At 08:40 PM 8/9/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:
Weapons-grade Balonium....
Everyone with half a brain cell knows that what
he released was faked. But I guess I can
forgive you because you don't have half a brain cell.
Attempting to use my quarter-cell, I wasted an
entire day researching the birther claims. Let's
say that Jojo's position appears to be that
anyone who agrees with the strong majority of
experts and commentators is stupid.
The evidence out there had me going for a short
time. I found some stuff by Miss Tickle that
seemed to show clear evidence of image
alteration. I did suspect it, but, hey, it looked
bad! So I checked it out further. Yes. I could
see in the originals presented by Miss Tickle
that the image was a jpeg and had been through
lossy compression. I didn't know the specifics of
this to be sure about the effect, but I did
somewhat suspect that sections of the image, say
the check boxes, were identical to other
sections, at the pixel level, as being caused by
the compression algorithm. I.e., one image of a
box was repeated as being considered by the
algorithm, as sufficiently identical to allow the
transmission of a single image that is repeated.
So the real story: the images released were
compressed. Like, that was obvious from a quick
glance. If you look at the text on the LFBC,
you'll see a halo around the text. That's an
artifact of compression. If the image were not
compressed, those images would be huge.
Compressing images is routine in web
presentations. I don't know if an uncompressed
scan is available. Ideally, it should be. Lossy
compression was used, because it is more
effective. It's also possible that the images
were enhanced to improve legibility.
But the real point is entirely missed. Legally,
it's not the image that counts, it is the
certification of the public official that the
document is a true copy. If someone was taking
such a certified document and altering it,
presenting it publically, to obtain an advantage,
that would probably be a felony, and one very easily established.
To obtain a legal right, one would have to
present the original signed and sealed document.
I've been through this. Copies are completely
inadequate, unless themselves certified under
oath (and thus penalty of perjury). You can't get
a passport, for example, by presenting an
uncertified copy of a birth certificate. You need
a certified copy, with the state seal and an original official signature.
I saw all kinds of crazy reasons given why the
LFBC must be a forgery. For example, there is
another LFBC out there for the same hospital, a
birth the next day or so. It's a standard
old-time copy, the kind I've gotten many times
when I've requested a copy of my birth
certificate (from 1944, Los Angeles). It's a
negative, there was a common method of making
cheap copies before xerography,
quasi-photographic. The recent copy provided by
the state to Obama for release is xerographic,
probably, or perhaps scanned and printed, on the
green security paper. Again, I think I've seen copies like that.
In addition, there is an issue of the serial
numbers. There seems to be an assumption that
births at the same hospital will necessarily be
serialized in order of birth. Nope. It depends on
exact procedures. I don't know the exact
procedure, and even if I did, there would be no
guarantee that this procedure was actually
followed in 1961 in this particular case. Clerks
do all kinds of irregular things, and all they
really care about with the serial numbers is that
no two birth certificates have the same number.
Sequence is legally meaningless, so no major
effort is put into it. Once you realize that the
number on the certificate is not the sequence of
birth, that the numbers are state-assigned and
that births are coming in from many hospitals and
other sources (not all babies are born in
hospitals) and that registration of births can be
substantially delayed, both within and without
the law, the numbers really don't mean anything.
The birthers are able to assert a huge pile of
"signs" that the birth certificate(s) are bogus.
These assertions are contradictory to each other.
For example, the name of the hospital is claimed
to be an anachronism, in one set of birther
claims, while others show the twin births at the
same hospital and allege the problem with serial
number sequence, and still others claim that the
twin birth certificates are themselves forgeries,
because the mother was allegedly a communist, or something like that.
Sane conservatives have long ago abandoned the
birther myth. We are, here, not dealing with a
sane conservative. We are dealing with a fanatic.
You say that the Vault BC can not be obtained
easily. You say they do not have procedures for
getting the real Long Form Vault BC. You say this are not publicly accessible.
That's been noted by the official in charge.
However, there are also inconsistent statements
out there. All this points to what should be
commonly known. People make mistakes. Someone
somewhere assumed that the paper originals had
been destroyed, and said so. That was an error,
plain and simple. It does appear that you can get
a long form certificate on some showing that you
need it. There is a fee, and these are not, like
short form certificates, available over the counter immediately.
It did take special permission to get a long form
copy. Others have obtained such copies. It's a
different and more difficult procedure than
obtaining the short form copy, which is quickly
done because all they need to do is put some
security paper in the printer and press a button. That will be $10, please.
You say there are no other "Vault"
certificate Well, tell that to the Nordyke
twins who were born within days of Bambi and
they can show us their long form BC, which they
obtained publicly, which they obtained easily
within days of their request. Why doesn't
bambi have something like the BC of the Nordyke twins.
There is no "bambi." The Obama LFBC and the
Nordyke twins LFBC look identical to me. Maybe
there is a different Nordyke twins LFBC than what
I've seen, but the image that was widely shown
was a negative, obtained by the woman years ago
(1966, actually, the date is on it). The Obama
copy is a positive, like what I've seen more
recently from birth certificates; made by a
xerographic process or possibly even scanned and
printed. The original in both cases looks like
the same form. In fact, that point has been made,
it's been asserted that Obama's LF was
fraudulently assembled from the Nordyke twins
LFBC. You can't have it both ways.... unless you are a birther.
The reasonable meaning for "vault" certificate
would be the copy that is in a bound volume, kept
under lock, i.e., unauthorized access is not
allowed. Apparently that copy has been shown to
some people, they have reported seeing it. The
released version Obama LFBC was clearly a photo
or xerox of the bound copy, you can see the
distortion where the binding exists. The bound
copy is not on security paper, by the way.
Jojo, I investigated this from your claims, and
your claims are bogus, made-up. You are totally
incautious about what you say. Yes, the Nordyke
twins were born within days of Obama, at the same
hospital. The image shown widely did not come
with a statement of provenance, showing what you
seem to claim as established knowledge, a recent
acquisition "within days of their request." If
so, they would be different. These were old
negative copies. At least that's how it looks
from a shallow one day of research. And, today, a
few minutes ago, I realized that the Nordyke
certificates would have the date of certification on them, so I looked. 1966.
See
http://www.wnd.com/files/Obama_LFBC_Report_final_draft.pdf
a birther report, very clearly, that radically
misrepresents many features of the certificates.
For example, it questions the security paper
background, as if this were something added by
Obama. No, the Hawaii Department of Health
obviously provided the copy on security paper,
the same as the short form. That's a modern
practice, I've seen it with other birth certificates.
The "Report" treats the normal artifacts of pdf
compression as if they were suspicious. I can
affirm that I'd love to see an uncompressed image
of the certificate. But it would be a huge file,
and downloads of this would place high demands on the server....
From the "LFBC Report final draft,", as examples of the issues raised:
ÂÂWhy is there an odd excessive typesetting space between the
number 4 and comma in the birth date?
Well, one of the likely explanations is that the
typist preparing the certificate was interrupted.
I've typed forms on a manual typewriter, and
Stuff Happens. The paper is not necessarily
firmly held in the typewriter, the typist may
release it many times, making adjustments to get
the typing to fit in the form spaces. Yes, it's
odd that it would happen in the middle of
entering the date. But lots of things in life are odd.
ÂÂAfrican is not a race. Would American be a race? It may not
be politically correct, but in 1961, the option for race would
have been Negronot African which is another odd artifact
out of place with the context of the historical time and place
an anachronism.
The information on the father would be supplied
by the mother, generally. If the mother said,
"African," it's quite possible that it would be
accepted. Given that the father *was* African,
i.e., Kenyan, it's not surprising at all. By
1961, and given that the father was a student,
and not at all under the influence of American
ideas about race, "African" is not an anomaly or
anachronism. Race is not a reality, it's a social
convention. I would be horrified to see my
daughter called "Negro." She is Kambata. Even
"Ethiopian" would tell you almost nothing
relating to "race." You'd never get what she
looks like from it, unless you imagine that all
people with dark skin look alike-- and her skin
is much darker than "Ethiopian" might imply --
and "Negro" would say far, far less. Only to
"whites" would "Negro" make much sense, and
Hawaii, as a vibrant, multicultural society, even
then, would be unlikely to insist on narrow racial categories.
What "option for race"? It's a blank to be filled
in. If the mother only said "African," a typist
is supposed to correct it? Really?
ÂÂSpeaking of anachronismsin 1961, when typewriters were
used, the typist would move to the next line, and items started
in a standard left margin (unless the typist purposely tabbed
over to a different location on the document). Thus most of the
left margin text would consistently line up at the same point.
Depends on whether or not the typist releases the
document. Different typewriters had different
levels of possible release. You could release,
maintaining horizontal position, or completely
release the paper. I had many different typewriters over the years.
Figure 13 is explained below, and can be used to compare the
margin line text in the Nordyke certificate with Obamas in
Figure 12. Nothing is properly aligned in Obamas document.
Different typists did different things. It would
take much more detailed analysis than this
"expert" provided, and it's all legally
irrelevant. In order to demonstrate Obama's
citizenship through a birth certificate,
presenting an image would be legally inadequate,
ordinarily. One would have to present the
state-certified and sealed document. See below.
I've been through all this, I had to establish my
birth about a half-dozen times in the process of
adopting two children. Copies, no good. Sealed,
notarized documents necessary, with state
certification of the notarization.... and then in
the case of China, the Chinese embassy's
certification of the state certification....
ÂÂFigure 12 v Figure 13: If Obama was born the day before the
birth date shown in Figure 13, then why would his certificate
number be greater? Wouldnt a smaller certificate number
be consistent with the earlier birth date and the earlier Date
Accepted (filed date)?
This, as noted by WND, depends on state
procedures for assigning numbers, where the only
concern is the uniqueness of the number, there is
no precaution to maintain date sequence, and, in
fact, that is nearly impossible. It's unclear
what the procedure was, and some sources seem to
make unwarranted assumptions about the process.
It is not clear when or where the number is
assigned. The Nordyke mother seemed to assume
that numbers were assigned when she went into
labor, which is highly unlikely. Without knowing
the actual process, we could speculate about the
numbers until the cows come home. All legally irrelevant.
ÂÂWhere is the State seal? Who has an official birth certificate
document that is missing a seal?
These seals often don't copy well. I've seen
certified documents without the seals, in fact,
sometimes the signature is considered enough, it
varies from state to state. Legally, the seal
makes it harder to forge a document, but with any
document that is going to be widely examined,
forgery is *extremely unlikely*, since the
official whose certification is being forged
(i.e., the certified document is altered from
what he or she attested is a true copy of what's
on file) is being impersonated, in effect, is
likely to object! And if he or she doesn't
object, they might be then vulnerable to negligence charges, at best.
The original document is presumably still in the
bound volume, and could easily be examined under
court order. Without that order, these are
private documents, accessible only according to
the rules. Parents are given a copy of the
original long form, typically, at at one time,
these copies may have been readily available.
With computerization of records, obviously in
Hawaii, they prefer to give out the short form,
which contains information that was more easily
digitized, and which can be printed on security paper.
ÂÂWhy is there a background pattern? The Obama administration
claims the pattern was added for security purposesbut isnt
that admitting to altering the document? Is the administration
trying to create a frame of hiding the edits in plain site by
saying Yes, we edited the document to add security paper.
And why would this even be necessary?
This is *totally stupid.* Brraaappp! The birth
certificate was issued on security paper. I've
gotten these. They photocopy it onto security
paper, and only the original document, unaltered,
has legal force. That's why it's ordinarily
embossed with a seal, in fact. It's a lot harder to alter the seal.
I would assume that if the Obama administration
actually wanted to forge a document, they would
use CIA-level skilled personnel to do it. And
you'd not see anything suspicious, exccept for
the kinds of suspicion that birthers can invent
*about anything*. They would use security paper,
they would make a seal if they need to, or "borrow" one.
ÂÂWhy would the date at the bottom of the document display
different type fonts? The font used for the year is clearly a
different font than the one used for the day. Under what
circumstances would you change fonts while typing a date?
Even if a stamp was used to stamp a date, wouldnt the stamp
be made with the same consistent font?
Not necessarily. One clerk might use an alterable
date stamp, which will often have different fonts
for the day and year. The year is not alterable,
these stamps had the full four-digit year as one
setting. Likewise the 12 months. Another might
use separate stamps. This "expert" is utterly
ignorant of what original documents would look
like. If this were a forged document, the forger
would surely attempt to make the document look as
much alike similar documents from the time as possible.
Jojo continues his rant:
I suppose the Nordyke twins faked their long
form BC to show to us; while bambi being a
consumate muslim would not lie and hence his BC
he posted was real. OK, whatever ....
Once birthers realized that the Nordyke twins
documents actually confirmed certain aspects of
the Obama document, they started claiming that
the Nordyke twins LFBCs were forged, that Nordyke
was a communist, and we all know about communists, right?
I think it extremely likely that the posted Obama
LFBC is thoroughly authentic, through multiple
evidences. This has nothing to do with anyone
being Muslim. It does have to do with some people
being of ordinary intelligence or higher. And some others not.
There is no reason to doubt the Nordyke twins
LFBCs, which were *not* as this birther claims. Jojo wrote, to repeat:
You say there are no other "Vault" certificate
Well, tell that to the Nordyke twins who were
born within days of Bambi and they can show us
their long form BC, which they obtained
publicly, which they obtained easily within days
of their request. Why doesn't bambi have
something like the BC of the Nordyke twins.
This is a typical fanatic debate tactic, to claim
that a third party must be lying if what the opponent says is true.
The Nordyke LFBCs were released some years ago.
Jojo provides, as usual, no source for his claim
about provenance. One has to search to try to
confirm his claims; he treats the necessary
information as if it were common knowledge.
Obama's LFBC looks identical in form to the
Nordyke twins certificates. However, Jojo, if
he's actually familiar with the evidence, or
there is some *other* set of Nordyke birth
certificates out there, is lying. The Nordyke
certificate that I just looked at was certified
in 1966. So the kids were five years old and the
mother needed a copy of the birth certificates.
They were copies of the long form. The short form
probably did not exist then, at all. That form
was developed when the records were computerized,
and Hawaii eventually tired of the special work
involved in creating long form copies, and went
to push-a-button short form certificates, having
entered the critical information from the long
forms into a computer. My guess is that they have
also microfilmed the originals for security. Stuff happens to paper records.
But the originals do exist, in a bound volume, as
of the provision of the Obama LF.
Jojo
PS. I know for a fact that Jesus Christ does
not like lying so I am not lying.
You are, then, in reckless disregard of the truth.
What I do know is that allah (aka Satan) is a liar and the father of lies.
"Allah" means, in Arabic, "The god," i.e., God.
(So you are lying again. Arab Christians would
*never* say what you just said. To make up and
say about God what you do not know is culpable,
and you imagine that your cries of "Lord, Lord!"
will protect you. They won't. I have that on good authority.
That is why, you as an allah slave have no
compunction at all about your blatant lies.
Point to one, I'm obligated to look at and consider your claim.
That is why Bin Laden has no compunction in lying to kill people.
Bin Laden claims to be a Muslim just as you claim
to be a Christian, with about as much justification.
(Remember, you started this religious
attack. This is your third post with religious
attacks. I never initiate a personal attack but I will give as good as I take.)
You'd never consider turning the other cheek?
That's eye for an eye, not the Christian
practice. In fact, my unfortunate brother, you
are full of hatred, quite like Bin Laden. Until
you recognize this and repent, you are actually
doomed. Perhaps you could ask Jesus for help, I
fully trust that if you pray to the highest,
sincerely seeking guidance, you will find help.
Do listen to the response you get to your prayer,
and consider if it really is coming from Jesus or
God. Jesus has a quite clear and recognizable
personality, and, hint, he doesn't hate people.
Satan hates people and loves to create enmity
between them, and his voice is also recognizable,
if you will pay attention. Satan speaks to you
from a place you don't recognize, that's Qur'an.
My gloss: it sounds like yourself. "He's a liar.
Why, that's true. I'm right, and this must be
from God, because it's right. Thanks, God, for confirming that I'm right."
In fact, for a real believer, the conversation is
more likely to end with "Thanks, God, for showing me my errors."
