Arpaio: Obama birth certificate is a fraud

posted at 9:15 am on March 2, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Maricopa County sheriff Joe Arpaio held a news conference yesterday to release the results of a “deep dive” into the question of whether Barack Obama’s birth certificate was genuine or a fraud. Surprisingly, after having teamed up with WND, Arpaio declared that the birth certificate and Obama’s Selective Service registration are fraudulent.  The local NBC affiliate and the Arizona Republic covered the event:

Arpaio and his team answered questions about jurisdiction by claiming that a fraud taking place in Maricopa County means that local law enforcement would have to investigate it. However, if the fraud originated in someplace outside of Arizona, that technically would be the jurisdiction of the FBI, not Arizona.  At some point Obama would have to submit an affadavit of eligibility to the state of Arizona for his 2012 re-election bid, and if that was fraudulent, then it would be a state matter.

However, in the massive effort to investigate the birth certificate, Arpaio and his “cold case posse” overlooked one detail:

The investigation relied on volunteers working with an electronic copy of the president’s birth certificate, which is available online, and pointing out inconsistencies with the electronic document. A representative with the Hawaii Attorney General’s Office said no one from the Sheriff’s Office ever requested to inspect or collect documents related to the authenticity of Obama’s birth certificate.

I’m no Columbo, but wouldn’t the first step in investigating a potentially fraudulent birth certificate be to check with the issuing authority to see if it matches their records?  The state in Hawaii has twice validated Obama’s published birth records, and the Honolulu Advertiser published a notice of Obama’s birth the week these records say it happened, a rather significant piece of contemporaneous evidence that investigators would normally find interesting.  Seems to me that an “investigation” might have would-be detectives talking with these officials to see what they know, or at least asking the state to recheck their records.

Sadly, this won’t stop the flow of e-mails we’ve been receiving since yesterday afternoon by people convinced that a President who can’t figure out supply and demand in gas prices can put together such a vast conspiracy to hoodwink the American people that it involves elected officials in the state of Hawaii and time travel to put a birth notice in the local paper in 1961.  Have fun storming the castle, but the rest of us would rather work on reality-based issues.

Update: A good reminder from commenter Tom Servo: “[I]f you remember Rathergate, you will remember that all document certification professionals agree that a copy of an original can *never* be certified as an original or a fake, since too many uncertainties are created by the duplication process. Only the original can be certified; the failure to ask to see the original is pretty good proof that this commission was a joke right from the get-go.” Indeed. One would think professional “investigators” would know this.

Update II: The state director of health in Hawaii attested to the authenticity of the long-form birth certificate when certified copies were provided to the White House, too:

Correspondence released by the White House shows that Obama wrote a letter on White House stationary on April 22, 2011, authorizing the release of the original birth certificate.

It said, “I am writing to request two certified copies of my original certificate of live birth. With this letter, I hereby authorize my personal counsel, Ms. Judith Corley of Perkins Coie in Washington, D.C. to act on my behalf in providing any additional information or paying any fees required by the Department of Health to fulfill my request. Ms. Corley is also authorized to make any necessary arrangements for delivery of the certified copies from your office.”

That same day, Corley asked the state health director in Hawaii to waive its usual rules and release the original “long form” birth certificate.

“Waiver of the Department’s policy in this instance would allow my client to make a certified copy of his original birth certificate publicly available and would also relieve the burden currently pbeing placed on the Department of Health by the numerous inquiries it receives from the media and others relating to my client’s birth record,” wrote Judith Corley, an attorney at the firm.

Corley, who is based in Washington, apparently traveled to Hawaii. She said in the letter that she would “be coming to your offices to pick up the copies of the certificates.”

On April 25, Loretta Fuddy, the director of health in Hawaii, replied to Obama that she had the authority to approve the release of birth records. “Through that authority, in recognition of our 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.

“We hope that issuing you these copies of your original Certificate of Live Birth will end the numerous inquiries received by the Hawaii Department of Health to produce this documents. Such inquiries have been disruptive to staff operations and have strained State resources,” Fuddy wrote.

She enclosed the copies Obama requested and said, “I have witnessed the copying of the certificate and attest to the authenticity of these copies.”

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

A forgery was posted on the White House web site, and the pRresident claimed it is real.

ITguy on March 2, 2012 at 11:51 AM

It would be destroyed if submitted as evidence in a court of law.

Stayright on March 2, 2012 at 11:53 AM

Oh and here is the link that shows the videos of their investigation.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/sheriff-joes-posse-probable-cause-obama-certificate-a-fraud/

JeffinSac on March 2, 2012 at 11:53 AM

By the way, anyone know why HA is dating postings about four minutes into the future?

slickwillie2001 on March 2, 2012 at 11:53 AM

This illustrates the difference that Breitbart brought. He was absolutely fearless. HA is run by timid little mice.

slickwillie2001 on March 2, 2012 at 11:48 AM

And this illustrates the difference between being “fearless” (Breitbart) and being a moron (you and all other birthers). Breitbart hated the birther issue. Hated it. Full stop.

BocaJuniors on March 2, 2012 at 11:55 AM

Another way to look at this issue…

Who, exactly, has the most to lose by something damning coming out of this birth certificate issue?

1. O’bama himself (and his family).

2. The Democrat Party, for nominating him under false pretenses. Said political Party has a long record of corruption.

3. The Government of the State of Hawai’i, which has been in Democrat hands since he was born in the early 1960s. Said Government has a long record of corruption.

All of those entities have everything to lose if something comes out. And anyone who believes that they wouldn’t consider colluding to help each other probably also believes that Hillary Clinton was qualified to be a US Senator.

Del Dolemonte on March 2, 2012 at 11:56 AM

It’s trivial to open the pdf in Illustrator. I’ve done it. Last year, some lady who has written a dozen or so books on photo retouching put out a comprehensive analysis. None of that is really in doubt.

ElectricPhase on March 2, 2012 at 11:40 AM

So when you say “the pdf”, you mean the one posted as Obama’s bc by the wh? I just want to be clear.

I downloaded the birth certificate pdf from the white house but I don’t have illustrator and I took NRO’s word that the layers might come from the scanning process.

I watched one of the youtube videos for the first time yesterday and it seemed to make sense.

However, it is possible that the NRO story could be correct if the illustrator software can be hooked up to and drive the scanner. It might do multiple scans with different settings if it includes an ocr engine.

That does seem rather far-fetched to me though.

gh on March 2, 2012 at 11:57 AM

Yes BocaJuniors – you are a loon!

Mashman on March 2, 2012 at 11:57 AM

I repeat:

Remember this?

It depends on what the meaning of the word “is” is.

You have to parse everything a Democrat says.

ITguy on March 2, 2012 at 11:59 AM

By the way, anyone know why HA is dating postings about four minutes into the future?

slickwillie2001 on March 2, 2012 at 11:53 AM

So you won’t be late?

Del Dolemonte on March 2, 2012 at 12:00 PM

And this illustrates the difference between being “fearless” (Breitbart) and being a moron (you and all other birthers). Breitbart hated the birther issue. Hated it. Full stop.

Who cares if Brietbart has videos of Obama with Ayers when he was in college? That was almost THIRTY YEARS AGO!!!! IT MEANS NOTHING!

Ohhh, it shows what Obama’s character? I guess faking his Selective Service doesn’t? Posting a fraudulent document on the web doesn’t?

Mashman on March 2, 2012 at 12:00 PM

…Barack Obama Sr was a British Subject. (Kenya was a British Colony in 1961)

In the State of Hawaii, back in 1961, there were four different ways to get an “original birth certificate” on record. They varied greatly in their reliability as evidence. For convenience, I’ll call them BC1, BC2, BC3, and BC4.

SWalker on March 2, 2012 at 10:43 AM

That’s a great writeup. Hawaii is so f’d up.

slickwillie2001 on March 2, 2012 at 12:01 PM

Arpaio is really stepping out on a limb here. The Cold Case Superfriends Club presumes that because their podunk sheriff station’s scanner-software scans images into single-layer PDFs, that the state-of-the-art White House scanners must do the same. That is just silly. Arpaio is crazy to assert there is probable cause to think the document is a forgery when his team doesn’t even know what scanner-software combination was used to create the PDF.

Lawdawg86 on March 2, 2012 at 12:02 PM

About those birth announcements

Not everything is as it seems.

Stayright on March 2, 2012 at 12:02 PM

You will note that that the State of Hawaii did not claim “Obama was born in Hawaii” in their October 31, 2008 News Release.

In fact, the State of Hawaii did not claim “Obama was born in Hawaii” until their July 27, 2009 News Release, which was released hours AFTER the United States House of Representatives made that claim first, by voting in support of H. RES. 593 which included the words, “Obama, was born in Hawaii”

Could Dr. Fukino have used H. RES. 593 as “prima facie” evidence to issue her second News Release and finally make the claim “Obama was born in Hawaii”?

I think the answer is yes, based upon

Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 902. Self-authentication

(10) Presumptions under Acts of Congress. Any signature, document, or other matter declared by Act of Congress to be presumptively or prima facie genuine or authentic.

H.Res. 593 was authored by Neil Abercrombie while he was a Representative. Was he later rewarded with the Governorship of Hawaii?

The whole thing is more than just a little fishy.

If Obama really wanted to put the Birth Certificate issue to rest, he would authorize the State of Hawaii to all primary source documents (including hospital birth records) under seal directly to Congress, just as was done with the other two certificates that were relevant to his election.

Then, we could “move on” to the issue of being born a natural born British subject is mutually exclusive with being born a natural born citizen of the United States of America.

ITguy on March 2, 2012 at 12:02 PM

This press release is the kind of crap that hurts the reputation of us Conservatives, and this will hurt us in the election.

jediwebdude on March 2, 2012 at 12:07 PM

Breitbart hated the birther issue. Hated it. Full stop.

BocaJuniors on March 2, 2012 at 11:55 AM

Breitbart asked to interview Sheriff Joe Arpaio on February 29th, and did.

But go ahead and tell us all about how, in your opinion, “Breitbart hated the birther issue. Hated it. Full stop.”

ITguy on March 2, 2012 at 12:08 PM

So when you say “the pdf”, you mean the one posted as Obama’s bc by the wh? I just want to be clear.

gh on March 2, 2012 at 11:57 AM

Yes.

There was thorough analysis showing how the whitehouse.gov pdf was built almost a year ago. The various theories for how a legitimate scanned document could end up looking like that pdf on whitehouse.gov rely on computer illiteracy.

ElectricPhase on March 2, 2012 at 12:10 PM

When you submit a Birth Certificate with a Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification, you must present the hard copy document.

A PDF is not “Acceptable Documentation”.

ITguy on March 2, 2012 at 12:11 PM

Your readers would be better served if you went to primary sources rather than relying on secondary reports, especially any that come out of NBC.

ETpaws on March 2, 2012 at 9:33 AM

Ed has never done his homework on this topic. From the very beginning, he has dismissed the birther issues as kooky conspiracy theories, without getting all the facts. He has no credibility on this issue, and the proof is right here in the updates on this thread.

JannyMae on March 2, 2012 at 12:11 PM

Arpaio is really stepping out on a limb here. The Cold Case Superfriends Club presumes that because their podunk sheriff station’s scanner-software scans images into single-layer PDFs, that the state-of-the-art White House scanners must do the same. That is just silly. Arpaio is crazy to assert there is probable cause to think the document is a forgery when his team doesn’t even know what scanner-software combination was used to create the PDF.

Lawdawg86 on March 2, 2012 at 12:02 PM

Nice try, but this is simply incorrect. The press conference covered this in considerable detail. You’re spinning. Badly.

ElectricPhase on March 2, 2012 at 12:12 PM

Dante on March 2, 2012 at 9:45 AM

Steveangell on March 2, 2012 at 9:45 AM

SWalker on March 2, 2012 at 10:43 AM

Who would be president?

This is purely a Constitutional issue. Does Obama qualify under the Constitution (Article 2, Section 1 – The Natural Born Citizen clause)? It was up to 1) The DNC, 2) The Senate and 3) the Supreme Court to verify and confirm that Obama qualified under the NBC clause. All of the above Federal entities failed to do their job.

As pointed out – 1) Obama Sr was NOT (nor attempting to be) an American citizen.
2) There is no marriage certificate (not that illegitimacy would be a factor at all) on record, only a divorce certificate.
3)the British law at the time (1961) stated that a child born of a British citizen anywhere in the world was a British citizen.
4) US law at the time (1961) stated that the US parent had to have lived in the US for 15 + 4 years (15 consecutive years, plus 4 additional years) to confer citizenship – Stanley Ann was 18 when Obama was born. Not old enough to confer citizenship to a foreign citizen child.
5) HA law at the time (1961) stated that anyone born anywhere could get a HA birth certificate, just that they could never own land in HA. [Remember (i.e. history) HA had just become a state (1959) and many of her citizens weren't born in HA or in any US state, it was a way to confer citizenship on them, at the time]
6) Since the Dunhams and most particularly Stanley Ann seemed to be anti-American “ ‘They are not my people.’ ” (to quote from Obam’s own book, Dreams From My Father) and the anti-British Obama Sr. to conceive a child to affront current race issues and current political issues, is this entire situation really so far fetched? {Again, look at history – what lengths certain ideologies have gone to to infiltrate/overturn their perceived ‘enemies’].

Since this is a Constitutional issue – It makes the 2008 election a fraud – thus the US resets back to Nov 2008 – No Biden doesn’t step up – as he was part of the fraud. And every document Obama signed, every law passed since Nov 2008 are null and void.

Angst, yes. Social chaos – perhaps. But upholding the Constitution is and always should be the prime objective of We The People and the Federal Government – all 3 branches. This is the other 2 branches fault as much – or even more – than Obama – as they let it pass by.

America is under assault from within – and way too many people hide behind snide comments such as ‘birther’ to help continue the lies, destruction and damage done to America in 2008.

The National Enquirer brought down John Edwards – I will be very happy indeed if a ‘rag’ (as you all call it) WND brings down Obama. At least some people in America are still working to undo this terrible event. To defend America and uphold the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic.

jackal40 on March 2, 2012 at 12:12 PM

Breitbart hated the birther issue. Hated it. Full stop.

BocaJuniors on March 2, 2012 at 11:55 AM

Breitbart asked to interview Sheriff Joe Arpaio on February 29th, and did.

But go ahead and tell us all about how, in your opinion, “Breitbart hated the birther issue. Hated it. Full stop.”

ITguy on March 2, 2012 at 12:08 PM

He hated it. He is now dead. And you shameless birthers have decided to go full retard and try to co-opt his history for going after Obama to now say, “Oh!! What would Breitbart do?!?! He would crusade on this important issue!”

Bullsh**.

BocaJuniors on March 2, 2012 at 12:13 PM

Why no mention of the proven FACT that the Selective Service registration card that is on file for Obama is a FAKE?

Sheriff Joe proved 100% that the postal stamps used to stamp the registration cards used a 4 digit year, and the card released under FOIA for Obama had a 2 digit year. He also showed that it was no longer possible to get a 1980 insert, so someone had cut a 2008 stamp in half, and inverted the 08, to make 80. He proved this by showing that the placement of the ’80′ on the stamp was off, because the spacing where the cut was made was not the same as trailing space on a normal stamp.

If Obama did not register for the Selective Service, then he is not eligible to be President!

“Federal Jobs – men born after December 31, 1959 must be registered to be eligible for jobs in the Executive Branch of the Federal government and the U.S. Postal Service.“

Mashman on March 2, 2012 at 11:40 AM

This, to me, was more interesting than the birth certificate. How do you explain the “80″?

fbcmusicman on March 2, 2012 at 12:13 PM

Ed has never done his homework on this topic. From the very beginning, he has dismissed the birther issues as kooky conspiracy theories, without getting all the facts.

JannyMae on March 2, 2012 at 12:11 PM

He has accepted, as evidence, things which are not “Acceptable Documentation” for a Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification.

He has accepted very carefully parsed statements from Dr. Fukino, without question, without curiosity, and without the necessary parsing to see what she did, and did not, actually say.

ITguy on March 2, 2012 at 12:14 PM

Arpaio is really stepping out on a limb here. The Cold Case Superfriends Club presumes that because their podunk sheriff station’s scanner-software scans images into single-layer PDFs, that the state-of-the-art White House scanners must do the same. That is just silly. Arpaio is crazy to assert there is probable cause to think the document is a forgery when his team doesn’t even know what scanner-software combination was used to create the PDF.

You don’t get it. How do you think Adobe makes money? The optimization is a software process. The optimization is an Adobe software process, it doesn’t matter what the hardware is!

If you some cheap as scanner, and I have a ‘state-of-the-art’ WH type scanner, and we scan at the same resolution (which is in the document, so yes they did), the optimization will come out similar.

The simple FACT is that there is NO WAY POSSIBLE, AT ALL, for the layers to be organized the way the WH document is. It’s impossible, plain and simple.

If people would actually look at the evidence, then there would be a lot of shocked people out there! But unfortunately it’s a lot like AGW, people just believe what they are told, and form their opinions based on that. Me – I formed my opinions on AGW by looking at the actual evidence – the lack of the tropical mid-troposphere hotspot turned me into a strong denier. And it’s the same here, I look at the evidence!

Mashman on March 2, 2012 at 12:14 PM

About those birth announcements

Not everything is as it seems.

Stayright on March 2, 2012 at 12:02 PM

That’s very interesting but it does not say anything about Obama’s birth announcement (whether it was missing in one set of images, for example).

gh on March 2, 2012 at 12:15 PM

The birther issue is just an extra argument for the court when it gets to decide whether to jail him for life or stick a needle in him.
Archivarix on March 2, 2012 at 10:28 AM

From ropes and crosses and fire to needles. I see “conservatives” have discovered compassion.

This is the POTUS you’re talking about you a55hat conspiracy theorist.

lester on March 2, 2012 at 12:17 PM

Uhhhmm, I let this subject go a looooonnnggg time ago…but, just to point out one little technicality, A Certificate of Live Birth is not a Birth Certificate. And can be in fact applied for up to one year after the birth itself, ie; no hospital witnesses no attending Dr. etc, etc. Which may ( I stress agin, may!)explain how/why Ms/Mrs Stanley Obama/Soetoro felt well/comfortable enough to leave baby Barry and go off to Univ.of Wash. after only two weeks of the date of birth listed on the COLB.

Just in point of reference, I always thought the more plausible case for inelgibility lie with the probable dual-citizenship due to little Barry’s adoption by Lolo Soetoro which would’ve been required in Indonesia. Which, again, may, explain how he traveled there without a US passport or a US Dept of State processed visa for Aug 21 1981.

The rabbit trails of Obama’s true origins, the hazy legalities of formal protocols of Gov’t in the newly minted 51st state,(which coincidentally was also on Aug 21, but in 1959)providing les than two years to convert all the paperwork & govermental protocols from British Commonwealth Law to US Federal Law. My own investigations into the matter revealed that it appears at the time of little Obama’s birth Hawaii was still practing a hodge-podge of both’s jurisdictional practices. Mightily convenient, no?

Anyhow, it seems to me , admittedly a layman when it comes to law matters, nothing can be proved “beyond a reasonable doubt” so pursuit of proving his Hawaii origin, in Hawaii anyway, is fruitless.

That’s my two cents on it anyways.

Archimedes on March 2, 2012 at 12:18 PM

BocaJuniors on March 2, 2012 at 12:13 PM

If there is a recording of the interview Breitbard did of Sheriff Joe Arpaio on February 29th, I hope it gets released.

I’m all for the release of primary source materials.

ITguy on March 2, 2012 at 12:18 PM

You don’t get it. How do you think Adobe makes money? The optimization is a software process. The optimization is an Adobe software process, it doesn’t matter what the hardware is!

If you some cheap as scanner, and I have a ‘state-of-the-art’ WH type scanner, and we scan at the same resolution (which is in the document, so yes they did), the optimization will come out similar.

Mashman on March 2, 2012 at 12:14 PM

It’s not true if the illustrator software can drive the scanner. It may have different behaviour depending on the hardware it’s driving.

gh on March 2, 2012 at 12:19 PM

Uh oh, pulled an Obama!

50th State!

Archimedes on March 2, 2012 at 12:21 PM

That’s very interesting but it does not say anything about Obama’s birth announcement (whether it was missing in one set of images, for example).

gh on March 2, 2012 at 12:15 PM

It has been months since I considered the birth announcements. I may have grabbed the wrong link.

Stayright on March 2, 2012 at 12:21 PM

Anyhow, it seems to me , admittedly a layman when it comes to law matters, nothing can be proved “beyond a reasonable doubt” so pursuit of proving his Hawaii origin, in Hawaii anyway, is fruitless.

That’s my two cents on it anyways.

Archimedes on March 2, 2012 at 12:18 PM

Moreover, “possession is 9/10 of the law” and he’s already been elected and “possesses” the office of president.

gh on March 2, 2012 at 12:21 PM

In fact, the State of Hawaii did not claim “Obama was born in Hawaii” until their July 27, 2009 News Release, which was released hours AFTER the United States House of Representatives made that claim first, by voting in support of H. RES. 593 which included the words, “Obama, was born in Hawaii”

Could Dr. Fukino have used H. RES. 593 as “prima facie” evidence to issue her second News Release and finally make the claim “Obama was born in Hawaii”?

I think the answer is yes, based upon

Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 902. Self-authentication

(10) Presumptions under Acts of Congress. Any signature, document, or other matter declared by Act of Congress to be presumptively or prima facie genuine or authentic.

H.Res. 593 was authored by Neil Abercrombie while he was a Representative. Was he later rewarded with the Governorship of Hawaii?

ITguy on March 2, 2012 at 12:02 PM

Thanks for these facts. It’s sad that HotAir is afraid of facts.

faraway on March 2, 2012 at 12:21 PM

Santnick on March 2, 2012 at 10:08 AM

This.

Everyone seems to be running around with their heads on fire worrying about how the MSM will portray it and us? As if this, THIS is what will keep the REAL news from getting out to the people.

FFS please disengage cranium from rectum if you truly feel that way. You are no better than our candy-assed go-along-to-get-along establishment R’s in congress. You somehow think if you play nicenice and say the right things that somehow the MSM will give us a fair shake?

Guess what? If this hadn’t come out for the media to fondle themselves and badmouth us over, they’d find something else.

WE. WILL. NEVER. GET. A. FAIR. SHAKE. FROM. THE. MAIN. STREAM. MEDIA.

The sooner you get past that, the better you’ll be.

If you think it’s a waste of time for people to investiagte things, that’s cool – and your perogative. For anyone to claim that somehow THIS is the key to Obama election through MSM manipulation of the facts is just patently ignorant of reality.

The media will ALWAYS control the story. Either we’re open-minded and supportive of those on our side, or we’re just doing the libs work for them by eating our own. Just quit whining and crying and worrying about what the media might say about you.
We’re already racist, misogynist teabaggers who want women and old people to die. What’s the harm in being a “birther” too?

WhaleBellied on March 2, 2012 at 12:22 PM

Apr 27, 2011: Obama posts his alleged copy of BC online
Apr 29, 2011: The copy turns out to be a low-quality fake.
May 2, 2011: Osama bin Laden, whose location was apparently known for months, is terminated. The BC is pushed out of the news.

Feb 10, 2012: Andrew Breitbart promises a sensational video of Obama’s college years.
Mar 01, 2012: Sheriff Joe Arpaio schedules the press conference on his investigation of Obama’s BC.
Mar 01, 2012: Andrew Breitbart dies suddenly.

Once is an accident. Twice is a coincidence. Third time will be an enemy action, folks…

Archivarix on March 2, 2012 at 10:01 AM

Sep 19, 1961 Barney and Betty Hill are abducted by space aliens from their New Hampshire home. Obama is 15 days old. Coincidence?
:p

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on March 2, 2012 at 12:23 PM

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986:

All employees (citizens and noncitizens) hired after November 6, 1986 and working in the United States must complete a Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification.

“All” and “must”. There is no exception in that law for the President, and the President is not above the law.

Where is Obama’s Form I-9 and the accompanying Acceptable Documentation?

And note well that a PDF file is not on the list of Accepted Documents.

ITguy on March 2, 2012 at 12:23 PM

Which, again, may, explain how he traveled to Pakistan without a US passport or a US Dept of State processed visa for Aug 21 1981.

Damn cut & paste editing always leads to typos!

Archimedes on March 2, 2012 at 12:23 PM

This, to me, was more interesting than the birth certificate. How do you explain the “80″?

During the press conference, the investigator said that they found multiple registration cards filed from the same post office, the very same week as Obama’s was supposed to have been filed, and they all had 4 digit years. They then determined that 1980 stamp inserts could no longer be acquired. The investigator said they then suspected that a 2008 stamp was cut in half, and the end ’80′ was flipped to make an ’80′.

The investigator did the same thing, and he produced an identical stamp. The spacing between the last number (’0′) to the outside edges of the stamp, are different from the correct stamps with 4 digit years. This shows that the 2 digit year on Obama’s card is not a result of the first 2 digits simply not having sufficient ink. The investigators stamp that he cut in half shows the exact same spacing as Obama’s registration card. The investigator explained that this spacing is the result of the 2 zeros in 2008 being close together, thereby resulting in the zero of ’80′ being closer to outside edge of the stamp.

While I believe that they showed that the downloadable file from the WH was not a scanned image from a paper document, that doesn’t mean that it is not representative of an actual paper document. So that is a hard path to go down. But the Selective Service registration card is a slam dunk! There are NO other cards with only 2 digit years. And there are no other cards with the same spacing as Obama’s – because it’s a hacked up stamp!

There is ZERO doubt that Obama’s registration card is a fake, and if he didn’t register:

•Federal Jobs – men born after December 31, 1959 must be registered to be eligible for jobs in the Executive Branch of the Federal government and the U.S. Postal Service.

Mashman on March 2, 2012 at 12:28 PM

If there is a recording of the interview Breitbard did of Sheriff Joe Arpaio on February 29th, I hope it gets released.

I’m all for the release of primary source materials.

ITguy on March 2, 2012 at 12:18 PM

Umm, an interview with someone investigating something is not a “primary source material”. But at least you’ve got the buzzwords down!

BocaJuniors on March 2, 2012 at 12:30 PM

BocaJuniors on March 2, 2012 at 12:30 PM

A recording of Breitbart’s own words is “primary source material” of what Breitbart said. And from Breitbart’s own words, we can form our own opinions of what he thought about the issue.

ITguy on March 2, 2012 at 12:36 PM

And this illustrates the difference between being “fearless” (Breitbart) and being a moron (you and all other birthers). Breitbart hated the birther issue. Hated it. Full stop.

BocaJuniors on March 2, 2012 at 11:55 AM

Quit while you are behind.

Breitbart pimping these college tapes was meaningless. So Obama in the early 1980′s said Marx was awesome sauce and Bill Ayers was the the best host a foreign exchange student could ever have.

That won’t change the fact that half the country is now dependent on government assistance and will not replace Obama the Provider with ‘The Man.’

Had Breitbart simply had a coronary episode and not died yesterday, anyone that mentioned his opinion on either of these issues would have been laughed at. So I am going to pretend AB is still alive and laugh at you.

Inignort on March 2, 2012 at 12:38 PM

You don’t get it. How do you think Adobe makes money? The optimization is a software process. The optimization is an Adobe software process, it doesn’t matter what the hardware is!

If you some cheap as scanner, and I have a ‘state-of-the-art’ WH type scanner, and we scan at the same resolution (which is in the document, so yes they did), the optimization will come out similar.

The simple FACT is that there is NO WAY POSSIBLE, AT ALL, for the layers to be organized the way the WH document is. It’s impossible, plain and simple.

Mashman on March 2, 2012 at 12:14 PM

I’m a computer programmer, I know what I’m talking about. I watched all five of the videos, and I’m still not convinced. Its entirely possible for a program to scan a single document as multiple image layers and then assemble all those layers. Is that how HP printers scan to PDF? No.

But is it possible that a better scanner would scan the same document multiple times, break up the document into multiple images, scan each distinct image as a layer, and then assemble the images into into a multi-layer PDF? Absolutely. If you give me five random images, I could write a script that would layer them over each other in PDF. Now, imagine you have a high-end scanner that is programmed to break a document into different image objects, and scan each object as a .BMP file with a transparent background. That functionality operates independent of Adobe software. The scanner software could then add all the image layers to single mutli-layer Adobe PDF file just as easily as my script. I don’t see why you think this seems impossible.

Lawdawg86 on March 2, 2012 at 12:39 PM

Now, imagine you have a high-end scanner that is programmed to break a document into different image objects, and scan each object as a .BMP file with a transparent background. That functionality operates independent of Adobe software. The scanner software could then add all the image layers to single mutli-layer Adobe PDF file just as easily as my script. I don’t see why you think this seems impossible.

Lawdawg86 on March 2, 2012 at 12:39 PM

Please explain how the some layers are vertical and some are horizontal. Some layers have been rotated and reduced from original to 24% or 48%.

Please don’t work on my computers.

faraway on March 2, 2012 at 12:40 PM

“That’s very interesting but it does not say anything about Obama’s birth announcement (whether it was missing in one set of images, for example).

gh on March 2, 2012 at 12:15 PM

It has been months since I considered the birth announcements. I may have grabbed the wrong link.”

The birth announcements where brought up during the Q/A at the very end. The lead investigator said they looked into them. He said that they were of no value, because they were simply the result of a birth registration. He said the found numerous instances of announcements occurring years after a birth. He also said that Hawaii law allowed for foreign births to be registered in Hawaii, so they could not be used as evidence of a Hawaiian birth.

Mashman on March 2, 2012 at 12:40 PM

It’s funny that you take the time to belittle me, but you don’t respond to my post about two different Official Certification of Nomination forms (“OCON”) that just happened to be signed by Nancy Pelosi. The difference? The one given to 49 states did not declare Obama’s eligibility. The one given to Hawaii said he was constitutionally eligible. Why? The constitutional eligibility language was in the forms given to all 50 states for both Gore and Kerry. Why remove it for Obama?

Study the OCON issue and then try to explain it away. You can’t.

Stayright on March 2, 2012 at 11:07 AM

The whiny, incoherent, underdeveloped children you’re dealing with would rather an inquisitive, meddling kid like you disappear than attempt to engage your concerns head-on, a disappearnce they humorously believe they can facilitate by insulting you with insults no more sophisticated than “poopy-head”, as though that’s the admirable path take.

It’s amusing to watch them prattle on and on and on w/o showing an inkling of self-awareness. Is it too kind to label them immature, anti-intellectual jackasses? I say, yeah, it is! :)

Bizarro No. 1 on March 2, 2012 at 12:41 PM

It’s not true if the illustrator software can drive the scanner. It may have different behaviour depending on the hardware it’s driving.

gh on March 2, 2012 at 12:19 PM

I think what you’re getting at is that the optimization algorithm will produce different results depending on the scanner/driver capabilities and settings. Unfortunately for Obama, no optimization or automated processing will ever produce the result that was posted on whitehouse.gov.

Just so you understand where I’m coming from, I designed and implemented a document archiving system for one of the largest retailers in the world. For the purpose of this discussion, I qualify as a subject matter expert.

ElectricPhase on March 2, 2012 at 12:44 PM

Regarding the state of Hawaii.

First, they said the B/C existed.

Then, they said they couldn’t find it.

They continually repeated that they couldn’t release the original, because of Hawaii law.

There were repeated requests to examine the actual, original document in the Hawaii archives. They were repeatedly denied.

Then, they produced an electronic copy ONLY of it, which was released by the White House.

Nope. Nothing suspicious here.

This is not the birth certificate you’re looking for. Move along.

JannyMae on March 2, 2012 at 12:44 PM

There is ZERO doubt that Obama’s registration card is a fake, and if he didn’t register:

Federal Jobs – men born after December 31, 1959 must be registered to be eligible for jobs in the Executive Branch of the Federal government and the U.S. Postal Service.

Mashman on March 2, 2012 at 12:28 PM

+1!

The primary question is whether or not Obama has proven that he is eligible to hold the office of President of the United States. He fails on multiple fronts. Some of those fronts stir more debate than others, but on this front, where are the people who think that Obama met this eligibility requirement?

Come on now, don’t be shy…

Where are the people who think that Obama’s registration card,
with it’s unique two-digit year,
is legitimate and not a poorly done forgery?!?

ITguy on March 2, 2012 at 12:45 PM

The State of Hawaii has repeatedly refused to provide a copy of the original birth certificate citing privacy laws. Now they are suggesting they would allow it to be viewed…..yeah sure.

camerc on March 2, 2012 at 12:46 PM

You don’t get it. How do you think Adobe makes money? The optimization is a software process. The optimization is an Adobe software process, it doesn’t matter what the hardware is!

If you some cheap as scanner, and I have a ‘state-of-the-art’ WH type scanner, and we scan at the same resolution (which is in the document, so yes they did), the optimization will come out similar.

Mashman on March 2, 2012 at 12:14 PM

It’s not true if the illustrator software can drive the scanner. It may have different behaviour depending on the hardware it’s driving.

gh on March 2, 2012 at 12:19 PM

If you’re right, then it ought to be pretty easy to replicate the layers at they appear now, just randomly. At least to some degree. The way that things is layered now is about as full-blown fraudulent as you will ever see- the white halo effect on the text, the two date stamps being two complete and separate layers, the fact that it took him two years to produce… to deny plausible reason to doubt the validity of the document found on the whitehouse website, is the text book definition of delusion.

Yesterday I couldn’t have been bothered with this and had I never heard about the LFBC, I probably wouldn’t have given it a second thought for the rest of my life. But the evidence they put together is downright compelling and at the very least, I would love to see how this is easily debunked.

If it can’t be… in the words of Jerry Seinfeld, “I think you may have something here!”

Fish on March 2, 2012 at 12:46 PM

Thanks for these facts.

faraway on March 2, 2012 at 12:21 PM

You’re very welcome.

ITguy on March 2, 2012 at 12:46 PM

Only the White House has an ‘optimizer’ that changes dates and signatures on paperwork. I’ll concede that.

faraway on March 2, 2012 at 12:47 PM

Please explain how the some layers are vertical and some are horizontal. Some layers have been rotated and reduced from original to 24% or 48%.

Please don’t work on my computers.

faraway on March 2, 2012 at 12:40 PM

I don’t know. We need to know what scanner (and scanner software) the White House used to scan the document, then we could tell if it was a forgery. My point is that it is not impossible for an image to be scanned in multiple layers, and for all we know, the scanner software could have automatically done all of the rotating to assemble the sub-images into the PDF. Arpaio should be asking what kind of scanner and software was used to create the document.

Lawdawg86 on March 2, 2012 at 12:48 PM

From an actual government document…

the President-elect, Mr. Obama, is a son of the soil of this country

…the people of the United States of America have just had a historic election where the son of this soil, Barrack Hussein Obama, has been elected the 44th President of the United States of America…

we are the home of the President-elect of the USA…

Q: Who said that?

A:

Official Report of the Kenyan National Assembly Wednesday, 5th November, 2008 

ITguy on March 2, 2012 at 12:52 PM

“I’m a computer programmer, I know what I’m talking about. I watched all five of the videos, and I’m still not convinced. Its entirely possible for a program to scan a single document as multiple image layers and then assemble all those layers. Is that how HP printers scan to PDF? No.

But is it possible that a better scanner would scan the same document multiple times, break up the document into multiple images, scan each distinct image as a layer, and then assemble the images into into a multi-layer PDF? Absolutely. If you give me five random images, I could write a script that would layer them over each other in PDF. Now, imagine you have a high-end scanner that is programmed to break a document into different image objects, and scan each object as a .BMP file with a transparent background. That functionality operates independent of Adobe software. The scanner software could then add all the image layers to single mutli-layer Adobe PDF file just as easily as my script. I don’t see why you think this seems impossible.”

LOL!!!

So am I! I’ve even written a system that’s capable of replicating mainframe Xerox printers, using the XEROX FSL language, and output to Adobe PDFS.

Most of what you say is correct, but you are missing something you should be VERY aware of – whatever the software does it needs to be systematic about it. The problem with the layers in the WH ‘scanned’ document is that they are not systematic, they are logical! That is why is exactly why the investigators where so specific about the Date, and Registrar layers.

So unless the WH has some super AI capable printer scanner that I’m pretty sure doesn’t exist – those layers where not created by any automatic software process.

Mashman on March 2, 2012 at 12:53 PM

I don’t know. We need to know what scanner (and scanner software) the White House used to scan the document, then we could tell if it was a forgery. My point is that it is not impossible for an image to be scanned in multiple layers, and for all we know, the scanner software could have automatically done all of the rotating to assemble the sub-images into the PDF. Arpaio should be asking what kind of scanner and software was used to create the document.

Lawdawg86 on March 2, 2012 at 12:48 PM

You have just been shredded by Occam’s razor. Thanks for playing.

ElectricPhase on March 2, 2012 at 12:53 PM

This article is so full of BS that it’s hard to know where to start. This is one place to start in seeing how Hawaiian officials have repeatedly refused access to Obama’s birth records even to the point of defying court orders. Hawaii refuses subpoena of Obama birth certificate, citing privacy concerns

The White House posted a forged birth certificate and now places like HitAir.com are scrambling to defuse the obvious.

For my part, I believe Obama may have been born in Hawaii. That’s not the point. He is ineligible to be President because he does not qualify under the Constitution that only a “natural born citizen” can hold the office of the Presidency.

Regardless, Obama and his legal representatives have gone to great lengths and expense to hide virtually everything about his past. Now, why is that?

CaliRay on March 2, 2012 at 12:54 PM

OK, ITguy, now of course you know that could simply refer to his general heritage. Don’t go too far :)

faraway on March 2, 2012 at 12:54 PM

Please explain how the some layers are vertical and some are horizontal. Some layers have been rotated and reduced from original to 24% or 48%.

Please don’t work on my computers.

faraway on March 2, 2012 at 12:40 PM

I don’t know. We need to know what scanner (and scanner software) the White House used to scan the document, then we could tell if it was a forgery. My point is that it is not impossible for an image to be scanned in multiple layers, and for all we know, the scanner software could have automatically done all of the rotating to assemble the sub-images into the PDF. Arpaio should be asking what kind of scanner and software was used to create the document.

Lawdawg86 on March 2, 2012 at 12:48 PM

Just so we’re clear, because I’m not a computer programmer and have no idea the spefics of this stuff…

You’re saying that a particular scanner high end or otherwise, could randomly produce 9 separate layers, that include the green background, most of the black type, a few signature boxes, and the two date stamps at the bottom by simply randomly optimizing the document?

According to the video, they could not get this to replicate because optimization always ended up with many more layers than 9. But you’re saying that they’re wrong, that it could happen randomly?

Pinky promise?

Fish on March 2, 2012 at 12:55 PM

The person that made this forged PDF must be wondering when they will be arrested in the biggest forgery and fraud case in the world.

Popcorn please.

faraway on March 2, 2012 at 12:58 PM

Most of what you say is correct, but you are missing something you should be VERY aware of – whatever the software does it needs to be systematic about it. The problem with the layers in the WH ‘scanned’ document is that they are not systematic, they are logical! That is why is exactly why the investigators where so specific about the Date, and Registrar layers.

So unless the WH has some super AI capable printer scanner that I’m pretty sure doesn’t exist – those layers where not created by any automatic software process.

Mashman on March 2, 2012 at 12:53 PM

Agreed, the question is whether it is systemic. And in order to know that, we have to know what scanner and scanner-software were used to create the document. Which is why I originally said I think Arpaio is way out on a limb saying that this is a “forgery” right now. The document is definitely irregular, but not at all impossible, as many commenters here are claiming.

Lawdawg86 on March 2, 2012 at 12:59 PM

The whiny, incoherent, underdeveloped children you’re dealing with would rather an inquisitive, meddling kid like you disappear than attempt to engage your concerns head-on, a disappearnce they humorously believe they can facilitate by insulting you with insults no more sophisticated than “poopy-head”, as though that’s the admirable path take.

It’s amusing to watch them prattle on and on and on w/o showing an inkling of self-awareness. Is it too kind to label them immature, anti-intellectual jackasses? I say, yeah, it is! :)

Bizarro No. 1 on March 2, 2012 at 12:41 PM

They can mock and belittle me all they want. I have never made any wild accusations. I presume he was born in this country. I have, however, repeatedly asked for a coherent and reasonable explaination of the dual OCON issue. No one has yet taken me up on it. I’m an old prosecutor. I understand how easy it is to be fooled by a “fact” and I know when something is off. That one piece of the puzzle–dualing OCONs–is enough to warrant extreme skepticism about his official biography. The one “fact” that may have fooled people is the birth announcement. Some give that “fact” way too much weight. If I am ever tried for a crime, I want them on the jury.

Stayright on March 2, 2012 at 1:00 PM

Stayright on March 2, 2012 at 1:00 PM

OCON?

Fish on March 2, 2012 at 1:01 PM

So dumb this down for me. Basically people are saying that Obama and the State of Hawaii are lying. Obama is not a U.S. citizen and he has convinced the elected officals from the state of Hawaii to participate in a massive cover up? Is that the gist of it?

I remember back in the Bush years, the right would ask. “So you guys (the left) think Bush is the dumbest President to ever walk the face of the earth but at the same time think he is a genuis who was able to mastermind the 9/11 attacks in order to prop up a reason to go to war against Iraq”.

And I get the point they were trying to make there. Too bad they cant see when that mirror is reflecting back at them.

Regardless of what people think about the “copy” that was posted. The state of Hawaii has verfied that they have seen the real copy, the real copy exist and that Obama was born in Hawaii.

Thats it. If you disagree with that then your saying the state of hawaii is lying and participating in a massive cover up for Obama. So your saying that this President that is so inept is also one of the greatest political minds in history. I mean, if he wasnt born in Hawaii then obvioulsy he of all people would know this. So he set about to turn the American system on his head with the help of newspapers, and elected government officals.

That would be amazing.

Politricks on March 2, 2012 at 1:04 PM

You’re saying that a particular scanner high end or otherwise, could randomly produce 9 separate layers, that include the green background, most of the black type, a few signature boxes, and the two date stamps at the bottom by simply randomly optimizing the document?

According to the video, they could not get this to replicate because optimization always ended up with many more layers than 9. But you’re saying that they’re wrong, that it could happen randomly?

Pinky promise?

Fish on March 2, 2012 at 12:55 PM

No, not randomly. I’m saying that the algorithm could have broken it into those distinct images and then assembled them as layers.

And as far as the video goes, unless they are using the same scanner and scanner software that the White House used to scan the document, then Arpaio’s “evidence” doesn’t amount to squat.

Again, Arpaio needs to know what scanner and scanner software the White House used to create the image before throwing around terms like “forgery.”

Lawdawg86 on March 2, 2012 at 1:04 PM

Doesn’t it seem odd that leftist media outlets have chosen to completely ignore Sheriff Arpaio’s press conference? It makes me feel like they’re uncomfortable with the subject matter. Otherwise, I would think they’d leap on it like a starving lion on a fresh kill, like they usually do with any opportunity to ridicule those that criticize Obama.

DanaLynn on March 2, 2012 at 1:05 PM

So dumb this down for me. Basically people are saying that Obama and the State of Hawaii are lying. Obama is not a U.S. citizen and he has convinced the elected officals from the state of Hawaii to participate in a massive cover up? Is that the gist of it?

Politricks on March 2, 2012 at 1:04 PM

I dont know if I can dumb it down enough, but I’ll try.

It’s simple. Joe is saying the PDF is a forgery. It is a manufactured file, not a copy of an actual document.

No more, no less.

faraway on March 2, 2012 at 1:05 PM

The document is definitely irregular, but not at all impossible, as many commenters here are claiming.

Lawdawg86 on March 2, 2012 at 12:59 PM

I recognize lawyer speak for ‘I could get a jury to find reasonable doubt’ when I see it.

Could someone write a program to produce something like that pdf? Maybe. Would anyone do it? Never. Not in a million years. Not even the government.

ElectricPhase on March 2, 2012 at 1:09 PM

the son of this soil

ITguy on March 2, 2012 at 12:52 PM

Meh. Kenya could claim me as a daughter of their soil if for some bizarro reason they wanted to. Ireland as well. I was born in Indiana.
:)

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on March 2, 2012 at 1:10 PM

So dumb this down for me. Basically people are saying that Obama and the State of Hawaii are lying. Obama is not a U.S. citizen and he has convinced the elected officals from the state of Hawaii to participate in a massive cover up? Is that the gist of it?

Politricks on March 2, 2012 at 1:04 PM

Actually, no. The allegation here is that two documents produced by the Obama administration, a pdf of Obama’s long form birth certificate and Obama’s draft registration form, are forged. Badly.

The rest of what you posted is probably false, and definitely off topic.

ElectricPhase on March 2, 2012 at 1:16 PM

I dont know if I can dumb it down enough, but I’ll try.

It’s simple. Joe is saying the PDF is a forgery. It is a manufactured file, not a copy of an actual document.

No more, no less.

faraway on March 2, 2012 at 1:05 PM

——

Okay, so what does that mean?

The PDF is a forgery? Why..What does that accomplish? Why even waste state resources to prove wether a pdf is in fact a forgery or not? Thats not the end right? So wheres the finish line? Is the point theyre trying to get to the one that I made? Is that Hawaii is lying and the President is an illegal immigrant? Or does the sheriff have a team that just cruises the internet and check the validity of PDF files just for kicks and giggles?

I still dont get it. Sorry.

Politricks on March 2, 2012 at 1:16 PM

OK, ITguy, now of course you know that could simply refer to his general heritage. Don’t go too far :)

faraway on March 2, 2012 at 12:54 PM

It could. Or, it could be literal. I quote primary source material from an official document of the Kenyan government. I report. You decide.

Dr. Fukino aparently wasn’t willing to claim that Obama was a son of the soil of this country until the U.S. House of Representatives said so first.

The bottom line is that none of us really know whether the “Obama birth narrative” is 100% true or not, because the primary source documentation has not been released.

And really, that’s only 1 part of the bigger picture…

There are multiple distinct issues related to Obama’s eligibility. The first two are:

1) Is the “Obama birth narrative” 100% true?

2) If yes, does the “Obama birth narrative” meet the Founder’s definition of “natural born citizen”?

I think the answer to both quesitons is No.

Two more distinct issues related to Obama’s eligibility are:

3) Is Barack Obama in compliance with the employment eligibility requirements of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986?

4) Is Barack Obama in compliance with the employment eligibility requirements of the Selective Service System? (Fraulent or non-existent registration = NOT ELIGIBLE)

I don’t know the truth about the “Obama birth narrative”, but I do know that he has never released a certified document directly from a certificate authority, and the electronic “documents” that he has released all show multiple signs of forgery.

The only “documents” Obama has “released” are three electronic “documents” that are ALL forgories:

1) Short form Certification of Live Birth (*)
2) Long form Certificate of Live Birth
3) Selective Service Registration

(*) Does a rational person trust a JPG image that was posted on the same web site within minutes of an obvious, taunting forgery for “Haye I.B. Ahphorgerie” (“Hey! I be a forgery!”)?

ITguy on March 2, 2012 at 1:18 PM

You’re saying that a particular scanner high end or otherwise, could randomly produce 9 separate layers, that include the green background, most of the black type, a few signature boxes, and the two date stamps at the bottom by simply randomly optimizing the document?

According to the video, they could not get this to replicate because optimization always ended up with many more layers than 9. But you’re saying that they’re wrong, that it could happen randomly?

Pinky promise?

Fish on March 2, 2012 at 12:55 PM

No, not randomly. I’m saying that the algorithm could have broken it into those distinct images and then assembled them as layers.

And as far as the video goes, unless they are using the same scanner and scanner software that the White House used to scan the document, then Arpaio’s “evidence” doesn’t amount to squat.

Again, Arpaio needs to know what scanner and scanner software the White House used to create the image before throwing around terms like “forgery.”

Lawdawg86 on March 2, 2012 at 1:04 PM

I don’t understand…

You’re saying that in order to get those layers to appear the way the did, the scanner the WH applied an algorithm to the document that was purposely written to place those layers the way they did. Someone had to program the scanner to do that? That’s the only way?

What is the benefit? Why would anyone want to create such an algorithm?

Fish on March 2, 2012 at 1:19 PM

I still dont get it. Sorry.

Politricks on March 2, 2012 at 1:16 PM

You’re not the least concerned that the President of the United States presented a forged BC to you?

Won’t 2012 voters be interested in this?

Nixon did much less.

faraway on March 2, 2012 at 1:20 PM

Joe has finally shifted the debate from kookery to Presidential forgery.

faraway on March 2, 2012 at 1:23 PM

You’re saying that in order to get those layers to appear the way the did, the scanner the WH applied an algorithm to the document that was purposely written to place those layers the way they did. Someone had to program the scanner to do that? That’s the only way?

What is the benefit? Why would anyone want to create such an algorithm?

Fish on March 2, 2012 at 1:19 PM

Breaking an image into sub-images is not the only way to do it, but it would certainly be a way of doing it. And the purpose of breaking into multiple images could be image optimization.

Lawdawg86 on March 2, 2012 at 1:24 PM

Okay, so what does that mean?

The PDF is a forgery? Why..What does that accomplish? Why even waste state resources to prove wether a pdf is in fact a forgery or not? Thats not the end right? So wheres the finish line? Is the point theyre trying to get to the one that I made? Is that Hawaii is lying and the President is an illegal immigrant? Or does the sheriff have a team that just cruises the internet and check the validity of PDF files just for kicks and giggles?

I still dont get it. Sorry.

Politricks on March 2, 2012 at 1:16 PM

Why did the Obama administration provide fake documents when they could just as easily have released the real ones? I don’t know.

Why investigate crimes? I think that’s what we pay law enforcement to do–Eric Holder notwithstanding.

ElectricPhase on March 2, 2012 at 1:25 PM

Breaking an image into sub-images is not the only way to do it, but it would certainly be a way of doing it. And the purpose of breaking into multiple images could be image optimization.

Now we’re going in circles.

The videos address the issue of optimization. You can’t produce those layers, randomly that you admitted too already. There’s a logic to these layers.

I want to be crystal clear now… the only way those layers appear the way they do, is if someone writes a program into the scanner that will separate the document into the layers as we see them now. And NO other way.

Right?

Fish on March 2, 2012 at 1:28 PM

Breaking an image into sub-images is not the only way to do it, but it would certainly be a way of doing it. And the purpose of breaking into multiple images could be image optimization.

Lawdawg86 on March 2, 2012 at 1:24 PM

Absolutely true, but not applicable to the pdf we’re discussing. No process with the intent of optimizing a file for storage or transmission would produce that result.

Reasonable doubt is way out of reach.

ElectricPhase on March 2, 2012 at 1:29 PM

A representative with the Hawaii Attorney General’s Office said no one from the Sheriff’s Office ever requested to inspect or collect documents related to the authenticity of Obama’s birth certificate.

hawaii would have let Arpaio see the real deal when they have not let anyone else?

Corley, who is based in Washington, apparently traveled to Hawaii. She said in the letter that she would “be coming to your offices to pick up the copies of the certificates.”

Really? The US Mail or a courier company or even diplomatic courier would not have sufficed. Afraid of letting those things get into someone else’s hands? I’m never even been a birther but the more barry and his people speak the more suspicious the whole thing gets.

peacenprosperity on March 2, 2012 at 1:33 PM

FYI, the PDF was created on a Mac OS X version 10.6.7 using Quartz PDFContext on 4/27/11.

faraway on March 2, 2012 at 1:33 PM

A friend forwarded the following e-mail:
Obama admits he’s not a US citizen – Please watch the 30 sec. Video. Obama admits not being born in Hawaii … He made this statement before he learned that he had to be a natural born citizen in this country to be a candidate for the presidency. If you just watch the first 30 seconds your mouth will drop open. Obama admits he is not a citizen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwhKuunp8D8&feature=player_embedded

I have watched this video. Obama SAYS he was not born in Hawaii, that he was born in Kenya, when he spoke in public to a group of young people. So, either he was, or wasn’t, but he can’t have it both ways.

asouthernbelle on March 2, 2012 at 1:37 PM

The investigators also chronicled a series of allegedly inconsistent and misleading representations that various Hawaii government officials have made over the past five years regarding any original birth records held by the Hawaii Department of Health.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/sheriff-joes-posse-probable-cause-obama-certificate-a-fraud/

and the Honolulu Advertiser published a notice of Obama’s birth the week these records say it happened

Ed, The fact that a birth notice appeared in the paper is not proof. I’m surprised at you! I don’t know where Zero was born. I just don’t really know.

I have no faith in the credibility of the liberal tools in the Hawaian government, and we know they issued phoney paper to many many people until the 70′s when they decided to stop because, well, it was phoney paper.

We know liberal scum will lie and create false documents to serve their purposes. Why then should we accept the veracity of those purposefully issuing false birth documents for DECADES? It makes no sense whatsoever to take anything from people like that at face value.

Zero is not a natural born citizen, in any case, using the metric established by the founders. But he was allowed to skate by the feeble checks we have in place to prevent a non natural born citizen from running.

dogsoldier on March 2, 2012 at 1:37 PM

So dumb this down for me. Basically people are saying that Obama and the State of Hawaii are lying. Obama is not a U.S. citizen and he has convinced the elected officals from the state of Hawaii to participate in a massive cover up? Is that the gist of it?”

No, because the state of Hawaii has never claimed that the document that the gave to Obama, is the one on the WH website.

They said they released to him his original Hawaiian ‘long form’ birth certificate. They never make a claim that what is downloadable from the WH is actually representative of that document.

Hawaii I’m sure has a long form birth certificate, the birth announcements are evidence enough for me of that. The issue is that Hawaii allows foreign births to be registered in Hawaii if one of the parents was a Hawaiian resident.

No one in Hawaii has ever said anything more than they have seen Obama’s original document. So as far as I can see, there has been no coverup, it’s more like a lie of omission.

Because of the laws in Hawaii at the time, simply having a birth certificate from Hawaii is not actual proof that someone was actually born in Hawaii. But the actual document would show that someone was not actually born in Hawaii.

That’s why I find it very interesting that the document supposedly has layers because it was optimized, but it only has a few layers (8 or 9 can’t remember), and it just so happens that 2 of those layers just happen to be the registrars stamp, and the date.

So, let me hypothesize a little.

Obama has a document he’s ready to release.

He sends his lawyer to get a couple (why 2 by the way?) so he can release them.

They need to transfer the registrars stamp and date to the document they created – that’s why those two things are there own layers.

Copying the registrars stamp is a serious felony, so they need to modify it a little – ergo the ‘smiley face’ and the ‘TXE’. Then if the s#1t hits the fan, the person who put it together can claim they were simply creating a parody document to make fun of ‘birthers’.

Mashman on March 2, 2012 at 1:40 PM

OK, now trolls are popping in with disinformation (as usual). The video is clipped, I’m guessing.

faraway on March 2, 2012 at 1:40 PM

asouthernbelle on March 2, 2012 at 1:37 PM

That video is as fraudulent as the PDF on the White House web site.

ITguy on March 2, 2012 at 1:41 PM

The document is definitely irregular, but not at all impossible, as many commenters here are claiming. Lawdawg86 on March 2, 2012 at 12:59 PM

I recognize lawyer speak for ‘I could get a jury to find reasonable doubt’ when I see it.

Could someone write a program to produce something like that pdf? Maybe. Would anyone do it? Never. Not in a million years. Not even the government.

ElectricPhase on March 2, 2012 at 1:09 PM

Exactly. As someone with a LOT of professional experience with Photoshop and Illustrator, I can tell you Lawdawg is just spinning out of control. Sure, the way the document layers in this PDF are constructed is quite “possible” to do in Adobe, but it would take hours and hours of very detailed pro-level work to create all the layers present in that PDF. (They didn’t even do a great job with it, so it was either an amateur, straining at his technical limits for days on end, or a pro who was half-assing a job he knew was illegal as hell and trying to get done with as fast as possible without leaving fingerprints. No professional, however, would forget to ‘Flatten’ or ‘Merge’ his layers at the end though, so that’s the real “tell” for me on this one.)

So WHY? Nobody puts in that kind of work on a document they are not attempting to create a forgery with. It’s a forgery, plain and simple, in my professional opinion. There’s no other logical conclusion to draw from it.

Harbingeing on March 2, 2012 at 1:42 PM

OCON?

Fish on March 2, 2012 at 1:01 PM

Official Certification of Nomination

I have known about the OCON problem forever, but I may have some details slightly off because long ago I gave up trying to get answers. Here’s the gist of the issue: Someone(s) in Hawaii refused to certify that Obama was constitutionally eligible for the presidency because he refused to provide documentation. To get around the problem and make sure he was on the ballot, Nancy Pelosi signed two versions of that form. One said he was eligible and it was given to Hawaii. The other 49 states were given a document that left out the constitutional eligiblity language.

This is long, but it explains the problem and you can see and compare the documents for yourself. There is no reasonable explanation. It’s a big problem for Obama, Pelosi and the Democrats in Hawaii.

Stayright on March 2, 2012 at 1:43 PM

No professional, however, would forget to ‘Flatten’ or ‘Merge’ his layers at the end though, so that’s the real “tell” for me on this one.)

Harbingeing on March 2, 2012 at 1:42 PM

My guess is that they thought the PDF creation process would flatten it and erase the layer tracks.

faraway on March 2, 2012 at 1:44 PM

Could someone write a program to produce something like that pdf? Maybe. Would anyone do it? Never. Not in a million years. Not even the government.

ElectricPhase on March 2, 2012 at 1:09 PM

Dude, it’s called Acrobat. And there are many other pieces of software that can export a PDF. No one would have to write ANYTHING.

dogsoldier on March 2, 2012 at 1:45 PM

Again, Arpaio needs to know what scanner and scanner software the White House used to create the image before throwing around terms like “forgery.”

Lawdawg86 on March 2, 2012 at 1:04 PM

Arpaio could have just looked at the properties of the WH PDF file to find out that information. That discloses that the WH PDF was “made/scanned” by Apple Preview on a Mac OS X 10.6.7 system. The PDF Encoder was Mac OS X 10.6.7 Quartz PDFContext.

That Arpaio’s posse was either too uninformed to take this preliminary step or willfully ignorant is unclear. This information is apparent for any and all who download the WH pdf of the birth certificate.

Instead of trying to reproduce the PDF by running the same program and same scanner, the Posse instead used an entirely different program and different scanner. They used a PC program from Adobe to prove that the document scanned by a Mac program from Apple couldn’t be replicated by Adobe/PC.

No kidding. Using a different program built for a different system running off a differnt scanner doesn’t exactly replicate the results. I’m shocked. /sarc.

So in a nutshell, the “proof” offered by the posse is that We couldn’t recreate this exact document using completely different tools on a completely different computer system.

The Birther’s will never stop. There is literally no proof that can be offered that will make them stop. The most it can do is make them pause while they come up with an even more far fetched reason to not believe the evidence presented.

New_Jersey_Buckeye on March 2, 2012 at 1:45 PM

the more barry and his people speak the more suspicious the whole thing gets.

peacenprosperity on March 2, 2012 at 1:33 PM

Bingo!

ITguy on March 2, 2012 at 1:48 PM

Update: A good reminder from commenter Tom Servo: “[I]f you remember Rathergate, you will remember that all document certification professionals agree that a copy of an original can *never* be certified as an original or a fake, since too many uncertainties are created by the duplication process. Only the original can be certified;

Then let us see the original!

the failure to ask to see the original is pretty good proof that this commission was a joke right from the get-go.” Indeed. One would think professional “investigators” would know this.

But Obooba gets a pass for failure to release the original?

Akzed on March 2, 2012 at 1:48 PM

There is literally no proof that can be offered that will make them stop. The most it can do is make them pause while they come up with an even more far fetched reason to not believe the evidence presented.

New_Jersey_Buckeye on March 2, 2012 at 1:45 PM

The original long form birth certificate would do. It has never been released by the Zero. EVER.

Put up or shut up, skippy.

dogsoldier on March 2, 2012 at 1:48 PM

Exactly. As someone with a LOT of professional experience with Photoshop and Illustrator, I can tell you Lawdawg is just spinning out of control. Sure, the way the document layers in this PDF are constructed is quite “possible” to do in Adobe, but it would take hours and hours of very detailed pro-level work to create all the layers present in that PDF. (They didn’t even do a great job with it, so it was either an amateur, straining at his technical limits for days on end, or a pro who was half-assing a job he knew was illegal as hell and trying to get done with as fast as possible without leaving fingerprints. No professional, however, would forget to ‘Flatten’ or ‘Merge’ his layers at the end though, so that’s the real “tell” for me on this one.)

So WHY? Nobody puts in that kind of work on a document they are not attempting to create a forgery with. It’s a forgery, plain and simple, in my professional opinion. There’s no other logical conclusion to draw from it.

Harbingeing on March 2, 2012 at 1:42 PM

Imma play devils advocate: When the WDN guy scanned the document, it separated it into the layers as we see them now.

The layers are the smoking gun to me. I need to see how to get those layers the way the did, innocently and randomly. Show me how those layers can be created without any fraud taking place.

Please and thank you.

Fish on March 2, 2012 at 1:49 PM

So in a nutshell, the “proof” offered by the posse is that We couldn’t recreate this exact document using completely different tools on a completely different computer system.

New_Jersey_Buckeye on March 2, 2012 at 1:45 PM

So, what’s your explanation of the “unique” two-digit year on Obama’s Selective Service registration card?

ITguy on March 2, 2012 at 1:49 PM

Unfortunately for the Obama worshippers, and the Obama apologists, the focus has now shifted to forgery and away from citizenship/birthplace, etc.

Obama is in deep doodoo.

faraway on March 2, 2012 at 1:50 PM

Arpaio could have just looked at the properties of the WH PDF file to find out that information. That discloses that the WH PDF was “made/scanned” by Apple Preview on a Mac OS X 10.6.7 system. The PDF Encoder was Mac OS X 10.6.7 Quartz PDFContext.

That Arpaio’s posse was either too uninformed to take this preliminary step or willfully ignorant is unclear. This information is apparent for any and all who download the WH pdf of the birth certificate.

Instead of trying to reproduce the PDF by running the same program and same scanner, the Posse instead used an entirely different program and different scanner. They used a PC program from Adobe to prove that the document scanned by a Mac program from Apple couldn’t be replicated by Adobe/PC.

No kidding. Using a different program built for a different system running off a differnt scanner doesn’t exactly replicate the results. I’m shocked. /sarc.

So in a nutshell, the “proof” offered by the posse is that We couldn’t recreate this exact document using completely different tools on a completely different computer system.

The Birther’s will never stop. There is literally no proof that can be offered that will make them stop. The most it can do is make them pause while they come up with an even more far fetched reason to not believe the evidence presented.

New_Jersey_Buckeye on March 2, 2012 at 1:45 PM

EM.

So you’re saying that you could also randomly produce the same exact layers if you used the same exact setup?

Fish on March 2, 2012 at 1:52 PM

They can mock and belittle me all they want. I have never made any wild accusations. I presume he was born in this country. I have, however, repeatedly asked for a coherent and reasonable explaination of the dual OCON issue. No one has yet taken me up on it. I’m an old prosecutor. I understand how easy it is to be fooled by a “fact” and I know when something is off. That one piece of the puzzle–dualing OCONs–is enough to warrant extreme skepticism about his official biography. The one “fact” that may have fooled people is the birth announcement. Some give that “fact” way too much weight. If I am ever tried for a crime, I want them on the jury.

Stayright on March 2, 2012 at 1:00 PM

I’m in the boat with you.

I’ve been following the BC issue almost since its beginning, and I haven’t made any wild accusations either (I understand the concept of not going beyond the evidence you have), but it doesn’t matter to these idjits. I’ve pointed out elsewhere on HA that it’s not good enough for them if you’re not a Birther – they demand that you be an Anti-Birther, too, or they’ll consider you one of Them even if you haven’t formed your final opinion yet. They are beyond reason.

You mention the OCONs – interesting stuff. Everything else you said is also true. When you take what we see with the OCONs, and put it together with the other factual pieces of the puzzle we have on hand, the pattern immediately jumps out at you – nearly every piece of evidence which would probably resolve the issue one way or the other is missing, and common sense says that’s more than coincidental. Combine that with the fact that Hawaiian officials have told so many untruths about LFBCs which would serve no other apparent purpose than to protect 0bamessiah’s backside, the question, ‘Is there a coverup?’ invariably morphs into, ‘Why is there a coverup?’

Bizarro No. 1 on March 2, 2012 at 1:55 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6