• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Moderated Obama birth certificate CT / SSN CT / Birther discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
Since it's ludicrous to propose that you, Robert Prey, need to examine the original in order to settle this question once and for all for the entire universe, we have to ask the following questions:

1. Who (give a name) would you say would be the proper person to inspect the original certificate?

2. Why should this person you name be considered more credible and authoritative than those who have already inspected the original and confirmed the contents of the certified copies?

3. Under what legal authority would such an inspection be made?

4. Under what legal theory would such an inspection be required in lieu of Full Faith and Credit?

5. What assurances do the Birthers give that this is not simply another incremental step in their time-wasting escalations?

See, Robert, what you're asking for is what has been asked for in more than 150 cases at law. None of them has received any traction because arbitrary requests according to made-up Birther rules and requirements have no basis either in fact or law. Even without Full Faith and Credit, the Birthers have failed to make any sort of evidentiary case for forgery. All they have is a high amusing parade of stupid.

Funny that the mother of the Nordykie twiins had no problem at all obtaining a real copy of the original microfilm of her twins BC for any and all to see. Obama could do the same, unless, of course, he has something to hide.
 
Wait, I don't want to get this wrong. I want to make sure I understand your argument before I respond.

You're actually saying that this is your evidence that the PAPER copies that have been sent out by Hawaii and seen by many people may not be copies of an actual document on file in Hawaii?

You got it partner.
 
In your haste to take a cheap shot, you forgot to address the point. When you're finished playing games, please answer the question.

Two other points that the learned expert neglected to address:

1. The intelligent selection of objects including but not limited to the Registrar Stamp and date on separate layers of the COLB as opposed to the random confetti produced via optimization.

2. A rational explanation for the background layer seen behind the incriminating white splotches, yet not seen behind any of the other objects.
 
You got it partner.

And there i was thinking you had proven that crisp new copies looked different from old copies produced using antiquated technology.

Well that about kills your theory then. As what you think is evidence of forgery is no such thing.
 
Two other points that the learned expert neglected to address:

1. The intelligent selection of objects including but not limited to the Registrar Stamp and date on separate layers of the COLB as opposed to the random confetti produced via optimization.

2. A rational explanation for the background layer seen behind the incriminating white splotches, yet not seen behind any of the other objects.


Layers? There is one layer, multiple object groups

1. Is explained by the way objects are created when scanned in the pdf format.
2 Is.. well i have no evidence it doesn't work for any other object. But if it didnt it would be the limitations of the background replication for clipping masks being toggled.

Robert all your posts prove is you don't understand what you want to discuss. No more, no less.
 
In the UK you don't get a photocopy of an original and you don't get a printed version either.

What you get is a new certificate filled in by hand using an old fashioned ink pen with a nib. It is filled in by the Registrar at your local registry office and then stamped and certified.

You don't even get to ask to see your own original certificate.
 
Funny that the mother of the Nordykie twiins had no problem at all obtaining a real copy of the original microfilm of her twins BC for any and all to see. Obama could do the same, unless, of course, he has something to hide.

Those were the copies given to her in 1961, not copies she obtained recently. If she were to lose those copies and have to ask Hawaii for new ones, they'd look exactly like the ones Obama got.
 
Two other points that the learned expert neglected to address:

1. The intelligent selection of objects including but not limited to the Registrar Stamp and date on separate layers of the COLB as opposed to the random confetti produced via optimization.
It has been addressed. Not our fault if you didn't read it.

2. A rational explanation for the background layer seen behind the incriminating white splotches, yet not seen behind any of the other objects.
Point them out precisely, please.
You won't, because you realise by now that such an argument will be demolished in short order.
 
Funny that the mother of the Nordykie twiins had no problem at all obtaining a real copy of the original microfilm of her twins BC for any and all to see. Obama could do the same, unless, of course, he has something to hide.


Oy vey, you fail. She did not do what you just claimed here and anyone worth their salt, know that your post above is false.

She had her 1966 Certified copies of her Twins COLB's. Not from 1961 when they were born. She asked and received for certified copies in 1966. And they weren't from Microfilm (you obviously made that up). They were direct PHOTOSTAT copies from the original document. If you had bothered to take some time, and look up what a Photostat copy was, you wouldn't be making up facts as you just did.

She was contacted by the Honolulu Advertiser when they found out that her children were born at the same Hospital and nearly the same day as Barack Obama. She wouldn't have provided anything, or even been known hadn't it been for a reporter who did some ACTUAL research. She offered it because she wanted to "show the world" that hey, my children were born at the same hospital as the President!

Hawaii stopped doing PHOTOSTAT copies in the late 60's due to CHANGES in laws that required that OFFICIAL Records (Like Birth REcords) be copied or duplicated to SECURITY PAPER. Those laws were changed in the late 60's/early 70's to comply with FEDERAL LAWS.


So no, Obama can't ask Hawaii to provide him exactly what Mrs. Nordyke has. If Mrs. Nordyke had lost her twins COLB's anytime during the 70's or 80's and requested copies then, or requested copies today, she would receive exactly the type of COLB that Obama received in 2008.


so we are back to the same birther BS claims, and you continue to ignore that Hawaii has verified the information on Obama's BC not once, but TWICE. To two courts (admitted as evidence) and straight to a Birther Secretary of State, who was raked over the coals in the media, for his birthing adventures.


Everyone, I suggest you just ignore Robert if he continues to repeat the same lies that have been debunked since 2008
 
Funny that...

Funny that you completely ignored all of my questions. Obviously you can't answer them, so you're trying more distraction.

...the mother of the Nordykie twiins had no problem at all obtaining a real copy of the original microfilm of her twins BC for any and all to see.

Asked an answered. Various methods over the decades have been used to make facsimile copies of original records. Your arbitrary decision to call one method "real" and ignore all the rest is nonsense. As has been belabored, the visual fidelity of the copy is irrelevant so long as the information is unambiguous. I brought this up before and you wilfully ignored it, so you must know I'm right.

Obama could do the same, unless, of course, he has something to hide.

He did. Twice. And the State of Hawaii has agreed officially in writing several times that he did. The Birthers' attempts to make courts follow their silly made-up rules are irrelevant.

The twins' mother did not inspect the original, as you say must be done. She only obtained a certified facsimile copy, just as Obama has done.

That copy, under Hawaii law, has the legal force of the original for any and all purposes. So does Obama's, including establishing his eligibility as President. Full Faith and Credit requires the federal government and all other states to honor that certified copy as if it were the original, regardless of how they themselves might keep records.

The twins' mother has standing under the law to obtain a copy of the record because she is a subject of the record, i.e., the mother named in the certificate. Her sister does not. The Federal Election Commission does not. Some litigant in a law suit does not. The governor of Hawaii does not. The President of the United States does not. The mother may, however, distribute or disseminate that copy as she sees fit. She may not, however, demand to see the paper original so long as a copy can be provided.

Barack Hussein Obama II has standing to obtain his birth certificate because he is named in the record. He has the freedom to share it with whomever he wants, which he has done. He has no power, either as the subject of the record or as the President of the United States, to allow or compel inspection of the paper original by parties not identified by law as having standing.

Inspection of original records for accuracy and authenticity is the role of the registrar of records. For reasons given in law, access to the original records is limited. The man who held that office in 1966 inspected the twins' paper record and certified a copy of them as having the same information. The man who held the equivalent office in 2011 inspected the paper original of Barack Obama's certificate and verified the information contained in the copies.

I've answered my own questions. You did not. What do you have to hide?
 
Two other points that the learned expert neglected to address.

Oh? So now you are going to profess to be an expert in PDF optimization and offer yet another technical argument?

Great! Start by going back and addressing every other post you said was "techno-babble." No, really.

1. The intelligent selection of objects including but not limited to the Registrar Stamp and date on separate layers of the COLB as opposed to the random confetti produced via optimization.

Asked and answered at length previously. The selection of some text to be in a bitmasked object versus other text to be in a deeper raster occurred on the basis of a high pass filter that separated hard-edged objects from softer-edged objects. It is not "random confetti" but merely the expression of one of several variables that contribute to the combinatorial complexity and instability of the optimization process.

The selection of the date as a separate object, as explained at length earlier, is due to its distance from other similar elements. It is an "intelligent" selection only in that bounding-box methods employ a heuristic.

The selection of the registrar's stamp as a separate object, also explained at length earlier, is due to its need to employ colors that were optimized out of the color index in the larger object. This is "intelligent" only in the sense that statistical methods applied to the image's histogram identify legitimate outliers.

What is the basis of your personal expertise in computer science, computer graphics, the PDF language, and PDF optimization techniques?

2. A rational explanation for the background layer seen behind the incriminating white splotches, yet not seen behind any of the other objects.

Asked and answered. You trying to dodge your way out of it by begging everyone to believe the answer is "irrational" doesn't fix the fact that you swallowed Farmer Tom's nonsense hook, line, and sinker and are now trying to bluff your away around having to concede that you were misled.

You're simply circling around once again to long-debunked nonsense hoping to resurrect it and keep the thread spinning.
 
Notice in the 50+ posts that Robert has provided to this thread, that he has done nothing to verify his claims by simply taking his own Certified copy of his Birth Certificate, scanned it and created a PDF from the scan?

Or in fact, just scan a page from a magazine.

Oh wait, we know exactly why.

Of course. For all his harping on "replication" he doesn't dare put any of his expectations to the test.

Last week I scanned one of my business licenses repeatedly to PDF and optimized it using Acrobat. Without changing the settings in the optimizer, I was able to obtain a +/- 10% variance in the number of optimized objects produced simply by misaligning the page on the scanner bed by less than 1 degree.

Varying the settings produced a 4X variance in the number of objects produced. One of the settings is the aggressiveness of the background removal. If you adjust the setting just right, you can get the optimizer to extract the watermark.

When I say the PDF optimization process is combinatorially complex and brittle, it's because I have the mathematical background to say so, and because I've tested it. Robert can go test it himself too. And yes, the fact that he won't talk about it could be read as evidence that he already has tested it and knows in his heart that he's wrong.
 
It was a manipulated image (reversed) so that the black parts were turned white.

And the bluish scatter from the platen glass ends up looking like dirty orangish smudges. Doctoring your evidence, Robert? What are you trying to hide?

...they were photostat copies.

I've used the same certified photostatic copy of my birth certificate since the early 1980s. Doesn't look "real" but it clearly displays the important information.

So much for Robert's "real" copy.
 
Funny that the mother of the Nordykie twiins had no problem at all obtaining a real copy of the original microfilm of her twins BC for any and all to see. Obama could do the same, unless, of course, he has something to hide.
As fully explained by other posters, your above claim is false both on premise and facts.

The way I see it you have a combination of three options; you can admit you were wrong, you can admit your source of information was wrong, you can continue blithely on ignoring the facts and many contradictions to your POV.
:boxedin:
 
Fail on your part. The image you posted was not the original version of the Nordyke Twins BCs. It was a manipulated image (reversed) so that the black parts were turned white.

Silly me,l for assuming anyone would know that without an explanation. Of course it is reversed. Excellent observation.
 
You got it partner.
I just wanted to be sure.

You have now admitted your arguments are pure garbage. You've stated repeatedly that you would only accept an EXACT copy of the birth certificate as proof.

But the one you hold up so dearly as proof that the copy that the president has shown around is fake has many, many, many more differences between it and original then the president's.

For one thing, the paper copy appears as a negative of the original, and the "proof" you posted has in fact been very much digitally manipulated to reverse it into a positive looking image.

Since there is absolute proof it has been digitally manipulated, how do you know it is not a fake? Since it has been digitally manipulated, it is no longer trustworthy at all, correct?
 
Of course. For all his harping on "replication" he doesn't dare put any of his expectations to the test.

Last week I scanned one of my business licenses repeatedly to PDF and optimized it using Acrobat. Without changing the settings in the optimizer, I was able to obtain a +/- 10% variance in the number of optimized objects produced simply by misaligning the page on the scanner bed by less than 1 degree.

Varying the settings produced a 4X variance in the number of objects produced. One of the settings is the aggressiveness of the background removal. If you adjust the setting just right, you can get the optimizer to extract the watermark.

When I say the PDF optimization process is combinatorially complex and brittle, it's because I have the mathematical background to say so, and because I've tested it. Robert can go test it himself too. And yes, the fact that he won't talk about it could be read as evidence that he already has tested it and knows in his heart that he's wrong.

No one has been able to demonstrate a replication of the selected layered images as evidenced in the Obama COLB via optimization. Sheriff Joe's experts tried 1200 times. Moreover, neither you nor that other "expert", Ricardo Whatzizname has done it and demonstrated even a similar replication. In fact, that fellow thought it sufficient to merely assert that

"...Perhaps if I had time to toy around with packages and parameters I might find something very close to what was used to generate the document shown by the WH, but I unfortunately do not have the time right now."

Ah,shucks! Doesn't that just get you? He could do it. Cross his heart and hope to die, he could do it, but he unfortunately just doesn't have the time right now! Ain't that a shame?????
 
Oy vey, you fail. She did not do what you just claimed here and anyone worth their salt, know that your post above is false.

She had her 1966 Certified copies of her Twins COLB's. Not from 1961 when they were born. She asked and received for certified copies in 1966. And they weren't from Microfilm (you obviously made that up).

No. They were copies of the original reduced to microfilm by 1966. The copy displayed is simply in reverse as anyone can plainly see.

The Arizona Sentinel
November 1, 2011
Sheriff Joe says put up or shut up.

http://thearizonasentinel.com/2011/11/01/

"...The focus on the microfilm records of Obama’s birth arose after Arpaio’s investigators realized the birth certificates of twins born the day after Obama, the Nordykes, had been released as white-on-black copies of microfilm to the family by the Hawaii Department of Health in 1966...."

“...In 1961, Barack Obama was not a celebrity,” Corsi commented. “If the Nordyke twins birth certificates were reduced to microfilm or microfiche by 1966, the date Mrs. Nordyke got the copies she made public, then Obama’s birth certificate should have been reduced to microfilm or microfiche at the same time....":
 
Last edited by a moderator:
No one has been able to demonstrate a replication of the selected layered images as evidenced in the Obama COLB via optimization. Sheriff Joe's experts tried 1200 times. Moreover, neither you nor that other "expert", Ricardo Whatzizname has done it and demonstrated even a similar replication. In fact, that fellow thought it sufficient to merely assert that
For the umpteenth time, Robert:

THERE ARE NO LAYERS IN PDF 1.3

Did you read the PDF LRM I provided you?
Point out where the any layers are described, please.

"...Perhaps if I had time to toy around with packages and parameters I might find something very close to what was used to generate the document shown by the WH, but I unfortunately do not have the time right now."
As could I, should I wish.
As could you. But you don't because you realise what the result will be.

Ah,shucks! Doesn't that just get you? He could do it. Cross his heart and hope to die, he could do it, but he unfortunately just doesn't have the time right now! Ain't that a shame?????
And why should he waste time on an exercise which proves nothing, other than what has been amply demonstrated in this thread?
 
Oy vey, you fail. She did not do what you just claimed here and anyone worth their salt, know that your post above is false.

She had her 1966 Certified copies of her Twins COLB's. Not from 1961 when they were born. She asked and received for certified copies in 1966. And they weren't from Microfilm (you obviously made that up).

No. They were copies of the original reduced to microfilm by 1966. The copy displayed is simply in reverse as anyone can plainly see.

The Arizona Sentinel
November 1, 2011
Sheriff Joe says put up or shut up.

http://thearizonasentinel.com/2011/11/01/

"...The focus on the microfilm records of Obama’s birth arose after Arpaio’s investigators realized the birth certificates of twins born the day after Obama, the Nordykes, had been released as white-on-black copies of microfilm to the family by the Hawaii Department of Health in 1966...."

“...In 1961, Barack Obama was not a celebrity,” Corsi commented. “If the Nordyke twins birth certificates were reduced to microfilm or microfiche by 1966, the date Mrs. Nordyke got the copies she made public, then Obama’s birth certificate should have been reduced to microfilm or microfiche at the same time....":

And the idea that Hawaii may provide vital documents using a different technique in 2012 than 1966 proves what?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom