I’ve written about this before in an article with perhaps a title lacking punch, “Long form artifacts vanish at higher resolution,” but despite the facts, birthers keep repeating the myth that Obama’s long-form birth certificate has the word “TXE” rather than “THE.” Looking at the high-resolution copy distributed to the press at the April, 2011 White House press conference, it is both easy to see where the illusion of the “TXE” comes from and that it’s really not an “X.”
The PDF version of the certificate released by the White House is optimized so that the text portion is black and white, no shades of gray.
Should I even bother asking why a “TXE” would mean anything, even if it did in fact say that? Is the theory that the forgers ran out of capital H’s and decided to substitute an X?
I have seen birfers make two (absurd) claims about the TXE. One is that the forger deliberately included an obvious misspelling to signal to everyone that the birth certificate is forged. I have also seen some people say that TXE means that the “original” birth certificate is a .TXE electronic file and not a paper document.
‘“TXE”: it bears repeating”‘
Legend has it that if you repeat it three times in front of a mirror, you’ll have to clean your mirror.
Forgers are disreputable lazy people, therefore prone to making typos, and further incapable of caring about typos.
Nevermind that the essence of forgery is attention to detail.
Double-keepinmind that manual, analog processes (like inkstamping) are perfectly consistent. Always produces perfect results every time. Birfers made exhaustive searches for other “T:•:E” Hawaiian BCs, and, finding none and thereby proving this inkstamp does not exist, reluctantly declared this a forgery.
( 🙂 )
Lets not forget that for a while, long after TXE was out there, Corsi said it was actually TKE… because Mike the Forger(tm) hid the letters of his first name throughout the birth certificate.. along with the E formerly known as smiley face.
He still hasn’t released Mike’s last name… or where the M and I were hidden… but really, birthers should totally take him seriously.
On the LFBC so far there are three suggestions.
1) Deliberate misspelling (perhaps the act of an unwilling forger – a cry for help!)
2) TXE file (Proof Obama is a hologram or some such nonsense)
3) Corsi’s ‘Forger Mike’. (‘Mike’ needs to learn to pipe down).
I’ll add the Daily Pen theory:
4) Shout out to the Nation of Islam and/or Obama is the secret son of Malcolm X. See also white dots ‘forming’ a butterfly/’X’ (visible only to birthers) on the LFBC.
The ‘X’ obsession among birthers and their fellow-travellers began as early as Election Night, 2008, with Michelle Obama’s choice of dress.
Somebody at the Fogbow posted this image, clipped from one of the daffydavits in Orly’s Judd lawsuit. http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/684/yuns.jpg/
what caused it
was there something laying below the document, when it was stamped
could it be repeated
(put out your stamps !)
Apparently you have never used a stamp or not bothered to notice. It could be :
Something under the paper
A piece of fuzz, lint or dirt on the stamp
A clump of dried ink on the stamp
A bit too much ink from an ink puddle on a recently re-inked pad.
And many more
Of all the theories, this may be the most foolish one.
reproduce it
I regularly use a stamp to put our address on outgoing packages we sell on eBay.
The stamp almost never looks the same twice.
That’s what she said… to Zullo about his “1961” coding documentation.
Reproduce chaos? Or else what?
Your idea. You reproduce it. We’ll wait.
Foreigner could better serve his birther case by producing multiple, identical impressions from the same stamp.
(Note: Good luck with that.)
Same stamp.. looks different:
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/684/yuns.jpg/
shall I consider that representative for the quality of your analysis ?
They’re clearly completely different stamps. I’m not sure why they need one with most of the image blown out, it must be a very particular process.
OK, I found an old stamp, opened a printer-cartouche
with a saw and had a perfect stamp-cushion.
Then I ran about 600 tests stamping while laying a metal-clip
below it, but couldn’t reproduce it.
I do get additional ink, but not missing ink.
What might make the H squeeze to an X ?
Maybe, two narrow C-shape metals like { > < metal-clips might they be using in Hawaii ?
Maybe Mike can ask Verna
hmm, that >< could be the inner side of a clip from these
http://das-werbeartikel-portal.de/werbeartikeldb/media/products/large/z5/2128204.JPG
http://www.free-photos.biz/images/industry/fasteners/heftklammer.jpg
I tried it with my stamp. but no squeezing
Foreigner, you have to keep trying until you have tried every single possible combination in the whole universe, and proved that there is no way it could be about uneven inking.
Then you also need to test all the other unevenly inked letters, including but not limited to the immediately preceding “T.” also, the “of” right before, not to mention the final “H” in the word “health” at the end of the stamp, or the speck of ink missing from the “F” in “file.” and any other details I have not mentioned here.
You may also want to *reread* Doc’s previous article on this topic linked to above, which you previously commented upon.
Here, just for expediency, is the link to the birth certificate with the stamp for your re-review:
http://www.theobamafile.com/_images/BirthCertificateHighResolution.jpg
If you re-read Doc’s previous article, you would see that the issue is not “squeezing.” It is a combination of uneven ink and low resolution scanning. An optical illusion of sorts. You should be aware of this basic fact, as you commented quite a lot there.
Do you really want to tell me you don’t see the shape of the original “H” on the high-res version of the BC?
And that you don’t see how a lo-res scan thereof that eliminates all greyscale (and makes some of it turn white and some black) produces the shape that you claim looks like an “X”?
How blinded can one be?
Which proves absolutely zilch. You’re almost as bad as the CCP who claim there is no way the “19” could be missing on Obama’s SSN application and “prove” that with an image of a stamp that has an “O” missing in “HONOLULU”. Oh the stupid, it hurts!
The entire birther meme of “Prove to us how you reproduce that!” is stupid and misleading from the get-go. I might just as well take a 10 EUR note from your wallet and require you to prove that the ECB printers produced exactly this note (including the coffee stain) or otherwise send you to jail for carrying forged bank notes with the intent to spend, 146 I StGB.
OK, the hires pic doesn’t support the squeeze-clip theory
(what’s the proper English name ?)
but it’s not just missing ink either.
the whole area has darker letters and anomalies in neighboring
letters too, even in the S in the row above
Is there uneven ink dispersal on the stamp? The “A” in abstract is darker and the entire second line is darker except for the middle of the word “ABSTRACT”. While the third line is under inked at the end of the word “HEALTH”. BUt he most ink appears to be in the words “OF THE”.
When it was applied to the paper would surface tension in the ink glob pull the ink back to the stamp and not leave it on the paper?
Or would surface tension in the glob on the paper cause it to clump up and pull away from parts of the letters?
Does Dr. Onaka use a pre-inked stamp, self-inked stamp or tradional stamp and stamp pad?
maybe dried leftover ink mixing with dust or dirt then.
Building some “mountains” but also covering the
rubber at other places and not sucking the ink
everywhere as well as the rubber.
This is supported by ink in narrow places as in the F,E,R od “of” or between
the o and the f of “of”,
rubber partially covered by ink-dust mixture with locally
different ink-sucking properties due to different chemics
and origin of the inkdust areas
——————
I remember that dust-ink mixture from old
typewriters that had to be cleaned regularly.
It resulted in ink in the holes of the “e” letters
and sometimes others as well.
but usually not missing ink, though.
Well, stamps are different.
The types don’t carry ink (or lack it), they just mechanically press the ink-ribbon