Moderated Obama birth certificate CT / SSN CT / Birther discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
Robert Prey said:
"Vital Records"???? But that could be a Declaration of Birth and not a Birth Certificate. Whatever she claims, it strains credulity why such records could not even be viewed by the Governor.
Click to expand...


The Governor cannot view those records becasue he is not entitled to do so by law:

Revised Statutes of Hawaii, Chapter 92F

And since you're unlikely to actually read the complete statute:

"§92F-19 Limitations on disclosure of government records to other agencies. (a) No agency may disclose or authorize disclosure of government records to any other agency unless the disclosure is:

(1) Necessary for the performance of the requesting agency's duties and functions and is also:

(A) Compatible with the purpose for which the information was collected or obtained; or

(B) Consistent with the conditions or reasonable expectations of use and disclosure under which the information was provided;"


With the appropriate parts highlighted to show why the governor cannot simply do some light reading in those records - his/her duties do NOT include reviewing, handling, etc birth records. That is the job of the registrar, and that person has already done so, verifying that the POTUS was born in Hawaii. Your belief that it is not so is wrong, and if ever accepted would lead to ANY state official going to any state record to use for whatever purpose they wish - say, letting people know that on such and such a date you were treated for a social disease.
 
Robert Prey said:
Funny how all these allegedly authentic BC copes suddenly are available, when they woudn't allow Gov. Ambercrombie to even view one.
Click to expand...

That has nothing to do with my post. Please address the argument I actually made. I will make it again, in question form. I will not accept "One question at a time" as an answer, since you've already seen the post and chosen not to address it.

1. You amended your post to emphasize Zebest's claims to expertise. Why did you do that if her expertise is irrelevant?

2. It has happened several times that you change your story about expert testimony. When you believe the expert is legitimate, you aregue (correctly) that the expertise validates the expert opinion as evidence. When the witness fails voir dire, you then say that the opinion testimony somehow still stands on its own, independently of the formerly expert attestation. How can this be?

3. Zebest's claim about a scanned PDF producing only one layer has been refuted. You have now moved the goalposts. Why have you made a new claim without conceding your previous error?

4. The PDF was not then, is not now, nor ever has been in the chain of evidence substantiating Obama's claim to be eligible to U.S. President. Why is this Birther line of questioning even relevant anymore?

5. The information contained in all copies, as well as the paper copy used to certify Obama's eligibility, have been declared authentic by the appropriate Hawaii state authority. You have not explained how any further challenge -- including accusations of forgery -- avoids a lack of standing based on Full Faith and Credit. Please do so now.

6. Questions regarding the governor's access to the birth certificate are irrelevant distraction. The governor does not need to see it in order for the state to certify it as authentic.

Please address these material points rather than quoting my entire post and then offering only pointless distraction.
 
Border Reiver said:
The Governor cannot view those records becasue he is not entitled to do so by law:

Revised Statutes of Hawaii, Chapter 92F

And since you're unlikely to actually read the complete statute:

"§92F-19 Limitations on disclosure of government records to other agencies. (a) No agency may disclose or authorize disclosure of government records to any other agency unless the disclosure is:

(1) Necessary for the performance of the requesting agency's duties and functions and is also:

(A) Compatible with the purpose for which the information was collected or obtained; or

(B) Consistent with the conditions or reasonable expectations of use and disclosure under which the information was provided;"


With the appropriate parts highlighted to show why the governor cannot simply do some light reading in those records - his/her duties do NOT include reviewing, handling, etc birth records. That is the job of the registrar, and that person has already done so, verifying that the POTUS was born in Hawaii. Your belief that it is not so is wrong, and if ever accepted would lead to ANY state official going to any state record to use for whatever purpose they wish - say, letting people know that on such and such a date you were treated for a social disease.
Click to expand...

Funny how suddenly those rules suddenly didn't apply when the Whitehouse released 4 alleged certified copies.
 
Robert Prey said:
Define 'Expert".
Click to expand...

You have seen my definition of expert, which is abstracted from the criteria used in courts. You dismissed it as my "irrelevant opinion." You were then asked to produce your own, presumably better, definition. You refused to do so. You've been asked several times subsequently to do so, and you have ignored the question several times.

You amended your post to claim Mara Zebest was a relevant expert. Therefore you have the onus to produce the criteria by which you have made that determination. Please do so.
 
JayUtah said:
The information contained in all copies, as well as the paper copy used to certify Obama's eligibility, have been declared authentic by the appropriate Hawaii state authority. You have not explained how any further challenge -- including accusations of forgery -- avoids a lack of standing based on Full Faith and Credit. Please do so now.
Click to expand...

One question at at time, please. A declaration that the "information" is authentic, is not the same as a verified authentic copy of the original BC which by all indications does not exist and has never existed.
 
Robert Prey said:
Funny how suddenly those rules suddenly didn't apply when the Whitehouse released 4 alleged certified copies.
Click to expand...

The copies were requested by Barack Obama. The subject of the record has the right to obtain certified copies. Once obtained, the subject of those copies can do whatever he likes with them, including release them to the public.

The same law that allows Barack Obama as the subject of a record to obtain a copy of the record, prevents other people -- including the governor of the state acting in his official capacity -- from obtaining it. The law is right there in black and white. Your inability or unwillingness to read it does not change the facts.
 
Robert Prey said:
Funny how suddenly those rules suddenly didn't apply when the Whitehouse released 4 alleged certified copies.
Click to expand...

Yeah funny the guy who is the subject of the certificate, and has a right to access it, can choose to make it public....

That pesky double standard!
 
ANTPogo said:
Someone who, unlike Mara Zebest, has training and experience in forensic computer and document analysis.
Click to expand...

That would leave out dropouts like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates. So much for the expertise definition of computer forensic "experts."
 
Robert Prey said:
That would leave out dropouts like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates. So much for the expertise definition of computer forensic "experts."
Click to expand...

Please show any evidence that Gates or Jobs had experience or even an interest in a forensic field.

Or did you just think "Computers" was the same thing as Computer Forensics?
 
Robert Prey said:
That would leave out dropouts like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates. So much for the expertise definition of computer forensic "experts."
Click to expand...

That's correct. Neither Steve Jobs nor Bill Gates are/were experts in computer forensics. They didn't claim to be, nor did they work in the field of computer forensics.

So I'm not sure what point you think you're making here.
 
davefoc said:
Link to the Golding article:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/265767/pdf-layers-obamas-birth-certificate-nathan-goulding

Link to a discussion of PDF layers in a blog:
http://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/428-After-Birth.html

Overview:
Software that creates PDF files from scans can be set up in various ways, some of which lead to PDF files where image information is stored in layers. There were nine layers in the PDF file of the Obama birth certificate. The first layer was a JPEG image and the eight other layers were bit masks. The purpose of the bit masks is to isolate detail that is in a particular color (in this case black) so as to allow the masked area to be rendered without any JPEG distortion. The blog entry linked to above contains images of all the layers of the birth certificate PDF.

Based on meta data contained within the file the software used to generate the PDF file was: "Mac OS X 10.6.7 Quartz PDFContext".

There is no indication of fraud in the way the PDF file was created (and claims to the contrary look bizarrely stupid to me).
Click to expand...

From the source:

"First, digital document analysis can detect manipulation, but it cannot determine whether the original subject is authentic. The authenticity can only be determined by the State of Hawaii, and they already said that it is authentic."

Which does not prove a thing.

* * *

"An accumulated understanding into all the attributes of
optimization compared with all the attributes of Obama’s PDF
file makes it increasingly impossible to defend Obama’s file as
“normal.” Once it becomes clear that the colors in the first eight
layers are an applied choice, one does have to wonder why the
particular color choices were made. For example, why choose a
color for date text that differs from other text layers? But the more
important and significant question still remains: Why do these file
attributes even exist at all? A legitimate file would not contain this
many problems—the more that is learned about the file, the more
problematic the file becomes."


"Obama’s PDF file can no longer be referred to as a “document,” since
that term implies it existed and started in paper form. Obama’s PDF
must be referred to as a “digital file” because that is all it has ever
been—manufactured and compiled digitally—and only exists as a
“document” when the user goes to the File menu and clicks the
Print option..."

Mara Zebest

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/assets/Obama_LFBC_Report_MaraZebest_2012-07-04.pdf


What is needed is a replication of the layered evidence produced by an automated process that would match this analysis of the layers explained by manual manipulation in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7s9StxsFllY
 
Last edited:
So, Robert... not even one question?

And a softball one at that. Obstructing communication is not a good way to convince people that you know what you're talking about.
 
Cleon said:
That's correct. Neither Steve Jobs nor Bill Gates are/were experts in computer forensics. They didn't claim to be, nor did they work in the field of computer forensics.

So I'm not sure what point you think you're making here.
Click to expand...

That the proof of "expertise" is in the pudding -- not in course study or degrees.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom