Handwriting Analysis Done On Obama Birth Certificate

yeah right... hey check this out...

from http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/07/why-obamas-birth-certificate-cant-be-believed/

for discussion:


Why Obama’s birth certificate can’t be believed

By Guest Contributor on July 23, 2013 in Birth Location

This is the first (and so far only) submission in my 1000-word challenge to those who think President Obama isn’t constitutionally eligible to office. Adrien Nash, a prolific writer on the subject, presents a good case that it is difficult to dig up details about obscure events from 50 years ago. The views expressed below are those of solely those of the author and do not represent the opinions of Dr. Conspiracy or this blog. Here is the essay:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why Obama’s birth certificate can’t be believed

The reasons to doubt that Honolulu was the location of Obama’s birth are all tied to what is missing.

It begins with the absence of any eyewitness, even the women who gave birth at the supposed same time and place. No one remembers him or her. No photos of proud mother with newborn. Wouldn’t someone have taken one of an only child with her firstborn? Not even one photo of pregnancy, -the most dramatic event of Ann’s young life. No hospital claiming bragging rights as the place that a unique President, a Hawaiian supposedly, was born. No public hospital record that the public is allowed to examine. No “half hand written, and half typed” affidavit in possession of the HDOH that anyone has been allowed to examine even though a supposedly real birth certificate is fully public, nullifying privacy concerns.

No Hawaiian official has ever referred to an original Hawaiian hospital birth certificate for Obama. No Hawaiian official has ever testified under oath as to anything about Obama’s birth record. No Hawaiian official has released a statement that wasn’t couched in carefully written, legally ambiguous language. No statement made by any Hawaiian official can be taken as true because of a state and party and ideological bias toward supporting their favorite Hawaiian son, -son of one of the most socialistic, welfare-dependent states of all.

The birth certificate image is couched in mystery, with nothing provable about its origin and legitimacy, but everything cloaked in attorney-client privilege, and deliberately so. Even Obama himself was careful to never once mention the long-form bc that he appeared before reporters to present. It was never even allowed in his presence, (plausible deniability).

No unbiased, questioning person was allowed to exam what was supposed created by the Hawaiian DOH. No one can testify that it was not merely a color photocopy of a digital file that was fabricated on a computer using original Obama and non-Obama sources supplied by an insider in the Hawaiian DOH.

No one can explain why the birth certificate of Virginia Sunahara was missing from the database, (and presumably the archive) when inquiry was first made. Nor why her brother was barred by the DoH and a judge from obtaining a copy of her long-form even though she died just days after her birth, nor why her registration number, seen on her short-form, is totally out of sequence when that would have been impossible under the strict administration of Verna Lee, -the registrar at that time.

No one can replicate or explain the layers seen in the 9-layer pdf. No one can explain the layers being pure green-gray and not true black. No one can explain how ink came to be located in the exact perfect position in relation to the letter “a” of the name Alvin to result in an unmistakable appearance of a smiling face. If moved the slightest amount in any direction the effect would not exist. How great does one’s gullibility have to be to believe in such an unbelievable coincidence?

How can an image, or a print from it, be certified by any legitimate authority when it is unsigned, and unsealed and is nothing more than an abstract digital creation from an unknown and unprovable source? What business or organization in the world would accept a document or contract of major importance without a signature when every legal document created requires one? Who would buy a million dollar bridge offered by a Nigerian “businessman” or “government official” based on trusting in a contract stamped with a facsimile of a signature?

Why does no communication from Hawaii regarding Obama bear the actual signature of a human being? How can one have confidence that the secretary that wields the signature stamp ever even consults with the registrar?

How can Obama’s birth place be assured when Hawaii allows and allowed out-of-state births to be register for the purpose of obtaining a birth certificate, including foreign nationals with one year of residency?

Why did Obama Sr. not capitalize on having an American child when seeking an extension of his Visa in late August 1961? Why would one not conclude that he didn’t know of his birth even though the State Dept. did? Why is the State Department microfilm record of the cards filled-out by persons entering the U.S. in the first week or 10 days of August 1961 missing from the archive, but no others?

Why is there no record of a marriage between Obama’s parents, nor witnesses, nor photos of the engaged couple, nor honeymoon, nor place of cohabitation? Why did Obama, or his ghost writer, claim that they lived together for two years when they didn’t live together ever?

Where was Ann Dunham between February and August of 1961? Who can prove or show that she was not living in her familiar home-environment of Seattle during many of the later months of her pregnancy? Who can show that she did not want to hand her child over to an adoption agency when that is what a note by a federal official in Hawaii states the parents were considering? Who can show that she didn’t resort to seeking adoptive parents in Canada (Vancouver) because no parents in Washington volunteered to adopt?

Who can show that the Hawaiian witness (and future adoring teacher of Obama) who heard the statement: “Stanley had a baby” did not hear; “Stanley has a baby”, or that either statement indicates the place of birth?

Why has Obama steadfastly refused to present one of his “two certified copies” to any court under any circumstances? Why has every court folded and caved to Obama even when, in one glaring instance, his lawyer failed to even show up in court? What naïve fool would assume that Obama-appointed functionaries in the government, including the NSA, IRS, and FBI did not and do not feed his political operatives private information, like that which Harry Reid claimed before the Senate regarding Romney’s supposed non-payment of taxes?

What naïve fool would assume that the revelations of Edward Snowden do not reveal anything about how secrets are uncovered and covered-up by government? What naïve fool would assume that key Obama supporters in the Hawaiian government wouldn’t justify “the means” used to provide him a way to present the appearance of having a Hawaiian birth certificate by “the ends” of not seeing his presidential legitimacy crack apart and crumble?

Even if none of these possibilities reflect reality, they definitely could and you can’t tell the difference between the truth and the lie because none of them have been answered.

By Adrien Nash july 2013 obama–nation.com

 

You ever wonder why IF any of the Birther Nonesense was true that the GOP has not jumped all over it? Been going on FIVE YEARS now, Nothing, guess what, that is because there is Nothing to it.
Move on with your life.

 

I wonder about a lot of things with this caper, and this president.

you post here.

you move on past here, we'll be fine.

 

It could be that they're afraid. Think about it: the moment a politician dares to question Obama's legitimacy, you guys will be all over him or her with personal attacks.

 

Oh certainly because John McCain is just too scared of political controversy to step in.

And so is Michelle Bachmann.

Basically what you are saying is that all the Republicans are cowards.....

LOL

 

I'm willing to defend my positions and if I get something wrong, I admit it.

The Cold Case Posse just pretends its mistakes never happened, and comes up with something different. Recall that the PDF analysis in the third press conference completely contradicted what was in the first. The fake vital records coding manual that formed the basis of the second press conference was suddenly dropped as if the argument had never been made. It wasn't addressed, it wasn't defended-- it was "disappeared."

 

Yeah, that it, they are afraid, ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!

 

I believe that is the essence of debate over controversy. no matter the outcome, don't be sad, we all can be proud of standing our ground. you've put a lot of effort into defending Obama, you and the others should feel good about that. it's nice that we have forums such as this to freely discuss.

 

Actually, I'm not "defending Obama." I'm attacking the birthers. It's a campaign for critical thinking and against junk science. It's a battle for clear speech against the tricks of the propagandists. It is an attack on innuendo, bias and outright lies. It is an attempt to prevent the unsuspecting from being swindled by con men.

Obama can take care of himself.

 

Nicely put.

 

Nicely put.

 

if you have anything left over after this, global warming could use some help. you just described al gore.

 

nicely put.

 

What politician is not already completely used to personal attacks?

 

Bernie Sanders.

 

Answer


Some of the most famous forgery cases in history are Shakesphere's Lost Play, Lincoln's Love Letters, Hitler's Dairies, Howard Hughes's Autobiography, Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and Jack the Ripper's Diary. The art of forging literary and historical documents is nearly as old as writing itself. Today, the motive of most forgers remains the same, to create something 'priceless,' then find a sucker willing to pay an exorbitant price. Sometimes the forger's aim is not profit but power, and even a crudely executed forgery like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion can have devastating, long-term consequences.

I wonder what the price will be if Obama's story doesn't check out.

 

Who gives a (*)(*)(*)(*) but you about this crap? Work on 9/11 and figure that out. I'm positive it's more important than this (*)(*)(*)(*) and that would be pretty intelligent.

 

why don't you join algore and look for bigfoot.

 

I don't know about bigfoot but I know where big mouth is.

 

that's pretty good.

 

http://www.mcso.org/MultiMedia/PressRelease/Media Supplemental Report.pdf

 

just curious what the obot explanation is for this ?? bad inking ? a coincidence, another fogbow forgery ??

 

It's not a matter of credentials. It is a matter of a repeatable experiment. Anybody can take something that looks like Obama's birth certificate and scan it on the Xerox 7655 WorkCentre (and several other Xerox models) and observe what birthers hang their whole forgery case on. The closer to the original for testing, the better the results. Anti-birthers are now verifying with what appears to be the same security paper that Hawaii uses. Here's what the Xerox does:

1. Multiple one-bit layers (Garrett Papit for the Cold Case Posse said nothing did this).
2. Halos generated around text
3. Some letters with identical bitmaps
4. Separation of distinct elements, such as the date stamp and registrars stamp, into separate layers
5. Parts of signatures on different layers
6. Mask hiding parts of the edge.
7. Differing resolutions on different layers
8. Security paper and most of the form on one JPG layer
9. Scaling of images that match the Whitehouse PDF

That's just the ones I know of off the top of my head.

Then if the PDF is opened rotated and saved with Preview on the Mac you get:

1. Additional edge mask layer
2. Rotation of images
3. Erasure of most of the metadata showing it was originally created on the Xerox.
4. New metadata saying that Preview on Mac OSx is the creator.

As for credentials, Dr. de Queroz, holder of patents on MRC compression (the technique that Xerox uses), looked at the Obama long form PDF and said that it looked like MRC compression to him.

The newspaper announcements came from the Hawaii Health Bureau. Under Hawaiian law at that time the Bureau only registered births in Hawaii. Zullo claims to have examples of Hawaii newspaper announcements for people born elsewhere, but (!SURPRISE!) he never came through with the evidence. He lied about the Vital Statistics manual too.

Zullo makes noises like he already checked many office machines (but never published any list) and he says that there's nothing to this discovery of the exact process the White House used to scan the real birth certificate to a PDF file. He's lying.

PS: When the Xerox machine was first identified (through an obscure color space tag in the JPG image), the testers didn't say anything about halos. The reason for this was that all the images available of Obama's long form already had halos on them, so of course scanning something with a halo created a halo--not a conclusive test. However, after I got some real security paper, and printed the black part of the AP image on it, we had a sample without halos, and when that was scanned on a Xerox, voila, halos.

Nobody has seen the Reed Hayes report, but it was written before the Xerox evidence was made public, (nobody knows what he based his conclusions on); however, if his analysis follows what the Cold Case Posse previously asserted, then it's totally discredited now. No satisfactory explanation has been given as to why the Reed Hayes report is being kept hidden and why Hayes has has been told not to talk about it. Law enforcement investigation? If you think that, you need to listen to Zullo's comments recently; he says it was never about law enforcement, but from the beginning about persuading Congress.

 

why are you responding this thread and post doc ? just curious. and I dare say that credentials have been important for your side.

also, it seems as if the Xerox evidence is old and new again.

 

I just saw the topic in a list, and thought it was worth answering.

The issue of credentials is an important one. Let's take the most naive example of birther forgery arguments, the existence of layers: The birther says, this document has layers, real scans don't have layers, therefore this document is a fake. That argument has two parts, an experimental result and an assertion. One doesn't need to be an expert to say that Obama's PDF has layers--they can simply provide a recipe for looking at them, of they can make a video with Photoshop. The other part "real scans don't have layers" is an opinion, and it's only worth something if the person who gives it has vast experience about what scans converted to PDFs look like. In this instance (with still a few birther holdouts) everybody would admit that standard scanning software and office machines create PDFs with layers.

The debunking argument to the layers theory goes: You can do this normal process and get layers; therefore layers don't prove the document is abnormal. In that argument, a counterexample is offered, and there is no reliance in expertise. There is observation, but no opinion.

In this extended process involving Obama's long form PDF, myriad anomalies, like the layers, have been brought forward by the birthers. They all rely on observations (mostly undisputed) and opinions about what they mean. In some cases anti-birthers have been able to come up with counterexamples, but in some cases we have had to challenge the expertise of the opinions. A good example was Garrett Papit's claim that multiple one-bit layers were created by no software, and that he tried thousands of combinations of things without finding that format. Without an example of software that does that, the best way to counter Papit's argument is to say that he has no reason to know the broad range of things that can happen in PDF generation, and he only tested free software, and other software that provided free demos, and few if any office machines. That argument is OK, but a counterexample would be better.

Now we have the universal fits-all counterexample to birther claims of a fake long form PDF, the Xerox WorkCentre 7655. A counterexample requires no expertise to assert. The birther says: this is impossible in a legitimate document and the anti-birther says "no, here's a legitimate document that just like what you object to."

It's like a crank saying that the laws of physics say a bumblebee can't fly. One needn't have any qualifications in physics or biology to prove him wrong. One need only point at a flying bumblebee.

Birthers, not being all that smart, do not understand the argument. They think that if the Obots can demand expert credentials, then the birthers can too. Only it's not the same. Birthers make claims of expertise. Obots make claims of observation.

I write these comments to inform. Why do you write your comments?