It remains an open question whether any of the prominent public birthers who say such awful and untrue things about President Obama will ever be held accountable for their actions. It is certainly an anti-birther fantasy that some of these face the cold hard reality of the rigors of a cross-examination in court. While birthers are quick to repeat that Barack Obama has never sat in the witness chair to testify about his eligibility and that no court has ever examined his long-form birth certificate, it should be noted that no birther “expert” has ever stood cross-examination in court either.
Mike Zullo has never shown up here as a commenter so far as I know (not under his real name at least), but he is certainly welcome to do so. Lacking the real Mike Zullo, the cross-examination dialog that I’m going to present will attempt to put words into his mouth, words that he might say. In the dialog, I will do the questioning. Text labeled “Mike Zullo” are his actual words in public statements, and text labeled “Faux Zullo” are my idea of what he might say. The context is Mike Zullo being cross-examined on the testimony he gave at Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s press conference July 17, 2012.
I’ll try to do my best Perry Mason imitation, and I will certainly treat Zullo as a hostile witness.
In honor of this story, I have added Mike Zullo to the Who’s Who article category list. Please bear with me, since I have to type up partial transcripts of the press conference before I can write the rest of the articles in this series. It may take a day or two. I think you will like it.
When will that Zullo guy just get used to the fact that different evidentiary standards apply to different people based on how much power they’ve managed to attain?!
some birfoons never learnt?
be get over it!
” Facts, logic, common sense…they were all used before. All they will do is antagonize, confuse and anger them further.”
I am very glad you’ve noticed that Chef! Particularly when power attained conflicts with perception held by the judging party of a subject’s appropriate entitlement to power. That is, the extreme dissonance between the preferences of bigots and the reality of Obama results in extreme denial, which requires extreme abandonment of logic in constructing rationalizations for that denial.
Yes, I am saying that birfers is lyin’ racists.
“Yes, I am saying that birfers is lyin’ racists.”
That this is the core of it has long been obvious. Its tentacles prey on the weak, the fearful and the ignorant.
Dr. C, a few of us at TFB are planning to type up a transcript if that would be of any help. Feel free to PM me at TFB.
You don’t need a birth certificate to get into a FEMA camp. Except the good ones.
LINK TO JOHN WOODMAN STORY
http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/region_phoenix_metro/central_phoenix/birther-author-discounts-sheriffs-claims-on-birth-certificate
Sheriff Arpaio is basing his conclusions about the use of the number 9 on information provided by the very state register who signed Obama’s birth certificate. Pretty damning information that Obots just can’t refute. Doc C. even said he couldn’t get the manual for 1961 but it looks like it isn’t needed because we have direct knowledge for the state register of the time period who is well aware of how the number 9 was used on birth certificates at that time.
Here is the link to one of Arpaio’s reports on the PDF file. Pretty much undermines John Woodman’s findings.
http://www.mcso.org/MultiMedia/PressRelease/Media%20Supplemental%20Report.pdf
Typical vacuous birther comment. Birthers have a simple standard: just about anything including impossible scenarios, incomplete theories and outright lies are admissible if they are negative for Obama, and nothing whatever pointing the other way is admissible.
I wish I had the ability to record and trim this morning’s program on talk radio so it can be trascribed accurately. So I can only record from notes taken and from memory.
The two radio hosts on the “Sean and Frank” show on WCBM, AM 680, made yesterday’s Arpaio presser the lead off segement this morning for almost two hours. They quoted Arpiao about using the PDF-scanned version (not the actual paper version with the raised embossed seal that Guthrie photographed and touched) and that PDF version cannot be brought before a court of law as evidence.
The hosts mentioned the state worker refusing to cooperate with the investigation and the so-called “Hawaii law” saying you don’t have to be a citizen to get a hawaiian birth cirtificate, so out-of-state or foriegn-born can get one.
Now the hosts are saying it’s the role of the Secretary of State to vett the eligibility of candidates. They present as evidence Cleaver gotten booted off the ticket once for being not of proper age to run for president.
Now the hosts are throwing in the draft card stamp single digit for good measure.
Almost all of the program this morning is nothing but blather and “j’accuse” exclimations against the major media of why they’re not leading off with the presser. They’re accusing the media of hypocrisy for running stories about Rommey not releasing all of his tax returns but not the Apriao accusations. Someone put the “combash”, on the media, FOX particularly, into silence as the hosts are accusing
And the hosts concluded (which they had already) that the BC has to be a fake. Callers to the program agreed with that conclusion, incuding one from New York. But I didn’t because I already knew I’d be talking to a wall as shown in this email exchange posted several months ago. The reply is interesting because it was copied and paste from Apuzzo’s article at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2011_07_01_archive.html :
From: *****************************************************
To: Sean Casey [sean@wcbm.com]
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 7:54 AM
Subject: RE: Obama’s Birth Certificate
Dear Sean:
This is in regard to your starting segment this morning about the Joe Arpaio press conference over his claims on the Obama Birth Certificate. I have to ask about Mr. Arpaio’s premise: did he start with a real birth certificate?
As I understand it, rather than using anybody’s real birth certificate as a “control document” they used a computer-printed document they themselves made as a “control.” Arpaio’s cold case posse took a image file that they admit is a scan of a computer-generated birth certificate that they created and compared it to what the White House says is an scan of an original birth certificate, observed optimization differences, and then concluded that their fake is authentic and that the White House certificate is fake. So they started off with a fundamentally different kind of document (computer-printed versus original) using software that differs from what the White House used and then concluded that the end-product differences were significant. That is either a mark of idiocy or fraud.
So far, only one member of the press has actually seen and felt the raised seal of the actual long form document, and that is Savannah Guthrie back in May of 2011. Ms. Guthrie has photographed the document and they are here: http://lockerz.com/s/96540937 and http://lockerz.com/s/96540721 . Is Ms. Guthrie lying?
Lastly, about your statements to the effect that there are three types of citizenship in the United States: The courts has read the 14th Amendment and Article II (natural born citizen provision) in tandem and held that “new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.” There is no third type of citizen based on parentage. The courts has also concluded that “persons born within the borders of the United States are ‘natural born citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person ‘born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject’ at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those ‘born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.’” (Arkeny v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009)).
President Barack Obama was born in the United States. He became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen, thus eligible to be president. But he is still a “red-diaper” baby.
Sincerely,
*********************
From: Sean Casey [sean@wcbm.com]
To: *****************************************************
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 11:30 AM
Subject: Re: Obama’s Birth Certificate
Why do you think the press has actaully seen the real long form original birth certificate? I can’t speak to the process Arpaio used but his team did include forensic scientists, lawyers and law enforcement professionals. as to the control document, you may have a point but it would be easy to mobtain one as I recall that there were a pair of twin born withing the same week whose certificates seem different than Obama’s. As to the citizen ship status, there are seveal ways to become a citizen, at birth or naturalized but there is only ONE way to become President as two previous Supreme Court cases havwe ruled:
At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.” Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168.
This test was affirmed in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. 890 (1898).
Article II of the Constitution provides that “[n]o person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the Office of President . . . .” From the Minor decision, we learn who the Framers placed in the second category as being eligible to be President. These were the “original citizens,” those who were members of and who gave their allegiance to the revolutionary cause that produced the new nation. The Framers grandfathered these individuals to be eligible to be President. There cannot be any doubt that even children who were born on U.S. soil fell into this category simply because they were the first generation of citizens. It is interesting to note that Jane Randolph Jefferson (1720-1776), President Thomas Jefferson’s mother, was born in the Tower Hamlets of Shadwell, a maritime neighborhood of London, England, and came to Virginia when she was young. With the passing of time, no one would be able to benefit from the grandfather clause and then would have to be “natural born Citizens” to be eligible to be President. We learn that “all children born in the country of parents who were its citizens. . . ” make up the “natural born Citizen” category. The Court says that there have never been any doubts as to the status of these children. As to children born in the U.S. to parents who were not U.S. citizens at the time of their birth, there have been doubts. In other words, “natural born Citizen” under this formulation requires two generations of U.S. citizens, one generation in the parents and the other in the child himself/herself who also must be born on U.S. soil. It is important to understand that we are focusing on what is a “natural born Citizen” under Article II which specifies the requirements to be President and not on what a “Citizen” is under the 14th Amendment or under some Congressional Act which does not relate to Article II natural born Citizenship.
Obama, while having his mother’s U.S. citizenship generation, is missing that of his father’s, for his father was a British subject/citizen at the time of his birth. He therefore cannot be a “natural born Citizen,” even if he was born in Hawaii.
From: *****************************************************
To: Sean Casey [sean@wcbm.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2012 1:40 PM
Subject: RE: Obama’s Birth Certificate
Dear Sean:
I like to take the opportunity to thank you for your reply. Your remarks provided some insight behind the statements you and Frank had made on this matter during the past several months.
First of all, like all controversial subjects, a certain degree of vetting must take place. If one does not have access to first-hand accounts and documents, then the vetting must be obtained through examining those that do. I have not noticed through television viewing, nor through searches in Google, that indicates Savannah Guthrie is a partisan hack in the manner of Chris “thrill up my leg” Matthews. So at this time I have no cause to doubt Ms. Guthrie stating in her evening reporting on April 27, 2011 that she physically felt the raised seal on the certified copy from Hawaii (An error on my part as I miscounted the months back to May). Furthermore, one can examine the photograph she took with her cell phone camera that I referenced to you before ( http://lockerz.com/s/96540937 ). The photograph is low-resolution but critical information can be gleamed, as at the time (April 2011) the argument was the birth certificate was a forgery as no one can find an image of the raised seal on The White House supplied .pdf copy. Looking at the photograph one can see elements of a circular disturbance near the lower left area of blocked fields and one can see the “Sig” in the word “Signature” in block 21 cut by the rim of the seal and you can follow the outline of the seal from there. I’ve taken the liberty and enclosed a copy of the photograph copied from Ms. Guthrie’s site and added a marker (using Windows Paint) showing where to look:
You’ll have to copy the photograph from Ms. Guthrie’s site to your computer and enlarge it (I used Windows Photo Gallery) to see the effect a little more clearly but only to the point that hints the paper was disturbed, as raised seals don’t photograph well as seen in the Nordyke photograph ( http://media.photobucket.com/image/nordyke%20twins%20birth%20certificate%20hawaii/hercuroc/090728birthcert.gif ) that you mentioned indirectly and in the Edith Coats photograph ( http://passportsusa.com/wp-content/gallery/passportusa/edith_front.jpg ) . All three photographs (Guthrie, Nordyke, Coats) show the documents are of the same ’61 – ’62 time frame and appear consistent in data and structure with each other.
Speaking of vetting, you stated the Arpaio team did include forensic scientists, lawyers and law enforcement professionals – who? What are the names and credentials of the “computer graphics experts” and “forensic document examiners” who validated the Cold Case Posse’s (CCP) methodology? Have any of them ever testified in court about the authenticity of a document? Why were these not disclosed at the press conference for reporters to interview? Did all Arpaio’s team members agree to the findings? Why were none of the others introduced at the Press Conference?
Lastly, on the last four paragraphs of your reply, the crux of the argument appears that your concept of a “natural born citizen” requires two generations of U.S. citizens to be so established: father and child. You also left out the opening sentences of the quote from Minor: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.” Furthermore, the ruling in Minor was that the Privilege Clause of the 14th Amendment didn’t confer the right to vote to women even if women were citizens; the 19th amendment rectified that in 1920. Minor wasn’t about defining what a “natural-born” citizen is.
As Minor suggests, we look elsewhere for a definition. From my copy of “The Heritage Guide to the Constitution” (2005 ed.), page 190 (referring to Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5) states: “Under the longstanding English common law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are ‘natural born citizens’ and eligible to be President.” Or more recently in Ankeny v. Daniels: “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents” (emphasis added). (Note: since the original Article II, Section 1, Clause 3 was superseded by the 12th Amendment, Indiana shifted remaining Constitutional clauses in that section down by one in their copy. So the Heritage Guide’s Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 is Indiana’s Article II, Section 1, Clause 4)
Have a good weekend,
***********************************************
Never got a response back.
Admissible? They’re compulsory!
It’s not difficult to spot when a birther is lying, his mouth is moving or his fingers are typing.
A more interesting and demanding task would be to look for non-trivial truths in anything birthers say. In the segment of the press conference I saw, I don’t think I heard Zullo once step out of his sewer of mendacity.
To clarify the “Cleaver” reference:
Eldridge Cleaver “… was a Presidential candidate in 1968 on the ticket of the Peace and Freedom Party. Cleaver was born on August 31, 1935, and therefore would not have been the requisite 35 years of age until more than a year after Inauguration Day 1969. (Although the Constitution requires that the President be 35 years of age, it does not specify if he must have reached that age at the time of nomination, or election, or inauguration.) Courts in both Hawaii and New York held that he could be excluded from the ballot because he could not possibly meet the Constitutional criteria. Cleaver and his running mate Judith Mage received 36,571 votes (0.05%).” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eldridge_Cleaver
Technically if Congress certifies the election he could be sworn in. I know in congress this has happened twice with congressmen who weren’t of the right age
Yeah, like making WMDs from whole cloth, and then invading that country so their cronies could get their paws on oil.
Or shouting “you lie,” in the middle of a State of the Union address, but not doing the same when the president says “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”
I agree completely!
*whistles* Oh John boyyyyyyyy! Where aaaaaaaaaarrrre yooooooooou?
John won’t be acknowledging any weakness in the case against Obama, no matter what happens. He’ll just say something like, “First, let’s see where the next hundred years and 2 million more failed Obama eligibility legal challenges “take us”.
Why hasn’t Zullo looked at Romney’s b.c., the one that says “VOID” right on it? Was Mitt born in Canada? Wasn’t that where he was headed with Seamus on the roof? Yes, there is a double standard. One candidate gets the full-court “investigation” from Zullo and the other gets a free pass. Why is Zullo covering up Romney’s Canadian birth? Come on, Chef, answer me!!
I must say that if nothing else, they’re consistent. Almost what…140 losses and 0 wins at this point?
I particularly enjoyed Zullo’s heated defense of his experience as a cop. “5 years,” and most of it as a “Detective.”
Was anyone else as intrigued as I was by those details? When someone rises from street cop to detective in less than three years and then suddenly leaves the police force entirely after a total of five, well… the circumstances of his departure becomes something that I would be very interested to know.
Combine that with the detail that it was immediately followed by a truncated 5 year career as a “PI” before abandoning detective work entirely…
There’s really gotta be a good story in there somewhere!
While there are several precedents for a secretary of state excluding an obviously ineligible candidate, I am not aware of any challenge to this action reaching a federal appeals court. Cleaver’s exclusion was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Hawaii. So far as I am concerned, it’s an open question whether such a candidate can constitutionally be excluded from the ballot.
How the hell would you know?
I think the reporter should have followed up and asked what have you been doing since being a PI. I think hearing “Used Car Salesman” would have created a collective laughing moment.
The problem with Garret Papit’s “study” is that it is… well… trivial.
The output of any digital optimization process is dependent on such a broad suite of hardware/software/setting variables that there are literally hundreds of thousands of different combinations that would have to be checked before any competent investigator could confidently assert that the Whitehouse PDF was not the result of an ordinary optimization process. But according to Zullo, Papit attempted a mere 600 such tests. And based on Papit’s report, most of them must have been redundant.
Papit’s report is the functional equivalent of tossing a fishing line into Lake Meade, reeling in an empty fish hook ten times, and then declaring Lake Meade devoid of fish.
Did you miss this back in March John?
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/03/decoding-the-long-form-part-2/
So John, want I should go ahead and hunt up that quote I told you I would proverbially beat you senseless with, the moment you started to crow again? I’ll go look for it.
Yeah but you guys say that about everything we refute, so what makes these latest conclusions any different?
I’ve specifically seen an image of a Michigan birth certificate for a birth that occurred outside the United States.
Well, here’s a few things that would be fun to see:
Compare/contrast Hawaii laws with Arizona laws. I’ll bet they are almost identical.
What about the laws in the states where Arpaio/Zullo/Corsi were born?
It cracked me up when Corsi made a big deal about a Hawaii law allowing the registration of births from home. Like he’s never been in a blizzard, flood, or blackout and all babies are born only when it’s convenient to get to a hospital! BWAHAHAHAHAHA
Wouldn’t surprise me at all, in fact I’ll bet there are, laws in all 50 states for that situation.
Here’s the law.
http://www.azsos.gov/public_services/Title_09/9-19.htm
I noticed that the eligibility to receive a vital record is pretty similar to Hawaii’s. However, they have a pretty broad category that allows government agencies to request a certified copy of a vital record:
You can look through the rest of the code, but I didn’t see it establish any means of out of state registration of births.
I couldn’t find anything that specifically addressed home births for regular birth certificates, but the Arizona code specifically states that a fetal death certificate must specifically note whether a delivery occurred at home and whether it was the intention to deliver at home.
Here’s some info about AZ law I got from Tomtech on TFB:
I went to the Arizona Statutes and discovered that they allow late registration of births and rules for applying for birth certificates which are fairly broad under limited circumstances.
If someone has access to LexusNexus or Westlaw’s historical Arizona Statutes, a comparison of 1961 and 1982 statutes might be fruitful.
AZ 36-333.02. Delayed birth certificate registration
A. If a birth certificate of a person who is born in this state is not registered within one year after the date of birth, a person authorized by this chapter may submit to the state registrar information and evidentiary documents that support the creation and registration of a delayed birth certificate.
B. The state registrar may waive the information and evidentiary document requirements in subsection A of this section for a birth that occurred before 1970.
C. The state registrar shall create a delayed birth certificate that includes a listing of the information and evidentiary documents submitted pursuant to subsection A of this section.
D. The state registrar shall register a delayed birth certificate if the information and evidentiary documents are accurate and complete, support the creation and registration of the delayed birth certificate and are submitted pursuant to this chapter and rules adopted pursuant to this chapter.
AZ36-333. Birth certificate registration
A. Within seven days after a child’s birth in this state, a person shall submit to a local registrar, a deputy local registrar or the state registrar, a birth certificate for registration according to rules adopted pursuant to this chapter. The birth certificate shall be submitted physically or electronically through the state designated electronic registration system. A local registrar, a deputy local registrar or the state registrar may accept a certificate submitted electronically without the signatures required by rule.
C. If a birth does not occur at a hospital one of the following persons shall obtain the information, evidentiary documents, social security numbers and signatures required by rule for a birth certificate, fill out the birth certificate and submit the birth certificate for registration to a local registrar, a deputy local registrar or the state registrar:
3. If the child’s father or other family member of legal age is not present or is not willing or able and the child’s mother is not willing or able to supply the required information, any other person who is present during or immediately after the child’s birth and who can supply the required information.
It looks like Arizona’s laws are as flexible as Hawaii’s and older versions might show more similarities.
Thanks to Tom!
Well, being an eggplant, Corsi doesn’t understand the finer details of human biology.
Any chance of finding a link to it?
Hmmmmm…I wonder what Michigan laws on out-of-country or late registration births were at that time? Maybe DHS should be wary of all Michigan births?
Yeh, no it doesn’t. Thanks for playing.
I’ve read through the comments on this page and have yet to read one thread of evidence refuting anything Zullo’s investigation uncovered. Only a bunch of people yammering on trying to sound intellectual.
OK, how about the simplest, they tried to tie the law allowing the registration of foreign births to the birth of the President. The President was born in 1961, the law was passed in 1982. Pretty sloppy detective work don’t you think?
Hi Law Abiding:
If you find the comments desultory, perhaps you should read the articles–they are the true focus of this site. You can use the search window at the top of the page, or click on subject links on the right margin. There are also web and subject links at the bottom of the page. I think you’ll find the articles informative, cogent, and well-researched.
Your reading comprehension skills must be seriously lacking.
However, your idiotic trolling skills are about average. Thanks for your asinine, meaningless contribution to the discussion.
We are so much richer for it.
Please amuse yourself with the following links:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/bookmarks/fact-checking-and-debunking/the-debunkers-guide-to-obama-conspiracy-theories/
http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/president-obama
I’s already been refuted, moron. It’s old news, new only to people like you who are desperately trying to warm the embers of their racist heart.
Since this latest funfest has zeroed in on our friend 338-17.8 , which the MCSO press release quotes in part, and chronic birfers are horribly dismayed about, a question:
I notice that the MCSO left out this part:
I thought I had read here — somewhere — what those “rules” actually were, but I couldn’t find them, presumably since for the actual purpose of this site, the most important point is that this law was not in effect when Obama was born.
However, I’m already seeing flack from birfers that the CCP has done some Very Important Work here in uncovering this threat to our precious bodily fluids. Smokescreen accomplished! It’d be nice to shut that down.
Any useful links to the controlling “rules pursuant to chapter 91” ?
Try reading the content instead of the comments, smart guy.
Amazing how ignorant birthers are when it comes to looking for the truth. Can’t be bothered with anything other than comments sections on websites, because that’s where you cherry-pick your allegations and “facts”.
If you are at all serious about wanting the facts, you’d look at the articles posted here, on http://www.thefogbow.com and on John Woodman’s blog.
Either you are blind, or you are a liar. Try reading the content here and not the comments section, and feel free to visit http://www.thefogbow.com and John Woodman’s blog. Thanks.
Either you are blind, or you are a liar. Try reading the content here and not the comments section, and feel free to visit http://www.thefogbow.com and John Woodman’s blog. Thanks.
My comments are being marked as spam. whats going on?
Either you are blind, or you are a liar. Try reading the content here and not the comments section, and feel free to visit fogbow and John Woodman’s blog. Thanks.
Okay try this.
Zullo lied through his teeth when he claimed that the Federal reporting code for race in 1961 indicated that “9” meant “Not declared.” He tried to buttress that claim by displaying a document from 1969 and falsely claiming it was from 1961. The actual 1961 document shows that “9” actually meant “Other nonwhite.”
All of this was first identified by Doc here in this blog more than four months ago.
No, he reasonably speculated as to that.
****
“There are a number of cautions that should be stated prior to decoding the data from the form:
We do not have any documentation from the State of Hawaii as to what instructions were given to form coders in 1961, and whether such instructions were consistent with NCHS documentation.”
“I think this data field, more than any other, has been the subject of controversy, with many misrepresenting this as the race of the child, and its value as “African American.” Decoding this field is a bit tricky because there is no explicit code set stated for the Father’s Race. Indeed, I cannot find any data item on the tape corresponding to the Father’s Race at all (nor Mother’s race for that matter).
The only race codes specified were for the child (NTFUS Page 6):
image
If these are the codes used on the long form, then the pencil notation of “9” indicates “Other nonwhite.” We can only speculate as to why a code not on the NCHS tape was coded. We note that there is no code for “not stated” because the child’s race is derived from that of the parents and some value will always be recorded. That is evident from the 1968 code notation below that indicates that only the parent’s race can be unspecified.”
*******
Doc himself is relying on the 1968 Code to buttress his own position above.
Are you referring to another post? The above is from
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/03/decoding-the-long-form-part-2/
The other #9 issue is also not cleared up by the post:
Block 12b – Father’s Kind of Industry
image
This data field is absent from the NCHS layout and no code set seems applicable in deciphering the value of “9.”
HistorianDude is right, though, that if the CCP is relying on the 1968 codings, “9” would not mean “not specified”; it would mean “Unknown or not stated.”
So the most charitable interpretation of the CCP’s case is that if the 9 is on the paper form that they used to say didn’t exist, and if it’s based on the 1968 coding, then it’s possible that someone used that code to mean the box is blank.
Or, it could mean that “African” is not one of the other available code choices, which it is not.
As others have pointed out, “African” doen’t mean a specific race, so with only the birth record to go on, you’d have to go with “unknown” for the race field.
In other words, this whole latest rehash of “picking at nits” is stupid and meaningless and a sign of desperation at argumenting over immaterial trivial matters by the Birthers and their supporters.
Bottom line: The HI DOH has repeatedly certified the document and its data. Nothing trumps that. Just another propaganda wild goose chase by WND and those desperately clinging for excuses to support their irrational hate.
Speculated? Sure! Reasonably? Not so much.
Zullo has two modes. Speculation, and flat out lying. This presser was a mix of both.
Charo meant it was Doc who “reasonably speculated,” not Inspector Pornstache.
Ah, my mistake then.
Did you just see what happened, John? I made a mistake, and admitted to it. Its something you birfers really could use some practice doing. You might want to start small, and eventually work your way up to the big stuff.
Two questions:
Does Zullo really think he’s going to get to see if the President weighs the same as a duck; and how far back do Zullo and Farah go?
I read on the internet, that those two were partners in molesting ruminants. Note, I am NOT accusing either of them; I am merely repeating what I read or heard, somewhere.
Doc has the 1961 manual. Read today’s article, titled “Code 9: …
Geez, misha, now I’ve read it on the internet. That’s uncanny.
To Law Abiding and any other birther who claims there is no debunking of this:
http://www.thefogbow.com/special-reports/arpaio-2-in-2d-the-shock-of-zullo/
READ AND LEARN. Thx 🙂
Ok this is nonsense. Doc, why can I not post a url here? Every time I do my post is disregarded and deleted.
What is going on with the comments section here?
URL:
http://www.thefogbow.com/special-reports/arpaio-2-in-2d-the-shock-of-zullo/
I am unable to post anything with a url. Posts are being deleted as they are submitted. There is something wrong here, anyone know what’s going on?
ok lets try this:
xxxthefogbow.com/special-reports/arpaio-2-in-2d-the-shock-of-zullo/xxx
Delete the x’s and go to the website. The Sherriff’s report is completely debunked all in one place, so any birther coming in here and claiming that is not the case, you need to go read.
http://www.thefogbow.com/special-reports/arpaio-2-in-2d-the-shock-of-zullo
You’ll get new debunking when your hero presents something new. Until then, do your homework. Generalized objection does not an argument make.
Reality Check’s email with Corsi
I had an “accidental” email exchange with Corsi today. I will summarize. I had emailed Mike Zullo last night to inform him they had used the wrong codes for the analysis of the race box for a 1961 birth certificate and that I could help him get to the truth if he was interested. He sent my email to Corsi for follow up. (I am not sure what to make of that but I take it Corsi is the go to guy for “research”). Corsi replied back and asked (well actually he just commanded) that I send him what I had. I sent Doc’s link to the 1960-61 tape codes and said they had used the 1968 codes by mistake (giving them the benefit of the doubt). The dots and smudges match up exactly to the Gillar video. Corsi said Doc is wrong and he has the 1961 codes. I said OK why didn’t you release the source of the mystery codes or you could you know send them to me. Why did you put the 1968 codes on the screen yesterday? That was the end of the conversation.
Doc C has shown how the so called 1961 document matches perfectly the 1968 document. Will Corsi provide us with the document that supports his claim or will he admit to his errors? I am not holding my breath.
Also, why would Zullo, the investigator, forward the information to Corsi? Interesting.
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/07/19/reality-checks-email-with-corsi/
And THAT tells all of us everything we needed to know about the “legitimacy” of the CCP puppet-show and who has always been controlling and pulling the strings…
G: And THAT tells all of us everything we needed to know about the “legitimacy” of the CCP puppet-show and who has always been controlling and pulling the strings…
i’m sure the debunked corsi struts like a peacock as the expert in all things birther
where did trump go for his bogus info? corsi (& not any investigators in hawaii)
when you begin investigating a cold case file, you start with fresh eyes at the beginning – where did the CCP (frozen fools) begin? with corsi and wing nutzz daily
Well of course you haven’t, because you pretend to be a blind racist moron, except when you’re just a racist moron.
BillTheCat: thefogbow.com/special-reports/arpaio-2-in-2d-the-shock-of-zullo
http://www.thefogbow.com/special-reports/arpaio-2-in-2d-the-shock-of-zullo
•Claim: There was no legal authority for anyone to make a PDF of the birth certificate.
◦FALSE. Even Zullo said that Nagamine told him that the recipient could do whatever they wanted to with the certified copy. Hawaii has no legal prohibition against making unofficial copies of a birth certificate. Under Construction
someone might want to look at
18 USC 1028 – Fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents, authentication features, and information
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1028
I find it interesting that Hawaii did not MAIL the BC to the Whitehouse or send a copy electronically but had an attorney pick it up and fly back with it .(c)3 (A) 3 (B) This was clearly outside their usual handling of requests for copies of BC’s which is by mail.
Without WND as the main peddler to constantly reinforce brainwashing to their Cult, the sham smut of Birtherism would likely be only a mere fraction of its size today. Obviously, these same ODS sufferers would still be out there, but many of their heads wouldn’t be filled with all this silly nonsense.
No vital records office ever sends certified copy of a birth certificate “electronically.” The raised seal would jam the modem. The Department services both mail and walk-in requests. Of course this one was somewhat unusual, but it establishes the chain of custody nicely and no birther can claim that someone in the White House mail room tampered with it.
You’re reading the wrong page.
Try these:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/07/code-9-the-cold-case-posses-big-lie/
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/07/cold-case-posse-more-contradictions-in-their-story/
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Amazing someone complaining about a certified document doesn’t even realize that it’s the RAISED SEAL that certifies it!!!
You’re just not used to talking to intelligent, rational people. When we analyze situations carefully and factually, parsing facts from the psychotic blather of Birthers, it probably sounds like “trying to sound intellectual” because you’re not used to it.
Shakespeare would sound like he’s “trying to sound intellectual” if you spent all your days in the monkey house at the zoo.
I love the feel of a raised seal. It evokes such a pleasant tactile sensation. I wish more documents had raised seals.
Yeah, but at least when we do it, we succeed. Birthers not so much.
Jim
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Amazing someone complaining about a certified document doesn’t even realize that it’s the RAISED SEAL that certifies it!!!
You are funny, what did the WH post on the internet?They posted an electronic copy without a RAISED SEAL and you expect everyone to believe it is valid and are trashing my direct comparison saying its not certified. You and Doc took the bait, hook line and sinker.
At least you admit you’re just a lonely troll.
Go back to playing with cat turds in the sandbox. If Congess or a Court wanted a legally-admissable document on BHO, they would be provided the same COLB he displayed in 2008. That is the legal document; the long form was just backup.
You infants will never accept the plain, verifiable, unquestionable fact that BHO was born in Hawaii, and eligible, so why even come here and stink the place up with your overloaded diapers? The adult world (Congress, Judges, the SCOTUS, the Electoral College, the anti-Birfers here) will go on just fine without you pathetic wailing thumb-suckers who can’t handle the truth.
Except that the raised seal is there. Clearly.
http://factcheck.org/Images/image/birth_certificate_images/birth_certificate_5.jpg
ThriftyJuly 19, 2012 at 9:52 pm (Quote)#
Except that the raised seal is there. Clearly.
that is not what the WH posted.
Except for some important facts…they showed the physical document to a group of reporters, allowed them to touch it, take pictures of it, and verify the raised seal is there. So, instead of just a document posted on the web, it also has INDEPENDENT WITNESSES that can attest to it containing all the features that a properly certified document should have! Add to that the fact that ALL THE DATA on the BC posted on the web has been verified as true and accurate by the state of Hawaii, then you find out the truth. While you were fishing, I was playing Chess. CHECKMATE!!! BWAHAHAHAHA
Jim
I was playing Chess.
You were playing with something thats for sure.
“I verify that the information in the copy of the Certificate of Live Birth for Mr. Obama that you attached with your request matches the original record in our file”.
During a forgery investigation, certifying, “information matches” does not address the central and entirely separate issue of a whether a suspicious document is a true copy of an original document. The question remains if a forgery can contain information similar or even identical to that contained in an authentic document, yet still be a forgery.
http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/freedom-press-not-free/2012/may/24/hawaii-state-registrar-onaka-birth-certificate-/
That is absolutely the DUMBEST thing I’ve ever heard! No wonder you people are still living in caves! WHY WOULD YOU CREATE A FORGERY WHEN YOU CAN GET THE REAL THING? Why even BOTHER? You are so desperate you just make totally IDIOTIC statements like that. BTW, in case it’s not straight to you, because obviously you lack the cognizant skill to tell the difference, the board game with the round pieces is called checkers, not chess. And it’s a good thing you aren’t playing cards, you definitely aren’t playing with a full deck. BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Why does it matter? In order for forgery to be prosecuted by any criminal authority, there needs to be some sort of advantage to be gained. For the most part, many of the abstract copies of birth certificates are produced via some sort of electronic printing system. The ultimate source for this information may be a signed piece of paper, a reproduction of the original on microform, or even an electronic file.
It someone for some odd reason someone creates a facsimile of their own birth certificate from scratch and tries to represent that for a legal purpose, the receiving source might have an issue with it. However, it would be difficult to prosecute if the information is 100% correct.
All the information is correct. When Hawaii issues a letter of verification, all they’re authorized to do is verify that the information is correct. When the Miss Dem Party sent them an image, they can’t with 100% certainty say that it was an image derived from one of the copies that was delivered to Obama. They don’t have the resources to legally determine that it was a reproduction of a document they issue. I’m pretty sure that behind the scenes the Hawaii DOH employees are wondering what the fuss is all about since they’re sure that the PDF on the WH website was derived from a document they issued, but they wouldn’t be authorized by statute to say so in their official capacity.
So the state of Hawaii’s official records said that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, yet he felt the need to forge a birth certificate saying that he was born in Hawaii? Good idea. I know that even though I’m 31 years old with a valid driver’s license, I still buy all my beer with a fake ID.
Is this seriously where your honest search for truth following the evidence is leading you?
Here’s what I’ve been looking for
A genuine copy of a fake Dior
– Allan Sherman
This is so May 2011. Even in the miserably compressed background of the PDF, the seal is visible. Need help finding it? The top of the seal is centered on the border between boxes 20 and 21. If you’re familiar with the “white dots” meme, you’ve already been introduced to the highlights of the embossed seal, and it’s been staring at you this whole time. 😉
Jim
Except for some important facts…they showed the physical document to a group of reporters, allowed them to touch it, take pictures of it, and verify the raised seal is there. So, instead of just a document posted on the web, it also has INDEPENDENT WITNESSES that can attest to it containing all the features that a properly certified document should have! Add to that the fact that ALL THE DATA on the BC posted on the web has been verified as true and accurate by the state of Hawaii, then you find out the truth. While you were fishing, I was playing Chess. CHECKMATE!!! BWAHAHAHAHA
Hmm Which one of the BC’s is the “real one”? Which one did Hawaii
“verify”?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgqlaco9OHY&feature=context-chv
JPotterJuly 20, 2012 at 12:23 am (Quote)#
magic bullet: They posted an electronic copy without a RAISED SEAL
This is so May 2011. Even in the miserably compressed background of the PDF, the seal is visible.
No thanks I dont need help finding a RAISED SEAL, as Doc said it would jam the modem, you do agree with Doc don’t you?
Constipated? Contrary information has that effect on birthers.
Please, use the quote function for greater clarity. Need help with that, too?
Frankly it doesn’t matter. By Hawaii statute the only verification is for the information provided to the Hawaii DOH. Someone could draw the information in crayon on something that looks like a certificate a kindergarden teacher would hand out to a student. If the information matches the entries in the HDOH records, they will verify it as correct if the information is correct.
I hear there are places in Tijuana where you can get sense-of-humor enhancement surgery.
y_p_wJuly 20, 2012 at 12:42 am (Quote)#
magic bullet: Hmm Which one of the BC’s is the “real one”? Which one did Hawaii
“verify”?
Frankly it doesn’t matter. By Hawaii statute the only verification is for the information provided to the Hawaii DOH. Someone could draw the information in crayon on something that looks like a certificate a kindergarden teacher would hand out to a student. If the information matches the entries in the HDOH records, they will verify it as correct if the information is correct.
So what is missing from the verification that is likely also in their files that all the word juggling and wordsmithing by Hawaii avoid ? What couild they be hiding in plain sight? Read between the lines.
What word juggling? They stated that all the information in the version of the birth certificate posted to the WH website matched what they had in their records. That’s not word juggling. That’s unequivocal.
This is the second time I have seen this birfer fail today. Why would an archive ‘verify’ a copy of one of its records? They do so at the time of issuance, and have no control of it afterwards. The issuing authority verifies, on request, that requested details match the original record on file.
Which is gonna be awfully hard for birfers to get around, so they play stupid. Surprise.
Without surgery even. In-out patient, back alley procedures 😉
Yeah, but somebody’s going to wake up in a bathtub full of ice and discover their sense of humor is mysteriously missing.
So, what I have here is a theory that the White House Department of Forgery, rather than creating one document and copying it, created two different documents, by hand. Because they are artisanal forgers, and always kick it old school. Making a copy would make it look too much like what actually — er, I mean putatively happened in Hawaii, and we can’t have that.
(Mark Gillar, by the way, believes that one of these documents says “Huwaii.”)
They then trot out both documents at the presser. Savannah Guthrie, as she works the room, stops to take a picture of one of the documents. Later, just before she goes, she thinks, huh, let’s take another. But she’s photographing the second one now. And no one in the room notices the “Huwaii.”
Or, it’s the same document, and one photo is at low resolution, creating compression artifacts of the same type that get birthers in a Fred Willard-like frenzy whenever they contemplate the giveaway word “TXE”, but are not actually present in the physical document — just like the “TXE”.
Now, of course, what spoils the first theory is that everyone in the room also got a high-res copy of the BC to take away with them, images of which can be found all over the net. And which doesn’t say “Huwaii.”
Oh well.
Wow, you really are just a gullible tool, aren’t you.
Again, you sling around cheap amateur youtube videos made by nobodies with ZERO authority, yet somehow conveniently ignore what the ACTUAL OFFICIALS say…
HINT: Go to the HI DOH website. They LINK directly to the image on the WH website and are quite clear that they back it. Simply put, the DATA displayed at that link *IS* what they have authenticated….
*DUH*
But hey, keep living in wilful denial and coming across like a fool…
AGREED!
Play?
Here’s a nice pic for you to use Doc. And while you’re there, make sure to give it a good caption!
http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2012/07/joe_arpaio_master_birther_mike_zullo.php
I want to back up and run over this one again. (“Oh, bite me; it’s fun!”) Since this same guy also did an entire video on “Huwaii,” I’m going to drill down on that.
Your man has available to him at least four copies of the BC from the May presser. In order of image quality, they are:
1. The high-res image handed out to all attendees;
2. The notorious PDF o’ doom;
3. The higher-res Savannah pic;
4. The lower-res Savannah pic.
1. In the high-res image, the letter “a” in question is rendered at about 40×44 pixels. It’s an “a”.
2. In the PDF, the letter “a” in question is rendered at about 20×22 pixels. It still looks like an “a”.
3. In the higher-res Savannah pic, an equivalent lower-case “a” is about a 9×9 block, and is still unequivocally an “a”.
4. In the lower-res Savannah pic, the “a” (or “u” — sure, why not?) is 4×4. It looks like a box with a squiggle.
Which image does your man decide to work with? The 4×4 squigglebox.
Here, let’s go a little further. What would be the minimal size image I would need to draw “by hand” something that conveys all the elements of a lowercase “a” in this font? I think it would be 5×6:
▇▇▇▇
▔▔▔▇
▇▇▇▇
▇▔▔▇
▇▇▇▇▇
▔▔▔▇
On the image he uses, because there weren’t enough rows and columns recorded by the camera, the letter was captured as this:
▇▇▇▇
▇▔▇
▇▔▇
▇▇▇
It gets worse — clearly this isn’t in the best lighting conditions, and there was also compression at work. There may have also been image stabilization turned on, which would make these pixels even less likely to be a faithful rendition, but I don’t know that for a fact.
The bottom line is: despite what you’ve seen on Law and Order: Special Vacuuming Unit, you can’t “enhance” an image to pull out detail that was never recorded.
If I’d had to guess, with no other data or context available, I’d have said this was a mutant “o”. If only there were higher resolution captures of this exact same document. If only.
This, of course, substantially replicates the same ground covered in the past by others, including a post by Dr. Conspiracy.
I’m pretty sure that when Guthrie uploaded the photos to Lockerz, the photo was saved at their standard resolution. I’m guessing that the original images that she’s got (if she kept them) are at a higher resolution.
Personally, I looked at those photos a simple viewing tool that doesn’t apply optimization. I saw the “a” in Hawaii as a 3×4 pixels, but with the “a” sort of bleeding into the “w”. When something is compressed that much, strange things happen.
It sounds like we looked at it exactly the same way. I just counted a 4th column to be extra generous to their case — the one between the proto-a and proto-w has a dark pixel on the top.
And yes, my point was exactly that “when something is compressed that much, strange things happen.” Which the guy who did this video completely ignores, also ignoring the three higher-resolution images of the same document that he had available to him.
Note to “magic bullet”: When your entire argument is based on cherry-picking the most unreliable data available to you… you just may be a birther.