When I was in high school my math teacher presented a “mathematical proof” that 1 = 2. The object of the lesson was to demonstrate how errors can be made in a proof, not some profound flaw in arithmetic. By the same token when a birther publishes a “forensic proof” that President Obama’s birth certificate is a forgery (given the many confirmations and certifications of it) the most likely to be fruitful approach is to look for a flaw in the proof. This is the case with the latest from Paul Irey, a man who is no stranger to fallacious proofs that Obama’s birth certificate is a forgery.
We know from the work of NBC, Kevin Vicklund and Reality Check, that President Obama’s published long form birth certificate PDF file has hallmarks of having been scanned to PDF on a Xerox WorkCentre model (probably a 7655) and then rotated and saved using Preview on a Mac computer. The logical approach to determining whether Obama’s birth certificate image is a scan of a real document or a “computer-generated forgery” would be to compare it to a real document scanned on a Xerox machine and rotated and saved on a Mac (or to compare it to a computer-generated forgery) and look for differences. For some reason, birthers prefer not to do either of these. They prefer to compare the PDF to what they imagine a real scanned document would look like and draw conclusions that only a serious expert in the field could do. (They also look at other birth certificate images created at different times, under different conditions, and with different technology.)
Interestingly a birther actually came up with the flaw in Irey’s latest claim (“New Additional Evidence Proving Obama Birth Certificate and PDF Document a Computer Made Forgery – The Smoking Gun – by Paul Irey”) that part of the border edge of Obama’s certificate is missing. The commenter “therak” said at the Las Vegas Guardian web site July 29, 2013:
Give me the recipe. Explain not only the Xerox Workcentre 7655 model… but what software and what SETTINGS to achieve ALL THE NOMALIES (sic) seen in the birth certificate. I notice the explanation tries to say a feature called “Edge Erase” causes the clipping mask that hides information (to explain that anomalie (sic)). Uh… hate to break it to you… but “Edge Erase” Deletes (OR CROPS) information… not HIDE it… thus that excuse doesn’t work.
Irey removed the clipping mask added to the PDF by the Mac Preview, but as “therak” says, the Xerox “edge erase” feature deletes information, about a tenth of an inch of the border, and that cannot be recovered. So when Irey compares the photograph of the actual birth certificate taken by NBC News’ Savannah Guthrie to the scanned PDF version, indeed part of it around the edge is missing, exactly as it should be. The difference between the scan and the photograph is also evidence that the photograph is not derived from the scan.
Irey also claims that various birth certificates have different printed widths, but I showed long ago that at different times birth certificates were photocopied with different reductions (all modern copy machines reduce images to some extent to prevent photocopying currency).
Irey further says: “… I have taken a top right section of 10 assorted sheets from a ream of the [security] paper to show that the cut is always close to the vertical basked weaves along the right side of the paper.” The first basic question one might ask is, what does “top right” mean on a piece of security paper? I mean, how do you know it’s not the “bottom left”? Of course, there is no way to make such a distinction. I looked at more sheets of the security paper (I have a box of it too) and what Irey says is not actually true in general (it’s not even true for the images Irey shows in his report!).
Some of us were stunned when Paul Irey said on Reality Check Radio that he knew Obama’s birth certificate was a forgery before he even looked at it. All this time he has been trying to prove a false statement, and that is logically impossible. Birthers make the jump from anomaly to forgery, analogous to making the jump from 1 = 2 to “arithmetic is wrong.” They need to first look long and hard at their proofs before jumping to conclusions.
Irey has released another “smoking gun proof” via Kerchner.
This time he tries to make something out of the security paper pattern. It’s really quite bizarre: he talks about how the paper is “precision cut”, then “proves” it by showing samples of 10 sheets where there’s a significant visible variation.
He also shows the “forger’s” birth certificate. Hilariously, he “redacts” it so you supposedly can’t identify her, but leaves the bottom edges of much of the type visible, because he wants to show that the word alignment matches Obama’s. And show enough so that anyone (even a birther!) who’s seen the unredacted version can tell whose it is.
The Farce is strong in this one.
He did at least produce a late December, 1960 birth certificate. The cert number is in the 15000 – which is about right for the number of births per year in Hawaii.
The race of the mother is Japanese and is coded 6. Which matches the table Doc provided earlier.
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/12/race-tabulations-in-hawaii-1961/
My understanding is that this paper is printed so that the pattern on the front exactly registers with the pattern on the back.
Indeed, his entire argument rests entirely upon the assertion that the paper is always cut at the exact same point in the pattern. Every batch ever produced by every manufacturer has to be cut in the exact same spot for his argument to work.
But…
Back in September 2013, Doc received a packet of Simpson security paper that he forwarded on to Reality Check. RC used the paper to run several experiments on a Xerox 7535 (a later model than the 7655 used by the White House). One of the things he did was take a picture of the blank paper before printing a copy of the BC on it.
It’s quite clearly not cut at the same spot as Irey’s samples.
Irey says it’s done by using ink that bleeds through, so there’s a fuzzier version of the pattern on the back. Sounds likely.
But I was a little vague: he claims the paper is cut so that the pattern is always aligned precisely the same way with one edge, but his samples don’t show that.
Even if true, he doesn’t show enough to demonstrate that the paper wasn’t loaded differently, so what would normally have been the right edge wound up on the left side.
It’s kinda like Poe’s Law: you can’t tell whether he’s trying to sucker the idiots, or being one.
I thought of that, but the left side of the Guthrie doesn’t match Irey’s samples either.
It does match the Doc/RC samples when rotated, though…
ETA
Actually, I looked closer, it seems to be a closer match without rotation. Irey tried to hide the fact that one of the two vertical lines made the cut, as it were.
…and Kommander Kerchner’s already closed comments after I revealed the big flaw in Irey’s argument.
ETA
Can anyone see my comment on Birther Report? Kerchner directed me there, so I figured I had an open invite 😀
I just came from Birther Report, and I did see your comment. I’m looking forward to reading replies from the (ir)regulars there, but none yet.
It’s there – did you e-mail Irey?
I can see it.
I also posted about Irey’s new evidence at the Fogbow. The missing cross hatching on the edges of the LFBC PDF is due to the Edge Erase feature on the Xerox WorkCentre that was used to scan the document. It hides approximately 0.1″ all around in the default setting. Since Savannah Guthrie got to photograph one of the two certified copies actually printed on security paper it would show the pattern all the way to the edge. Irey apparently removed the clipping mask on the LFBC to reveal the hidden cross hatching but the part Edge Erase removed cannot be recovered.
I saw the same effect when I scanned my test specimen printed on the security paper Doc sent me.
What Irey just proved is what we already knew that Savannah Guthrie really did get to photograph one of the two certified copies of the LFBC.
I also emailed this to Irey but he has not responded.
Kevin if you agree you might add a comment at BR. I am uber banned there.
Fat chance of that.. even our paper currency isn’t always cut in proper alignment.
Just to remind everyone about the clipping mask. The clipping mask was added by Quartz Preview on a Mac. When you open a PDF on a Mac in OSX and save it using Preview it adds a clipping mask set to the borders of the current printer. This mask can be turned off in programs like Adobe Illustrator to reveal the part of the scan underneath from the original Xerox WorkCentre PDF. I have also verified this with testing. The are some “hidden” tick marks on the LFBC pdf that Mark Gillar claimed were proof of forgery. They are explained by this process.
I also checked a sheet of the Simpson green security paper and it has 25 pattern repeats across the 8.5″ dimension.
Have you seen what that idiot Irey has added now?
“None of that was available in 1961 … so Mr. Vicklund should be the one finding if any of these versions were in use at that time … and then he needs to find an example of an extra hash mark pattern in use during the era in Hawaii’s dept of health.
“We all see what was used in the era … and it was the single pattern available 53 years ago.
“Those new patterns are not exactly the same art and done slightly differently … so they would not be sued.”
Read more at http://www.birtherreport.com/2015/07/report-smoking-gun-evidence-revealed.html#QgSVtJo8ItvqEqR7.99
The great expert thinks the security paper is from 1961!!
Originally his claim was that the two tick marks are coding for the birth certificate and the clipping mask could only be added deliberately to hide those marks. Thus forgery. Now I think he just claims that the two tick marks are coding and they are proof of forgery.
I thought they were some type of artifact caused by the scanning software.
Done.
Thanks, Doc.
Another funny thing is that for someone who claims to have 40 years experience in graphics and printing his SCRIBD document is almost unreadable.
That’s why I nicknamed Vogt and Irey Dumb and Dumber some time ago. They just don’t have a clue between the two of them.
Another thing to note:
Irey’s graphics don’t match his written description. He claims that he only enlarged the Obama pdf in the horizontal direction in order to get the hash marks to line up, which made his 160 mm dimension stretch to 163 mm, while keeping the 133 mm dimension intact. But if you look at the graphic, the vertical dimension is also enlarged, and the bottom hash of the 133 mm dimension comes to a different point on the BC. Assuming he is not outright lying, he either enlarged both, and then enlarged the horizontal dimension again (invalidating his claim about the 133 mm dimension), or he thought he was only enlarging the horizontal dimension but actually enlarged both.
Doc, is it at all possible that you meant to write “1 = 2” instead of “1 ≠ 2”?
Three things:
1. The Guthrie picture and the White House posting are two pictures using different technology of the same document, taken under different conditions. No different than any other scenario in which two people take pictures of the same thing.
2. With all due respect to Reality Check and Vicklund, the most critical fact is that the State of Hawaii says that the information on the White House posted document matches what is in the original on file in Hawaii. The Birther argument about layers is simply irrelevant to any real expert analyzing the document. All that Reality Check and Vicklund did was to prove that the Birthers were full of their usual nonsense.
3. Any narrative that the birth certificate is forged may reflect on the character of the proponent of the certificate, but, ultimately, to actually have an effect, one must prove the President was actually born outside the United States under circumstances where his mother’s citizenship would not be transmitted to him. That requires more than a guess, more than the Grandmother tape, and more than any forgery produced by Lucas Smith. The Birthers have yet to come up with a piece of evidence of a non-qualifying birth.
Me too… Proof that 1=2
I miscounted late last night. The pattern is 24 across.
Actually it is about 24-1/2 so it depends on where you count the vertical tick marks.
Kevin
I see now where Irey tried (ineptly I might say) to address the Edge Erase feature.
I checked a sheet of green security paper against the Savannah Guthrie photo and the pattern matches. There are approximately 24+ repeats across the narrow dimension. So if you are counting double vertical bars your will get 24 or 25 depending on how the pattern aligns with the sheet. One thing to remember is that these sheets are cut from a larger roll so I am sure that there are variations from batch to batch depending on how the cutters line up. Therefore, it is meaningless to try to take horizontal slices of various birth certificates and try to match up the pattern.
Another thing I found when examining the sheets is that there is a slight skew in the pattern. The sheet cut is not quite parallel to the pattern so that will cause a variation in where the pattern starts as you go up and down the left edge of a sheet. I don’t know whether the skew is intentional or just manufacturing tolerances.
Kevin is correct. You cannot use the form to calibrate to the green security pattern unless you know the printer reduction settings.
I noticed this statement on Irey’s latest failure:
” I eventually got a high resolution scan of that document [“forger’s” LFBC] that now resides with the Arizona Sheriff Arpaio. It was scanned by Doug Vogt in Arizona and he observed that it was actually printed to security paper and had a Hawaii state seal impressed on it that he could feel … and see. ”
It sounds like Arpaio has the actual certified copy of the “forger’s” LFBC.
Also, too I sent Mr. Irey an e-mail to explain that all he is seeing with the type written text is the variation between typists. And that could be shown by looking at the Nordyke twins’ BC.
He responded that when he overlaid the Nordyke’s BCs on top of each other the type text did not line up. And that President Obama’s and the “forger’s” did line up on 11 of the typed entries.
So I did the same thing and explain my procedure in an e-mail response:
I did the same thing. Overlaid one on the other. Made the top layer 50% opacity, adjusted for skew and ignored the typed entries while lining up the preprinted headings STATE OF HAWAII, CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, FILE NO. 151. Then aligning the vertical and horizontal form lines and the three triangles in boxes 18a, 19a and 21. I found almost all of the entries are well placed and some are perfectly placed, for example :
Box 2: Female
Box 6c: Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital
Box 8: ROBERT ALLAN are perfect lined up while the last name NORDYKE is off by three spaces.
Box 9: Caucasian
Box 13: ELEANOR lines up perfectly while LOUISE is off by two spaces and COLE is off by one space
Box 15: 34
Box 16: Los Angeles, California
Many of the other boxes are off by a few spaces, Caucasian in box 14 is off by one space. Box 12b Private Practice is off by three spaces. Box 5a August 5, 1961 is off by one space. Box 6a HONOLULU is off by two typed spaces.
http://i1382.photobucket.com/albums/ah275/williamrawle/Nordyke%20overlay_zpsh6w2zbu6.jpg
Sorry. I forgot to divide by zero.
😆
I have no clue what you’re talking about…Irey’s formula is
“I don’t know what I’m talking about” = “Obama usurper”
I checked the pattern repeat on a sheet of green security paper and calculated the pattern repeat compared with the Savannah Guthrie photo.
A sheet of 8.5 in wide security paper is 8.5 in or 215.9 mm wide. I measured 10 pattern cycles and divided that measurement by 10 to calculate the pattern width of 8.85 mm. That means there are 24.395 repeats across the page.
When I printed the Guthrie photo the width was 183 mm. The pattern width was 7.5 mm. That gives a pattern repeat of 24.4. This is remarkably close considering the Guthrie photo barely shows the pattern and it was taken with a cell phone. That would introduce distortion. I had to enhance the contrast just to make out the pattern to get a measurement on the Guthrie photo.
The proof that Doc referred to contains a step where one has to divide 0 by 0. While the proof assumes the answer is 1 it is actually undefined. See the link I added above.
All of which is totally irrelevant since Irey is still arguing about a copy of a copy of a copy.
Sorry, once they claimed that computer standards were signs of forgery, they lost me. The rest was just you all going into useless details to prove they were wrong. Got to admit though, you had a lot of fun with that! 😀
I have to wonder though…if you hadn’t gone through all that debunking, would the Seattle Operation have even happened?
[blinkblink] Um… I’m going to need a few minutes to process the implications of that…
There was an interesting discussion in one of the emails that were unsealed in the Melendres case. Dennis Montgomery using the pseudonym David Webb in an email to Mackiewicz on November 2, 2014 whined about the pressure that Zullo and Mackiewicz were putting on him to produce something useful. He mentioned Adobe software and talked about providing information on “Adobe builds”.. He also wrote “You can’t expect the technology to find data that Adobe leaves out of some of their formats'”.
It appears then that Montgomery was trying to poke around in some Adobe produced file using his super duper software to find something. It’s pretty easy to speculate what file he was poling around in.
http://media.phoenixnewtimes.com/10509866.0.pdf
Page 19
Montgomery was good at making up bs whenever he needed…must have learned that from Zullo. hehehe
Which makes me wonder…do con men give kickbacks? Zullo may be needing a few bucks soon for representation.
Yes, he was. The emails also show that Zullo and Mackiewicz were really convinced Montgomery was going to deliver some juicy things despite the bad press that was out there about him.
Hey, Zullo already has Klayman representing him. Who else would he need?
@Reality Check: I guess I take after tes just a bit, every time I read these things something new pops out at me. From your link, page 18, paragraph 7, Mackiewicz to many…
” If you CANT or WONT provide Mike, and I with what is necessary to prove and verify everything then be honest and tell us. There is more then one way to skin a cat.”
Wonder if they had a chance to start a new/different operation once they figured out Montgomery was taking them for a ride?
Even funnier…
“Not to mention the personal sacrifices Mike and I have made over the past 12 months to make sure you and you family were taken care of. Dennis if you don’t remember Mike and I even gave you 200.00 dollars a piece out of our own pockets so you could have a Thanksgiving with you family last year. Just to later find out you worked Tim for 500.00 dollars also.”
Man, this guy is good! Conned 2 cops and a lawyer out of almost $1,000 bucks on top of the money he’s already fleeced (and the cops and lawyer know about) from the MCSO. It’s a good thing Snow put the brakes on this, they’d have gone broke trying to keep up with this guy!!! hehehe
In Birther Mathematics, dividing by zero yields ANY NUMBER of impeachable offenses, including an IRRATIONAL NUMBER of ways in which Obama is ineligible to the Presidency. To confirm their math for each accusation, they just multiply the EVIDENCE by ZERO .
Thanks for that link, RC.
How the heck does someone lose $422,000 in a casino in one day? Well, my theory (disclaimer: I’m applying birther logic here) is that Montgomery must’ve hit the high-rollers’ blackjack table and plunked down $1,655 (why $1,655? See disclaimer), with the plan that, if he lost that hand, he would double it the next hand. If he lost that hand, he would double the bet again, and so on, until he inevitably (cough) won a hand, at which point he would be up by the amount of his original bet, ready to start the same process over again with another $1,655 bet.
All it would take is an eight-hand losing streak (credit him $25 for the free cocktails), and voilà: $422k in the hole.
“Brain coiling,” indeed!!
Irey also claimed to have a contact inside the Secret Service who told him Obama had not been vetted – whatever that means. He wouldn’t provide any name or details of course.
Rambo Ike wrote at BR:
He has it wrong. BR is afraid to publish my comments. That is why I am banned there.
Afraid to comment? BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!! I didn’t even last a day there…pointing out their favorite case proved Obama was eligible. Dumbo Ike is free to say whatever he wants to the 6 birthers that are left.
Read my evidence … everything the forger received to copy was from the binder of the era … I think she copied an old sheet from the old era because that was her regular method
Sure we are supposed to think the security paper was just printed to it in 2011 … but it wasn’t. It came from whatever the forger had in stock or scanned that night. The forgers regular method would have been to usually include the security paper in her work. She knew that the normal use of her forgeries was to make a copy of what they are pretending to have that helps them get the job. The security paper copy is what would be given out at the time of the birth and would be old. I don’t think she got complete instructions on the special handling for this one.
As you have read … in my view she just did what she always did and included the security paper so that the dept. of health would not be involved. Like they are now when they put the state seal on a proven forgery of her birth certificate. The seal is perfectly round but the form is condensed in width. I see no mention of that fact on your site. The dept. of health only wanted the card form in Obama’s case so they could then copy it to the security paper and impress the seal. But they couldn’t because the forger goofed the job … it was already in the forgery. Just read the rest ..
So you guys are the idiots that can’t comprehend that what we are looking at is not a fresh sheet of security paper from the dept. of health. She would have used an old sheet … just from habit. Also note this is why we can be sure of that. The unsharp mask she used put a white … not green border … around everything because she flattened the layers before she saved the page and e-mailed it to the board of health. The white border proves what she did. Since the forgery came in with the border on it and was probably from her old stock.
We had a subpoena for Savanna Guthrie and many others … ready to serve when the judge dismissed the case without reason. Then he got fired. After all … when Obama’s lawyers had no defense for my evidence … they heard the judge motion for a Brooklyn grand jury trial and had to go back to tell that to Obama.
Why didn’t Obama’s lawyers take some of you guys with them to Brooklyn to help defend against my evidence … if any of you really know so much?
Didn’t you know there was a Grand Jury Trial for Obama that was supposed to be in May?
Why do you think I just moved to the area … it was to testify. That’s why I am releasing it now because the judge had ordered the evidence to be put under seal in the judges chambers but now it is OK to tell.
Now why don’t you guys do the right thing and press Obama to re-instate the Brooklyn (Kings County) Elections Commissioner Judge David I. Schmidt … rated as a very honest judge and highly competent.
Then we could continue with our trial and get this debate over with and you guys can look for other work.
Did anyone wonder why the major media did not cover this trial announcement in the open courtroom of Judge Schmidt in the Brooklyn Supreme Court on Adams Street last fall.
We are loosing our freedom of the press and what are you guys doing about that?
Nothing … because you all need the help it gives you to fool people … your specialty.
Her own forgery is a fact and I have 5 tie-ins between hers and Obama’s bc’s.
Obama’s birth certificate is most likely part of a crime wave of forgeries.
Paul Irey
Which is incomplete: it ends with Zullo threatening to “close the matter and make the appropriate notifications”, and Klayman promising to call. It would be extremely interesting to know whether they did that.
I’m guessing that they didn’t, because Klayman continued to flog the “whistleblower” story. But, unlike birthers, we can’t be sure without the facts.
Do you suppose they really still believed, after all the revelations from your work, that there was Adobe software involved?
Absolutely, we are talking morons here.
Hi Paul. Thanks for joining in the discussion.
First off, I am not able to make a lot of headway understanding your comment. You are talking about details of a forgery scenario and an unnamed person (unnamed probably because you’d get sued if you said the name), and I do not see any “evidence” whatever of that scenario. You talk about “The security paper copy is what would be given out at the time of the birth and would be old.” I don’t know what copy from what era you refer to. A 1966-issued certificate for the Nordykes isn’t on security paper. I don’t know of any Hawaiian birth certificate issued before the 90’s on basket weave paper. It’s all rather muddled and vague. I will say that whenever I have taken the trouble to look at your evidence, it fell apart under scrutiny, and there are any number of articles here on that subject.
No, there is no mention on this site about the seal being round, but the form condensed. It’s not something I am aware of, but since the seal is applied to a photocopy, there is no reason why the photocopy couldn’t be condensed and a round seal applied to it.
I don’t think that you appreciate that when we printed a birth certificate image onto a real sheet of security paper and scanned it with the Xerox that all the edge features, halos, and detailed artifacts of the Obama PDF were reproduced. You can’t take details about the edge and turn them into evidence of forgery because a legitimate document works the same way.
As I said at Birther Report, by rejecting many of the published Hawaiian birth certificates as forgeries, you basically skew the evidence in your favor. You could show anything if you get to discard all the evidence against you, and only pick what helps.
I am retired, so I don’t need “other work.” As for freedom of the press, you must have missed the Internet, and there is nothing I can do about the consolidation of big media.
You say that “Obama’s birth certificate is most likely part of a crime wave of forgeries,” but you haven’t been able to show any forgeries. All your proofs are flawed.
Edith Coats 1985 certified copy is on security paper but trimmed.
http://passportsusa.com/wp-content/gallery/passportusa/edith_rear.jpg
http://passportsusa.com/wp-content/gallery/passportusa/edith_front.jpg
I have a few questions for Mr. Irey. Perhaps he will pardon my straightforwardness.
1. Paul, since everything you’ve ever said in the past on the subject has turned out to be complete crap, why should anyone believe you when you say you’ve come up with something new?
2. The mark of an expert is that he or she knows what he or she is talking about. As a result, a genuine expert’s claims are very rarely if ever disproven.
A second mark of an expert is that he or she NEVER starts with a conclusion and then goes off hunting for evidence to try and prove it. A genuine expert begins with evidence, and no conclusion whatsoever, and then OBJECTIVELY tests the evidence to see what conclusion it might support.
That being the case, and since everything you’ve ever said on this has turned out to; be complete crap, how can you possibly continue to consider yourself an “expert?”
In other words, you’ve clearly shown that you are just about the exact opposite of an expert by a) concluding Obama’s birth certificate was a forgery before you ever looked at it, and b) putting out debunkable crap in support of your foreordained “conclusion.”
How can you possibly consider yourself to be an “expert?” The only thing I can conclude is that either you haven’t the foggiest clue of what an actual expert is, and how one operates, or you simply find it somehow rewarding to promote BS.
Or, you’re just a nutjob who imagines himself to be considerably smarter than he is.
3. Don’t you have anything better to do than waste what little bit is left of your life trying to prove something which is plainly false? I mean, really. For God’s sake. Go spend time with your grandkids. Or great-grandkids, if you have any. Do something that’s actually worthwhile with the time you have left.
Mr. Irey: Kindly address my point. The State of Hawaii says the information on the White House birth certificate matches what is on file in Hawaii.
What are you talking about? Judge Schmidt wasn’t fired, he retired to go into business as a mediator. Supreme Court Justices in New York are elected. They can be impeached, but they can’t be fired. And what is a grand jury trial? Grand juries don’t participate in trials.
http://www.resolutesystems.com/Headlines/Docs/SchmidtDI.pdf
Again – what is a grand jury trial? I suspect that you have been spending too much time listening to Strunk in esse.
New York doesn’t have any such thing as an “elections commissioner judge.” And New York Supreme Court justices are state employees. Obama has no authority over state court judges.]
As for Judge Schmidt’s reputation, he may have decided to retire because his reputation took a hit after he was sued for sexual harassment in December.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2871228/New-York-judge-harassed-secretary.html
There is not going to be any trial. The last of Strunk’s lawsuits was dismissed three weeks ago. Didn’t he tell you?
The major media know that Strunk is a crank, so they have no interest in covering him.
Actually by doing this, the State of Hawaii has essentially invalidated it’s own birth certificate. Alvin Onaka has no choice and is obligated under the law to state that birth certificate is legit. Assuming for the sake of argument, if the birth certificate was really a forgery, Alvin Onaka would be guilty of several violations of state and federal law if Alvin Onaka had attempted to refute such claim. Why? Because the BC has Onaka’s seal on it. Does that mean Onaka forged the BC and is trying to cover up for it? No! If Onaka attempts to refute any claim that BC is not the State of Hawaii’s he’s guilty because the BC has his seal on it and Onaka would have answer that question. Why does Obama have BC with Onaka’s Stamp on it if he never issued it. As such, Onaka therefore is obligated to state for the record that everything the birth certificate matches their records because of the seal. Only if the birth certificate had no stamp could Onaka refute such a claim that birth certificate was a forgery. But, since the stamp is there, Onaka has no choice.
What’s always bothered me was the BC # Placement on Obama’s birth certificate. On the birth certificate, the number is crooked and up too high close the words Department of Health. On the Nordyke’s certificate, the #’s are straight. It would be interesting to see the birth certificate either before or after Obama’s and see what certificate number placement is like. Interestingly enough when Doc created a recreation of the birth certificate in 2008, he must have overlooked this because the # is straight on his reconstruction not crooked like it’s supposed to be:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/obama_long_form_reconstruction.jpg
So you’re concerned that a stamped number is not perfectly aligned, and using a sample size of 2 to cantilever a doubt upon?
Carry on.
Not on Gretchen Nordyke’s birth certificate. The first three digits are lower than the last four digits, as can be plainly seen.
http://www.wnd.com/images/misc/gretchennordykebirthcertificate.png
Did Irey ask you to join this discussion so he’d look like less of an idiot?
John seems to be displaying hero worship.
Obama’s is considerable more crooked.
Irey just generally assumes “these features are identical = proof of forgery” and “these features are not identical = proof of forgery” wherever it suits him.
qq
Irey has a history of fabricating evidence. I got banned at WND after I destroyed his argument of “non-identical letters” where he deliberately drew misleading reference lines in Photoshop to show how a slant in a “K” was allegedly different on two different instances of the letter, or how “m”‘s and “n”‘s allegedly didn’t have the same baseline and other things.
While he is one of the few birthers who actually try to address arguments against his “analyses”, it usually just takes two or three exchanges for him to fall back on “you’re an Obot” and “but look at the other 100 things I found”.
So by your logic, you can just forge anything, put a forgery of an official seal on it and the respective state his required to certify your forgery as legit because it has a forgery of an official seal on it?
I think this is one of your stupidest outings yet.
So if I forge your signature under a contract with me, you are required to confirm it as legit because it has your signature? Come again??
Uh, what? If it is a forgery, it is a forgery. If it is not a forgery, your entire “sake of the argument” rant is not applicable anyway.
You are not really saying a legit BC is no longer a legit BC because of your massively flawed hypothetical, are you?
It’s because one of the forgers who signed the document was a legal representative of Florida. They chose to help Pablo Escobar build up his cocaine fields and never foresaw things going this far out of control.
In order to maintain the illusion of control, they attempt to declare the forged documents as legit. Cuba and Russia, of course, know better as do many of the birthers.
Most notably me since I was one of the two co-signers. I signed line one and line two. Joe Lee, a Hendry County (FL) deputy, signed the “Ukelele” on line three.
Doc,
I admire your ability to tolerate Mr. Irey’s remarks here, but encouraging him to keep writing is just silly. This is the same man who wrote about some mysterious “Out of Paper” symbol (described as a “black line with descending width”). He links to this file:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/239648286/Proof-of-Copyright-Office-Form-Alteration-and-Forgery-of-Obama-Dreams-Book-US-Copyright-Form-by-Typewriter-and-Type-Font-Expert-Paul-Irey
The “black line with descending width” is, of course, the edges of the paper not lining up with the photocopier. (You can even see that the page isn’t straight when looking at the text.)
At some point, you simply need to pat him on the head and let him be on his way. No judge or expert will ever take him seriously.
What Pete said.
I don’t know why Mr. Irey is playing coy about the person whom he and Doug Vogt accused of perpetrating a forgery in a document filed with the Supreme Court. It’s not sealed and anyone can go look at it like a reporter did when he took cell phone photos of the booklet there.
https://www.scribd.com/doc/223575507/Unsealed-Names-Of-The-Purported-Obama-Birth-Certificate-Forgers-Revealed-US-Supreme-Court
In the document Johanna Ah’Nee Randolph is named as the forger and they claim she had assistance from Miki Booth, Alvin Onaka, Kevin Davidson, and the late Loretta Fuddy, So why be coy and refer to the forger as “she”? You made the accusation along with Doug Vogt didn’t you? Why not step up and own it? Why not post a more readable copy of of the affidavit so we can all see your and Mr. Vogt’s work in all it’s glory?
Or maybe you want us to buy the book that you and Doug Vogt were going to publish? I can’t seem to find a link. Was it published? The web site http://www.obamaforgerybook.com/ says “account suspended”. Please explain.
I am not sure why but my previous comment went into moderation. I had several questions for Mr. Irey.
Mr. Irey has not returned to answer my very simple question about Hawaii’s certification of the White House birth certificate.
John, however, has returned, to insert himself in the debate, with an argument that goes like this : 1. assume the White House birth certificate is forged. 2. assume that Dr. Onaka is legally obligated to certify a forged birth certificate.
I appreciate our colleagues who have already jumped in pointing out John’s fallacious reasoning. John, you ought to return to suggesting various additional felonies Arpaio should commit. It actually made more sense.
True, because if Alvin Onaka were to not certify, he would required to answer the question – What’s Obama doing with BC that was never certified by Hawaii. Since, the BC has Onaka’s stamp on it, he would in big trouble. Kind of like this.
Obama – I have a birth certificate certified by Hawaii.
Birthers – The birth certificate is a forgery.
Onaka – I certified the birth certificate, it’s legit.
Birther – That may true but Obama’s birth certificate is a forgery so what’s Obama doing with a forged BC with YOUR Stamp on it???
Onaka – Well, Obama must have forged by stamp.
Birther – You are custodian of State records of Hawaii, you are guilty of failing to protect the integrity of the state records of Hawaii.
Umm to which Onaka would simply say
“He wasn’t issued a BC that was never certified by Hawaii. His BC was certified.”
John, the State of Hawaii says that the information in the White House birth certificate matches what is in Hawaii’s official records. Dr. Onaka certified that birth certificate. No one need make any assumptions about any of this.
Onaka – Obama’s BC isn’t a forgery. The Long form was taken directly from the original 1961 records within our files. The certification is applied at the time the copy is made and I stamped it. Who are you?
If you saw an actual picture of “John” it would be debatable of who looks like a bigger idiot.
Oh I totally look forward to another judge calling you as a witness of being of no probative value.
How would you know that was a genuine picture? And if you had such a picture, wouldn’t Apple or Samsung have to certify the picture as genuine because it purported to come from one of their cameras, even though they knew it was a forgery, because the grand jury trial in Brooklyn didn’t happen? Have I missed something?
Unfortunately I must start packing today and disconnect my computer. I will be moving from one location in the NYC area to another … and I don’t expect to be back online for maybe as much as a week.
So I must call “time out” to reply to your nonsense.
There are so many felony crimes you all are defending on this web site … the stolen social security number … the forged selective service form … the forgery of the short and long foms … the forgers own forgery made just to throw Corsi off … and lets not forget the US Copyright form for Obama’s book … “Dreams From My Father” … that you can no longer receive and the US Copyritght office has no answer as to why.
That is 5 official goverment documents forged for Obama … and the Social Security card #6 was never shown … because although Obama used the number for years … he just changed it when there was a connection made in court to Mr. Bonell … the actual owner of that number.
The last thing they gave out … and Orly Taitz has a copy of … had the “out of fax paper sign on both the front and back of the form. Since they don’t accept fax copies at the US Copyright office in DC … they had to pull it when they learned of it. Random house refuses to answer as to what’s going on … and will not re-submit the original which must have said he was born in Kenya … not “USA” … that was reported on the forged version. Many things indicate that the same forger provided the fax mail in for a insider at the copyright office to use to replace the “Kenya” version. Will a 3rd version be submitted now?
My first exhibit with the Guthrie pic proves that her pic has more hash mark background material than is available on the original sheet … and you must reply to that.
I may be the only person on this Dr. Conspiracy site that uses his real name. The rest of you … if you know you are lying … and I don’t see how you can’t know that … may be guitly of … “accesory to treason”.
One question for you all to ponder. Do you or do you not admit that the forgers own bc is absolutely a forgery … and how can you be comfortable with the 4 tie ins I list showing that her forgery is similar to his. She did both forgeries and why isn’t that being prosecuted in Hawaii? Her distorting copier distorted both docuents backgrounds in the same way … that she later used. The Honolulu office of the FBI must arrest her and put her in witness protectin … or she is in the same danger that Loretta Fuddy was in … when Doug Vogt discovered that she paid off her mortgage with extra … unexplained souce … funds of at least $50,000.00 during the same year she officiated the Obama forgery. He put that information in a sealed affidavit to the 8th circuit court … and within 2 weeks she is alleged to have been the only one who died in a suspicous plane crash.
I believe that Obama himself decided to fire the Brooklyn elections commisioner judge who ordered a grand jury trial against his forgery … and may have OK’d the murder of Fuddy because she became a serious liability if forced to testify in a grand jury as to the source of her extra funds.
Alvin Onaka and the governor of Hawaii should begin to worry if the forger dissapears or dies … like I started to worry when the 2 gays in Obama’s church choir and Andrew Brietbart died … along with others actually.
You Obots with the fake names don’t have to worry.
Just pray that a constitutinal goverment is never established again in Washington, DC. because you all may face charges if that happens. There is only a slight risk of that though.
Let’s try this again. …
What Pete said.
I don’t know why Mr. Irey is playing coy about the person whom he and Doug Vogt accused of perpetrating a forgery in a document filed with the Supreme Court. It’s not sealed and anyone can go look at it like a reporter did when he took cell phone photos of the booklet there.
https://www.scribd.com/doc/223575507/Unsealed-Names-Of-The-Purported-Obama-Birth-Certificate-Forgers-Revealed-US-Supreme-Court
In the document Johanna Ah’Nee Randolph is named as the forger and they claim she had assistance from Miki Booth, Alvin Onaka, Doc, and the late Loretta Fuddy, So why be coy and refer to the forger as “she”? You made the accusation along with Doug Vogt didn’t you? Why not step up and own it? Why not post a more readable copy of of the affidavit so we can all see your and Mr. Vogt’s work in all it’s glory?
Or maybe you want us to buy the book that you and Doug Vogt were going to publish? I can’t seem to find a link. Was it published? The web site http://www.obamaforgerybook.com/ says “account suspended”. Please explain.
Because, John, once again you start with a false assumption. Contrary to your fallacious assumption, Pres. Obama has no forged birth certificates in his possession. The White House birth certificate was certified by the State of Hawaii and the image of it posted on line was verified by the State of Hawaii. You, on the other hand, have advocated the reliability of multiple forged documents, such as those produced by Lucas Smith, and you have advocated that Arpaio and others destroy evidence you find inconvenient.
Mr. Irey holds himself out as an expert document examiner about a document he has never touched where the originator of the document has verified the document’s reliability.
Ah, Mr. Irey returns, does not answer my question, and says I’m guilty of treason for opposing the Birthers.
I’m glad we are having a reasoned discussion.
And of course, this fact ENDS the ludicrous suggestion that Obama’s online BC informational likenesses, constitute a crime in their making, or a crime when they are made available to be looked at. They were not put online as a substitute for submitting certified paper copies when a court or government agency requested one. Hawaii has officially confirmed that the facts thereon match the official records of Obama they maintain.
The imaginary law which Birthers pretend exists or MUST exist or SHOULD exist, is a law that would only let the voters see Obama’s BC information if he paid Hawaii to send every US citizen their own certified copy, which is patently absurd.
There could be no LEGITIMATE charge of fraud brought against Obama if he had instead posted a legible scan of a photograph of a different scan of an aerial photograph of an expanse of beach, whereupon dead fish had been arranged to create a huge, rough and irregular but unmistakably legible likeness of Obama’s BC containing all of the same information confirmed as matching that officially maintained by Hawaii!
There is no ‘there’ there in the Birthers charge fraud and forgery; the Birther’s clothes have no emperor.
None of which you have ever been able to prove were stolen or forged. Lol what?
Poor Paul all this time wasted on your delusions.
So point to the laws that were broken.
A commenter named jh4freedom on an article at IVN on Ted Cruz’s eligibility posted a summary of how Hawaii has verified Obama was born there at least 8 times:
I would like to speculate that the reason that Irey and Vogt never published their book is that one or more of the named parties told them they might just be facing a lawsuit. Of course since Irey has dropped a stink bomb and left the building we will not get an answer.
I read this long, crazy rant of delusions and outright lies, many of which have long been exposed, and I have to wonder: how is this lunatic able to go about ordinary daily life without being arrested?
I’ve heard more rational speeches from smelly folks peddling greasy leaflets in the subway.
While my friends hilariously dismantle your ridiculous claims, I will settle for asking you one question:
What the hell is it with right-wing idiots and their inability to spell the word “losing?” Seriously, I have been following you dimwits for almost twenty years online, and it seems not one of you is capable of this one simple task. It’s a dead giveaway
Irey outright slanders and threatens people, and then complains that more people don’t give him their real names.
If you had any evidence, it would have been read and digested long ago.
What you have is speculation, wishful thinking, and nonsense invented out of whole cloth.
Imagination is not evidence.
Thanks for playing.
I go by the moniker Lupin for sentimental reasons, but my real-life id has long been exposed here & elsewhere. Personally I don’t care if Irey (or his ilk) know who I am. Dealing with lunatics is not news to me.
Question for the lawyers: since Irey’s latest load o’ crap was not published as a legal filing, and the alleged “forger” is clearly identifiable from his badly-redacted BC image, has he smoked his immunity from libel suits?
So frickin’ what?
Birthers express astonishment that an old number stamp in which numbers didn’t necessarily align perfectly produces a stamped mark in which… wait for it… the numbers aren’t perfectly aligned.
Ah. My god. We have a FORGERY here!
No, we don’t. What we have is a perfectly normal variation. Of the kind that no one of normal intelligence is surprised to see.
It’s about as inane as finding an apple with a normal, natural color variation and then claiming that someone must’ve painted it. Really. It’s that stupid.
There is a whole lot of crazy in that last note of yours, but I’ll address just one point.
Once again – there is no such thing as an “elections commissioner judge” in New York State. Judge Schmidt was elected to the Kings County Supreme Court in 2006 by the voters of Brooklyn. The President of the United States has no authority to fire a justice of a state court. In fact, he doesn’t have the authority to fire a Federal court judge, either.
http://www.resolutesystems.com/Headlines/david-schmidt-joins-resolutes-ny-panel.asp
And grand juries do not participate in trials. Where is your evidence that anything to do with Obama was referred to a real grand jury in Brooklyn?
These three official verifications, issued pursuant to Hawaii State Law, ends the “debate” – as if there ever really was a “debate.” Only the State of Hawaii can verify claims that the President’s LFBC is a forgery. They have done exactly the opposite – not once, but three times. Given that, all of this so-called birther “analysis” is BS. Irey can cite so-called self-described “anomalies” up the yin-yang. It means nothing.
And, to be more accurate, the so-called “debate” was effectively over in 2008 when Mr. Obama presented his short-form birth certificate, which is all that was and is ever needed to prove Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961.
ROTFL.
He didn’t answer any of my questions, either, although in his post he indirectly gave an answer.
He fantasizes himself to be an expert, when he doesn’t even really understand what an expert is, or what one does. His false belief in his own expertness is unshakeable, even though even a cursory glance at the methods he’s used and the errors he’s produced make it crystal clear he is not, in fact, an expert.
He has a mind that sees conspiracy in the ordinary variations of life, and cannot understand why others see… ordinary variations of life in the ordinary variations of life.
He is doomed to waste many, many more hours of his life on his silly, quixotic quest.
Sad.
He’s certainly smoked something.
Sonny, what’s always bothered you has always been pretty apparent: the shade of the President’s skin.
Yeah. Poor Johanna Ah’Nee Randolph, for example.
So what? You apparently are unaware of the fact that the birth certificate numbers were hand-stamped. Hand-stamping always results in minor variations from one document to another.
Hoo boy! That’s a good one, Paul!! Did you – of all people! – seriously just call RC, Kevin, and WKV idiots? I’m sure you made some great points after that little gem, but I couldn’t read any further, with all these tears of laughter clouding my eyes. You, sir, are the very definition of a moron.
Are you really that stupid? The seal was affixed to a reduced image of the original birth record printed on a sheet of green security paper. The seal is full size and the birth certificate is reduced. Do you really not understand that after it has been explained to you multiple times?
Oh, Paul, can’t you do better than that? We’re all very familiar with that game — you make a new claim, it’s immediately debunked, and so you do a quick pirouette and change the subject to a list of old claims that were debunked years ago.
There’s been no stolen social security number, no forged selective service form, no forgery of the short and long forms, etc., etc., and now you can add to the list your preposterous claim that the LFBC sits on 1961 security paper.
You’ve built your house of cards on quicksand. You’re fooling no one.
The pattern of the security paper matches that of modern security paper. I have a stack of sheets that Doc sent me. The white border in the PDF is paced there by Preview when it placed a clipping mask set at the printable area of the printer. When the clipping mask is turned off there is another smaller white border that was created by the Xerox Workcentre during the scanning process.
Have you seen the un-Lupin-like comments posted on BR by someone using that name? Typically annoying birther behavior. Or, to steal a phrase from Lo Pan (“Big Trouble in Little China”): this really pi$$es me off to no end!
Unless that really is you, and you’ve become a Trump/Palin supporter. Or perhaps you’re mocking Trump/Palin supporters, and it’s a Poe’s Law kind of thing?
This is what the birthers don’t get. The question has been settled by the State of Hawaii.
A birth certificate is simply a certification of information on file. Hawaii has a birth record on file. The state is the ONLY authority — and thus, the final authority — on the date, time and place of Barack Obama’s birth.
Live with it, birthers.
You appear to believe that freedom of the press means that the press must report what you want them to report, not that they have freedom to print what they want. You might want to review the definition of the term “freedom.”
I do not believe that “constitutional” means what you think it means. Prosecuting people who state you are wrong does not seem quite inline with the concept of freedom of speech.
Oh, there’s that freedom word again. Why do you hate it so, Paul?
PAUL EDWARD IREY: “Unfortunately I must start packing today and disconnect my computer. I will be moving from one location in the NYC area to another … and I don’t expect to be back online for maybe as much as a week.”
Well, congrats! It’s about time you moved out of your mother’s basement, I’m sure she thought this day was never coming!
PAUL EDWARD IREY: “Why didn’t Obama’s lawyers take some of you guys with them to Brooklyn to help defend against my evidence … if any of you really know so much?”
We’ve found over the years that M. T. Chair has represented the President quite well, it’s undefeated against the birthers! We figure that’s much better than one of us actually questioning you on your lack of knowledge and evidence. Come on, you’re so incapable, you claimed computer standards were a sign of forgery! BWAHAHAHAHA!!!
My sense is that it is even simpler than that. I think the “tick marks” were just dirt on the scanner platen,
Sad, isn’t it? But it’s even worse than just wasting time:
This individual actually up and MOVED because of his delusions. It doesn’t get much more pathetic than that. I’d feel pity if that emotion weren’t trumped by disgust.
That would be the Johanna AhNee certificate that Miki Booth loaned to Corsi and which was never returned to her. It would have been among the documents supplied to the CCP back before Corsi became persona non posse.
It also, by the way, is a certificate that Irey declared absolutely authentic at WND in September of 2011.
http://www.wnd.com/2011/09/342937/
Not to speak for Kevin, but I am firmly of the opinion that the answer to that question is no.
It should also be noted that Paul Irey claims to have single-handedly solved the Kennedy assassination and completely buys into Joel Gilbert’s well debunked claim that Ann Dunham posed nude for a porn magazine at the home of Frank Marchall Davis. We are talking about a grade A conspiracy nut here.
Funny how his story changed after John Woodman and others pointed out how the Ah’Nee certificate blew up several forgery claims.
I often wonder if these folks are that conspiracy minded or just desperate nobodies who found something that will give them attention and make them feel needed. As we’ve seen with john, Irey, Nancy, etc. whenever the birthers start ignoring them, here they are. Actually, both ways are pretty pathetic.
HD: “That would be the Johanna AhNee certificate that Miki Booth loaned to Corsi and which was never returned to her. It would have been among the documents supplied to the CCP back before Corsi became persona non posse.”
She may want to contact the court and see if she can get her property returned.
That’s patently absurd. In actuality, Onaka would be obligated under the law to declare the certificate a fraud if he knew it to be so. You have that completely backwards.
If the answer was that the certificate was forged, that would be his answer. He has no obligation to support a forged certificate that included a forged copy of his stamp. If on the other hand the stamp is not forged, then guess what? The certificate is authentic.
That is palpably nuts.
Oh, I never actually answered the question – my opionion is that no, the Seattle Operation would not have happened without the work NBC, RC, and I did on the Xerox.
As to the implications: without the Seattle Operation (and its exposure by Stephen Lemons), I think that Arpaio skates from the Melendres proceedings with nothing more than a small fine for his investigation into Snow’s wife. But with the Seattle Operation, there’s a good chance of some serious penalties, including time spent in the federal penitentiary, for his involvement.
Can I call dibs on the book title if that happens?
Roxy and Me: How Three Bloggers Brought About the Downfall of America’s Toughest Sheriff
Hey, maybe it’ll get included in the documents Snow ordered the MCSO to surrender, and she’ll finally be able to get it back.
Which brings me back to my earlier question, that may have gotten lost in the flurry of comments: does Irey’s incomplete redaction mean that she can claim she’s identifiable as the target of his accusation, and sue him?
“Yer honor, if the anti-birfers hadn’t debunked our earlier stories, we wouldn’t have pulled all this nonsense. So really, it’s their fault, and we’re prepared to testify against them, if all this goes away.”
Objection: Assumes facts not in evidence.
Real Conversation…
Birthers – The birth certificate is a forgery.
Onaka – I certified the birth certificate, it’s legit.
Birther – That may true but Obama’s birth certificate is a forgery so what’s Obama doing with a forged BC with YOUR Stamp on it???
Onaka – I certified the birth certificate, it’s legit. It’s not a forgery.
Birther – It is a forgery.
Onaka – The birth certificate is a legitimate Hawaii State Birth Certificate.
Birther – Nuh uh…
And on, and on and on…
A fascinating list of vacuous birther claims, none of which have any actual evidence. But the one that I am most fascinated by is “the forgers own forgery made just to throw Corsi off.”
On 9/11/2011 Corsi published an article on WND entitled How does Obama’s document stack up against genuine BC? The entire article was based on the work of “retired New York City typographer Paul Irey,” and the “genuine BC” in question is, surprise, surprise the one you now refer to as “the forgers own forgery.”
Throughout the article you repeatedly refer to the Ah’Nee certificate as “authentic.”
Why should we pay you any attention after you have already proved that are incapable of telling a forgery from an authentic certificate?
Birther logic always has been “The facts are what we say they are. Judges, congressmen, elected officials whose job it is to verify documents…they’re all liars, unless they believe as we do!”
PAUL EDWARD IREY: “There are so many felony crimes you all are defending on this web site …”
Bad news: it’s not the President’s BC, it’s the state of Hawaii’s BC. The President just gets a certified copy. You haven’t proved the one in Hawaii is a fake.
Worse news: there is not law against mocking and making fun of birthers, so we’re not defending (no need since you’ve proven your inability to even understand what a birth certificate is) him, we’re laughing at your incompetence.
The worst news: you’ve been reduced to the butt of jokes inside and outside the White House…Spongebob Squarepants is more believable to the American public than birthers
Not that it needs debunking but for fun I checked and there are four ways to orient a piece of security paper with the pattern on both sides. I found on the sample I have that one way looks a lot like Irey’s right edge on the so called authentic one and oriented another way more closey matches the Guthrie photo.
Also in order to get the vertical marks to line up Irey scaled the Guthrie photo so that it is slightly wider than 8.5″. That started me to wonder just what paper Irey used. I printed a copy of his comparison page and measured the pattern widths on his paper. The sheet width in the photo was 250 mm so he scaled up the image slightly. The pattern width was 10.4 mm and so the number of pattern repeats across the 8.5 in width is 24.0. The bottom line is that Irey used the wrong paper for his comparison. The pattern width on Irey’s paper is too wide. That’s why he had to stretch the Guthrie photo to get the vertical marks to line up.
Irey screws up again? https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=JN.FmYG9BnOdpvgYx%2fAi0orBA&pid=15.1&P=0
Mr. Irey:
You’ve made the statement several times about an “out of paper” mark for fax machines. Why is it that google can’t provide me with ANY information on what you’re talking about?
Can you elaborate with your extensive knowledge?
Try “end of roll” mark (and quote the “end of roll” part to avoid gazillions of irrelevant results). Many kinds of rolled paper have them.
Though I don’t know whether any are marked as Irey describes.
And, since the result is commonly represented as “NAN”, it also proves that Obama killed his grandmother to silence her.
Something in a court document (sealed or not) is privileged and generally not a cause of action in a libel case. However, once Irey says ON THIS BLOG that Ah’nee or Booth is a criminal, that is a cause of action for libel per se (in my inexpert non-lawyer opinion). If Irey has one grain of sense, he will NOT say any such thing.
I think it’s OK for others to talk about Irey’s putative opinions.
Just for the record, it is the editorial opinion of this web site that there is no forged birth certificate from the State of Hawaii so far uncovered, and that there is no cause to think that Miki Booth or any of her friends is guilty of any crime.
My real name is on the “About page.”
Absolutely not.
There were no extra funds. This is just another example of a birther jumping to conclusions because of ignorance, in this case how to read a financial disclosure statement and do basic accounting.
See: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/04/fault-found-for-fuddys-financial-facts/
Because if they ever needed such a thing, they would hire a qualified and credentialed forensic expert. However, there has never been an instance where such testimony was needed.
I know for a fact that is not true. (I am not talking about Doc C).
You have regurgitated so many debunked birther memes that it is difficult to know where to begin, but I’ll tackle a few of them.
“Mr. Bonell” never existed. The man in the 1940 census is not “Mr. Bonell” or “Harry Bounel.” His name was Harry Boymel. He died in 1978, and he never had Obama’s Social Security Number, Boymel’s SSN was 080-18-6078. I know this because I have a copy of his SS-5 form.
More nonsense. There is no place on a copyright form to list an author’s place of birth. The form only asks for nationality or place of domicile. The Copyright Office doesn’t care where an author was born. And there has never been an edition of “Dreams From My Father” which says that Obama was born in Kenya. Here is a link to the New York Times book review which appeared shortly after the book was published. Needless to say, there is no mention of him having been born in Kenya.
http://www.nytimes.com/1995/08/06/books/review/06obama-dreams.html
We actually have several contributors to this blog who use their real names. I do not use my full name because I occasionally talk about where I live and work and I don't want birthers harassing my employer or clients. And there is no such crime as "accessory to treason."
We don’t have to worry because we’ve never done anything to worry about. For example, we don’t go around accusing innocent people of committing imaginary crimes.
Was Paul Irey an expert when he declared Johanna Ah’Nee Randolph’s birth certificate authentic, or was he an expert when he declared it was a fake?
One of these “experts” doesn’t agree with the other one.
At least one (but not necessarily only one) of these Paul Ireys is a chump. Which one(s) is it?
Same question I asked. To wit: Paul, why should anyone (including you) pay the slightest attention to anything you say about this stuff, since you’ve already quite convincingly proven that you don’t have the faintest clue what the hell you’re talking about?
Indeed we are.
What? You’re NOT telling me there’s something phony with Spongebob??
Wrong again. I use my real name here. Just not the whole name.
But you would seem to be the only person posting on the site who makes generalisations covering hundreds or thousands of instances after looking at only one example (or even zero examples).
And he didn’t even need to see Obama’s birth certificate to “know” that it is a forgery.
Wow. That’s about 5 metric tons of stupid in a 10 pound bag.
I was more pointing out the idiocy of his statement. If you look at the document in question, you find that it wasn’t centered on the copier, leaving a gap at the side and the bottom. When that happens, you often get black, indicating the lack of paper on the screen. He’s misconstruing it as something that doesn’t exist.
There were no extra funds your illiterate self doesn’t know how to read a financial disclosure form. If you get something this simple wrong how could anyone trust you with anything else. It’s more likely birthers murdered Fuddy since she wouldn’t flip and believe the birther delusions.
No, no, no, that’s me. I feel it is my sacred duty to encourage as many right-wing voters as possible to support Donald Trump in the GOP primary.
I genuinely feel Trump is the best candidate to articulate the right-wing worldview. Why, I’d be positively giddy if he became the GOP nominee.
And if he doesn’t, I plan to rant against the so-called “corrupt Bush criminal mafia” and hopefully lap the bitter tears of angry resentment of those voters who hopefully will then logically choose to stay home on Election Day.
You’re welcome. 🙂
@Lupin: The slack-jawed guy slowly shaking his head in respectful amazement is me…
I agree with Lupin. I thought that this was just another of Trump’s publicity stunts, but now I believe that his ego has gotten the better of him and he is planning to see this through. The longer he stays in the race, the better,
A little personal story from 50 years ago. In my high school the most prestigious elected position for a senior was president of the student council. Each spring there was a “primary” to select the nominee from all if tge members of the junior class. Everbody knew that the juniors who were vying for the job were Mike Smith and Dan Yanarella, both of whom had served on the student council in other capacities. The three students who got the most votes in the “primary” would be on the final ballot.
One afternoon the three nominees were announced over the public address system. As expected, Mike and Dan were going to be on the ballot. To my shock and amazement, the third nominee was me! I really had no interest in the job, and I didn’t know that several of my friends were going around asking people to nominate me. Heck, I didn’t even nominate myself, I voted for Dan, who was favored to win.
Then a funny thing happened. I decided to take the election seriously. My friends and I put up posters, I gave a speech, we held a demonstration, and people started telling me that they were planning to vote for me. I convinced myself that I had a chance to win, but on the night they announced the winner, it was Mike. The school wouldn’t release the tally, but later a friendly faculty member told me that it was very close and that I had taken enough votes away from Dan to give the election to Mike.
That’s why I’m rooting for Trump. If he doesn’t win the Republican nomination, I hope that he runs as a third-party candidate.
No, since in your hypothetical, it would have a forgery of Onaka’s stamp on it.
Just like my example where I forge your signature. It is not “your” signature, it’s a forgery of your signature.
Exactly. That would be what Onaka would say in your hypothetical. Which means in order for a criminal prosecution, the DA would have to prove the stamp is not forged.
Come again? Anybody can forge anything. You are not implying you are guilty when I forge your signature?!
I think you are, deliberately or out of stupidity, conflating two issues:
Your hypothetical where the entire BC is forged and another scenario where the BC itself is forged but then somehow got a real legit stamp/signature by Onaka.
Now you neither correctly seperate the two alternatives in your argument nor explain how the latter could’ve come to pass.
If your hypothetical is “Onaka put his real stamp on a forgery”, it would require his willful participation in the alleged conspiracy. But then your “he *had* to certify the BC” argument would make no sense anymore as you can hardly argue Onaka would first participate in the conspiracy and then want to admit that but can’t.
Some things are just obvious.
The page dimensions of the WH LFCOLB are Width = 8.5067in. X Height = 11.0133 in. Whereas, the reported dimensions of the Green Simpson basket weave security paper are Width = 8.5 in. X Height = 11.0 in. Obviously additional image was digitally added to the PDF page.
So Irey’s basic claim is irrefutable.
You Obots claim the Xerox done it. But only circumstantial evidence supports your claim. Also only Guthrie knows the page dimensions of the “original LFCOLB” that she purportedly photographed.
Oddly, the WH LFCOLB PDF image shows that the top edge of rectangular Object 9 (white speckles) is extremely close to the outer edge of the Green basket weave pattern after the clipping mask has been removed. The edges of the basket weave pattern are irregular and fuzzy as if the edges of the pattern were intentionally faded.
It’s odd that the object boundary is close to the “edge erase” boundary because the PDF file contains zero evidence of the edge erase boundary dimensions.
Tsk Tsk !
Sneaky Zerox or careless forger?
Given that you have never had access to this document, how do you know how big it is?
What really impressed me were the six significant figures in the height measurement.
I mean, this guy may not be real accurate, but he sure is precise!
The obvious thing is Hermie makes stupid claims that always turn out to be wrong. I could write a book on the number of times he did this at NBC’s blog. He was in so far over his head it was pathetic.
My favorite is when Hermie claimed that the AP JPG photo couldn’t have been taken with a handheld camera and that it was not a photo of a copy of one of the two certified copies. He claimed AP photographer J. Scott Applewhite would never agree to photograph anything but an original certified copy. This was a typical Hermitian claim based on nothing but his own opinion.
I contacted Scott Applewhite and he said he was sure “he took a picture what was handed out using his Canon EOS 1D Mark IV at the time, either using a 24-70 zoom or a 50mm lens. And yes, handheld.”
What was handed out at the press briefing was a packet with a copy of the LFBC, the short form, the request letter, and the reply from the Hawaii DoH. Applewhite quickly shot a photo of the LFBC page to get it on the wires.
https://rcradioblog.wordpress.com/2014/04/11/how-did-ap-photographer-j-scott-applewhite-photograph-the-copy-of-the-obama-lfbc/
By the way, I recall that my exchange with Mr. Applewhite solved another mystery. Why does the AP JPG photo have a blue tint? If Mr. Applewhite used ambient lighting to photograph the handout the decor the press room is very blue as can be seen from published photos of the press room at the White House. The reflected light would have a blue cast.
As anyone who has ever tried to photograph a document knows using flash will cause a glare and give poor results.
As I previously reported, the Canon EOS 1D Mark IV Digital SLR offers a variety of different image formats (which are user selectable within the camera). The available image sizes are specified in the users manual for the Canon EOS 1D Mark IV camera. (As I previously reported, the available image sizes are each specified with width and height dimensions given in pixels.) I also previously reported that none of the available image formats match the pixel dimensions of any of the published Applewhite images of the WH LFCOLB.
So if Applewhite was in such a hurry to get his images on the wire then why would he take the time to have the AP lab Photoshop them to alter their dimensions before rushing them out? Why would he have needed to have the image dimensions changed if his pants were on fire to get them on the wire? Even Photoshop can’t significantly improve the image quality of a hand-held shot.
So none of the half dozen different image formats that were available on his Canon were suitable for publishing without first editing the digital images?
As I emphatically stated when you initially posted this balony (bologna), I don’t buy any of it.
Not only but also, what does it mean to say “Onaka put his real stamp on a forgery”?
What EXACTLY does the “real stamp” indicate? What EXACTLY is a “forgery” in this context?
It indicates that the INFORMATION on the document bearing that stamp is certified by the legal authority in charge of that INFORMATION to be a “TRUE COPY OR ABSTRACT” OF THE RECORD ON FILE IN HAWAII STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. Nothing more, nothing less.
It does not certify that it is the original piece of paper, or even a direct image of the original piece of paper, that originally informed the State of Hawai’i of the birth event information.
In what way can the phrase “Onaka put his real stamp on a forgery” have any meaning what-so-ever? Onaka is not certifying anything about the piece of paper that carries the INFORMATION, not its color, not its format, not how it was produced, not who produced it, not what security tokens it carries, not its cotton to wood pulp to polymer percentages, not about how it came into existence, NOTHING.
Onaka is certifying that the INFORMATION on that piece of paper is a ‘true copy or abstract’ (in this case, clearly, it is an abstract) of the INFORMATION record. The piece of paper could be anything, produced by anyone, in any format – even a piece of toilet paper. It is the INFORMATION that is important; it is the INFORMATION that is being certified.
If the INFORMATION is correct, (and Onaka is certifying that it is), and Onaka puts his stamp on it (and you concede that he did), then that piece of paper CANNOT BY DEFINITION be fraudulent.
It is the INFORMATION that is being certified, not the way the index number is stamped, or whether you get to see it via a PDF image, or whether it says ‘CERTIFICATE’ or ‘CERTIFICATION’ on the heading line, or whether or not it was printed in 2007 or 2011, or anything else about it.
If Onaka did not apply his stamp to certify it, but there is never-the-less a forged stamp that is supposed to pass as his stamp, then, and only then, is it a forgery.
Contrary to being legally required to legitimize such a forgery, Onaka would be obliged to disown such a forgery and he would be required by his oath and the ethics of protecting the good name of Hawaii and the integrity of its vital statistics archive, of which he is in charge of protecting, to vigorously prosecute the investigation of the crime and the punishment of the perpetrator.
John’s fantasy that somehow a forger’s crime places obligations on authority to ‘back their play’ is beyond belief. Nobody can be that stupid. I think it is way past time to shut the door on troll John.
What EXACT piece of INFORMATION about that BIRTH EVENT that is reported on the PDF that you are having trouble with are you disputing?
If the PDF represents a forgery, what EXACT piece of INFORMATION do you dispute as being false?
If you do not dispute any information item, what EXACTLY was the point of going to the trouble of forging the document?
8.5″ x 11.0″ are the nominal dimensions of the paper. The actual dimensions of any given sheet will fall within a tolerance. With trimmed paper, the tolerance is very tight. But with any physical process producing a physical object, variation will be present.
And, there is no reason to assume Hawaii uses the paper as-is. All evidence indicates they do, but ya never know.
Further, a document scanner scans a rectangular field defined by the object is detects. The recorded dimensions of the image will match the actual document dimensions only to the degree to which the document is perfectly aligned, and its edges and corners perfectly straight and square (that is, no fraying, etc.)
All that said, you are hanging your hat on .0067″ and .0133″ from nominal. Wow, that’s extremely slight. 2/300″ one way and 4/300″ the other way. That’s .08% on the horizontal and .15% on the vertical. Well with in tolerance of trimmed paper (look it up).
Oh, and wait …. 2/300ths? 4/300ths? What was the resolution of that scan again?
Ah Hermie is back. So Hermie, you can answer the question I posed to Mr. Irey who declined to answer it, but did manage to call me treasonous.
Why do we care about discerning dimensions from a picture of an original (and that’s what you are working with, two pictures of an original(, when the State of Hawaii says the information is genuine?
Damn. I had forgotten just how stupid all of the birth certificate forgery theories were. I think birthers like Mr. Irey and Hermie may actually transcend Poe’s law—I’m not sure that anyone but a true believer is capable of emulating their idiotic and ignorant ideas. Not a single one of them understand what constitutes a forgery, the purpose of forging a document or how one proves that a document was forged.
I really don’t see why it is so hard to understand the difference between the original document filed in 1961, a certified abstract printed in 2007 or 8, a certified photocopy of a portion of the original document onto security paper, and various images of the certified documents. Either certified document is Constitutionally sufficient to prove both location and time of birth in any of the states (or any US Court including the SCOTUS) and the State of Hawai’i has verified the information to anyone with a legitimate interest that asked as well as for the general public (a couple of times) and under oath (to the Hawai’i legislature).
Why someone would talk about this topic without having the slightest idea of how vital records work is beyond me, but apparently Mr. Irey and Hermie really like looking foolish.
Edited to add: I see you upped the edit window to 10 minutes.
Thanks Doc!
No, what’s obvious is that you and Irey are, not merely ignorant, but stupid.
You’re whining about an apparent variation of around .1% when the precision of your “measuring instrument” is only about that, and the normal change in paper size with changes in humidity is on the order of .5-1% (even higher if the changes are extreme).
Someone suggested earlier that you’d build a house of cards on quicksand, but it’s not even that solid.
I’m watching a video photography course that recommends setting the white balance to daylight on the camera all the time. That way you get the scene as it actually is. You can fix it in the computer later of you want. It looks like that’s what Applewhite did.
It would be normal for someone to crop a photo of a document to size before publishing. It’s the first thing I would do.
Probably not: JPEG encoders tend to do a bad job on images of text, and all the raw formats would be too big for web publishing (as well as being non-standard).
Since AP does a lot of stories that involve publishing images of documents, it’s likely that they have a JPEG encoder set up that doesn’t fuzz the text the way most do. An it might well also crop and/or scale images to standard sizes to make it easier to lay out web and print pages.
Says RC the Radio head who we all know is a consummate photographer.
Actually he’s an endless supply of baloney (bologna).
RC’s glare problem is probably why all modern photocopy stands are equipped with two or four flash strobes — just to get lots of glare …
Dunce!
Nope! The text of Onaka’s stamp means exactly what it says…
“true copy” = photographic or dry copy
“abstract” = computer generated image (i.e. filled-in, computer-generated form)
The word “INFORMATION” appears nowhere in the text of Onaka’s stamp.
All Obots read just what they want it to say.
Loser!
The page dimensions that I quoted are taken directly from the WH LFCOLB PDF image. The dimensions were read using Adobe Illustrator. The page dimensions are given in the image “Info” for the WH LFCOLB PDF image.
The page dimensions are an exact number of pixels @ 300 PPI X 300 PPI. The page dimensions in pixels are Width = 2552 px X Height = 3304 px. Or alternatively Width = 1276 px X 1652 px @ 150 PPI X 150 PPI.
Why did I quote the page dimensions for the WH LFCOLB PDF image rather than the certified paper copy of the Obama LFCOLB?
Answer:
Because the certified paper copy doesn’t exist.
This remains the critical question birthers refuse to answer.
On multiple occasions the State of Hawaii has verified that the information on the President’s LFBC is accurate and identical to the original record on file. That ends the story.
Birthers can hyperventilate all they want about the nuances of photoshop, portable document formats and Xerox machines. None of it matters a whit if the agency in possession of the original states that the copy is accurate and authentic.
Right it would be normal for a crazy person to do that!
So your contention is that Applewhite hand-held his shot to produce a crummy image just to save time and then had the lab Photoshop the crummy image to crop the dimensions?
So why didn’t Applewhite just walk his reporter’s handout paper copy down the hall to the nearest scanner and scan the pages to PDF at 8.5 in. X 11.0 in. and email the PDFs to the AP Washington bureau office?
So maybe one of you Obots could tell us which of these two workflows would have produced the best record copy of the President’s LFCOLB?
I know you and RC will pick the hand-held shot because the scanned copy could have been produced by the AP reporter, in which case Applewhite would not have been needed at all.
Which proves that any tall tale works for an Obot.
WTF does that have to do with the photo in question? What part of “handheld” escapes you?
Take a picture of a copy of something with a handheld camera in a fairly well lit room with the flash on and off and tell me which one has the most glare? Which one gives the best results?
It’s amazing that a guy with an engineering degree cannot understand the simple physics of light.
First that’s not true. Modern photocopy stand can use strobes but also can use photo-lamps. It isn’t flash vs. no flash it is the location and whether the light source is diffuse or concentrated that contributes to glare. The key to using any light source is that you want to avoid a direct reflection of the light source by placing it off axis more than 45 degrees.
Lighting in a room would tend to be more diffuse. A professional photography like Applewhite would understand all of this.
He probably did not worry about white balance or color correction. Here is what he said:
So Applewhite received a copy of the handout. He quickly photographed each page and sent them off to the AP. Then got on to more important things like taking photos of he President of the United States.
Hermie’s back, and like Irey and Sven before him, they all refuse, just refuse, to address the fact that Hawaii says the President was born there.
I see you’ve been busy huffing glue since the last time you ran away from the Amazon forums.
Dr. Onaka’s stamp says that the White House birth certificate “is a true copy or abstract” of the document on file in Hawaii. Hawaii has separately said that the image posted on the White House web site is an image of what Hawaii gave to Pres. Obama’s lawyer.
So, Hermie. Hawaii says the birth certificate is genuine. And you refuse, just refuse, to address that.
.0133 of an inch is virtually nothing. It’s like maybe the width of a human hair.
It is, as you noted, one 150th of an inch.
Yet supposedly this is an important deviation in the size of a sheet of paper. And supposedly this is now evidence of some kind of forgery? Wow, talk about stupid expectations for precision. Another example of extreme, ridiculous utter idiocy on the part of little Hermie.
.0067 of an inch is half of virtually nothing.
Wow. This is actually pretty funny.
Hermitian insists that the President’s birth certificate must be a forgery because the image isn’t precisely 8-1/2 by 11.
So he’s complaining that the image is 1/150th of an inch “too tall” and 1/300th of an inch “too wide,” and claiming someone must have digitally added “additional image.”
That may very well LITERALLY be the stupidest ****ing thing I’ve ever heard.
And then this chipmunk-brained moron calls someone else a “dunce,” because they disagree with him.
Just amazing.
Hermie has not explained how he measured that difference.
Even without a quick crop, shooting in RAW formats, as many professionals do, you would still need to reduce down the ginormous size to something usable for online publishing. Once again, Hermie shows he does not want to understand how things work but use only his opinion about how he thinks they should work.
My use of the word “format” was in the context of the physical size of the image as recorded at the camera focal plane. I was not referring to the digital file format of the graphic image.
However, the image size in pixels does determine the file size.
My point was that Applewhite could have selected size and aspect ratio of his image from the available “builtin” image formats.
One would expect that he would have a favorite format for 8.5 in. X 11.0 in. images.
That’s a convincing argument.
I don’t know about “Constitutionally sufficient”. As a practical matter, it seems that most courts have rules of evidence that assume that a certified document is prima facie what it says it is unless someone doubts it and can actually prove to the court that it’s not. Most states (and through extension local governments) have requirements for accepting certified documents that are pretty simple.
I’ve been through this before, and the Full Faith and Credit Clause gave Congress the task of deciding how a government record is “proved”. Now birth certificates weren’t exactly common at the time of the Bill of Rights, but I suppose it would apply as a plain application of the term “record”. Congress did pass a law with requirements similar to Apostilles, although I’m not sure how much this really comes up in practice.
California has a procedure to do this, although I’d be surprised if it’s ever been used for FF&C purposes.
http://www.sos.ca.gov/notary/authentication/
Now reading it, they mention that the process is for use outside the US, and that they can only certify certain signatures of state officials or county clerk/recorders. My child’s BC can be issued by a certain city government (in addition to county and state) so I suppose I wouldn’t be able to use this service for that particular document.
Soooooo …Maybe you could get Vicklund to help you convert your “virtually nothing” into cycles of the repeating pattern of the Green basket-weave safety paper. Here’s a hint for you. Each tiny bar in the crosshatch pattern is 6-8 pixels wide at the image resolution of 300 PPI X 300 PPI.
And let’s not forget that in 2008 Linda Lingle was the Republican governor of Hawaii. She was a strong supporter of John McCain and she is a close friend of Sarah Palin. If there was any truth to the forgery claims, she was in a position to undermine Obama’s campaign by disputing his eligibility. But she didn’t do that, and in 2010 she told WABC radio “…the president was, in fact, born at Kapi’olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii.”
Hermie and other birthers have never been able to come up with a coherent motive for Gov. Lingle to lie about Obama’s birth certificate.
What does the size of the PDF image have do with the image of the form itself (except as an approximation)?
Neither do the words “photographic or dry copy” and neither does the word “computer”.
Clearly you are the one that is trying to make it mean something it doesn’t.
The word “true” means that the INFORMATION was not changed during the copy process and the certification says “copy” it doesn’t say “photographic or dry copy”. Nor does it say that the format was not changed in any way. It says the INFORMATION was not changed.
The point of keeping birth INFORMATION is to keep birth INFORMATION, not pieces of paper.
How do I get my Brother A3 scanner to scan my LP cover of The Band’s “The Last Waltz” album with out glare? The guys that designed that cover were perverse. Perverse I tell you.
So Hermie’s been back without responding, yet again, to my question. He has explained that he is relying on what a program says is the size of the paper without understanding whether that program has a range for its estimate.
Apparently not. And the fact that Appewhite knew this (and apparently you do not) is just another demonstration that he is a professional and you’re not.
That’s about a summation of the entire birther movement.
Birther: “President Obama is ineligible to be President. His birth certificate is a forgery, and he’s Constitutionally ineligible anyway even if it wasn’t.”
Non-birther: “Why?”
Birther: “Because I, an unqualified idiot [in multiple senses of the term] say so.”
I’m out of my area of expertise, but I would think that a 40-50 MB image implies that the images are RAW, and if they are RAW, they don’t have white balance. RAW images record whatever the camera sensor delivers.
Given that the reporters at the press gaggle had no advance notice that there would be documents involved, they would not have had special equipment with them. So the guy with the camera took a picture. The publisher chose the format. You can look at the photo and see that there is no background in the frame. That alone suggests cropping because the photographer would have made sure to get the whole document and that would entail some background.
There is nothing remotely odd in any of this.
Obama has never produced either one of his two purported certified paper copies of his LFCOLB to any court or election official. He surely would have done so long ago if he had nothing to hide. At a minimum he could have realeased his hospital birth records.
Why should Obama have given copies of his birth certificate to people who didn’t ask for them? What court or election official?
You use that word “surely” but I don’t think it means what you think it does.
Isn’t it remarkable? It’s been seven years since the COLB was released, seven years that the birthers have had to assemble a non-eligibility case based on authenticated evidence and tight logic.
That after all that time you’re left relying on weak-tea arguments like that one is powerful testimony to how well you’ve done.
Posting a photo on a web site available anywhere in the world and handing copies out to every reporter covering the President isn’t having produced a document? You might as well wear big old clown shoes and a “I am a moron” tee shirt Hermie:.
It must be hard being so delusional after all these years. There was never a requirement for him to submit to a court. How do you know that no official has ever seen it? Did you personally ask all of them? You do know there is no requirement under our laws that a birth certificate has to be presented in court in order for it do be legit.
The hospitals wouldn’t keep records going back that far. They would be with the state’s department of health. Most hospitals aren’t required to keep records like that anymore than 7 years. But it’s cute that you keep whining about this and that when you already told Irey you’re not an expert and you wouldn’t testify because you’d be torn apart under cross examination.
For Hermie:
http://cdn.mdjunction.com/components/com_joomlaboard/uploaded/images/moron.gif
And Paul, too, come to think of it…
The only two election officials who felt any need for proof got verifications from Hawaii. Which are actually better than a birth certificate, because there’s no doubt that they’re coming from the issuing authority.
So I keep asking Hermie to address the fact that Hawaii has verified that the White House birth certificate is genuine; that the information contained therein is accurate. Hermie just refuses to answer the question.
Then he comes back with:
As others have pointed out here, two Republican Secretaries of State have asked Hawaii to certify Pres. Obama’s birth certificate and Hawaii has done so to their satisfaction.
So Hermie, are you ever going to answer any question? Or are you just going to be a troll?
1. Hawaii has verified Pres. Obama was born there and that the birth certificate displayed by the White House is genuine. Why can’t you accept that? Two Republican election officials have accepted that fact, the only two who even asked.
2. Tell us all of the courts and election officials who have seen birth certificates from the following individuals:
Any prior President, including, especially, Eisenhower and Reagan.
John McCain
Mitt Romney
Donald Trump
Ted Cruz (I’m especially interested in this one.)
Marco Rubio
Bobby Jindahl
Why haven’t they done so? What do they have to hide? I’ll even take their hospital birth records presented to a court or state election official. Of course, since Jimmy Carter is the first President born in a hospital, I’m guessing that every President before Carter and adding in Reagan is retroactively ineligible for not having hospital records.
So Hermie, are you actually going to answer a question?
On the contrary, President Obama has prodced his birth certificate to EVERY court and to EVERY election official that has ever made a legitimate, official request for it.
Furthermore, the State of Hawaii’s Department of Health has responded with official verifications to EVERY court and to EVERY election official that has ever made a legitimate, official request for it.
Those two sentences make simple assertions of objective reality, based on straight forward, unimpeachable, verifiable fact.
Your ridiculous lies may play out in some fact-free echo chamber that bans anyone who tries to correct you when you insist on claiming that the sky is candy apple red instead of blue – but it is pretty stupid of you to try to push your nonsense onto people who can actually tell the difference between $h1t and shinola.
(Yes, sometimes I like to pile metaphor on top of metaphor. Like it or lump it.)
IMHO Hermitian is trolling, pure and simple.
Of course die-hard birthers keep asking for documents they know don’t exist (anymore) so they can keep their “whatever nefarious stuff there was, was in those records” meme alive.
And who can blame them, Republicans in Congress are playing the same game with Benghaaaaaazi and the Clinton emails.
Don’t forget Judge Malihi in Georgia saw all the evidence as well as the President’s BC and declared him eligible Hermie. Too bad for you, again.
Not only that, he was given a guided tour by Orly Taitz herself!
Did Malihi look at this one from Factcheck.org?
http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg
This was the only COLB image with a BC number. But the embossed seal is faux.
Or was he given this one off the White House web site?
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate.pdf
This one is a forgery by Polland that Snopes stole from his photobucket account.
The White House downloaded it off snopes.com. Notice the BC number is redacted and there is no seal. Also the Obama campaign claims that they ordered this one from HDOH in 2008 but the date stamp on the back side is June 5, 2007.
So let’s see the original certified paper copy of the Obama COLB.
What! Obama doesn’t have one? Maybe he can get it back rom Judge Maiihi?
I’m not holding my breath.
No, it’s not.
Judge Malihi looked at the birth certificate submitted by Orly Taitz. I presume she got that from the PDF on whitehouse.gov. I think Obama’s attorney also sent a copy to Kemp and the court–that would have been the same.
Hermie: “So let’s see the original certified paper copy of the Obama COLB.
What! Obama doesn’t have one? Maybe he can get it back from Judge Maiihi?”
Poor hermie…not even important enough to have anyone care that he can’t see the original paper copy. Whatja going to do about it hermie, hold your breath until you turn blue? BTW hermie, I have yet to see ANY proof the President was born anywhere but Hawaii, when are you going to prove he wasn’t? A shame your delusions aren’t proof.
Doc: “Judge Malihi looked at the birth certificate submitted by Orly Taitz. I presume she got that from the PDF on whitehouse.gov. I think Obama’s attorney also sent a copy to Kemp and the court–that would have been the same.”
STUPID ORLYISMS FROM HISTORY
What was even better, the copy Orly submitted was barely readable so the defense submitted a better copy…and Orly claimed that since they submitted a forgery the defense was committing a forgery on the court! Totally forgetting…SHE DID THE SAME THING!!!
Hermie, your input here indicates that you’ve been holding your breath, WAY TOO LONG to even know if you’re holding your breath.
You’ve been holding your breath for years hoping your delusions will actually mean something. Thus far they’ve meant failure.
Ah, so digital photography terminology is yet another subject you’re not familiar with.
Only for uncompressed formats. If there’s compression done (as there usually is for online images), it merely influences the size: the algorithm used, and the image content, can be even bigger influences.
The Canon EOS-1D Mark IV offers four image sizes (or, as you would mislabel them, “formats”): 4896×3264, 4320×2880, 3552×2368, and 2448×1632. All have an aspect ratio of 1.5:1. The aspect ratio of an 8.5×11 sheet of paper is about 1:1.294.
That leaves the photo editor with only two choices: wasting space on something not part of the subject, and cropping.
I’d ask if there’s more ignorance you’d like to embarrass yourself with, but everyone here already knows the answer to that one.
I have to defend Hermitian on this one. The use of “format” for a camera aspect ratio is normal English usage. Also the sensor size of a camera is referred to by manufacturers as “format.”
For film, yes. And digital camera makers may also use it in a similar fashion to refer to the physical size of the sensor.
But there’s only one physical sensor size per camera. When you’re talking about multiple” image formats” in a single digital camera, it refers to file format (raw vs compressed), pixel array size, or a combination of the two. If you look at Canon’s specs for the camera in question, the “Recording System” section lists “Image formats” as “JPEG, RAW, M-RAW, S-RAW (Canon .CR2) MOV”.
And Hermie’s “point” was blunted by the fact that all the resolutions in the Canon have the same aspect ratio.
Another sloppy Obot!
There are three AP images of the Obama LFCOLB, all credited to Applewhite:
“Blue 1”
ID: 11042717913
2698 px x 3234 px
1.02 MB
http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/APTOPIX-Obama/361a1a8559aa4ce4a1a26347b12423bb/10/0
“Blue 2”
ID: 110427018673
2698 px x 3234 px
1.43 MB
http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Obama/400ef843b542462bb458f01b39012402/12/0
“Green”
ID: 11042713007
1101 px x 1389 px
http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Obama/6478c96a6173470da6ae87478dbd5e40/11/0
Each of these images covers less than the full 8.5 in. x 11.0 in. page.
The pixel dimensions do not match the available pixel dimensions for Applewhite’s Canon DSLR
The image aspect ratios are neither 1.5/1 nor 11/8.5.
There was no need to crop the original hand-held image in the photo lab.
Applewhite could have easily cropped the 8.5in. x 11.0 page “in camera” by adjusting the distance between page and lens and re-focusing on the page. He also had the full zoom range of the lens available to adjust the size of the image relative to the page size.
Dolt!
This is a gaping hole in your argument, since you fail to justify this statement. In fact, no setting available on Applewhite’s camera results in an image the same shape as the birth certificate; therefore, it had to be cropped to prevent losing part of the image, or including something in the background.
Obviously not, since neither the full page, nor the subsets that the photo editor decided to use, match the aspect ratio of his camera.No matter what he did, the editor was going to have to crop something to get the desired image.
Try using your brain for something other than cooling your blood.
Just my two cents but the “Green” image appears to a cropped version of the White House PDF and not a picture of the actual document. Maybe it was missed labeled as an Applewhite image.
Here is a picture of the birth certificate plain paper copy.
http://joeforamerica.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/121220_jake_tapper_ap_328.jpg
And close up of Tapper’s hand
http://images.politico.com/global/news/110513_birth_obama_ap_605.jpg
Not according to Hawaii law
§338-13 Certified copies. (a) Subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18, the department of health shall, upon request, furnish to any applicant a certified copy of any certificate, or the contents of any certificate, or any part thereof.
(b) Copies of the contents of any certificate on file in the department, certified by the department shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original, subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18.
(c) Copies may be made by photography, dry copy reproduction, typing, computer printout or other process approved by the director of health. [L 1949, c 327, §17; RL 1955, §57-16; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-13; am L 1978, c 49, §1]
The “other process approved by the director of health” means just about any way they want including putting the bound volume on a copy machine and printing it onto green security paper. And section (b) means the contents on the copy are the same as on the original.
Totally Obot logic on display!
Obots can imagine “holes” in every brick wall.
Ever heard of “in-camera” cropping? That’s exactly what any professional photographer would naturally do with a 35 mm format camera shooting an object consisting of a 8.5 in. x 11.0 page. In that case, his image would intentionally lose part of the page but would still be nominal 35 mm format. Thus the page would be cropped and the image aspect ratio would be 1.5/1. There would be absolutely zero need for Applewhite to send his photographs to the AP photo lab for cropping.
Because that is not the case for any of the three Applewhite AP images that’s how we know that Applewhite didn’t photograph these images of the Obama LFCOLB.
Instead we know that the three AP images were either provided “as is” to the AP by the White House or else the AP reporter scanned the two Blue hand-out copy twice and the one original Green paper copy at the White House and then the AP lab cropped the scanned images.
Most likely, the White House sent the digital files for the three LFCOLB images directly to the AP. This scenario is consistent with the fact that all three AP images have the same creation time. All three have the same Creation Date/Time:
Creation Date: April 27, 2011 04:53:21 AM
The clock time is likely Pacific DS time.
The three images have different Submission Times:
Blue 2: Submission Date: April 27, 2011 01:05:10 PM
Green: Submission Date: April 27, 2011 01:29:43 PM
Blue 1: Submission Date: April 27, 2011 02:55:34 PM
It’s interesting that the Green image has the lowest pixel resolution of the three AP images. Maybe that was done intentionally because the WH was going to release the Green PDF image at higher resolution.
It’s impossible for Applewhite to have shot three different images (two Blue and one Green) at the same instant. Even if the AP lab did crop the three images in Photoshop, they would not have the same creation time. The only way that this can be done in Photoshop is to manually change the times to be the same.
Boy! It sure is easy (and fun) to plug these imaginary Obot holes.
Obots should know better than to debate an Engineer.
Engineers look at all the evidence and all the most likely scenarios.
The fact that the final AP images are not nominal 35mm format (and his CAMERA IS A 35mm DSLR) proves that Applewhite didn’t photograph the three AP images.
The final images are not 1.5/1 aspect ratio. If time was a premium, then the AP would put Applewhites images online “as is” without taking the time to crop them.
Dolt!
Except the HDOH technician doesn’t have the Hawaii law books in a bookcase next to the Xerox. Instead the technician must carry out his duties according the HDOH procedures which are spelled out in Black and White in the HDOH handbook which has been in effect since the 1970’s.
You Obots really don’t have a clue about how the real world works…
The Tapper photos are of the actual reporter’s handout paper copy. That’s the original that the AP reporter scanned at the WH and sent to the AP lab for cropping. The AP lab produced the two Blue AP images from the scanned 8.5 in. x 11.0 in. image (produced by their reporter). That explains why these two have the same creation date/time. It also gives the AP plausible deniability for the forgery.
However, the AP is on the hook for the Green copy. They attribute that one also to Applewhite and give it the same creation date/time as the two Blue images.
You Obot Rabbits can’t claw your way out of this AP briar patch.
Clueless!
A claim for which you provide no evidence.
I would remind Hermitian, and the rest of the commenters here, about this site’s appropriate commenting policy:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/visitor-guide/#contents-appropriatecomments
Gratuitous remarks such as the one below, in my experience, have only two uses: to express personal animosity (which is irrelevant) or to cover up the weakness of an argument.
How long does a professional publishing photo lab take to crop an image? The answer to that question, should explain the weakness in your reasoning. Further, how precise is in-camera cropping using the equipment Applewhite claimed to have used? Do professional photographers routinely use in-camera cropping? I just finished a 4-DVD video digital photography course by a National Geographic photographer, and it never came up.
I think that is a fair assessment given that we really don’t have a clue what you’re saying in any of your current discussions. Being a mathematician by training, I go to the model of a formal proof which has a series of statements, each of which follows from the ones before it justified by a mathematical theorem or a step of logic. You pretty much omit justification, rather using bald assertion and a tacit assumption that they should be obvious (which they aren’t). Saying that something is the case in the “real world” is not evidence that it is.
You seem to skip over large hunks of the argument you are trying to make. You say that an engineer looks at evidence for the most likely explanation, while not actually examining alternatives and developing an argument for how likely they are. For example you make timing arguments without making time estimates for the alternatives. You mention “in camera cropping” but fail to talk about how long this would take, compared to a professional photo editor cropping something as part of a publishing work flow.
You assert that a putative Hawaiian technician has no access to a statute without justification, but that they do have access to other policies. Further, the relevance of any of that is just let flapping in the wind.
So as long as you gloss over the clues, we will remain clueless.
I think he’s looking for what his 20th ban?
So then you are buying in to the scenario that Applewhite also photographed the Green image from the original Green certified paper copy?
You really can’t have it both ways. The evidence is clear. It’s either Applewhite photographed all three images or none.
The Creation date/times are the same for all three AP images; however the submission times are different. And all three times are in the afternoon on April 27, 2011. So if the AP was in such a rush to get their images online why did they wait until the afternoon to do so?
Nope! Sorry! The Applewhite photo doesn’t compute.
Maybe you could talk him into repeating his feat.
With regards your National Geographic course … National Geo photographers shoot scenics and animals not letter size pages. Take a course on microphotography and you’ll see that most pros don’t handhold a shot of a letter size page with text unless they are a spy.
National Geographic photographers shoot scenics, animals, events and portraits. The normal use of in-camera cropping is to exclude something from the image, such as a light source on the background.
I would think that Applewhite’s usual job was not to photograph documents, but to photograph people and events, something quite like one would see in National Geographic (see recent spread on Pope Francis).
So I think that my example is completely on target and your objection is not.
Nor do you provide any evidence that the AP photo lab cropped three photo images that Applewhite shot at the press gaggle which the AP attributed to him.
And you take a giant leap over the Green Applewhite “photograph” which has the same identical creation time/date as the two Blue images.
Again — you don’t get to have it both ways unless you have additional evidence. There are three images attributed to Applewhite — one Green and two Blue.
You obviously didn’t know that before I posted the three images.
National Geographic photographers shoot scenics, animals, events and portraits. The normal use of in-camera cropping is to exclude something from the image, such as a light source on the background.
I would think that Applewhite’s usual job was not to photograph documents, but to photograph people and events, something quite like one would see in National Geographic (see recent spread on Pope Francis).
So I think that my example is completely on target and your objection is not.
You talk about looking at evidence, but you seem to prefer scenarios without evidence to those with evidence. In this case we have Applewhite’s own statement that the images are photographs, but you prefer a scenario using a scanner that supposedly exists somewhere.
A huge problem with your interpretation of events is the timing. The transcript of the White House Press gaggle at 8:48 AM the morning of April 27 says:
No matter how the AP image originated, it reasonably originated in the morning. Since there were several hours between that time and the afternoon Press Conference (and when the photos were made public), any argument against processing based on the need for speed fails. But let’s look more closely at the AP information on the blue image:
http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Obama/400ef843b542462bb458f01b39012402/12/0
That says that the creation date was April 27, 2011 04:53:21 AM, which is absurd for local time, but then AP photographers might well not use local time. If the press Gaggle was at 8:47 AM it is possible that Applewhite had documents in hand at 8:53 (EDT) which would be 4:53 AM UTC. UTC makes a lot of sense for an international organization like the AP, so I’ll go with that. In any case, there is a huge gap of time between when the photo was taken and when it was submitted to the AP, and when the news releases of the birth certificate came out.
Indeed all 3 images (two blue and one green) have the same “creation” time, suggesting that they were created at the same time (to the second). Either the creation time is significant, or it is not. If it is significant, then that strongly suggests that we are looking at 3 versions of the same image. If it is not (the creation time is artificial), then nothing can be gleaned from that time. A scenario like: “it was scanned in black in white, and then it was scanned in color” doesn’t work when the times are all the same. The evidence compels me to think that all 3 images referenced by Hermition originated from the same source, but had different post processing.
Which makes it much more unlikely that Applewhite would attempt to handhold three macro shots of a letter size page.
And while you are thinking about that why don’t you explain why the AP photo lab would crop the the two Blue images to the exact same pixel dimensions but with different file size?
Nice try! But I took a minor in mathematics on three different engineering degrees.
I eat mathematical proofs for lunch.
I know that in the real world Barack Obama is still President of the United States, and there is nothing that you or any other birther can do about it.
The reality is that birthers have as much relevance as flat earthers.
But good engineers incorporate those into their analyses, where you discard when they don’t fit the conclusion you want to reach. And then invent assumptions and less likely scenarios that do.
Like your imaginary Hawaiian record storage system, which hypothesized that they had adopted technology that was still expensive and unproven, and discarded the original paper documents, when they had stated in public that they were still keeping them.
Or claiming that AP images are still going through a film-style lab that uses Photoshop on their way to the editors, when it’s far more likely that the editors are using their own tools (which may, or may not, be from Adobe) to process them.
That’s not just wrong, it’s fundamentally stupid: the only thing it proves is that AP didn’t publish raw images as supplied by Applewhite. While it’s theoretically possible that they published something else, the “most likely scenario” is the simple one: they cropped and compressed his images to save space.
Nonsense: real engineers understand the necessity of making trade-offs to achieve a balance of costs and benefits most suitable to the situation at hand. Those images were going out to publishers for whom column-inches are also at a premium, many of whom would have staff not as skilled and experienced at photo editing as AP’s headquarters people. The most time- and cost-efficient process would be for Applewhite to supply images to AP that let them make the editorial decisions about what to crop (using tools much more precise and efficient than trying to frame them with a hand-held camera), and for AP to provide its users with print-/web-ready images.
You are such a screw up. Do you ever get anything right?
Public Health Regulations – Chapter 8B Vital Statistics Registration and Records
2.4 Issuance of Certified Copies of Vital Records
B Standards for Copies of Vital Records
(2) Abbreviated Copy
(a) Method of Preparation. Abbreviated copies may be prepared by typing, by computer printout, or by any other process approved by the Director.
(b) Form of certification. This will be the same as for the standard certified copy.
(c) Contents. Abbreviated copies will contain only such information to that listed in section 2.2 as the Director considers appropriate.
(d) Limitation of issuance. An abbreviated copy will not be prepared unless all the information called for on the form has been entered on the original vital record on file with the Department of Health.
And what is the “Form of certification”?
Under Section 2.4 B (1) (b) Form of certification.
Standard certified copies shall contain an appropriate certification statement over the signature of the registrar having custody of the record and be impressed with the raised seal of the issuing office. The signature may be photographed or entered by mechanical means. The paper shall display the official seal of the Department of Health or the seal of the State.
The Director of Health can issue anything, use any process and include whatever information the director chooses to use.
And what did Director Fuddy say about the issuance of the LFBC?
“I have the legal authority to approve the process by which copies of such records are made. Through that authority, in recognition of your status as President of the United states, I am making an exception to current departmental policy which is to issue a computer-generated certified copy.”
Apparently everyone but you knows how the real wortld works.
Sure. While perhaps they are in a rush to get stuff out, someone experienced and using the right tools (on a computer and not directly from a camera) can crop and compress (this is important for web-ready photos) in short order. Trying to put something out quickly doesn’t mean never applying basic editorial control. Hermie is just making crap up just because it fits some bizarre narrative.
You are forgetting the third option: The green copy is misidentified.
And the proof is in the links to the images that you provided. Here is what it says about the green image.
ID:
11042713007
Creation Date:
April 27, 2011 04:53:21 AM
Submission Date:
April 27, 2011 01:29:43 PM
Photographer:
J. Scott Applewhite
Source:
AP
Credit:
ASSOCIATED PRESS
Special Instructions:
HANDOUT IMAGE PROVIDED BY THE WHITE HOUSE
Resolution:
1101 x 1389 1.26 MB
Location:
Washington, DIST. OF COLUMBIA, United States
Transmission Reference:
DCSA103A
Byline Title:
STF
Caption Writer:
JSA RCL**DC**
Usage Notes:
This content is intended for editorial use only. For other uses, additional clearances may be required.
Here is the info for blue 1
ID:
11042717913
Creation Date:
April 27, 2011 04:53:21 AM
Submission Date:
April 27, 2011 02:55:34 PM
Photographer:
J. Scott Applewhite
Source:
AP
Credit:
ASSOCIATED PRESS
Special Instructions:
HANDOUT IMAGE PROVIDED BY THE WHITE HOUSE
Resolution:
2698 x 3234 1.02 MB
Location:
Washington, DIST. OF COLUMBIA, United States
Transmission Reference:
DCSA103
Byline Title:
STF
Caption Writer:
JSA RCL**DC** AJ**NY**
Usage Notes:
This content is intended for editorial use only. For other uses, additional clearances may be required.
And for blue 2
ID:
110427018673
Creation Date:
April 27, 2011 04:53:21 AM
Submission Date:
April 27, 2011 01:05:10 PM
Photographer:
J. Scott Applewhite
Source:
AP
Credit:
ASSOCIATED PRESS
Special Instructions:
HANDOUT IMAGE PROVIDED BY THE WHITE HOUSE
Resolution:
2698 x 3234 1.43 MB
Location:
Washington, DIST. OF COLUMBIA, United States
Transmission Reference:
DCSA103
Byline Title:
STF
Caption Writer:
JSA RCL**DC**
Usage Notes:
This content is intended for editorial use only. For other uses, additional clearances may be required.
See that part about the “HANDOUT IMAGE PROVIDED BY THE WHITE HOUSE”? It is the same on all three image IDs.
According to your theory the White House gave out not only the plain paper copy of the LFBC but also a green paper copy of the LFBC.
There is no evidence of that, anywhere.
BTW, I opened the White House PDF in Adobe Photoshop. Cropped out a section about the same size as the “green” image, sized it to 1101 pixel width. and saved it as a jpeg. I got the following file size
1101 x 1431 pixels and 1.1 MB
Took about five minutes.
We have an example of that in the web-published image from CBS.
Here is what CBS News published on their website:
http://cbsnews1.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r/2011/04/27/1404a17c-a643-11e2-a3f0-029118418759/thumbnail/620x/f3631560ff2846e30a69f5fd3e14694e/obama_birth_certificatev2_110427.jpg
And here is what the CBS affiliate in Minnesota published on their website with a credit to CBS:
https://cbsminnesota.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/obama-birth-certificate.jpg?w=620&h=349&crop=1
I have purchased a copy of the green image from the AP. All I can say at this point is that I can find no significant difference in this image and the White House PDF, save for its’s being cropped. Every nuance, for example the lack of a visible seal, matches. Of course the White House PDF is a layered object and not a JPG file. I don’t have what’s necessary to save the White House PDF as a single JPG image beyond taking a screen shot.
At this point, here is what I consider most plausible based on what I’m seeing and given the fact that some hours passed before the images were created (based on AP metadata) and when they were submitted:
1) The “bluish images” are hand-held photographs of the White House press handout. It’s blue because the handout was a B&W image, and the lighting in the room was blueish. If these images were of the birth certificate itself, they would be green. The AP says that they are images of the handouts.
2) The green image is an export of the White House PDF using Photoshop (or something), possibly but not necessarily done by AppleWhite. The AP description is in error because it says the image was a handout, and as far as anybody knows, there were no color handouts. One of the reasons for this is the precision of the image orientation. I put grid lines on the Applewhite green image and the PDF and the vertical alignment was as close as I could measure.
3) The creation date on the green image is manually set to match the bluish ones, and there is probably only one blue one in the first place.
I see nothing in the images themselves that suggests to me that Applewhite photographed Obama’s actual birth certificate.
OK, then you have no excuse for your non-rigorous argument approach.
Because they are saved at different JPG quality levels?
But you didn’t post the requirements for “standard copies”. Obots only post the stuff that supports their scenario.
“Abbreviated” copies omit some of the information that is included in the original paper copy of the certificate. That’s why they call them abbreviated. Obama’s LFCOLB is supposed to be a “standard” copy of the original hospital-generated long form. His COLB would be an abbreviated copy. But the COLB gets you no where because the WH COLB is the Polland forgery and an abbreviated copy is legal only if the information it contains has already been entered on the original copy.
So let’s see what the handbook requirements are for “standard” copies of the original certificate.
As I told Herm, I open the White House PDF in Adobe Photoshop, cropped it to approximately the same as the AP image, sized it to 1101 pixel width and saved as a jpg. Ended up with a similar sized and dimensioned file. It took less than five minutes.
I suspect something like that happened with the AP green image and they just used the same ID description.
I’ll address the times first. As I previously posted, the AP images times are Pacific DS time. The AP images operation is located in California. So any of the original times would be converted by the AP images folk. Consequently, the 04:53:21 AM PC DS converts to 08:53:21 AM EC DS. Now there is zero camera data for the Applewhite “photographs”. No true professional would shoot with a DSLR and not record his camera data. So you can’t produce any time other than 04:53:21 AM for the Applewhite “photographs”
Also you never have explained how Applewhite got around the “ground rules” that the press secretary laid down for the press gaggle. “NO PHOTOGRAPHS OR RECORDINGS”. So we are to believe that a room full of reporters from different news outlets sat quietly by while Applewhite banged away with his Canon?
You are confusing me with Hawaii AAG Nagamine. She is the state attorney who told a Hawaii state judge that the HDOH had converted all the Hawaii BC’s from paper to computer.
Imagemagick is free for Windoze, as well as Linux. The command:
convert -density 150 -quality 100 birth-certificate-long-form.pdf birth-certificate-long-form.jpg
does the conversion on Linux. Check to see whether they changed the command-line options to the DOS “/” style, but they probably didn’t.
It’s a very complex tool, with zillions of options, but there are many examples and recipes online for the simple subset most of us use. It’s a huge time-saver if you have large or recurring conversion/modification jobs to do.
If you don’t want to mess with installing Imagemagick right now, I can email or upload (if you have a suitable location: $%#*ing Cox took away its customers free webspace to cut costs) the 2.3Meg JPEG for you when I return from running errands.
There’s your problem—you’re supposed to read and understand mathematical proofs, not eat them for lunch (nor any other meal).
Clearly your three math minors did not give you the mathematical maturity necessary to successfully understand and apply the concepts you learned in other contexts nor did it convey any sort of critical thinking skills if your writing here is any indication.
Mathematics is a language and being a mathematician means you are a fluent speaker in that language. After getting a BS, a MS, a MA and a PhD, all in mathematics, and spending a decade doing research in mathematics, I consider myself fairly proficient in the language of mathematics and reasonably adept at spotting the difference between someone with a sound grasp of how math and science work and someone with a cargo-cult level of understanding and an agenda like yourself.
Doc has a master’s degree in mathematics, I’ve read a proof he wrote and, most importantly, I’ve met him in person and talked a little shop with him. He knows how to speak and understand the lingo. You, on the other hand, quite simply don’t.
Your very name reeks of cargo cult mathematics—you use a mathematical term that appears to have no relevance to who you are or the argument you’re making. Presumably it is intended to make people think that you are knowledgable about mathematics without actually demonstrating any understanding or expertise.
Sorry, but I doubt you will find any suckers that you can baffle with your bull here.
Not all conversions from paper records to computer entries involve images. Having been in the vital records business, I know this well, as our company provided OCR solutions that assisted key operators in entering DATA from birth certificates.
OK, the time zone conversion almost makes sense except that there is 3 hours difference between Easter and Pacific time, not 4. But we could allow another hour from daylight savings time.
Applewhite didn’t take a photo of the press conference, but a photo of the handout.
Not possible. The AP JPEG would have a single resolution for the entire image.
The WH LFCOLB PDF copy is 150 PPI for the background and 300 PPI for the layers.
This difference alone would require significant differences between the AP and WH images.
The time read from the ABC PDF Metadata is 9:59:53-04:00.
Surely, the ground rules for the press gaggle were aimed at preventing photos of the certified copy of the birth certificate held at the podium and not the people in attendance.
The White House PDF, if exported from Photoshop as a JPG file would have a single resolution for the entire image also. The Applewhite green image is 150 ppi, by the way.
Could someone with Photoshop make available an export of the White House PDF at a resolution of 150 ppi? Then I could compare apples to apples.
And you are ignoring the fact that the content of the abbreviated certified copy is whatever the Director of Health decides. And the process to create it is whatever the Director of Health decides.
So here are some yes or no questions for you.
Can the Director of Health decide to include the name of the hospital on an abbreviated copy? How about the mother’s residence address? Father’s occupation?
Can the Director of Health decide to place the bound volume on a copier and print it onto green security paper generate an abbreviated certified copy?
What you don’t seem to understand is that today the computer-generated certified copy is the standard copy.
The cropping is done during the image composition and focusing steps. The image is already cropped when the exposure occurs.
Most professionals could compose and focus a macro shot in less than a minute. Especially when using a wide telephoto lens with macro range.
The time required to photograph a selected area of text on a 8. in x 11.0 in. sheet of paper would be about the same as the time required to scan the same sheet.
The WH press core would have access to image scanners in the White House press room.
The “standard” certified copy is what the HDOH regulations say that it is. By the way — you never posted the HDOH regulation for a “standard” certified copy. You don’t seem to get it that the Hawaii laws are written by the Hawaii legislature. The HDOH regulations are written by the HDOH and they haven’t changed since the 1970’s. The HDOH regulations are the HDOH interpretation of the law. The regulations prevail until they are changed.
The HDOH regulations were cited by Nagamine to turn aside the Sunahara request for the original long form BC for Virginia Sunahara. Otherwise Nagamine would have had to produce the original Sunahara certificate. She had to revert back to the old regulations because the HDOH had changed the policy on certified copies for Obama without first seeking input from the public.
I could crop it in Lightroom in less than minute. There goes your “rush” argument (along with the multiple hours delay between creation and submission).
You didn’t answer his questions
Here is what they say it is in its entirety:
(1) Standard Copy
(a) Method of preparation. Standard copies of vital records may be prepared by photographic, dry copy reproduction process or by typing. If prepared by the standard photographic process may not be smaller than one-half the size of the original. If prepared by dry copy process, heavy grade safety paper or specially treated paper must be used.
(b) Form of certification. Standard certified copies shall contain an appropriate certification statement over the signature of the registrar having custody of the record and be impressed with the raised seal of the issuing office. The signature may be photographed or entered by mechanical means. The paper shall display the official seal of the Department of Health or the seal of the State.
(c) Unauthorized reproduction. Other reasonable safeguards against forgery, unauthorized reproduction or misuse as the Director of Health may formulate from time to time shall be provided.
(d) Confidential information. Information contained in the section headed “Confidential Information for Medical or Health Use Only” or other similar designation shall not be included on a standard certified copy unless specifically requested by an individual named on the certificate or by a court of competent jurisdiction.
Nothing in the Standard certificate sections entions the content beyond not providing the confidential information. Nothing in the section precludes the Director from including any information he or she decides on the abbreviated copy or the process that must be used for an abbreviated copy.
So again here are some yes or no questions for you.
Can the Director of Health decide to include the name of the hospital on an abbreviated copy? How about the mother’s residence address? Father’s occupation?
Can the Director of Health decide to place the bound volume on a copier and print it onto green security paper generate an abbreviated certified copy?
You are also wrong about the Sunahara case. The case was argued on the basis of 338-13 not 8B. In fact, 8B only came up because Sunahara’s attorney said in his complaint that the DOH was not following their rules without mention 8B. So the AG included a copy of 8B in their response.
At trial the plaintiff’s counsel admitted he had not seen the 8B rules and in the complaint only meant “rules” in a general sense.
Any item that is included on the original hospital-generated birth certificate is fair game for inclusion on an abbreviated certificate.
Only original hospital-generated BC’s are kept in paper form in bound volumes. Abbreviated copies are never filed. It’s illegal to do so. Abbreviated copies cannot be produced until a request for certified copy has been received by HDOH.
The lawyer for Sunahara was referring to the policy change to issue only the short form. That change was not put forth for public comment by the HDOH. That was his complaint. He didn’t mention 8B because his complaint was that the law had been violated when the change to issue only the short form was made without public comment. Unfortunately, the judge didn’t pick up on Nagamine’s bait and switch.
Nagamine was aware of that legal problem so she did a bit of legal trickery by referring to the older regulations which had been properly put into effect per the Hawaii laws.
And we’re arguing about photographs of a document, that NO ONE knows under what circumstances they were taken, under what light, and what processing was done to them afterwards, why this is almost as pointless as arguing about a multi-generation copy of of a copy of a document that was changed in format an unknown number of times before being finally posted.
The information and the document(s) have been certified repeatedly by the custodial institution, there is no controversy for sane minds.
The requirements for standard certified copies (as defined in 8B) do not permit computer generated copies. That’s why Fuddy copied the original bound volume page onto Green safety paper using the Xerox process. Too bad we haven’t yet seen her work product.
At least a half a dozen times at NBC’s blog Hermie came with “the smoking gun” evidence and every time either NBC or W. Kevin VIcklund shot him down. It was embarrassing. He also made the claim that the AP JPG could not have been shot with a hand held camera. We know how that worked out.
Wow. All this time and you still don’t understand. A birther whackjob asked for a birth certificate (which he was entitled to) in a non-standard form. This was declined by the agency, as they are allowed to do. The President of the United States asked for a birth certificate (which he was entitled to) in a non-standard form. The director of the agency granted this request which was within her discretion.
There is nothing illegal or even suspicious in all of this, just a predictable difference between a disingenuous request from a member of a fringe group that had been baselessly harassing the Hawai’i DoH for years and a respectful and reasonable one from the Commander-in-Chief.
The DoH didn’t have to grant Sunhara’s request nor did they have to deny President Obama’s. You can cry over it all you want, but this milk is long since spilt. No change of policy was required to release the LFBC for the POTUS or to avoid going out of their way to make one for a birther dupe like Mr. Sunhara.
Read his original complaint, the plaintiff never mentions 8B (it’s their third claim). However, Jill Nagamine saw through the game. And she included a copy of 8B in their motion to dismiss. According to the Plaintiff’s attorney that was the first time he had seen 8B. Judge Nishimura also saw through the game and read from 8B the following:
“Chapter 8B, Vital Statistic Registration and Records, of the State Public Health Regulations was adopted February 23rd, 1976 following a public hearing held on January 22, 1976 after public notices were published in the Honolulu Advertiser on December29,1975; The Hawaii Tribune-Herald on December 29,1975; the Garden Island on December 29,1975; and the Maui News on December 26,1975.”
Contrary to plaintiffs claims than the DOH has rules (8B) which were subject to public hearings and those rules are in consistent with section 338-13 HRS.
8B does not say that an eligible applicant must be given a standard copy of a certified birth certificate only that they “may” be given one and the same category of applicants “may” be given an abbreviated certified copy. The DOH has had since at least 1976 the authority to decide what type of birth certificate can be issued.
I should add Herm that 338-13 has been the law since 1978.
The lawyer for Sunahara wasn’t playing games. His claim was not for 8B but rather for the illegal policy change (to issue only the short form) that the HDOH had made without public input.
Nagamine knew that he was referring to the policy change and not to 8B. And she also knew that the policy change was illegal under Hawaii law. The fact that the new policy was not legally adopted was exactly the claim that the Sunahara lawyer had made. That’s also exactly why Nagamine substituted the 8B for the illegal policy change notice. There was considerable discussion between the Judge and Nagamine as to why/how she was introducing the 8B regulation.
The judge dropped the ball because Nagamine had already argued that HDOH only provides the short form (COLB). She had argued that the standard certified copy was no longer provided. She also claimed that an exception had been made for Obama.
The Sunahara lawyer could not provide a legal reference for the policy change notice because it was not a proper legal document.
RC obviously hasn’t been reading the posts on this thread. Try to keep up RC. Maybe you could explain the three Applewhite images of the Obama LFCOLB that are currently posted on the AP images web site. For convenience, I named them Blue 1, Blue 2 and Green. It’s that Green one that blows your imaginary discussion with Applewhite out of the water.
Maybe you can explain how Applewhite made three shots of two different LFCOLBs at the press gaggle when the ground rules were no photographs or recordings?
So has 8B. And guess which one the HDOH techs adhere to.
The computer generated abstract IS the CURRENT standard copy. That is why the President had to be granted a special dispensation to get the NON-standard copy.
Did you know that a Hermitian matrix is equal to its tranjugate?
I can do the same in photoshop, and 50 second of that would include starting photoshop and opening the file. I get the sense that Herm does not truly understand how current technology has changed the process of publishing photographs. Applewhite was not doing some staged photoshoot of documents but just a quick picture. In this case, it was easier and faster to fo a quick point and shoot and let an editor do a quick crop and compress for Web publishing.
In this case the editor spent less time on it then applewhite would have if he followed Herm’s process. This was an quick info shot and nothing more.
I wonder if Herm realized I can deposit a check by simply taking a picture of it with my phone.
Actually, 0853 EDT would be 1153 UTC. 0453 would be Alaska time.
But that image is still going to have the camera’s 1.5:1 aspect ratio, while the editors decided they wanted an area that’s about 1.2:1. So it would still require cropping for publication.
I’m not big on photo editing, but even I know that there are often saved workflows (aka macros) to repeat certain actions.
I guess the days are gone when Ansel Adams would sit for hours waiting for the scene/lighting to be perfect, and where he only carried two glass plates.
What’s a ‘check’?
Yeah – there lies the rub. “Standard” in this context is just a term of art. It doesn’t relate to a normal definition of “standard”. It doesn’t mean it’s the most common or the default. It’s been pretty obvious it’s been pretty uncommon for at least a decade. It’s like people using “standard” to describe a stick-shift. Well guess what, it’s not so “standard” any more.
I’ve been through the Dept of Health regulations, and all it says is that a “standard” certified copy of vital record “may be” prepared via certain methods. It doesn’t say “must be”. Heck – it even says a “standard” certified copy can be prepared by typing (we’ve seen maybe one example) and doesn’t say what information must appear on the certified copy. The typed copy I saw left out a lot of information, but it would be considered “standard” by the definition in Hawaii Health Dept Regs Chapter 8B.
I remember some strange argument that somehow scanning the original document and printing it (including cropping of certain info) wasn’t “dry copy reproduction”. Well guess what, even if it wasn’t, it would then fall under the “any other process approved by the Director” for an “abbreviated copy”. And an “abbreviated copy” is just as valid as a legal document.
Well – in a way it was a computer generated copy. All modern copiers are a combination of scanner/printer. It’s essentially just digitizing an image and processing it through a computer. And who said it was a standard copy. If it’s not “dry copy reproduction” (which at the time these regs were written would have been a drum directly exposed to the reflection from the page) then it would be an abbreviated copy according to the regs.
The Obots are working hard to lock me up in the darkroom. But their efforts are fruitless.
I’m probably the only one on this thread with an active Creative Cloud membership for all the Adobe 2015 products. I just downloaded the forth update for Photoshop 2015 which has been out for maybe a month. I keep hoping Adobe will release a Bridge 2015 but unfortunately it looks like they are stuck on Bridge CC.
Maybe someone could get DOC to post the JPEG METADATA from his purchased JPEG of the Applewhite Green LFCOLB?
I prefer JPEGsnoop which is free and can be downloaded here:
http://www.impulseadventure.com/photo/jpeg-snoop.html
or here:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/jpegsnoop/
Too bad the HDOH didn’t put this rule change out for public comment. That makes it illegal. That’s why the definition for “standard” certificate as defined in 8B is still the operative regulation. If you don’t buy that, then AAG Nagamine can confirm this fact.
Looking at the metadata is the first thing I did. There was nothing useful there, not even the date taken.
I loaded the ABC PDF image of the reporter’s handout into Photoshop 2015 and extracted the JPEG to a file size of 1.01MB. The resulting JPEG image appears to be identical to the Applewhite “Blue 1” The extracted image has a pixel resolution of 200 PPI X 200 PPI. The extraction appears to have preserved the original JPEG METADATA as extracted with JPEGsnoop.
JPEGsnoop 1.7.3 by Calvin Hass
http://www.impulseadventure.com/photo/
————————————-
Filename: [C:UsershwblakeDownloadsap_obama_certificate_dm_110427.jpg]
Filesize: [1035789] Bytes
Start Offset: 0x00000000
*** Marker: SOI (xFFD8) ***
OFFSET: 0x00000000
*** Marker: APP1 (xFFE1) ***
OFFSET: 0x00000002
Length = 7322
Identifier = [Exif]
Identifier TIFF = 0x[4D4D002A 00000008]
Endian = Motorola (big)
TAG Mark x002A = 0x002A
EXIF IFD0 @ Absolute 0x00000014
Dir Length = 0x0009
[ImageDescription ] = “This handout image provided by the White House shows a copy of the long form of President Barack Obama’s birth certificate from Hawaii. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite) ”
[Orientation ] = 1 = Row 0: top, Col 0: left
[XResolution ] = 2000000/10000
[YResolution ] = 2000000/10000
[ResolutionUnit ] = Inch
[Software ] = “Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)”
[DateTime ] = “2015:08:09 09:03:38”
[Artist ] = “J. Scott Applewhite”
[ExifOffset ] = @ 0x017C
Offset to Next IFD = 0x000001A8
EXIF IFD1 @ Absolute 0x000001B4
Dir Length = 0x0006
[Compression ] = JPEG
[XResolution ] = 72/1
[YResolution ] = 72/1
[ResolutionUnit ] = Inch
[JpegIFOffset ] = @ +0x0206 = @ 0x0212
[JpegIFByteCount ] = 0x[00001A8C] / 6796
Offset to Next IFD = 0x00000000
EXIF SubIFD @ Absolute 0x00000188
Dir Length = 0x0003
[ColorSpace ] = Uncalibrated
[ExifImageWidth ] = 0x[00000A8A] / 2698
[ExifImageHeight ] = 0x[00000CA2] / 3234
*** Marker: APP13 (xFFED) ***
OFFSET: 0x00001C9E
Length = 9536
Identifier = [Photoshop 3.0]
8BIM: [0x0404] Name=”” Len=[0x0186] DefinedName=”IPTC-NAA record”
IPTC [001:090] Coded Character Set = “%G”
IPTC [002:000] Record Version = 5
IPTC [002:120] Caption/Abstract = “This handout image provided by the White House shows a copy of the long form of President Barack Obama’s birth certificate from Hawaii. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite) ”
IPTC [002:122] Writer/Editor = “JSA RCL**DC**”
IPTC [002:040] Special Instructions = “HANDOUT IMAGE PROVIDED BY THE WHITE HOUSE”
IPTC [002:080] By-line = “J. Scott Applewhite”
IPTC [002:085] By-line Title = “STF”
IPTC [002:110] Credit = “AP”
IPTC [002:115] Source = “AP”
IPTC [002:005] Object Name = “Obama”
IPTC [002:055] Date Created = “20110427”
IPTC [002:060] Time Created = “000000+0000”
IPTC [002:090] City = “Washington”
IPTC [002:095] Province/State = “DC”
IPTC [002:101] Country/Primary Location Name = “USA”
IPTC [002:103] Original Transmission Reference = “DCSA103”
IPTC [002:015] Category = “A”
IPTC [002:010] Urgency = “5”
8BIM: [0x0425] Name=”” Len=[0x0010] DefinedName=”Caption digest”
Caption digest = | 0x18 15 AA 93 A7 89 AF 02 B9 D4 92 F3 23 24 CD 71 | …………#$.q
8BIM: [0x043A] Name=”” Len=[0x00E5] DefinedName=”Print Information”
Print Information =
| 0x00 00 00 10 00 00 00 01 00 00 00 00 00 0B 70 72 | …………..pr
| 0x69 6E 74 4F 75 74 70 75 74 00 00 00 05 00 00 00 | intOutput…….
| 0x00 50 73 74 53 62 6F 6F 6C 01 00 00 00 00 49 6E | .PstSbool…..In
| 0x74 65 65 6E 75 6D 00 00 00 00 49 6E 74 65 00 00 | teenum….Inte..
| 0x00 00 43 6C 72 6D 00 00 00 0F 70 72 69 6E 74 53 | ..Clrm….printS
| 0x69 78 74 65 65 6E 42 69 74 62 6F 6F 6C 00 00 00 | ixteenBitbool…
| 0x00 0B 70 72 69 6E 74 65 72 4E 61 6D 65 54 45 58 | ..printerNameTEX
| 0x54 00 00 00 01 00 00 00 00 00 0F 70 72 69 6E 74 | T……….print
| …
8BIM: [0x043B] Name=”” Len=[0x022D] DefinedName=”Print Style”
Print Style =
| 0x00 00 00 10 00 00 00 01 00 00 00 00 00 12 70 72 | …………..pr
| 0x69 6E 74 4F 75 74 70 75 74 4F 70 74 69 6F 6E 73 | intOutputOptions
| 0x00 00 00 17 00 00 00 00 43 70 74 6E 62 6F 6F 6C | ……..Cptnbool
| 0x00 00 00 00 00 43 6C 62 72 62 6F 6F 6C 00 00 00 | …..Clbrbool…
| 0x00 00 52 67 73 4D 62 6F 6F 6C 00 00 00 00 00 43 | ..RgsMbool…..C
| 0x72 6E 43 62 6F 6F 6C 00 00 00 00 00 43 6E 74 43 | rnCbool…..CntC
| 0x62 6F 6F 6C 00 00 00 00 00 4C 62 6C 73 62 6F 6F | bool…..Lblsboo
| 0x6C 00 00 00 00 00 4E 67 74 76 62 6F 6F 6C 00 00 | l…..Ngtvbool..
| …
8BIM: [0x03ED] Name=”” Len=[0x0010] DefinedName=”ResolutionInfo structure”
Horizontal resolution = 200 pixels per inch
Width unit = inch
Vertical resolution = 200 pixels per inch
Height unit = inch
8BIM: [0x0426] Name=”” Len=[0x000E] DefinedName=”Print scale”
Style = centered
X location = 0.00000
Y location = 0.00000
Scale = 1.00000
8BIM: [0x040D] Name=”” Len=[0x0004] DefinedName=”Global Angle”
Global Angle = 30 degrees
8BIM: [0x0419] Name=”” Len=[0x0004] DefinedName=”Global Altitude”
Global Altitude = 30
8BIM: [0x03F3] Name=”” Len=[0x0009] DefinedName=”Print flags”
Labels = false
Crop marks = false
Color bars = false
Registration marks = false
Negative = false
Flip = false
Interpolate = false
Caption = false
Print flags = true
8BIM: [0x2710] Name=”” Len=[0x000A] DefinedName=”Print flags information”
Version = 1
Center crop marks = 0
Reserved = 0
Bleed width value = 0
Bleed width scale = 1
8BIM: [0x03F5] Name=”” Len=[0x0048] DefinedName=”Color halftoning information”
Color halftoning information =
| 0x00 2F 66 66 00 01 00 6C 66 66 00 06 00 00 00 00 | ./ff…lff……
| 0x00 01 00 2F 66 66 00 01 00 A1 99 9A 00 06 00 00 | …/ff……….
| 0x00 00 00 01 00 32 00 00 00 01 00 5A 00 00 00 06 | …..2…..Z….
| 0x00 00 00 00 00 01 00 35 00 00 00 01 00 2D 00 00 | …….5…..-..
| 0x00 06 00 00 00 00 00 01 | ……..
8BIM: [0x03F8] Name=”” Len=[0x0070] DefinedName=”Color transfer functions”
Color transfer functions =
| 0x00 00 FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF | …………….
| 0xFF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF 03 E8 00 00 00 00 FF FF | …………….
| 0xFF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF | …………….
| 0xFF FF FF FF 03 E8 00 00 00 00 FF FF FF FF FF FF | …………….
| 0xFF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF | …………….
| 0x03 E8 00 00 00 00 FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF | …………….
| 0xFF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF 03 E8 00 00 | …………….
8BIM: [0x0408] Name=”” Len=[0x0010] DefinedName=”Grid and guides information”
Version = 1
Grid Horizontal = 576
Grid Vertical = 576
Number of Guide Resources = 0
8BIM: [0x041E] Name=”” Len=[0x0004] DefinedName=”URL List”
URL List = | 0x00 00 00 00 | ….
8BIM: [0x041A] Name=”” Len=[0x0371] DefinedName=”Slices”
Slice Header:
Version = 6
Bound Rect (top) = 0
Bound Rect (left) = 0
Bound Rect (bottom) = 3234
Bound Rect (right) = 2698
Name of group of slices = “ap_obama_certificate_dm_110427”
Number of slices = 1
—–
Slice #0:
Slice Resource:
ID = 0
Group ID = 0
Origin = 0
Name = “”
Type = 1
Position (top) = 0
Position (left) = 0
Position (bottom) = 2698
Position (right) = 3234
URL = “”
Target = “”
Message = “”
Alt Tag = “”
Cell text is HTML = true
Cell text = “”
Horizontal alignment = 0
Vertical alignment = 0
Alpha color = 0
Red = 0
Green = 0
Blue = 0
Descriptor version = 16
Descriptor:
Name from classID = “”
classID = “null”
Num items in descriptor = 2
—–
Descriptor item #0:
Key = “bounds”
OSType key = “Objc”
Descriptor:
Name from classID = “”
classID = “Rct1”
Num items in descriptor = 4
—–
Descriptor item #0:
Key = “Top ”
OSType key = “long”
Value = 0
Descriptor item #1:
Key = “Left”
OSType key = “long”
Value = 0
Descriptor item #2:
Key = “Btom”
OSType key = “long”
Value = 3234
Descriptor item #3:
Key = “Rght”
OSType key = “long”
Value = 2698
—–
Descriptor item #1:
Key = “slices”
OSType key = “VlLs”
Num items in list = 1
—–
Item #0:
OSType key = “”
Descriptor:
Name from classID = “”
classID = “slice”
Num items in descriptor = 18
—–
Descriptor item #0:
Key = “sliceID”
OSType key = “long”
Value = 0
Descriptor item #1:
Key = “groupID”
OSType key = “long”
Value = 0
Descriptor item #2:
Key = “origin”
OSType key = “enum”
Type = “ESliceOrigin”
Enum = “autoGenerated”
Descriptor item #3:
Key = “Type”
OSType key = “enum”
Type = “ESliceType”
Enum = “Img ”
Descriptor item #4:
Key = “bounds”
OSType key = “Objc”
Descriptor:
Name from classID = “”
classID = “Rct1”
Num items in descriptor = 4
—–
Descriptor item #0:
Key = “Top ”
OSType key = “long”
Value = 0
Descriptor item #1:
Key = “Left”
OSType key = “long”
Value = 0
Descriptor item #2:
Key = “Btom”
OSType key = “long”
Value = 3234
Descriptor item #3:
Key = “Rght”
OSType key = “long”
Value = 2698
—–
Descriptor item #5:
Key = “url”
OSType key = “TEXT”
String = “”
Descriptor item #6:
Key = “null”
OSType key = “TEXT”
String = “”
Descriptor item #7:
Key = “Msge”
OSType key = “TEXT”
String = “”
Descriptor item #8:
Key = “altTag”
OSType key = “TEXT”
String = “”
Descriptor item #9:
Key = “cellTextIsHTML”
OSType key = “bool”
Value = true
Descriptor item #10:
Key = “cellText”
OSType key = “TEXT”
String = “”
Descriptor item #11:
Key = “horzAlign”
OSType key = “enum”
Type = “ESliceHorzAlign”
Enum = “default”
Descriptor item #12:
Key = “vertAlign”
OSType key = “enum”
Type = “ESliceVertAlign”
Enum = “default”
Descriptor item #13:
Key = “bgColorType”
OSType key = “enum”
Type = “ESliceBGColorType”
Enum = “None”
Descriptor item #14:
Key = “topOutset”
OSType key = “long”
Value = 0
Descriptor item #15:
Key = “leftOutset”
OSType key = “long”
Value = 0
Descriptor item #16:
Key = “bottomOutset”
OSType key = “long”
Value = 0
Descriptor item #17:
Key = “rightOutset”
OSType key = “long”
Value = 0
—–
—–
—–
—–
8BIM: [0x0428] Name=”” Len=[0x000C] DefinedName=”Pixel Aspect Ratio”
Version = 2
X/Y Ratio = 1.00000
8BIM: [0x0414] Name=”” Len=[0x0004] DefinedName=”Document-specific IDs seed number”
Base value = 1
8BIM: [0x040C] Name=”” Len=[0x1AA8] DefinedName=”Thumbnail resources”
Format = 1
Width of thumbnail = 133 pixels
Height of thumbnail = 160 pixels
Widthbytes = 400 bytes
Total size = 64000 bytes
Size after compression = 6796 bytes
Bits per pixel = 24 bits
Number of planes = 1
JFIF data @ 0x000026D6
8BIM: [0x0421] Name=”” Len=[0x005D] DefinedName=”Version Info”
Version = 1
hasRealMergedData = 1
Writer name = “”
Reader name = “”
File version = 1
8BIM: [0x0406] Name=”” Len=[0x0007] DefinedName=”JPEG quality”
Photoshop Save As Quality = 7
Photoshop Save Format = “Standard”
Photoshop Save Progressive Scans = “3 Scans”
??? = 1
*** Marker: APP1 (xFFE1) ***
OFFSET: 0x000041E0
Length = 4832
Identifier = [http://ns.adobe.com/xap/1.0/]
XMP =
*** Marker: APP2 (xFFE2) ***
OFFSET: 0x000054C2
Length = 576
Identifier = [ICC_PROFILE]
ICC Profile:
Marker Number = 1 of 1
Profile Size : 560 bytes
Preferred CMM Type : ‘ADBE’ (0x41444245)
Profile Version : 0.2.1.0 (0x02100000)
Profile Device/Class : Display Device profile (‘mntr’ (0x6D6E7472))
Data Colour Space : rgbData (‘RGB ‘ (0x52474220))
Profile connection space (PCS) : ‘XYZ ‘ (0x58595A20)
Profile creation date : 1999-06-03 00:00:00
Profile file signature : ‘acsp’ (0x61637370)
Primary platform : Apple Computer, Inc. (‘APPL’ (0x4150504C))
Profile flags : 0x00000000
Profile flags > Profile not embedded
Profile flags > Profile can’t be used independently of embedded
Device Manufacturer : ‘none’ (0x6E6F6E65)
Device Model : ‘….’ (0x00000000)
Device attributes : 0x00000000_00000000
Device attributes > Reflective
Device attributes > Glossy
Device attributes > Media polarity = negative
Device attributes > Black & white media
Rendering intent : Perceptual
Profile creator : ‘ADBE’ (0x41444245)
Profile ID : 0x00000000_00000000_00000000_00000000
*** Marker: APP14 (xFFEE) ***
OFFSET: 0x00005704
Length = 14
DCTEncodeVersion = 100
APP14Flags0 = 0
APP14Flags1 = 0
ColorTransform = 1 [YCbCr]
*** Marker: DQT (xFFDB) ***
Define a Quantization Table.
OFFSET: 0x00005714
Table length = 132
—-
Precision=8 bits
Destination ID=0 (Luminance)
DQT, Row #0: 10 7 11 18 22 27 34 17
DQT, Row #1: 7 8 10 17 23 23 12 12
DQT, Row #2: 11 10 14 22 23 12 12 12
DQT, Row #3: 18 17 22 23 12 12 12 12
DQT, Row #4: 22 23 23 12 12 12 12 12
DQT, Row #5: 27 23 12 12 12 12 12 12
DQT, Row #6: 34 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
DQT, Row #7: 17 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
Approx quality factor = 77.39 (scaling=45.21 variance=1331.35)
—-
Precision=8 bits
Destination ID=1 (Chrominance)
DQT, Row #0: 11 14 31 34 20 20 17 17
DQT, Row #1: 14 19 24 14 14 12 12 12
DQT, Row #2: 31 24 14 14 12 12 12 12
DQT, Row #3: 34 14 14 12 12 12 12 12
DQT, Row #4: 20 14 12 12 12 12 12 12
DQT, Row #5: 20 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
DQT, Row #6: 17 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
DQT, Row #7: 17 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
Approx quality factor = 87.15 (scaling=25.70 variance=843.03)
*** Marker: SOF0 (Baseline DCT) (xFFC0) ***
OFFSET: 0x0000579A
Frame header length = 17
Precision = 8
Number of Lines = 3234
Samples per Line = 2698
Image Size = 2698 x 3234
Raw Image Orientation = Portrait
Number of Img components = 3
Component[1]: ID=0x01, Samp Fac=0x11 (Subsamp 1 x 1), Quant Tbl Sel=0x00 (Lum: Y)
Component[2]: ID=0x02, Samp Fac=0x11 (Subsamp 1 x 1), Quant Tbl Sel=0x01 (Chrom: Cb)
Component[3]: ID=0x03, Samp Fac=0x11 (Subsamp 1 x 1), Quant Tbl Sel=0x01 (Chrom: Cr)
*** Marker: DRI (Restart Interval) (xFFDD) ***
OFFSET: 0x000057AD
Length = 4
interval = 338
*** Marker: DHT (Define Huffman Table) (xFFC4) ***
OFFSET: 0x000057B3
Huffman table length = 418
—-
Destination ID = 0
Class = 0 (DC / Lossless Table)
Codes of length 01 bits (000 total):
Codes of length 02 bits (000 total):
Codes of length 03 bits (007 total): 04 05 03 02 06 01 00
Codes of length 04 bits (001 total): 07
Codes of length 05 bits (001 total): 08
Codes of length 06 bits (001 total): 09
Codes of length 07 bits (001 total): 0A
Codes of length 08 bits (001 total): 0B
Codes of length 09 bits (000 total):
Codes of length 10 bits (000 total):
Codes of length 11 bits (000 total):
Codes of length 12 bits (000 total):
Codes of length 13 bits (000 total):
Codes of length 14 bits (000 total):
Codes of length 15 bits (000 total):
Codes of length 16 bits (000 total):
Total number of codes: 012
—-
Destination ID = 1
Class = 0 (DC / Lossless Table)
Codes of length 01 bits (000 total):
Codes of length 02 bits (002 total): 01 00
Codes of length 03 bits (002 total): 02 03
Codes of length 04 bits (003 total): 04 05 06
Codes of length 05 bits (001 total): 07
Codes of length 06 bits (001 total): 08
Codes of length 07 bits (001 total): 09
Codes of length 08 bits (001 total): 0A
Codes of length 09 bits (001 total): 0B
Codes of length 10 bits (000 total):
Codes of length 11 bits (000 total):
Codes of length 12 bits (000 total):
Codes of length 13 bits (000 total):
Codes of length 14 bits (000 total):
Codes of length 15 bits (000 total):
Codes of length 16 bits (000 total):
Total number of codes: 012
—-
Destination ID = 0
Class = 1 (AC Table)
Codes of length 01 bits (000 total):
Codes of length 02 bits (002 total): 01 02
Codes of length 03 bits (001 total): 03
Codes of length 04 bits (003 total): 11 04 00
Codes of length 05 bits (003 total): 05 21 12
Codes of length 06 bits (002 total): 31 41
Codes of length 07 bits (004 total): 51 06 13 61
Codes of length 08 bits (002 total): 22 71
Codes of length 09 bits (006 total): 81 14 32 91 A1 07
Codes of length 10 bits (007 total): 15 B1 42 23 C1 52 D1
Codes of length 11 bits (003 total): E1 33 16
Codes of length 12 bits (004 total): 62 F0 24 72
Codes of length 13 bits (002 total): 82 F1
Codes of length 14 bits (006 total): 25 43 34 53 92 A2
Codes of length 15 bits (002 total): B2 63
Codes of length 16 bits (115 total): 73 C2 35 44 27 93 A3 B3 36 17 54 64 74 C3 D2 E2
08 26 83 09 0A 18 19 84 94 45 46 A4 B4 56 D3 55
28 1A F2 E3 F3 C4 D4 E4 F4 65 75 85 95 A5 B5 C5
D5 E5 F5 66 76 86 96 A6 B6 C6 D6 E6 F6 37 47 57
67 77 87 97 A7 B7 C7 D7 E7 F7 38 48 58 68 78 88
98 A8 B8 C8 D8 E8 F8 29 39 49 59 69 79 89 99 A9
B9 C9 D9 E9 F9 2A 3A 4A 5A 6A 7A 8A 9A AA BA CA
DA EA FA
Total number of codes: 162
—-
Destination ID = 1
Class = 1 (AC Table)
Codes of length 01 bits (000 total):
Codes of length 02 bits (002 total): 01 00
Codes of length 03 bits (002 total): 02 11
Codes of length 04 bits (001 total): 03
Codes of length 05 bits (002 total): 04 21
Codes of length 06 bits (003 total): 12 31 41
Codes of length 07 bits (005 total): 05 51 13 61 22
Codes of length 08 bits (005 total): 06 71 81 91 32
Codes of length 09 bits (004 total): A1 B1 F0 14
Codes of length 10 bits (005 total): C1 D1 E1 23 42
Codes of length 11 bits (006 total): 15 52 62 72 F1 33
Codes of length 12 bits (004 total): 24 34 43 82
Codes of length 13 bits (008 total): 16 92 53 25 A2 63 B2 C2
Codes of length 14 bits (003 total): 07 73 D2
Codes of length 15 bits (003 total): 35 E2 44
Codes of length 16 bits (109 total): 83 17 54 93 08 09 0A 18 19 26 36 45 1A 27 64 74
55 37 F2 A3 B3 C3 28 29 D3 E3 F3 84 94 A4 B4 C4
D4 E4 F4 65 75 85 95 A5 B5 C5 D5 E5 F5 46 56 66
76 86 96 A6 B6 C6 D6 E6 F6 47 57 67 77 87 97 A7
B7 C7 D7 E7 F7 38 48 58 68 78 88 98 A8 B8 C8 D8
E8 F8 39 49 59 69 79 89 99 A9 B9 C9 D9 E9 F9 2A
3A 4A 5A 6A 7A 8A 9A AA BA CA DA EA FA
Total number of codes: 162
*** Marker: SOS (Start of Scan) (xFFDA) ***
OFFSET: 0x00005957
Scan header length = 12
Number of img components = 3
Component[1]: selector=0x01, table=0(DC),0(AC)
Component[2]: selector=0x02, table=1(DC),1(AC)
Component[3]: selector=0x03, table=1(DC),1(AC)
Spectral selection = 0 .. 63
Successive approximation = 0x00
*** Decoding SCAN Data ***
OFFSET: 0x00005965
Scan Decode Mode: Full IDCT (AC + DC)
Scan Data encountered marker 0xFFD9 @ 0x000FCE0B.0
Compression stats:
Compression Ratio: 24905.80:1
Bits per pixel: 0.00:1
Huffman code histogram stats:
Huffman Table: (Dest ID: 0, Class: DC)
# codes of length 01 bits: 0 ( 0%)
# codes of length 02 bits: 0 ( 0%)
# codes of length 03 bits: 130700 ( 95%)
# codes of length 04 bits: 5832 ( 4%)
# codes of length 05 bits: 358 ( 0%)
# codes of length 06 bits: 0 ( 0%)
# codes of length 07 bits: 0 ( 0%)
# codes of length 08 bits: 0 ( 0%)
# codes of length 09 bits: 0 ( 0%)
# codes of length 10 bits: 0 ( 0%)
# codes of length 11 bits: 0 ( 0%)
# codes of length 12 bits: 0 ( 0%)
# codes of length 13 bits: 0 ( 0%)
# codes of length 14 bits: 0 ( 0%)
# codes of length 15 bits: 0 ( 0%)
# codes of length 16 bits: 0 ( 0%)
Huffman Table: (Dest ID: 1, Class: DC)
# codes of length 01 bits: 0 ( 0%)
# codes of length 02 bits: 241513 ( 88%)
# codes of length 03 bits: 30865 ( 11%)
# codes of length 04 bits: 1402 ( 1%)
# codes of length 05 bits: 0 ( 0%)
# codes of length 06 bits: 0 ( 0%)
# codes of length 07 bits: 0 ( 0%)
# codes of length 08 bits: 0 ( 0%)
# codes of length 09 bits: 0 ( 0%)
# codes of length 10 bits: 0 ( 0%)
# codes of length 11 bits: 0 ( 0%)
# codes of length 12 bits: 0 ( 0%)
# codes of length 13 bits: 0 ( 0%)
# codes of length 14 bits: 0 ( 0%)
# codes of length 15 bits: 0 ( 0%)
# codes of length 16 bits: 0 ( 0%)
Huffman Table: (Dest ID: 0, Class: AC)
# codes of length 01 bits: 0 ( 0%)
# codes of length 02 bits: 440552 ( 41%)
# codes of length 03 bits: 65116 ( 6%)
# codes of length 04 bits: 277374 ( 26%)
# codes of length 05 bits: 97315 ( 9%)
# codes of length 06 bits: 62401 ( 6%)
# codes of length 07 bits: 46065 ( 4%)
# codes of length 08 bits: 14829 ( 1%)
# codes of length 09 bits: 32901 ( 3%)
# codes of length 10 bits: 11888 ( 1%)
# codes of length 11 bits: 1471 ( 0%)
# codes of length 12 bits: 5006 ( 0%)
# codes of length 13 bits: 1162 ( 0%)
# codes of length 14 bits: 3282 ( 0%)
# codes of length 15 bits: 2113 ( 0%)
# codes of length 16 bits: 3563 ( 0%)
Huffman Table: (Dest ID: 1, Class: AC)
# codes of length 01 bits: 0 ( 0%)
# codes of length 02 bits: 306988 ( 86%)
# codes of length 03 bits: 35316 ( 10%)
# codes of length 04 bits: 2881 ( 1%)
# codes of length 05 bits: 3149 ( 1%)
# codes of length 06 bits: 7762 ( 2%)
# codes of length 07 bits: 1029 ( 0%)
# codes of length 08 bits: 553 ( 0%)
# codes of length 09 bits: 68 ( 0%)
# codes of length 10 bits: 74 ( 0%)
# codes of length 11 bits: 59 ( 0%)
# codes of length 12 bits: 32 ( 0%)
# codes of length 13 bits: 12 ( 0%)
# codes of length 14 bits: 0 ( 0%)
# codes of length 15 bits: 0 ( 0%)
# codes of length 16 bits: 0 ( 0%)
YCC clipping in DC:
Y component: [255= 0]
Cb component: [255= 0]
Cr component: [255= 0]
RGB clipping in DC:
R component: [255= 0]
G component: [255= 0]
B component: [255= 0]
Average Pixel Luminance (Y):
Y=[212] (range: 0..255)
Brightest Pixel Search:
YCC=[ 1136, 23, -10] RGB=[252,255,255] @ MCU[181,102]
Finished Decoding SCAN Data
Number of RESTART markers decoded: 404
Next position in scan buffer: Offset 0x000FCE0A.5
*** Marker: EOI (End of Image) (xFFD9) ***
OFFSET: 0x000FCE0B
*** Searching Compression Signatures ***
Signature: 014219E79BBC5C20BABF374762AAA745
Signature (Rotated): 014219E79BBC5C20BABF374762AAA745
File Offset: 0 bytes
Chroma subsampling: 1×1
EXIF Make/Model: NONE
EXIF Makernotes: NONE
EXIF Software: OK [Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)]
Searching Compression Signatures: (3347 built-in, 0 user(*) )
EXIF.Make / Software EXIF.Model Quality Subsamp Match?
————————- ———————————– —————- ————–
SW :[Adobe Photoshop ] [Save As 07 ]
NOTE: Photoshop IRB detected
NOTE: EXIF Software field recognized as from editor
Based on the analysis of compression characteristics and EXIF metadata:
ASSESSMENT: Class 1 – Image is processed/edited
The extracted JPEG image has the correct pixel dimensions for Blue 1.
Number of Lines = 3234
Samples per Line = 2698
Image Size = 2698 x 3234
Raw Image Orientation = Portrait
Thanks for those kind words. I have the degree, but I have never been a practicing mathematician. What I did learn, and what I still use, is the proof paradigm. I know rigor when I see it.
I had heard of the Hermitian Matrix. It got about 10 minutes in grad school as an example in class.
Post the file for the Applewhite Green and I will extract the good stuff.
You wouldn’t be hiding anything ?
The equation for the geodesic in a Riemannian space can be written in terms of either the Christoffel symbols of the first or second kind. Which form of the equation contains the metric tensor explicitly?
But they did get the rule change out for public notice. They even had a public hearing on it.
It gives the DOH the option of determining what type of certified copy “may” be given to an applicant.
It’s one of those strange pieces of paper I get when I play a wedding or funeral. That’s about time I see them.
Hermy once told us he worked in a modern office and the copy machine didn’t have scan to email the problem being that the office he worked in last was in 1991.
IMHO, the right lighting and scene are still paramount and digital editing wiinot make up for a natural scene/lighting. However, if you are only grabbing a quick shot of a press handout, there is little need for anything beyond, is it clear and in focus.
Herm would have the photographer spend loads of time setting up the shot just right. This was a brief info shot and nothing more.
That’s because Hermy isn’t logical
Hermie,
This only reinforces my claim that your knowledge of mathematics is of the “cargo-cult”* variety. A few seconds Googling would have told you that the word is “tranSjugate”, not “tranjugate”. In any case, it is not, in my experience, a commonly used term as “conjugate transpose” is much more universally understood.
While you made a statement that, by definition, is correct (a Hermitian matrix is one that is equal to its own conjugate transpose), you haven’t told us anything about what this means—if you replace element (i,j) with the complex conjugate of element (j,i) you get the same matrix—or it’s significance (i.e. that the eigenvalues of a Hermitian matrix are guaranteed to be real**).
As with any language, mathematics is full of shibboleths that only fluent (and sometimes only native) speakers can say. Just like Americans in World War II used the challenge-response, “Flash” – “Thunder” – “Welcome” (when someone responds “Velcome” you open fire) in Europe or “lollapalooza” in the Pacific theater (the first “R” sound gives it away), or the biblical story where the word “shibboleth” comes from, the more you talk about math, the further you expose your complete lack of true expertise on the subject.
I also notice that you made no attempt to explain why you chose the name “Hermitian”. Thus it would seem that I was right that it has no significance whatsoever to either yourself or your birther arguments. In contrast, I chose the name “Slartibartfast” because the first time Arthur Dent asks for his name Slarti replies “It’s not important”—in other words, it isn’t my name (i.e. the authority with which I speak) that is significant, it is the merits of what I say. Something that is clearly anathema to you, with your transparent attempt to choose a name which would grant you unearned credibility and your repeated failures in understanding the basics of the legal, scientific and political implications of what you’re talking about.
Just like the Pacific islanders didn’t understand why their bamboo “radios” and control towers didn’t bring back the military supply planes that caused an enormous boom in their local economies, you and your fellow birthers are completely unaware of why, for all your whining, you will never convince a federal judge that President Obama is ineligible.
* In other words, you adopt the trappings without understanding their meaning or how they interact.
** This is important because the eigenvalues describe the modes allowed by the system and oscillatory modes require eigenvalues that are complex conjugate pairs. The key insight in my thesis involved empirically showing a complex relationship (heterodyning) between eigenvalues and the behavior of a dynamical system. I’m guessing that I have literally forgotten more about this than you have ever known.
What does this rabbit hole have to do with where President Obama was born? It is like birthers have completely forgotten about the COLB released in 2008.
Doc,
Since eigenvalues were central to my thesis research, I covered Hermitian matrices in my preparation for my preliminary exam* (as well as in less detail in my basic linear algebra class), but the knowledge isn’t really the shibboleth that distinguishes you and Hermie, it’s a level of mathematical maturity that, in my experience, tends to come when you take advanced undergraduate or first-year graduate level classes and is characterized by achieving a gestalt understanding of concepts like “rigor” and “proof”. It’s hard to quantify it, but it is obvious to me that Hermie can’t fake it and you don’t have to.
*Though they weren’t actually significant enough that I was ASKED about them on my exam.
This is but the first of a great many reasons why Hermie’s entire line of inquiry is ridiculous. It is also a (pathetic) attempt to attack the credibility of the Hawai’i DoH.
Probably only because Ansel Adams is gone.
Maybe Google adds the “S” but I’ve never seen the word spelled your way in textbooks on matrix analysis. It could be a matter of the author’s preference. But I prefer my spelling because my preferred author spells it “tranjugate” i.e. without your “S”.
I had a different experience. My first day as a freshman in college, my first calculus class, the professor started in a Socratic way to ask us about how we talked about things and elicited from us the concept of undefined terms that we used to define terms. Defined terms were used to state assumptions (axioms and postulates). Assumptions and logic were used to prove theorems.
Everything we ever did was rigorous even to the justification for the smallest manipulation of equations. Every proof was presented in two columns with a statement on the left and the justification (theorem, postulate, or application of logic) in the right. Finally as a reward we got to put that little square block that we called Halmos’ tombstone at the end. In our second year, we were allowed to slack off by using the justification “algebra and arithmetic” to shorten some obvious steps. We were even concerned about the validity of the Axiom of Choice. Our professors never gave us proofs; that was work for us to do.
We leaned calculus by starting with null sequences and we discovered and proved theorems about null sequences before we ever touched calculus. We defined calculus concepts like “derivative” in terms of null sequences (instead of the “epsilon/delta” stuff) and then proved our calculus theorems using null sequences. I can remember proving Rolle’s Theorem with null sequences as a homework assignment. I remember RoT and ToM ForD (theorem of the mean for derivatives). Halfway through the year he handed out project assignments. Mine was to develop the theory of logarithms using null sequences. Another student got trigonometric functions. What was cool was that we didn’t know what theorems we needed to prove. We just made stuff up and proved it. When we finished our project, it was critiqued, typed by the Department secretary, and then passed out to everyone else in the class.
I guess it was the second year when we used the Peano postulates to develop number theory.
By contrast, graduate school was much less rigorous.
Sure. We live in a world where one can take a photo or scan at fairly low resolution, and that can be transmitted as a legally enforceable document. It used to be that when I created something like a rental agreement, I’d make two high-quality copies, we’d sign both of them and keep a copy each. These days, having a photocopy of a single signed document or perhaps even a low-res scan is enough to be legally enforceable. I understand that laws have changed such that one can execute a contract via FAX or emailing documents, and it’s legally enforceable. It’s not the overall quality of the reproduction, but that they information is readable and correct.
Now of course this isn’t the same as certified copies of vital records. Those typically have some sort of standard for authentication (signatures and seals), the required paper, etc. However, I just recently traveled to Canada and saw their new note currency for the first time. It’s now polymer sheets that are supposed to be far more difficult to counterfeit than paper notes. I’m wondering if vital record production will ever move to that level in the US. Primarily I think one weakness with current security paper is that it will fall apart when folded and unfolded, and that information is currently printed using toner, which is known to crack when located where the paper is folded, and that can stick to other sheets of paper over time. Toner seems to especially stick to vinyl; I’ve seen that with vinyl binder covers.
Now, in the past I have applied for jobs where I had to initially send a copy of my educational transcripts. I tried to get as readable a copy as I could, but got tripped up by various issues like how small the print was. So in the end I went with a basic text setting, B&W, and the highest resolution. It ended up readable but far from looking like the original. If I were given an offer, I would have been obligated to send new 1st gen copies directly from each school’s registrar. Now I suppose nobody has really earned that right with regards to Obama’s BC. They can huff and puff all they want, but Hawaii has its laws and procedures. In a way I’m kind of wishing that they had procedures like California’s where anyone can request an “informational” copy.
There are a number of properties that follow provided that a matrix is Hermitian. Real eigenvalues is just one of them. But since you know something about eigenvalues you should know that:
If A is Hermitian, there exists a Unitary matrix U such that U*AU is a diagonal matrix whose diagonal elements are the characteristic roots of A.
and
A matrix H is Hermitian if and only if the form X*HX is real for every choice of the vector X.
And there are other properties of Hermitian matrices.
No need to list all of them…
You would be guessing wrong because I happen to know a lot about vibrating systems. You obviously have a mathematical knowledge of this physical problem which is typical for a mathematician.
For most simple oscillatory systems, the eigenvalues can occur as real or complex pairs. If real, the roots must be negative or else the system is unstable. In the case of complex pairs, all the real parts must also be negative. Engineers are quite adverse to unbounded amplitudes of vibration. For damped systems, it’s best to take (I*omega) for the complex frequency because this leads to characteristic equations with real coefficients.
In fact the shot was so brief that it never happened. The AP image was a scan of the paper handout rather than a photograph. Where’s the camera METADATA from Applewhite’s Canon?
Interesting how Hermie disappears for months, and then suddenly pops up as soon as I go on vacation. Again.
It is also completely illogical: Even assuming the HDOH wrongly denied Sunahara the long form of his sister’s birth certificate (which it did not, as the Hawaiian courts have ruled), that does nothing to attack the validity of President Obama’s birth in Hawaii.
It just plays into the whole giant conspiracy thing. President Obama’s certificate number was stolen from Sunahara and if birthers could just get a copy of her original LFBC they would have the proof. Never mind that her number is on both her COLB and her death certificate, it will somehow be the same number on her original birth certificate as on President Obama’s.
I have operated this site with openness and integrity for almost 8 years now, and there is no justification in a slimy accusation that I am hiding something. You are in my house, and I expect you to act accordingly.
I may post the Applewhite green file, but first I need to be comfortable that doing so will be in accordance with the Editorial License contract that I agreed to when I bought the file. It concerns me that should I post the file in its entirety, a bunch of folks will just download it and violate the hell out of its copyright. Also the license I have is time limited, so I need to come up with a mechanism to make sure it’s taken down before that expires, and I would have concerns about the Web Archive.
I can, on the other hand, extract metadata up the wazoo with any tool I have available. I responded previously about what Adobe Phtoshop Lightroom said, a program that gives lots of juicy camera information. Now I have run the file through fotoforensics.com and will post that information following. Note that there is “Apple” stuff in there. Compare the following with information on a scanned file:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/11/doubling-down/
File
File Type JPEG
MIME Type image/jpeg
Current IPTC Digest 0f5babd2410546c0b67521ef02158388
Image Width 1101
Image Height 1389
Encoding Process Baseline DCT, Huffman coding
Bits Per Sample 8
Color Components 3
Y Cb Cr Sub Sampling YCbCr4:4:4 (1 1)
JFIF
JFIF Version 1.02
Resolution Unit inches
X Resolution 150
Y Resolution 150
XMP
XMP Toolkit XMP toolkit 2.8.2-33, framework 1.5
Country USA
Caption Writer JSA RCL**DC**
Transmission Reference DCSA103A
State DC
Instructions HANDOUT IMAGE PROVIDED BY THE WHITE HOUSE
Authors Position STF
Title Obama
Creator J. Scott Applewhite
Description This handout image provided by the White House shows a copy of the long form of President Barack Obama’s birth certificate from Hawaii. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
IPTC
Application Record Version 3616444588110393911
Object Name Obama
Urgency 5 (normal urgency)
Category A
Special Instructions HANDOUT IMAGE PROVIDED BY THE WHITE HOUSE
Date Created 2011:04:27
Time Created 08:53:21+00:00
By-line J. Scott Applewhite
By-line Title STF
City Washington
Province-State DC
Country-Primary Location Name USA
Original Transmission Reference DCSA103A
Credit ASSOCIATED PRESS
Source AP
Copyright Notice AP2011
Caption-Abstract This handout image provided by the White House shows a copy of the long form of President Barack Obama’s birth certificate from Hawaii. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
Writer-Editor JSA RCL**DC**
ICC_Profile
Profile CMM Type ADBE
Profile Version 2.1.0
Profile Class Display Device Profile
Color Space Data RGB
Profile Connection Space XYZ
Profile Date Time 2000:08:11 19:51:59
Profile File Signature acsp
Primary Platform Apple Computer Inc.
CMM Flags Not Embedded, Independent
Device Manufacturer none
Device Model
Device Attributes Reflective, Glossy, Positive, Color
Rendering Intent Perceptual
Connection Space Illuminant 0.9642 1 0.82491
Profile Creator ADBE
Profile ID 0
Profile Copyright Copyright 2000 Adobe Systems Incorporated
Profile Description Adobe RGB (1998)
Media White Point 0.95045 1 1.08905
Media Black Point 0 0 0
Red Tone Reproduction Curve (Binary data 14 bytes)
Green Tone Reproduction Curve (Binary data 14 bytes)
Blue Tone Reproduction Curve (Binary data 14 bytes)
Red Matrix Column 0.60974 0.31111 0.01947
Green Matrix Column 0.20528 0.62567 0.06087
Blue Matrix Column 0.14919 0.06322 0.74457
APP14
DCT Encode Version 100
APP14 Flags 0 [14]
APP14 Flags 1 (none)
Color Transform YCbCr
Composite
Date/Time Created 2011:04:27 08:53:21+00:00
Date/Time Original 2011:04:27 08:53:21+00:00
Image Size 1101×1389
Megapixels 1.5
In the meanwhile, how about using that suite of Adobe tools you have, and use Photoshop to export the White House PDF to a JPG at 150 ppi. Even if I don’t post the whole Applewhite file, I can compare parts of it in images I can publish.
Here is the JPEGSnoop results from the Applewhite green file. Note that it says this came out of Photoshop. This supports what I’ve been saying–the Applewhite green file is a Photoshop export of the PDF.
JPEGsnoop 1.7.3 by Calvin Hass
http://www.impulseadventure.com/photo/
————————————-
Filename: [H:\Users\Kevin\Downloads\AP_11042713007.jpg]
Filesize: [1307236] Bytes
Start Offset: 0x00000000
*** Marker: SOI (xFFD8) ***
OFFSET: 0x00000000
*** Marker: APP0 (xFFE0) ***
OFFSET: 0x00000002
Length = 16
Identifier = [JFIF]
version = [1.2]
density = 150 x 150 DPI (dots per inch)
thumbnail = 0 x 0
*** Marker: APP1 (xFFE1) ***AP USA AP Washington JSA RCL**DC** 27 Apr 2011 DCSA103A DC 5 HANDOUT IMAGE PROVIDED BY THE WHITE HOUSE A STF Obama J. Scott Applewhite This handout image provided by the White House shows a copy of the long form of President Barack Obama’s birth certificate from Hawaii. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
OFFSET: 0x00000014
Length = 1585
Identifier = [http://ns.adobe.com/xap/1.0/]
XMP =
|< ?xpacket begin='ﾻ' id='W5M0MpCehiHzreSzNTczkc9d'?>< ?adobe-xap-filters esc="CR"?>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*** Marker: APP13 (xFFED) ***
OFFSET: 0x00000647
Length = 448
Identifier = [Photoshop 3.0]
8BIM: [0x0404] Name=”” Len=[0x01A4] DefinedName=”IPTC-NAA record”
IPTC [002:000] Record Version = 1
IPTC [002:000] Record Version = 0
IPTC [002:005] Object Name = “Obama”
IPTC [002:010] Urgency = “5”
IPTC [002:015] Category = “A”
IPTC [002:040] Special Instructions = “HANDOUT IMAGE PROVIDED BY THE WHITE HOUSE”
IPTC [002:055] Date Created = “20110427”
IPTC [002:060] Time Created = “085321+0000”
IPTC [002:080] By-line = “J. Scott Applewhite”
IPTC [002:085] By-line Title = “STF”
IPTC [002:090] City = “Washington”
IPTC [002:095] Province/State = “DC”
IPTC [002:101] Country/Primary Location Name = “USA”
IPTC [002:103] Original Transmission Reference = “DCSA103A”
IPTC [002:110] Credit = “ASSOCIATED PRESS”
IPTC [002:115] Source = “AP”
IPTC [002:116] Copyright Notice = “AP2011”
IPTC [002:120] Caption/Abstract = “This handout image provided by the White House shows a copy of the long form of President Barack Obama’s birth certificate from Hawaii. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)”
IPTC [002:122] Writer/Editor = “JSA RCL**DC**”
*** Marker: APP2 (xFFE2) ***
OFFSET: 0x00000809
Length = 576
Identifier = [ICC_PROFILE]
ICC Profile:
Marker Number = 1 of 1
Profile Size : 560 bytes
Preferred CMM Type : ‘ADBE’ (0x41444245)
Profile Version : 0.2.1.0 (0x02100000)
Profile Device/Class : Display Device profile (‘mntr’ (0x6D6E7472))
Data Colour Space : rgbData (‘RGB ‘ (0x52474220))
Profile connection space (PCS) : ‘XYZ ‘ (0x58595A20)
Profile creation date : 2000-08-11 19:51:59
Profile file signature : ‘acsp’ (0x61637370)
Primary platform : Apple Computer, Inc. (‘APPL’ (0x4150504C))
Profile flags : 0x00000000
Profile flags > Profile not embedded
Profile flags > Profile can’t be used independently of embedded
Device Manufacturer : ‘none’ (0x6E6F6E65)
Device Model : ‘….’ (0x00000000)
Device attributes : 0x00000000_00000000
Device attributes > Reflective
Device attributes > Glossy
Device attributes > Media polarity = negative
Device attributes > Black & white media
Rendering intent : Perceptual
Profile creator : ‘ADBE’ (0x41444245)
Profile ID : 0x00000000_00000000_00000000_00000000
*** Marker: APP14 (xFFEE) ***
OFFSET: 0x00000A4B
Length = 14
DCTEncodeVersion = 100
APP14Flags0 = 16384
APP14Flags1 = 0
ColorTransform = 1 [YCbCr]
*** Marker: DQT (xFFDB) ***
Define a Quantization Table.
OFFSET: 0x00000A5B
Table length = 132
—-
Precision=8 bits
Destination ID=0 (Luminance)
DQT, Row #0: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2
DQT, Row #1: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2
DQT, Row #2: 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2
DQT, Row #3: 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3
DQT, Row #4: 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 3
DQT, Row #5: 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 3
DQT, Row #6: 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 3
DQT, Row #7: 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3
Approx quality factor = 98.11 (scaling=3.79 variance=4.10)
—-
Precision=8 bits
Destination ID=1 (Chrominance)
DQT, Row #0: 1 1 1 2 3 3 3 3
DQT, Row #1: 1 1 1 2 3 3 3 3
DQT, Row #2: 1 1 2 3 3 3 3 3
DQT, Row #3: 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3
DQT, Row #4: 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
DQT, Row #5: 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
DQT, Row #6: 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
DQT, Row #7: 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Approx quality factor = 98.36 (scaling=3.29 variance=0.42)
*** Marker: SOF0 (Baseline DCT) (xFFC0) ***
OFFSET: 0x00000AE1
Frame header length = 17
Precision = 8
Number of Lines = 1389
Samples per Line = 1101
Image Size = 1101 x 1389
Raw Image Orientation = Portrait
Number of Img components = 3
Component[1]: ID=0x01, Samp Fac=0x11 (Subsamp 1 x 1), Quant Tbl Sel=0x00 (Lum: Y)
Component[2]: ID=0x02, Samp Fac=0x11 (Subsamp 1 x 1), Quant Tbl Sel=0x01 (Chrom: Cb)
Component[3]: ID=0x03, Samp Fac=0x11 (Subsamp 1 x 1), Quant Tbl Sel=0x01 (Chrom: Cr)
*** Marker: DRI (Restart Interval) (xFFDD) ***
OFFSET: 0x00000AF4
Length = 4
interval = 138
*** Marker: DHT (Define Huffman Table) (xFFC4) ***
OFFSET: 0x00000AFA
Huffman table length = 218
—-
Destination ID = 0
Class = 0 (DC / Lossless Table)
Codes of length 01 bits (000 total):
Codes of length 02 bits (002 total): 04 05
Codes of length 03 bits (002 total): 03 06
Codes of length 04 bits (002 total): 07 08
Codes of length 05 bits (003 total): 01 02 09
Codes of length 06 bits (001 total): 0A
Codes of length 07 bits (001 total): 00
Codes of length 08 bits (001 total): 0B
Codes of length 09 bits (000 total):
Codes of length 10 bits (000 total):
Codes of length 11 bits (000 total):
Codes of length 12 bits (000 total):
Codes of length 13 bits (000 total):
Codes of length 14 bits (000 total):
Codes of length 15 bits (000 total):
Codes of length 16 bits (000 total):
Total number of codes: 012
—-
Destination ID = 1
Class = 0 (DC / Lossless Table)
Codes of length 01 bits (000 total):
Codes of length 02 bits (002 total): 03 04
Codes of length 03 bits (003 total): 01 02 05
Codes of length 04 bits (001 total): 00
Codes of length 05 bits (001 total): 06
Codes of length 06 bits (001 total): 07
Codes of length 07 bits (001 total): 08
Codes of length 08 bits (000 total):
Codes of length 09 bits (000 total):
Codes of length 10 bits (000 total):
Codes of length 11 bits (000 total):
Codes of length 12 bits (000 total):
Codes of length 13 bits (000 total):
Codes of length 14 bits (000 total):
Codes of length 15 bits (000 total):
Codes of length 16 bits (000 total):
Total number of codes: 009
—-
Destination ID = 0
Class = 1 (AC Table)
Codes of length 01 bits (000 total):
Codes of length 02 bits (001 total): 03
Codes of length 03 bits (004 total): 01 02 04 05
Codes of length 04 bits (001 total): 06
Codes of length 05 bits (002 total): 11 07
Codes of length 06 bits (005 total): 00 21 12 13 08
Codes of length 07 bits (003 total): 31 41 14
Codes of length 08 bits (002 total): 22 09
Codes of length 09 bits (005 total): 51 61 32 23 15
Codes of length 10 bits (003 total): 71 42 16
Codes of length 11 bits (002 total): 81 24
Codes of length 12 bits (004 total): 52 33 17 0A
Codes of length 13 bits (003 total): 91 A1 62
Codes of length 14 bits (002 total): 18 72
Codes of length 15 bits (000 total):
Codes of length 16 bits (031 total): 43 34 25 19 B1 26 C1 82 53 D1 E1 92 A2 63 44 83
35 36 27 73 93 A3 1A F0 D2 54 D4 65 37 28 29
Total number of codes: 068
—-
Destination ID = 1
Class = 1 (AC Table)
Codes of length 01 bits (000 total):
Codes of length 02 bits (001 total): 01
Codes of length 03 bits (002 total): 02 03
Codes of length 04 bits (003 total): 00 11 04
Codes of length 05 bits (005 total): 21 31 51 12 05
Codes of length 06 bits (004 total): 41 61 71 13
Codes of length 07 bits (008 total): F0 81 91 A1 B1 C1 D1 22
Codes of length 08 bits (002 total): 32 14
Codes of length 09 bits (007 total): E1 42 52 62 72 23 06
Codes of length 10 bits (008 total): F1 82 92 A2 D2 33 34 15
Codes of length 11 bits (001 total): B2
Codes of length 12 bits (004 total): C2 E2 43 24
Codes of length 13 bits (002 total): 35 16
Codes of length 14 bits (001 total): 53
Codes of length 15 bits (000 total):
Codes of length 16 bits (011 total): 25 63 44 F2 83 73 A3 C3 45 36 64
Total number of codes: 059
*** Marker: SOS (Start of Scan) (xFFDA) ***
OFFSET: 0x00000BD6
Scan header length = 12
Number of img components = 3
Component[1]: selector=0x01, table=0(DC),0(AC)
Component[2]: selector=0x02, table=1(DC),1(AC)
Component[3]: selector=0x03, table=1(DC),1(AC)
Spectral selection = 0 .. 63
Successive approximation = 0x00
*** Decoding SCAN Data ***
OFFSET: 0x00000BE4
Scan Decode Mode: No IDCT (DC only)
NOTE: Low-resolution DC component shown. Can decode full-res with [Options->Scan Segment->Full IDCT]
Scan Data encountered marker 0xFFD9 @ 0x0013F262.0
Compression stats:
Compression Ratio: 677.48:1
Bits per pixel: 0.04:1
Huffman code histogram stats:
Huffman Table: (Dest ID: 0, Class: DC)
# codes of length 01 bits: 0 ( 0%)
# codes of length 02 bits: 9919 ( 41%)
# codes of length 03 bits: 6737 ( 28%)
# codes of length 04 bits: 3377 ( 14%)
# codes of length 05 bits: 3156 ( 13%)
# codes of length 06 bits: 468 ( 2%)
# codes of length 07 bits: 343 ( 1%)
# codes of length 08 bits: 12 ( 0%)
# codes of length 09 bits: 0 ( 0%)
# codes of length 10 bits: 0 ( 0%)
# codes of length 11 bits: 0 ( 0%)
# codes of length 12 bits: 0 ( 0%)
# codes of length 13 bits: 0 ( 0%)
# codes of length 14 bits: 0 ( 0%)
# codes of length 15 bits: 0 ( 0%)
# codes of length 16 bits: 0 ( 0%)
Huffman Table: (Dest ID: 1, Class: DC)
# codes of length 01 bits: 0 ( 0%)
# codes of length 02 bits: 24917 ( 52%)
# codes of length 03 bits: 18788 ( 39%)
# codes of length 04 bits: 2776 ( 6%)
# codes of length 05 bits: 1306 ( 3%)
# codes of length 06 bits: 235 ( 0%)
# codes of length 07 bits: 2 ( 0%)
# codes of length 08 bits: 0 ( 0%)
# codes of length 09 bits: 0 ( 0%)
# codes of length 10 bits: 0 ( 0%)
# codes of length 11 bits: 0 ( 0%)
# codes of length 12 bits: 0 ( 0%)
# codes of length 13 bits: 0 ( 0%)
# codes of length 14 bits: 0 ( 0%)
# codes of length 15 bits: 0 ( 0%)
# codes of length 16 bits: 0 ( 0%)
Huffman Table: (Dest ID: 0, Class: AC)
# codes of length 01 bits: 0 ( 0%)
# codes of length 02 bits: 183638 ( 17%)
# codes of length 03 bits: 599258 ( 57%)
# codes of length 04 bits: 57939 ( 6%)
# codes of length 05 bits: 76163 ( 7%)
# codes of length 06 bits: 88840 ( 8%)
# codes of length 07 bits: 20816 ( 2%)
# codes of length 08 bits: 10261 ( 1%)
# codes of length 09 bits: 9524 ( 1%)
# codes of length 10 bits: 2332 ( 0%)
# codes of length 11 bits: 911 ( 0%)
# codes of length 12 bits: 1111 ( 0%)
# codes of length 13 bits: 484 ( 0%)
# codes of length 14 bits: 176 ( 0%)
# codes of length 15 bits: 0 ( 0%)
# codes of length 16 bits: 445 ( 0%)
Huffman Table: (Dest ID: 1, Class: AC)
# codes of length 01 bits: 0 ( 0%)
# codes of length 02 bits: 145305 ( 25%)
# codes of length 03 bits: 150824 ( 26%)
# codes of length 04 bits: 127584 ( 22%)
# codes of length 05 bits: 73997 ( 13%)
# codes of length 06 bits: 30806 ( 5%)
# codes of length 07 bits: 28215 ( 5%)
# codes of length 08 bits: 4234 ( 1%)
# codes of length 09 bits: 6821 ( 1%)
# codes of length 10 bits: 4724 ( 1%)
# codes of length 11 bits: 201 ( 0%)
# codes of length 12 bits: 550 ( 0%)
# codes of length 13 bits: 139 ( 0%)
# codes of length 14 bits: 44 ( 0%)
# codes of length 15 bits: 0 ( 0%)
# codes of length 16 bits: 97 ( 0%)
YCC clipping in DC:
Y component: [<0= 0] [>255= 0]
Cb component: [<0= 0] [>255= 0]
Cr component: [<0= 0] [>255= 0]
RGB clipping in DC:
R component: [<0= 0] [>255= 0]
G component: [<0= 0] [>255= 0]
B component: [<0= 0] [>255= 0]
Average Pixel Luminance (Y):
Y=[210] (range: 0..255)
Brightest Pixel Search:
YCC=[ 904, -50, -25] RGB=[235,246,228] @ MCU[135, 13]
Finished Decoding SCAN Data
Number of RESTART markers decoded: 173
Next position in scan buffer: Offset 0x0013F261.5
*** Marker: EOI (End of Image) (xFFD9) ***
OFFSET: 0x0013F262
*** Searching Compression Signatures ***
Signature: 01DADDC4908E9BA57CC067EEAD54E67D
Signature (Rotated): 01DADDC4908E9BA57CC067EEAD54E67D
File Offset: 0 bytes
Chroma subsampling: 1×1
EXIF Make/Model: NONE
EXIF Makernotes: NONE
EXIF Software: NONE
Searching Compression Signatures: (3347 built-in, 0 user(*) )
EXIF.Make / Software EXIF.Model Quality Subsamp Match?
————————- ———————————– —————- ————–
SW :[Adobe Photoshop ] [Save As 12 ]
Based on the analysis of compression characteristics and EXIF metadata:
ASSESSMENT: Class 1 – Image is processed/edited
This may be a new software editor for the database.
If this file is processed, and editor doesn’t appear in list above,
PLEASE ADD TO DATABASE with [Tools->Add Camera to DB]
Obama’s BC Number is purportedly 151 61 10641. HDOH handwrote Virginia Sunahara’s BC number onto her death certificate. Her HDOH assigned BC number is 151-1961-011080. HDOH claims that Obama and Sunahara were born on the same day on August 4, 1961.
Here’s the background on the BC number.
http://www.obamareleaseyourrecords.com/2012/01/update-on-lawsuit-filed-against-hawaii.html
Virginia’s BC number is not consistent with her birthday or Obama’s BC number or the BC numbers of the Nordyke twins.
That’s because Hermy stupidly believes that Pollarik created the COLB
I extracted the JPEG METADATA from AP “Blue 2” by means of JPEGsnoop. Blue 2 is higher resolution AP Blue image. The pixel resolution is 300 PPI X 300 PPI. The create date/time for this file is:
Date Created = “20110427”
Time Created = “085321+0000”
This is in agreement with the date/time that you extracted from the AP Green by means of fotoforensica.com and JPEGsnoop.
This file is “Obama_Birth.jpg” off NBC’s blog.
I disagree. Establishing a lack of credibility on the part of the Hawai’i DoH is a necessary step in attacking the validity of President Obama’s birth in Hawai’i. The ridiculousness comes in thinking that there is any merit in this line of attack since both President Obama and Mr. Sunhara’s cases involved discretionary actions explicitly allowed by statute.
Just my $0.02.
Why does it matter? And if you got the metadata you’d then be asking to see what batteries he put in his canon then you’d claim you’d need to know what lightbulbs were in the room he took the photo in.
But remember you’re the one who was hiding from Joe Arpaio or so Hermy always claims.
What gives you the authority to claim it’s not consistent since you don’t assign the numbers. You also forget that she was born and died at a different hospital.
For me it was Real Analysis with Sheldon Axler my sophomore year. We started with some assumptions about the real line (between any two real numbers was another real number and such) and proved all of multivariable differential and integral calculus. Homework (mostly proofs) were graded on a scale of -5 to 10. Get it right, 10 points, no problem. Don’t turn it in and take the zero, that’s fine. But claiming you had proved something when you hadn’t is unacceptable—you need to KNOW that you have proved it. That was worth negative points. We got to using phrases like “and then a miracle occurs” or “X is true because I decree it to be so” to identify gaps in our proofs—this would let us try for partial credit without risking negative points.
It seems to happen for most people in the first rigorous math class they take, typically either Advanced Calculus (Real Analysis) or Abstract Algebra. I don’t know if Hermie has ever had such a class, but, if so, he didn’t really “get” it.
To say that it is “inconsistent” you have to first posit a rule that defines consistency, and a rule based on birthday is inconsistent with ALL known August 1961 birth certificates; for example, Sunahara’s number is far larger than that of any known for someone born at Kapi’olani in August (Sunahara was not born at Kapi’oloani).
A rule under which ALL known birth certificates are consistent is: take monthly batch, sort by birth facility, and within birth facility sort by child surname. Here are the known results sorted by facility and surname (which just happens to be by certificate number too!):
Ah’nee, Johanna – 09945 – 8/23/1961
Nordyke, Susan – 10637 – 8/5/1961
Nordyke, Gretchen – 10638- 8/5/1961
Obama, Barack – 10641- 8/4/1961
Waidelich, Stig – 10920- 8/5/1961
Sunahara, Virginia – 11080 – 8/4/1961
I compared the earliest 2008 version of the Polland file “BO_Birth_Certificate.jpg” from his photobucket with the current version of the Snopes.com file birth.jpg which is still posted at Snopes.com.
Polland is the only one who ever created a COLB image with pixel dimensions of 1024 px x 1000 px.
The two JPG files are “Binary same”.
You can see the proof here:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/232328605/First-Last
The WH created their COLB by printing out a B&W copy of the Snopes.com file birth.jpg.
See: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate.pdf
Maybe you could figure out the significance of First-Last?
Hermie,
Thank you for providing such a sterling example of missing the point. Comical, really.
Reciting the characteristics of a Hermitian matrix only supports my argument. Yes, you can come up with a definition and a laundry list of consequences of a matrix being Hermitian, but you can’t come up with the kind of origin story for your understanding of rigor that both Doc and I did because it hasn’t happened.
This has nothing to do with any particular kind of mathematical technique or artifact, but rather the philosophical underpinnings of all mathematics.
Hermie, please show where the White House prohibited anyone from photographing the press handout.
Only to people who are incapable of doing even the simplest research.
According to Zullo, birth certificates were collected monthly, separated into geographic regions and numbered.
And what were the geographic regions for births in Honolulu County?
According to 1961 Vital Statistics in the United States, there are two (1) births within Honolulu City limits and (2) births in the rest of Honolulu County.
So births at Kapiolani Hospital would be in one geographic region and those at Wahiawa General Hospital would be in a different geographic region.
So let’s add a little bit more information to Doc C’s post.
Ah’Nee, Johanna – 09945 – DOB 8/23/61, Kapiolani Hospital
Nordyke, Susan – 10637 – DOB 8/05/61, Kapiolani Hospital
Nordyke, Gretchen – 10638 – DOB 8/05/61, Kapiolani Hospital
Obama, Barack – 10641 – DOB 8/04/61, Kapiolani Hospital
Waidelich, Stig – 10920 – DOB 8/05/61, Kapiolani Hospital
Sunahara, Virginia – 11080 – DOB 8/04/61, Wahiawa General Hospital
See how now Virginia’s certificate number is perfectly consistent.
She was born at a different Honolulu hospital but was moved to the purported birth hospital of Obama where she died the next day.
All original Hawaii birth certificates are signed and dated by the same registrar at the main HDOH office in Honolulu. The BC numbers are then applied by Bates stamp in the order in which the certificates are received.
I didn’t say you didn’t know a lot about vibrating systems, just that it probably wasn’t as much as I’ve forgotten about oscillating systems (oscillation is a more general term, by the way—vibrations are a type of oscillation). When I was doing my thesis research (and on a couple of occasions since) I knew a bunch of stuff about the mathematics of coupled oscillators that I seriously doubt anyone else had ever bothered to understand (it was certainly a sufficient “original contribution to human knowledge” to earn me a phd). While I know what it was about in general and could probably get back to the mountaintop if I took the time and effort, I certainly don’t remember all of the abstruse details. It was, however, an understanding of the mathematics of (coupled) oscillation that had great breadth and depth. More breadth and depth, I suspect, than the entire sum of your knowledge on the topic.
Just to give you a taste of the difference…
My avatar is a fractal. It was produced by using Newton’s method to determine the basins of attraction for the roots of the characteristic equation* for the system I did my thesis research on.
What you suggest is a mathematical trick to allow you to solve (relatively) easy problems with (relatively) simple techniques, by essentially collapsing two dimensions into one (the complex plane vs. the real line). Do you think there is any way that you could describe my avatar using a number line alone? It’s like you are someone from Flatland trying to understand a 3-dimensional object.
One of my professors like to say that classifying equations as linear and non-linear is like classifying food as bananas and non-bananas. I don’t deny that you know a thing or two about bananas, Hermie, but we’re talking about food.
* For everyone else—“eigenvalue” is just another name for a root of a characteristic equation.
** If you don’t understand why my use of “linear” is entirely appropriate here, then thanks for trying, but you are way out of your league.
Hermie,
Again you are missing the point. My source was Wikipedia, but all that really matters is that it isn’t a universally unambiguous term (like “conjugate transpose” is). That makes “conjugate transpose” better for communication as it more accurately, easily and widely understood. This would be similar to Justice Jay’s use of a universally understood term from his training: “natural born”.
Another point that you have ignored is WHY you call yourself “Hermitian”. I’m assuming that if you had a reason, especially one that related to your birtherism in some manner, you would have challenged my suggestion that it was chosen to lend a false boost to your authority. Or maybe it’s just a sekrit.
“I remind you this is off camera and only pen and pad, not for audio.”
”
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
April 27, 2011
.
Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011
8:48 A.M. EDT
”
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/27/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carney-4272011
Funny that Applewhite didn’t tell you how he violated the ground rules for the press gaggle. When did he sneak out with a copy of the handout and where did he hide out in the White House while he was banging away with his Canon?
Funny that he couldn’t remember which lens he used to photograph the president’s LFCOLB. That’s what camera METADATA are for. I wonder what happened to his camera METADATA? The AP should get after him about being so careless.
Maybe there’s no camera METADATA because he didn’t use his camera at all. Maybe he sprinted down the hall to the press office area to scan the pages of the reporter’s handout copy.
And then there’s the problem of the Applewhite Green LCOLB image right there with the Blue 1 and Blue 2 images on the AP images website.
If Applewhite had to leave the gaggle to take a photograph of the plain white LFCOLB handout paper copy then how did he manage to photograph the Green original certified copy held at the podium?
Do you suppose that he marched right up to the podium and photographed the Green certificate before he dashed out of the room carrying his reporter’s handout copy?
And we know for a fact that the Green original certified copy was nowhere to be seen when the president arrived for his press conference.
So many unanswered questions.
Boy! Applewhite must have been a busy guy, running up and down the halls of the White House. Odd that no one asked him where he belonged. It was really very early for a guy carrying a camera to be loose in the White House. Especially when press photographers don’t have free rein to even enter the White House.
Your assertion has no basis in fact, and actually contradicts the facts. Why don’t you try again?
It seems rather silly for you to maintain that numbering system theory in the face of several certificates it doesn’t fit, and not a shred of evidence to the contrary. Let’s see of you are capable of rational thought and honest evaluation of evidence. If not, you are not an honest participant in this discussion, and not welcome.
So how do you explain all the facts, and what evidence would you offer in support of your version of events.
If the point of this exercise was to prove by your method that the BC numbers are NOT inconsistent, then it didn’t work.
Your remark is total nonsense. I think I would do well to just stop approving your comments as they seem to add very little to the discussion.
Actually we have additional facts. We know that per 8B death certificates must be issued within 24 hours of the death of the person. And we know that birth certificates must precede death certificates. And we know that the Sunahara odd BC number was handwritten onto the Sunahara death certificate.
Why is President Obama’s birth certificate number “purported” but Sunahara’s is not “purported”?
Hermie,
A small question (to get you started on what Doc asked): Since the Hawai’i DoH hasn’t been shy about supporting President Obama’s birth in Hawai’i, why did they not produce exactly what they said they did (a photocopy of an original document onto security paper, stamped and sealed)? Since any document they produced, by definition, wouldn’t be a forgery, and would not put them in any deeper than validating the image that you say is a forgery, what possible reason could they have to refuse to generate a document clearly within their ability to manufacture?
That is true, but Zullo added something:
The story about the investigators is nonsense because I already know from taking to the Health Department that there is no one left around who knows the details of procedure from 1961, and no documentation.
See http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/12/zullo-v-vogt/.
Which is all the more reason to consider the Sunahara certificate an outlier that should not be considered when comparing to other certificates. Looks like a dead end for you.
So you’re assuming the same standard would apply for a birth in one hospital and a death in another
To be more accurate you should say “claimed” rather than “claims” because there is no ongoing claim. Further it wasn’t the campaign who said it, but must a remark from someone, and obviously they were mistaken.
[What is the date that the certified copy Sunahara death certificate was made? Doc.]
The HDOH most likely provided a copy of what they had. And if Obama’s LFCOLB PDF image is a duplicate copy of what they had then why has he not released either of the two copies of what he was provided by the HDOH?
So lets see the two certified paper copies of the Obama original hospital-generated birth certificate. It’s important that he release both certified copies because they should not be identical.
So you are suggesting that HDOH would issue her death certificate and then issue her birth certificate later?
[Are you suggesting that you can demonstrate that it is not? Doc]
The confusion was that the COLB was order in June, 2007 and was posted on the website in June, 2008.
But we also know that her death certificate number was 2151 and that in Hawaii in 1961 there were 3440 deaths. Counting from January 1, 1961 to July 31, 1961 there were 2003 deaths and by the end of August there were 2286 deaths.
So you see Herms both birth certificates and death certificates were issued within days of the events but they were numbered later at the end of the month.
Actually, what Hermie calls facts usually fall into three categories: wrong in the details, made up, and true but irrelevant. Perfect examples:
Wrong in the details: death certificates have to be signed within 24 hours by the attending physician, not issued. (This is so that funeral arrangements can be initiated; the official state death record is often not finalized until after the funeral has occured)
Made up: there is no requirement that birth certificates be issued before death certificates.
True but irrelevant. The number could have been written in before or after the death certificate was filed by the registrar.
There is a possible clue to when the birth number was added to the death certificate. The first name on the DC was originally TOMIYO. This was stuck out and the name Virginia was added. The change was initial by Verna Lee on 8/29/61.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-FTert1Q4xsE/TwdRnXYKEpI/AAAAAAAAD5k/-WWL145Ew6I/s1600/VS_DC.jpg
That is demonstrably not true.
They are accumulated over the month, sorted by birth facility (or rather, geographical area) and surname, and processed through the Bates stamper IN BATCH.
Thus Sunahara is not in the same sequence as the others as she was born in a different geographical region.
The others are in consistent numerical order that agrees with their surname.
The only consistent with the numbers and birth date for those born at Kapiolani is year and month. The day of the month is not relevant. Thus, the ‘batch’ is based on monthly ones.
Very early on in the attempt to establish how the numbering sequence was obtained, I proposed precisely this work flow due to my prehistoric experience in the public service and knowledge about how the bureaucratic mind worked in pre-computer days. There were, at the time, not enough data points to establish this as fact however, and few people were willing to accept it. Sometime later, there was indeed enough data points and the corroborating information to mark it out as the obvious answer. And it is obvious, to me at least.
Lorde knows I converted enough manual systems to computerized systems that all had to work exactly as an exact analog of the existing manual process so the confidence in the process could be carried over as ‘goodwill’. It was years before some folks could understand that manual systems work the way they do in order to eliminate human error. Computer systems still require error detection and recovery, of course, but it can and is a very different process from old bureaucratic manual systems.
Extremly simple hypothesis to answer that question.
1) Sunahara was born at Wahiawa in August.
2) Sunahara died at Kapiolani in August.
3) The Birth Certificate was prepared and filed with the Registrar in a timely fashion according to State law. Notice that filing the BC with the Registrar does NOT imply that the BC number is applied immediately – in fact we know that they were assigned in batches.
4) The Death Certificate was prepared and filed with the Registrar in a timely fashion. Notice that filing the DC with the Registrar does NOT imply that the BC number must be known immediately – in fact we know that if the newborn dies early, it may well be before the BC has been numbered – because the BC’s are not assigned immediately at birth but in monthly batches.
5) When the Death Certificate was prepared the Birth Certificate Number was NOT KNOWN – the Birth Certificate Batch for August had not been processed yet – so the number was left blank until it could be determined. This satisfies the problem of why it is ‘different’ from the rest of the DC.
6) When the Death Certificates were processed by the Registrar, they had to look up the BC number, possibly having to set that DC aside to come back to after it the BC number was assigned in the monthly batch cycle.
7) Handwriting the number onto the DC may have just been a matter of convenience for the processing clerk. It takes some time to set the certificate into a typewriter and get the alignment to work. Handwriting takes no time at all. There is no significance in choosing to handwriting over typewriting in this instance – no significance at all.
Hermitian, when you have a hypothesis, and 5 of the 6 data points that are known actually fall outside that supposed hypothesis, you need to come up with a different conclusion.
In order for your theory to work, Johanna Ah’nee’s birth certificate would have needed to be numbered 19 days before she was even born, and since we know from sources such as Jerome Corsi that the birth certificate is absolutely correct, we’re left with 2 theories.
1. That every other birth certificate that was issued (the Nordyke Twins, Virginia Sunahara, Barack Obama, and Stig Wadelich) are fraudulent documents and misnumbered.
2. That your theory is wrong, and a different numbering system was used, for instance, processed in monthly batches, first organized by location of birth, and then by last name. Guess what, every single one of our datapoints fit within that model.
Which one is the better thing to do?
Applewhite didn’t violate the grounds rules. The no cameras or recorders rule applied to the briefing and reporters questions, It said nothing about the handout that was given out before the briefing. Mr. Applewhite had probably attended many of these briefing. He would have known the rules. If you want to call him a liar that’s your issue.
Again you are just making up things not supported by the facts.
A quote from Verna K. Lee has been published allegedly from the recording of her conversation with Jerome Corsi. Here’s what she supposedly said:
Zullo added the phrase ” ordered by date and time of birth,” to this sequence of events in his Alabama affidavit,m but it is not supported by the released quotation.
Dr. Conspiracy: That is true, but Zullo added something:
So having this “claim” currently posted on the WH web site is OK even it’s a mistake?
“In 2008, in response to media inquiries, the President’s campaign requested his birth certificate from the state of Hawaii. The state sent the campaign the President’s birth certificate, the same legal documentation provided to all Hawaiians as proof of birth in state, and the campaign immediately posted it on the internet. That birth certificate can be seen here (PDF).”
You don’t think that this mistake should be taken down off the public’s web site?
https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/04/27/president-obamas-long-form-birth-certificate
From my point of view, until it’s corrected, it’s a continuing false claim.
So you are claiming that the groundrules were standing rules for the press gaggle? So where’s your proof of that?
“I remind you this is off camera and only pen and pad, not for audio.”
So what do you think that Pfeiffer meant when he said “this is off camera”?
So you are saying that he meant that cameras aren’t allowed but it’s OK for Applewhite to photograph all the copies in the room of what all of you reporters came here to see for the very first time?
Why would a photographer even have been invited to a press gaggle when the AP was already sending a reporter? After all, the AP already had photos on file for the administration press people and the non-AP reporters.
Where’s your evidence that the reporter’s handout was released before the meeting? So what are you saying? That Applewhite left the gaggle as soon as he had his copy in hand? Or that he stayed in the meeting and photographed the plain white handout copy and the Green original copy on display at the podium? You can’t have it both ways. And where’s your proof that you even talked to Applewhite?
So how did the AP get a pre-release JPEG copy of the Green LFCOLB with the same exact creation date/time as the Blue 1 and Blue 2 images. If Applehite didn’t photograph the Green one then where did the AP get this early copy? It either had to have come from the White House or from the forger.
Or why would the AP edit the Green JPEG to add the early date/time and attribute the image to Applewhite? Maybe because either the AP created the forgery or they obtained it from the forger?
And if the AP had a JPEG copy of the Green LFCOLB in hand at 8:53 AM then why did the WH scan the JPEG and issue the PDF image later?
And where’s Applewhites”s camera METADATA for any of the three AP images?
And where are your answers to all of my other questions?
So how did the AP get a pre-release JPEG copy of the Green LFCOLB with the same exact creation date/time as the Blue 1 and Blue 2 images.
If Applewhite didn’t photograph the Green one at the press gaggle then where did the AP get this early copy? It either had to have come from the White House or from the forger.
Or why would the AP edit the Green JPEG to add this early date/time and attribute the image to Applewhite? Maybe because either the AP created the forgery or they obtained it from the forger?
And if the AP had a JPEG copy of the Green LFCOLB in hand at 8:53AM then why did the WH scan the original copy again and issue the Green image as a PDF image rather than a JPEG?
It would have been much easier (and faster) to do a Photoshop edit of the JPEG image file to increase the compression ratio and then release the compressed JPEG image? Obviously the WH would have already scanned the original Green copy to JPEG if they had provided the JPEG to the AP at 8:53 AM.
So many questions — so few answers.
Makes a person wonder…
Thanks for doing the extractions. Don’t violate the copyright.
Looks like the image was created with Photoshop (maybe version 3.0). Probably by a scan to JPEG within Photoshop.
Most likely it was not done by AP because 3.0 a very old version of Photoshop.
Anyhoo…I don’t see any evidence that this file was every processed with Preview.
Where’s your proof that the campaign ordered anything? The Obama COLB first appeared on the Daily Kos. At a minimum, the White House should correct the “confusion” on the public’s web site. I suggest that they post a copy of the filled-in form requesting the certified copy.
Not wrong! The attending physician cannot sign the death certificate if it doesn’t first exist. There are not two different death certificates for one person as you imply.
Under the assumption that the certificates are held until the end of August, the HDOH could easily arrange to issue the birth certificate before the death certificate.
Under the circumstances applicable to Virginia Sunhara, one attending physician would sign her birth certificate and then another would sign her death certificate no later than 24 hours after her time of death.
When I received my freshman-year calculus textbook in college, the first thing I did was read the chapter titles. The one that really jumped out at me was something like “Calculating Eigenvalues of Hermitian and Skew-Hermitian Matrices”. Not knowing (at the time) what any of that meant, it just sounded like delightful nerd-speak.
It became a running joke with my friends and me, for example (Beldar Conehead accent here): “No, I cannot attend tonight’s festivities; I shall be in my room proving that the Eigenvalues of Skew-Hermitian Matrices are… in fact… Imaginary.”
It’s fun to pretend you’re smart!! (Until you run into a *real* smart person who calls you on your BS, eh Hermie? Heheh)
I don’t know who your “real” smart person is but I haven’t seen him on this blog including “crustacean”.
You must be a recent student using one of those mixed up text books. You know the ones that attempt to cover everything superficially. I had a full semester course on matrix mathematics. My matrix mathematics text had only matrix theory and applications between the covers. The text is 395 pages. I’ve never needed to consult another one.
I also had a 1-year high school calculus course and an advanced calculus course as a college freshman.
You may be confusing a death certificate with a certified copy. Do you have a link to the Sunahara death certificate handy?
I took her statement to mean that the certificates were stacked in the order that they were received until the end of the month when they were all numbered as a batch but in the original order in which they were received. After they were numbered together then the certificates would each have the same number as if they had been numbered individually when they were received.
Am I missing something?
I suggest that the White House completely ignore seditious folk such as yourself and other birther ilk*. Who’s suggestion do you think they will take?
*Unless they are writing jokes for the Correspondent’s Dinner.
What you are missing is that Verna Lee didn’t actually say what you took her to mean. They were kept in order, but she doesn’t say what order. You are just assuming the order.
In fact date of birth order simply won’t work with monthly batching since a subsequent month can have a birth filed for a prior month’s birth, and then there are late certificates. Maintaining a numbering system based on birth date is unworkable unless you wait months until every possible certificate has been processed, or you allow gaps in the numbers (something that is generally not permitted in VR systems except for voided certificates).
This topic was discussed extensively years ago, and has long been settled.
I’m enjoying the game of ¿Quien es mas matho? even if I don’t understand what is going on.
I assume it was done by Applewhite himself. So why haven’t you exported a copy of the White House PDF using Photoshop to 150 ppi so we can compare it to the Applewhite green file? You said you had the software. This comparison would seem to be pretty important in trying to resolve whether the Green file came from the PDF or from a photo or a scan.
If it is a scan, then what is it a scan of? I would not think that the White House let Applewhite take the original certificate off somewhere to scan it, and no one has ever said that there were color copies in the handouts.
The fact that we do not know exactly who did what to create the Applewhite Green image has nothing to do with whether anyone forged anything or not.
One might reasonably “wonder” what happened, but not cannot reasonably suspect forgery.
Hermie,
Once again, you are comically clueless.
Crustacean’s reference to a *real* smart person was to me (which was clear from the comment of mine that he quoted). Since you seem to want to see how you measure up, excuse me while I whip this out…
2 yrs. undergrad physics major
2 yrs. undergrad math major (BS in math)
10 yrs. postgraduate study in mathematics (MS, MA and PhD in math)
5 yrs. postdoctoral study in mathematical biology
5 yrs. working to commercialize my research
For probably 11 of those years I was taking at least 3 math classes at a time—I have no idea what the total number is.
But, as I said above, it isn’t about how many classes you’ve had, it is about what you’ve learned (or, in your case, what you haven’t learned) in them.
Anyway, please proceed with your inanity.
I just have the partial that
William Rawle just posted.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-FTert1Q4xsE/TwdRnXYKEpI/AAAAAAAAD5k/-WWL145Ew6I/s1600/VS_DC.jpg
What you are missing is why they weren’t just number stamped when they came in if the original order mattered. If a hundred certs accumulate in the course of a month, it makes sense to order them in a natural way so they can be referenced during that month. Hospital then last name makes sense as an easy way to accumulate unnumbered forms, then stamp them at the end of the month.
The partial copy isn’t particularly helpful, but let me point out something:
The birth certificates from Kapi’olani Hospital are filled out and signed BEFORE the Department of Health ever sees them. It seems reasonable to me that by the same token, the death certificate was filled out and signed BEFORE the Department of Health ever saw it. If that is the case, and I think it unlikely to be otherwise, then there is no reason to assert that a birth certificate was required before a death certificate. Think about it, how does a doctor at Kapi’olani have a birth certificate for hardly anyone who dies under his care? Where is he going to get a birth certificate number? Even if Sunahara had been born at Kapi’olani, any certificate copy they had wouldn’t be numbered.
If we had more of the certificate, we could compare the date signed by the physician with the registrar dates, but I have no reason to think that it would be much different from a birth certificate.
I think this whole numbering discussion you have introduced is badly thought through, and totally out of line with the facts. It’s like my backwards timezone thinking–only when corrected, I agreed. You might profit from learning from my example, unless your goal is to be an asshole and stir up trouble.
The transcript is an accurate representation of what was said, so it is correct and there is no cause to amend it. I mean, when it was found that the “yellow cake” inquiry from Iraq was a fake, did the White House to back and correct every transcript in the government mentioning it?
Try to use a little common sense.
Blahahahahaha
It is clearly a certified copy. And appears to have been created in same way that a LFBC was. Bound Volume placed on copier and printed onto green basket weave security paper. The horizontal form lines even curve down at the left margin.
Totally off the wall, but that reminds me when I was learning the programming language BASIC. For those who didn’t remember, BASIC worked with numbered code lines that would be executed in numerical order except for jumps (to a code line). Most code was written with lines numbered maybe 10/20/30/40/etc to be more readable and to leave gaps just in case a new line (like 45) needed to be added to the sequence. However, figuring out those numbers could be tricky.
I remember taking a high school class where we used these HP computers donated because a former student worked at HP. They came standard with a particular flavor of BASIC, but one of the cool functions was a convenient command to renumber a program’s lines in increments of 10. It took care of everything, including GOTO targets.
However, arguing that birth certificate numbers have to be based on date/time of birth has got to be one of the most stupid arguments I’ve heard from the birthers. The State Dept will recognize a birth certificate filed within 1 year of birth as not being “delayed” and even though there are standards for filing, it’s not as if violating those standards mean that a registrar will refuse to issue a birth certificate.
Her second point — one she made repeatedly in the interview — is that the shorter, computer generated “certification of live birth” that was obtained by the Obama campaign in 2007 and has since been publicly released is the standard document that anybody requesting their birth certificate from the state of Hawaii would receive from the health department.
The document was distributed to the Obama campaign in 2007 after Obama, at the request of a campaign official, personally signed a Hawaii birth certificate request form downloaded on the Internet, according to a former campaign official who asked for anonymity. (Obama was “testy” when asked to sign the form but did so anyway to put the issue to rest, the former campaign official said. The White House has dismissed all questions about the president’s birth as “fictional nonsense.”)
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/42519951/ns/politics-more_politics#
A question I’ve asked birthers over and over again and have yet to get a satisfactory answer…
What is a Birth Certificate?
It’s been amazing the answers I’ve gotten from birthers over the years.
The certificates are stacked in order that they were received at the HDOH headquarters in Honolulu not in order of birth date. So it’s first come, first served.
In my case, three engineering degrees (BS Mechanical Engineering, MS and PhD in Engineering Mechanics) in 11 continuous years of graduate school. Math minor in each. That’s 22 semesters of mathematics courses. I can’t talk about my training related to work because I would have to shoot you.
How many times were you invited to brief James Schlesinger at the NRO?
Or Silvia Earle who still holds the record for the deepest ocean dive by a woman?
So you don’t impress me.
Except government never does anything because it makes sense. Also, you are overlooking the rampant corruption that has historically surrounded the awarding of Hawaiian birth certificates to non-citizens of Hawaii.
If that were the case, waiting until the end of of the month makes no sense. Plus it doesn’t fit the certificates. You need to up your game.
You have 3 choices:
Provide evidence for this claim.
Admit that you have no evidence for this claim.
Have all your future comments deleted.
That doesn’t make any sense. If they needed to find a particular birth certificate before it was numbered, and the birth certificates were stacked first come, first served, they would have to go through the entire pile to find the one they were looking for.
What made sense was stacking the birth certificate alphabetically until they were numbered, because then it would be much easier to find a particular one. And of course the numbering of the August, 1961 birth certificates which we have seen supports the notion that they were stacked in alphabetical order while waiting to be numbered.
Zullo reported some of their investigation findings on out of country births. Also it’s a fact that many Japanese citizens were allowed to enter after Honolulu partnered with the city of Hiroshima.
I’m sure after a few minutes listening to you, any woman would want to spend some alone time at the bottom of the ocean…
And it makes the most sense to do it in alphabetical order for when it came time to search for one in a bound volume.
Are you sure Hermy didn’t put them there?
Hermitian, I do enjoy giving you a hard time, but please know I’m only joking around with you. From the experience you listed, it does sound like you are highly educated in fields that require a lot of intelligence and an analytical mind. But that simply doesn’t jibe with the lack of rigor you have displayed in your comments related to Barack Obama’s birth records.
I know you read Doc’s comments, but have you really pondered what he’s been trying to tell you? Two examples from this thread: 1) you claim that the HDOH numbers BC’s according to “first come first served” but you provide no reason for anyone to believe you. And 2) you say there is historically “rampant corruption” in the issuance of Hawaii birth certificates, but you are vague (what do you mean by “historically”?) and give no evidence to support this claim.
Reverse-engineering a solution to your Obama problem will get you nowhere, because you’ve already decided what the conclusion must be (Obama’s BC is fraudulent), so when it’s time to connect the dots, you come up with unsupportable claims like the two examples above.
It’s like claiming that your neighbor has built a time machine, and then answering skeptics by saying his front porch is a wormhole to another dimension. That’s not giving supporting evidence – it’s doubling down on the crazy.
Zullo never provided anything in the way of evidence. So you have not yet met my condition to be allowed to continue to post on this blog. Your other comments are deleted.
How can you possibly have had an engineering education and be such a frickin’ idiot?
I mean, really. The mind boggles.
I guess birthers in general are skeptical about any claim that doesn’t say what they want to believe.
And not skeptical about birther claims.
It’s very strange. But that’s how it is.
Zullo reported a lot of things that turned out to be false.
As I recall, the only thing he “reported” was that Hawaii was issuing birth certificates to people born elsewhere. What he didn’t report was what was on those birth certificates.
Hawaii made no secret of the fact that, if you had a birth certificate printed in, say, Chinese or Farsi, they would verify it and issue you one in English that says you were born in Shanghai or Tehran, so you won’t be hassled by people who can’t read those languages.
But Zullo either didn’t bother to find that out, or tried to conceal it to mislead the suckers.
So far, the only bogus Hawaiian birth certificate I’ve seen anyone present is Sun Yat-Sen’s. I’m guessing you’re not going to break that streak.
Hermie could be laughing his head off over how much we jumped when he pulled our chain. One never knows.
Hermie,
You may have had the schooling you claim, you may not—I don’t really care. What I have said stands regardless: you don’t talk like a mathematician (or think like one if your comments here are any indication). In addition, you have a problem in applying your knowledge to real world situations (or you are extremely and willfully ignorant) and you exhibit no critical thinking skills whatsoever.
I’m not trying to impress you, I’m trying to amuse other people here, so what you think isn’t important (although every reply you’ve made to me has seen you completely miss the point—come to think of it, that pretty much describes your replies to everyone—which has certainly been comical). Anyway, it probably doesn’t matter at this point because it is unlikely that you are either smart or honest enough to meet Doc’s criteria for continued posting.
Buh-bye.
No amount of education guarantees common sense or a connection with reality. If what Hermie says is true, then he is definitely a case in point. He may in fact be very good at what ever he does, but that doesn’t mean he knows anything about anything else, and he has certainly shown us a number of things about which he knows nothing but pretends to.
My suspicion, FWIW, from actually having worked in gov;’t offices doing actual paper shuffling, is that the DOH collected the certificates and sorted them as they came in, we usually used a seperator board that had all the letters of the alphabet and we rough sorted them by first and second and sometimes third letters if necessary as they came in until the end of the cycle and then they were really collated and finally processed, and in the certificates case then serialized them. We normally didn’t even process them until well after the month had ended just so that we had gotten most of the stragglers, and there always were stragglers coming in no matter what the deadline was. We were processing license certificates and certifications, but otherwise same as what DOH would likely have done. I don’t expect that DOH did it exactly the way we did, but the same principals would and economy of operation would have applied as we had lots of other things we had to do as well over the month. Nothing mysterious or complicated, just the best way to make the work flow and economy of effort work out.
I’ll admit that I tend too often to assume sincerity.
Another very plausible explanation is that he’s lying about his education. I also tend to assume people are telling the truth until I actually catch them lying. But the unfortunate reality is, there are a lot of people out there who simply don’t care about being truthful.
He’s probably the engineer who wrote the toothpick use instructions.
The WH LFBC PDF was created at 8:09 am, 44 minutes before the Applewhite Green timestamp. There’s no reason to believe the JPEG is anything other than the PDF saved as a JPEG. As far as the Applewhite images having the exact date/timestamp, that can be explained by the use of a batch edit, which would take milliseconds for a computer to complete and would explain why all the files have the same metadata.
First, the Applewhite Green is definitely not a digital photograph, because it does not exhibit chromatic aberration. So that leaves us with several possibilities. The simplest is that the PDF was already online by the time Applewhite sent in the images to the DC office (meaning either he or his editor downloaded it from the WH website). Remember there is a 44 minute gap that the WH could have used to put the image online. Another possibility is that he was given the PDF as a digital file and decided to forward it on to his editor (less likely, but still possible).
Or possibly they didn’t realize that the original file was downloaded from the WH and processed it like they did all the other files. It’s even possible that Applewhite cheated the AP deliberately by claiming the jpeg was his own photo when it was really just a pdf conversion.
Well, seeing as they already had the PDF at 8:09 AM, your question doesn’t even make sense. The WH PDF was created 44 minutes before the AP Green JPEG.
We’ve already covered the fact that the PDF was created first, but there is a good reason for the AP to convert it into a JPEG. The batch processing command in Photoshop only works for one filetype:
This process will handle only JPEGs. For other file types re-record the same actions and remember not to change the save settings. This is because for each file extension the file save window is different. So an action needs to be recorded for each type. When running your batches make sure you only have one file type in each batch.
And yet we always are able to provide an answer once we actually investigate. Why is it that you are unable to discover the answers on your own?
Full disclosure: I have legally obtained copies of both the “Blue 2” and “Green” files that Hermie mentions. The “Blue 1” file is the APTOPIX version of the “Blue 2” file. If you go to the APImages home page, on the right-hand side you’ll see a link to APTOPIX: TODAY’S BEST IMAGES, which highlights what the AP thinks are the best pictures of the day and offers them in a more compressed file than the original submitted image to reduce bandwidth.
Well – of course there’s always the suspicion that something could be amiss when there’s such a late birth certificate filing. However, I suspect that around the time it was pretty common to have a birth registered really late. Official birth registration by a government entity wasn’t a priority back then. We’ve seen that Richard Nixon didn’t get his birth registered until he was 30. Ronald Reagan was even older when his was filed, and I’m kind of suspicious that the doctor who delivered him was still alive to sign the form. Then there was Dwight Eisenhower who had his brother attest to the facts to get a court order to register his birth when he was already in his 60s.
That may be, or not.
Now you’re getting it.
What is clear is that however they were ‘stacked in order’ at the HDOH while they accumulated for the monthly batch processing, they were sorted by birth location and surname before numbering.
As long as were are having a Johnson measuring contest.
My original program at University would have seen me with a double major in Chemistry and Physics, and with one extra course beyond the required minimum in each of Math and Astronomy, minors in each. So math minors are not that particularly difficult or unusual. I wouldn’t consider it anything to brag about – but then I don’t consider academic achievement as a bragging contest anyway – no matter how many letters you are entitled to put behind your name.
I admit that each and every one of the Math classes I did take seemed to avoid matrices at all costs – so I don’t know Hermitian from Hermeticism.
My interests changed halfway through (partially due to lousy instructors in Organic Chemistry and a really, really lousy instructor Math (my Uni Calculus teacher was worse, and knew less about Calculus, than my High School Calculus teacher who happened to double duty as the Women’s Field Hockey coach) and I switched to Systems Engineering and Information Systems.
Ditto.
… I have a Master’s Degree in mathematics and computer science and wrote my thesis in differential geometry (manifolds of dynamic systems). 🙂
He was just parroting Corsi stuff. The “Hawaii gives BC’s to people born abroad” (leaving out the “stating birth abroad” part) talking point predates Zullo.
Yeah, like: “Why do people do things?” “Why do people do things differently from how I would’ve done ’em?” “Why doesn’t everyone ask me first how to do it so I don’t have to assume nefarious ongoings when I disagree with how they should’ve done it?” “Why am I not God?”
If anything, it proves the government isn’t always doing things the best (easiest, fastest, …) way.
Hey, I bet if they had done it like you now propose, you would’ve claimed “government would never work this efficiently, this proves conspiracy”.
It was more than that. This is from a WND article:
“Zullo said that when he was in Hawaii last month following up on leads, he talked to older locals who “informed us about a syndicate operation, a Mafia operation if you will, being run in the early infancy of the state of Hawaii where birth certificates were being sold to Japanese refugees on a black market basis.”
Bob Unruh continued:
“The births of Japanese children whose parents purchased Hawaii birth certificates also would be listed in the papers, he explained.
During that time period, Japanese parents would fly to Hawaii so their children, born in Japan, could have the benefits of American citizenship, he said.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/investigator-foreigners-bought-hawaii-birth-certificates/#PkjVr32g7lWtpYT4.99”
These events were attributed to the time of “the state’s infancy” before the foreign registration law was in effect.
Soooooo,
Making the incredible leap of faith the ZooLoo wasn’t just making sh*t up out of thin air.
We have an ignorant idiot with an axe to grind, well documented inability to gasp reality from fantasy and spectacular fantasies about their competence, being told an apocryphal story by some random unidentified 3rd party about events that may or may not have a basis in reality from 55 years ago…?
Then of course we have the curious statement that these were Japanese “refugee’s”.
Now, I can kind of grasp some Japanese citizens may have wanted to leave Japan in the late 1940’s but 15 years after end of WW2…? When Japans economy was going through a massive boom via US government funded anti China bulwark build up and a Cold War driven world economic renaissance…..I think someone has at best a tenuous gasp of Japan, history, culture and economics.
Zullo (and the rest of the birthers for that matter) seems to be a fairly credulous fellow who has a streak of dishonesty when it comes to describing the sources of his information and how well they have been vetted.
In short, I think it more likely that he just repeated somebody else’s stuff made up out of thin air.
Now it is possible, I suppose, that there really was some historical vital records fraud in Hawaii, but I was not able to find it when I went Googling a few years back, and one would think that if the birthers had such evidence that they would have published it.
Japanese parents who could afford to fly from Japan to Hawaii circa 1959 were refugees?
Of course, Zullo and WND don’t have a shred of evidence that even one person born in Japan was issued a Hawaii birth certificate which says that the person was born in Hawaii.
Nixons also seem to he filed by a court order. Also the date stamp look weird. If I was a birther I’d claim it said 2018. Johnsons also was interesting in that it had no name on it other than Johnson. He had it amended when he was vice president to include his full name. Kennedys wasn’t filed until he was about 15
[Hermitian continues to post, and I continue to delete. That is because he refused to address the Japanese bought birth certificate issue, either providing support for his claim that he called “fact” or admit that he could not support his claim. Doc]
Well – the one the LA Times got of Nixon’s BC was from the state. I’ve dealt with the state, and I can’t figure out why any reporter would go that route. They don’t have a public desk and warn that they can take months if they need to research it (especially if it’s old), while most counties can do it same day. And does the stamp say “COURT ORDER” or is it something else?
However, this is all rather stupid. Somehow normal variations including smudges and various sampling/display artifacts somehow become suspect only because it’s Obama’s birth certificate.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/.a/6a00d8341c630a53ef0133f2d3f5d2970b-pi
Right there says court order on the stamp. Also I was wrong it wasn’t 2018 but rather 2069.
Now if I was a birther I’d consider this suspect. Notice there’s no address for the birthplace but rather just a street. “On Yorba Linda Blvd”
Of course I’m mocking the birthers over their fixation on the lame “TXE” claim, since there seems to be a huge missing line through the center in the “COURT ORDER” stamp. And what the heck is the “Township of Fullerton”? His biography says he was born in Yorba Linda and not Fullerton. So that’s also suspect.
His parents could have been Quaker missionaries, so how do we know that he wasn’t born in Mexico or some other part of Latin America, then he covered it up with this fake BC?
And it says it is based on “oral evidence”.
Where is Paul Irey and Doug Vogt there are kerned letters and the typed word “Orange” and the line below it (Yorba Linda Blvd) are almost touching.
And why isn’t it stamped as delayed?
Back of a taxi?
More birfin’ ’bout Nixon:
* “Date of filing” stamp should be on one (slanted) line, looks like the year was stamped separately (“no stamp is this crooked”).
[Actually it likely *are* two different stamps judging from the different look of the “2”. Birther: “But why???”]
* The “a” seems to have arbitrarily different baselines (lowered and slightly lowered in “California”, not lowered in “March”).
* What is a “Certificate of Live Dirth”? (cf. “TXE”)
* Three different letter sizes in “ORDER” (“E” and final “R” being larger than the preceding letter, respectively).
* The “a” in “male” is clearly from a different font than the ones in “Yorba Linda”.
* The two “2”‘s in “224” were clearly written in two different handwritings, ergo by two different persons.
[Actually it looks like the first one was a “1” and was overwritten.]
Ergo: IT’S A FOGETY!