Sorry for posting this here, but if you would...

[DaveW]

Sure, if I get chance tomorrow I will. Though I should add that I didn't follow a 'process' as such, this is just what the scanner does when you scan and send a document - since it's using the company's internal e-mail system it tries to minimize the filesize. I'm not even sure you can turn it off.

[Neveos]

Sure, if I get chance tomorrow I will. Though I should add that I didn't follow a 'process' as such, this is just what the scanner does when you scan and send a document - since it's using the company's internal e-mail system it tries to minimize the filesize. I'm not even sure you can turn it off.

Good deal. Because, I admit, that is exactly the type of layering I would look for. We have a bit of an issue though. I want to see whether this process produces the "white ghosting" of the background behind the text. The ghosting is already present in the document you downloaded. After we have a look at this document, I'll see what I can do to fill in that white area so we can see if your scanner produces the effect.

[DDL]

Regarding the ghosting:

Look at the bottom of this page

http://incontextreport.com/2011/04/28/o ... -software/

I mean..seriously? The 'forger' went and spent hours drawing out nice little white outlines for the entirety of the signature bit of the document, and THEN layered in the signature over the top? Even the guy claiming the whole thing is a fake can't work out why this would be done (because, of course, he'd never consider the possibility that it's simply a scanning artefact). Nor does he provide a plausible explanation for the completely random grouping of the letters on each 'layer'.

Nor does he address that this is a scan of a photocopy onto silly paperof a typed document (itself presumably also on silly paper).

[DaveW]

Regarding the ghosting:

Look at the bottom of this page

http://incontextreport.com/2011/04/28/o ... -software/

I mean..seriously? The 'forger' went and spent hours drawing out nice little white outlines for the entirety of the signature bit of the document, and THEN layered in the signature over the top? Even the guy claiming the whole thing is a fake can't work out why this would be done (because, of course, he'd never consider the possibility that it's simply a scanning artefact). Nor does he provide a plausible explanation for the completely random grouping of the letters on each 'layer'.

Nor does he address that this is a scan of a photocopy onto silly paperof a typed document (itself presumably also on silly paper).

That link is fantastic. I've never actually seem a full breakdown of the 'theory' behind this, just snippets.

First thing that jumped out was "My background is in photography and graphic design and I’ve worked at a rather high level in the industry for many years." - clearly so high level he's never used a commercial scanner before in his life or understand how they save out PDF's!

Plus,
"A skilled graphic artist can remove it, but it’s not easy for someone less experienced. This is clearly done by an amateur."
So the most powerful single man in the world can't hire a decent forger for the most important document related to his life?

These people must be trolling, somehow. I was going to go through step by step but this guy is so fucking retarded there's little point.

[Neveos]

thought you guys might be itnerested in the latest news from Arpaio: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alVzyfptF80

[AEmer]

Neveos:

Answer me one, simple question.

If Obama was not a US citizen because he was actually born off of US soil, should that make him inelligible to become president.
This is not about the law. This is about whether or not it should matter.

[DaveW]

thought you guys might be itnerested in the latest "news" from Arpaio: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alVzyfptF80

Fixed for you.

On a related note - even if the Obama birth certificate was fake (which it isn't), how does that prove he wasn't born in the US? All that proves is that the birth certificate he presented was fake - nothing else. Do you actually have any proof he is foreign?

By proof I mean actual tangible evidence - not apparent lack of evidence to the contrary.

[AEmer]

@ DaveW

Actually, the burden of proof is on the elected to prove that they were lawfully elected.
This is why votes are counted in public, and why "there is no evidence of voter fraud" is no excuse.

The elected must prove for all to see that they were elected lawfully, and while it would be pretty hard to do that if there was evidence of voter fraud, the lack of evidence for voter fraud is not enough that the election can be assumed to be legit.

Which is why according to the rules of the united states, the long form birth certificate really is necessary, and why if it was a fraud, that really would be relevant.

It shouldn't be, but legally speaking, it actually is.

[DaveW]

I meant in general terms, not the legality of the election.

Compare a random American to Barack Obama - both tell you they're American and let's say that's all you have to go on. Before you accuse one of not being American, you'd have to have some proof or at least some reason for suspecting them. If you met someone in the street and they said "I grew up in New York", you don't usually reply "Did you? Where's your birth certificate? You're a liar."

My point is that the conspiracy theorists' only reason for suspecting him is because he's black. But the only 'evidence' they can cite for Obama being Kenyan is...well, actually, there's no evidence they can cite for that. There was that fake birth certificate a few years ago which was widely accepted in the conspiracy theorist community (so make what you will of their ability to spot a fake) but that's it. The most they can do is say that the birth certificate he released is fake, which even if it were true would prove absolutely nothing.

The door swings both ways. Conspiracy Theorists love calling on Obama to provide evidence that he's American - where's their evidence that he's not?

[AEmer]

That's not... are you willfully misunderstand me here? The two situations aren't the same. How can you think they are?

If someone tells you in the streets that he has a specific nationality, and you are a law enforcement officer or any other party to whom it may matter, it is correct that the burden of proof is on you to establish that he isn't, in fact, what he says he is, if that is relevant in any way. This is a part of the presumption of innocence, and it's specifically the reason why laws that mandate ID cards are unconstitutional in the US.

If you're ever asked to provide anyone with evidence that you're a US citizen, you have every right to say, you'd rather just go about your day...unless you aren't, of course, because only US citizens are protected by the US constitution, which does make laws on the matter a bit tricky.

Anyway, there's a specific exception to the presumption of innocence: During an election, the presumption is that you are not actually elected untill the public is able to witness that you are.

The door does not swing both ways on that. Elected officials need evidence as part of the public record that they are elected. Part of that evidence is proof of identity, of course, but their legal and democratic election must also be a part of the public record, as well as any prerequicites to being elected, such as proof that they aren't inelligible to hold the office for which they're trying to get elected.

This part has absolutely nothing to do with racism; people just generally don't persist in their questioning the way birthers do, which suggests some of them are doing it for uncommon reasons, which are certainly suspected to be racist by a lot of analysts.

But the actions they're undertaking are, as such, both legal and altogether appropriate when it comes to democratically elected public offices. It's typically the case that people trust the people who evaluate the information about the to elected officials to be competent and impartial, but in this specific situation, Obama has presented the evidence to the public.

If it turned out to be a forgery, and if that evidence was the basis of the evaluation of his suitability to office, then he has been holding the office illegally. It doesn't actually matter whether he really is an american to the law; if he couldn't prove that he was born in the US, he wouldn't be able to prove electability, and if he was never elligible I presume he would be removed from office during an impeachment launched by, probably, congress, though the surpreme court may also be able to launch a proceeding with similar effect.

This isn't some common-sense argument; this is what the current US legislation demands. This is not actually debateable.

If you don't believe me, you're free to look up burden of proof regarding elections.
Whether that legislation is reasonable, whether it makes sense, that's another matter. But if it was, in fact, a forgery, I'm telling you that, yes, that really, really does matter.

[bobby 55]

I don't get how a person gets to be the Prez in the first place if there's a single doubt at his/hers validity. I'm sorry, but that sheriff seems to have another agenda besides doing a public service.

[AEmer]

Oh I absolutely agree with that...and further more, in this specific instance, the law is pretty retarded.
The governator, arnold schwarzenegger, is currently inelligible to hold the office of president.

The man has no small amount of failings, but he was governer for 2 terms. I'm pretty sure you're not governer for 2 terms if you aren't worth the trust of a democratic nation, supposing he could actually get elected.

That's why the law is ridiculous; that's why it's so dumb that these guys are up in arms about it.
But legally, if the birth certificate was a forgery, President Obama shouldn't be president if that was the evidence used to recognize him as an american.

So that why it actually does matter.

[bobby 55]

But legally, if the birth certificate was a forgery, President Obama shouldn't be president if that was the evidence used to recognize him as an american.

So that why it actually does matter.

I agree with you about the legality, but wouldn't he have been vetted pretty strenuously, if not before or during the election, then at least before his inauguration?

[AEmer]

I must admit I don't know the exacting details, but so far as I know there's a comittee in place who examines the paperwork of any presidential contender who wishes to be put on the ballot.

Probably something like the federal elections comittee or somesuch.

The paperwork is presented before the comittee who then enters into the public record that they find the contenders eligible or ineligible to hold the office for which they seek to be on the ballot for, and the ballot office(s) then presumably takes their word for it and prints the ballots.

It's probably mostly a formality; I doubt if many foreigners have ever been rejected by such a comittee.
But there's several issues with that approach...while it never in the past made sense to have those seeking election present their evidence infront of every voter, it doesn't seem like the evidence is available to even a segment of the voting public. A chosen comittee merely stands in for a sceptical public and enters an oppinion into the public record.

As such, they could conceivably have made a mistake, or not been thorough. Because the evidence required is protected - people have a right to privacy after all - there's not really any other way than to have a presumably impartial group have a look and make a decision. Hopefully they have access to people who would be able to tell if something was a forgery - but I don't actually know if they do.

There may be other evidence that Obama is a trueborn american than his birth certificate, though. Old passports, for instance, friends of Obama's mother in hawaii, neighboors - but the place-of-birth requirement for the office of president is woefully specific and it's pretty hard to prove adequately with anything other than a birth certificate.

Anyway, it's certainly the case that a lot of american electional comittees on the local level are corrupt and morally bankrupt, if not altogether incompetent. I can understand some level of distrust, and honestly, given what has been written as law, I'd assume you'd want to carbon date and DNA analyze (for the wood dna) the birth certificate and have everything surrounding these requirements be entirely public - not merely part of the public record through some nebulous 3rd party.

I mean, I think the law is silly and should be repealed - I think residency in the united states of 20 years within the last 25 ought to do it, and less if you do have the ability to prove you were born on american soil - but you know, since they _have_ the law, the way to keep it would be to make these things public.

[bobby 55]

I don't know enough of their policies about candidates. The whole polling thing with their selection, primaries, and such, is a bit confusing for this lad brought up with the Westminster (based) system .

I agree that making the records public would be a step in the right direction.