Also, the AP version is a little different than the Whitehouse website version. The box with the crossed off area is crossed off more in the Whitehouse version. Even if they were the same, it doesn't mean that the AP wasn't given a forged document.
On the contrary, blurring and pixelation from optimization -- which are fairly significant -- aside, they look the same. All of the same elements are in all of the same places.
@goodfelanj By the way, these videos only made up the very beginning of a very long and thorough investigation that I did. The full investigation was detailed in a 221-page book, "Is Barack Obama's Birth Certificate a Fraud? A Computer Guy Examines the Evidence for Forgery."
That book is available at Amazon and BarnesandNoble d o t com.
I'm sorry the results of the investigation don't come out in such a way as to please everybody. Unfortunately, it isn't possible to do so.
I am sorry, but you take far too much pleasure and satisfaction in proving that it is not a fake, and also in using wording that makes it obvious you were never objective. If the part of Stanley Ann's signature that touches other objects makes it treated differently than the parts that doesn't touch other objects, wouldn't the letters that are covered by the parenthesis become part of her signature and on that layer, and not on the layer with the rest of the word?
I take pleasure and satisfaction in doing a professional job, and in providing good, solid information that -- at the time of these videos -- went entirely against the "conventional wisdom" -- and yet was 100% correct when the conventional wisdom was 100% wrong.
9 months later, none of the information presented in these videos -- or in my book published 5 months ago -- has been factually refuted.
And yes, if my claim is correct, the "n" and the "t" covered by that parenthesis should become part of the same (antialiased) layer. So would the other contiguous letters -- the "igna" and the "of."
And that is EXACTLY what we see. ALL of those letters -- and those letters only out of "Signature of Parent or Other Informant" -- are part of the same layer as the parenthesis.
/e9D4n6_Uifk Watch the interview with Dr Fukino she said "no doubt Obama was born in Hawaii" and this was on national news! Who do you think that Congress is going to believe? Her or a bunch of conspiracyst idiots in YT?
Both birth certificates are genuine, TWO Republicans ( High Officials in HI) Lingle and Dr Fukino certified that he was born at the Kapiolani in HI. So shut up birther, you are the one making a fake one to discredit the president. He won! Get over it because he is going to be re-elected!
Not sure who your comments were addressed to. There's a Reply button to the right of comments.
For more info, I will be debating several of those put forth as experts on the birther side this Saturday on Mark Gillar Tea Party Power Hour. Saturday 2 pm US Central Time. I think you can tune in at blogtalkradio. Do a search for Tea Party Power Hour.
Lots more info as well in an entire book I wrote, and also at obamabirthbook dott comm.
@noliesundead It's definitely always preferable to deal with the most original documents. In cases in which original documents are not available (for whatever reason), you may -- or may not, depending on the situation -- be able to learn some things by examining what you do have. But you do have to try and be accurate about what your limitations are.
ah yes ,the world reknowned and highly respected "savanna guthrie " ..not oreilly or cooper or blitzer or sheppard smith or mathews or olbermann or maddox or peirs or hannatty or beckle or stossel or williams or totenberg or krauthammer or colmes ..
and the world famous ms guthrie even took pictures ,did she ? and then she immediately took it over to the ny times or the wash post or was it CNN or MSNBC or FOX ?..wait .no ,she took it to the INS or the FBI or state dept ? lol ,where is it ?
ah yes ,the world reknowned and highly respected "savanna guthrie " ..not oreilly or cooper or blitzer or sheppard smith or mathews or olbermann or maddox or peirs or hannatty or beckle or stossel or williams or totenberg or krauthammer or colmes ..
and the world famous ms guthrie even took pictures ,did she ? and then she immediately took it over to the ny times or the wash post or was it CNN or MSNBC or FOX ?..wait ..no ,she took it to the INS or the FBI or state dept ? lol ,where is it ?
ah yes ,the world reknowned and highly respected "savanna guthrie " ..not oreilly or cooper or blitzer or sheppard smith or mathews or olbermann or maddox or peirs or hannatty or beckle or stossel or williams or totenberg or krauthammer or colmes ..
and the world famous ms guthrie even took pictures ,did she ? and then she immediately took it over to the ny times or the wash post or was it CNN or MSNBC or FOX ?..wait ..no ,she took it to the INS or the FBI or state dept ? lol ,where is it ?
again ,who in the media EVER said ythat they have handled a certified copy ? gov linda lingle said only that her own DOH director saw the official documents on file ,lingle herself never said she saw dick ..the DOH never ever commited to validating the original COLB and has always used very carfully parsed words throughout this whole fiasco
later HI implied that they had issued BHO a COLB in mid 2008 sadly for obatzi faithful the original pdf COLB is showing 07 date and its on wrong form #.
> again ,who in the media EVER said ythat they have handled a certified copy ?
Savannah Guthrie; and she took photos.
And if you want to go back to the COLB, we have photos of that as well. You can claim they're faked, but the HI Dept of Health and officials from both parties have testified again and again that Obama was indeed born in Honolulu. Sooner or later the number of people who would have to be in on a conspiracy, and the circumstances required, just get beyond belief.
"Sooner or later the number of people who would have to be in on a conspiracy, and the circumstances required, just get beyond belief."---You do realize how stupid that statement sounds don't you? Over a period of time, things like the "Gulf of Tonkin" false flag came out, but not until decades later. It is very conceivable to me that people put under threat will do most anything they are told and organizations like the CIA are notorious for pulling off such operations.
@watertonrivers Okay, you have a good point. But: What evidence -- and I'm talking about real evidence, not just speculation and wishful thinking -- do we have of such a conspiracy? All I can think of is the fact that Jerome Corsi, Harvard PhD, tells us that he has a mole in the Hawaii Department of Health who says there's no birth certificate.
@watertonrivers In my book I examined everything I could find by Corsi that I COULD examine and determine the truth of. I identified 23 different claims of good evidence for forgery that Corsi has helped promote, that I could test. And after MANY MANY WEEKS of running down those 23 claims, I found that NONE of them held up under scrutiny. NOT ONE.
So for whatever reason, Corsi is batting 0 for 23. Because of that, I don't consider him to be at all a reliable source of GOOD information.
@springfieldcompguy I never spoke of Mr. Corsi, what I am saying is that the image you have analyzed will never reveal the truth and I find your earlier statement(and I quote);"Sooner or later the number of people who would have to be in on a conspiracy, and the circumstances required, just get beyond belief."---Is in fact a classic psycho-tool, used in discrediting those who would dissent!! And I would add, why would you use the statement quoted, if you weren't in the business of disinfo?
@watertonrivers I thought you made a good point, and I acknowledged it. Personally, I still think the number of people who would have to be in on the conspiracy makes it unlikely. But it's not impossible.
As for being in the business of disinfo, I've pointed out the reliability of those whom you really want to believe. My conclusion on that was not arrived at lightly, but was the result of some 3 months, essentially as my second full-time job, of very carefully and honestly evaluating every
@watertonrivers ...piece of evidence available. The conclusions I reached are SOLID, and I have written out exactly WHY, after literally hundreds of hours of study, I came to those particular conclusions.
In other words, I am entirely confident that I have not only concluded, but actually *demonstrated*, for any thinking person, that in every single instance in which PROOF of forgery has been alleged, the person making the allegation has failed to demonstrate it.
@watertonrivers My 221-page book on the matter has been out now for more than two months. I have directly challenged every single claim I could find of proof of forgery, and explicitly stated that not a single one of them holds water.
What has been the response? WorldNetDaily, the organization promoting the forgery claims, expressed interest in my and was given a copy the day BEFORE it came out. Even though I quite clearly stated that they were wrong in what they had backed,
@watertonrivers ...23 times in a row, they have NEVER mentioned me or my book, or attempted to refute it in any way.
Why is that?
Also, you should know that, to date, not a single point in the entire 221-page book -- not even a MINOR point -- has been factually refuted. (Why is that?)
Look, I understand that you (and many others) would really like to believe that Obama's birth certificate is a fake. If I had found any evidence to support that view, I would've reported it. But I didn't.
@watertonrivers If you really want to know the actual truth, and exactly WHY an independent investigator reached the conclusions he did, then you should get the book, read it, and FULLY UNDERSTAND every point made. Then you'll see who's actually promoting the truth, and who isn't.
In fact, read both sides of the issue! Read and understand everything published by the "experts," and read and understand everything I've written.
But first, you need to set aside what you WANT the truth to be.
And be willing to go where the evidence actually leads you.
By the way, there are PLENTY of quite good reasons to want to be rid of Barack Obama as President. But it turns out that a forged birth certificate -- as far as we can tell -- is not one of them.
Incidentally, it's really pretty fascinating. All you have to do is tell the truth, if you want all kinds of people to step forward, call you names, accuse you of spreading disinformation, and so forth.
THAT'S the REWARD now, apparently, for being the ONE person who actually stands up and tells the TRUTH about an issue.
It's really pretty discouraging and disillusioning.
> again ,who in the media EVER said ythat they have handled a certified copy
Savannah Guthrie. And she took photos.
And if you want to go back to the COLB, we have photos of that as well. You can claim they're faked, but the HI Dept of Health and officials from both parties have testified again and again that Obama was indeed born in Honolulu. Sooner or later the number of people who would have to be in on a conspiracy, and the circumstances required, just get beyond belief.
THESE VIDEOS, MADE ONLY 10 DAYS AFTER BARACK OBAMA RELEASED HIS LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE, HAVE BEEN SUPERCEDED BY AN ENTIRE BOOK.
The book is the result of a careful, complete 3 month investigation. It goes FAR beyond the initial investigation shown here. There's still a bit of extra info here, but MUCH that's new in the book.
For more information, look for Is Barack Obamas Birth Certificate a Fraud, by John Woodman, on Amazon-dot-com, or visit ObamaBirthBook-dot-com.
who in the media has claimed that they have seen and handled a certified copy of either?
fuddy specifically denied access on the grounds of privacy ,this is clearly no longer a private document ,nor imo,does any HI law supercede the intrests of the country as a whole .over half of population seems to have some doubts as to legitimacy of the documentation ,surely BHO could greatly reduce such concerns with a call to fuddy and be done with it ..as to harmful medical data ,for instance ,what?
@woodenmajor We've got photographs of both in paper document, showing the seal, etc.
Beyond which: we have the unanimous and official testimony of officials across two administrations - one led by a Republican and one by a Democrat - that Obama's birth certificate is valid, and that he was indeed born in Honolulu.
dosn't anyone think it odd that we even have to argue about the possible origin of a very curious looking pdf ,if any of us had to produce such a document ,it would be a genuine ,stamped ,certified ,paper hard copy ..why hasnt anyone in the MS press or congress asked the obvious question ,why hasnt the WH delivered any certified "hard copys " to ANY agency or media outlet ,iirc , they only cost $15 or $20 apiece..
btw,ms fuddy of DOH hawaii REFUSED a subpoena to view the original last month.
> why hasnt the WH delivered any certified "hard copys " to ANY agency or media outlet
> iirc , they only cost $15 or $20 apiece.
I think the counter would be that they have in fact shown both short- and long-form certified copies to the media, which have been photographed with those images distributed to the public, and that their authenticity has been confirmed not only by the raised seal and official stamp, but by the statements of Hawaii officials across two administrations.
And yes, Fuddy refused the subpoena. I think the grounds were that Taitz is asking the Hawaii DOH to do something that is illegal (against state law). Counter to that is: he's already made it public. And counter to THAT is: It would still be illegal, as there's no exception in the law for documents already public; besides which, the document contains private medical information at bottom which has NOT ever been made public, and never is, for anyone, even to that person.
I've finished watching videos 1-4 and I think you're doing a good job. I think the big thing that's missing to remove any doubt is to actually scan a comparable document on a Mac and then save it as an optimized PDF file and see what it looks like.
I scanned my own birth certificate using Adobe Acrobat on a PC and when it was optimized, it separated the colored security paper background with the white shadow pretty much like the Obama certificate. However, this was different software.
I've finished watching videos 1-4 and I think you're doing a good job. I think the big thing that's missing to remiove any doubt is to actually a comparable document on a Mac and then save it as an optimized PDF file and see what it looks like.
I scanned my own birth certificate using Adobe Acrobat on a PC and when it was optimized, it separated the colored security paper background with the white shadow pretty much like the Obama certificate. However, this was different software.
I found your videos to be interesting and informative. It is nice to see a rational analysis without the wild conclusions drawn by those who have done analyses with preconceived conclusions.
The embossed seal is visible on all versions of the certificate but is most clearly seen on the one posted by MSNBC reporter Savannah Guthrie. It is important to remember that an embossed seal is designed to clearly distinguish a certified copy from a copy of that certified copy and thus doesn't copy well.
@RCRadioShow The embossed seal would be evident on Savannah Guthrie's photo if she was holding a flattened and printed copy of the White House pdf. In other words, call it the "The Final Edition". Please note the security paper is the same throughout. If you look at the ap or abc version that does not have the security paper throughout there is not one scintilla of an embossed seal, orr at least not that I can see. It's the version I speak of being an issue. Where did it come from?
@Mojohand2222 The AP version appears to be a black and white copy. The green security background will not copy well on a black and white copy. Try this yourself. Print a copy of the PDF in color and then copy it in b&w. You will get almost the same effect as the AP copy. I did and the security background is almost gone except for the left curved edge area. Yes, the seal which was very faint on the PDF disappears too. I think the color PDF enhanced the green security background too.
When you compare the 2 versions please look at the pencil marks in the left margin. I'm referring to the "6" , "5", and "2". The AP version seems to show more of the left edge of the scan. You can see more 6, 5 and 2 in the AP scan for certain. Does this makes sense?
@Mojohand2222 You're kidding aren't you? You are seeing things. These are easily explained by the difference in the resolutions of the pdf vs. the AP jpg.
However, keep in mind, that these are all copies of the certified hard copies that were brought to the WH from Hawaii. None of the electronic copies are the original certified copies and can't be used to determine if those hard copies kept at the WH are forgeries. Of course, the people legally authorized to provide legitimate, legal birth certs for Hawaiian-Born Americans are the folks who provided the actual hard copies to the POTUS's lawyer for physical transfer to the POTUS at the WH.
The white AP jpg version is likely a copy of the higher resolution versions first run through a copier at the WH to give out to reporters. They were copies of the original in black and white and the security paper did not come through except in the left margin. Take a close look, it's there. The seal also didn't come through so good in that version.
Your perceptive skills, I would say, are certainly in the top 1%. Maybe even 1 out of 1000. Most likely so, since this video now has more than 1,000 views, and you are the first person to make this observation.
I know I've been promising "more information" for several weeks now. More information is still on its way, and when it comes, it will be substantial. Hopefully within the week; if not, then hopefully close.
@springfieldcompguy Thanks, SFCG. I have the benefit of all the lawyers & other smart folk at thefogbow dt com & it's predecessor site who've been on this stuff for three years. Membership includes those who support Obama politics to one degree or another & those who don't but have no truck with birfer delusions.
@springfieldcompguy We're from all over the U.S., including Hawaii,have attended trials, researched facts, & engaged birthers on various forums through the many months since the black feller took away Hillary's nomination.
BTW I loved your info for folks who want to go the cheap way on computer repair. Wish you were open in my town!
Plutodog419 more perceptive than me? Did he add something? I noted 2 weeks ago that the AP version contains issues that needed addressing (the lack of an embossed seal and having some security paper but not all). But if Plutodog419 thinks the embossed seal comes through but not so good, and that a scan won't pick up security paper but on the side, put me in the 999 group gladly.
Security paper first: It can't disappear everywhere but the left side. The scan is so good I can see the short form BC the scanner had behind the long one. How is it not on the entire copy?
Second: the embossed seal, it's not there at all. You state, "didn't come through so good" ha, that's funny, it didn't come through at all, and that's not good.
@Mojohand2222 Sure it can on your standard copier & it did. That's why it's called security paper, harder to copy. If you scrutinize the pdf, you'll see why there is any basketweave on white copy. Whole margin is darker than the rest due to it being bent up & catching more light in Hawaiian photocopying. So when re-copied @ the WH, that dark portion is the only part that remains faintly visible.
I did understate the near invisible seal, it barely shows even on pdf. Photocopied near clean at WH.
@Plutodog419 I thought about that. Please note that the security paper does not bend. The original being copied does. The hash marks remain straight up, straight down, straight left, and straight right, and they should due to no security paper in '61. Thus the security bars do not bend and should not appear darker. How would the pdf (WhiteHouse) scanner (assuming it was different) pick up the security paper so clearly and the color, if it is "harder to copy"?
@Mojohand2222 The original in the book bent when it was copied onto security paper. The darker left margin was on the original two copies made in Hawaii. The fact that they started out darker in the margin means they were easier to pick up in a black and white pretty much standard copying machine. The WH was just making a bunch of copies to give to reporters. A computer, taking color pictures of the LFBC & converting them to pdf caught everything. Except for a good image of the embossed seal
@Mojohand2222 I don't think the original bound in the book in Hawaii is on basketweave security paper. I think it's white. It was copied onto security paper and the darkness from the binding thus made the basketweave on the copied security paper darker in the left margin. The copy from hawaii doesn't show up if you run it through a black & white, higher contrast copy machine but does come through if you take a color image on the computer scanner and convert it to pdf. Different copy process.
@Plutodog419 Plutodog, I love ya. Perhaps you are correct. The darkness from the original causes the scanner to pick up that along with the security paper. I can buy that. I just find it hard to comprehend how a scanner or copier or whatever can pick up the short form BC behind the security paper without picking up the security paper anywhere but the side where the darkness from the original occurs. Imagine scanning a piece of security paper and getting what's behind but not on the paper.
Wrong! The white document is not "by far the better image". The pencil marks are clearer on the green image.
Wrong also, the documents are the same in every way but the green background. The embossed seal is evident on green version, but not on white one. "No reason for a pdf forgery to be made at all" -- come on dude, there is no reason for any of this insanity.
Why 2 versions? why a pdf? why one is embossed and one is not? why optimize? why security paper shows on ap version? and on & on
PDF is one of the standard possible formats. If you have a multi-page document, it's THE standard format.
Almost certainly, the person who saved the file was used to dealing with multi-page government documents. So the "default" format in this person's mind was, "PDF."
In this case, it turns out to have been a poor format choice.
@springfieldcompguy : What do you think of the correspondence letters(between
White House and Hawaii)? They lack anti-aliasing. How were they scanned? Were they optimized? To me, they look computer generated or optimized but I'm sure there is a simple explanation perhaps a black and white scan does this. Anyway thanks for your expertise, appreciate your time and effort.
@springfieldcompguy Why a PDF? I think government agencies would default to publishing a PDF document without a good reason to do otherwise. File security is the reason. The reason it was probably optimized was to save bandwidth. They knew the document was going to be downloaded tens of millions of times.
sfco guy ,if you are indeed correct, then we must conclude that the WH ,instead of just scanning a paper doc ,decided to make it LOOK like a forgery on purpose .they coulda just scanned it so that ALL ppl could agree that it was a simple plotocopy of a paper doc but instead they chose too do it so as to make 90 percent of the imaging experts here, think that it a forgery .does BHO just enjoy causing serious and bitter division within america for a good laugh or is he merely an inept idiot ?
I think the best one-sentence answer would be: Look how well the O White House handled communicating to the world after the killing of bin Laden. I don't think I've ever seen such a colossal failure of communication. If it'd been Bush we would've heard weeks of questioning whether his Presidency could even survive. This guy, not a peep.
The same media that tried to make it a nat'l scandal that the R party bought clothes for Sarah Palin wouldn't cover O if he strangled an intern.
@springfieldcompguy >>The same media that tried to make it a nat'l scandal that the R party bought clothes for Sarah Palin wouldn't cover O if he strangled an intern<<
Bravo! Your analysis is brilliant. We are not the Left. We are for the truth; not just our egos at the expense of everything else. Let us never fall into a Leftist-type smear campaign. Thank you for providing an argument that can keep people focused on the real issues with this president, not imagined ones.
Did Hawaii provide two copies, one with green background and one without? Did the Whitehouse along with opdtimizing the document and saving it to a pdf add the color background? Did Hawaii emboss one copy and not the other? How does the AP aquire a copy that is higher resolution, yet it does not have the safety paper background or the embossed seal of Hawaii? According to your logic, the AP version is superior and must have been made first if there is no way it could have been made later.
I won't consider a public debate with you until and unless you verifiably reveal your name, your face, and where you work. I won't debate an anonymous sniper, nor should I. You have no right to ask for a debate unless you're willing to publicly put your reputation on the line as I have.
Nor will I consider a debate unless you stop the personal attacks and debate the actual facts.
You should also explain to me why I should give you credibility by debating you.
@springfieldcompguy, Just so you know, mere minutes ago I saw this post, and from there went to ShockOfChrist’s video. I had never heard of ShockOfChrist before (I had heard of the far more famous ShockOfGod).
I posted a few comments. Within minutes, SOC posted at least eight Replies to me. In the seventh one, he tells me, “this is your last warning, either watch other videos of mine or stop trolling here”. I was about to ask him which videos I should watch, only to find that he Blocked me!
@COMALiteJ Yeah, I've had all kinds of interesting interactions with this guy. He's repeatedly engaged in personal attacks, called me a "dumbass," made videos mocking me, etc. Yesterday he challenged me to a public debate. I said I would consider it, on a few conditions, including that he put his own reputation on the line as I have done by publicly revealing who he is. He repeatedly declined, all the while continuing to call me a "dumbass" and a "chicken." At this point, I'm kinda tired of him.
SOC, I’ve been posting under this handle, and this handle ALONE (with minor variations depending on whether the service allows spaces, etc.: I usually go by “COMALite J” with a space, but YouTube doesn’t allow spaces), on a WIDE variety of Internet forums, and online services that PREDATE the Internet (e.g. GEnie, QuantumLINK, etc.), for the past three decades! I don’t do sock puppet accounts.
@springfieldcompguy so? i am glad you've "revealed" your private info. NOBODY asked you. why don't you include your home address, SS#, DL#, etc? hmm? btw, i again failed to see the relevance to the debate itself. do you have not anything else to refute other than being irrelevant? how's it relevant to my challenge to a debate that the doc is a forgery or not?
This thing just gets weirder the more you look. Ive been checking out other videos and flipping back and forth between fake & possibly just enhanced.
2 more things to look at. Allegedly their are links to various clip mask that say most were imported rotated 90deg and scaled 28% but the main layer rotated 90deg the other way and scaled 48%. (2)Just above the date stamp in its own layer is the suggestion of an embossed seal scattered pixels clumps are white. If this thing is a fake it was psy-op.
Ive had a look at the PDF and the AP version and they are supposed to be different scans of the same document. One thing i don't understand, is where the green security checking came from it is not in the AP document and is merged with the base layer of the PDF. Was it put in th make the document look more "official".
@SamanthaFuller100 The AP document appears to be a simple plain-paper print of the record, apparently for the sake of clarity. The PDF is a scan of the same record printed onto green safety paper, stamped, and sealed to produce an officially certified record.
@springfieldcompguy I'm seeing the same stamps on both scans. So are you're saying that we have two different certified copies of the birth certificate? If so shouldn't the stamps be in slightly different places. where do i download the PDF so i can find out?
its true that i am no graphics wonk .i have noticed however that this debate has moved well beyond the dubious issue of layering ,john , as the virtual last YT defender of the purported innocent origen of BHOs numerous document anomallys , perhaps you should email the WH and ask for the EXACT recipe THEY used to produce what appears to almost everyone else in PC wonkery to be a rather amaturish forgery .given your steadfast ,dogged and coolheaded defense in spite of overwhelming odds ,etc ,etc.
kerning is the intrusion of one letter into anothers space ,the allignment has to do with longitudinal placements of letters overall ...i think , john , for you to make any credible headway in your case ,you will need to borrow the necessary hardware and software to make a reasonable facsimile of the WH document .after all it is claimed to be a simple unaltered photocopy of a typewritten paper document ,right ? call the WH ,im sure they have a simple PC recipe they can share with you.
@woodenmajor Denninger's kerning issue is actually far simpler than that. I don't have time to make the video now, but it's still on the drawing table.
@Mojohand2222 Yes, I figured out that was what you were probably referring to. :-)
The two original documents went through different scanning/ optimizing processes, most likely done by completely different pieces of equipment. Most likely different software as well. And the file formats are completely different from each other. This accounts for the difference you noted.
Nonetheless, the AP white-background image is definitely higher-resolution, and generally higher-quality in most aspects.
How is it that the 'G' in box 23 is much clearer in the Whitehouse version? Note the lower right portion of the 'G'. It almost disappears in the AP version.
This leads me to believe the AP version is inferior, because it is just a scan in high resolution of a print of the Whitehouse version with the background(green security paper) layer turned off.
john ,can you direct me to the article in national review ,ive already tried the site useing their search engine , what date and author mabey ? do they cover the issues of kerning ,exact duplicate pixeled letters ,misalligned typed keystrokes and the curious two part signature by stanley ann ?
@woodenmajor As mentioned earlier, the URL is in the 4th video at 3:30. Or, you can do a google search for "national review online obama birth certificate layers," and it pops right up.
They don't cover the issue of "kerning" (which I intend to cover if and when I can get it done). I covered the pixel-duplicate letters and the "two part signature" in my videos. I'm not sure offhand what you mean by misaligned typed keystrokes if not the "kerning."
the ink mighta been slightly different on the original ?im trying to soldier through again john ,you mostly ask us to determine why a forger might do this but would be stupid to that .you havent delt ANY blows to any credible argument ive seen . how about this YOU pick a top "its a fake " and make a vid addressing its pt, EXACTLY point by point .im trying hard to give u the benifit of doubt here john ,if you're an expert you're gonna have to make a much more coherant and OBJECTIVE argument .
@woodenmajor If you've watched all of the videos, you haven't gotten the points very well -- which I understand, as unless you have experience in doing computer graphics, some of the points would be a bit out of the realm of your experience.
The fact is, I DID pick a top "it's a fake" -- the layers issue -- and then DID spend a full FORTY MINUTES investigating EVERY possible aspect of it (19 different aspects in all) and weighing whether or not the theory made sense. It doesn't.
i am really intrested in finding the truth ,spring....ive been listening carefully but im not getting a very simple or convinceing argument from you .i couldnt find that national review thing on layers ..could you put up a link ? ok forget the layers ,what about the various OTHER issues ?
@woodenmajor The reply doesn't like URLs. See 3:30 in the 4th video for the URL.
Generally, I think people who don't really quite understand what I'm saying might watch a couple more times. In trying to cover every point possible (and there are 19 different points), I go over a lot of material, quickly. Far more time, thought and consideration went into each point than the amount of time spent covering it in the video.
@club213542 NRO already recreated the layers phenomenon.
The bigger point: Just TRY and recreate an accurate image of a birth certificate the way that the layers fraud theory requires.
First, get a high-resolution document. Then, create a lower-resolution copy of the SAME document, that looks IDENTICAL when overlaid. Do it by copying all kinds of characters. Make them look typewritten. Make a white shadow/ halo. NO text layers. Hard-pixel characters. Draw the signature. Different size pixels.
@dookdawg214: When you ask the question “Why” you will find the answer. If falls mostly on the “Something For Nothing Group”! Obama is just buying the votes of the non-working/what’s in it for me class and is reducing the level of living for all of us that have to pay the bills. Life was a damn sight better before the government got involved.
The only reasons for their attacks is based in their fears that they may have to go back to work and pay for their own way…
@spring Sorry to disappoint you: I'm actually a Democrat who's liberal on a lot of issues, so don't judge conservatives by my comments! I just insist on the truth, and will accept no less. I actually would have voted for Obama had he shown his birth certificate in 2008 when Berg first asked for it! One of the things I have discovered from this whole experience is that my conservative friends do research, whereas my liberal friends just expect everyone to inherently share their views.
Nice series, but you're wasting your time trying to convince a lot of these people. They're like creationists: you can give them breathtaking amounts of evidence, from perfectly arranged fossils, multiple dating methods, comparative anatomy, DNA comparison, etc, etc, etc, and it won't make a dent. Some people's brains simply aren't configured in a way that lets them weigh evidence and effectively measure probability. They want their version and nothing else.
I appreciate the work you have done, even though it seems that a lot of it is just guessing on your part (and yes, I did watch all four videos). However, the fact remains: no matter the outcome, Obama is still not eligible to be president because he is NOT, not NEVER could be a NATURAL BORN citizen.
In order for Obama to eligible to be president, he would have to be a NATURAL BORN citizen (not just a regular citizen) of the United States, and there is a difference, that distinction being that in order to be a NATURAL BORN citizen, you must be the child of TWO parents who are BOTH also United States citizens. And we all know that Obama's father is from Kenya (therefore he is a British subject!)
@acushla712 The Supreme Court has never made a definitive ruling. Based on what I've read, though, I'd be surprised if the Supreme Court didn't rule he was eligible, as long as he was indeed born in the USA.
@acushla712: “…that distinction being that in order to be a NATURAL BORN citizen, you must be the child of TWO parents who are BOTH also United States citizens.”
That is simply not true. The Constitution makes no such definition of “Natural Born Citizen.” And think about it: if that WERE true, then why has there been all this hoopla over ANCHOR BABIES!? There could never be any such THING as an “anchor baby” if TWO citizen parents were required for Natural Born Citizenship when born here!
@ Spring: The problem with the Obama supporters lies within their total lack of fact base rebuttals and only relying upon personal attacks, name calling, and using the race card when race has nothing to do with the subject at hand! As I look at it, if the rolls were reversed I’d be demanding action to be taken with like vigor & commitments!
My experience/training in doc-fraud raised red flags too. This is just too important not to demand a full-scale investigation!
@OldKeyr This issue would have gone away two to three years ago if Barack Obama had said, "I appreciate that some people want better proof that I am indeed eligible to hold this office. For that reason, I have requested and am releasing my long form birth certificate," and produced it. So yes, there has definitely been a lack of "fact-based rebuttal." Instead, eligibility skeptics were given a pejorative label ("birthers") and accused of racism.
@spring: If you are TRULY conducting a serious and OBJECTIVE investigation, it is YOUR responsibility to do the research to examine all sides of the issue: you don't know how many times we hear these platitudes when identifying Obamatron trolls. Then, they start with the Alinsky-style tactics and harass us until we stop posting, which is why in the novel "Exit America" the characters Bill and Camille Jeffers comment about this very tactic so much in use by trolls who claim to be objective.
@ExitAmerica I've done that. In the layers issue alone, I've examined it from 19 different points.
Your description of trolls, Alinsky-style tactics, and harassment is a good description of how my factual videos have been treated so far. I've been repeated attacked personally. Not one person has factually refuted a single point I've made, yet the personal attacks seem to keep coming.
"You haven't addressed all points." Okay, what points? Silence. "You're not an expert." Okay, why? Silence.
@ExitAmerica It is frankly disappointing the response I've seen so far to a careful, well-done analysis. I thought conservatives were better than this.
Interesting, and you may be right about the possibility that a computer created the layers, but in your list of things to prove you fail to even include some of the arguments against this document, which completely throws your motives into question. One of the things we try to point out in the novel, "Exit America," is that President Dyongo has trolls prowling the Internet to confuse, silence and mislead the public. Let us not forget that Obama has the same minions at his disposal.
@ExitAmerica > in your list of things to prove you fail to even include some of the arguments against this document
First of all, I don't think I can or should accept a burden of proving or disproving every allegation that any person might make. That's just not reasonable.
You refer to things that I've failed to include. Please tell me what they are, and I'll let you know whether or not I plan to address them.
As far as motive goes, just ask me. Or, I can tell you without your asking.
After hearing allegations, I became interested in finding out whether there was anything in them, so I investigated them for myself. After a while, I realized that I knew a good deal about the subject and could reveal things that nobody was talking about. I also realized that sharing what I knew would highlight the quality of my computer knowledge and analytical skills.
I run my own business and have a wife and 6 children to support. When you run your own business, the more that people can see you're good at what you do, the better you can support your wife and 6 children.
I also have another motivation, whether you believe it or not. A lot of people seem to think I'm here to defend Obama. I'm not. Frankly, I'm looking forward to the day when we're rid of him.
But I must confess it does irritate me a bit to see people going on about points that I know, with certainty, are nonsense. It irritates me all the more because I know they're going to eventually be disproven and the longer we go on about them the bigger fools conservatives look. So when it comes to nonsense put forth by conservatives, as far as I'm concerned, the sooner it goes away and we focus on issues where Obama is actually vulnerable (like his disastrous policies), the better.
@springfieldcompguy nope. you didn't and haven't. the question is not "why would anyone." the question is EXPLAIN THE "B" PHENOMENON NOW. watch?v=jgTmY_PBueg
@ThickShades0 Again, I already explained it, in some detail. Look in the video for the section dealing with the check boxes, the letters T, A, E, H, etc. The two B's mentioned are another example of the same phenomenon.
@springfieldcompguy you ought to know i am not talking about some optimization or some layering. give me ONE EXAMPLE that has the exact pixelation at B. do you even understand the question? i want you to give me an alphabet that's exactly matching as if it's copied and pasted as in "B."
@ThickShades0 I've already given you a bunch of examples, first in the video, and repeated them in my reply above. Have you actually watched the video? I referred specifically to pixel-identical duplication of the letters T, A, E, and H. I also referred to duplication of the number 1 in the video. I suggest that you actually watch the video, and do so closely.
@springfieldcompguy read my question to you on part 3 carefully. i am not talking about if it's "possible" by a program. i am talking about a ghetto version.
@ThickShades0 I must confess I don't know what you mean when you say you're talking about a ghetto version.
Please watch the video carefully.
Or, perhaps I should go ahead and explain to you what I already said in the video.
It's not just a couple of B's that are duplicated. It's both 1's in 151. It's about 3 T's that are to-the-pixel identical. It's A's. It's E's. It's check boxes. It's H's. There may be other characters to-the-pixel duplicated as well. Frankly, I stopped looking for more.
So the question is WHY? There are only two theories. One, that a human copied them. Two, that a computer program duplicated characters, for one of two reasons: a) that it recognized the pattern and repeated what it had come up with previously, or b) that the same programming, on encountering a highly similar image, produced the same output. Of the two, b), in my opinion, is more likely.
The same principle applies in dealing with the white background document. We know, for certain, that the Obama administration had a high-resolution version of the birth certificate that they could've released if they wanted to create something for the web. All they had to do was scan it in, laser-print it, stamp it, and voila! A high-resolution version much better than the PDF they released.
The theory being pushed by so many is that instead of doing what would've been far easier, and would've completely taken the wind out of doubts about Obama's eligibility, they deliberately chose instead to spend many hours (or weeks, when you look at what it really would've taken) to create a lower-quality forgery that would only feed doubts.
And why, in addition to making the forgery so bad that it would arouse obvious suspicion, would they make it so good that when you overlay the high-quality version on top of the lower-quality forgery, the match is perfect in every way?
None of it makes the slightest bit of sense. And yet we have people trumpeting it like it's God's truth.
Let me ask you something: Do you value the truth? Or do you believe it is permissible to spread things that are false, if it's for a "good" purpose?
although i do think that Obama is a definite fraud, for more reasons than the birth certificate that was released, i also really appreciate the work that you're doing springfieldcompguy! cognitive dissonance can be a bitch, so it's difficult for those who jumped on the layers bandwagon to admit they don't really know what they're talking about lol. anyway, i'm looking forward to the rest of your analysis!! great job.
One thing I am appreciating is that it's really hard for us as humans to let go of an idea once we've accepted it. This is why the media has so much power in controlling even a free country like ours, and why the campaigns to destroy Sarah Palin and deify Barack Obama have had long-lasting effect.
In any event, I really appreciate the positive comments! I've put in a lot of time and effort to produce the analysis, and your appreciation is much appreciated. :)
@medhue In order to get an exact reproduction, you would need three things: 1) The exact same original as was used the first time. A different original will not be the same graphically and therefore will not produce the exact same result. 2) The exact same software. There are literally dozens of software programs that write PDF files. 3) The exact same software settings. These can vary widely. In light of all of this, I find it impressive that NRO was able to so easily demonstrate the layers.
@medhue >"If you say that a program did all of this, then show us. If a program did this, then it is easily reproducable, and not just similar."
Exactly!
I've been watching about every video about this doc (and other docs). Most all people visibly show us their reasons using software why they say what they do. This user only gives his "human" opinion - yadda yadda yadda. I watched all 4 of his video's because of what he said in his 1st video: he PROVED Nothing! What a total waist of time.
@barbsinclair Barb, thanks for the comment (and for watching all 4 videos), but I'm not sure how I could have illustrated the points any better than I did. I tried to show and explain everything I could, including the white shadow effect, how graphic layers really work for someone who is doing actual graphic editing work, how Stanley Ann Dunham Obama's signature looks in relation to known valid signatures, an actual overlay of the white certificate (resized) over the green one, and so forth.
>**"illustrated the points"? You didn't illustrate anything. You just spoke on the doc. for all "human beings" v "computer software." You used terms for "human" as "us" and "our" and "we", as if you spoke for all. You didn't refute any of the video's that did illustrate why it is a fraud. Why not take a step back and do your best to be objective? Make a commitment to NOT be committed to any particular conclusion is a good first step. **Working through the details is another.
@barbsinclair What specific point or points did I fail to address? Please don't say, "Look it up for yourself," because you must have reference to something specific. We can't know what you're referring to unless you tell us.
As far as objectivity goes, I started out believing that Barack Obama was probably not born in Hawaii.
@springfieldcompguy >"As far as objectivity goes, I started out believing that Barack Obama was probably not born in Hawaii."
I am Canadian. And on Obama, he's more of a British nationalist through his daddy, then American through his mommy. Which btw, is exactly why the framers wrote Section1,Article 2 of the US Constitution on eligibility requirements for serving as President. They certainly didn't want any Brit loyalists in that office. Obama's a usurper; a Trojan horse. giddy up eh
@barbsinclair I don't disagree. But unfortunately a lot of things are being done that the framers of the Constitution wouldn't have wanted. The larger issue is the size, scope and power of the US government. They never envisioned the all-powerful behemoth it has become.
Actually, that's probably not true. I think they DID envision it, and did what they could to prevent it, knowing that they were perhaps fighting a losing battle, but that they could maybe give us a couple hundred years.
I've spent last 4 years getting educated on history of USA. Canada borders you, so I figured: best that I not slumber regarding the issues facing my neighbor, for what effects the USA, also effects Canada. In that education process, the most enlightening time was spent in US Constitution classes and following the Continental Congress 2009, with US delegates writing "The Articles of Freedom" and intently watching, *IF* that plan shall work = articlesoffreedom . us
@barbsinclair All of the videos I've seen have pretty much shown the layers and that's it. So I'm not sure why you make the claim you do, but thanks anyway for your time in watching the videos, and your interest in making a comment.
I agree with ExitAmerica >"in your list of things to prove you fail to even include some of the arguments against this document, which completely throws your motives into question."
BUT, note this =you reply to THAT >"First of all,I don't think I can or should accept a burden of proving or disproving every allegation that any person might make. That's just not reasonable."
Sorry dude, your logic on how hard and difficult this is to do by hand, is ridiculous. On the AP document, why the heck is it 16mb? Why is the security paper gone? The file also shows that it was modified, and you are using this as some kind of proof? Is it normal for news agencies to clean up the shotty work of governments?
@medhue File size will likely vary according to how the image is optimized (or not); and black and white images may be much smaller than ones with more color. It would be very to extremely difficult to remove the security paper from an image. The B/W AP image is therefore of a different paper copy. Why do we have a black and white copy too? I don't know. You could ask the White House and/or the Hawaii Department of Health. Probably they thought it would photocopy better.
As I commented on Part 3: I would appreciate likes and dislikes based on the quality of the analysis, not simply because you hold a specific political view and want a particular result. Also bear in mind that this is not the final video.
Also, the AP version is a little different than the Whitehouse website version. The box with the crossed off area is crossed off more in the Whitehouse version. Even if they were the same, it doesn't mean that the AP wasn't given a forged document.
goodfelanj 3 weeks ago
@goodfelanj
On the contrary, blurring and pixelation from optimization -- which are fairly significant -- aside, they look the same. All of the same elements are in all of the same places.
See obamabirthbook d o t c o m/img/box.gif
springfieldcompguy 3 weeks ago
@goodfelanj By the way, these videos only made up the very beginning of a very long and thorough investigation that I did. The full investigation was detailed in a 221-page book, "Is Barack Obama's Birth Certificate a Fraud? A Computer Guy Examines the Evidence for Forgery."
That book is available at Amazon and BarnesandNoble d o t com.
I'm sorry the results of the investigation don't come out in such a way as to please everybody. Unfortunately, it isn't possible to do so.
springfieldcompguy 3 weeks ago
I am sorry, but you take far too much pleasure and satisfaction in proving that it is not a fake, and also in using wording that makes it obvious you were never objective. If the part of Stanley Ann's signature that touches other objects makes it treated differently than the parts that doesn't touch other objects, wouldn't the letters that are covered by the parenthesis become part of her signature and on that layer, and not on the layer with the rest of the word?
goodfelanj 3 weeks ago
@goodfelanj
I take pleasure and satisfaction in doing a professional job, and in providing good, solid information that -- at the time of these videos -- went entirely against the "conventional wisdom" -- and yet was 100% correct when the conventional wisdom was 100% wrong.
9 months later, none of the information presented in these videos -- or in my book published 5 months ago -- has been factually refuted.
springfieldcompguy 3 weeks ago
@goodfelanj
And yes, if my claim is correct, the "n" and the "t" covered by that parenthesis should become part of the same (antialiased) layer. So would the other contiguous letters -- the "igna" and the "of."
And that is EXACTLY what we see. ALL of those letters -- and those letters only out of "Signature of Parent or Other Informant" -- are part of the same layer as the parenthesis.
springfieldcompguy 3 weeks ago
/e9D4n6_Uifk Watch the interview with Dr Fukino she said "no doubt Obama was born in Hawaii" and this was on national news! Who do you think that Congress is going to believe? Her or a bunch of conspiracyst idiots in YT?
clarity023 1 month ago
Both birth certificates are genuine, TWO Republicans ( High Officials in HI) Lingle and Dr Fukino certified that he was born at the Kapiolani in HI. So shut up birther, you are the one making a fake one to discredit the president. He won! Get over it because he is going to be re-elected!
clarity023 1 month ago
@clarity023 Hi, clarity!
Not sure who your comments were addressed to. There's a Reply button to the right of comments.
For more info, I will be debating several of those put forth as experts on the birther side this Saturday on Mark Gillar Tea Party Power Hour. Saturday 2 pm US Central Time. I think you can tune in at blogtalkradio. Do a search for Tea Party Power Hour.
Lots more info as well in an entire book I wrote, and also at obamabirthbook dott comm.
springfieldcompguy 1 month ago
you do understand you can't determine a forgery via a pdf right? you must have the hard copy.
noliesundead 5 months ago
@noliesundead It's definitely always preferable to deal with the most original documents. In cases in which original documents are not available (for whatever reason), you may -- or may not, depending on the situation -- be able to learn some things by examining what you do have. But you do have to try and be accurate about what your limitations are.
springfieldcompguy 5 months ago
ah yes ,the world reknowned and highly respected "savanna guthrie " ..not oreilly or cooper or blitzer or sheppard smith or mathews or olbermann or maddox or peirs or hannatty or beckle or stossel or williams or totenberg or krauthammer or colmes ..
and the world famous ms guthrie even took pictures ,did she ? and then she immediately took it over to the ny times or the wash post or was it CNN or MSNBC or FOX ?..wait .no ,she took it to the INS or the FBI or state dept ? lol ,where is it ?
woodenmajor 5 months ago
ah yes ,the world reknowned and highly respected "savanna guthrie " ..not oreilly or cooper or blitzer or sheppard smith or mathews or olbermann or maddox or peirs or hannatty or beckle or stossel or williams or totenberg or krauthammer or colmes ..
and the world famous ms guthrie even took pictures ,did she ? and then she immediately took it over to the ny times or the wash post or was it CNN or MSNBC or FOX ?..wait ..no ,she took it to the INS or the FBI or state dept ? lol ,where is it ?
woodenmajor 5 months ago
ah yes ,the world reknowned and highly respected "savanna guthrie " ..not oreilly or cooper or blitzer or sheppard smith or mathews or olbermann or maddox or peirs or hannatty or beckle or stossel or williams or totenberg or krauthammer or colmes ..
and the world famous ms guthrie even took pictures ,did she ? and then she immediately took it over to the ny times or the wash post or was it CNN or MSNBC or FOX ?..wait ..no ,she took it to the INS or the FBI or state dept ? lol ,where is it ?
woodenmajor 5 months ago
again ,who in the media EVER said ythat they have handled a certified copy ? gov linda lingle said only that her own DOH director saw the official documents on file ,lingle herself never said she saw dick ..the DOH never ever commited to validating the original COLB and has always used very carfully parsed words throughout this whole fiasco
later HI implied that they had issued BHO a COLB in mid 2008 sadly for obatzi faithful the original pdf COLB is showing 07 date and its on wrong form #.
woodenmajor 5 months ago
@woodenmajor
> again ,who in the media EVER said ythat they have handled a certified copy ?
Savannah Guthrie; and she took photos.
And if you want to go back to the COLB, we have photos of that as well. You can claim they're faked, but the HI Dept of Health and officials from both parties have testified again and again that Obama was indeed born in Honolulu. Sooner or later the number of people who would have to be in on a conspiracy, and the circumstances required, just get beyond belief.
springfieldcompguy 5 months ago
"Sooner or later the number of people who would have to be in on a conspiracy, and the circumstances required, just get beyond belief."---You do realize how stupid that statement sounds don't you? Over a period of time, things like the "Gulf of Tonkin" false flag came out, but not until decades later. It is very conceivable to me that people put under threat will do most anything they are told and organizations like the CIA are notorious for pulling off such operations.
watertonrivers 3 months ago
@watertonrivers Okay, you have a good point. But: What evidence -- and I'm talking about real evidence, not just speculation and wishful thinking -- do we have of such a conspiracy? All I can think of is the fact that Jerome Corsi, Harvard PhD, tells us that he has a mole in the Hawaii Department of Health who says there's no birth certificate.
springfieldcompguy 3 months ago
@watertonrivers In my book I examined everything I could find by Corsi that I COULD examine and determine the truth of. I identified 23 different claims of good evidence for forgery that Corsi has helped promote, that I could test. And after MANY MANY WEEKS of running down those 23 claims, I found that NONE of them held up under scrutiny. NOT ONE.
So for whatever reason, Corsi is batting 0 for 23. Because of that, I don't consider him to be at all a reliable source of GOOD information.
springfieldcompguy 3 months ago
@springfieldcompguy I never spoke of Mr. Corsi, what I am saying is that the image you have analyzed will never reveal the truth and I find your earlier statement(and I quote);"Sooner or later the number of people who would have to be in on a conspiracy, and the circumstances required, just get beyond belief."---Is in fact a classic psycho-tool, used in discrediting those who would dissent!! And I would add, why would you use the statement quoted, if you weren't in the business of disinfo?
watertonrivers 3 months ago
@watertonrivers I thought you made a good point, and I acknowledged it. Personally, I still think the number of people who would have to be in on the conspiracy makes it unlikely. But it's not impossible.
As for being in the business of disinfo, I've pointed out the reliability of those whom you really want to believe. My conclusion on that was not arrived at lightly, but was the result of some 3 months, essentially as my second full-time job, of very carefully and honestly evaluating every
springfieldcompguy 3 months ago
@watertonrivers ...piece of evidence available. The conclusions I reached are SOLID, and I have written out exactly WHY, after literally hundreds of hours of study, I came to those particular conclusions.
In other words, I am entirely confident that I have not only concluded, but actually *demonstrated*, for any thinking person, that in every single instance in which PROOF of forgery has been alleged, the person making the allegation has failed to demonstrate it.
springfieldcompguy 3 months ago
@watertonrivers My 221-page book on the matter has been out now for more than two months. I have directly challenged every single claim I could find of proof of forgery, and explicitly stated that not a single one of them holds water.
What has been the response? WorldNetDaily, the organization promoting the forgery claims, expressed interest in my and was given a copy the day BEFORE it came out. Even though I quite clearly stated that they were wrong in what they had backed,
springfieldcompguy 3 months ago
@watertonrivers ...23 times in a row, they have NEVER mentioned me or my book, or attempted to refute it in any way.
Why is that?
Also, you should know that, to date, not a single point in the entire 221-page book -- not even a MINOR point -- has been factually refuted. (Why is that?)
Look, I understand that you (and many others) would really like to believe that Obama's birth certificate is a fake. If I had found any evidence to support that view, I would've reported it. But I didn't.
springfieldcompguy 3 months ago
@watertonrivers If you really want to know the actual truth, and exactly WHY an independent investigator reached the conclusions he did, then you should get the book, read it, and FULLY UNDERSTAND every point made. Then you'll see who's actually promoting the truth, and who isn't.
In fact, read both sides of the issue! Read and understand everything published by the "experts," and read and understand everything I've written.
But first, you need to set aside what you WANT the truth to be.
springfieldcompguy 3 months ago
@watertonrivers
And be willing to go where the evidence actually leads you.
By the way, there are PLENTY of quite good reasons to want to be rid of Barack Obama as President. But it turns out that a forged birth certificate -- as far as we can tell -- is not one of them.
springfieldcompguy 3 months ago
@watertonrivers
Incidentally, it's really pretty fascinating. All you have to do is tell the truth, if you want all kinds of people to step forward, call you names, accuse you of spreading disinformation, and so forth.
THAT'S the REWARD now, apparently, for being the ONE person who actually stands up and tells the TRUTH about an issue.
It's really pretty discouraging and disillusioning.
springfieldcompguy 3 months ago
@woodenmajor
> again ,who in the media EVER said ythat they have handled a certified copy
Savannah Guthrie. And she took photos.
And if you want to go back to the COLB, we have photos of that as well. You can claim they're faked, but the HI Dept of Health and officials from both parties have testified again and again that Obama was indeed born in Honolulu. Sooner or later the number of people who would have to be in on a conspiracy, and the circumstances required, just get beyond belief.
springfieldcompguy 5 months ago
NOTE TO VISITORS
THESE VIDEOS, MADE ONLY 10 DAYS AFTER BARACK OBAMA RELEASED HIS LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE, HAVE BEEN SUPERCEDED BY AN ENTIRE BOOK.
The book is the result of a careful, complete 3 month investigation. It goes FAR beyond the initial investigation shown here. There's still a bit of extra info here, but MUCH that's new in the book.
For more information, look for Is Barack Obamas Birth Certificate a Fraud, by John Woodman, on Amazon-dot-com, or visit ObamaBirthBook-dot-com.
springfieldcompguy 5 months ago
who in the media has claimed that they have seen and handled a certified copy of either?
fuddy specifically denied access on the grounds of privacy ,this is clearly no longer a private document ,nor imo,does any HI law supercede the intrests of the country as a whole .over half of population seems to have some doubts as to legitimacy of the documentation ,surely BHO could greatly reduce such concerns with a call to fuddy and be done with it ..as to harmful medical data ,for instance ,what?
woodenmajor 5 months ago
@woodenmajor We've got photographs of both in paper document, showing the seal, etc.
Beyond which: we have the unanimous and official testimony of officials across two administrations - one led by a Republican and one by a Democrat - that Obama's birth certificate is valid, and that he was indeed born in Honolulu.
springfieldcompguy 5 months ago
dosn't anyone think it odd that we even have to argue about the possible origin of a very curious looking pdf ,if any of us had to produce such a document ,it would be a genuine ,stamped ,certified ,paper hard copy ..why hasnt anyone in the MS press or congress asked the obvious question ,why hasnt the WH delivered any certified "hard copys " to ANY agency or media outlet ,iirc , they only cost $15 or $20 apiece..
btw,ms fuddy of DOH hawaii REFUSED a subpoena to view the original last month.
woodenmajor 5 months ago
@woodenmajor
> why hasnt the WH delivered any certified "hard copys " to ANY agency or media outlet
> iirc , they only cost $15 or $20 apiece.
I think the counter would be that they have in fact shown both short- and long-form certified copies to the media, which have been photographed with those images distributed to the public, and that their authenticity has been confirmed not only by the raised seal and official stamp, but by the statements of Hawaii officials across two administrations.
springfieldcompguy 5 months ago
@woodenmajor
And yes, Fuddy refused the subpoena. I think the grounds were that Taitz is asking the Hawaii DOH to do something that is illegal (against state law). Counter to that is: he's already made it public. And counter to THAT is: It would still be illegal, as there's no exception in the law for documents already public; besides which, the document contains private medical information at bottom which has NOT ever been made public, and never is, for anyone, even to that person.
springfieldcompguy 5 months ago
6:20 explains it all in a nutshell - and sinks any "birther" theory of a forgery.
magicmulder 7 months ago
Something from Shakespeare comes to mind: "suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune." DUCK.
kwdavids1 8 months ago
I've finished watching videos 1-4 and I think you're doing a good job. I think the big thing that's missing to remove any doubt is to actually scan a comparable document on a Mac and then save it as an optimized PDF file and see what it looks like.
I scanned my own birth certificate using Adobe Acrobat on a PC and when it was optimized, it separated the colored security paper background with the white shadow pretty much like the Obama certificate. However, this was different software.
kwdavids1 8 months ago
I've finished watching videos 1-4 and I think you're doing a good job. I think the big thing that's missing to remiove any doubt is to actually a comparable document on a Mac and then save it as an optimized PDF file and see what it looks like.
I scanned my own birth certificate using Adobe Acrobat on a PC and when it was optimized, it separated the colored security paper background with the white shadow pretty much like the Obama certificate. However, this was different software.
kwdavids1 8 months ago
I found your videos to be interesting and informative. It is nice to see a rational analysis without the wild conclusions drawn by those who have done analyses with preconceived conclusions.
The embossed seal is visible on all versions of the certificate but is most clearly seen on the one posted by MSNBC reporter Savannah Guthrie. It is important to remember that an embossed seal is designed to clearly distinguish a certified copy from a copy of that certified copy and thus doesn't copy well.
RCRadioShow 8 months ago
@RCRadioShow The embossed seal would be evident on Savannah Guthrie's photo if she was holding a flattened and printed copy of the White House pdf. In other words, call it the "The Final Edition". Please note the security paper is the same throughout. If you look at the ap or abc version that does not have the security paper throughout there is not one scintilla of an embossed seal, orr at least not that I can see. It's the version I speak of being an issue. Where did it come from?
Mojohand2222 7 months ago
@Mojohand2222 The AP version appears to be a black and white copy. The green security background will not copy well on a black and white copy. Try this yourself. Print a copy of the PDF in color and then copy it in b&w. You will get almost the same effect as the AP copy. I did and the security background is almost gone except for the left curved edge area. Yes, the seal which was very faint on the PDF disappears too. I think the color PDF enhanced the green security background too.
RCRadioShow 7 months ago
@RCRadioShow
When you compare the 2 versions please look at the pencil marks in the left margin. I'm referring to the "6" , "5", and "2". The AP version seems to show more of the left edge of the scan. You can see more 6, 5 and 2 in the AP scan for certain. Does this makes sense?
Mojohand2222 7 months ago
@Mojohand2222 You're kidding aren't you? You are seeing things. These are easily explained by the difference in the resolutions of the pdf vs. the AP jpg.
RCRadioShow 7 months ago
However, keep in mind, that these are all copies of the certified hard copies that were brought to the WH from Hawaii. None of the electronic copies are the original certified copies and can't be used to determine if those hard copies kept at the WH are forgeries. Of course, the people legally authorized to provide legitimate, legal birth certs for Hawaiian-Born Americans are the folks who provided the actual hard copies to the POTUS's lawyer for physical transfer to the POTUS at the WH.
Plutodog419 8 months ago
The white AP jpg version is likely a copy of the higher resolution versions first run through a copier at the WH to give out to reporters. They were copies of the original in black and white and the security paper did not come through except in the left margin. Take a close look, it's there. The seal also didn't come through so good in that version.
Plutodog419 8 months ago
@Plutodog419
Congratulations!
Your perceptive skills, I would say, are certainly in the top 1%. Maybe even 1 out of 1000. Most likely so, since this video now has more than 1,000 views, and you are the first person to make this observation.
I know I've been promising "more information" for several weeks now. More information is still on its way, and when it comes, it will be substantial. Hopefully within the week; if not, then hopefully close.
springfieldcompguy 8 months ago
@springfieldcompguy Thanks, SFCG. I have the benefit of all the lawyers & other smart folk at thefogbow dt com & it's predecessor site who've been on this stuff for three years. Membership includes those who support Obama politics to one degree or another & those who don't but have no truck with birfer delusions.
Plutodog419 8 months ago
@springfieldcompguy We're from all over the U.S., including Hawaii,have attended trials, researched facts, & engaged birthers on various forums through the many months since the black feller took away Hillary's nomination.
BTW I loved your info for folks who want to go the cheap way on computer repair. Wish you were open in my town!
Plutodog419 8 months ago
@springfieldcompguy
Plutodog419 more perceptive than me? Did he add something? I noted 2 weeks ago that the AP version contains issues that needed addressing (the lack of an embossed seal and having some security paper but not all). But if Plutodog419 thinks the embossed seal comes through but not so good, and that a scan won't pick up security paper but on the side, put me in the 999 group gladly.
Mojohand2222 7 months ago
@Plutodog419
Security paper first: It can't disappear everywhere but the left side. The scan is so good I can see the short form BC the scanner had behind the long one. How is it not on the entire copy?
Second: the embossed seal, it's not there at all. You state, "didn't come through so good" ha, that's funny, it didn't come through at all, and that's not good.
Mojohand2222 7 months ago
@Mojohand2222 Sure it can on your standard copier & it did. That's why it's called security paper, harder to copy. If you scrutinize the pdf, you'll see why there is any basketweave on white copy. Whole margin is darker than the rest due to it being bent up & catching more light in Hawaiian photocopying. So when re-copied @ the WH, that dark portion is the only part that remains faintly visible.
I did understate the near invisible seal, it barely shows even on pdf. Photocopied near clean at WH.
Plutodog419 7 months ago
@Plutodog419 I thought about that. Please note that the security paper does not bend. The original being copied does. The hash marks remain straight up, straight down, straight left, and straight right, and they should due to no security paper in '61. Thus the security bars do not bend and should not appear darker. How would the pdf (WhiteHouse) scanner (assuming it was different) pick up the security paper so clearly and the color, if it is "harder to copy"?
Mojohand2222 7 months ago
@Mojohand2222 The original in the book bent when it was copied onto security paper. The darker left margin was on the original two copies made in Hawaii. The fact that they started out darker in the margin means they were easier to pick up in a black and white pretty much standard copying machine. The WH was just making a bunch of copies to give to reporters. A computer, taking color pictures of the LFBC & converting them to pdf caught everything. Except for a good image of the embossed seal
Plutodog419 7 months ago
@Mojohand2222 I don't think the original bound in the book in Hawaii is on basketweave security paper. I think it's white. It was copied onto security paper and the darkness from the binding thus made the basketweave on the copied security paper darker in the left margin. The copy from hawaii doesn't show up if you run it through a black & white, higher contrast copy machine but does come through if you take a color image on the computer scanner and convert it to pdf. Different copy process.
Plutodog419 7 months ago
@Plutodog419 Plutodog, I love ya. Perhaps you are correct. The darkness from the original causes the scanner to pick up that along with the security paper. I can buy that. I just find it hard to comprehend how a scanner or copier or whatever can pick up the short form BC behind the security paper without picking up the security paper anywhere but the side where the darkness from the original occurs. Imagine scanning a piece of security paper and getting what's behind but not on the paper.
Mojohand2222 7 months ago
Wrong! The white document is not "by far the better image". The pencil marks are clearer on the green image.
Wrong also, the documents are the same in every way but the green background. The embossed seal is evident on green version, but not on white one. "No reason for a pdf forgery to be made at all" -- come on dude, there is no reason for any of this insanity.
Why 2 versions? why a pdf? why one is embossed and one is not? why optimize? why security paper shows on ap version? and on & on
Mojohand2222 8 months ago
@Mojohand2222
> The white document is not "by far the better image". The pencil marks are clearer on the green image.
That may be, but generally speaking, we get better detail on the white-background document, since all grayscaling has been eliminated in the PDF.
There are some other problems with the white-background one, however. :-)
As to your other questions -- I will soon be answering every one of them except for "why a PDF?"
springfieldcompguy 8 months ago
@Mojohand2222
So why a PDF? This is a very good question.
PDF is one of the standard possible formats. If you have a multi-page document, it's THE standard format.
Almost certainly, the person who saved the file was used to dealing with multi-page government documents. So the "default" format in this person's mind was, "PDF."
In this case, it turns out to have been a poor format choice.
springfieldcompguy 8 months ago
@springfieldcompguy : What do you think of the correspondence letters(between
White House and Hawaii)? They lack anti-aliasing. How were they scanned? Were they optimized? To me, they look computer generated or optimized but I'm sure there is a simple explanation perhaps a black and white scan does this. Anyway thanks for your expertise, appreciate your time and effort.
Mojohand2222 8 months ago
@springfieldcompguy Why a PDF? I think government agencies would default to publishing a PDF document without a good reason to do otherwise. File security is the reason. The reason it was probably optimized was to save bandwidth. They knew the document was going to be downloaded tens of millions of times.
RCRadioShow 7 months ago
sfco guy ,if you are indeed correct, then we must conclude that the WH ,instead of just scanning a paper doc ,decided to make it LOOK like a forgery on purpose .they coulda just scanned it so that ALL ppl could agree that it was a simple plotocopy of a paper doc but instead they chose too do it so as to make 90 percent of the imaging experts here, think that it a forgery .does BHO just enjoy causing serious and bitter division within america for a good laugh or is he merely an inept idiot ?
woodenmajor 9 months ago
@woodenmajor
I think the best one-sentence answer would be: Look how well the O White House handled communicating to the world after the killing of bin Laden. I don't think I've ever seen such a colossal failure of communication. If it'd been Bush we would've heard weeks of questioning whether his Presidency could even survive. This guy, not a peep.
The same media that tried to make it a nat'l scandal that the R party bought clothes for Sarah Palin wouldn't cover O if he strangled an intern.
springfieldcompguy 9 months ago
@springfieldcompguy >>The same media that tried to make it a nat'l scandal that the R party bought clothes for Sarah Palin wouldn't cover O if he strangled an intern<<
Bravo! Your analysis is brilliant. We are not the Left. We are for the truth; not just our egos at the expense of everything else. Let us never fall into a Leftist-type smear campaign. Thank you for providing an argument that can keep people focused on the real issues with this president, not imagined ones.
happystance7able 5 months ago
@happystance7able
Thanks! Your comment is much appreciated. :-)
springfieldcompguy 5 months ago
Did Hawaii provide two copies, one with green background and one without? Did the Whitehouse along with opdtimizing the document and saving it to a pdf add the color background? Did Hawaii emboss one copy and not the other? How does the AP aquire a copy that is higher resolution, yet it does not have the safety paper background or the embossed seal of Hawaii? According to your logic, the AP version is superior and must have been made first if there is no way it could have been made later.
Mojohand2222 9 months ago
@Mojohand2222
It could've been made later, but with the AP version there is no reason for a PDF forgery to have been made at all.
Answers to ALL of your questions are forthcoming. Stay tuned!
springfieldcompguy 9 months ago
just for you "John."
/watch?v=D3ZQkaTpnKA
ShockOfChrist 9 months ago
@ShockOfChrist I've seen it.
I won't consider a public debate with you until and unless you verifiably reveal your name, your face, and where you work. I won't debate an anonymous sniper, nor should I. You have no right to ask for a debate unless you're willing to publicly put your reputation on the line as I have.
Nor will I consider a debate unless you stop the personal attacks and debate the actual facts.
You should also explain to me why I should give you credibility by debating you.
springfieldcompguy 9 months ago
@springfieldcompguy, Just so you know, mere minutes ago I saw this post, and from there went to ShockOfChrist’s video. I had never heard of ShockOfChrist before (I had heard of the far more famous ShockOfGod).
I posted a few comments. Within minutes, SOC posted at least eight Replies to me. In the seventh one, he tells me, “this is your last warning, either watch other videos of mine or stop trolling here”. I was about to ask him which videos I should watch, only to find that he Blocked me!
COMALiteJ 9 months ago
@COMALiteJ Yeah, I've had all kinds of interesting interactions with this guy. He's repeatedly engaged in personal attacks, called me a "dumbass," made videos mocking me, etc. Yesterday he challenged me to a public debate. I said I would consider it, on a few conditions, including that he put his own reputation on the line as I have done by publicly revealing who he is. He repeatedly declined, all the while continuing to call me a "dumbass" and a "chicken." At this point, I'm kinda tired of him.
springfieldcompguy 9 months ago
@springfieldcompguy, In the last Reply, he claims that I am you! ROTFLOL!!
SOC, I’ve been posting under this handle, and this handle ALONE (with minor variations depending on whether the service allows spaces, etc.: I usually go by “COMALite J” with a space, but YouTube doesn’t allow spaces), on a WIDE variety of Internet forums, and online services that PREDATE the Internet (e.g. GEnie, QuantumLINK, etc.), for the past three decades! I don’t do sock puppet accounts.
COMALiteJ 9 months ago
@COMALiteJ Strange experience. Ah well, that's life on the internet! :-)
springfieldcompguy 9 months ago
@ShockOfChrist I'm the one who's publicly revealed all of my personal information, whereas you have repeatedly declined to do so.
I want folks to know that I'm still busy with this - I will be releasing more information regarding my analysis of this document later.
springfieldcompguy 9 months ago
@springfieldcompguy so? i am glad you've "revealed" your private info. NOBODY asked you. why don't you include your home address, SS#, DL#, etc? hmm? btw, i again failed to see the relevance to the debate itself. do you have not anything else to refute other than being irrelevant? how's it relevant to my challenge to a debate that the doc is a forgery or not?
ShockOfChrist 9 months ago
It's not real because in the 60's, they did not say race as African ----they said "Negro". If it were real, the race of father would say "negro".
Jim777ism 9 months ago
This thing just gets weirder the more you look. Ive been checking out other videos and flipping back and forth between fake & possibly just enhanced.
2 more things to look at. Allegedly their are links to various clip mask that say most were imported rotated 90deg and scaled 28% but the main layer rotated 90deg the other way and scaled 48%. (2)Just above the date stamp in its own layer is the suggestion of an embossed seal scattered pixels clumps are white. If this thing is a fake it was psy-op.
SamanthaFuller100 9 months ago
Ive had a look at the PDF and the AP version and they are supposed to be different scans of the same document. One thing i don't understand, is where the green security checking came from it is not in the AP document and is merged with the base layer of the PDF. Was it put in th make the document look more "official".
SamanthaFuller100 9 months ago
@SamanthaFuller100 The AP document appears to be a simple plain-paper print of the record, apparently for the sake of clarity. The PDF is a scan of the same record printed onto green safety paper, stamped, and sealed to produce an officially certified record.
springfieldcompguy 9 months ago
@springfieldcompguy I'm seeing the same stamps on both scans. So are you're saying that we have two different certified copies of the birth certificate? If so shouldn't the stamps be in slightly different places. where do i download the PDF so i can find out?
SamanthaFuller100 9 months ago
@SamanthaFuller100 No, one copy that is certified (printed on green security paper), and one that's just a plain-paper copy.
springfieldcompguy 9 months ago
its true that i am no graphics wonk .i have noticed however that this debate has moved well beyond the dubious issue of layering ,john , as the virtual last YT defender of the purported innocent origen of BHOs numerous document anomallys , perhaps you should email the WH and ask for the EXACT recipe THEY used to produce what appears to almost everyone else in PC wonkery to be a rather amaturish forgery .given your steadfast ,dogged and coolheaded defense in spite of overwhelming odds ,etc ,etc.
woodenmajor 9 months ago
@woodenmajor That's a good idea, and one which I will probably follow up on. Thanks for the idea!
springfieldcompguy 9 months ago
kerning is the intrusion of one letter into anothers space ,the allignment has to do with longitudinal placements of letters overall ...i think , john , for you to make any credible headway in your case ,you will need to borrow the necessary hardware and software to make a reasonable facsimile of the WH document .after all it is claimed to be a simple unaltered photocopy of a typewritten paper document ,right ? call the WH ,im sure they have a simple PC recipe they can share with you.
woodenmajor 9 months ago
@woodenmajor Denninger's kerning issue is actually far simpler than that. I don't have time to make the video now, but it's still on the drawing table.
springfieldcompguy 9 months ago
my mistake, its box 22, the stamp,
AUG -8 1961
Mojohand2222 9 months ago
@Mojohand2222 Yes, I figured out that was what you were probably referring to. :-)
The two original documents went through different scanning/ optimizing processes, most likely done by completely different pieces of equipment. Most likely different software as well. And the file formats are completely different from each other. This accounts for the difference you noted.
Nonetheless, the AP white-background image is definitely higher-resolution, and generally higher-quality in most aspects.
springfieldcompguy 9 months ago
How is it that the 'G' in box 23 is much clearer in the Whitehouse version? Note the lower right portion of the 'G'. It almost disappears in the AP version.
This leads me to believe the AP version is inferior, because it is just a scan in high resolution of a print of the Whitehouse version with the background(green security paper) layer turned off.
Mojohand2222 9 months ago
john ,can you direct me to the article in national review ,ive already tried the site useing their search engine , what date and author mabey ? do they cover the issues of kerning ,exact duplicate pixeled letters ,misalligned typed keystrokes and the curious two part signature by stanley ann ?
woodenmajor 9 months ago
@woodenmajor As mentioned earlier, the URL is in the 4th video at 3:30. Or, you can do a google search for "national review online obama birth certificate layers," and it pops right up.
They don't cover the issue of "kerning" (which I intend to cover if and when I can get it done). I covered the pixel-duplicate letters and the "two part signature" in my videos. I'm not sure offhand what you mean by misaligned typed keystrokes if not the "kerning."
springfieldcompguy 9 months ago
the ink mighta been slightly different on the original ?im trying to soldier through again john ,you mostly ask us to determine why a forger might do this but would be stupid to that .you havent delt ANY blows to any credible argument ive seen . how about this YOU pick a top "its a fake " and make a vid addressing its pt, EXACTLY point by point .im trying hard to give u the benifit of doubt here john ,if you're an expert you're gonna have to make a much more coherant and OBJECTIVE argument .
woodenmajor 9 months ago
@woodenmajor If you've watched all of the videos, you haven't gotten the points very well -- which I understand, as unless you have experience in doing computer graphics, some of the points would be a bit out of the realm of your experience.
The fact is, I DID pick a top "it's a fake" -- the layers issue -- and then DID spend a full FORTY MINUTES investigating EVERY possible aspect of it (19 different aspects in all) and weighing whether or not the theory made sense. It doesn't.
springfieldcompguy 9 months ago
i am really intrested in finding the truth ,spring....ive been listening carefully but im not getting a very simple or convinceing argument from you .i couldnt find that national review thing on layers ..could you put up a link ? ok forget the layers ,what about the various OTHER issues ?
woodenmajor 9 months ago
@woodenmajor The reply doesn't like URLs. See 3:30 in the 4th video for the URL.
Generally, I think people who don't really quite understand what I'm saying might watch a couple more times. In trying to cover every point possible (and there are 19 different points), I go over a lot of material, quickly. Far more time, thought and consideration went into each point than the amount of time spent covering it in the video.
springfieldcompguy 9 months ago
sounds pretty weak to me can you recreate any of the stuff your claiming?
club213542 9 months ago
@club213542 NRO already recreated the layers phenomenon.
The bigger point: Just TRY and recreate an accurate image of a birth certificate the way that the layers fraud theory requires.
First, get a high-resolution document. Then, create a lower-resolution copy of the SAME document, that looks IDENTICAL when overlaid. Do it by copying all kinds of characters. Make them look typewritten. Make a white shadow/ halo. NO text layers. Hard-pixel characters. Draw the signature. Different size pixels.
springfieldcompguy 9 months ago
@springfieldcompguy I seen the layers done on ocr and the likes but it didnt come out anyting like this.
do you have a link to the NRO one maybe its more like this than the others I've seen
club213542 9 months ago
@club213542 Forge the document creation and last-modified time, but leave the layers.
And make it so accurate to the original that you can overlay a reduction of the higher-resolution image and it will match perfectly.
Just TRY and create a document this way, as a human being, and you'll see how impossible, in practice, it is.
springfieldcompguy 9 months ago
@dookdawg214: When you ask the question “Why” you will find the answer. If falls mostly on the “Something For Nothing Group”! Obama is just buying the votes of the non-working/what’s in it for me class and is reducing the level of living for all of us that have to pay the bills. Life was a damn sight better before the government got involved.
The only reasons for their attacks is based in their fears that they may have to go back to work and pay for their own way…
OldKeyr 9 months ago
@spring Sorry to disappoint you: I'm actually a Democrat who's liberal on a lot of issues, so don't judge conservatives by my comments! I just insist on the truth, and will accept no less. I actually would have voted for Obama had he shown his birth certificate in 2008 when Berg first asked for it! One of the things I have discovered from this whole experience is that my conservative friends do research, whereas my liberal friends just expect everyone to inherently share their views.
ExitAmerica 9 months ago
@ExitAmerica I actually wasn't referring so much to you, more to the general overall response and perhaps some specific things more from others.
And that is an interesting observation. As for research, oh my. I've done a LOT more of that than I ever intended to start with!
springfieldcompguy 9 months ago
Nice series, but you're wasting your time trying to convince a lot of these people. They're like creationists: you can give them breathtaking amounts of evidence, from perfectly arranged fossils, multiple dating methods, comparative anatomy, DNA comparison, etc, etc, etc, and it won't make a dent. Some people's brains simply aren't configured in a way that lets them weigh evidence and effectively measure probability. They want their version and nothing else.
dookdawg214 9 months ago
@dookdawg214 Thanks for the comment. It's an insightful one.
There are two ways to arrive at conclusions. The first is to look at the evidence and come to whatever conclusion the evidence supports.
The second is to decide what you want to believe, then look for evidence to support your preferred belief.
An awful lot of people, probably most in fact, tend to make decisions the second way.
Still, a lot of people ARE interested in actual truth. I would say those are the ones I'm aiming for.
springfieldcompguy 9 months ago
@springfieldcompguy
"It's amazing how evidence falls into place when you begin with the conclusion -- and a hammer."
Not sure who said this actually, but I find it a very good quote.
dookdawg214 9 months ago
@dookdawg214--
Hi there! I thought you'd like to know that "R. Joseph Hoffman" was the author of the quote that you mentioned above. I love that quote as well.
@springfieldcompguy--
I appreciate the work you have done, even though it seems that a lot of it is just guessing on your part (and yes, I did watch all four videos). However, the fact remains: no matter the outcome, Obama is still not eligible to be president because he is NOT, not NEVER could be a NATURAL BORN citizen.
acushla712 9 months ago
@springfieldcompguy--(part 2)
In order for Obama to eligible to be president, he would have to be a NATURAL BORN citizen (not just a regular citizen) of the United States, and there is a difference, that distinction being that in order to be a NATURAL BORN citizen, you must be the child of TWO parents who are BOTH also United States citizens. And we all know that Obama's father is from Kenya (therefore he is a British subject!)
acushla712 9 months ago
@acushla712 The Supreme Court has never made a definitive ruling. Based on what I've read, though, I'd be surprised if the Supreme Court didn't rule he was eligible, as long as he was indeed born in the USA.
springfieldcompguy 9 months ago
@acushla712: “…that distinction being that in order to be a NATURAL BORN citizen, you must be the child of TWO parents who are BOTH also United States citizens.”
That is simply not true. The Constitution makes no such definition of “Natural Born Citizen.” And think about it: if that WERE true, then why has there been all this hoopla over ANCHOR BABIES!? There could never be any such THING as an “anchor baby” if TWO citizen parents were required for Natural Born Citizenship when born here!
COMALiteJ 9 months ago
@ Spring: The problem with the Obama supporters lies within their total lack of fact base rebuttals and only relying upon personal attacks, name calling, and using the race card when race has nothing to do with the subject at hand! As I look at it, if the rolls were reversed I’d be demanding action to be taken with like vigor & commitments!
My experience/training in doc-fraud raised red flags too. This is just too important not to demand a full-scale investigation!
OldKeyr 9 months ago
@OldKeyr This issue would have gone away two to three years ago if Barack Obama had said, "I appreciate that some people want better proof that I am indeed eligible to hold this office. For that reason, I have requested and am releasing my long form birth certificate," and produced it. So yes, there has definitely been a lack of "fact-based rebuttal." Instead, eligibility skeptics were given a pejorative label ("birthers") and accused of racism.
Not an effective way to lay controversy to rest.
springfieldcompguy 9 months ago
@spring: If you are TRULY conducting a serious and OBJECTIVE investigation, it is YOUR responsibility to do the research to examine all sides of the issue: you don't know how many times we hear these platitudes when identifying Obamatron trolls. Then, they start with the Alinsky-style tactics and harass us until we stop posting, which is why in the novel "Exit America" the characters Bill and Camille Jeffers comment about this very tactic so much in use by trolls who claim to be objective.
ExitAmerica 9 months ago
@ExitAmerica I've done that. In the layers issue alone, I've examined it from 19 different points.
Your description of trolls, Alinsky-style tactics, and harassment is a good description of how my factual videos have been treated so far. I've been repeated attacked personally. Not one person has factually refuted a single point I've made, yet the personal attacks seem to keep coming.
"You haven't addressed all points." Okay, what points? Silence. "You're not an expert." Okay, why? Silence.
springfieldcompguy 9 months ago
@ExitAmerica It is frankly disappointing the response I've seen so far to a careful, well-done analysis. I thought conservatives were better than this.
springfieldcompguy 9 months ago
Interesting, and you may be right about the possibility that a computer created the layers, but in your list of things to prove you fail to even include some of the arguments against this document, which completely throws your motives into question. One of the things we try to point out in the novel, "Exit America," is that President Dyongo has trolls prowling the Internet to confuse, silence and mislead the public. Let us not forget that Obama has the same minions at his disposal.
ExitAmerica 9 months ago
@ExitAmerica > in your list of things to prove you fail to even include some of the arguments against this document
First of all, I don't think I can or should accept a burden of proving or disproving every allegation that any person might make. That's just not reasonable.
You refer to things that I've failed to include. Please tell me what they are, and I'll let you know whether or not I plan to address them.
As far as motive goes, just ask me. Or, I can tell you without your asking.
springfieldcompguy 9 months ago
After hearing allegations, I became interested in finding out whether there was anything in them, so I investigated them for myself. After a while, I realized that I knew a good deal about the subject and could reveal things that nobody was talking about. I also realized that sharing what I knew would highlight the quality of my computer knowledge and analytical skills.
springfieldcompguy 9 months ago
I run my own business and have a wife and 6 children to support. When you run your own business, the more that people can see you're good at what you do, the better you can support your wife and 6 children.
I also have another motivation, whether you believe it or not. A lot of people seem to think I'm here to defend Obama. I'm not. Frankly, I'm looking forward to the day when we're rid of him.
springfieldcompguy 9 months ago
But I must confess it does irritate me a bit to see people going on about points that I know, with certainty, are nonsense. It irritates me all the more because I know they're going to eventually be disproven and the longer we go on about them the bigger fools conservatives look. So when it comes to nonsense put forth by conservatives, as far as I'm concerned, the sooner it goes away and we focus on issues where Obama is actually vulnerable (like his disastrous policies), the better.
springfieldcompguy 9 months ago
I also very much enjoy a job done well. I enjoy putting out quality work. And I believe 100% in the quality of my analysis of this PDF file.
springfieldcompguy 9 months ago
You wanted to know my motives. There they are.
springfieldcompguy 9 months ago
hi "expert," explain this watch?v=AlUKqWqLTOI
ThickShades0 9 months ago
@ThickShades0 I already explained it, in detail.
springfieldcompguy 9 months ago
@springfieldcompguy nope. you didn't and haven't. the question is not "why would anyone." the question is EXPLAIN THE "B" PHENOMENON NOW. watch?v=jgTmY_PBueg
ThickShades0 9 months ago
@ThickShades0 Again, I already explained it, in some detail. Look in the video for the section dealing with the check boxes, the letters T, A, E, H, etc. The two B's mentioned are another example of the same phenomenon.
springfieldcompguy 9 months ago
@springfieldcompguy you ought to know i am not talking about some optimization or some layering. give me ONE EXAMPLE that has the exact pixelation at B. do you even understand the question? i want you to give me an alphabet that's exactly matching as if it's copied and pasted as in "B."
ThickShades0 9 months ago
@ThickShades0 I've already given you a bunch of examples, first in the video, and repeated them in my reply above. Have you actually watched the video? I referred specifically to pixel-identical duplication of the letters T, A, E, and H. I also referred to duplication of the number 1 in the video. I suggest that you actually watch the video, and do so closely.
springfieldcompguy 9 months ago
@springfieldcompguy read my question to you on part 3 carefully. i am not talking about if it's "possible" by a program. i am talking about a ghetto version.
ThickShades0 9 months ago
@ThickShades0 I must confess I don't know what you mean when you say you're talking about a ghetto version.
Please watch the video carefully.
Or, perhaps I should go ahead and explain to you what I already said in the video.
It's not just a couple of B's that are duplicated. It's both 1's in 151. It's about 3 T's that are to-the-pixel identical. It's A's. It's E's. It's check boxes. It's H's. There may be other characters to-the-pixel duplicated as well. Frankly, I stopped looking for more.
springfieldcompguy 9 months ago
So the question is WHY? There are only two theories. One, that a human copied them. Two, that a computer program duplicated characters, for one of two reasons: a) that it recognized the pattern and repeated what it had come up with previously, or b) that the same programming, on encountering a highly similar image, produced the same output. Of the two, b), in my opinion, is more likely.
springfieldcompguy 9 months ago
So the question is, how likely is it that a human being copied one 1 to another, several T's to match, the B's you mentioned, and so on and so on.
Human beings do things for a REASON.
In this case, you have to ask, what possible reason could a human being for duplicating these characters?
If you can't come up with any reason, that's a problem. Human beings don't just do totally random stuff because they have nothing else to do.
springfieldcompguy 9 months ago
The same principle applies in dealing with the white background document. We know, for certain, that the Obama administration had a high-resolution version of the birth certificate that they could've released if they wanted to create something for the web. All they had to do was scan it in, laser-print it, stamp it, and voila! A high-resolution version much better than the PDF they released.
springfieldcompguy 9 months ago
The theory being pushed by so many is that instead of doing what would've been far easier, and would've completely taken the wind out of doubts about Obama's eligibility, they deliberately chose instead to spend many hours (or weeks, when you look at what it really would've taken) to create a lower-quality forgery that would only feed doubts.
Why? Why would they do that?
springfieldcompguy 9 months ago
And why, in addition to making the forgery so bad that it would arouse obvious suspicion, would they make it so good that when you overlay the high-quality version on top of the lower-quality forgery, the match is perfect in every way?
None of it makes the slightest bit of sense. And yet we have people trumpeting it like it's God's truth.
Let me ask you something: Do you value the truth? Or do you believe it is permissible to spread things that are false, if it's for a "good" purpose?
springfieldcompguy 9 months ago
@springfieldcompguy do not presume. i shall make a vid for you.
ThickShades0 9 months ago
@springfieldcompguy "ghetto" meaning it's THAT poorly done and rushed.
ThickShades0 9 months ago
although i do think that Obama is a definite fraud, for more reasons than the birth certificate that was released, i also really appreciate the work that you're doing springfieldcompguy! cognitive dissonance can be a bitch, so it's difficult for those who jumped on the layers bandwagon to admit they don't really know what they're talking about lol. anyway, i'm looking forward to the rest of your analysis!! great job.
Weaveuh 9 months ago
@Weaveuh Thank you, Weaveuh!
One thing I am appreciating is that it's really hard for us as humans to let go of an idea once we've accepted it. This is why the media has so much power in controlling even a free country like ours, and why the campaigns to destroy Sarah Palin and deify Barack Obama have had long-lasting effect.
In any event, I really appreciate the positive comments! I've put in a lot of time and effort to produce the analysis, and your appreciation is much appreciated. :)
springfieldcompguy 9 months ago
Remember there is more video coming. :)
springfieldcompguy 9 months ago
If you say that a program did all of this, then show us. If a program did this, then it is easily reproducable, and not just similar.
medhue 9 months ago
@medhue In order to get an exact reproduction, you would need three things: 1) The exact same original as was used the first time. A different original will not be the same graphically and therefore will not produce the exact same result. 2) The exact same software. There are literally dozens of software programs that write PDF files. 3) The exact same software settings. These can vary widely. In light of all of this, I find it impressive that NRO was able to so easily demonstrate the layers.
springfieldcompguy 9 months ago
@medhue >"If you say that a program did all of this, then show us. If a program did this, then it is easily reproducable, and not just similar."
Exactly!
I've been watching about every video about this doc (and other docs). Most all people visibly show us their reasons using software why they say what they do. This user only gives his "human" opinion - yadda yadda yadda. I watched all 4 of his video's because of what he said in his 1st video: he PROVED Nothing! What a total waist of time.
barbsinclair 9 months ago
@barbsinclair Barb, thanks for the comment (and for watching all 4 videos), but I'm not sure how I could have illustrated the points any better than I did. I tried to show and explain everything I could, including the white shadow effect, how graphic layers really work for someone who is doing actual graphic editing work, how Stanley Ann Dunham Obama's signature looks in relation to known valid signatures, an actual overlay of the white certificate (resized) over the green one, and so forth.
springfieldcompguy 9 months ago
@springfieldcompguy
>**"illustrated the points"? You didn't illustrate anything. You just spoke on the doc. for all "human beings" v "computer software." You used terms for "human" as "us" and "our" and "we", as if you spoke for all. You didn't refute any of the video's that did illustrate why it is a fraud. Why not take a step back and do your best to be objective? Make a commitment to NOT be committed to any particular conclusion is a good first step. **Working through the details is another.
barbsinclair 9 months ago
@barbsinclair What specific point or points did I fail to address? Please don't say, "Look it up for yourself," because you must have reference to something specific. We can't know what you're referring to unless you tell us.
As far as objectivity goes, I started out believing that Barack Obama was probably not born in Hawaii.
springfieldcompguy 9 months ago
@springfieldcompguy >"As far as objectivity goes, I started out believing that Barack Obama was probably not born in Hawaii."
I am Canadian. And on Obama, he's more of a British nationalist through his daddy, then American through his mommy. Which btw, is exactly why the framers wrote Section1,Article 2 of the US Constitution on eligibility requirements for serving as President. They certainly didn't want any Brit loyalists in that office. Obama's a usurper; a Trojan horse. giddy up eh
barbsinclair 9 months ago
@barbsinclair I don't disagree. But unfortunately a lot of things are being done that the framers of the Constitution wouldn't have wanted. The larger issue is the size, scope and power of the US government. They never envisioned the all-powerful behemoth it has become.
Actually, that's probably not true. I think they DID envision it, and did what they could to prevent it, knowing that they were perhaps fighting a losing battle, but that they could maybe give us a couple hundred years.
springfieldcompguy 9 months ago
@springfieldcompguy
Agree.
I've spent last 4 years getting educated on history of USA. Canada borders you, so I figured: best that I not slumber regarding the issues facing my neighbor, for what effects the USA, also effects Canada. In that education process, the most enlightening time was spent in US Constitution classes and following the Continental Congress 2009, with US delegates writing "The Articles of Freedom" and intently watching, *IF* that plan shall work = articlesoffreedom . us
barbsinclair 9 months ago
@barbsinclair All of the videos I've seen have pretty much shown the layers and that's it. So I'm not sure why you make the claim you do, but thanks anyway for your time in watching the videos, and your interest in making a comment.
springfieldcompguy 9 months ago
@springfieldcompguy >"All of the videos I've seen have pretty much shown the layers and that's it."
Then you haven't done your work on the details. Like I said, you proved nothing. What a waist of time.
barbsinclair 9 months ago
@barbsinclair Again, if you have reference to some specific point that I've failed to address, then please let us know what it is. Thanks!
springfieldcompguy 9 months ago
@springfieldcompguy
You keep deleting my comments!
I agree with ExitAmerica >"in your list of things to prove you fail to even include some of the arguments against this document, which completely throws your motives into question."
BUT, note this =you reply to THAT >"First of all,I don't think I can or should accept a burden of proving or disproving every allegation that any person might make. That's just not reasonable."
Why should I point out anything to you?
*I took screen shot of this
barbsinclair 9 months ago
@barbsinclair Barb, if you will post comments that have actual content and don't consist of personal attack, I won't delete them.
You state that you agree with ExitAmerica that I haven't included all of the arguments against the document.
The fact is, I've evaluated the document at 19 different points, and intend to further evaluate 3 additional charges.
Neither you nor ExitAmerica have named any argument that I've failed to address.
If you have something specific, please, let us know.
springfieldcompguy 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@springfieldcompguy >"please let us know what it is."
I let them know what it is.
barbsinclair 9 months ago
Sorry dude, your logic on how hard and difficult this is to do by hand, is ridiculous. On the AP document, why the heck is it 16mb? Why is the security paper gone? The file also shows that it was modified, and you are using this as some kind of proof? Is it normal for news agencies to clean up the shotty work of governments?
medhue 9 months ago
@medhue File size will likely vary according to how the image is optimized (or not); and black and white images may be much smaller than ones with more color. It would be very to extremely difficult to remove the security paper from an image. The B/W AP image is therefore of a different paper copy. Why do we have a black and white copy too? I don't know. You could ask the White House and/or the Hawaii Department of Health. Probably they thought it would photocopy better.
springfieldcompguy 9 months ago
@medhue > The file also shows that it was modified, and you are using this as some kind of proof? < Not sure what you are referring to here.
springfieldcompguy 9 months ago
As I commented on Part 3: I would appreciate likes and dislikes based on the quality of the analysis, not simply because you hold a specific political view and want a particular result. Also bear in mind that this is not the final video.
springfieldcompguy 9 months ago