Mara Zebest: Top Computer Graphic Expert In The Nation Going After Obama.

You're running low on friend... Maybe you should consider this before pursuing further...

 

Well since the copy was made in 2011, not 1961, why would that matter?

This all still comes down to whether Hawaiian State officials are taking part of a conspiracy or not.

The State of Hawaii has said that the copy released is authentic. Hawaii has verified that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. The PDF is really moot- and a sign of Birther desperation. There are really only two possibilities-
a) The copy we have seen is correct. This of course is Occam's razor- it is the simplest answer, and matches all of the other data- the birth announcements from 1961, the Birth Index data that has been on file since 1961, the Çertification of Live Birth, the official pronouncements by the State of Hawaii, Governor Abercrombies personal recollections- they all match up. Or...
b) There is a conspiracy that involves multiple layers of Hawaiaan officials- including both Republicans and Democrates, all to defraud the American people. If there is a conspiracy- why would they need to muck around with digital alterations? They could just create an authentic BC.

More importantly- Birthers are always stomping their feet and saying this is possible, therefore it is true unless proven impossible. But in reality, the Birther story would take a series of improbable conspiracies and circumstances to have taken place.

Lets review shall we:
A)Birthers surmise that pregnant Ann Dunham flew from modern, safe Hawaii to Kenya in 1961, and gave birth there, disregarding the difficulties and expense of flying to Kenya then- and also disregarding the fact that Kenya had just gotten over a horrible and bloody civil war.
B) She gave birth in a 3d world hospital and then somehow smuggled her infant back to the U.S.
C) Meanwhile- either his mother or his grandparents conspired to commit fraud by somehow managing to register his birth in the U.S.(why a forged BC would be necessary after this happening no one has explained).
D) Fast forward to 2007- Barack Obama orders a BC from Hawaii- and aparently the Republican apppointed Director of Health, and the 20 year registrar are complicit in creating a fraudulant document.
E) Compounding this, Dr. Fukino officially announced that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii.
F) Come 2010, and a new Governor and Dr. Fukino is replaced with a Democratic appointee- who also announces that Barack Obama is born in Hawaii and confirms that the BC he provided is correct- and apparently Birthers think that is part of the conspiracy too.
G) Lets not forget that Governor Abercrombie was suckered into believing that Barack was born in Hawaii shortly after his birth.

That is the Birthers view of how the world works

 

You seem intensely and profoundly confused. A PDF that is not being prepared for printing requires no processing through "pre-flight software." So your entire previous discussion has proven pointless.

Absolutely. And every "anomaly" identified by the fleet of amateur Birther image "analysts" is directly attributable to that optimization.

And no... the expert did not even touch the settings for optimization. Instead he used the default settings... i.e. the settings most likely to be used by somebody who has not forged a document, and instead is merely preparing an ordinary scan for posting on the Web.

Your command of the obvious is noted. The document supplied by Hawaii is exactly that.

It was then also scanned into an optimized PDF for posting on the Internet. That is the process that created the layers. This is not complex, Ron.

Your confusion becomes more extreme.

The original document is on a bound volume in Hawaii. Two certified photocopies were made for the President. One of those was scanned into a PDF , optimized and then posted on-line.

What about that straightforward process are you having trouble wrapping your head around?

No.

They are because the scan was optimized for the Internet.

 

Alright, Wong, these posts are becoming too large and unfocused. The only way to deal with an Obot like you, one who lacks the ability to think logically, I must focus you on one issue. For now I'll start with the purported statement by Fukino.

MSNBC and Michael Isikoff claimed that Fukino said that Obama's long form BC was (quoting the article now), "half typed and half handwritten". Note that it does not have to be a direct quote in order for Isikoff to make the claim that she said this. He is making that claim. A direct quote would still require you to accept that Isikoff is telling you the truth. Isikoff is not a birther, he's on your side. He's on Fukino's side. He has no reason to lie here. So, is it likely that Fukino said this or is it more likely that Isikoff either misunderstood her or lied?

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

I'll also make a brief comment on this:

I can't stop you from believing something that isn't true and doesn't make sense. Obviously you believe that an X is actually an H when it's obvious that it's an X so why would I expect anything much from you?

No, I'm not Apuzzo and I'm not a sock puppet. I have no idea why you're posting the time of our postings. What exactly is that supposed to show?

You then go on to call me Darryl and then call me a liar and go on and on about how much you hate me and this is all based upon your bizarre claim (based upon no evidence) that I'm the person you think I am when I'm not.

What can I say? I'm not Darryl. And since you've provided no evidence that I am, I cannot even attempt to refute anything you've said because everything you've said is just based upon your own internal belief and assumptions that I'm some other person.

Well, you're wrong, and you're a complete buffoon.

 

As I've done with Wong, I'm going to focus you on one issue because these posts have become too long and unfocused. For now I'll start with the purported statement by Fukino.

MSNBC and Michael Isikoff claimed that Fukino said that Obama's long form BC was (quoting the article now), "half typed and half handwritten". Note that it does not have to be a direct quote in order for Isikoff to make the claim that she said this. He is making that claim. A direct quote would still require you to accept that Isikoff is telling you the truth. Isikoff is not a birther, he's on your side. He's on Fukino's side. He has no reason to lie here. So, is it likely that Fukino said this or is it more likely that Isikoff either misunderstood her or lied?

You're suggesting that there's a hypocrisy here. However, I've already explained this but you're obviously unwilling to accept it. I said "who cares what Fukino says" because I don't believe that anything she says establishes anything as fact. Yes, I do believe she's in on the conspiracy.

Her official statements don't establish anything as fact and neither did her purported comments to Isikoff in the MSNBC article. But when an official says something (even though I'm not inclined to normally believe her) and it contradicts something else, then I'm going to make note of it. There's nothing hypocritical about that.

Real quick, I'll comment on this because you've slandered me here and you're very clearly wrong. You claim that I'm either ignorant or lying. Find a journalist who claims that anyone other than Fukino had seen Obama's long form BC or find a statement from any of these people stating that they have seen it. You won't find it. I'll await your apology.

 

And you`re a sock puppet..... and a troll...

 

Go back under the bridge or in the sock drawer will yah... You`re silly little game is over now.

 

This Birther nonsense has been beaten to death. Could the Moderators please bury the corpse?

 

We know you are afraid of the truth. It would mean you would have to admit that you've been wrong all this time.
What I find truly funny is that kimmy, who is a sock of sfjeff, calling someone else a sock.

 

I'd rather focus on why you lied that you were a retired Army Master Sergeant. Or why you lied that you were a retired Intelligence Officer. Or why you lied that you were black. That last one is particularly fascinating.

When instead you are white IT guy who works in the insurance industry and has never served a day in your life?

I'd like to understand the moral vacuum that makes Birthers imagine they are justified to lie about themselves and their President. I'd like to understand the profound hypocrisy that allows someone like you to accuse others of fraud and forgery in the same breath where you are lying about the most fundamental issue of who you are.

Start there Darryl, and then we'll chase more of your pathetic and long answered red herring.

But I for one would first like to hear your justification for being such an awful person.

 

I wonder where all your friends went... NB, Appuzo/Jay, ... You must feel lonely.

 

One more comment.

Where did I say I hated you Darryl? I don't hate you.

You are not important enough to hate.

 

I'd rather stick to the topic than be distracted by your insanity. So answer my previous post, please. If you continue to refer to me as Darryl then I'll just have to stop responding based upon the realization that you are simply not interested in discussing the topic.

 

This has to do with the topic........how?

 

We have established that you are a liar. Let's establish again that you are ignorant.

Loretta Fuddy has also seen the long form. Here is her statement:

Dr. Alvin Onaka has also seen the long form. This was reported in the formal press release in October 2008.

Now... it is one thing to be honestly ignorant. It is another thing to be so invested in this issue and so clueless about the details. That speaks to more than mere ignorance. It speaks to a deficit in native intelligence.

 

Your previous post has been answered repeatedly, Darryl.

Why did you lie that you were a black Army vet?

 

About the same as all your post in this thread...

 

Obama is ineligable to be the president. That is the thread.
Only a complete idiot would see it otherwise.

Oh, and you're not a US citizen either. You don't count.

 

And only a bigger idiot would imagine that was a response to Nosferax's post.

 

When was Loretta Fuddy's statement made, Wong? April 27, 2011, correct? That's the same day that Obama's long form BC was released, right? This statement wasn't made before it's public release then was it? I stand by my correct claim that Fukino was the only person who had ('had' meaning, before the process of releasing a copy of the purported birth certificate to the public) seen Obama's birth certificate.

Now onto Onaka. The link you provided is a "STATEMENT BY DR. CHIYOME FUKINO". Really, Wong? You didn't even realize this was a statement by Fukino and not Onaka? Are you really this stupid?

So, once again, I'll await your apology.

After you apologize, you can then stop dodging my previous post and answer the questions I asked.

 

Of course I do... This forum isn`t limited to US members only.

Suck to be a lonely birther...

 

You seem, Darryl, to have forgotten the question you asked. It was "Find a journalist who claims that anyone other than Fukino had seen Obama's long form BC or find a statement from any of these people stating that they have seen it."

Actually, you are wrong yet again. It was first made in her letter accompanying the certified and sealed copies sent to the Whitehouse on April 25th. This was the same day that she personally went to the files and examined the bound volume herself, and the same day the certified copies were made.

Her statement was repeated in the formal State of Hawaii press release on April 27th. This was the day of the Whitehouse press conference where those certified copies were circulated among the reporters for their personal inspection.

Ignoring the pointlessness of your parsing, yes. It was.

How idiotic. You sound like Bill Clinton quibbling over the meaning of the word "is." You can define "had" anyway you way want. The rest of us will use it how it is actually meant to be used.

That said, you are wrong again. Dr. Onaka saw it in October of 2008. His certification to that effect can also be seen on the COLB released in June 2008 and the long form released last April.

You asked for either a report of someone seeing it or a statement of them seeing it. This is both. As usual, being proven wrong you are frantically trying to move the goal posts.

Deal with it, Darryl. There are at least three people, all of them officials of the State of Hawaii and thereby the formal and absolute legal authorities on the issue who have testified that they have seen the Obama long form, that it is real, that Obama was born in Hawaii.

Your turn:

Why did you lie that were a black Army vet?

 

I really don't give a F*** if Obama was born on Mars. He is POTUS for now. That's the end of it. What does interest me is the mystery of the .pdf

So, for sake of argument, let's say that it's your birth certificate that's in question:
You apply for a passport, OK...you need a 'certified copy' of it. You don't have one, so you contact the vital statistics department in the community you were born in and send them your check for the $25.
They go to the archives and find the required form. They make a copy and emboss it with a raised seal (that certifies it) and they mail it back to you. (or) they go through the trouble of copying as a .PDF. on a scanner, instead of just using the office copy machine. ( The office copy machine will spit out a 'reflective copy' of the document with absolutely no digital file format. Just a simple paper copy. Ink/toner on white paper.) Either way, there is no 'digital information' RE: layers, meta data etc. being copied. Neither a scanner or copy machine is sophisticated enough that it can copy meta-data and/or file layers. PERIOD.
So then, why would a clerk in the vital statistics department take the scanned copy of your birth certificate and imports it into some some publishing program like, In Design, Quark, Publisher or whatever, save it as a .pdf then import that .pdf into Acrobat and optimize it? (if it was optimized, that wasn't suggested or proven) The original pdf is 376 kb, the optimized pdf is 336 kb, Virtually, nothing is gained by optimization for the internet. The scanned copy that they would have made before they converted it to a pdf is 206 kb. Insignificantly smaller than a pdf. It's a 'physical copy and could have been stamped and signed.
Now, what about those mysterious layers? Again, scanned copies don't have layers or meta-data. They are virtual 'pictures' or 'photos' (that's why it's called a 'photocopy'.) The document that was copied from the archive doesn't have layers or meta-data. It too, is merely 'ink on paper' and contain no magic 'hidden information'.
But the .pdf available DOES have 'magic hidden information'. Where does it come from? It had to be put there 'after' the original document was scanned and before it was placed on the internet.

This is not a conspiracy theory. It's simply an explanation of the mechanics involved. The
document was edited...plain and simple. Why? I don't know and I don't care. That's all beyond my pay grade. I'm neither a conservative or liberal...republican or democrat. I have nothing to gain or loose.

 

Lol this thread is a joke and uses a joke source as its basis.

Look move on Birthers you were shown to be wrong. Let it die.

 

If you are so interested, why have you not watched the videos or read the written explanations in this thread that solve it?

Nope. They will only send the paper copy. If you want a PDF of the document, you have to make it yourself. Like the Whitehouse did.

They wouldn't and they didn't.

Instead, an administrative assistant at the Whitehouse scanned the document using their Mac, and saved it as an optimized PDF right from Mac's native viewing application and operating system. Adobe never touched the PDF.

What has caused you to hallucinate that you have any idea what size the original PDF was? AT this point you are just making stuff up.

Exactly. That was when the PDF was optimized.

Again... go watch the posted videos. All of it is not merely explained... it is demonstrated.

http://www.politicalforum.com/4130431-post142.html