Moderated Obama birth certificate CT / SSN CT / Birther discussion

[Straw Man]

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.

I'm going to have to disagree with you there.

I had to part with my original Long Form birth certificate in my application to move to the US.

They then requested a further copy for my next stage of processing since the US government hang on to these things, where it is a typewritten and signed certificate, as supplied by my local Registrar.

I do have a third copy, which is a scan of the original details, à la the Obama cert, as supplied by the CRO. Scanning this to optimised PDF, and then opening it in Illustrator produces a whole raft of objects.

Just adding this for clarity, in case any birther suggests this is not the case. In all cases, every one is valid.

 

[Mojo]

And the idea that Hawaii may provide vital documents using a different technique in 2012 than 1966 proves what?

That nobody has ever been born in Hawaii, unless they got copies of their birth certificates before Hawaii started using a different technique for providing vital documents. Simples.

 

[Arus808]

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

Fail. A blog that reposts an entirety of an World Nut Daily article and that is your "proof" that it was made from microfilm? What world do you live in where you think an article by World Nut Daily is credible in anyway?


Please show us proof that Corsi confirmed that Nordyke's COLBS were made from the microfilm.

Ooops you can't. Its a made up fantasy claim by the human face rash.

 

[Tomtomkent]

I'm going to have to disagree with you there.

I had to part with my original Long Form birth certificate in my application to move to the US.

They then requested a further copy for my next stage of processing since the US government hang on to these things, where it is a typewritten and signed certificate, as supplied by my local Registrar.

I do have a third copy, which is a scan of the original details, à la the Obama cert, as supplied by the CRO. Scanning this to optimised PDF, and then opening it in Illustrator produces a whole raft of objects.

Just adding this for clarity, in case any birther suggests this is not the case. In all cases, every one is valid.

I think, though your first copy was given away, and may have been hand written, it was not the "original" retained by the state so you can recieve further copies. I have certainly seen people of different ages and from different cities having different registrars write or type their birth certificates. Formats change, as do the methods of copying.

 

[Robert Prey]

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?

A reversal of negative to positive is hardly an alteration of the original as anyone can plainly see by viewing the negative.

 

[Robert Prey]

And the idea that Hawaii may provide vital documents using a different technique in 2012 than 1966 proves what?

That they refuse to show the original microfilm.

 

[Robert Prey]

For the umpteenth time, Robert:

THERE ARE NO LAYERS IN PDF 1.3

Why don't you try telling that to recognized super Acrobat expert Ricardo de Queiro???

http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:...xpert-evaluates-obamas-birth-certificate-pdf/

Layers and Layers, and Layers.

 

[Andy_Ross]

I'm going to have to disagree with you there.

I had to part with my original Long Form birth certificate in my application to move to the US.

They then requested a further copy for my next stage of processing since the US government hang on to these things, where it is a typewritten and signed certificate, as supplied by my local Registrar.

I do have a third copy, which is a scan of the original details, à la the Obama cert, as supplied by the CRO. Scanning this to optimised PDF, and then opening it in Illustrator produces a whole raft of objects.

Just adding this for clarity, in case any birther suggests this is not the case. In all cases, every one is valid.

I had to get a copy a few years ago for a Passport application and I was given a new hand filled and signed certificate.
I suppose it depends what, where and who applies.

 

[R.A.F.]

The original BC.

...and if the original no longer exists, then Obama wasn't born in Hawaii?


Is that the "type" or rationality we are supposed to take seriously?

 

[Bob001]

That they refuse to show the original microfilm.

This may reveal the flaw in your thinking. What microfilm? The original paper birth certificate is bound in a ledger securely stored by the Hawaii state government. The authorized state authorities have provided photocopies of that document and certified that they are identical to the original. Numerous people have handled those copies and can attest that the PDF on the White House web site is identical to the certified copies. Where is microfilm a part of this picture?

What you may be imagining as a print-out from microfilm -- a negative, reversed black-to-white copy as displayed a few posts above -- is in fact a standard method of producing photo-copies of documents before the age of the Xerox machine. Those copies were called photostats. They produced a negative copy, which could be copied again to produce a positive copy:

Both Rectigraph and Photostat machines consisted of a large*camera*that photographed documents or papers and exposed an image directly onto rolls of sensitized photographic paper that were about 350 feet (110*m) long. A*prism*was placed in front of the*lens*to reverse the image. After a 10-second exposure, the paper was directed to developing and fixing baths, then either air- or machine-dried. The result was a*negative*print, which took about two minutes in total to produce, which could in turn be photographed to make any number of positive prints.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photostat
http://www.officemuseum.com/copy_machines.htm

IF Hawaii has microfilmed its official records (and I hope it has), the microfilms are not the source of the copies that are being discussed here. Those old negative reverse copies that people are digging up would have been made from the paper originals. (And if there was microfilm, it would have been made from the original paper copy. What do you imagine a microfilm would show?)

 

[Tomtomkent]

That they refuse to show the original microfilm.

Please explain how the method of producing a copy having changed in the last fifty years proves that anybody refuses to show an original.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Why don't you try telling that to recognized super Acrobat expert Ricardo de Queiro???

http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:...xpert-evaluates-obamas-birth-certificate-pdf/

Layers and Layers, and Layers.

And the qualifications of this expert are...?

 

[Straw Man]

That they refuse to show the original microfilm.

Again, they are obeying the law. They refuse because it is illegal.

 

[abaddon]

Why don't you try telling that to recognized super Acrobat expert Ricardo de Queiro???

http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:...xpert-evaluates-obamas-birth-certificate-pdf/

Layers and Layers, and Layers.

Are you accepting that article as authoritative?

 

[Straw Man]

Why don't you try telling that to recognized super Acrobat expert Ricardo de Queiro???

http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:...xpert-evaluates-obamas-birth-certificate-pdf/

Layers and Layers, and Layers.

So, you agree With Professor De Querioz?

From your linked article:

In other words: The Arpaio Posse’s most recent claims, just like their earlier claims, are worthless. And after a year and 5 months of literally dozens upon dozens of such claims by birthers, there’s still no real indication in Obama’s PDF of any kind of manual manipulation or “forgery…” at all.

Meanwhile, Joe Arpaio / Jerome Corsi / Joseph Farah / WorldNetDaily (and other birthers) continue to studiously ignore and brush aside all real and competent technical opinions in favor of whatever “expert” they can find — whether 22 years old or not — who will back the claims they want to promote.

An expert provided by you that dismisses the Birthers claims.

Well done.

 

[Border Reiver]

That they refuse to show the original microfilm.

Which they are not legally able to do. The state of Hawaii has already verified the information on the certified copies they have provided to Mr Obama and that were passed around at a press conference. There are no further legal actions that can be undertaken.

In addition you are aware that a microfilm is a copy of the original aren't you? Or is this a cunning ploy on your part to declare that all Hawaiians are not natural born US citizens?

 

[EventHorizon]

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

But you already told us unless it looks exactly the same it's not a copy. So I guess these aren't actually copies.

 

[R.A.F.]

...Or is this a cunning ploy on your part to declare that all Hawaiians are not natural born US citizens?

How could they be US citizens, they're all Hawaiians.

 

[Arus808]

That they refuse to show the original microfilm.

why should they show a microfilm when it's been reported several times that Hawaii keeps their ORIGINAL Birth Records in a bound book?

Wouldn't the original record from the BOUND book it's collected in, be better than a microfilm version?

 

[Arus808]

Where is microfilm a part of this picture?

the belife of Microfilm originates from the Nordyke's negative print COLB's. Of course, this is all assumption based on the part of birthers as well as the anti-birthers, as Microfilm was used at one point by Hawaii to store records (and those records can range from inter office memos to actual official records).

that doesn't negate however that other methods were used to store original records, or which method was

What you may be imagining as a print-out from microfilm -- a negative, reversed black-to-white copy as displayed a few posts above -- is in fact a standard method of producing photo-copies of documents before the age of the Xerox machine. Those copies were called photostats. They produced a negative copy, which could be copied again to produce a positive copy:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photostat
http://www.officemuseum.com/copy_machines.htm

IF Hawaii has microfilmed its official records (and I hope it has), the microfilms are not the source of the copies that are being discussed here. Those old negative reverse copies that people are digging up would have been made from the paper originals. (And if there was microfilm, it would have been made from the original paper copy. What do you imagine a microfilm would show?)

the imagined forgers clue that says "HEY this is FAKE!"