TheEEStory.com

News, Reviews and Discussion of EEStor Inc.
OT- Can I have a birther thread? « Open Forum « News, Reviews & Misc
 
Tue, 31 Jan 2012, 2:33pm #31
eeinterested
EESUrient
Registered: Dec, 2008
Last visit: Thu, 31 Oct 2013
Posts: 2216

eestorblog wrote:

ricinro wrote:

A prolonged legal/politicaldebate on such a technicality will likely pre-empt many TV shows like the watergate proceedings did. Americans do not tolerate interuptions to their entertainment.

Watergate came about in significant part due to journalistic determination. The NBC issue has similar determination but does not have the support of mainstream media. That will change...Im very confident. I predict President Obama will no be on the Georgia ballot...which will be completely unprecedented.

Equating the two is kinda silly. Nixon paid people to break in to the Dems headquarters then hid the whole scheme, lying every step of the way and using every tool he could to do so.

This is a fuzzy point of law, written before jet travel, and likely before dual citizenship was common. It needs fixing, just so those whack jobs can sleep at night and move on to something else. Watergate was not at all like this.

Offline


Tue, 31 Jan 2012, 2:44pm #32
mjtimber
EEcclesiastical
Registered: Aug, 2008
Last visit: Thu, 31 Oct 2013
Posts: 1392

eestorblog wrote:

I predict President Obama will no be on the Georgia ballot...which will be completely unprecedented.

I predict that should it get to that point, it will be a non-issue and give Georgia a black eye. Read the CRS report here.

CRS Report wrote:

There is no provision in the Constitution and no controlling American case law to suport a contention that the citizenship of one's parents governs the eligibility of a native born U.S. citizen to be President.

Read through the document, and it becomes quite clear. The case they are making requires US law to become subservient to British law. So this is a petition for loss of sovereignty. Read pages 44-50. I predict Georgia will have absolutely no standing for keeping Obama off the ballot, and the lack of media attention to date is entirely warranted.


41 Rating - CAUTION - Abusive Poster

29,209,543,309x EESU Now Possible! (Rounded for Simplicity)

Offline
Tue, 31 Jan 2012, 3:19pm #33
eestorblog
Administrator
Christmas
Registered: Aug, 2008
Last visit: 2 days ago
Posts: 4570

I should also point out what few Americans are aware of due to the mainstream media blackout on this issue. Even if a legal case at the Supreme Court level declares President Obama to not be a Natural Born Citizen, they have no power to remove him from office. Only Congress can do that.


------------------
www.nyumbani.org

http://theeestory.com/topics/1949

I believe in miracles and UFO's.

Offline
Tue, 31 Jan 2012, 3:35pm #34
eeinterested
EESUrient
Registered: Dec, 2008
Last visit: Thu, 31 Oct 2013
Posts: 2216

Well, technically, he could then declare them all to be terrorists, and send them to Guantanamo. They gave him this power.

Checkmate.

Offline
Tue, 31 Jan 2012, 5:16pm #35
Duff
EEager
Wronpaul_0905
Registered: Jul, 2010
Last visit: Wed, 24 Apr 2013
Posts: 346

It stands to reason that there is infact something very wrong with people who dont want to get to the bottom of things. It is rare that we have court rulings that define what what otherwise be subjective intrepretations. I honestly dont care if Obama is President or any other run-o-da-mill talking head. I think its an interesting topic. You will notice that I have made no charactor assinations towards the current POTUS. It is what it is and no more.
Fact finding is in human nature, so is blind faith. But eventually the rubber meets the road and you find out what is real and what is not.


We do not forgive, we do not forget, expect us

Offline
Tue, 31 Jan 2012, 5:39pm #36
supamark
EEcclesiastical
Supa_avatar
Registered: Dec, 2009
Last visit: Sat, 17 Mar 2012
Posts: 1240

The lawsuit will go nowhere, and I can tell you why in two words:

Orly Taitz.

Offline
Tue, 31 Jan 2012, 7:04pm #37
eestorblog
Administrator
Christmas
Registered: Aug, 2008
Last visit: 2 days ago
Posts: 4570

eeinterested wrote:

eestorblog wrote:

ricinro wrote:

A prolonged legal/politicaldebate on such a technicality will likely pre-empt many TV shows like the watergate proceedings did. Americans do not tolerate interuptions to their entertainment.

Watergate came about in significant part due to journalistic determination. The NBC issue has similar determination but does not have the support of mainstream media. That will change...Im very confident. I predict President Obama will no be on the Georgia ballot...which will be completely unprecedented.

Equating the two is kinda silly. Nixon paid people to break in to the Dems headquarters then hid the whole scheme, lying every step of the way and using every tool he could to do so.

This is a fuzzy point of law, written before jet travel, and likely before dual citizenship was common. It needs fixing, just so those whack jobs can sleep at night and move on to something else. Watergate was not at all like this.

Watergate was something that transpired out of the public view...until it was drawn out into the light. Getting to the bottom of who was involved, what they knew when, etc...was the story. This one is similar. My next blog will expose some of this.


------------------
www.nyumbani.org

http://theeestory.com/topics/1949

I believe in miracles and UFO's.

Offline
Tue, 31 Jan 2012, 7:05pm #38
eestorblog
Administrator
Christmas
Registered: Aug, 2008
Last visit: 2 days ago
Posts: 4570

eeinterested wrote:

Well, technically, he could then declare them all to be terrorists, and send them to Guantanamo. They gave him this power.

Checkmate.

Thanks to Bush.


------------------
www.nyumbani.org

http://theeestory.com/topics/1949

I believe in miracles and UFO's.

Offline
Tue, 31 Jan 2012, 7:14pm #39
supamark
EEcclesiastical
Supa_avatar
Registered: Dec, 2009
Last visit: Sat, 17 Mar 2012
Posts: 1240

eestorblog wrote:

eeinterested wrote:

Well, technically, he could then declare them all to be terrorists, and send them to Guantanamo. They gave him this power.

Checkmate.

Thanks to Bush.

That... would be frikkin' hilarious.

Offline
Tue, 31 Jan 2012, 7:59pm #40
eestorblog
Administrator
Christmas
Registered: Aug, 2008
Last visit: 2 days ago
Posts: 4570

mjtimber wrote:

eestorblog wrote:

I predict President Obama will no be on the Georgia ballot...which will be completely unprecedented.

I predict that should it get to that point, it will be a non-issue and give Georgia a black eye. Read the CRS report here.

CRS Report wrote:

There is no provision in the Constitution and no controlling American case law to suport a contention that the citizenship of one's parents governs the eligibility of a native born U.S. citizen to be President.

Read through the document, and it becomes quite clear. The case they are making requires US law to become subservient to British law. So this is a petition for loss of sovereignty. Read pages 44-50. I predict Georgia will have absolutely no standing for keeping Obama off the ballot, and the lack of media attention to date is entirely warranted.

The CRS quote you are referring to supports my case. The fact that the definition of a natural born citizen does not exist in law is the exact problem. But everyone knows that who is paying attention. (are you paying attention?) The argument is that Minor V. Happersett defined what is a NBC. That's a court case. Not a law. When congress makes ambiguous laws, the courts interpret them.

As for the rest of the CRS memo:

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/12...

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/01...

...subservient to British law....BS. Read a state dept manual about dual citizenship.


------------------
www.nyumbani.org

http://theeestory.com/topics/1949

I believe in miracles and UFO's.

Offline
Tue, 31 Jan 2012, 8:07pm #41
Lensman
EExhilarating
Illuminati_avatar
Registered: May, 2009
Last visit: Fri, 05 Apr 2013
Posts: 9475

eestorblog wrote:

Congress can't interpret the Constitution, Lensman. They can only amend it. Congress has power over naturalization and citizenship. They do not have power over the Constitution.

In theory, Congress has power to make laws within the parameters granted to it by the Constitution, and only within those parameters-- which would still be greater than what you're suggesting, eestorblog.

In practice, Congress has taken to itself the power to make laws far beyond that the Constitution grants. As it has evolved, the Supreme Court generally only rules a law passed by Congress unconstitutional where the Supremes rule that a law directly contradicts the language or intent of the Constitution.

Since the phrase "natural born citizen" is not defined within the Constitution, the courts must look elsewhere for the definition. And the U.S. Code of Laws is one such place they look.

The fact that the Naturalization Act of 1790 was soon superceded by the Naturalization Act of 1795, which did not use the term "natural born" or "native born", does not mean the courts have in the past ignored, nor will in the future ignore, the previous language when interpreting the meaning of the phrase "natural born citizen".

And it's easy to demonstrate that, unlike previous challenges to eligibility for the Presidency, the Birther challenge to the eligibility of our current President is motivated by racism. Just ask yourself this: Would there have been any challenge to the son of a Caucasian Kansan and a Kenyan, a son born in Hawaii (a State at the time of his birth), if the father had been a Caucasian Kenyan whose parents were of British descent?

Of course not. All those other challenges were for people born outside any of the various States of the United States of America.

So don't pee on my leg and then try to tell me it's raining.


We are the 99%. A better world is possible.

Offline
Tue, 31 Jan 2012, 8:15pm #42
eestorblog
Administrator
Christmas
Registered: Aug, 2008
Last visit: 2 days ago
Posts: 4570

Lensman, are you calling me a racist?

Read the donofrio amicus brief. It explains which laws govern the issue when and why. It also explains where legal definitions come from.

Courts don't make rulings on repealed laws. :-)

Also, I think Mitt Romney has the same issue as Obama. Romney's father was Mexican and never naturalized. I think santorum also has issues highlighted by his apparent refusal to release his fathers naturalization paperwork. Marco Rubio is definitely not a NBC.

Call me racist though.

Last edited Tue, 31 Jan 2012, 8:24pm by eestorblog


------------------
www.nyumbani.org

http://theeestory.com/topics/1949

I believe in miracles and UFO's.

Offline
Tue, 31 Jan 2012, 8:51pm #43
Lensman
EExhilarating
Illuminati_avatar
Registered: May, 2009
Last visit: Fri, 05 Apr 2013
Posts: 9475

eestorblog wrote:

...subservient to British law....BS. Read a state dept manual about dual citizenship.

The only BS here is your claim, B. That Birther propaganda piece, which you also cited in your previous Birther thread, contains the specious argument which you are promoting. The argument that someone isn't a "natural born citizen" simply because under British law, someone who is the son of a British subject can claim British citizenship.

But British law doesn't govern who can or cannot run for President; U.S. law does. As mjtimber quite correctly pointed out, B, you're trying to argue that British law takes precedent over U.S. law. Otherwise, you have no case whatsoever.

And even if British law did rule here, allowing Barack Obama to claim British citizenship if he so desired... he has never done so. Nor has he ever done anything which, under either U.S. or British law, would be interpreted as renouncing his American citizenship.

According to U.S. law, or more precisely how the U.S. courts have interpreted the law, anyone born in one of the States of the union, subject to U.S. law**, with at least one parent who is at the time of birth an American citizen, is a natural born citizen. Period. No exceptions.

** "Subject to U.S. law" excludes diplomats of other countries and their families, which due to diplomatic immunity are not subject to U.S. law. Obviously this did not apply to Barack Obama or his parents.

In fact, as anyone who has even a passing knowledge of this issue knows, plenty of people who don't qualify for the narrow definition above have been ruled by the courts to be eligible for the presidency. John McCain, altho he was not born in any State of the Union, was ruled eligible. So was George B. McClellan, son of the Civil War general, who was born in Germany.

Along with the Birther who wrote the article you have linked to at least twice, B, you are attempting to create legal confusion where none exists.


We are the 99%. A better world is possible.

Offline
Tue, 31 Jan 2012, 9:03pm #44
Lensman
EExhilarating
Illuminati_avatar
Registered: May, 2009
Last visit: Fri, 05 Apr 2013
Posts: 9475

eestorblog wrote:

Lensman, are you calling me a racist?

No, I'm saying you're making a racist argument.

eestorblog wrote:

Read the donofrio amicus brief.

I did, and if there ever was a misnomer, it's calling that a "brief". I'd like that 10-15 minutes of my life back.

eestorblog wrote:

Courts don't make rulings on repealed laws. :-)

They do often and regularly, including the ruling on John McCain's eligibility based on the law that existed at the time of his birth. It's necessary to do so any time the courts must consider the law that applied at the time, when considering past events.

[edit] Correction: the courts never ruled on McCain's eligibility.[/edit]

eestorblog wrote:

Also, I think Mitt Romney has the same issue as Obama. Romney's father was Mexican and never naturalized. I think santorum also has issues highlighted by his apparent refusal to release his fathers naturalization paperwork. Marco Rubio is definitely not a NBC.

Call me racist though.

You didn't raise the issue about Mitt Romney, or any of those others. You raised the issue about President Obama.

As I said: Don't pee on my leg and then tell me it's raining.
__________________________________________________________

Last edited Wed, 01 Feb 2012, 12:03am by Lensman


We are the 99%. A better world is possible.

Offline
Tue, 31 Jan 2012, 9:25pm #45
eestorblog
Administrator
Christmas
Registered: Aug, 2008
Last visit: 2 days ago
Posts: 4570

There has never been a ruling on John mccain's eligibility.


------------------
www.nyumbani.org

http://theeestory.com/topics/1949

I believe in miracles and UFO's.

Offline
Tue, 31 Jan 2012, 9:53pm #46
Generic
EEcclesiastical
Schrodinger
Registered: Mar, 2009
Last visit: Tue, 20 Mar 2012
Posts: 1247

Lens, your tenacity is very much appreciated in this thread.

"Birthers", I haven't read much of anything in these threads. Do me a favor, and tell me concisely why his birth status means anything at this point in the game.

It seems the issue's ambiguity is the source of argument. So are you looking to plug the hole; are you convinced this should be counted on evil Obama's permanent record; or what?

As noted before, you do your "side" a disservice by crying about this shit. Demand a solution to plug the loop hole and stop crying about it. Anyone starting new threads on Bush's "loss" in Florida lately??


┌─┐
┴─┴
ಠ_ರೃ

Why monocles? Why not.

Offline
Tue, 31 Jan 2012, 9:57pm #47
eestoryrw62
EErudite
Declaration
Registered: Dec, 2009
Last visit: Mon, 25 Mar 2013
Posts: 55

eestorblog wrote:

Congress can't interpret the Constitution, Lensman. They can only amend it. Congress has power over naturalization and citizenship. They do not have power over the Constitution.

That's right B!


"It is inaccurate to say that I hate everything. I am strongly in favor of common sense, common honesty, and common decency. This makes me forever ineligible for public office."- H. L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)

Offline
Tue, 31 Jan 2012, 9:59pm #48
eestoryrw62
EErudite
Declaration
Registered: Dec, 2009
Last visit: Mon, 25 Mar 2013
Posts: 55

Obama is 50% black and 50% white hence there can be no rasist argument with him. Since he denies his white side I think he is rasist against himself. PERIOD!


"It is inaccurate to say that I hate everything. I am strongly in favor of common sense, common honesty, and common decency. This makes me forever ineligible for public office."- H. L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)

Offline
Tue, 31 Jan 2012, 10:23pm #49
Lensman
EExhilarating
Illuminati_avatar
Registered: May, 2009
Last visit: Fri, 05 Apr 2013
Posts: 9475

eestorblog wrote:

There has never been a ruling on John mccain's eligibility.

You are correct; my mistake. In two of the three suits against John McCain's eligibility, the suits were withdrawn or dismissed by the court on the basis that an individual voter has no legal standing for claiming damages. The third, filed by an elector (part of our Electoral College), was dismissed by the court on the same basis-- a lack of standing for claiming damages. The court furthermore stated that it was improper for the court to consider the issue before it was addressed by the Electoral College.

Full non-Birther article at the Michigan Law Review website: "The Justiciability of Eligibility: May Courts Decide Who Can Be President?"


We are the 99%. A better world is possible.

Offline
Tue, 31 Jan 2012, 11:29pm #50
mjtimber
EEcclesiastical
Registered: Aug, 2008
Last visit: Thu, 31 Oct 2013
Posts: 1392

eestorblog wrote:

But everyone knows that who is paying attention. (are you paying attention?)

Yes, but not for long.
The argument is that Minor V. Happersett defined what is a NBC. That's a court case. Not a law.

Indeed it is. And I can see how one might think that if the read only the syllabus, and not the opinion itself. You know, someone not paying attention.

Minor v Happersett Opinion wrote:

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.

The case specifically states that it is not answering the question. From a legal standpoint, I find it difficult to believe a court case decided NBC standing by explicitly stating it was not resolving the question of NBC standing.
When congress makes ambiguous laws, the courts interpret them.

I agree completely. I never stated it was settled law, but expressed my opinion that this will be an embarrassment if Georgia allows it to advance and the Supreme Court will settle it. In Obama's favor. We can revisit it come ballot time.


41 Rating - CAUTION - Abusive Poster

29,209,543,309x EESU Now Possible! (Rounded for Simplicity)

Offline
Tue, 31 Jan 2012, 11:41pm #51
ricinro
EExhilarating
Rich-ricinro
Registered: Aug, 2008
Last visit: Sun, 21 Apr 2013
Posts: 3302

It doesn't matter if Congress clarifies this soon or decades from now. This is an academic discussion...the toothpaste is out of the tube...the only important thing is to keep it in earshot often because it is a classic smear campaign. Even if Congress and God herself declared Obama NBC this topic will be whispered as long as Obama is President.
B is correct that this question has been around for some time and perhaps it has actually been resolved but the only thing that matters is that disqualifies the President in the minds of people who may vote.
Unfortunately it stains the hands of anyone who carries it at this time.


Thanks BTV for the blog

Offline
Wed, 01 Feb 2012, 2:11am #52
Tandem Too
EExhilarating
Registered: Oct, 2011
Last visit: Wed, 01 Feb 2012
Posts: 8

I'm not much of an original intent kind of guy, but clearly the original intent in the Constitution was to prevent someone who was under the influence of, or had allegiance to a foreign government to hold the office of president. While you may despise Obama's policies, there is nothing to suggest he is under the influence of or has allegiance to a foreign government. He is the son of an American and born in America. The motivation here has nothing to do with upholding the Constitution, and everything to do with voiding the will of the people. If this were happening to a Republican president, the same folks who are so concerned with the letter of the law today would be apoplectic.

Offline
Wed, 01 Feb 2012, 2:38am #53
celo d
EExtensive
Registered: Sep, 2010
Last visit: Sat, 30 Mar 2013
Posts: 21

He is the son of an American and born in America.
This is stupid.
Case closed


I hate pumping gas

Offline
Wed, 01 Feb 2012, 4:45am #54
EricOlthwaite
EElevated
Avatar2
Registered: Sep, 2009
Last visit: Mon, 08 Apr 2013
Posts: 439

celo d wrote:

He is the son of an American and born in America.
This is stupid.
Case closed

True but it seems the problem is that law may be an ass

Offline
Wed, 01 Feb 2012, 6:47am #55
eestorblog
Administrator
Christmas
Registered: Aug, 2008
Last visit: 2 days ago
Posts: 4570

celo d wrote:

He is the son of an American and born in America.
This is stupid.
Case closed

He is the only president born the son of an alien.
As President, he's done some unusual things.


------------------
www.nyumbani.org

http://theeestory.com/topics/1949

I believe in miracles and UFO's.

Offline
Wed, 01 Feb 2012, 7:57am #56
nekote
Administrator
Two_theories
Registered: Aug, 2008
Last visit: Wed, 29 Jan 2014
Posts: 3095

If you'd care to see the technical under pinning of the issue relating to the release of the 'long form' birth certificate:

It would appear the long form birth certificate made available on the White House web site is a forgery.
Somebody apparently forgot to 'flatten' the Adobe Illustrator file into only a single layer.
Leaving the various layers used to construct the forgery plain to see.

At least, that's what the YouTube video purports.

As to being immune to 'petty' court cases.
Challenging a person's constitutional eligibility to be President is hardly petty, IMHO.
I wonder how many other 'petty' cases Obama has been represented by counsel, already.
As opposed to no counsel representing him appearing before the Court.

And this case is hardly moot.
If the process appears heading to removing Obama's name from the Georgia ballot, you can be sure other 'red' states will follow suit.
Question then becomes would a sufficient number of swing states follow suit. If so, he wouldn't be able to receive the electors for those states for the Electorial college.

Which means he would be doomed to being only a 1 term President.

And, as far as I can see, who ever the Republicans nominate for President would essentially win by default, depending on the timing of this process.

It would appear that the timing of all of the likely proceedings will be quite a juggling act to try to manage and be key to a lot of whatever is going to transpire. And the failure of any counsel to appear part of the delay / timing scenarios.

And then consider if Obama should receive sufficient Electors and be sworn in for a second term, and then these cases go against him, even to the point of the Supreme Court.

Would the Vice President, who presumably is qualified, become President? Would Obama have to resign prior to a SC ruling, in order for the VP to move up?

Pretty unprecedented stuff.

Last edited Wed, 01 Feb 2012, 8:30am by nekote


Go DW Go - *economical* mass production

Offline
Wed, 01 Feb 2012, 9:36am #57
Duff
EEager
Wronpaul_0905
Registered: Jul, 2010
Last visit: Wed, 24 Apr 2013
Posts: 346

The PDF issue is verfiable 99 ways. Doesnt it bother anybody that the "White House" was the one who is responsible for this obvioius forgery? Its like they didnt even try.

Now you have to ask yourself 2 questions.
If they lie to the American people about this, what else are they lying to you about?

-and-

What are you going to do about it?


We do not forgive, we do not forget, expect us

Offline
Wed, 01 Feb 2012, 9:40am #58
Generic
EEcclesiastical
Schrodinger
Registered: Mar, 2009
Last visit: Tue, 20 Mar 2012
Posts: 1247

eestorblog wrote:

celo d wrote:

He is the son of an American and born in America.
This is stupid.
Case closed

He is the only president born the son of an alien.
As President, he's done some unusual things.

Agreed. Let's put into law that every child of an American woman knocked by foreginers be deported. They are all surely grave risks to our nation's security.


┌─┐
┴─┴
ಠ_ರೃ

Why monocles? Why not.

Offline
Wed, 01 Feb 2012, 10:00am #59
ee-tom
EExhilarating
Images
Registered: Aug, 2008
Last visit: Fri, 12 Apr 2013
Posts: 8158

nekote wrote:

If you'd care to see the technical under pinning of the issue relating to the release of the 'long form' birth certificate:


It would appear the long form birth certificate made available on the White House web site is a forgery.
Somebody apparently forgot to 'flatten' the Adobe Illustrator file into only a single layer.
Leaving the various layers used to construct the forgery plain to see.

At least, that's what the YouTube video purports.

As to being immune to 'petty' court cases.
Challenging a person's constitutional eligibility to be President is hardly petty, IMHO.
I wonder how many other 'petty' cases Obama has been represented by counsel, already.
As opposed to no counsel representing him appearing before the Court.

And this case is hardly moot.
If the process appears heading to removing Obama's name from the Georgia ballot, you can be sure other 'red' states will follow suit.
Question then becomes would a sufficient number of swing states follow suit. If so, he wouldn't be able to receive the electors for those states for the Electorial college.

Which means he would be doomed to being only a 1 term President.

And, as far as I can see, who ever the Republicans nominate for President would essentially win by default, depending on the timing of this process.

It would appear that the timing of all of the likely proceedings will be quite a juggling act to try to manage and be key to a lot of whatever is going to transpire. And the failure of any counsel to appear part of the delay / timing scenarios.

And then consider if Obama should receive sufficient Electors and be sworn in for a second term, and then these cases go against him, even to the point of the Supreme Court.

Would the Vice President, who presumably is qualified, become President? Would Obama have to resign prior to a SC ruling, in order for the VP to move up?

Pretty unprecedented stuff.

Nekote, I'm surprised to see you falling for this.

When you read some claim like this, which seems absurd, and also were it true would be big news, you check sources.

It is well documented, as you say. But not with the results that you say.

Adobe creates multiple layers on conversion of a photo to PDF. It is something about doing OCR. A bit weird, and frankly I was surprised, but you can reproduce precisely the effect using standard Adobe software and any image.

I remember finding these claims extraordinary and interesting when they first surfaced - so I followed the technical issue here closely: rather than believe the first internet claim I read. But I agree it is easy to find the "evidence" strong. That is, if you suspend belief, or have strong partisan beliefs. Or have a strong paranoid streak which is engaged by anything to do with federal government.

from (republican sympathetic):
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/271166...

5. It has layers! That means it's a fraud!

This is IMO the most difficult of the objections raised to date. When I first saw that particular news, I thought, "Wow!"

However, according to Freeper GunRunner, Adobe Acrobat (when used with certain settings) runs Optical Character Recognition and separates a scanned image into layers. As GunRunner explains:

"When you scan something into a PDF, Acrobat scans the text into different layers and makes the text searchable."

"You can deactivate it when you scan something into a PDF, but whoever scanned it obviously forgot to turn it off, and now because of this we will be treated to many more years of wild conspiracy theories, all because some government employee made a rookie mistake. "

A good clue about the nature of these layers is found in all of the little stray letters left behind. Virtually every kind of visual element that you or I would consider a cohesive whole is split up.

"None" is split into "Non" and "e." The "D" splits off of "Dunham." The bottom signature is split up, too. Both date stamps at bottom are split into different layers, though in different places. The "R" is split out of "BARACK." In the tiny print you can catch split-out bits of words. "add" "Co"

All of this speaks to a machine driven process, not something that a human being has designed from elements cut and pasted together.

Or, to put it another way: It would take a LOT of time for a human being to split an image up in this way and then reassemble it into the image we see. And there would be no reason to do it that way. Why spend 50 hours cutting a document into all kinds of crazy little pieces?

Especially if you were trying to create a forgery? Just doesn’t make any sense that way.

Freeper reegs also CONFIRMED that this happens, by first printing the PDF as supplied by the White House, then re-scanning it into a new PDF.

He found that the scanning process DID separate the PDF into layers. Interestingly, it appears to have separated out the middle "R" in BARACK out just as in the original layered PDF:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2711500/...


Assumptions: 1) E=1/2CV2

(Only dummies assume this)

Offline
Wed, 01 Feb 2012, 10:03am #60
hillcountry
Suspended
Mikes_avatar
Registered: Oct, 2008
Last visit: Mon, 01 Apr 2013
Posts: 569

What a damning situation for a political party to have been part of.

Offline