Fogbow

Luke wrote: ↑Tue Apr 16, 2024 6:30 am Considered that, Bob. Haven't paid attention to Young Turks in a long time, but during the Birther Age, they were allies.

“IF THEY CHANGE THAT DOCUMENT, THEY’RE PLAYING A GAME”

Since at least the end of the Obama presidency, the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) has maintained the image of an unauthenticated copy of Barack Hussein Obama’s purported “long-form” birth certificate evidenced by its lack of an official raised seal.

* * *

On Monday The Post & Email spoke with Zullo about the birth certificate displayed by NARA, archived from the Obama White House webpage of April 27, 2011, during which he told us:

Zullo wrote:Somebody sent me a video on the birth certificate of an analysis they claimed was taken down relatively quickly. I was looking at it, and they pulled down the White House copy. So I went to the White House to pull down the copy, and when I did my Google search, it showed the birth certificate in the Archives. So I clicked on that, and I was looking at it and saying, “Obama never displayed the birth certificate himself; whatever was displayed in the press gaggle had no background to it.” And then when I was looking at the document in all its glory, I realized there’s no seal on it and that the Archives is literally displaying an unauthenticated, fictitious document because the State of Hawaii would not release a birth certificate without a seal.

The way the State of Hawaii does it, when they print it off, it gets the safety paper background. When it’s in the book, there are all white backgrounds. The seal would already have had to be in place, and it’s not, so the Archives is displaying a fictitious document.”

Further, Zullo revealed exclusively to The Post & Email an “enhanced” long-form birth certificate image produced by experts engaged by the investigation seeking evidence of a raised seal and showing none[.]

* * *

“The other question is why the National Archives has the birth certificate,* because it was considered a personal record when Obama asked for it, and they sent his personal attorney to get it,” Zullo also observed Monday of the events leading up to the uploading of the long-form. “It’s another indication that something was printed out that wasn’t authenticated, and we know the state of Hawaii doesn’t print PDFs.”

noblepa wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2024 7:07 pm That birth certificate appears, to me, to be a photocopy of a document bound in a book. You can see the curvature of the document at the left side.

As for it not being printed on white paper, it looks like the certificate in the book is on white paper, and the size of the certificate does not fill the entire image. The background of the entire image, even outside the boundaries of the certificate itself ARE on safety paper (or the digital equivalent).

I don't think that you could display a scanned image of a document that was printed on safety paper. That is kind of the whole purpose of safety paper; so that the document can not be photocopied.

P&E: Exclusive: National Archives Displays “Unauthenticated” Obama Birth Certificate

Ray Fremick wrote:Here is the archived Savannah Guthrie image of the LFBC.

https://web.archive.org/web/20120525143 ... s/96540937

If you zoom in to the spot just above the April 25, 2011 date you can make out the dots the make up the double border of a seal. Adjusting the contrast helps. The seal is also visible just to the left of the V in Vern Lee’s signature.

The same round double row of dots is visible in the same place on the PDF if you zoom in.

In fact since a seal appears in both images at the same spot, it is likely the paper document photographed by Guthrie was used to create the PDF on the Xerox 7655.

BTW, I suspect the Archives has the PDF on their site because it was used in an official press conference and was uploaded to the White House website. That would make it a Presidential record. The question for the Archivist is whether the original paper document used to create the PDF is also now part of the record. I’ll ask them and let you know what they say

Rondeau wrote:The Post & Email has different information.

* * *

[some jerk*] wrote:[T]he digital image on the archive’s site has an outline consistent with the size and shape of a seal. And the registrar’s certification is plainly visible.

Rondeau wrote:On a forgery, no less!

* * *

Reality Check wrote:How do you know no one has “seen” or “felt” the raised seal? The packet handed out to reporters at the press conference on 4/27/11 did not show the embossed seal because, as I said, embossed seals do not copy easily. J. Scott Applewhite’s photo was taken of one of these copies so it doesn’t show on his photo either. We do not know how many reporters asked to see the original documents but they would have been able to see the raised seal. We know they were made available at the presser however.

We know because Savannah Guthrie said she was allowed to capture a cell phone shot of one of the two original certified copies of the long form certificate provided by Hawaii. If you open the link I provided and enlarge the image you can clearly see the embossed seal. Guthrie said she saw and felt the seal. Recall that when copies of the short form were first published they did not show the embossed seal unless you enhanced the image to crank up the contrast. On the high resolution images published by Factcheck.org that you linked above the seal is visible because they shot the photo at an angle with a concentrated light source that made the embossed seal very visible.

* * *

So yes there is a seal and any argument to the contrary is bogus.

'DeMaio' wrote:In the above comment by “Reality Check,” a link is included purporting to confirm that Savannah Guthrie “saw and felt” the raised seal on the birth certificate. However, all that confirms is that a clearly less-than-unbiased NBC reporter ran her finger over “a” seal that had been squeezed onto a piece of paper.

Was that tactile “feeling” of a seal the official one from the State of Hawaii or might it have been from some other state or even the seal of Good Housekeeping? Or the Land of Oz? Stated otherwise, only an unbiased, independent examination of the document displayed on the NARA website would satisfy the “Best Evidence Rule.” The anecdotal comments of an NBC reporter do not suffice.

bob wrote: ↑Fri Apr 19, 2024 3:42 pm That's right: The State of Hawaii forged a Hawaiian birth certificate from the ground up. And then put a fake seal on it. And then certified it as real.

Kerchner wrote:Like many of the names of Bills introduced in Congress, RealityCheck’s statements and so called facts that he has proffered in his support of Team Obama has nothing to do with the insinuations of his user ID name. It is just a social engineering tactic.

As I recall he’s a trained social engineer and sociologist (look up what social engineers do online) – who is a master (in his own mind at least) of linguist trickery, language manipulation as taught by Antonio Gramsci a founder of the Italian Communist Party, and in attempts to manipulate people and public perceptions.

Also, as I recall I believe he teaches Sociology (or did) at the University of CT, at which one his favorite course offerings to his students was the works of Karl Marx. His student reviews were not very good as I remember reading them.

Thus, in reading what RC posts here, his language manipulations and trickery tactics here in general have nothing to do with “reality” and the truth about the enigma of who Barry Soetoro, aka Barack Hussein (some also say a 2nd middle name of Mohammad) Obama really is, if even Obama knows himself anymore what with all the fabrications and changes of his life narratives over time.

And wiith RC’s well known association with the very nasty FogBow group members such as Foggy “who they called “Grumpy Foggy” in their inner-circle chats, who was in a video wearing a red ball camp with the hammer and sickle on it in one video tape of their chats, RC being Foggy’s buddy, is obviously not here in this forum for the good of our constitutional republic and the protection of Article II Section 1 Clause 5 of our U.S. Constitution. JMHO!

noblepa wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2024 7:07 pm That birth certificate appears, to me, to be a photocopy of a document bound in a book. You can see the curvature of the document at the left side.

As for it not being printed on white paper, it looks like the certificate in the book is on white paper, and the size of the certificate does not fill the entire image. The background of the entire image, even outside the boundaries of the certificate itself ARE on safety paper (or the digital equivalent).

I don't think that you could display a scanned image of a document that was printed on safety paper. That is kind of the whole purpose of safety paper; so that the document can not be photocopied.

Luke wrote: ↑Sat Apr 20, 2024 1:26 pm Jem is right: They're onto us! Emergency: Follow instructions in the CHARTREUSE Obot Guide. We had a pretty peaceful few months but Chuckles & Co found us! And he's nailed every single fact accurately, those birthers and their research skills are as devastating as ever.

I'd like to be on the record for this one: RC is absolutely a cunning linguist.

Luke wrote: ↑Sat Apr 20, 2024 1:26 pm Jem is right: They're onto us! Emergency: Follow instructions in the CHARTREUSE Obot Guide. We had a pretty peaceful few months but Chuckles & Co found us! And he's nailed every single fact accurately, those birthers and their research skills are as devastating as ever.

I'd like to be on the record for this one: RC is absolutely a cunning linguist.

Luke wrote: ↑Sat Apr 20, 2024 1:26 pm Jem is right: They're onto us! Emergency: Follow instructions in the CHARTREUSE Obot Guide. We had a pretty peaceful few months but Chuckles & Co found us! And he's nailed every single fact accurately, those birthers and their research skills are as devastating as ever.

I'd like to be on the record for this one: RC is absolutely a cunning linguist.

keith wrote: ↑Sun Apr 21, 2024 3:45 am

Luke wrote: ↑Sat Apr 20, 2024 1:26 pm Jem is right: They're onto us! Emergency: Follow instructions in the CHARTREUSE Obot Guide. We had a pretty peaceful few months but Chuckles & Co found us! And he's nailed every single fact accurately, those birthers and their research skills are as devastating as ever.

I'd like to be on the record for this one: RC is absolutely a cunning linguist.

I need help. Can you give me the Pantone number for the chartreuse guide please? All these guide colours are confusing me and I have never been too good and figuring out what the hell chartreuse is when I see it. Who designed this mess anyway?

Chartreuse (color)

About these coordinates Color coordinates
Hex triplet #B2D63F
sRGBB (r, g, b) (178, 214, 63)
HSV (h, s, v) (74°, 71%, 84%)
CIELChuv (L, C, h) (81, 84, 102°)
Source RGB and CMYK color systems.
ISCC–NBS descriptor Vivid yellowish green
B: Normalized to [0–255] (byte)
H: Normalized to [0–100] (hundred)

Chartreuse (US: /ʃɑːrˈtruːz, -ˈtruːs/ ⓘ, UK: /-ˈtrɜːz/,[1] French: [ʃaʁtʁøz] ⓘ), also known as yellow-green or greenish yellow, is a color between yellow and green.[2] It was named because of its resemblance to the green color of a French liqueur called green chartreuse, introduced in 1764. Similarly, chartreuse yellow is a yellow color mixed with a small amount of green; it was named because of its resemblance to the color of a similar French liqueur called yellow chartreuse.[3]

During the 2000s, yellow-green, as well as other shades of bright green like lime green, became a very popular aesthetic of choice due to various tech companies using it as office decor and other associated products and the massive popularity and success of the Shrek franchise from DreamWorks.[4][5][6][7][8][9]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chartreuse_(color)