Moderated Obama birth certificate CT / SSN CT / Birther discussion

[sts60]

Now let's see, there are those on this forum who were insisting that if Obama released his long form birth certificate, that I'd claim it was a forgery. Guess they were wrong … AGAIN.

Some also suggested that anyone who prior to this harbored doubts was a moron and would not be convinced by the release of the long form.

I will happily admit that I was wrong when I said (I'm pretty sure I did) that you wouldn't believe the "long form" if it was released. You apparently do admit that President Obama was indeed born in the United States; I was wrong. See? That wasn't hard.

So why exactly did you believe one form apparently certified by the State of Hawaii, and not another?

A couple of notes:
1. I never made any claim as to whether it was possible or not.
2. A lot of "birthers" have done what I predicted and rejected the "long form". We'll see from reliable polls what changes ultimately happen to the numbers.

 

[BeAChooser]

I'd say that accusations that a media source is lying about a CT are "discussing the CT".

Go ahead. I issued a challenge for folks like you to prove that what I posted about the Washington Post is not fact but CT here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=207517 .

Let's see if you can actually back up what you claim or you run.

 

[therival58]

Sorry for my laziness folks, but I'm wondering if any birthers participating in this thread have retracted their claims and conceded Obama's legitimacy?

well, I dunno, now that I read how well his original longform BC was treated, I really want to see it, just for kicks. Maybe they have a historical microfiche copy?

 

[kookbreaker]

So ... you trust the Washington Post which I've demonstrated is dishonest.

You have done no such thing. You merely whined that they didn't subscribe to your silly conspiracy theories. That does not make them dishonest. The Washington Post may be dishonest, but not proven by anything you've done or said.

 

[kookbreaker]

Go ahead. I issued a challenge for folks like you to prove that what I posted about the Washington Post is not fact but CT here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=207517 .

Let's see if you can actually back up what you claim or you run.

You got slammed and destroyed in that thread, do you really think it proves anything?

Furthermore, the WP being dishonest doesn't make the WND honest - and the latter has openly admitted to making stuff up for their agenda.

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

Sorry for my laziness folks, but I'm wondering if any birthers participating in this thread have retracted their claims and conceded Obama's legitimacy?

I have a strong hunch they will dismiss the birth certificate as a fake (with no evidence to back their claims of course)

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

Birthers might just give 9/11 Truthers a run for their money when it comes to being deranaged conspiracy nutcases...

 

[Saggy]

It would have been photocopied. Please keep up with me, and stick to the proper terms. So in a word incorrect, because you keep trying to rewrite my arguments into something they are not.

I'm not trying to rewrite your argument, I'm trying to figure out how the document was created. Photocopied = scanned, right?

It is more like teaching calculus to a group of preschoolers.

OK, explain how the document posted on the WH website was created. Step by step, in sufficient detail that we know what equipment was involved, and so that we could reproduce the process if we had the equipment.

I'll opine that the posted document is not a photocopy of anything. Cannot be. Doesn't even remotely look like a photocopy of a document because of the way the BC is inset, or overlaid, into the background.

 

[therival58]

Birthers might just give 9/11 Truthers a run for their money when it comes to being deranaged conspiracy nutcases...

well there was room for suspicion, like at one point where there was not a confirmed location to his hopsital.
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=103306

Again, WND source but most of the graphics are screenshots.

Not saying the above should be evidence of anything, probably a simple error, but it does lead one to suspicion asking for a straight answer.

 

[A'isha]

well there was room for suspicion, like at one point where there was not a confirmed location to his hopsital.
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=103306

Again, WND source but most of the graphics are screenshots.

Not saying the above is proof to anything, but does lead one to suspicion asking for a straight answer.

WND simply didn't bother to track down the source of the incorrect information. It all stems from sources relying on Obama's Wikipedia entry, which had the wrong hospital name.

See here.

Never trust WND on anything. Always try to find other sources for their claims, since they're usually either wrong, or flat-out lying.

 

[therival58]

WND simply didn't bother to track down the source of the incorrect information. It all stems from sources relying on Obama's Wikipedia entry, which had the wrong hospital name.

See here.

Never trust WND on anything. Always try to find other sources for their claims, since they're usually either wrong, or flat-out lying.

So the two other sources, MyBarackObama.com campaign website and William Addams Reitwiesner, genealogist at the Library of Congress got their info from the highschool newspaper aswell?

 

[A'isha]

So all of the sources cited with screenshots in the WND article got the Queens Medical info from wikipedia also?

Most likely. There were only two known places where the incorrect hospital information was given: the Rainbow article, and Wikipedia, and the writer of the Rainbow article demonstrably used Wikipedia's entry on Obama for most of the general information in the article.

If the articles in the screenshots didn't get the hospital information from either of those two sources, where did they get it from? There's no other source available that mentions Queens Medical as Obama's birthplace.

 

[randman]

Exactly.

Birthers are nothing if not predictable.

At least they didn't go around making the ludicrous claim that Obama could not release his long-form birth certificate. That was one looney thing to claim but incredibly some Obama defenders did that, over and over again. Said "he couldn't"; that it was "impossible", etc, etc,.....I even posted he could have something the next day, and well, the next day Obama posted for the world to see.

And yet the fact I and others were right on the money doesn't seem to have affected others that made such ludicrous claims that the president of the United States could not get a copy of his birth certificate.

 

[therival58]

Most likely. There were only two known places where the incorrect hospital information was given: the Rainbow article, and Wikipedia, and the writer of the Rainbow article demonstrably used Wikipedia's entry on Obama for most of the general information in the article.

Where else did the articles in the screenshots get the hospital information? There's no other source available that mentions Queens Medical.

It just seems strange that if they got that info from the highschool newspaper they would not do a little factchecking first.

 

[A'isha]

So the two other sources, MyBarackObama.com campaign website and William Addams Reitwiesner, genealogist at the Library of Congress got their info from the highschool newspaper aswell?

Look again at the screenshot from the campaign website. See where it says "Community Blogs - posted from sophia ajaz's blog"? The campaign allowed people to set up their own blogs on MyBarackObama.com, and the mention of Queens is from one of those personal blogs. It's not from the campaign itself.

As for Reitwiesner, he's very upfront on his page about the fact that his information about Obama's ancestry is an ever-changing work in progress, using information provided by a number of individuals.

The following material on the immediate ancestry of Barack Obama should not be considered either exhaustive or authoritative, but rather as a first draft.

Christopher Challender Child, Robert Battle, and Michael Hurdle contributed to this report. In addition, corrections were provided by Joe David Bellamy, Judy Barry Strangfeld, Gratia Dunham Mahoney, Fred Chalfant, P J Evans, James Quinn, James R. Kuttler, Brian Casto, Jay Webber, John M. Cogar, William Walling, Sven Indra, Loretta-Marie Dimond, Karen Helwig, Pat King, Marvin Wellborn, Tom Brown, Emily Holloway, Brian Valco, and Warren Forsythe.

 

[Swagomatic]

This time, I left at 10:00 AM to see my mom in the hospital, I came back at about 12:15 PM, another two pages have ensued. It's like a giant snowball of crazy rolling down the hill.

 

[twinstead]

I'm concerned that birthers appear to think the pre screening that is done with every single candidate for the US presidency is flawed, because if Obama really were born in Kenya it failed miserably. I can't imagine they did, but who knows?

He provided information that satisfied the system before he was elected. He was under no obligation to provide any more.

 

[A'isha]

At least they didn't go around making the ludicrous claim that Obama could not release his long-form birth certificate. That was one looney thing to claim but incredibly some Obama defenders did that, over and over again. Said "he couldn't"; that it was "impossible", etc, etc,.....I even posted he could have something the next day, and well, the next day Obama posted for the world to see.

And yet the fact I and others were right on the money doesn't seem to have affected others that made such ludicrous claims that the president of the United States could not get a copy of his birth certificate.

Better take it up with Hawaii, then.

 

[A'isha]

It just seems strange that if they got that info from the highschool newspaper they would not do a little factchecking first.

They probably didn't get it from the high school newspaper, but instead from the same place the high school newspaper got it from, Wikipedia.

 

[temporalillusion]

The fact remains that neither OCR nor optimization can create what you are looking at.

We should expect to see two layers if OCR was used, text and everything else.

What OCR software do you use? What OCR software are they using? What scanning software are they using?

Seems reasonable that some software would create multiple layers for different fonts and/or different scanning schemes so that it could do its job better or make the job of completing the CR portion of things easier for a human when they have to fix when the OCR doesn't get it right.

Saying "the workflow I just tried doesn't result in that therefore the document is fake" is not valid reasoning.