BREAKING - Sheriff Arpaio: Obama birth certificate a ‘forgery’

lol, your usual incoherant babble.

 

What "seals the deal" of his citizenship is his birth certificate from Hawaii, verified and vouched for by Hawaii.

There is NO evidence that the original is a forgery, regardless of what you have seen of other copies by other people.

There is NO other evidence needed, by law, unless you can show some kind of proof PROVE Hawaii is lying.

 

HAHAHA. Oh yeah, hawaii supports its native son . Why would they lie?

 

Okay lets assume that you are a scientist and that you really do base your opinion on evidence.

First of all what is legal standard of evidence of birth within the United States?

I think we can all agree that the legal standard is a birth certificate by a legal authority- and that in Hawaii, that would be a birth certificate certified by the Registrar of Records of Hawaii.

Now President Obama posted a copy of his birth certificate in 2008 for voters to see. But you might say- this is just a digital image. But I think we can agree that there is no possible way for President Obama to show his actual birth certificate to all 300 million of us- what he did was the only practical way to show it to all of us his an image of his birth certificate.

As a scientist, you would of course understand that you personally cannot inspect every piece of evidence. For instance, I would assume you accept the existance of moon rocks without ever handling one yourself.

Then in 2011, President Obama requested a certified photocopy of his original birth certificate, in order to make Donald Trump look like an idiot. The President held a press conference and passed around copies of the birth certificate to reporters. Some took pictures of them.

But you say- what evidence do we have that the birth certificates that he showed reporters and then posted on the internet is authentic"

Well that is where the Department of Health of Hawaii comes in- with their official confirmation that Barack Obama had posted his certified birth certificate on line, and that he was born in Hawaii.

So the sole agency responsible for authenticating any Birth certificate in Hawaii confirmed that the birth certificate is authentic and the President was born there.

Now IF a Presidential candidate had any obligation to prove he was eligible, by any legal standard, Barack Obama has achieved this. In contrast- no other candidate has provided any evidence at all.

Now if you were still interested in evidence, you might consider the birth announcements, or the Birth Index data that shows Barack Obama being born in Hawaii. But those are just supportive evidence. Because you already have solid legal evidence that you were looking for.

 

Argument by authority is a classic rhetoric 101 logic fallacy.


how old are you? how can a (presumably) adult not be aware of the most basic of logical fallacies?


the authority in hawaii saying there is no evidence does not necessarly mean that in fact there is no evidence.

even more, the state of hawaii is not exactly an authority immune to bias.

 

Yes, why would they lie?

Birthers tend to gloss over why the Republican governor of Hawaii, or the Republican Director of Health of Hawaii would risk going to jail and having their careers destroyed in order to support the Democratic presidential candidate.

Especially since both of them would know that within a few years that both would be replaced by someone who could reveal any fraud and send them to jail.

So yes- why would any rational person assume they are lieing?

 

Well so you refuse actual legal evidence.

As a scientist- what possible evidence would you accept to prove anyone's birth?

If a Birth certificate, confirmed by the actual agency actually legally responsible for issuing and storing birth certificates is not sufficient evidence- what possible evidence would your scientist mind accept as proof of birth.

 

ummmmm yeah.....right....

Can you show up at Republican parties and shout this a lot?

Seriously- I really encourage you to strongly, vocally and personally show up to support Republican candidates. Please consider a sign with exactly your statement above.

Please...pretty please.

 

Go to bed sweetened Son Of Satan and Obama.
Not giving a whits end as to guilt or finding of Truth.
Yer no more substantial than some Old carp swimming carelessly
in a pond replete with scum and yet oblivious as if a given.

 

Again, state of hawaii endorsement means that its true beyond a doubt is a logical fallacy.

again, how can an adult be so ignorant of basic logic and rhetoric?

I am a nerd of sorts of the information age an i am quite familiar with digital graphics and editing.

i have examined the document and it has inconsistant characters and color/ pattern spots as well as several embedded layers that have no reason to be there.

the burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

what proof does hawaii have that it is indeed authentic other than an evidence void endorsement?

how do you adress the issue of inconsistent characters and color /patterns as well as layers?

that to me is evidence.

 

hmm good question, i would say a hard copy of the origonal that could be anylised scientifically to determine its age.

 

Legally you are quite wrong. Legally the State of Hawaii is the only expert that needs to make the claim.

That you even claim to be a scientist and are confused by 'layers' when what the State of Hawaii is confirming is a physical document that the President has scanned and posted on the internet.

The physical document that the State of Hawaii is confirming couldn't have the 'layers' you are seeing.

Beyond, that, Barack Obama has already established his eligiblity- Birthers are claiming he is not eligible- the burden of proof is upon you to establish that Barack Obama is not eligible.

 

Legally speaking you may or may not be right, but scientifically speaking the legality of it is irrelevant to the actual facts.

Im not confused by layers i have seen them with my own eyes.

youre right that the hard copy would obviously not have layers, but the point is that the digital copy did.

alas though i and others are not priviledged to access the hard copy and are reduced to the logical fallacy of trusting an impressionable authority who hoards it in virtual secrecy.

you are wrong about the burden of proof, the burden is on barak obama to PROVE his eligibility, not just establish a perception of it.

 

Shins, I'm a graphic artist and have been using Adobe Photoshop since 1988. The 'color/patten spots' spots you refer to are digital compression - it comes from shrinking a high res file down into a lower res jpeg. I see it all the time in my job and its clearly visible in the pdf.

And there is no way to see or ascertain layers in a pdf file of a jpeg - DUH!

 

Seriously? Exactly what kind of scientist are you?

"a hard copy of the original that could be analyzed scientifically to determine its age"?

Any copy of the original would be as old as when the copy was made.

If you are saying that the only way you will accept a birth certificate- as a scientist- is if the original is subject to scientific testing to authenticate its age.....well that rather defeats the entire purpose of certified copies of birth certificates.

 

You mean Linda Lingle, the hawaii gov in 2008? She's a jew and israel-firster and she did as the bankers told her.

 

Barack Obama has already established his eligibility. That you do not accept that that is not his responsibility, but once Congress confirmed his election and he was sworn into office, he became our legal President.

Multiple election commissions have affirmed that he is eligible to be on the ballot.

Birthers have accused President Obama of not being eligible. The onus is upon the accuser to prove that Obama is not eligible. That is the reason that Birthers have consistantly lost every court case and election challenge.

 

"She's a jew"

And some people get upset when we have the temerity to suggest that Birthers are racists.

 

Um, actually PDFs do have layers, are you really a professional graphics artist?

im am aware of compression but it does not account for the anomolies. It was released in PDF format which does not get those kinds of compression effects you get from a jpeg.

you also said it has jpeg compression effects, yet it was released as a PDF.

 

yes thats what im saying, when its the president, and when its such an issue especially.

im am also saying certified "-copies-" are more vulnerable to fraud than the hard, origonal copy.

having the origonal hard certificate dated by several unbiased labs is the only hope of fully convincing me.

 

Shins, you're only proving that you have no idea what you're talking about. The pdf on the white house website is a flattened raster file...no layers in this pdf, genius. And when you make a pdf file of a jpeg that has had its resolution shrunk at some point, the digital compression is included in the pdf. You're an idiot.

 

no need to name call.

the copy available from the white house website is a PDF.

a flattened bitmap added to a PDF is not immune to tampering anyways. why not just release the origonal bitmap?

the pdf certainly has layers, who knows how many the bmp had too?

i dont know why you keep going on about jpeg compression, why would they compress the file?

 

Which means what? What were the layers? Background, print material, entered data? If it was a forgery and a pdf, why wouldn't they flatten the layers?

Post your document for us to see.

 

OK, I just downloaded the birth certificate from the Whitehouse website. (as far as I can figure it has no layers)

It was certified by the Hawaiian state register on 4/25/2011. If it was a forgery wouldn't the state register claim "foul?"

Do you birthers honestly believe the state register is part of a conspiracy?

This thread needs to be moved to the conspiracy forum

 

Why isnt it flat indeed!

if you search google for "white house obama certificate" i believe the pdf download link is the very first result.

also remember were dealing with CIA, witness protection and all that who forge certificates professionally for a living.

even a completely flat image is not proof enough.

like i said, only an independently dated origonal hard copy will do.

otherwise i'll remain skepical, but open minded.