Techdude delivers a final report that exceeds my wildest expectations. It is irrefutable, empirical evidence - Obama's birth certificate is a forgery. Why? Why a COLB (certificate of live birth) forgery? That is the question.
My deepest thanks and appreciation for Techdude's unwavering commitment to the truth despite the threats and harassment, the slashed tires and the dead animal on his porch.
Insofar as "techdude's" credentials, he is an active member of the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, American College of Forensic Examiners, The International Society of Forensic Computer Examiners, International Information Systems Forensics Association - the list goes on. He also a board certified as a forensic computer examiner, a certificated legal investigator, and a licensed private investigator. He has been performing computer based forensic investigations since 1993 (although back then it did not even have a formal name yet) and he has performed countless investigations since then.
Here is his analysis:
Obama’s Birth Certificate – CHANGE you can believe in.
I have decided to leave out the low level technicalities and the how-to section of this report due to a lack of time and more importantly I want to get the facts out as quickly as possible. As some of you may or may not know some asshat decided to track me down and vandalize my car and hang a dead mutilated rabbit from my front door in a lame attempt to intimidate me from proceeding with releasing any details of my analysis. They did succeed in delaying the report by a few days but instead of deterring me they just really pissed me off. To their credit, if I had not taken a few days off from the analysis I would have missed the most damning piece of evidence – the remnants of the previous security border. So to the demented retard who slaughtered an animal to make a point – f*ck you and thank you. And because of the amazing number of violent psychopaths who seem to be drawn to this issue, I am not going to use or supply any details that can be used to identify the owners of the COLBS used in the analysis except for those which have already been publicly disclosed. If the owners want to come forward on their own that is entirely their decision. Now let’s get to the summarized report.
In questioned document analysis there are several methods for detecting forgeries – the most basic of which is to conduct a side by side evaluation of known good samples to compare against the questioned one and to use an alternate light source to highlight the changes in the color and density of the inks and paper. In the case at hand there are no questioned physical documents to examine so I used the same basic techniques modified for the digital age for use in computer forensic analysis.
The following analysis was conducted using various Hawaiian COLBS issued over a multi-year time frame ranging from 2001 through 2008 but this report will focus only on the results from the March 2007 through June 2008 certificates for accurately comparing against the KOS image purportedly printed by the Health Department of Hawaii in June 2007. I am only interested in comparing apples to apples as they say but I will touch on some of the other years for a brief comparative and observational analysis.
Since the image presented is a graphical image and not a physical certificate I made the concerted effort to track down known good certificates and certificates images to use for the analysis. Thanks to several individuals I managed to collect and review multiple images of certificates issued between 2001 through 2003 all of which bore an identical layout to the previous Decosta image which was issued during the same time frame. Several more certificate images and physical certificates were also sent to me of certificates issued between 2006 through 2008 directly by their respective owners. All of the 2006 through 2008 certificates bore an identical layout to one another. Several copies of the images were created to allow digital modifications to be made without altering the original images. MD5 and SHA1 signatures were generated for each of the images and their duplicates. The signatures of the duplicates matched against their originals and the original images were then moved to a separate protected directory on the server.
By separating the certificate issue dates into groups the pre-2006 certificates show a clearly different security border design than the more recent 2006 through 2008 design. There were no other visually detectible modifications to the layout of the certificates between all time frames aside from the additional change from the DATE ACCPETED to DATE FILED headings.
Image 1. 2001 – 2008 border patterns
All known good certificate images from all time frames examined shared an apparent identical layout and font. Each of the available un-cropped full certificate images, from all time frames, showed the security borders to be almost perfectly centered from left to right within the lower 2/3 rd portion of the 8 ½ x 11 inch page with all deviations off center being within 15 pixels. Measurements were taken from the top left, top right, bottom left, bottom right, center top, and center bottom of each images security border to the edges of the visible paper which appeared as hard edges with the top cover of the scanners creating whitespace.
Image 2. Measurements
The embossed seals and ink stamps in all of the pre-2006 images are clearly visible in the scans however none of the post-2006 seals or ink stamps are visible without extensive manipulation to the digital images. Even when scanning the physical post-2006 certificate in my possession using multiple resolutions and using multiple scanners I was also unable to produce an image which would allow the seal to show though the image. The ink stamps on the rear side were also not visible in the front side scans without digital modifications to the scanned images. My scans of the physical certificate also produced the same results using multiple resolutions and using multiple scanners.
The post-2006 COLBs were then compared against one another for a direct 1:1 comparison. Using copies of the images I digitally enhanced and modified the scans by removing only the hatch pattern background and then removing the merged information fields leaving just the raw document templates and saving them as a series of digital overlay templates. When the 2006 overlay was placed on top of the 2007 image they matched from corner to corner with some minor variations on the minute angle of the images. The fonts were observed to be in the same locations and of the same size and kerning. The procedure was then used with the 2006 overlay on top of the 2008 image. Once again, they matched from corner to corner with some minor variations on the minute angle of the images. The fonts were observed to be in the same locations and of the same size, style, and kerning. The 2007 overlay was then applied on top of the 2008 image. The 2007 and 2008 also matched from corner to corner with some minor variations on the minute angle of the images. The fonts were observed to be in the same locations and of the same size, style, and kerning. Having verified that all of the examined post-2006 certificates were identical in form and substance I then focused the rest of the analysis using the 2007 and 2008 COLB KOS image to pin the document into the middle of the known time frame.
Image 3. Overlays
The same measurement methodology was used against the full un-cropped KOS image and showed the security borders to be uncentered from left to right within the lower 2/3 rd portion of the 8 ½ x 11 inch page with a deviation from the other measurements off center being the average of 75 pixels – a 60 pixel greater deviation. Measurements were taken from the top left, top right, bottom left, bottom right, center top, and center bottom of each images security border to the edges of the visible paper which appeared as hard edges with the top cover of the scanners creating whitespace. The differences are also detectible visually without the use of digital enhancements.
Image 4. measurement comparisons
The previously created overlays were placed on top of the image. When the 2007 overlay was placed on top of the image they did not immediately line up. After being matched from security border corner to security border corner with some minor variations on the minute angle of the images the security border pattern obviously did not match in pattern or in color. The fonts were observed to not be in the same locations and they also did not share same kerning. The procedure was then used with the 2008 overlay on top of the KOS image. Once again when the 2008 overlay was placed on top of the image they did not immediately line up. After being matched from corner to corner like the 2007 overlay again with some minor variations on the minute angle of the images the security border pattern obviously did not match in pattern or in color. The fonts were observed to not be in the same locations on the page and they also did not share same kerning.
Image 5. with 2007 and 2008
overlays
A direct relative comparison using unmodified copies of the original images were made in regards to the security border pattern and color. Several distinctions were noted from the 2007 / 2008 certificate security border versus the security border used in the KOS image.
Image 6. Border comparisons
Direct relative measurements using unmodified copies of the original images were made in regards to the font size and kerning. Several letters were distinctly different in width and kerning from the 2007 / 2008 certificate font versus the font used in the KOS image such as O, H, N, R, and C.
Images 7 – 9. Animated GIFs showing kerning differences
The metadata and EXIF information was then extracted from the 2007, 2008, and the two images. The metadata extracted from the JPG files consisted of the quantization tables used for compressing the image and the EXIF data if it was present.
The 2007 image’s rate of compression was calculated to an approximated 75% quality factor at 300 dpi with an image size of 2550 x 3300 pixels in a portrait orientation and contained no EXIF data.
The 2008 image’s rate of compression was calculated to an approximated 80% quality factor at 300 dpi with an image size of 2550 x 3300 pixels in a portrait orientation and also contained no EXIF data.
The un-cropped image’s rate of compression was calculated to an approximated 90% quality factor at 300 dpi with an image size of 2550 x 3300 pixels in a portrait orientation and also contained the following relevant EXIF data:
[Software ] = Adobe
Photoshop CS3 Macintosh
[DateTime ] = 2008: 06:12 08:42:36
[ColorSpace ] = 65535
[ExifImageWidth ] = 2550
[ExifImageHeight] = 3300
Raw Image Orientation = Portrait
Photoshop Save As Quality = [8]
Photoshop Save Format = [Progressive]
The cropped image’s rate of compression was calculated to an approximated 50% quality factor at 300 dpi with an image size of 2427 x 2369 pixels in a landscape orientation and also contained the following relevant EXIF data:
[Software ] = Adobe
Photoshop CS3 Macintosh
[DateTime ] = 2008: 06:12 08:42:36
[ColorSpace ] = 65535
[ExifImageWidth ] = 2427
[ExifImageHeight] = 2369
Raw Image Orientation = Landscape
The 2007, 2008, and the two KOS images were then analyzed by creating a heat map showing where each pixel changes as jpeg quality decreases from 100 to 0. A change was considered relevant once the sum of the changes to the red, green, and blue values exceeded 10%. The heat map created from the 2007 and 2008 images showed the fonts, seal image, and security border are all identical consistent values. To eliminate any subjective presumptions and to increase the number of comparative tests the same analysis was then conducted on the 2006 and prior certificate images which all found the fonts, seal images, and security borders to also be saved with identical consistent values. The same analysis on the KOS images showed the security border having a substantially different RGB quality value than the fonts and the seal image.
Image 10. RGB value heat maps
Image 11. Detailed images of RGB value heat maps
The 2007, 2008, and the two KOS images were also analyzed for jpeg compression variations by creating a heat map showing where the difference for a particular compression level is indicated. A change was considered relevant once the sum of the changes to the error level values exceeded 10% of the previously calculated compression error rates. The heat map created from the 2007 and 2008 images showed the fonts, seal image, and security border are all identical consistent values. To eliminate any subjective presumptions and to increase the number of comparative tests the same analysis was then conducted on the 2006 and prior certificate images which all found the fonts, seal images, and security borders to also be compressed with identical consistent values. The same analysis on the KOS image indicated that the security border has a different error value than the fonts and the seal image.
Image 12. Error level analysis heat maps
Image 13. Detailed images of error level analysis heat map
The image contains numerous visible artifacts located at
various points throughout the image. These artifacts are not found on any other
known good image from any examined time frame. I began creating a pixel level
map of these errors by using a copy of the full un-cropped version and simply
highlighting the areas by drawing a pixel wide line to the left and to the
right of each visible flaw. The left side of the image towards the inside edge
of the security border contained stray vertical lines that did not match up to
any of the jpeg compression artifacts so they were highlighted. The right side
of the image contained visual pixel level inconsistencies in the background
hatch pattern. The right side pattern is visually consistent with the artifacts
left after digitally erasing an area from an image and attempting to rebuild
the background.
Image 14. Some random flaws
highlighted
By connecting the
points together the original placement of what appears to be part of the
original security border becomes apparent. The placement of the lines matches
the expected location of a good security border based on the known placement
from the known good certificates. The width and spacing of the highlighted
areas also match a 1:1 scale overlay from a section of a known good security
border.
Image 15. Connected lines
A close examination
of the security border itself reveals
several repeating inconsistencies. Among them is a “weak line” which repeats once
after every second bold line and a slightly downward curving end point where a
straight line should end. This pattern continues around the entire perimeter of
the security border. Upon very close
inspection portions of the security border also repeat every 240 pixels. By
mapping this repeating pattern it becomes apparent that the pattern is laid out
as a 240 x 240 pixel square that can be accurately extrapolated to the next
position by simply counting 240 pixels. This type of tiling effect is commonly
seen when an image has been modified by filling an area using an image editing
application’s tile or pattern fill function.
Image 16. Mapped border pattern
During the course of
my analysis several calls were made to various departments in the Hawaiian
State Government in an attempt to better understand the process and procedures
used to create, print, and distribute copies of the COLB form. While I was
brushed off or hung up upon by almost all of the people I contacted I did
manage to talk with a computer technician who was familiar with the computers
and printers used by the Department of Health and the clerk’s offices. He was
unwilling to give any specific details but did provide enough information to
work with. The COLB certificates are printed directly in the clerk’s office at
the time they are requested. The system uses a standard laser printer and the
border is printed at the same time as the text and other images on top of
preprinted security paper. He stated the border is a vector image and would
appear crisp and defined. When asked if a COLB can be printed off center he
said it was not possible and any misfeed would simply jam in the printer. When
asked if he had seen the images on-line he
replied that he had – and that there is “no way” they had printed something
that looked like that which further backed up my conclusions.
There are two
obvious scenarios used to create the image
that can be ascertained from evidence. Either a real COLB was scanned into
Photoshop and digitally edited or a real COLB was first scanned to obtain the
graphic layout then blanked by soaking the document in solvent to remove the
toner. After rescanning the blank page to a separate image the graphics from
the previously obtained scan could then be easily applied to the blank scan
after some editing and rebuilding. It would also explain why date stamp bleeds through
the paper and the various bits of toner located around the image as well as the
remnants of the previous location of a security border.
So as I have been saying repeatedly since I first compared the KOS images to the Decosta image using the same tests and measurements – the image is a horrible forgery.
Previously at Atlas: FORENSIC EXPERT: "the [birth] certificate is still a horrible forgery"
Mystery, Clarification and Obfuscation of Obama's Birth Certificate Forgery
Atlas Tech Expert Declares Obama Birth Certificate ...
Who died and made him the final word on Obama's ...
The "Missing" Obama Birth Certificate Seal 6/29/08
SUCH A LIAR: OBAMA'S FAKE BIRTH CERTIFICATE 6/26/08
RELEASE OBAMA'S BIRTH CERTIFICATE! 6/10/08
****Must Cite Pamela Geller and link back to Atlas ****(play nice and honest).
UPDATE: Techdude added this in the comment section:
..some folks asked for it...so here are MORE screen shots. I uploaded a few from the 2001 and 2003 COLB tests and the animated gifs showing the fun pulsating kerning differences ala LGF style.
I assume no one has been able to figure out why the "2007" KOS image manages to have the same placement as a 2003 COLB and not a 2006, 2007, or 2008 COLB yet huh? How about the remnants of the previous border location? Humm...and what about that mis-matching uncentered border with obvious 2 pixel white spaces between the top and bottom headers? Any more novel theories? Space aliens? Right wing conspiracies? Oh I know...it must have all been a "satire" of a real one.
Decosta error level
Decosta RGB Heat map
2003 RGB Heat map
2007 on KOS animated - kerning differences
Animated gif - kerning differences
2003 over 2007
2007 overlay on Decosta
UPDATE: Israeli Insider weighs in here
UPDATE: lol
UPDATE: ACTION ALERT: ANY ATLAS READERS LIVE IN HAWAII? Reader Henry suggested we check the newspapers around the date of his birth in the vital statics area and see if they list his birth. Local libraries usually have old newspapers on microfiche. Depending on the newspaper, they might list the hopital as well as the time, date, parents. It won't tell us religion, color, Arab or African etc.... but it would verify his birthplace.
*** Copyright © 2005-2008 Pamela Geller | All Rights Reserved *** (credit and link back to Atlas)
techdude:
awesome, dude.
it is interesting to see what the apologist[s] for the kos document have to say.
pamela:
yes, atlasshrugs is awesome, too. a really fine, definitive report on the issue of the authenticity of the daily kos document. it is a phoney.
the question must be asked, why has this document been fronted.
the further question must be asked, and it is of most importance, and that is, why has osama bin bama not offered a legitimate certificate of live birth, capable of authentication in proof of his assertion of citizenship.
finally, this observation must be made.-- the democratic party should be very careful that it nominates somebody to run for potus who is, in fact and in law, eligible to be elected to office. those stories circulating of obama's birth in kenya and subsequent application for a c.o.l.b. in hawii take on a new resonance.
john jay
Posted by: jj | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 03:48 AM
the dhimmicrats may be waiting until the election...if oybomba gets in and then is proved ineligible...won't the office go to the vp?
i hope that this will be taken to court asap.
Posted by: kobi | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 04:46 AM
Thank you Techdude! Thank you Pamela!
Posted by: cjean | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 06:51 AM
Excellent work, Techdude!
I have a feeling KOS is about the see what the underside of the bus looks like. As Pamela asks: Why? Why do something this stupid? The answer, or lack thereof, should be interesting, to say the least.
Posted by: JBean | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 07:12 AM
I don't understand.
US law requires Presidents to be native born US citizens.
If someone cannot or refuses to prove it, how can they be a presidential candidate?
Posted by: Shy Guy | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 08:03 AM
With all respect and regard for yourself and techdude -- there is now also a civic duty as great as uncovering the forgery in the identifying, finding and questioning the cretins who vandalized the car and who tortured the rabbit to death, both done to intimidate an investigator into a key matter of a federal election.
Posted by: bvw | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 09:19 AM
The sociologists and statistics experts will find this politically driven erroneous report quite fascinating, and the Mac users will step up their bragging about their superior software.
Posted by: Ray_in_Aus | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 09:58 AM
"Either a real COLB was scanned into Photoshop and digitally edited or a real COLB was first scanned to obtain the graphic layout then blanked by soaking the document in solvent to remove the toner. After rescanning the blank page to a separate image the graphics from the previously obtained scan could then be easily applied to the blank scan after some editing and rebuilding. It would also explain why date stamp bleeds through the paper and the various bits of toner located around the image as well as the remnants of the previous location of a security border."
That would also explain why the border lines are not as crisp (washed out) as on the authentic certificate.
Here's a dumb question - If the seal is impressed on the back of the certificate, and was seen on the front in the KOS certificate, wouldn't the seal appear as a mirror image on the front if stamped on the back? I am not a forensic document examiner, but any bleed through stamps from the back of a document generally appear as a reversed image on the front. Or is the representation here that the KOS certificate was stamped on the front and not on the back (if so, it would further seem that we would have a better image of the seeal)?
Posted by: Spectre | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 10:41 AM
Shy Guy-
There are many qualifications for being a 'native born' citizen. McCain was born in Panama and is fully
ablelegal to be POTUS.If Obomba was naturalized (as my ex is) there would be public records.
If he was born in Kenya and transported to Hawaii then his COLB would have needed to be forged at least by the time he entered public school in Hawaii after returning from Indonesia.
Posted by: turn | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 10:51 AM
hey Ray_in_Aus -- who are you working for?
[to which Ray responded]double negative- literally and metaphorically :)here
Posted by: Pamela Geller | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 11:13 AM
Look, if there was a birth certficate in Kenya, why wouldn't McCain (or the Clintonistas back when she wanted that nomination more than life itself) tracked it down.
Further, why wouldn't the Kenyan President Mwai Kibaki release it. Obama vigorously supported and campaigned for Odinga. Odinga is Kibaki's arch rival and nemesis. Odinga was/is a violent inciter that caused Kibaki and the Kenyan people no small punishment of blood and violence.
Obama and Odinga alliance here. Scroll for campaign pictures of Obama and Odinga together.
All I am saying is we don't know why. The question is why.
Posted by: Pamela Geller | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 11:25 AM
Pamela Geller wrote:
hey Ray_in_Aus -- who are you working for?
someone wrote: "AJ called out Techdude, expert in the field of forensic digital forgery examination in a ridiculously titled post: How 9-11 Helped Cause The Obama Birth Certificate Silliness. The thing I don't understand is why doesn't AJ wait for this expert's full report which we have emphatically made clear would be released shortly."
[to which Ray responded]
Presumably because AJ has an IQ that is high enough for him to see that no credible "report" will never be forthcoming.
double negative- literally and metaphorically :
====================
[Ray]: That minor error ("never" -v- "ever") was the result of inserting alternative text, but I assumed everyone would join the dots. In any case I as right about AJ Strata's IQ. The report is not at all credible.
It might have got 6 out of 10 in a competition to write a fictional account of an Obama COLB forgery, but in a forgery trial the expert witness for the prosecution would probably have the jury laughing, and the prosecutor would be reprimanded and declared to be a vexatious litigant.
Posted by: Ray_in_Aus | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 12:32 PM
lol
Posted by: Pamela Geller | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 12:42 PM
Well obviously not for anything like this.
Posted by: Ray_in_Aus | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 12:48 PM
I don't think all this stuff is going to make one bit of difference to the outcome of the election, in which I believe Obama will win. After what Bill Clinton got away with before and during his presidency, all standards have been discarded. Most of the people voting today don't care about our traditional standards. It looks like a downward trajectory. Another great empire is stumbling to its end.
Posted by: norman | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 12:50 PM
Ray_in_Aus
Its easy to put something down...much harder to prove it... IF this was a trial the other side would bring in a forensics expert of their own to disprove the other's story. WHERE IS YOURS POSTED?
Oh nowhere? so you are criticizing with out expert facts? Sounds like obamas statements on the surge.
Posted by: Yidwithlid | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 01:05 PM
Hey Pam,
excuse my dopiness, but has anyone thought to ask his Grandma? After she shakes off the track marks from the bus I believe she might have some insight as to where the Messiah was born. Perhaps she will say, perhaps not, worth a phone call tho.
And I unfortunately agree with Ray, Obama at one of the debates could emphatically declare, "I was born in Red China and am the Manchurian candidate" and he still would get the votes he's going to get.
Posted by: kingronjo | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 01:11 PM
ray_in_aus:
techdude has said all along that he welcomes peer review of his work.
it is public. it explains his methodology. it has the empirical results of his testing. it is open to scrutiny and criticism.
i suspect, ... , hell, i am fully confident, that it will stand to peer review.
the implications of the report are quite obvious to all but the most incredulous of minds.--the state of hawaii prints consistently good and substantially identical document, e.g., c.o.l.b.'s, every time out the printer, and the daily kos does not measure up in terms of image quality, image, ink mixture, and the very locations and patterns on the borders of the document. the daily kos document, in all probability, therefore, was not printed/created by the state of hawaii, it does not meet its standards of consistency, and the document is a fake and those who propound it do so presumably for ulterior motive.
let us see what the peer review says.
techdude has done a courageous thing. he has prepared his report, he has published it, and he has put it into the public scrutiny where it will stand or fall.
others have voiced opinions, not capable of substantiation, and most certainly not capable of review or testing, and therefore not subject to any meaningful criticism. a test of warm breezes, as it were.
techdude is a stalwart fellow, personally and intellectually. i laud him.
john jay
milton freewater, oregon usa
Posted by: jj | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 01:19 PM
norman wrote:
"I don't think all this stuff is going to make one bit of difference to the outcome of the election [....] "
Of course it won't because Obama WAS born in August 1961 in Hawaii and he DIDN'T participate in any forgery of his COLB. If Obama is the Democrats preferred leader on election day his party should score well and he will not be undermined by any of this eligibility stuff.
This whole issue has made me think more about what AJ said about propaganda - and how some of it gets out of hand. Frankly, I disagree with some of his view about the amount of propaganda that has prevailed, but this whole exercise has put me in a frame of mind to re-visit some of it.
I wasn't aware of how much the media (on both sides of the fence) lied and distorted things until last year when I was following the Gitmo stuff very closely, but this exercise has shown me that the distortion goes way beyond the media.
Posted by: Ray_in_Aus | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 01:20 PM
kingronjo wrote:
And I unfortunately agree with Ray, Obama at one of the debates could emphatically declare, "I was born in Red China and am the Manchurian candidate" and he still would get the votes he's going to get.
-----
I'm not sure what we agree upon, but let me prefix this by saying that personally I'd like to see Hillary win - not because she's the best person for the job, but because she's the best the Democrats can put in the job.
Obama is however looking better all the time (to me) despite him seeming like some sort of 'Hollywood production' built to a winning formula that is guaranteed to suck in the impressionable voters. The only BIG thing he's got (in my book) is his reasonable understanding of Islam as well as the terrorists NOT seeing him as "another white guy with the same old values". That could be good for world peace.
Posted by: Ray_in_Aus | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 01:32 PM
Ray wrote:
I don't think all this stuff is going to make one bit of difference to the outcome of the election, in which I believe Obama will win.
Pretty clear to follow I thought that anything The Messian says or does will not sway those who follow him with a religious fervor. Only hope is the 'bitter clingers' who aren't smart to recognize his perfection.
Posted by: kingronjo | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 01:38 PM
Yidwithlid wrote:
"Its easy to put something down...much harder to prove it... IF this was a trial the other side would bring in a forensics expert of their own to disprove the other's story. WHERE IS YOURS POSTED?" [...]
If there was a trial, the onus would be on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Obama (a) Provided a false birth date and location and (b) Conspired to forge a digital image with the intention to defraud. He would not have to prove a thing. He could however discredit more than enough of the allegations to have the case tossed out of court.
Posted by: Ray_in_Aus | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 01:41 PM
kingronjo wrote:
Ray wrote:
I don't think all this stuff is going to make one bit of difference to the outcome of the election, in which I believe Obama will win.
Pretty clear to follow I thought that anything The Messian says or does will not sway those who follow him with a religious fervor. Only hope is the 'bitter clingers' who aren't smart to recognize his perfection.
I didn't write that - it was norman. You probably got the names mixed up because of the illogical way the names are placed with posts on this blog.
Ray
Posted by: Ray_in_Aus | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 01:46 PM
Obama is however looking better all the time (to me) despite him seeming like some sort of 'Hollywood production' built to a winning formula that is guaranteed to suck in the impressionable voters. The only BIG thing he's got (in my book) is his reasonable understanding of Islam as well as the terrorists NOT seeing him as "another white guy with the same old values". That could be good for world peace.
Don't that say it all? Let me see....(just a few.List too long to type)
Obama understands there are 57 states.
Dead men attend his rallies.....
The japanese dropped a bomb on Pearl Harbor....
and now he understands Islam....
Last and perfect description of all above...BULLLLLL SHIT
Posted by: RISE_UP | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 01:51 PM
Why do you use the Michele COLB to claim that the text in the Obama COLB is in a different location?
Were you not aware of the fact that the location of the text in the Obama COLB is in the SAME location as the text in the DeCosta, Smith and Tomoyasu COLBs? And that it is in fact the text in the Michele COLB which is in a different location than ALL of the others, including Obama's?
Did this oversight occur due to VERY sloppy analysis, or was it an intentional attempt to deceive?
se
Posted by: se | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 02:00 PM
This needs to get out to the American public. I sent it on but others have to, also. How do we get the media to take a look....or a district attorney to have more experts look at Obama's birth certificate? If it is indeed a forgery, this man needs to be prosecuted followed by prison. This is a serious crime.
Posted by: herself311 | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 02:01 PM
john jay wrote:
ray_in_aus:
techdude has said all along that he welcomes peer review of his work.
it is public. it explains his methodology. it has the empirical results of his testing. it is open to scrutiny and criticism.
i suspect, ... , hell, i am fully confident, that it will stand to peer review.
No it won't. It's full of holes.
the implications of the report are quite obvious to all but the most incredulous of minds.--the state of hawaii prints consistently good and substantially identical document, e.g., c.o.l.b.'s, every time out the printer, and the daily kos does not measure up in terms of image quality, image, ink mixture, and the very locations and patterns on the borders of the document.
No, That's not the case at all. They produce 3rd rate images. I've been a graphic reproducer for a long time and I wouldn't dare to delivers stuff like that to a big customer like a Health Department - especially for certificates that people value or treasure.
the daily kos document, in all probability, therefore, was not printed/created by the state of hawaii, it does not meet its standards of consistency, and the document is a fake and those who propound it do so presumably for ulterior motive.
let us see what the peer review says.
Non-peers could knock over most of the report.
techdude has done a courageous thing. he has prepared his report, he has published it, and he has put it into the public scrutiny where it will stand or fall.
Yes, of course it's courageous. A lot of effort has been put in, but I wouldn't be surprised if he was biased before he started. In any case it's a fascinating puzzle for us all to follow, so it's not a waste of time.
others have voiced opinions, not capable of substantiation, and most certainly not capable of review or testing, and therefore not subject to any meaningful criticism. a test of warm breezes, as it were.
I disagree. I think most people's statements could be followed up and the issues could be resolved if there was enough incentive, such as enough readers who wanted a definitive answer about an issue.
techdude is a stalwart fellow, personally and intellectually. i laud him.
Well we've all seen how some high flying lawyers have lost some big cases in the Supreme Courts throughout the years - and they too looked very credible on the surface.
In Australia I think our Federal government loses about 50% of it's cases in the Hight Court (the equivalent of the U.S. Supreme Court).
Ray
Posted by: Ray_in_Aus | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 02:02 PM
My apologies. It wasn't the MicheleCOLB that was used for the text shifting.
However the text location in the Obama COLB is the same as the location for the DeCosta, Smith and Tomoyasu COLBs.
se
Posted by: se | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 02:05 PM
ray_in_aus:
a few simple questions posed to you, and, direct replies from you, if you would.--
why does not the obama for potus campaign simply produce barrack obama's original birth certificate from the state of hawaii, if there is one?
why will not the obama for potus campaign waive all privacy interests in the birth certificate purportedly in the possession of the state of hawaii's department of vital statistics and authorized the registrar of hawaii's vital statistics to release the document to the public?
he is, afterall, running for president of the united states, and should be willing to definitively establish the bona fides of his birth, and of his citizenship. it doesn't seem to be too much to ask of him, after all, he wants so much more from all of us. he wants us to give him the authority of his finger on "the button:" the very least he should do is prove definitively that he is an american citizen eligible to run for president. as a matter of fact, he is legally required to prove that.
john jay
milton freewater, oregon usa
Posted by: jj | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 02:09 PM
ray_in_aus you say its full of holes...PLEASE Get your expert and show us the holes. There is no football on today so I am free all day. Produce your expert because all you are showing is your bravado.
Posted by: Yidwithlid | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 02:11 PM
RISE_UP wrote:
[Ray]: Obama is however looking better all the time (to me) despite him seeming like some sort of 'Hollywood production' built to a winning formula that is guaranteed to suck in the impressionable voters. The only BIG thing he's got (in my book) is his reasonable understanding of Islam as well as the terrorists NOT seeing him as "another white guy with the same old values". That could be good for world peace.
Don't that say it all? Let me see....(just a few.List too long to type)
Obama understands there are 57 states.
Dead men attend his rallies.....
The japanese dropped a bomb on Pearl Harbor....
A few more than one bomb, but there would have been a LOT less bombs dropped if the Australian pilots' frantic messages had been passed on to Pearl Harbor. "Japanese armada heading to Pearl in a scorpion formation" (that formation is an ancient Japanese war formation).
They got us badly on the way back (one third of the fleet). Most of it was kept secret for 60 years.
Ray
Posted by: Ray_in_Aus | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 02:13 PM
I've been reading "Ray_in_Aus" comments, over at AJ's board, as well as here, ever since he inserted himself into this discussion as some kind of "expert"!
Unlike "Techdude", who has proven his expertise, and who is, "Ray", has only hurled insults, and demands that we believe him, with no proof, nor technical analysis.
Even AJ tried to prove it technically.
Now, I'm not a technical "expert"; so I've had to watch this play off between "techdude", and AJ; I think they both have honorable intent, and for the non-technical among us, we have to make our own judgement, based upon the competing versions, and decide who to believe.
But as for "Ray" in Australia, the very fact that he admitted above, that he's a Hillary AND an Obama Fan, immediately Invalidates any and all things he says in this discussion.
End of story; "Ray" has no expertise, and more important, anything he says regarding it is clearly slanted in favor of Obama, thus feel free to ignore any and all his statements henceforth!
PS: "Ray", I was correct, here, and over AJ's, when I said this was a forgery, and once and for all, "techdude" has proven it.
Posted by: Dale in Atlanta | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 02:37 PM
Yidwithlid wrote:
ray_in_aus you say its full of holes...PLEASE Get your expert and
show us the holes. There is no football on today so I am free all day.
Produce your expert because all you are showing is your bravado.
I don't need any hangers' on. I'm an expert in graphic reproduction
myself. Besides that, there's AJ and a few others here who have
already pointed to some of the glaring problems with the allegations
of forgery by Techdude and Polarik.
Ray
Posted by: Ray_in_Aus | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 02:53 PM
"Ray" in Australia, disputing "techdude's" analysis:
"Ah, yeah Mate, like I'm an Expert myself Dude, and ah...I'm in love with Obama, okay dude, so like. er...ah...."techdude's" analysis is all off man, like....really....so now I'm gonna go catch a wave mate, and throw some shrimp on the barbie, dude....er...yeah!"
Posted by: Dale in Atlanta | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 02:57 PM
Dale in Atlanta wrote:
But as for "Ray" in Australia, the very fact that he admitted above, that he's a Hillary AND an Obama Fan, immediately Invalidates any and all things he says in this discussion.
What sort of logic is that? It seems that you mind, a person's technical skills are directly related to their current political opinion?
Also, where on earth did you get the idea that a person's political preference is an "admission". It sounds like your sense of logic is completely whacked.
Posted by: Ray_in_Aus | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 03:01 PM
Let me state my challenge to Polarik and Techdude again:
You show us a small sample of what you reckon the phantom-forger did, and let us show you how e can spot the 'forgery'. Obviously you would need to use different names and dates.
Posted by: Ray_in_Aus | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 03:06 PM
Ray, as "an expert in graphic reproduction" you must have some work you are very proud of having had graphically reproduced? Perhaps you might share some of your portfolio with us?
Best regards!
Posted by: bvw | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 03:07 PM
Ray, there's no "idea" about it; you're in the tank for Obama, by your own admission. That immediatedly invalidates any and all "opinions" or "expertise" you have on this topic.
By your own admission, you are NOT to be considered "unbiased" or someone not having a dog in this fight.
Number two, you denigrate "techdude", and his analysis, but yet you've never supplied your own technical expertise, nor knowledge, just endless pablum about how it's this and that, and so obvious, etc.
For someone who is SUPPOSED to be an "expert"; you've supplied little if any "expertise"!
Finally, "techdude", and I wouldn't know him from Adam, has laid his resume out there, for all to see, and has already been harassed as a result:
Insofar as "techdude's" credentials, he is an active member of the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, American College of Forensic Examiners, The International Society of Forensic Computer Examiners, International Information Systems Forensics Association - the list goes on. He also a board certified as a forensic computer examiner, a certificated legal investigator, and a licensed private investigator. He has been performing computer based forensic investigations since 1993 ....
"Ray", where is YOURS?
Other than an unsupported declaration that "I'm an expert", and then mocking "techdude"'s report, NOTHING, NADA, ZIP, ZILCH!
Okay "expert"; let's see YOUR resume?
Okay "expert", let's see YOUR point-by-point refutation of "techdude's" analysis?
Until you put up, or shut up, YOU GOT NOTHING!
FACT!
Posted by: Dale in Atlanta | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 03:11 PM
Some good technical answers can be found on this new blog:
Get some peanuts and take a seat.
http://koyaan.wordpress.com/
Posted by: Ray_in_Aus | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 03:11 PM
Dale in Atlanta wrote:
Ray, there's no "idea" about it; you're in the tank for Obama, by your own admission. That immediatedly invalidates any and all "opinions" or "expertise" you have on this topic.
According to your err.. 'unusual' sense of the logical, any technical opinion of mine wouldn't be credible anyway because I have expressed a preference for 2 political candidates.
By your own admission, you are NOT to be considered "unbiased" or someone not having a dog in this fight.
You seem incapable of distinguishing between having a "dog in a political *fight*' and having a dog in technical debate. This is NOT a fight. The misguided investigators have been, and will continue to be, corrected.
Ray
Posted by: Ray_in_Aus | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 03:24 PM
Ray the expert graphic designer:
An argument is presented which offers many related details and specific conclusions. You may be an "expert graphic designer" but you are no logician.
If you had the courage of your convictions and the ability you would refute the argument in a systematic way, without relying on solely on your self-proclaimed expertise, and illustrated by facts. The argument is wrong... because you say so. There are expert BS detectors here who see through your lazy invective.
Posted by: nutiket | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 03:29 PM
bvw wrote:
Ray, as "an expert in graphic reproduction" you must have some work you are very proud of having had graphically reproduced? Perhaps you might share some of your portfolio with us?
That would be getting away from the debate. We really need to focus on the array of supposed flaws in Obama's COLB by Polarik and Techdude and see if any of them make sense. I say none of them do.
Posted by: Ray_in_Aus | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 03:33 PM
Apology to Ray: "expert graphic designer" s/b "expert in graphic reproduction". In any event, not a logician. It would be nice to see some expert graphic reproductions since they do appear to be his only relevant qualification.
Posted by: nutiket | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 03:34 PM
Ray- heres the problem, I know techdudes credentials, whats your's please send them to Atlas so she can confirm. Techdude gave us a step by step analysis of why he thinks it is Crap. I am not an expert but it seems believable to me. You are saying that you are an expert, build a case and convince me. I will read it and compare, otherwise you are just giving us a BS line
Posted by: Yidwithlid | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 03:35 PM
This is "techdude":
Insofar as "techdude's" credentials, he is an active member of the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, American College of Forensic Examiners, The International Society of Forensic Computer Examiners, International Information Systems Forensics Association - the list goes on. He also a board certified as a forensic computer examiner, a certificated legal investigator, and a licensed private investigator. He has been performing computer based forensic investigations since 1993 ....
this is "Ray" from Australia:
..........................................................chirp...................chirp......
Yep, I thought so; instead of answering the question, showing your bonifedes, or providing us with a Point-by-Point Technical refutation of "techdude's" report; you choose to try and move the goal posts, and change the discussion to the FACT that I RIGHTLY pointed out, by your OWN admission, you are in the tank for Obama, and thus anything and everything you say on this topic is immediately susptect!
Then you refer us to a Blog, set up for the specific purpose of refuting "techdude", that just like you, has got nothing!
So, my orignal comments, stand, as PROVEN:
a) I was correct all along, this is a forgery; I didn't need "expertise" such as you purportedly possess, I only needed Commonsense that a major Presidential Campaign, would NOT release their COLB thru a Leftwing Nutbag website, such as the Daily Kos!
b) You have NO "expertist" until you release your resume, as "techdude" as done!
c) By your own admission, you are in the tank for Obama, so any/all of yoru analysis is invalidated!
d) you cannot, and apparantly will not deliver on your snarky, denigrating comments vis a vis "techdude's report and analysis, because you are incapable, and because you are politically in the tank of Obama
You lose "Ray"; "techdude" has exposed your ....ah...."shortcomings" in public; you've been Pantsed!
So, the challenge still stands: PUT UP, or SHUT UP!!
Posted by: Dale in Atlanta | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 03:39 PM
nutiket wrote:
Ray the expert graphic designer:
An argument is presented which offers many related details and specific conclusions. You may be an "expert graphic designer" but you are no logician.
Graphic reproducer - not graphic designer. I'm actually quite useless at design or drawing.
If you had the courage of your convictions and the ability you would refute the argument in a systematic way, without relying on solely on your self-proclaimed expertise, and illustrated by facts. The argument is wrong... because you say so. There are expert BS detectors here who see through your lazy invective.
I won't argue with that. You're right, I have hung back and watched the others with various experience do their thing, and they've come up with angles that I hadn't thought of or couldn't be bothered doing, particularly "se" or "koyaan" on this blog:
http://koyaan.wordpress.com/
AJ seems to have some very high grade training that most of us would know nothing about, which equipped him for discerning the difference between something that is real and "background noise" - whether it's in graphical or numeric form or any other, so while our backgrounds are quite different, it's easy to see that he knows how to filter out patent b.s. in something as simple as a digital document and debaters who keep deliberately changing the topic to low grade politics.
Ray
Posted by: Ray_in_Aus | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 03:48 PM
Yidwithlid wrote:
Ray- heres the problem, I know techdudes credentials, whats your's please send them to Atlas so she can confirm. Techdude gave us a step by step analysis of why he thinks it is Crap. I am not an expert but it seems believable to me. You are saying that you are an expert, build a case and convince me. I will read it and compare, otherwise you are just giving us a BS line
I have never understood the mentality of people who regard credentials and resumes as being more important than hard evidence - because ultimately it's goodevidence that usually wins case where it really counts.
Ray
Posted by: Ray_in_Aus | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 03:55 PM
Well, it appears that Australia is giving the US a good run regarding its population of those mesmerized by Obama.
The fact that Ray in Aus has expressed his support for one side over the other is INDEED logical and cogent in assessing his views. While Ray claims to have some background in legal standards concerning expert testimony, his comments here belie that claim.
Bias is something that directly impacts one's credibility. And one's credibility is THE major factor in the weight given to the testimony of an expert. Ray would have us believe that folks in Australia are more naieve than those in the US, and would fail to give any weight to an expert's personal bias or interests regarding their views. having dealt with more than a few fine people from down under, I can say that my experience does not support that view.
In additon to personal bias, one's background in the particular area of interest is of paramount importance. A person claiming to be an expert on the internet is not automaticallu imbued with that status. For all we know, Ray suffers from excessive spore inhaliation from spending too much time in his mother's basement between his junior high school classes. Certainly, based on his commentary here, I would tend to favor the junior high spore inhaler tag over his claim to be an expert in the area of image forensics. And if we needed any more convincing, his refusal to validate his claim by employing the ruse that to address his qualifications would be "getting away from the debate" is puts that issue to rest. Ray has taken the coward's way out of the put up or shut up challenge by his tactful slither away from the question. The smart money is on Ray's experitise in graphic reproduction being limited to making copies on a Xerox machine.
Sorry Ray, but it would appear the only expertise you can come close to laying a claim upon is in the area of being an internet troll - I believe that's "wanker" where you come from.
Posted by: Spectre | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 03:55 PM
Ok. Here's my long and the short of it.
Unless the 2006 and 2007 borders are being misrepresented in terms of their dates, then the Obama certificate is almost certainly a fake.
The Obama border isn't just a bad representation of the 2006-2008 borders, it's simply not the same border, period. The pitch of the hashmarks in the other COLBs are identical. The pitch of the hashmarks in the Obama COLB is completely different.
As I'd said a number of times previously, what was needed were COLBs more contemporary to the Obama COLB. One just before, and one just after. The Michele COLB gave us the "just after" but there had yet been no just before released.
Now, assuming they're not being misrepresented, we have them.
And it in the end, the analysis didn't require anything fancy. Just a pair of eyes.
se
Posted by: se | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 03:56 PM
AJ seems to have some very high grade training that most of us would know nothing about, which equipped him for discerning the difference between something that is real and "background noise" - whether it's in graphical or numeric form or any other, so while our backgrounds are quite different, it's easy to see that he knows how to filter out patent b.s. in something as simple as a digital document and debaters who keep deliberately changing the topic to low grade politics.
Ray
Posted by:Ray_in_Aus | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 03:48 PM
WOW!
After more than a week of passing yourself off as some sort of "expert", denigrating "techdude" all over AJ's Blog, implying that AJ was correct because YOU knew better, and YOU had the "expertise" to support AJ's contentions, and basically saying that everyone that disagreed with you and AJ were idiots and didn't know what they were talking about, NOW, you melt under the pressure and scrutiny, and ADMIT you got nothing!
NOTHING!
You Sir, are a FRAUD!
And then, you throw this in here, just like a typical Lefist, the part I particulary love, is that you are in SUPPOSEDLY in Australia, not even the US; your inserting yourself into this, and pulling a typical Leftist stunt, shows how farranging the Lefist mental disease really has spread:
"and debaters who keep deliberately changing the topic to low grade politics."
That comment, coupled with your admitted "in-the-tank" for Obama statement, plus your constant referral to the "Koyaan" website, which is NOT yours, and which has proven NOTHING so far, proves that your sole intent in this entire affair, was to butress any/all support of the Obama COLB are "real", while attacking and denigrating any/all attempts to prove it WAS a forgery; while at the same time, pulling the typical Leftist tactic of being a "victim", and, accusing others of playing "politics", when you are in fact, surreptiously playing "politics" by attempting to pass a forgery off as a "real" COLB!
How decidedly Machiavellian and typically Leftist of you!
WOW!
Posted by: Dale in Atlanta | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 03:57 PM
are all the images loading for everyone?
is anyone having trouble loading the images?
Posted by: Pamela Geller | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 04:04 PM
se wrote:
Ok. Here's my long and the short of it.
Unless the 2006 and 2007 borders are being misrepresented in terms of their dates, then the Obama certificate is almost certainly a fake.
The Obama border isn't just a bad representation of the 2006-2008 borders, it's simply not the same border, period. The pitch of the hashmarks in the other COLBs are identical. The pitch of the hashmarks in the Obama COLB is completely different.
As I'd said a number of times previously, what was needed were COLBs more contemporary to the Obama COLB. One just before, and one just after. The Michele COLB gave us the "just after" but there had yet been no just before released.
Now, assuming they're not being misrepresented, we have them.
And it in the end, the analysis didn't require anything fancy. Just a pair of eyes.
So what would be your attitude if you saw another 2007 COLB which appeared under close inspection to have the same border as Obama's AND you believed that it was a genuine image?
Ray
Posted by: Ray_in_Aus | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 04:08 PM
Since SE is so full of shit his eyes are brown I uploaded a copy of the 2007 overlay (not Michelle's 2008) on top of a 2003 COLB and on top of the Decosta.
http://s349.photobucket.com/albums/q393/colbstuff/
So SE...were you lying then or are you lying now?
And Ray...you are what we in the field refer to as a hamster...there is no need to argue with you otherwise others may mistake that you understand what I am saying. And asking me to make a fake COLB for your satisfaction? Are you out of your f*cking mind?
Posted by: techdude | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 04:09 PM
To se~
I'll somewhat disagree on one minor point... sure, we could see it with our own eyes, but the phantom remnant of an original border is the most damning.
The possibility of washing in toner solvent and reusing that security paper with embossed seal takes it to a much higher level.... above "faking" on "the internets" to serious fraudulent counterfeiting (which is apparently part of Techdude's expertise).
If this was the technique used, the paper cert with embossed seal could be shown to a naieve press and they'd not know any better but to assume it to be legit, and announce they had seen and felt the "actual embossed paper copy".
THAT is some scary stuff.
To Ray~
Yeah, I've done "graphic reproduction" too. I call it "photocopying".
Posted by: El | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 04:14 PM
techdude wrote:
And asking me to make a fake COLB for your satisfaction? Are you
out of your f*cking mind?
I'll take that as a no.
I cannot make a convincing partial 'forgery' with random text either. I've tried but I kept uncovering the tell-tale signs of it. It certainly cannot be done with a PC, although a good 'forgery' could be done in a more roundabout way.
Ray
Posted by: Ray_in_Aus | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 04:20 PM
Another observation regarding "Ray in Aus".
Based on his post times here, he would have started his posts roughly around Midnight on Sunday in Australia and contiuned all though the night until about 6 AM Monday morning Oz time. I suppose it is possible that he can't sleep, but I'll bet he'll be pretty tired when he shows up for work in a couple hours as a "graphic reproducer" - or are the Kinko's in Australia closed for photocopying on Mondays?
Posted by: Spectre | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 04:21 PM
RAY
I have never understood the mentality of people who regard credentials and resumes as being more important than hard evidence - because ultimately it's goodevidence that usually wins case where it really counts.
--------------
Credentials are only important because you have passed yourself off as an expert. I can say I am a heart surgeon and while My Jewish Mother will be ecstatic people will want to know if I have any credentials before I cut them open. When ever someone passes themselves off as an expert I always say Prove it. Since I am an expert Bullshit detector (credentials available upon request) and since you have provided no credentials and provided no evidence and no credentials..I can only conclude that in my expert opinion Ray you are very full of shit,
Posted by: Yidwithlid | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 04:25 PM
Spectre wrote:
Another observation regarding "Ray in Aus".
Based on his post times here, he would have started his posts roughly around Midnight on Sunday in Australia and contiuned all though the night until about 6 AM Monday morning Oz time. I suppose it is possible that he can't sleep, but I'll bet he'll be pretty tired when he shows up for work in a couple hours as a "graphic reproducer" - or are the Kinko's in Australia closed for photocopying on Mondays?
Now if only there was a bit more logic like that being applied to the Obama forgery case, we'd make some headway.
Posted by: Ray_in_Aus | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 04:37 PM
Dale in Atlanta wrote:
>b> AJ seems to have some very high grade training that most of us would know nothing about, which equipped him for discerning the difference between something that is real and "background noise" - whether it's in graphical or numeric form or any other, so while our backgrounds are quite different, it's easy to see that he knows how to filter out patent b.s. in something as simple as a digital document and debaters who keep deliberately changing the topic to low grade politics.
Ray
Posted by:Ray_in_Aus | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 03:48 PM
WOW!
After more than a week of passing yourself off as some sort of "expert", denigrating "techdude" all over AJ's Blog, implying that AJ was correct because YOU knew better, and YOU had the "expertise" to support AJ's contentions, and basically saying that everyone that disagreed with you and AJ were idiots and didn't know what they were talking about, NOW, you melt under the pressure and scrutiny, and ADMIT you got nothing!
Oh I can pick holes on Techdude's technical arguments without any help from AJ or anyone else, but I'm just making sure that people won't perceive it as 'denigrating' if I do.
Ray
Posted by: Ray_in_Aus | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 04:46 PM
Now for the 64 million dollar question: Where was Obama REALLY born? My money is on Kenya.
Posted by: Conagher 1880 | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 04:51 PM
OK..some folks asked for it...so here are MORE screen shots. I uploaded a few from the 2001 and 2003 COLB tests and the animated gifs showing the fun pulsating kerning differences ala LGF style.
http://s349.photobucket.com/albums/q393/colbstuff/
I assume no one has been able to figure out why the "2007" KOS image manages to have the same placement as a 2003 COLB and not a 2006, 2007, or 2008 COLB yet huh? How about the remnants of the previous border location? Humm...and what about that mis-matching uncentered border with obvious 2 pixel white spaces between the top and bottom headers? Any more novel theories? Space aliens? Right wing conspiracies? Oh I know...it must have all been a "satire" of a real one.
Posted by: techdude | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 04:52 PM
Oh I can pick holes on Techdude's technical arguments without any help from AJ or anyone else, but I'm just making sure that people won't perceive it as 'denigrating' if I do.
Ray
Posted by:Ray_in_Aus | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 04:46 PM
Son, the First Rule of Holes, which you obviously don't know there "Downunder"; when you're in the bottom of a hole, and dirt is starting to fall on your head, STOP DIGGING!
You got squat, you've admitted you're a fraud, an Obambi fan, and a liar, basically; what more do you want to admit?
Posted by: Dale in Atlanta | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 05:00 PM
Ray wrote:
So what would be your attitude if you saw another 2007 COLB which appeared under close inspection to have the same border as Obama's AND you believed that it was a genuine image?
Show it to me and we'll find out.
se
Posted by: se | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 05:06 PM
Cool off, everyone.
We all must admit that Obama has an obscure start in life. Born where ? Educated where ? What religion ? How many fathers ? How many were or are citizens ?, and what was the standard at the time of his birth for citizenship ?
Now, tampering with his birth document would suggest more democrat as usual corruption, wouldn't it ?
Answers better come forth, or real Americans will vote against the half black, half Muslim, half Messiah, never honest Chicago con man.
I am curious to why some here who obviously support Obama and can carry an intelligent conversation, do not see the empty suit for what he is.
Oh, right....yellow dog democrats.....bow wow. Watch out you don't vote for your own executioner.
Posted by: wxjames | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 05:08 PM
I can see it now you the troofers and the climate change deniers marching together.............
Posted by: john Ryan | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 05:31 PM
Oh this is too funny...Ray is a bad boy.....TD just posted this a bit ago.
http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/07/19/another-obamanut-threatens-me/
tisk tisk tisk letting your true colors show like that?
HAMSTER! :D
Posted by: techdude | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 05:46 PM
Ray, you are a piece of work:
I'm an expert in graphic reproduction myself. Besides that, there's AJ and a few others here who have already pointed to some of the glaring problems with the allegationsof forgery by Techdude and Polarik.
AJ seems to have some very high grade training that most of us would know nothing about, which equipped him for discerning the difference between something that is real and "background noise" - whether it's in graphical or numeric form or any other, so while our backgrounds are quite different, it's easy to see that he knows how to filter out patent b.s. in something as simple as a digital document and debaters who keep deliberately changing the topic to low grade politics.
You are indeed, after leaving your droppings all over Pamela's blog as "an expert" on a previous thread, hiding behind AJ. And where is AJ? I noticed he posted an obsessively long piece about people who obsess on this subject today, then punted about Techdude's post today.
This is getting entertaining, but I'm sure you'll wait until everyone on this side of the pond goes beddy-bye to do your thing -- glom up the works with interminable nonsense.
Posted by: JBean | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 05:53 PM
This is surely not about a bomb at pearl harbor at all. but just fyi ONE BOMB...obama thinks ONE BOMB...1.
Posted by: RISE_UP | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 05:56 PM
Techdude,
Nice try - sort of. To say I am underwhelmed is probably being to kind. My response is here.
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/5681
Sorry to see you go through so much effort to fall so short. You will note in the above post I find your 'report' lacking - it is not comprehensive and does not acknowledge or address all the telltales that support the position this is a scan of a legit COLB with some cropping and the ID field blacked out. A professional report covers all angles and makes its case on the weight of all the evidence.
Having written many scientific and professional papers, and reviewed many others that was a rookie mistake.
Also, you demonstrated one piece of this puzzle shows the Kos image to be real - the seal imprint depth on the new paper (post 2006). You did a lot of empirical work with real COLBs from these periods and, as you noted, proved that scanning these COLBs with the HI stamp showed the same pattern as the BHO COLB. And we both know these newer COLBs also show the date field anomaly - a trademark error found in authentic COLBs regardless of color and border.
We have in these two telltale features very subtle characteristics, which only someone spending WEEK's of effort would detect and have to capture or retain. Yet somehow, your super sophisticated forger with an incredible eye for detail blew the security borders????
Hmmm - does that make any sense to you? Sorry, if someone was smart enough to create a forgery that had all these features, and left them in place, they were not dumb enough not to do the simple cross-hatched borders.
You proved beyond the doubt this is not a forgery. It has all the subtle tell tales. And now be prepared for a shock my friend because I made another prediction - the final prediction. You have 2-3 COLBs from the post 2006 period. We have the one BHO COLB which has the new pattern (possibly a prototype pattern brought on line for a short time).
Now if I am right, Obama is not the only one to get one of these, and there were more than 3-4 COLBs issued during that period. I have a challenge out to anyone else who has a HI COLB with the same border to please let us all see it (just a corner of the border will do). And once we have another copy of the same border - you will have no option but to change your conclusions. Your professional credibility is on the line.
If I were you I would not be hoping that some forger got all the hidden and subtle details right and missed the simple to copy border to save MY credibility! And I would not put a lot of money on the idea there is no one else out there with a COLB like Obama's.
Good luck Techdude - you are going to need it.
Posted by: AJStrata | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 05:56 PM
Jbean,
Dude it is Sunday and I have a life! LOL!
And Techdude, I had no intention of doing two posts today - but you took so long to come out with your flop.
So, you think you have found someone who soaked off the printing and then added their own - but did not use the same crosshatched border as the the original????? Same seal though, and writing - just not the same border? That's your theory and you have no proof other than a mismatches in formats that do not have to have any similarities since they are different formats?
Wow - a whole career bet on that? BTW - check with HI but I bet you will find one of their security mechanisms is to deter the very process you proposed by having the new paper disintegrate or turn colors or something.
Amazing.
Posted by: AJStrata | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 06:05 PM
Very nice work, TechDude, but it would have been better if you gave a little credit to others where that credit is due.
It would also solidify your claims by adding the information from others that support it.
Posted by: Polarik | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 06:29 PM
AJ --
Jbean,
Dude it is Sunday and I have a life! LOL!
So do we all have a life, AJ, and that's why your very long post about obsession struck me as odd, on Sunday, and that's why I couldn't make it through the whole agonizing thing.
On your response to Techdude (even though you have a life), you say:
...we can end this mess in a heartbeat. If anyone has a HI COLB that is of the format and structure of the BHO COLB please share it with us. If you got a COLB around Jun 2007 my guess is you might have the variant we saw with the OBH COLB, which seemed to be around for a while as an experiment or prototype version.
Your "guess," AJ? This "mess" rests on a "guess"?
Posted by: JBean | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 06:37 PM
JBean,
I can understand why it would be difficult for you to deal with it - it was a brutal observation on how fact and science have been dropped and replaced with propaganda. Yes, I compare the COLB Cult to its cousin the Global Warming Cult, and the Intelligent Design Cult, and the Cult that thinks the moon landings were faked.
Yes, I did compare all these because they have a common thread - people with HS level grasps on science and engineering are throwing out centuries of proven science and replacing it with fantasies.
You know I much more than a guess on my side JB - your just incapable of dealing with my arguments so you summarize them to the level you can - which is pretty simplistic. So I will keep my response simplistic in return to so you can get an inkling of my view.
I would put my educated guess, based on evidence, science and logically constrained speculation and theorizing, against moon battery fantasies of the uneducated any day of the week. What, pray tell, technical or scientific background do you have that would give you an ounce of credibility? Do you still read the owner's manuals to the home theatre systems to figure out how to hook them together?
Techdude proved again that there is very little probability that there was a forgery. And now his entire reputation hangs in the hope no one else has a COLB like BHO.
Trust me, he is not sitting back with confident smile in his face. He is not like Polarik.
Posted by: AJStrata | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 06:48 PM
SEMI-FINAL REPORT
{Problem No. 1]
Techdude wrote: The following analysis was
conducted using various Hawaiian COLBS issued
over a multi-year time frame ranging from 2001
through 2008 butthis report will focus only on
the results from the March 2007 through June
2008 certificates for accurately comparing
against the KOS image purportedly printed by
the Health Department of Hawaii in June 2007.
I am only interested in comparing apples to
apples as they say but I will touch on some
of the other years for a brief comparative and
observational analysis.
This is incredible - you have claimed that you are only interested in comparing apples to apples, but then you proceeded to compare a pre-Obama COLB with a post-Obama COLB. Aren't you concerned abut the flak you will cop when you eventually have an apple and apple to compare?
Ray
Posted by: Ray_in_Aus | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 06:50 PM
ray_in_aus:
you seem to enjoy and have time for the invective with the other commenters, but you do not seem to want to answer my direct questions:
1.)where is obama's birth certificate, and why doesn't he present it, and
2.)why doesn't obama make it available for forensic analysis?
see my above post, if you will: maybe you missed it.
pamela:
here are the stakes in all of this.--
it seems logical to assume that the federal elections commission and the various state elections commissions require at least some proof of the requisite u.s. citizenship when someone files to run for president of the united states.
it also seems logical to assume that the f.e.c. and the state election comm.'s, pursuant to statute and administrative act[s], might require submission of relevant documents in proof of u.s. citizenship, such as state birth certificates, etc. it must be at least as hard as getting a passport, to run for potus.
if these assumptions are correct, and if obama's various campaign committee's acting as his agents in fact and in law submitted such documents, including birth certificates when they filed for office, then all of this could get very interesting.
the rubber might meet the road right here, as the old saying goes.
because if, and i do not know if this is the case, but if, the various campaign committees submitted the very same document as the daily kos purports to be his birth certificate, osama bin obama's candidacy for president could be on very thin ice.
obama says he is an american citizen.
can he prove his american citizenship on the strength of what we might call the daily kos document, if, in fact, there is authoritative and persuasive evidence pointing to the conclusion that it is a forged document.
techdude's analysis of this daily kos instrument throws tremendous doubt on its legitimacy, and to such an extent, if litigated before the f.e.c. it might not serve to establish obama's birth, and might jeopardize his assertion of citizenship such as would qualify him to be president.
now, other factors remain to be examined, as relate to the authenticity and the ability to authenticate an instrument sufficiently to qualify it for admission before a tribunal or court examining it as proof of what it purports to be, e.g., barrack obama's birth on such a date in the state/territory of hawaii & under the circumstances relating to parentage as satisfy the legal requirements of running for potus. these issues would include authenticating the signitures on the documents, etc, verifying the legitimacy of the stamps, and very much including the factors analyzed and discussed in techdude's very fine report.
in the next several days i will be looking at the federal registar, to see if i can find the requirements involved in filing for the office of potus with the f.e.c., and what committee's adn candidates are required to file with the f.e.c. if it includes a birth certificate, i will see if one has been filed with the f.e.c., and by whom and in what capacity. i shall do likewise with the state of washing, under the washington statutes (revised code of washington) and the administrative code (w.a.c.), with a view towards a birth certificate requirement.
and, so, we come full circle to the questions posed to ray_in_aus, which he has so assiduously avoided answering, even while expending many volumes of air shouting his opponents down. (anyone reminded of james carville, lanny davis, or susan estridge here: sort of like old home week. but, then again, i like people who talk in bold and all caps. laughing.)
1.)why does the obama campaign simply not produce a bona fide c.o.l.b., and 2.)why does the obama campaign not sign waivers and releases authorizing the registrar of vital statistics for the state of hawaii to make such document available for inspection and analysis by compentent scientists and technicians like techdud?
wouldn't that make life easier, and less contentious?
my observation stands, that if the daily kos document is in fact the same document as submitted by the obama campaign to places like the f.e.c. and the state election commissions, assuming that they require the submission of a birth certificate or other adequate & substitue proof of live birth as required to be potus, then the obama campaign may be in serious trouble.
and, that raises one other question. when we look to the submissions to the f.e.c. & state institutions, what if no birth certificate has even been submitted to fulfill the assertions of citizenship required?
why not? would be the immediate question.
again, all of this can be satisfied if the daily kos or the obama campaign simply provide an adequate documentary proof, made and file w/ obama's birth, such as will establish his bona fides to be president.
until then, i am afraid that ray_in_aus is simply blowing smoke up our collective rears.
ajstrata:
read your post at your blog.
you continue to put the wrong cart in front of the horse, and it can be shown by a simple proposition.
techdude is not running for president of the united states. his analysis is not subject to a standard of "proof beyond a reasonable" doubt.
barrack obama is running for president of hte united states, and he has to meet and prove establishe that he meets certain requirements to do so, e.g., age and citizenship. he has proofs of constitutional dimension in that regard, as must meet statutory and regulatory standards in filing for his candidacy, and proving his citizen ship and age.
he has political "proofs" of honesty and integrity as well.
the filing and.or flaunting of phonied up documents satisfy none of the proof requirements he faces, and would not in court.
i believe i will put my eggs in techdude's basket, thank you.
john jay
milton freewater, oregon usa
Posted by: jj | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 06:51 PM
AJStrata wrote:
"Techdude proved again that there is very little probability that there was a forgery."
That's what I was thinking. This seems like a new phenomena - where the conspiracists keep providing evidence that they're wrong. The ant-moon-landing mob never did this did they?
Perhaps there a method the their 'madness' - you know - keep the pot boiling sort've thing, even if it makes no sense.
Ray
Posted by: Ray_in_Aus | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 07:01 PM
AJ -
You know I much more than a guess on my side JB - your just incapable of dealing with my arguments so you summarize them to the level you can - which is pretty simplistic. So I will keep my response simplistic in return to so you can get an inkling of my view.
I would put my educated guess, based on evidence, science and logically constrained speculation and theorizing, against moon battery fantasies of the uneducated any day of the week. What, pray tell, technical or scientific background do you have that would give you an ounce of credibility? Do you still read the owner's manuals to the home theatre systems to figure out how to hook them together?
AJ, you obviously have a high opinion of yourself (which may be the crux of the problem), and the willingness to denigrate anyone who disagrees with you as "simplistic," with "moon battery fantasies," but I haven't claimed to have the "technical or scientific background" you would obviously demand to be capable of "dealing with your arguments." I do, however, have a rather good command of the English language, and in that language, an "educated guess" is still a "guess."
I wonder: if Techdude supplies you with a June 2007 COLB that does not match your "guess," will you then demand that he, or someone else, supply you with a COLB dated exactly the same as the Obama COLB?
Posted by: JBean | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 07:09 PM
Plenty of invective, little substance.
I am not an expert but I do have good old common sense and it is painfully clear that aj he did not address the strengths of techdude's analysis, such as the border anomalies which suggest computer tampering, etc.
He left out how there is an underlying remnant of the previous security border and then claims image #3 is not high rez....high rez for what? Can't he see the text lines up in the March 2007 and June 2008 images?
JJ pointed out aj's final haven, and that is the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard which he says techdude has to establish in order to prove the document a forgery. JJ said, "this is, to put it mildly, just exactly backwards, which i can show with one observation.--
techdude is not running for president of the united states, and we should not forget this.
barrack obama is.
techdude does not have to prove anything a forgery beyond a reasonable doubt.
barrack obama, on the other hand, bears the burden of establishing his citizenship in conformity with the laws and rules which make him eligible to be elected, e.g., he has a threshold of proof just to run.
this "reasonable doubt" business is a classic red herring. it has nothing to do with anything.
if this is litigated, e.g., if somebody sued obama or the f.e.c. to block his candidacy, a person would have a preponderance of the evidence standard, perhaps a proof by clear and cogent evident standard to establish. and, with any luck, if a person could seek a writ of mandate from hte d.c. district courts, directing the f.e.c. to enforce applicable submissions of proof by a candidate, then obama might face a preponderance of proof issue."
What Techdude did do was provide is a "reasonable suspicion" which will be the basis of a lawsuit :)
Posted by: Pamela Geller | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 07:31 PM
john jay wrote:
ray_in_aus:
you seem to enjoy and have time for the invective with the other commenters, but you do not seem to want to answer my direct questions:
I went past your comment before and hadn't got back to it.
1.)where is obama's birth certificate, and why doesn't he present it, and
I don't know where Obama's (old) birth certificate COPY is, but he claimed it has been lost somewhere in the Senate paperwork system. There is only one original certificate and it should still be in the possession of the Hawaii authorities.
It should look exactly like this:
http://snarkybytes.com/?p=521
We won't be able to see an old REAL photocopy like that (on the light green security paper) because Hawaii doesn't issue them to people any more, although obviously they would make one for a court.
The only exception to the above would be if there has been a legal change to the original certificate and a legal replacement has been issued. In the most extraordinary situation a court MAY be able to see it, but it's highly unlikely that Obama changed his name and has it on a replacement "original" certificate because he was (as far as we know) using his father's name all along and his mother told friends at the time that she was married - so it would have looked pretty strange if the young Obama DIDN'T have his father's surname. Her certainly had his father's first name - or a logical derivative of it.
If there WAS a change to Obama's name in the early years, the law says quite clearly that it is none of our damned business, and it certainly could have no bearing on the critical issue of where and when he was born. People in most western countries can change their name as often as they change their socks if they wish - as long as they don't do it for an illegal purpose. In some Christian countries or states the first name - the "Christian" name cannot be changed by deed poll (law) but it can be changed legally by the individual at will.
2.)why doesn't obama make it available for forensic analysis?
Probably to keep us all talking about him. I've actually started to like the guy a bit after jumping on this forgery bandwagon.(I was almost put right off him when his crew manufactured that pretentious "presidential shield" thingie.
He's doing a LOT of stuff that appears to be based on winning votes, so if this nonsensical issue is perceived by his psychologists and tacticians as keeping him in the news, then why not? It's better this than attacking his policies or weaknesses - especially when he knows he can kill it in a flash by getting the Hawaii Health Dept CEO to confirm it to the media.
Ray
Posted by: Ray_in_Aus | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 07:32 PM
You may want to read this before deciding the COLB is "irrefutably" a fake:
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/5681
Seriously, if Obama really wasn't born in the US, the GOP would use that as an October Surprise anyway. But don't pin your hopes on that. You might want to start finding substantive issues to argue about instead.
Posted by: skylights | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 07:44 PM
The fact that some bozo from DailyKos published a forged COLB is slightly interesting, but really proves little except to demonstrate that the poster is a forger. To me, the real question is why the Obama campaign not simply provided the news media multiple paper copies of his certified birth certificate (obtained from the State of Hawaii). The fact that Obama's campaign has not done so is really rather damning. It would be ridiculously easy to do so -- the obvious conclusion is that the campaign is hiding some information.
Posted by: HenryB | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 07:52 PM
skylights --
You may want to read this before deciding the COLB is "irrefutably" a fake
We've read it (read previous comments). The issue here is not whether Obama "really wasn't born in the US," (which would be obvious if you at least read the blog owner, Pamela's, comments), but whether the COLB posted on KOS is authentic. To which end, you may want to read Techdude's post, above, and comment on that.
Posted by: JBean | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 07:52 PM
Pamela Geller wrote:
Plenty of invective, little substance.
I am not an expert but I do have good old
common sense and it is painfully clear that
aj he did not address the strengths of techdude's
analysis, such as the border anomalies which
suggest computer tampering, etc.
I agree that a lot more work could have been done by AJ, but he didn't promise to present a top-notch scientific-legal case. It would be an overkill for such a weak case.
He left out how there is an underlying remnant
of the previous security border and then claims
image
You want him to respond about imagined images?
#3 is not high rez....high rez for what?
Can't he see the text lines up in the March 2007
and June 2008 images?
No. We need to see things as clearly as all the material that has been presented along the way by various people.
JJ pointed out aj's final haven, and that is the
"beyond a reasonable doubt" standard which he says
techdude has to establish in order to prove the
document a forgery.
It's not a haven at all. No other type of proof is possible.
JJ said, "this is, to put it
mildly, just exactly backwards, which i can show
with one observation.-- techdude is not running
for president of the united states, and we should
not forget this. barrack obama is.
That's right. Techdude has no obligations whatsoever, but if he wants more than a handful of people to believe his theory, he'll need to make a better case.
techdude does not have to prove anything
a forgery beyond a reasonable doubt.
barrack obama, on the other hand, bears the
burden of establishing his citizenship in
conformity with the laws and rules which make
him eligible to be elected, e.g., he has a
threshold of proof just to run.
No, that's not correct at all. All Obama needs is a COLB which has been certified by the Registrar in Hawaii. He got that shortly after he announced he was standing in Feb 2007 and he presumably presented it to the right people. That COLB is prima facie evidence that is entitled to be President if he is elected, and if anyone disputes the birth date or place in the COLB, it is up to them to prove it. He HAS all the proof he needs in that bit of paper.
this "reasonable doubt" business is a classic red herring. it has nothing to do with anything.
That's all a Court ever uses, so AJ is in good company.
if this is litigated, e.g., if somebody sued obama or the f.e.c. to block his candidacy, a person would have a preponderance of the evidence standard, perhaps a proof by clear and cogent evident standard to establish. and, with any luck, if a person could seek a writ of mandate from hte d.c. district courts, directing the f.e.c. to enforce applicable submissions of proof by a candidate, then obama might face a preponderance of proof issue."
It would be no biggie for him. He's probably welcome it.
What Techdude did do provided is a "reasonable suspicion" which will be the basis of a lawsuit :)
No, it was a very weak effort, although he didnt have much to work with, so it's not surprising.
Ray
Posted by: Ray_in_Aus | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 07:56 PM
Henry Bowman wrote:
The fact that some bozo from DailyKos published a forged COLB is slightly interesting, but really proves little except to demonstrate that the poster is a forger.
Are you aware that Obama was friends with that blog long before?
To me, the real question is why the Obama campaign not simply provided the news media multiple paper copies of his certified birth certificate (obtained from the State of Hawaii). The fact that Obama's campaign has not done so is really rather damning. It would be ridiculously easy to do so -- the obvious conclusion is that the campaign is hiding some information.
He would give it to a big media outlet if they asked, but most probably wouldn't because it would show their own ignorance. Any first year Photoshop-apprentice on the staff of a newspaper can see if the COLB looks genuine or not.
Ray
Posted by: Ray_in_Aus | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 08:02 PM
As soon as the Democratic Party convention officially nominates Mr. Obama, the time will be ripe to file a lawsuit in a Federal District Court alleging voter fraud. A registered Democrat would be a good plaintiff, but IMHO, any US citizen would have standing.
Don't look for any help from the FEC. They should be checking all candidate's constitutionally required credentials as soon as they are nominated, but there's nobody at home at the FEC.
Posted by: PTG | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 08:03 PM
JBean wrote:
AJ -
You know I much more than a guess on my side JB - your just incapable of dealing with my arguments so you summarize them to the level you can - which is pretty simplistic. So I will keep my response simplistic in return to so you can get an inkling of my view.
I would put my educated guess, based on evidence, science and logically constrained speculation and theorizing, against moon battery fantasies of the uneducated any day of the week. What, pray tell, technical or scientific background do you have that would give you an ounce of credibility? Do you still read the owner's manuals to the home theatre systems to figure out how to hook them together?
AJ, you obviously have a high opinion of yourself (which may be the crux of the problem), and the willingness to denigrate anyone who disagrees with you as "simplistic," with "moon battery fantasies," but I haven't claimed to have the "technical or scientific background" you would obviously demand to be capable of "dealing with your arguments." I do, however, have a rather good command of the English language, and in that language, an "educated guess" is still a "guess."
I wonder: if Techdude supplies you with a June 2007 COLB that does not match your "guess," will you then demand that he, or someone else, supply you with a COLB dated exactly the same as the Obama COLB?
There are six witnesses who say the Obama COLB is genuine. How many do we need?
Ray
Posted by: Ray_in_Aus | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 08:06 PM
Hay here's a novel idea....why not just un-seal the previoulsy sealed birth certificate obama? Supposedly you do believe in "transparency" ...un-seal it put it up and shut the rest of us up...seems like that should be a no brainer?
Posted by: artsykr | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 08:06 PM
oops- "hay" should have been "hey" ...note to self... "preview" before hitting "post"
Posted by: artsykr | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 08:07 PM
witnesses ....lol
more like sock puppets
Posted by: Pamela Geller | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 08:07 PM
Outstanding Work!!
Techdude (and Atlas) deserve a medal!
Very well done!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: eavesdropper | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 08:08 PM
PTG wrote:
As soon as the Democratic Party convention officially nominates Mr. Obama, the time will be ripe to file a lawsuit in a Federal District Court alleging voter fraud. A registered Democrat would be a good plaintiff, but IMHO, any US citizen would have standing.
Don't look for any help from the FEC. They should be checking all candidate's constitutionally required credentials as soon as they are nominated, but there's nobody at home at the FEC.
Yes, anyone can do it, but it would have to be backed up by something resembling credible evidence. Something like Polarik's or Techdude's work (on it's own) could easily get a complainant arrested on the spot for hindering law enforcement officers - especially where multiple major crimes are alleged or inferred.
Ray
Posted by: Ray_in_Aus | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 08:14 PM
There are six witnesses who say the Obama COLB is genuine. How many do we need?
Ray
Oh, I don't know -- someone with the ineffable credentials that AJ demands, rather than, as Pamela suggests, "sock puppets" quoted by the media?
Give it up, Ray, this is turning into tragicomedy.
Posted by: JBean | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 08:15 PM
Pamela Geller wrote:
witnesses ....lol
more like sock puppets
The spokeswoman for Hawaii Health is no sockpuppet, nor is the computer person in their office who closely compare the KOS version with their own.
Ray
Posted by: Ray_in_Aus | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 08:19 PM
Something like Polarik's or Techdude's work (on it's own) could easily get a complainant arrested on the spot for hindering law enforcement officers - especially where multiple major crimes are alleged or inferred.
Nice strawman, Ray.
You can make an argument that Polarik's work was sub-par (and consequently subject to much ridicule), but where exactly does Techdude's work rest on Polarik's work?
Posted by: JBean | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 08:20 PM
John Jay,
I have not gone about anything 'wrong' - I have shown how time and time again why wild and baseless claims have not proven a forgery but why amateurs should stay out of subjects beyond their training. Techdude is not out of his training, he is making some simple mistakes based on wanting a result.
He has graciously supported me when I was right (Opendna, changes to the HI COLB format, etc). In return I gave him as much heads up to what I would be looking for so he could fold those into his analysis. Instead he discarded those elements that prove the KOS image to be that of a legit COLB. Trust me, Techdude understands. He is not happy, but he understands.
I don't like being wrong either. But when I go weeks postulated a theory and all the evidence comes true, it tells me I am on the right track. None of my original claims and deductions has been proven false - but my opposition has had to move their goldposts a lot. I see the trend. Whether you do is irrelevant.
Posted by: AJStrata | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 08:21 PM
Something like Polarik's or Techdude's work (on it's own) could easily get a complainant arrested on the spot for hindering law enforcement officers - especially where multiple major crimes are alleged or inferred.
Nice strawman, Ray.
You can make an argument that Polarik's work was sub-par (and consequently subject to much ridicule), but where exactly does Techdude's work rest on Polarik's work?
Posted by: JBean | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 08:22 PM
JBean,
The fact you cannot discern an 'educated guess" - also know as a hypothesis - from a WAG is why you fail to meet the minimum standards to even be in this debate.
Yes, even science has standards!
Posted by: AJStrata | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 08:23 PM
artsykr wrote:
Hey here's a novel idea....why not just un-seal the previoulsy sealed birth certificate obama? Supposedly you do believe in "transparency" ...un-seal it put it up and shut the rest of us up...seems like that should be a no brainer?
I agree that Obama should produce overwhelming evidence that he was born in Hawaii in 1961 by the time the big election comes round, but not before unless it becomes a story for the media. The thing bloggers don't seem to realise is that this is NOT a big issue outside of the blogosphere. There would be far more significant allegations being made about Obama than this. You know - a Martian, a commie spy, a terrorist etc.
Ray
Posted by: Ray_in_Aus | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 08:27 PM
Sorry Pam, but I addressed each of Techdude's points. Sorry if I did not make it clear to anyone but Techdude. His first point was there are many versions of COLBs, but his 'overlaying' of the BHO on other contemporary version only confirms there are more than one version -not that one is a fake. I tried to download the image you loaded - it was too low resolution so I could not see the details. Not your fault, welcome to what BHO did!
Techdude then confirmed that the BHO seal stamp actually does reflect the other contemporary COLBs. Since 2006 HI clearly went with a heavier paper which probably includes some cloth in the matrix (something TD confirmed in the last post). I addressed this by noting how strange it was the 'forgery' would have this tell tale, yet miss the obvious border pattern differences. I also noted how this, combined with the fact all contemporary COLBs share the noted date field anomaly show consistency - not a difference.
I also addressed the jpg image analysis and why you cannot use these methods to compare jpeg images that have a different and unconfirmed history of scanning, modification and saving. Another rookie mistake. All the differences could be accounted for by (a) a different COLB Forma and (b) a different history for the jpeg image.
Sorry Pamela, but you are not an engineer or a computer specialist. You would not know where and how I challenged TD - but he knows.
AJStrata
Posted by: AJStrata | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 08:31 PM
JBean wrote:
Something like Polarik's or Techdude's work (on it's own) could easily get a complainant arrested on the spot for hindering law enforcement officers - especially where multiple major crimes are alleged or inferred.
Nice strawman, Ray.
I was serious. If someone insisted that law enforcement officers act on their speculation they could very easily get arrested if they didn't go away. Besides that, if any (credible) website or blogger perpetuated the defamatory myth in too-strong terms, as if they were factual, they could very easily be warned off by lawyers or sued.
Ray
Posted by: Ray_in_Aus | Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 08:32 PM