WN: Arpaio: Obama birth record 'definitely fraudulent' - AP

[other one]

My point is having an error of him being born in Kenya may not have mattered as much to him then, because he grew up in Kenya. Who knows? He could have misread the fact it said he was born in Kenya instead of being raised there, he could have decided not to care, he could have breezed over it and ok'd it without noticing, maybe he wasn't alerted to it, there are a whole bunch of things that could have happened.

That is not accurate at all; Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, lived in Indonesia, then moved back to Hawaii. He did NOT grow up in Kenya.

You really do need to read this book:::

http://www.amazon.com/Wheres-Birth-Certificate-Eligible-President/dp/1936488299/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1343514216&sr=8-1&keywords=corsi

[ayin jade]

I heard audio of michelle obama stating their barack was born in kenya. Did anyone else hear it?

I never heard it, but I have heard it exists. If it does, it would seem like someone could produce it? I would love for it to be true, and I would love for it to be an ace in the hole in case Obama is re-elected so we could still throw him out of office.

I heard the quote in her words and voice a couple of years ago on glenn beck.

Found this online.

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/38784/

[other one]

I heard audio of michelle obama stating their barack was born in kenya. Did anyone else hear it?

I never heard it, but I have heard it exists. If it does, it would seem like someone could produce it? I would love for it to be true, and I would love for it to be an ace in the hole in case Obama is re-elected so we could still throw him out of office. If I had the money Trump does, I would offer something like a million dollars to anyone in Kenya that could smuggle the real BC out and get it to me. The very idea of coming up with proof Obama was born in Kenya and getting him thrown out of office is enough to send shivers up my legs. (Inside joke for those who don't know about a Chris Matthews comment on "Hardball.")

That kind of thing has always been a problem for me; with so many wild theories it boggles the mind that no one (or any amount of money) has been able to produce anything. This stuff couldn't be kept secret, I don't care WHO is supposedly behind it. WikiLeaks, anyone?

I can tell you from years of personal experience of dealing with Adobe PDF files and in many cases in government secure printing areas that the Birth Certificate that was put out for the public to see was a created file and does not represent anything close to reality.

Why he would do that, I have no idea. but powers that be seem to want him there and he's their. I might add though that they can and do keep secrets, even ones as big as this. Notice that I didn't say he was born in Kenya...... only that what he gave us is not valid...... and I have no idea why, but it's really bothersome to me.

[ayin jade]

In searching further, I found this:

Barack Obama has admitted that he is a British subject [CITIZEN] at birth, was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 [JURISDICTION] and followed the condition of his father, a foreign national from Kenya [ALLEGIANCE] to the British Crown.

http://nobarack08.wordpress.com/

But I have no verification of this, just the comment on a blog. So I do not know if it is true or not.

[Guest yod]

I talk with a lot of people in the design industry, and you'd be amazed at the mistakes they've seen unqualified (or just rushed) people do.

In politics every nuance of a word is staged well in advance. Publishing is not "design industry" either. It's about words and those words are checked, rechecked, and group checked. The proofs must be signed off by multiple people who are intimately invested before going to print.

I had a major release on one of the world's largest publishing companies get a single word accidentally altered on a website by a publicist, and that massive ship turned on a dime to get it corrected immediately.

No way a politician lets something like this "slip" on his public biography. Even if it happened, that book would be IMMEDIATELY recalled and reprinted no matter what the expense.

I'm amazed at the length to which Obama sycophants will go to cover for his lies. There is no reasonable explanation, except for one. Please, you are climbing a tree to believe a lie when the truth is screaming at you on the ground.

[Burning_Ember]

I talk with a lot of people in the design industry, and you'd be amazed at the mistakes they've seen unqualified (or just rushed) people do.

In politics every nuance of a word is staged well in advance. Publishing is not "design industry" either. It's about words and those words are checked, rechecked, and group checked. The proofs must be signed off by multiple people who are intimately invested before going to print.

I had a major release on one of the world's largest publishing companies get a single word accidentally altered on a website by a publicist, and that massive ship turned on a dime to get it corrected immediately.

No way a politician lets something like this "slip" on his public biography. Even if it happened, that book would be IMMEDIATELY recalled and reprinted no matter what the expense.

I'm amazed at the length to which Obama sycophants will go to cover for his lies. There is no reasonable explanation, except for one. Please, you are climbing a tree to believe a lie when the truth is screaming at you on the ground.

People make mistakes yod. It is in fact possible that a mistake was made. You are simply discarding anything that contradicts your beliefs. It is in fact a very reasonable explanation, that people make mistakes.

Actual Journalists working for actual news organizations that have to have their stories actually fact checked with actual multiple sources supporting the same thing before they go on air or they will actually get fired. For some reason, those Journalists aren't giving this story legs. Probably because they've done their research.

When you, or Arpaio, or someone else can refute or prove without committing any logical fallacies, as applicable;

1. The original birth records, the state of Hawaii, the certificate of live birth, and the announcements issued in TWO newspapers, who receive that from the hospital.

2. Proof that Barack Obama was born in another country. Something like a birth certificate from Kenya would do fine. I've already seen the two fake ones.

Then I will give what you say a fair evaluation. You have never provided concrete proof of anything regarding Obama's birth Certificate. You have provided partisan and biased assumptions, suppositions, and speculation. Not proof.

[Matthitjah]

I talk with a lot of people in the design industry, and you'd be amazed at the mistakes they've seen unqualified (or just rushed) people do.

In politics every nuance of a word is staged well in advance. Publishing is not "design industry" either. It's about words and those words are checked, rechecked, and group checked. The proofs must be signed off by multiple people who are intimately invested before going to print.

I had a major release on one of the world's largest publishing companies get a single word accidentally altered on a website by a publicist, and that massive ship turned on a dime to get it corrected immediately.

No way a politician lets something like this "slip" on his public biography. Even if it happened, that book would be IMMEDIATELY recalled and reprinted no matter what the expense.

I'm amazed at the length to which Obama sycophants will go to cover for his lies. There is no reasonable explanation, except for one. Please, you are climbing a tree to believe a lie when the truth is screaming at you on the ground.

People make mistakes yod. It is in fact possible that a mistake was made. You are simply discarding anything that contradicts your beliefs. It is in fact a very reasonable explanation, that people make mistakes.

Actual Journalists working for actual news organizations that have to have their stories actually fact checked with actual multiple sources supporting the same thing before they go on air or they will actually get fired. For some reason, those Journalists aren't giving this story legs. Probably because they've done their research.

When you, or Arpaio, or someone else can refute or prove without committing any logical fallacies, as applicable;

1. The original birth records, the state of Hawaii, the certificate of live birth, and the announcements issued in TWO newspapers, who receive that from the hospital.

2. Proof that Barack Obama was born in another country. Something like a birth certificate from Kenya would do fine. I've already seen the two fake ones.

Then I will give what you say a fair evaluation. You have never provided concrete proof of anything regarding Obama's birth Certificate. You have provided partisan and biased assumptions, suppositions, and speculation. Not proof.

Actually, a duly elected Law Officer has investigated it with a team of investigators that includes Litigators and they have found the document purported to be Obama's Birth Certificate to be flawed enough to warrant a Federal Investigation. They have found that there are serious issues with it enough to state that it has been tampered with electronically, expecially in the area of the Fathers name, and even his Nationality.

There is enough evidence available to suggest that there is a cover-up and not any evidence to suggest that the President has a legitimate Birth Certificate that has at least been released to the public.

Would you care to postulate as to why?

The amazing thing is that you folks defending the Obama Birth Certificate weren't half as charitable when it was Bushes military and draft records.

Which one do you suppose of is of more National import to Americans (since you are Canadian anyway)?

[Burning_Ember]

Actually, a duly elected Law Officer has investigated it with a team of investigators that includes Litigators and they have found the document purported to be Obama's Birth Certificate to be flawed enough to warrant a Federal Investigation. They have found that there are serious issues with it enough to state that it has been tampered with electronically, expecially in the area of the Fathers name, and even his Nationality.

There is enough evidence available to suggest that there is a cover-up and not any evidence to suggest that the President has a legitimate Birth Certificate that has at least been released to the public.

Would you care to postulate as to why?

The amazing thing is that you folks defending the Obama Birth Certificate weren't half as charitable when it was Bushes military and draft records.

Which one do you suppose of is of more National import to Americans (since you are Canadian anyway)?

I would be more than glad to postulate as staring at pixels on a screen is half my job as a photographer.

You are referring to the long form one, the PDF being available for download off the whitehouses website? The one that is less than 400KB in size?

Here's my expert testimony. In the Photography Industry, when a new model of Camera is announced, the first thing we as Photographers do is take the highest resolution samples off the web from it that we can find, zoom in as much as we can, and if it's the brand/series that we don't use, complain how it looks soft and how our camera brand is far better and how we never seem to have those problems.

Now, other than taking photos, we need to touch up photos for clients. It's balancing two massive priorities. We are perfectionists (hopefully most are, anyways), so naturally anything less than the perfect touchup/photo would be so far below our professional standards that we would feel a lasting and deep shame, lasting possibly for minutes, over not having delivered the utmost quality of work.

The other need we balance out is the dozens of photos after that one that we need to touch up and send out to the print shop/clients, so we condense these career to but a few shortcuts requiring only half a decade of experience with photoshop, dozens of Photoshop plugins, and a basic understanding of code and programming. These shortcuts not only achieve nuanced and brilliant results, we also share and broaden our understanding of these arcane secrets with other Photographers in what I'm told resembles some kind of Techno-Babble-Dialect that sounds vaguely of English.

Now, what are the sizes of the files we work with to retain the detail of every fibre of hair on someones head? Over 500 times the size of the PDF on the Whitehouse Website, and that's assuming fairly simple touchups and modifications, on a good day. If we're doing something moderately challenging and we have some time to spend, that file is over 2,500 times the size of the PDF on the Whitehouse website.

Now, After all is said and done, a print quality file after being put in a format for printing and not editing is usually between 10-50 MB, or 25 to 125 times larger than the PDF from the Whitehouses website.

Now, what can I tell you about the PDF off the Whitehouse website? That it is FAR from print quality. It was probably saved as an optimized PDF to keep it's size lower so as to be reasonable for download. Because if you're saving something at Maximum Resolution for a PDF at that size, it should be about 15.0 MB in size, not less than 0.4MB.

When anything is saved as an optimized PDF, Adobe cuts MASSIVE corners and messes around with how that file gets saved. Because a PDF file like this is not really an "exact replica" of the original document. What happens when that file get's saved to lower the filesize, is Adobe takes the massive good-looking file, slices it into hundreds of JPEG pieces and smashes them back together in a hideous semblance of something resembling the original document. Things are in the same place, but each of those individual pieces will look VERY different depending on how Adobe decided to cut corners while reconstructing the pieces Adobe smashes together. It usually looks like garbage if you save the file smaller because that's what Adobe does to make it smaller. If there is colour, curved lines, blank spaces, varying typefaces... That all gets smashed around when it is saved. That is ALL anybody can ACTUALLY tell about this file. That it was saved to be at a smaller file size.

Now what kind of information might be helpful?

Most importantly, the original scan, or at least a higher resolution image. What type(s) of documents were involved, (transparent, reflective, etc) What type of machine scanned it. What software was used to save it, and what settings.

If I had a high enough res file to work with, I'd be able to tell you whether the desk was at an angle when the ink bled into the paper.

As it stands, no, Arpaio's team is wrong. There is nothing in that file, or the previous Short Form Birth Certificate for that matter that isn't an obvious result of how computer software saves things.

[Matthitjah]

Actually, a duly elected Law Officer has investigated it with a team of investigators that includes Litigators and they have found the document purported to be Obama's Birth Certificate to be flawed enough to warrant a Federal Investigation. They have found that there are serious issues with it enough to state that it has been tampered with electronically, expecially in the area of the Fathers name, and even his Nationality.

There is enough evidence available to suggest that there is a cover-up and not any evidence to suggest that the President has a legitimate Birth Certificate that has at least been released to the public.

Would you care to postulate as to why?

The amazing thing is that you folks defending the Obama Birth Certificate weren't half as charitable when it was Bushes military and draft records.

Which one do you suppose of is of more National import to Americans (since you are Canadian anyway)?

I would be more than glad to postulate as staring at pixels on a screen is half my job as a photographer.

You are referring to the long form one, the PDF being available for download off the whitehouses website? The one that is less than 400KB in size?

Here's my expert testimony. In the Photography Industry, when a new model of Camera is announced, the first thing we as Photographers do is take the highest resolution samples off the web from it that we can find, zoom in as much as we can, and if it's the brand/series that we don't use, complain how it looks soft and how our camera brand is far better and how we never seem to have those problems.

Now, other than taking photos, we need to touch up photos for clients. It's balancing two massive priorities. We are perfectionists (hopefully most are, anyways), so naturally anything less than the perfect touchup/photo would be so far below our professional standards that we would feel a lasting and deep shame, lasting possibly for minutes, over not having delivered the utmost quality of work.

The other need we balance out is the dozens of photos after that one that we need to touch up and send out to the print shop/clients, so we condense these career to but a few shortcuts requiring only half a decade of experience with photoshop, dozens of Photoshop plugins, and a basic understanding of code and programming. These shortcuts not only achieve nuanced and brilliant results, we also share and broaden our understanding of these arcane secrets with other Photographers in what I'm told resembles some kind of Techno-Babble-Dialect that sounds vaguely of English.

Now, what are the sizes of the files we work with to retain the detail of every fibre of hair on someones head? Over 500 times the size of the PDF on the Whitehouse Website, and that's assuming fairly simple touchups and modifications, on a good day. If we're doing something moderately challenging and we have some time to spend, that file is over 2,500 times the size of the PDF on the Whitehouse website.

Now, After all is said and done, a print quality file after being put in a format for printing and not editing is usually between 10-50 MB, or 25 to 125 times larger than the PDF from the Whitehouses website.

Now, what can I tell you about the PDF off the Whitehouse website? That it is FAR from print quality. It was probably saved as an optimized PDF to keep it's size lower so as to be reasonable for download. Because if you're saving something at Maximum Resolution for a PDF at that size, it should be about 15.0 MB in size, not less than 0.4MB.

When anything is saved as an optimized PDF, Adobe cuts MASSIVE corners and messes around with how that file gets saved. Because a PDF file like this is not really an "exact replica" of the original document. What happens when that file get's saved to lower the filesize, is Adobe takes the massive good-looking file, slices it into hundreds of JPEG pieces and smashes them back together in a hideous semblance of something resembling the original document. Things are in the same place, but each of those individual pieces will look VERY different depending on how Adobe decided to cut corners while reconstructing the pieces Adobe smashes together. It usually looks like garbage if you save the file smaller because that's what Adobe does to make it smaller. If there is colour, curved lines, blank spaces, varying typefaces... That all gets smashed around when it is saved. That is ALL anybody can ACTUALLY tell about this file. That it was saved to be at a smaller file size.

Now what kind of information might be helpful?

Most importantly, the original scan, or at least a higher resolution image. What type(s) of documents were involved, (transparent, reflective, etc) What type of machine scanned it. What software was used to save it, and what settings.

If I had a high enough res file to work with, I'd be able to tell you whether the desk was at an angle when the ink bled into the paper.

As it stands, no, Arpaio's team is wrong. There is nothing in that file, or the previous Short Form Birth Certificate for that matter that isn't an obvious result of how computer software saves things.

You've obviously paid not attention whatsoever to their findings.

The handwritten race codes of the Father are all wrong for what has obviously been added in, so too the Country of Origin for the Father.

[Burning_Ember]

You've obviously paid not attention whatsoever to their findings.

The handwritten race codes of the Father are all wrong for what has obviously been added in, so too the Country of Origin for the Father.

You're assuming again that something has "obviously been added in" for which you have no evidence.

Additionally, if you look at the guidelines for writing down race at the time, we find this;

http://www.scribd.com/doc/101153224/Coding-and-Punching-Geographic-and-Personal-Particulars-for-Births-Occurring-in-1961

"

(3) If the racial entry is "C," "Col.," "Black," "Brown," or "A.A.," "Afro-American," and the birthplace is the United States, consider the parent’s race as Negro [for the purposes of determining the child's race]. If the birthplace of parent is not in the United States code as other nonwhite.

(5) If the racial entry of the parent is "Indian" …

(6) If the racial entry is "Yellow," Oriental," or "Mongolian," …

(7) If the racial entry for either parent is not clearly identifiable as one of the races in the code scheme, consult the supervisor."

So Barack Obama's Father was from Kenya. Kenya was under British Rule at the time. If it is unclear, such as it might be to the person filling that form out whether Obama's father was, say, Afro-American, African, or British. What do the guidelines say to do if there is confusion as to the race of the parent, how the person should fill out the sheet?

"(5) If the racial entry for one parent is omitted or unknown, code race of child as the race given for other parent."

How about that, hey? That seems to explain exactly what happened for some reason.