ink smudge that when the PDF was created got turned into something that sorta resembles a smiley face.

            • COMALite J says:

              To be more specific, @stevor has apparently never actually used a rubber stamp in his or her life. Maybe never even seen one. That sort of thing happened all the time with rubber stamps.

              To @stevor: A rubber stamp is first pressed against a nylon-covered sponge pad soaked with ink to coat the rubber of the stamp image surface with ink, then the stamp is slammed against the paper, and the process is repeated (often several stamps onto paper before going back to the ink pad once it starts to fade).

              If there is overinking or underinking in whole or in part of the stamp, or an air or ink bubble or dust or any other such thing, the resulting impression won’t be perfect. They almost never are. In fact, had the impression been perfect without any things (or the apparent “TXE” that Birthers used to crow about), that would be suspicious.

              If you zoom in to the stamp image on the much higher-resolution AP copy from ABC’s website, you’ll see that this was in fact a case of an ink bubble that got formed in the loop of the “A” and popped as the stamp hit the paper. Very common, especially in signature stamps with large loops.

              And before you bring up the “TXE,” that one is also a bubble but in this case an air bubble that was rather small at the joining of the left vertical stroke of the “H” with its cross-stroke, and to a lesser extent a similar air bubble on the right stroke. Note that that whole section of the impression is blurred and somewhat smeared due to overinking.

              The stamp uses a sans-serif font from the Gothic family. A real sans-serif (that’s French for “without the tiny cross-strokes at the ends of major strokes” — the font you’re reading now is a serif font, but when you’re typing in a Reply here you’re seeing a Gothic-family sans-serif font somewhat similar to the one used on the stamp) “X” would, by definition, have no serifs. That apparent “X” is more like a slab-serif (that means really thick and bold serifs, like in the signage for a saloon in a Ye Olde Western town in a cowboy movie or TV show). Also, the widths are wrong for it to be an “X” but right for it to be an “H” — in most proportional fonts like both this one and the one used in the stamp, “H” is wider than “X”. Observe (ten of each):

              XXXXXXXXXX
              HHHHHHHHHH

          • William Rawle says:

            Here is the AP copy of the LFBC

            http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/ap_obama_certificate_dm_110427.pdf

            You can see the effects of the compression process. Focusing on Dr. Onaka’s stamp. On the high resolution AP copy the the third line of his stamp the last “H” in HEALTH. Notice how very faint it is. Yet in the PDF the last “H” is very dark the same as the other letters in HEALTH. Same thing with the last “A” in REGISTRAR. Now look at the “smile”. In the AP image it is discontinuous, doesn’t touch the loop of the “A”. But in the PDF the smile and loop of the “A” are continuous. The software filled in the gap.

            • I think someone posted a copy of another Hawaii birth certificate at Free Republic within the last several years which had the same “smiley face” stamp. The effect is largely the result of the quirk of the mind to see the human face in everything from clouds to a piece of toast. Doc C had an excellent article on the smiley face and why people see face patterns.

              http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/02/agency-and-patternicity/

              From the article here is a rotated version of the “O” in Onaka from the AP image:
              OCT Onaka signature
              So what happened to the “smiley face” Stevor? (No fair turning your head sideways to try to see it).

              When you are talking about details such as this it is pointless to go to the PDF when the higher resolution AP photo is available.

      • COMALite J says:

        Here’s the video from “trident3b” that I linked in the very first Reply posted here:

        Here are the instructions I gave to “trident3b” way back when and which I now give to you and to all others who are still Birthers. Do not Reply to me until you have actually done this. In fact, while I don’t set the rules for this forum, I hope Mr. Swann will agree that you should not post here again until you have made your own video showing you personally following these instructions, and showing the results. Embed that video into your Reply, just as you did the one above (which, by the way, I personally refuted back when it was posted, but my comments were deleted for reasons I explained before).

        You can actually see some of my comments in his video (which was made before my comments went “poof”), listing some of these instructions.

        You will need:

        • If you don’t already have them, obtain free demos from Adobe’s website of Adobe Acrobat Standard or Pro (not Reader!) version 6 or later (if version X or later including the new DC [none of which existed back then], see a slight modification of the instructions below) and Adobe Illustrator v10 or later (to view the results). Be sure to install them using Typical Install mode, not Minimal. Easiest way would be to do a trial of Adobe Creative Cloud and install Illustrator (currently CC 2015.2) and Acrobat Pro (currently DC [Document Cloud]).

        • Any document-capable scanner. Flatbed or sheet-fed will do. It has to be already connected to your computer, with TWAIN or other necessary driver installed, fully tested and ready to go.

        • Any known-genuine physlcal paper document in your possession, which has as many basic characteristics of the Obama Certificate (“long form”) of Live Birth as possible: consisting of black pre-printed form text, lines, and boxes, filled out preferably with a typewriter with some fields filled out by hand, signed in ink, emboss-sealed (yes, the .PDF in these videos does have a seal [it’s actually in one of the layers!], but it’s not easily visible to human eyes due to the way flat-bed scanners [including the scanning plate of a Xerox WorkCentre] work, which is by design since paper-fiber distortions such as wrinkles are usually not considered important), all overlaid on some sort of pre-printed solid-ink-color (as in green would have to be actual green ink, not a pseudo-green formed by a halftone pattern of cyan and yellow microdots) security-weave pattern. It need not have all of these features, but as many as possible would be nice, as every last one of the alleged “evidences of forgery” promoted by Birther “experts” to date can and will be utterly debunked within five minutes once you have all of this ready to go if the document has all of these features. Heck, a canceled check will do. Remember, “trident3b” used a DHL delivery receipt which isn’t at all similar to the Obama birth certificate, and he still got layers and such.

        Got all of the above? Here are the actual steps:

        1. Fire up Adobe Acrobat Standard or Pro v6 or later.
        2. Place document in scanner, ready to scan.
        3. From Acrobat, do “File ⇒ Create .PDF ⇒ From Scanner” (for Acrobat X and later, a flyout menu will appear at this point — select “Custom Scan” from it).
        4. A dialog will appear. Make sure the scanner with the document in it is selected in the drop-down menu at the top. Below that will be several options. In X or later, select that you’re creating a new .PDF rather than appending to an existing one. Below that will be Optimization options. One of those is a checkbox that defaults to being checked which says, “Recognize text (OCR)?” Uncheck that checkbox (since the White House .gov .PDF file has no OCR in it), but leave all other settings alone, at their defaults!
        5. Click [Ok] to begin scanning. Watch the status bar at the bottom as it says how it’s processing the scan (it may show several steps, but they may go too fast for you to see depending on how big the document is and how fast your computer is).
        6. The document will appear on your screen. At this point, do nothing else to it! Just save it somewhere. File ⇒ Save As…. Give it a name and place it in a location (your default Documents folder will do fine for this) that you can get back to.
        7. We’re done with Acrobat. Now to view the results. Fire up Adobe Illustrator v10 or later.
        8. Open the document you just saved out of Acrobat (Illustrator 10 and up default to using .PDF [instead of .EPS as was the case for earlier versions and can still be done if you specify it in later versions] as the basis of the actual document content in their .AI file format, so they have no problem reading such files, which is why I said to use one of those versions).
        9. Call up Illustrator’s “Layers” palette.
        10. Voila! Look at all the layers! Toggle them! Slide them around! Look at their parameters including the 24% and 48% scaling ratios, etc., just like in the Birther videos! And all of this happened in minutes during Step 5 above, with no human involvement in any sort of skullduggery, all with your own known genuine physical paper document!

        Don’t take my word for this, or trident3b’s. Try it yourself! On your own computer running your own Adobe software, with your own document in your own scanner,

        As was found out after these videos were made, the birth certificate was actually scanned by a Xerox WorkCentre 7655. These are high-end office all-in-ones that basically have their own computers built in, running software that can do the same thing that the Adobe Paper Capture subsystem built into Adobe Acrobat Standard or Pro v6 or later can do, with the same MRC and JBIG2 algorithms. They even connect to a network (wired or wireless) and can scan a document and Email it, but since Emails can.t be very big the document has to be highly optimized for this to work, which is what happened here.

        Again: don’t Reply back until you’ve tried it yourself!

  3. gsgs says:

    he should have mentioned that there are new insights, as soon as he realized it.
    E.g. comment on Woodman’s book
    I don’t think Zullo relied much on this, it wasn’t mentioned in their press conferences or interviews.
    No need to “apologize” to Obama, Obama’s group didn’t address/discuss Renshaw’s points,
    so he couldn’t claim of having pointed out the errors.
    It cannot be seen that Renshaw did this deliberately, but probably that at some point he
    kept it although he already knew better.

    • he should have mentioned that there are new insights, as soon as he realized it.
      E.g. comment on Woodman’s book

      Yes, but that would require behaving responsibly. He was a 16 year old Birther. That’s two strikes against him. Seriously, maybe he was not aware of Woodman’s work. However, there were plenty of comments left pointing out perfectly reasonable explanations not involving forgery for the anomalies he saw in Illustrator.

      don’t think Zullo relied much on this, it wasn’t mentioned in their press conferences or interviews.

      I don’t think Zullo mentioned Renshaw by name bit we know he relied on Corsi’s portfolio of so called experts which included people like Mara Zebest who made nearly identical claims about the layers. That was the main thrust of the first press conference.

      No need to “apologize” to Obama, Obama’s group didn’t address/discuss Renshaw’s points,
      so he couldn’t claim of having pointed out the errors.

      Renshaw publicly accused the President and the state of Hawaii of conspiring to forge a vital record. His claim was ridiculous. He now knows it. He should apologize.

      • gsgs says:

        apologize somehow suggests that he shouldn’t have done it in the first place.
        But he couldn’t know, it’s OK to speculate and examine. (IMO)
        Obama could have resolved this earlier, but he chose not to do so.

        • gsgs says:

          Zullo’s main argument, as I remember, what convinced him, was, when Corsi showed him
          how the signature and the layers could be moved around with a mouseclick.
          So, the layers – yes. Did Zullo ever mention the dublicate characters ? I only learned
          about it months later, don’t even remember it in Woodman’s book.
          (Renshaw was also before my time)
          Then in the 2nd press conference Zullo had the “African”, the old woman from Hawaii,
          what was in the 1st press conference , I forgot.

          • gsgs says:

            OK, the press conferences, I found it here:

            http://www.thefogbow.com/special-reports/second-arpaio-press-conference/
            http://www.thefogbow.com/special-reports/first-arpaio-press-conference/

            first press conference : Corsi,Zebest

            those were Zullo’s weapons of mass distraction

          • I think Zullo’s main points in the first press conference were the layers and the movable date stamp and signature. The duplicated character claims were out there early but I don’t remember if Zullo incorporated that claim or not. I believe the birth certificate numbering sequence was also part of the first press conference.

            As I recall the main points of the second one were “African” race and the pencil codes, Verna K. Lee comments through Corsi, and the draft registration card. All these have been debunked of course.

            • COMALite J says:

              Heh. Remember the Birthers making fun of the signature of “Verna K. L. Lee” drawn in such a way that her “V” looked like a “U” and the Birthers were all like “ROTFL0L at the forger sneaking in a ‘Ukelele’ reference as a hint!!1!”? Then it turns out that such a person actually does exist with that name, and the CCP’s alleged interview with her is now one of the Birther talking points!

        • rantalbott says:

          “apologize somehow suggests that he shouldn’t have done it in the first place.”
          Yeah, it does. And it’s spot on.
          He claimed to have expertise that he didn’t have.
          He didn’t just “speculate and examine”: he claimed to have “Official Proof” of a crime.
          And when people (including me) pointed out that he didn’t have his claimed expertise, and that what he claimed was “proof” was not, he ignored it. The only public action he took before his “retraction” was to add ads to his videos so he made money off them.
          So, yes, he owes Obama an apology for libelling him, and he owes his viewers and apology for feeding them BS.
          Obama did “resolve this earlier”. The birthers’ refusal to recognize that is your failure, not his.

  4. Why are these even an issue after Hawai’i verified that the birth certificate posted at the White House website is the one in Hawai’i’s records? This fascination with a picture of something is bizarre. Do these people understand that when they see a picture of Scarlett Johanssen it isn’t the real person in there but a representation?

  5. stevor says:

    So, who does o’bama work for? (besides the ELITES who got him to where he is now) You say he’s not a “servant of the people”?

    • COMALite J says:

      Obama, like any other President of the USA, works for the United States as a whole, not the people of the USA. We don’t vote for the President (or Vice President). We vote for Electors from our States pledged to vote for a specific candidate team for President & V.P. It’s called “the Electoral College.” Look it up.

      His job is to represent the good of the nation as a whole, not the will of the people. He’s the head of the Executive Branch, not a member of the Legislative Branch. Only the members of the House of Representatives actually represent the will of the people (of their districts).

  6. William Rawle says:

    RC – I saw this response by PVSYS to your post at BR.

    “To believe this, you’d have to believe that the compression software just magically happened to separate on things like dates, serial numbers, and rubber stamps, right? Whereas a forgery would actually have EXACTLY those things in the separate layers. But that was just a coincidence, right? (actually, such a coincidence is statistically impossible. The compression software isn’t trying to separate dates, serial numbers, and rubber stamps… it is just going for raw compression improvements… it doesn’t “know” or distinguish on such a basis… and would therefore NEVER separate SO MANY separate dates, serial numbers, and rubber stamps SO CLEANLY.) ALSO: another problem is the perfectly anti-aliased fonts (that are NOT pixilated… but instead… match computer screen anti-aliasing).. .side by side with bitmapped fonts–something that would ALSO never happen if a 1960s era document… on paper… were merely scanned. This document didn’t begin its life on paper.”

    He says – “and would therefore NEVER separate SO MANY separate dates, serial numbers, and rubber stamps SO CLEANLY.)” In fact the stamps are not separated cleanly the AUG -8 1961 stamp in box 22 is separated into two different text layers. On one text layer is “AUG-8 6 “, part of the box label “Date A” and the hyphen from the handwritten date in box 19b.

    I would point that out to him but I’m banned.

    • stevor says:

      I was once banned and now he allows me to post things. If you truly are banned, I wonder why I’m not (but maybe it’s because he can answer my questions and not yours)

      • William Rawle says:

        I think sometimes the bans gets dropped over time. I think he has banned me at least twice. I haven’t tried to use the intense debate account for awhile.

        • I was banned for about a year at BR but it appears that a few months ago some bans were lifted.

          Speaking of BR… I wonder that Stevor would have to say about the general behavior of Birthers at BR compared with commenters at places like my blog and Obama Conpsiracy Theories? Do you support the general meme at BR that the Sandy Hook massacre of young children didn’t happen?

    • I saw that comment and haven’t gotten around to replying yet. Thanks. I can incorporate your comments.

    • gsgs says:

      it’s written with different ink, the software is color-sensitive

  7. Man, you find hope for the future in the oddest places. Good on ya, Albert.

  8. Pete says:

    It’s a shame 1.5 million people saw the video, a great many of them before the retraction.
    But, it’s good that he’s finally retracted his very public errors of 5 years ago.

    • stevor says:

      now if o’bama can explain how he became a US citizen after his step-father, Lolo Soetoro, made him an Indonesian citizen, that’d be amusing.

      • COMALite J says:

        Oooh, nice attempt at red herring. Allow me to remind you of something: this thread is about the birth certificate and only the birth certificate, and in particular, Albert “orangegold1” Renshaw’s videos, the claims made therein, and his retraction thereof. Please stick to the subject.

        I’ve already thoroughly torn apart that “Lolo Sœtoro adopted Barry” claim in other forums, including citing the work of actual Indonesian historians about the status of the Indonesian laws regarding adoption and requirements for public schooling at the time of Obama’s childhood there, written and published back then. In a real physical book with real physical ink on real physical paper. I won’t go into more detail here because it would be a threadjack (unless Reality Check himself gives permission — this is his playground and he sets the rules).

        By trying to change the subject to something else, are you conceding defeat on the birth certificate issue? I think we can assume such a concession because otherwise you woudn’t’ve tried to change the subject. Do you have anything else to offer on the subject of the birth certificate and only the birth certificate? If not, then your concession of complete and utter defeat on this matter is accepted.

        Are you an honest person? Intellectually honest? If so, and if you do indeed state or imply concession of defeat on the matter of the birth certificate, do you hereby promise to never again bring it up anywhere, anytime, to anyone, for any reason (other than to show how people such as you could be so easily and thoroughly deceived), on any forum anywhere after the time you read this, or even in in-person conversations, ever again? Because that’s what an intellectually honest person does once s/he realizes that s/he was wrong or mistaken about something. Intellectually honest people don’t keep on using arguments that have been disproven.

        • stevor says:

          o’bama is a FRAUD and I DO NOT concede defeat as to whether that the “birth certificate” is truthful as to the data on it.

          • COMALite J says:

            Lemme rephrase: do you concede defeat on the technical aspects of the birth certificate shown by Birther alleged “experts” and in particular then-16-year-old Albert “orangegold1” Renshaw?

            The data on the birth certificate is another matter entirely. I would consider it a threadjack to go further into that, but if Mr. Swann aka Reality Check agrees and gives permission, I’ll be happy to rip that to shreds for you too, just as Reality Check and others and I have done for each and every objection you’ve brought up here since this article went live.

            Now let me ask you something; you still insist that Obama is a fraud, even though every piece of “evidence” (including wildly off-topic ones such as the alleged millions supposedly spent to hide his records [actually post-campaign legal expenses that were well within the normal range for a presidential campaign in his day and age]) you’ve attempted to show has been very thoroughly discredited here.

            Why do you continue to insist that he’s a fraud? Why is it so important for you to continue believe that, in the face of all evidence to the contrary and the complete collapse of each and every piece of “evidence” that you and all other Birthers have ever attempted to present? Your use of UPPERCASE implies an emotional basis for this, not logic or reason or rationality, on your part. Why are you so emotionally invested in believing that Obama is a fraud?

            • stevor says:

              o’bama said he would “fundamentally change” the USA. For those who read between the lines, they see that means “destroy the USA so it becomes a third world country, which would only be “fair” (in is mind). He HATES the USA, which makes him a FRAUD as the President who is supposed to be for the country. He also told how he was a constitutional professor when he was just a LECTURER (more FRAUD)!
              And your “analysis” of the use of UPPER CASE shows you’re a NUT!

              • COMALite J says:

                Ah, yes, “read[ing] between the lines.” In other words, you claim telepathy, to know what Obama is thinking by the words he uses. Sorry, but your name is “stevor,” not “Professor Charles Xavier.”

                Here’s what Obama actually said in Columbia, MO, in late October, 2008:

                Now, Mizzou, I just have two words for you tonight: five days. Five days. After decades of broken politics in Washington, and eight years of failed policies from George W. Bush, and 21 months of a campaign that’s taken us from the rocky coast of Maine to the sunshine of California, we are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.

                In five days, you can turn the page on policies that put greed and irresponsibility on Wall Street before the hard work and sacrifice of folks on Main Street. In five days, you can choose policies that invest in our middle class, and create new jobs, and grow this economy, so that everyone has a chance to succeed, not just the CEO, but the secretary and janitor, not just the factory owner, but the men and women on the factory floor.

                The “fundamental[ly] transform[ation]” he was speaking of was in fixing the economy, which, at the time, was in the throes of the second-worst recession ever thanks to the near-collapse which happened under Bush.

                It was typical political pandering and grandstanding, not a promise to turn the USA into something it isn’t (for one thing, this being October, he couldn’t even have started to do anything along those lines even if he wanted to until January 20, 2009 [Inauguration Day] and even the election was more than five days away). People have latched onto the words “fundamentally transform[ing] the United States of America” out of context as some sinister plot. That’s like taking the four-word clause “there is no God” by itself as found a full dozen times in the KJV Bible and using that to claim that the Bible teaches atheism.

                As for Obama’s status as a professor, apparently you don’t know this, but a “lecturer” is a low level of professor. It’s like the four main ranks of “general” in the U.S. Army, Marines, and Air Force, or the “admiral” equivalents in the Navy, Coast Guard, etc. A one-star general is called a “Brigadier General” or simply “Brigadier” for short (Navy equivalent is Rear Admiral [Lower Half]). A two-star general is called a “Major General” (“Rear Admiral”). A three-star general is called a “Lieutenant General” (“Vice Admiral”). Only a four-star general is simply called “General” (“Admiral”). But they are all ranks of general (or admiral). When any of them are addressed, it is acceptable and even proper to refer to them as “General Surname” or “Admiral Lastname.” Yet only the four-star is actually a just-plain General or Admiral.

                So it is in academic faculty: from low to high rank, you have Instructor, Lecturer, Assistant Professor, and Professor. Yet all of them are professors, all are faculty, and all are addressed as “Professor Surname” by students and even other faculty. Nobody in a university would call someone “Lecturer Lastname” or “Instructor Surname.” So, Obama was well within his rights to refer to himself as a Constitutional Law Professor.

                None of those are fraud. “Fraud” is a specific word with a specific meaning. Do I need to invoke Inigo Montoya?

                These are just more examples of the intense double standard you have against Obama You believe everything bad about him from the flimsiest of sources (or even, in your own words, by your own admission, “read[ing] between the lines”). Yet I and others here had to type paragraph after paragraph and show photo after photo and video after video and lead you by the hand through experiments to perform to demonstrate that the birth certificate was not deliberately altered (at least not after scanning), shooting down every piece of alleged “evidence” you could find, and you only grudgingly accepted those after repeated demonstrations.

                You believe the worst of Obama automatically, without question. You refuse to believe any evidence that would exonerate or support Obama until you have absolutely no other choice.

                Double. Standard.

                Now, I ask you again: why the double standard? Why is it so important for you that Obama be a fraud out to destroy the USA? Why are you so emotionally invested in this?

                I have several suspicions as to why, but I want to hear it from you. Be honest, now. Answer the question. Do nothing else in your next Reply but answer those questions. Do not bring up any more off-topic red herrings. If you post here again, in Reply to me or anyone else, without answering those questions and/or attempting to introduce any more off-topic red herrings, that will be taken as a concession of complete and utter defeat on behalf of your entire worldview.

                • stevor says:

                  I didn’t BOTHER to read your GARBAGE but the guy you LOVE (o’bama) just went to Japan to apologize to the Japanese on MEMORIAL DAY, a day when OUR SOLDIERS are supposed to be remembered, INSTEAD of going to Pearl Harbor. This site seems to be the home base for people who ought to be tried for TREASON with o’bama!

              • COMALite J says:

                I didn’t BOTHER to read your GARBAGE…

                Too bad for you. If you had, you would’ve seen the warning I put at the end of it as to what would happen if you Replied here either without answering the questions I asked of you, or posting yet another off-topic red herring attempt. You did both and it only took one of those. Thank you. Your concession of complete and utter defeat on behalf of your entire worldview is hereby accepted. You lose. Your cause loses.

                …but the guy you LOVE (o’bama) just went to Japan to apologize to the Japanese on MEMORIAL DAY, a day when OUR SOLDIERS are supposed to be remembered, INSTEAD of going to Pearl Harbor.

                And there’s the off-topic red herring. I’ll go ahead and bite:

                • First off, Memorial Day isn’t officially celebrated until tomorrow as I type this. Actually, the original Memorial Day would be on Tuesday. Obama (note correct spelling of his name — like it or not, he is the rightfully elected [twice] and inaugurated [twice] President of the USA, and as your side was saying back during the Bush Administration, “if you can’t respect the man, at least respect the office” — whatever happened to that? I haven’t seen nor heard anyone from your side mention that after, oh, January 20, 2009, or thereabouts) went there on Friday, May 27, over ½ a week before Memorial Day.

                • Secondly, click here for the full transcript of Obama’s speech in Hiroshima. Do a [Ctrtl]+[F]ind to find all occurrences of the word “apologize” or “apologies” or “apology” or anything else beginning with “apolo*,” or any other word implying an apology such as “sorry.” Not Found.

                Don’t believe the New York Times? There are lots of other sources as well. Don’t believe those? How about complete and unedited video of his speech and the entire ceremony?Watch with your own eyeballs and listen with your own eardrums. He. Did. Not. Apologize. At all. Period.

                But thanks for posting this. It demonstrates the other big thing I wrote in the “GARBAGE” that you didn’t read: that you have a double standard when it comes to Obama. You believed without question that Obama apologized to Japan on Memorial Day, even though basic common sense would tell you that Memorial Day hasn’t happened yet this year, and even though a few seconds on Google would’ve led you to the same transcripts and videos that I found so that you could verify for yourself.

                Do you consider yourself a Christian? Because telling lies about people, accusing them of serious crimes such as “TREASON” (which has a specific definition in the U.S. Constitution: Article III §3 to be precise), constitutes Bearing False Witness, which is one of the Big Ten Sins. It’s not merely lying. It’s accusing someone of something that they didn’t do, claiming to have evidence that you do not have, etc.

            • Please do. I don’t think it would be a threadjack to discuss the data.

              • Northland10 says:

                Coma will have you and I (and others) listening but not poor Stevor. His one and only piece of data is “Obama is fraud.”

                Oh, and btw Stevor, guess who was laying a wreath on the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier today, Memorial Day.

                Here, at Arlington, the deafening sounds of combat have given way to the silence of these sacred hills. The chaos and confusion of battle has yielded to perfect, precise rows of peace. The Americans who rest here, and their families — the best of us, those from whom we asked everything — ask of us today only one thing in return: that we remember them.

                Less than one percent of our nation wears the uniform, and so few Americans sees this patriotism with their own eyes or knows someone who exemplifies it. But every day, there are American families who pray for the sound of a familiar voice when the phone rings. For the sound of a loved one’s letter or email arriving. More than one million times in our history, it didn’t come. And instead, a car pulled up to the house. And there was a knock on the front door. And the sounds of Taps floated through a cemetery’s trees.

                For us, the living — those of us who still have a voice — it is our responsibility, our obligation, to fill that silence with our love and our support and our gratitude — and not just with our words, but with our actions. For truly remembering, and truly honoring these fallen Americans means being there for their parents, and their spouses, and their children — like the boys and girls here today, wearing red shirts and bearing photos of the fallen. Your moms and dads would be so proud of you. And we are, too.

                Truly remembering means that after our fallen heroes gave everything to get their battle buddies home, we have to make sure our veterans get everything that they have earned, from good health care to a good job. And we have to do better; our work is never done. We have to be there not only when we need them, but when they need us.

                https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/05/30/remarks-president-memorial-day-2016

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