Proof why Sherrif Arpaio, just like Alex Jones before him, is wrong about Obama's birth certificate

Originally posted by Drew99GT
why won't he just get the damn paper copy of his birth certificate and have a 10 second press conference and say here it is?

He has done that.... Why do you ignore that fact?

I could not sit through 20 seconds of the guys voice in the video. I'm guessing this has already been debunked to death though.

Originally posted by FSBlueApocalypse
Since Arpaio is making the same kinds of arguments Alex Jones was making back with Obama's birth certificate first came out, just replace any references to Alex Jones with Arpaio

Everybody knows optimization of scanned documents produces layers. We don't need a video like this one showing us that.

But optimization isn't the only process that produces layers. Electronically constructing a document can also produce layers.

So the question is: Is the layering seen on the birth certificate consistent with what may be produced by optimization? Or rather, does it suggest that the document was pieced together electronically using computer software (photoshopped)?

reply to post by spoor


The certificate of live birth is not a birth certificate and it was an electronic file.

Originally posted by Drew99GT
reply to post by spoor

 

The certificate of live birth is not a birth certificate and it was an electronic file.

The original birth certificate/certificate of live birth was photo scanned. How much more do you need?

The Hawaii State Health Department recently complied.with a request by President Barack Obama for certified copies of his original Certificate of Live Birth, which is sometimes referred to as a "long form" birth certificate.

www.snopes.com...

Originally posted by Annee
www.snopes.com...

I like how the "leading software expert" in the article you cite starts talking about optimal character recognition when it's quite obvious it wasn't used because you can't search for text. And after you do apply OCR to the document you CAN search for text.

Did people not watch the Arpaio investigation videos?

Fake or not fake......guess what?

He's going to get elected to a second term anyway.

Originally posted by paradox
I could not sit through 20 seconds of the guys voice in the video. I'm guessing this has already been debunked to death though.

It doesn't really have to be debunked. Optimization can produce layers. So does photoshopping and piecing together a document. The question is whether the layers present in the birth certificate are a result of photoshopping or optimization. That was the point of the investigation and the video segment they played at the press conference.

How many people here have a color laser printer and have printed it out and scanned it back in at different quality levels with optimization? What do the layers look like?

Originally posted by IamCorrect

Originally posted by Annee
www.snopes.com...

I like how the "leading software expert" in the article you cite starts talking about optimal character recognition when it's quite obvious it wasn't used because you can't search for text. And after you do apply OCR to the document you CAN search for text.

Did people not watch the Arpaio investigation videos?

I am supposed to believe the Arpaio "expert" over a "leading software expert" who actually knows what he's talking about.

Yeah! Right!

What the "expert" from Snopes says is correct.

My hubby makes his living in computers and I do graphics. I know what is correct.

Can there be anomalies? Sure. So what.

Originally posted by Annee
I am supposed to believe the Arpaio "expert" over a "leading software expert" who actually knows what he's talking about.

No, you're supposed to use your own brain and learn what OCR is and what happens after it's applied to PDF documents. After you've done that, you should be able to see why it wasn't applied to the birth certificate.

Yeah! Right!

Indeed!

What the "expert" from Snopes says is correct.

Oh, I see!

My hubby makes his living in computers and I do graphics. I know what is correct.

Well, all the better!

Originally posted by IamCorrect

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by IamCorrect

Originally posted by Annee
www.snopes.com...

I like how the "leading software expert" in the article you cite starts talking about optimal character recognition when it's quite obvious it wasn't used because you can't search for text. And after you do apply OCR to the document you CAN search for text.

Did people not watch the Arpaio investigation videos?

I am supposed to believe the Arpaio "expert" over a "leading software expert" who actually knows what he's talking about.

Yeah! Right!

What the "expert" from Snopes says is correct.

My hubby makes his living in computers and I do graphics. I know what is correct.

Can there be anomalies? Sure. So what.

Well, some people have no ability to be honest and objective. What can I say?

It was personally viewed and certified.

The photo copying was personally viewed and certified.

Next . . .

Originally posted by Annee

I am supposed to believe the Arpaio "expert" over a "leading software expert" who actually knows what he's talking about.

Yeah! Right!

What the "expert" from Snopes says is correct.

Oh, of course. Nevermind the fact that he admitted some of what he said was wrong:

"Some of my statements, mainly regarding the use of OCR software were also not 100% accurate." Source

moved below..

Originally posted by Drew99GT
reply to post by spoor

 

The certificate of live birth is not a birth certificate and it was an electronic file.

A certificate of live birth is a birth certificate.
That is what it means.
What do you think it is?

Originally posted by LErickson

Originally posted by Drew99GT
reply to post by spoor

 

The certificate of live birth is not a birth certificate and it was an electronic file.

A certificate of live birth is a birth certificate.
That is what it means.
What do you think it is?

I can make a Computer print out of a Live-Birth as well. It means NOTHING! Face it.. It is fake!

That's not what the basket bunch says! LOL

Maybe watch the ENTIRE Arpaio statement proving it is fake again.. Any that knows about scanning, layers, computers, etc. understands this is undeniable evidence...
There is nothing more to say or add that is better than what Arpaio's expert volunteers have not laid out clearly. It does not get any better than this!


EXCELLENT SOURCE MATERIAL HERE

What bewilders me is how the Govt Nerd that compiled this obvious fake BC was so stupid as to NOT simply "Flatten" the layers and then post it.. It is impossible to scan a document and have layers produced, and such "specific layers" of ONLY the modifications...

I downloaded the so-called BC the day white house Gov posted it and as soon as it opened multiple layers were there Again.. Layers of ONLY what had been modified (Not random layers as claimed scanning can do). I knew it was fake..

The list of errors and blatant forgery appears as if they wanted it to be called-out as a fake.. For what other reason could it be.. So, why would they publish such an obvious fake.. Sleight of Hand, leaving one to wonder.. What else could they be up to?

I mean hell, Obama is the first in history to NOT show for court and still win. That alone only proves to me that the judge is corrupt or has been bribed or blackmailed. The case was basically dismissed and none of the over-whelming evidence was even heard. Gotta be a corrupt judge!

I can only imagine the laughter on the puppeteer's faces at what they have done to our Republic.. They've achieved making our president a "Gay, Marxist, crackhead, two-faced black man, from Kenya.."

I dont believe even the CIA or NSA staffs a single expert with more experience. (Hint: they would be retired)

I dont believe even the CIA or NSA staffs a single expert with more experience. (Hint: they would be retired)

reply to post by spoor


I do not present lies Spoor and again you disregard the criteria used in my previous statement for "case closed". You are apparently ignoring my words and accepting and assuming a right by natural birth for Mr. Obama, which has not conclusively been proven, so this case in fact is not closed.
I am and have been very clear; I do not accept that information presented to date proves Mr. Barak H. Obama; our President was in fact born in Hawaii in the United States of America.
And ONLY IF a person was born in the United States does his birth confer the right of 'natural born citizen’, and this need is supported legally by a great number of legal academics and has NEVER been decided officially or accepted by virtue of recusal or thru other previous SCOTUS decisions on a constitutional level so the position of President or VP currently requires being a ‘natural born citizen’.
It is you who apparently chooses to twist my wording and ignore the probable cause present which allows the investigation to continue to determine if a legal argument can be presented to the court that a misrepresentation or fraud has been committed.
I don’t see it so difficult to believe that something as innocent as an American mother having a son and wanting him to be born in American and be recognized as an American Citizen is what happened.
I see absolutely NO PROOF to believe that our President has in any way been a part of and or has committed any misrepresentation or fraud.
Even though I hold a great difference of opinion on the Second Amendment rights with the President, I still support him in other areas as I only see an American citizen attempting in the best way he can to fulfill his pledge to us as President of the United States.
Having said all that, I still see probable cause presented by an investigative team to believe there is a problem.
As I said before, so many continue to choose to ignore that this is still an issue to millions of Americans and that it has not been resolved.
I say again, as I have said before:
Mr. Obama owns no constitutional rights above that of any individual American, and it is still a great mystery to me that Mr. Obama refuses to present court acceptable evidence (given this extreme controversy) and prove once and for all his birthplace and birthright.
IF the document on the website is court worthy, take it the federal court in DC and have it authenticated and certified and end this nonsense.
As I said before, Hawaii is a state in the US, so the federal court in DC should subpoena the original book (which I have read is in the files on the island), have it brought to the federal court in DC in the custody of US Marshalls, have it authenticated by the federal court, let a select group of media take pictures of the original birthday certificate to share throughout the country and stop wasting so much time and effort on this inane debacle.

I guess I don't understand.
When I wanted a copy of my BC, I got a certified paper copy for $10. I guess if I was the President, I would have held my BC in my hand on CNN,FOX,MSNBC, NY TIMES, Washington Post, ect. and called out all the haters. Not put a digital copy on a website. lol
I think as the leader of the free world, I could have made Hawaii records dept get me what I want. I is of course I didn't have anything to hide.

See that is the issue isn't it. What is the President hiding? Why can't he do what any other American can do and just show a hard copy. I must have gotten like 5 copies of mine. It really is a trust issue. If we can't trust him on something as simple as a BC how can we trust him with our nuclear arsenal. He has shown to be a friend to Wall St. bankers and a warmonger. His only legacy has been NDAA. Oh, and bowing in submission to other world leaders. I wonder if Teddy Roosevelt would have done that? Hmm. So the man does not appear to be a man of his word. He's no FDR, Kennedy, or Reagan. Heck, Clinton did a better job at being honest than President O. That's what all of this birther stuff boils down to...TRUST!