Moderated Obama birth certificate CT / SSN CT / Birther discussion

[Cleon]

That the proof of "expertise" is in the pudding -- not in course study or degrees.

Nobody said anything about "course study or degrees." So that's a strawman on your part.

 

[Robert Prey]

Going on about Govenor Ambercrombie are we? http://www.thefogbow.com/special-reports/abercrombie/

And your point is??????

 

[A'isha]

That the proof of "expertise" is in the pudding -- not in course study or degrees.

And Mara Zebest fails on both counts.

 

[000063]

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.

I think he was trying to avoid responding to ANTPogo's actual point by making a "witty" one-liner. Prey seems to have a habit of this.

 

[Ranb]

Funny how suddenly those rules suddenly didn't apply when the Whitehouse released 4 alleged certified copies.

It must be hard to live a life like yours. The rest of us can type words like "hawaii birth records law" into a search engine like bing and get this link. http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/obama.html From there you find several good links and this interesting tidbit.

The State’s public records law, the Uniform Information Practices Act (Modified) (“UIPA”), found at chapter 92F, Hawaii Revised Statutes (“HRS”) requires that all government records be open to public inspection unless access is restricted or closed by law.

State law prohibits the DOH from disclosing any vital statistics records or information contained in such records unless the requestor has a direct and tangible interest in the record, or as otherwise allowed by statute or administrative rule. See HRS §338-18. Direct and tangible interest is determined by HRS §338-18(b).

Search for hrs338-18 and we can get this link. http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0018.htm

b) The department shall not permit inspection of public health statistics records, or issue a certified copy of any such record or part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant has a direct and tangible interest in the record. The following persons shall be considered to have a direct and tangible interest in a public health statistics record:

(1) The registrant;
(2) The spouse of the registrant;
(3) A parent of the registrant;
(4) A descendant of the registrant;
(5) A person having a common ancestor with the registrant;
(6) A legal guardian of the registrant;
(7) A person or agency acting on behalf of the registrant;
(8) A personal representative of the registrant's estate;
(9) A person whose right to inspect or obtain a certified copy of the record is established by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction;
(10) Adoptive parents who have filed a petition for adoption and who need to determine the death of one or more of the prospective adopted child's natural or legal parents;
(11) A person who needs to determine the marital status of a former spouse in order to determine the payment of alimony;
(12) A person who needs to determine the death of a nonrelated co-owner of property purchased under a joint tenancy agreement; and
(13) A person who needs a death certificate for the determination of payments under a credit insurance policy.

See how easy that was?

Ranb

ETA; I have posted this info on other forums in the past. I think I might even have one of these links in this thread from a few years ago.

 

[elbe]

Everything hinges on a scanned copy of a document who's contents the issuing state verified. A document that the president was not required to produce. The people who saw and handled the certified copy that was the source of the scan? Clearly lying. The state of Hawaii who confirmed it's contents? Clearly lying. Anyone who provides any evidence that doesn't support the birthers? Clearly lying. Only people who agree with birthers can be trusted!

 

[Cleon]

I think he was trying to avoid responding to ANTPogo's actual point by making a "witty" one-liner. Prey seems to have a habit of this.

Baloney.

 

[JayUtah]

One question at at time, please.

No. Answer all my points.

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.

Moving goalposts. The birth certificate provided by Hawaii is valid for the purpose it was created for. It has been provided and authenticated by the issuing agency and accepted by federal election authorities. Full faith and credit prevents any further challenge.

Sorry, Birthers don't get to make up new rules as they go.

 

[Tomtomkent]

That the proof of "expertise" is in the pudding -- not in course study or degrees.

Yes. And you have failed to show either Mr Gates or Mr Jobs has any relevant experience or knowledge in Computer Forensics.

 

[JayUtah]

That the proof of "expertise" is in the pudding -- not in course study or degrees.

Nobody mentioned either of those things. You were asked by what criteria you consider Mara Zebest an expert in the relevant field. You have not answered except in this roundabout way. If you consider only practical experience to be valid in establishing expertise, then I will require verifiable evidence of Zebest's prior professional practice in the forensic analysis of documents and the detection of forgery in digital documents.

 

[A'isha]

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.

It proves the document is authentic.

"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."

She's pretty much dead wrong here.

"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..."

She's even more wrong here. The document started as a paper copy (you can read the correspondence from the head of the Hawaii State Department of Health regarding the copying of the birth certificate from state records to security paper that were then certified by the state registrar to deliver to Obama here). The paper copy was then shown to reporters at the press conference who got to handle it and feel the raised seal (and one even snapped a picture of it).

(Pictured: the physical paper document Mara Zebest says doesn't exist)

Then it was scanned in to PDF using a Macintosh computer - as the metadata on the PDF itself says.

That Zebest doesn't even have the knowledge and expertise to figure that out speaks volumes about her utter lack of credibility.

 

[Border Reiver]

Funny how suddenly those rules suddenly didn't apply when the Whitehouse released 4 alleged certified copies.

See this is where you don't understand how this works - President Obama can do whatever he likes with his own information.

State officials cannot release other people's personal information (except as defined by law).

Look at this as property right. You can dispose of your property in any legal manner you wish. The state registrar can't do the same thing with your property except in certain legally defined circumstances.

 

[davefoc]

This is a link to a video of a guy creating a pdf file that contains different layers. He did it with a simple set up of the pdf file creation software that he was using.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHZQ_SrEiOc

He didn't use the software that was used to create the Obama birth certificate pdf file, but it is clear that the generation of bit masks is an automated process of some software that creates pdf files if the appropriate options are selected.

As an aside, the claims that somehow the fact that the pdf file that the Obama birth certificate contained bit masks is evidence that it is a forged document is one of the stupidest claims to be made in any of the various CT discussions I've seen. It certainly rivals the stupidity put forth in some of the 9-11 posts and that was a threshold that I didn't think could be surpassed.

I prefer a broad definition of the word, evidence, such that anything that provides even slight support for a proposition qualifies as evidence. In this case, the Zebest claims don't approach the probative value that would be required for their characterization as evidence even using a broad definition of the word. The Zebest claims are just stupid nonsense and this stupid nonsense is not evidence of anything except that bizarrely gullible people exist and people that are willing to pander to bizarrely gullible people exist.

 

[JayUtah]

Which does not prove a thing.

On the contrary it proves the only thing that matters: that Hawaii recognizes the birth certificate copies in circulation as authentic faithful copies of their records for the purpose of identifying the President's birth place. The rest is just sour grapes.

Now on to Zebest:

"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.'"

Anomaly hunting, no different than every other conspiracy theory that purports some kind of expert analysis. The pseudo-expert states categorically what properties an authentic example of the evidence in hand should exhibit, observes departures from that standard, and then attributes the discrepancy by default to whatever accusation is appropriate to the conspiracy theory.

What constitutes the proper "attributes of optimization" is a matter of expert knowledge. If the analyst doesn't have proper and complete knowledge, then stumping him doesn't necessarily mean there's something wrong with the data. Within hours of Zebest's statements, experts were able to refute her expectations with counterexamples. If the "expert" can be shown not to know what she's talking about, then her statements of expectation are worthless as a yardstick.

"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?"

This is the classic pseudo-expert line of reasoning: "I don't understand what's happening here, and I'm an 'expert,' therefore we have to attribute the observations to some sort of hanky panky." Zebest is not an expert in PDFs or the tools used to manipulate them. Those who are appropriate experts are answering the questions, not asking them as Zebest is.

"A legitimate file would not contain this many problems—"

This opinion is only useful as evidence if it comes from an expert. In this case it is not coming from an expert, so it doesn't contribute to a conclusion of forgery. And in the case of layers, Zebest is simply wrong. She wrongly assumes a PDF arising from a single scan should have only one layer because that's what the layman would assume after learning (in basic terms) that some electronic document formats have layers.

"...the more that is learned about the file, the more problematic the file becomes."

What Zebest refers to as "problems" are simply things she can't explain in terms of her personal knowledge of electronic document formats or the programmatic tools used to operate on them. She insinuates that because she's an expert, these mysteries are legitimate problems with the evidence rather than gaps in her understanding. Zebest's line of reasoning is so rigidly dependent on her professed expertise alone that it borders on professionally offensive. Thus to say that she can be a non-expert, yet her observations, conclusions, and inferences ought still to stand, is ludicrous.

"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..."

Meaningless rhetoric. This is not evidence, but simply her conclusion stated in a needlessly barbed and unprofessional way. It's clear Zebest has neither read nor written a customary forensic analysis report. What does she think the D in PDF stands for?

Mara Zebest

...not an expert in the forensic examination of documents or the forensic detection of forgery. No experience whatsoever. Not a subject-matter expert in the PDF file format or the tools most commonly used to create and manipulate them. Her opinion carries no more weight than that of a layman.

What is needed is...

No, we're not going to keep changing the rules until you win.

 

[Ladewig]

On the contrary it proves the only thing that matters: that Hawaii recognizes the birth certificate copies in circulation as authentic faithful copies of their records for the purpose of identifying the President's birth place.

A useful and comprehensive post.

I suggest that when the next birther arrives, we direct him to post #6574 whenever the topic of PDF layers arises.


Actually, it would be useful if someone found good responses to every topic in this thread and constructed a post that lists the topics by post number. That list could be added to every new page as the thread grows.

 

[Travis]

Because everybody's got to to be someplace.

And what is a more likely place for a pregnant teenager to be? Where she is going to school and has a place to live or an African colony?

 

[Alferd_Packer]

You know, I never though i'd admit it, but Maybe there is something to this.

I watched this video and it all seems so clear to me now.

sorry, but this topic has gotten a bit stale lately

 

[Regnad Kcin]

That the proof of "expertise" is in the pudding -- not in course study or degrees.

You never fail to fail, do you?

 

[Ladewig]

And what is a more likely place for a pregnant teenager to be? Where she is going to school and has a place to live or an African colony?

An African country that just emerged from a race-based civil war and did not yet accept mixed race couples. An African country that is 12 times zones away. An African country that would have required 20-26 hours of travel time to get to. (I'll let other posters decide which would be more uncomfortable: traveling while 9-months pregnant or traveling with an infant several days old.)

So, she left Hawaii, a place with first world hospitals and probably the only U.S. state that was at least somewhat tolerant of mixed race couples, to go to a point that was not the exact geographic antipode, but was pretty close to it.

..............................​

Here's my take on the whole thing. Even if getting elected president while not being a U.S. citizen is a crime, I think that the statute of limitations should be three years. If no one catches you in three years, you get to keep on serving.

 

[Travis]

I wonder if history would condemn us if we actually kicked someone out of the Presidency because of where he lived as an infant?