Moderated Obama birth certificate CT / SSN CT / Birther discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ranb said:
Yes, my point was that it is easy to understand this stuff when you take a little time to read the statutes. See how easy that was?

Border Reiver was referring to releasing documents to other agencies, not releasing them to people who are allowed to possess them. It seems he was right in sugggesting that you could not be bothered to read the statute. I showed you the way and you claimed it was a rabbit path. Living in denial has to be rough at times isn't it?

Just in case you missed it, my point is "see how easy that was?". It was a yes or no question.

Ranb
Click to expand...

Summary of the HIPAA Privacy Rule

http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/summary/index.html

Permitted Uses and Disclosures

"Permitted Uses and Disclosures. A covered entity is permitted, but not required, to use and disclose protected health information, without an individual’s authorization,"

"Law Enforcement Purposes. Covered entities may disclose protected health information to law enforcement officials for law enforcement purposes"
 
ANTPogo said:
This one is my favorite, because unlike everyone else in this list, Zatkovich is indeed a forensic document expert. WND commissioned an analysis from him, and while they mentioned brief quotes from Zatkovich in an article, they then strangely decided not to actually publish it (and birther sites, like the one Robert Prey cut and pasted this list from, only quote selectively from it).

Why's that? Well, because if you read Zatkovich's full report (which he made available himself from his company's website), you'll see he doesn't believe the PDF is a forgery at all, and Zatkovich himself said when providing the report to a requester, "Here is a copy of the full Obama birth certificate report which I submitted to World Net Daily. I believe it is fairly objective, and don’t believe WND’s excerpt was quite accurate."

Here's what he actually said about the PDF:



!
Click to expand...

Predictable ad homimens. But just citing one example of your own selective ediiting bias, the full last paragraph of Zakovitch includes the part you felt was not necessary to include (in bolded type):

"The PDF document was then modified in some fashion (e.g. layers, white halo).
All of the modifications to the PDF document that can be identified are consistent with someone
enhancing the legibility of the document.**It is possible that in addition to enhancing the legibility of the
document that the content of the document was also changed.**There is no specific evidence of how or
why that content would have been changed, but the evidence clearly indicates that the document was
changed."
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
Based on what AntPogo and Jay Utah have been posting, one might think that the only image expert put forth by birthers is Mara Zebest who has been referred to since she is Sherff Joe's prime expert. But that is not the case. In fact there are many other highly qualified exerts that come to the same conclusion of Fraud in the COLB document and state their reasons which are essentially consistent with the analysis of Mara Zebest:


From:

OBAMA ~ THE EVIDENCE VAULT
EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT OBAMA'S FAKE BIRTH CERTIFICATE.

http://www.evidencevault.blogspot.com/


OBAMA'S FAKE BIRTH CERTIFICATE ~ THE EVIDENCE

Joseph M. Newcomer,

who exposed the "Killian documents" as fraudulent in 2004, has said that the Obama birth certificate released by the White House on April 27 of 2011 is a "highly suspicious" document that deserves professional forensic examination.

"There are artifacts in the birth certificate document that are strongly suggestive of a forgery. The document screams out that something is wrong." After explaining the problems, Newcomber concluded, "If I saw these differences in a document I was examining, it would scream out at me that the document was a 'cut-and-paste' fraud."

Newcomber was instrumental in providing expert analysis on the “Bush National Guard document scandal” in which documents were fabricated – faked – to try to bring down the Bush presidency. Result? The producer of the segment was fired from CBS News and long-running anchor Dan Rather, a hard-core activist democrat, who ran with the story, according to the CEO of CBS


NEWCOMER'S CONCLUSION: OBAMA'S LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE IS ALMOST CERTAINLY A FAKE.[/I]


EXPERT ~ PAUL IREY

Retired, 50-year typesetting expert veteran Paul Irey, who started and owned Bergan Graphics in Fort Lee, N.J., which at its height had 60 employees working three round-the-clock shifts and had prestige clients that included Montgomery Ward and Acme Markets, has identified DIFFERENT TYPE STYLES in the same words on the document, a smoking gun of evidence.


"My analysis proves beyond a doubt that it would be impossible for the different letters that appear in the Obama birth certificate to have been typed by one typewriter," Irey told World Net Daily.

"Typewriters in 1961 could not change the size and shape of a letter on the fly like that," he said. "This document is definitely a forgery."


Scanner-expert Doug Vogt,

an international expert on scanners and document-imaging software, and who has owned Archive Index Systems Inc. - since 1993, in Bellevue, Wash., a company that sells a wide variety of document scanners worldwide and develops document imaging software – and who before that owned Nova Typesetting for 11 years, has filed a criminal charge with the FBI, charging that the long-form birth certificate released by the White House is criminally fraudulent.

“…this form is a created forgery."

Vogt produced a long and compelling graphic analysis that lays to waste the believability of the Obama long form birth certificate. It can be read in total here http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=305705

EXPERT ~ GARY POYSSICK

Gary Poyssick has been involved in the creation and development of Adobe graphics software since the beginning. Adobe – with Poyssick’s help - created “Photoshop”, a program so extensively used that the term photoshop has come into the lexicon of common language for digital manipulation such as the brand “Xerox” for decades was used generically to reference photocopying.

Conclusion

The document is a forgery. It was created from some number – more than one – original birth certificates from Hawaii. In an attempt to hide the fact that it was digitally created, old letters from a typed document were found and placed on top of the original scanned document.

* * *

EXPERT ~ Ivan Zatkovich

Ivan Zatkovich has 28 years experience in computer science and document management and for more than 10 years has been an expert witness providing testimony in federal court in both criminal and civil litigation. His company, Tampa-based eComp Consultants, which consults on intellectual property for telecommunications, web publishing and ecommerce and has provided services for corporations such as McGraw-Hill, Houghton-Mifflin, Citicorp and Amazon.com.
Zatkovich says there are serious problems with the birth certificate.
"When a paper document is scanned on a scanner and saved as a PDF file it normally contains only a single layer of graphical information. The PDF that appears on the White House website however, contains multiple layers of graphic information. Multiple layers usually appear in a document like this when it is being edited or modified in some fashion.
"It is possible to take a single layer PDF and inadvertently create multiple layers, without changing the image in any fashion. But that does not appear to be the case here. The multiple layers in the PDF document are a result of changes made to the image,"

ZATKOVICH'S CONCLUSION: "The content clearly indicates that the document was knowingly and explicitly edited and modified before it was placed on the web."

EXPERT ~ MARA ZEBEST

Mara Zebest has co-authored several hard-cover books on Photoshop that sit on the shelves of every legitimate graphics studio in the English-speaking world, edited almost 100 more and is a graphics trainer and consultant for Fortune-500 companies. Zebest, a lifelong democrat who should be protecting Obama is political ideology was her motivation, is more direct than Newcomer. Zebest calls Obama's birth certificate a "pathetic, amateurish fake".

So much for the "Expert" Pooh-Poohers on this board. Now comes the fusillade of ad hominems -- the Pooh-poohers attempt to destroy their credibility.
Click to expand...


One answer at a time, please.

Dave
 
Robert Prey said:
Summary of the HIPAA Privacy Rule

http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/summary/index.html

Permitted Uses and Disclosures

"Permitted Uses and Disclosures. A covered entity is permitted, but not required, to use and disclose protected health information, without an individual’s authorization,"
Click to expand...


If they are "permitted, but not required," [your emphasis] to disclose information, then the Privacy Rule does not preempt the state laws that do not permit this:
In general, State laws that are contrary to the Privacy Rule are preempted by the federal requirements, which means that the federal requirements will apply.85 “Contrary” means that it would be impossible for a covered entity to comply with both the State and federal requirements, or that the provision of State law is an obstacle to accomplishing the full purposes and objectives of the Administrative Simplification provisions of HIPAA.
Click to expand...


Robert Prey said:
"Law Enforcement Purposes. Covered entities may disclose protected health information to law enforcement officials for law enforcement purposes"
Click to expand...

You missed a bit:
...under the following six circumstances...
Click to expand...


Which of the following six circumstances do you think applies in this case?
 
Mojo said:
If they are "permitted, but not required," [your emphasis] to disclose information, then the Privacy Rule does not preempt the state laws that do not permit this:




You missed a bit:


Which of the following six circumstances do you think applies in this case?
Click to expand...

"when a covered entity believes that protected health information is evidence of a crime that occurred on its premises..."

Like document fraud or forgery, perhaps???
 
Robert Prey said:
"when a covered entity believes that protected health information is evidence of a crime that occurred on its premises..."

Like document fraud or forgery, perhaps???
Click to expand...


Which covered entity believes that a crime has occurred on its premises?
 
Robert Prey said:
"when a covered entity believes that protected health information is evidence of a crime that occurred on its premises..."

Like document fraud or forgery, perhaps???
Click to expand...

You're suggesting that the hospital that issued the birth certificate should then disclose the information on the birth certificate because it suspects itself of having forged a birth certificate? That's a remarkable level of doublethink even for a conspiracy theorist.

Dave
 
so Mr Prey the only real expert in your lsit ascutally has said that the document is not a forgery, the one that is a typesetter now refuses to testify there was a forgey.

Can you not see your stack of cards collapsing?
 
SpitfireIX said:
I would hope not. The Constitution is quite clear on the requirements for the office of President. I believe the Constitution should be amended to change those requirements to something similar to the requirements to be a US Senator or Representative, but as long as the requirements exist I'm strongly in favor of their being respected. So for now former Governors Jennifer GranholmWP and Arnold Schwarzenegger are ineligible to the Presidency.
Click to expand...

I disagree. If the Constitution had a provision which stated that no one who had ever been named "Steve" could serve as president and we actually kicked someone out of office when it is discovered he was originally born named "Steve" but his parents changed their mind when he was still an infant and renamed him Thaddeus I think history would look upon us rather poorly. Sure we obeyed the law but the law was clearly stupid.

No different than with this birth requirement.
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
Predictable ad homimens. But just citing one example of your own selective ediiting bias, the full last paragraph of Zakovitch includes the part you felt was not necessary to include (in bolded type):

"The PDF document was then modified in some fashion (e.g. layers, white halo).
All of the modifications to the PDF document that can be identified are consistent with someone
enhancing the legibility of the document.**It is possible that in addition to enhancing the legibility of the
document that the content of the document was also changed.**There is no specific evidence of how or
why that content would have been changed, but the evidence clearly indicates that the document was
changed."
Click to expand...

Yes, and every change in the PDF that Zatkovich can actually identify is, as he clearly states, consistent with someone enhancing the legibility of the document, and not forgery.

23839886.jpg
 
Thanks to this thread I have learnt a lot about how PDFs actually work its the one good thing about it.
 
Robert Prey said:
"when a covered entity believes that protected health information is evidence of a crime that occurred on its premises..."

Like document fraud or forgery, perhaps???
Click to expand...

Can we put this rubbish to bed?

PDF is simply, a page descriptor language. Anyone with the knowledge can write software to make PDF files.

There are many people who have done so. I have done so.

While I have not bothered to examine the layers produced by my code, the only certain thing is that they will exhibit layers unique to my code and different to everyone else.

Not only that, the layers will likely be different from computer to computer.

Bob's claims are bunk in this respect.
 
Perhaps ad hominem has been redefined as 'a successful rebuttal'? Why didn't I get the memo?!?
 
Robert Prey said:
Predictable ad homimens.
Click to expand...

No. You say this every time your experts are impeached, and it's clear you have no idea what an ad hominem argument really is. You said, "[T]here are many other highly qualified exerts..." (emphasis added). That's a quality about the person that makes his opinion valuable as evidence. That's what allegedly makes him an expert, and why you quote him as opposed to, say, Jim Gaffigan or Michael Phelps, or your father in law.

But after having identified that quality about the person (i.e., "high qualification") as being the key element that creates evidence out of his statements, you cannot then cry foul when that quality turns out to have been pretended. The rebuttal on those grounds is no more ad hominem than your original attempt to qualify them on those same grounds.

If you're going to use expert testimony, learn how it works.
 
Robert Prey said:
Summary of the HIPAA Privacy Rule
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, when did you receive your HIPAA compliance training? I received mine in 2006 and was certified by the compliance officer of UnitedHealth Group. You know, that big insurance company.

Birthers have this odd, unique habit among conspiracy theorists of trying to invent and rewrite laws to make it seem like others are behaving inappropriately in "hiding" Barack Obama's records.

"Law Enforcement Purposes. Covered entities may disclose protected health information to law enforcement officials for law enforcement purposes"
Click to expand...

Hair split. What does the non-summary portion of the law state?

As any compliance officer will tell you, you can't just walk into a state archive (or anywhere) and demand willy-nilly to see PHI-qualified vital records, even if you are a police officer. What, according to your copious HIPAA compliance training, is the appropriate procedure for LEA access to PHI? And further, even if you do have the appropriate warrants, a state-certified copy suffices; not the original record only.

And finally, as has already been belabored, there is no legal standing to the investigation into forgery. So there is no legitimate law-enforcement purpose.
 
Robert Prey said:
How do you know it was a scan???
Click to expand...

I don't think PDFs had been invented fifty years ago.

I like how you keep questioning every little detail and spamming from some birther website instead of making points and logical arguments.

Robert Prey said:
If it's a serious meritorious question that is not off topic, . as always. But only one at a time, please.
Click to expand...

Ah, yes, the "irrelevant" dodge. Of course, you will never actually give your criteria for being on-topic. It's whatever you think it is, which is exactly the same as "questions you don't want to answer".

And, of course, you ask multiple questions all the time. I've already pointed out that you dodge questions no matter how they're asked.

Robert Prey said:
It's called playing the race card -- a substitute for rational thinking.
Click to expand...

Considering that there wasn't anything like this for, literally, any other president ever, the only obvious difference is that it's because Barack is black.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom