WHY PRESIDENT OBAMA RELEASED the LONG-FORM IMAGE of his BIRTH CERTIFICATE in PDF versus JPEG (Updated 11.16.13)

© 2012 jbjd

Until the brouhaha over the release of President Obama’s long form birth certificate on April 27, 2011, I had never considered the differences between a document that appeared on the computer screen as a PDF versus a JPEG. (Note, I write here that the President released a long form birth certificate omitting the qualifier that it is only an image of a mock-up of a political campaign advertisement since, as I have made clear for some time now, I have determined, that’s what it is. See, for example, DE-CODER RINGS (1 of 2) and DE-CODER RINGS (2 of 2) and WHY PRESIDENT OBAMA WAITED until APRIL 27, 2011 to RELEASE a FACSIMILE of his LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE) Indeed, I hadn’t bothered to read any of the myriad narratives dissecting that image, offered by ‘investigators’ whose (stated) intent was to buttress opinions it is both genuine and fake, insofar as it purports to establish Mr. Obama’s Hawaiian birth. Because I know the release of that image, both over the internet and, via hard copy (of that same internet image) to reporters are only part of a real political ad campaign.

But then, I accepted the invitation to appear on Reality Check Radio on March 13, 2012, to discuss what RC wrote is my work as a ‘Birther.’ Having done my homework by listening to past shows; I learned about John Woodman, computer-specialist-cum-author, who had previously appeared on RC to discuss both his analysis of the President’s long-form birth certificate as well as his conclusion, it was real. During his presentation of authenticity on September 1, 2011; Mr. Woodman was asked to explain why (he thought) the President’s long form birth certificate had been released in PDF versus JPEG. Mr. Woodman posited his opinion, which was not surprisingly aided and abetted by the host.

Here is that exchange, which begins at around the 56 minute mark.

RC: One question was asked in the chat room, I want to… I think needs to be addressed is, why did Obama put out such a squirrelly image? But I think you addressed that in the book. You found, you went through Google documents and found equally squirrelly PDFs, didn’t you, that demonstrate the same characteristics with the layering, so is it really a squirrelly image, I guess is my question?

JW: It’s squirrelly in the sense that, it raised a lot of questions, and so I think from that point of view perhaps not a lot of thought went into, at some level, ah, with whoever was responsible for, ah, the technical end of doing things or maybe there was, you know, maybe there was not really … at some level it seems to me there wasn’t necessarily a lot of thought as to, are there potential consequences of the exact kind of image that we present to the public here. Um, so, whoever … it seems to me that whoever put out the image there was perhaps a typical protocol for dealing with documents and it was regarded as a document.  PDF is a format that’s used for documents. Um, and I think, you know, I think they may have thought, well, you know, this image, it’s a big deal, this image is going to be downloaded a bunch of times, ah, let’s optimize it, save some bandwidth, but I don’t think they realized or maybe thought through the implications of having an image out there that was not really in the format that people were typically expecting for a web image. Ah, when it comes to something that is just a simple image on the web, there’s what’s typically used is just a simple JPEG file and it’s the same that’s the same kind of image that you get with a digital camera and you take a photograph. And I can see that, um, the immediate thought would be well, you know, JPEG file, it may not be clear enough for people. Um, it turns out, in this case, that treating it as an image or as…treating it as a typical scanned more photographic image probably would have been a better choice than treating it as a document and making it a PDF and then optimizing the PDF to the degree that they did.

RC: Yeah, one theory that, you know, on this PDF versus JPEG discussion – and I don’t remember whether this was on the fogbow or on the Dr. Conspiracy site – is that PDFs render a lot better across multiple platforms. It’s..sometimes there are problems with JPEGS on web pages. And I don’t wanna also… I think you also can’t underestimate the importance of the file size because I believe the WH probably understood that this document was going to be downloaded tens of millions of times, um, so compressing it to a file size of 300+k versus 2 or 3 megs for a JPEG of the same, you know, of an uncompressed file was a… would have been a big deal as far as bandwidth.  Now I don’t know whether anyone consciously thought about them, but there might have been some protocol that says, ‘hey, for, you know, these things we put on our web, for documents that go on our web site, they shall be PDFs, done this way. It could have been that someone was just following a standard protocol for the WH web site or it could have just been someone said, ‘hey, let’s, ah,  these are the options I chose when I did it.’ I don’t know whether we’ll ever know or not.

JW: In the government you have rules and procedures for doing things a particular way.  Somebody may have simply been following the procedures that somebody had set up. I think they probably could have come up with a JPEG file that would have been just as clear that would have been about the same size as the PDF file, ah, and I think in this case it would have been… for all the hoopla that it caused I think it would have been a better choice for them.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/btrplayer.swf

For reasons spelled out below; I dismissed outright any explanations suggesting an official reason for the PDF versus the JPEG on WhiteHouse.gov. Nevertheless, the discussion was useful in that it signaled to me; for some reason not explored by either man, releasing the long form BC in PDF but not JPEG was a distinction with a seminal difference. And, if asked on the show, I wanted to be  prepared to comment on this aspect of the release. So, I asked a graphic artist to explain, in simple lay terms, the difference between a document reproduced in PDF versus JPEG. What I took away from her explanation is this: a JPEG of a document is one-dimensional picture, whereas a PDF is easily de-constructed into its component parts. Instantly, I told her why the Obama campaign had released the long form image of his Hawaiian birth certificate as a PDF and not a JPEG.

Before I reveal my answer, I want to show you this comment from elana, a regular poster on Democratic Underground. (At that time, she was credited with 626 posts.) (My emphasis appears in orange.)

elana i am

i just opened the pdf file from the white house site in illustrator myself, and it turns out he’s right. what he is seeing isn’t just clipping paths though, but also bounding boxes (both demonstrated by the blue lines in his example you’ve linked) from placed images that have had clipping masks applied to them.it means that the green patterned background is a seperate image placed into the illustrator file. and not only that’s but it looks like the original copy of the certificate may have been on that paper and they whited it out. it also means that each of those little sections surrounded by a blue bounding box in your top example is also a separate transparent bitmap image (presumably of what was whited out on the green paper) placed in the illustrator file (except that empty bounding box on the lower left). i’m literally sitting here moving all the pieces of this pdf file around. unfortunately your friend is not lying and he does know what he’s talking about.i know this is real, because it came directly from the white house website, but this was a PISS POOR way of presenting this document to the public. and i mean PISS POOR because they couldn’t hardly have done it in a way that made it look more doctored. i could post an image of all the pieces moved around, but i’d rather not unless you need to see it to believe it.obama has got some *real geniuses* working for him…
Wed Apr-27-11 04:06 PM, Response to Original message

Yes, elena, to use your words, Obama does have some “real geniuses” working exclusively for him. And, unlike you, I am not being sarcastic. Because while you see the release of this obviously doctorable document as evidence of ineptitude, I see it for what it is: a guarantor of sorts against criminal sanctions. I mean, God forbid some well-meaning SoS in some state beleaguered by hordes of citizen challenges to the ballot decided to download the ‘document’ and officially pronounce, ‘See, I told you, he is qualified for the job and, therefore, may appear on our ballot,’ entering the downloaded JPEG image into the official records of that office. (Or worse, what if a court of law hearing any one of the several infirm ballot challenges downloaded the JPEG document, sua sponte, so as to dispense with the case.) Under the U.S. Code, passing off a false identification document in this way is a serious crime. Id. But by fashioning a document in PDF, thus making it so easily manipulated that even people with minimal computer savvy can play with the image; its creators can sustain a defense to the crime of document fraud by pointing out that, it is such an obvious fake; no one in his right might could think this wasn’t just the focal point of a paid political ad. And, it is precisely the intent to avoid having the image we created misconstrued as ‘real’ which resulted in our choosing to release it as a PDF and not a JPEG!’

Now, here’s how I knew the explanations posited by RC and Woodman as to why the ‘WH’ released the long form birth certificate were absurd.

White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer, who ‘released’ the long-form birth certificate document and posted its launch on WhiteHouse.gov, actually ‘works’ for the President(‘s campaign), and not the American people. Id. Said another way, his position cannot be found in the Constitution, nor does his appointment by the President require Senate confirmation. https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:9ouvu8Sk2XwJ:www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41872.pdf+white+house+senate+confirmation+of+appointments&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShLRa8AEal5i5UWgewcw66P0BihTu7regRkGFRdlsWA28hxdZpr79yCtJ2GAHWg9B4gvvc_NJlDl6LgYytEDS3P-TG5rf_ffhBmSaFTXAgAyvjY2KEgXt3NJkmqMyOzK0en3_xM&sig=AHIEtbRX-0wna9T6QqlA8HbPlFS7nt_xmA

And, serving at the pleasure of the President; he can be fired, at any time. http://www.chcoc.gov/Transmittals/Attachments/trans1300.pdf

(I think I have never cited Wikipedia at any time before now; but this article provides a good jumping off point for further investigation of the office of Communications Director, which was only ‘founded’ in 1969. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_Communications_Director)

Additionally, the WhiteHouse.gov web site, which is actually a blog; is not an official government portal, either. (Contrast, for example, USA.gov, which can be accessed from a tiny link in the footer of the WhiteHouse.gov blog.) Here is a section of an email I received after consultation with that same graphic artist referenced above.

And then his people”produced” the deliberately forged “long form” BC, and posted it on the “whitehouse.gov” website in PDF format on April 27th! (http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/04/27/president-obamas-long-form-birth-certificate) and they still have the link to the actual PDF file of the “long form” BC: http://whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf
BUT!!!!  On the same whitehouse.gov site, they also provided a link to the original COLB (from 2007/8), which looks NOTHING like what the FTS site posted!  (http://whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate.pdf)  Question:  Where’s that ever-famous green security background?!?!
Stay with me, and keep reading…
As for the ‘whitehouse.gov‘ website…  Let’s go down this rabbit hole together, shall we?
According to “alexa” (a popular website information source), it says the following about the domain:
Whitehouse.gov is ranked #3,379 in the world according to the three-month Alexa traffic rankings. We estimate that 67% of its visitors are in the US, where it has attained a traffic rank of 1,119. Roughly 58% of visits to it are bounces (one pageview only). Compared with the overall internet population, this site appeals more to Caucasians; its visitors also tend to consist of childless men aged under 25 and over 45 who browse from school and work and have incomes over $30,000. Whitehouse.gov has been online for at least eleven years.
(Source:  http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/whitehouse.gov)
According to a “reverse whois” search, I found that activity on this domain is consistent with what ‘alexa’ claims, showing activity that dates back 11 years. What’s interesting, however, is that only two entries are dated in 2003.  The rest are dated from April 8th 2011, and beyond. This means that the domain was set up, but NOT USED in it’s “official” capacity until April 8, 2011.  The domain was simply “acquired” in 2003.
(Source:  http://www.domaintools.com/research/reverse-whois/?all[]=Whitehouse.gov&none[]=)

Then, I dug a little deeper….  here’s where it get’s interesting!
According to another “whois” search, I found a name in Cambridge, MA!  The whitehouse.gov website is hosted on a server belonging to “Akamai” which, according to their web site, also services other government agencies.
(Link: http://network-tools.com/default.asp?prog=express&host=whitehouse.gov)

On this above link, as you scroll down, you’ll notice a name, “Martin Hannigan”, with Akamai. It even lists a phone number: 617-444-2535

According to their “about” page, Akamai handles tens of billions of daily Web interactions for companies like Audi, NBC, and Fujitsu, and organizations like the U.S. Department of Defense and NASDAQ — powering brand new business models that serve the changing online economy.

This is all I have been able to dig up so far, but it’s enough to give you something to chew on, for sure!

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

UPDATE: I wrote this article back in March 2012 but just recently received this reply from John Woodman, a self-described “computer guy” who authored a book purporting to establish, Barack Obama’s birth certificate is not a fraud. (Of course, as I have pointed out both in this article and in numerous other articles; by itself, neither the electronic image nor the hard copy mock-up of Obama’s birth documents is accurately described as a fraud. Rather, both constitute bona fide authentic political campaign advertisements, legally governed by specific requirements contained in the U.S. Code.) Mr. Woodman is featured in the present article as a prime example of ‘anti-Birthers’ whose narrative appears to me to be ideologically driven, in the absence of factual support for their claims. Mr. Woodman’s comment is worth reading because as you will see; on becoming aware of my historical criticism of his work, he attempted to rehabilitate that work only by offering new spin on the challenged pronouncements, and not by offering any new facts which would tend to prove me wrong.

*******************************************************************************************************

Freedom costs.

34 Responses to WHY PRESIDENT OBAMA RELEASED the LONG-FORM IMAGE of his BIRTH CERTIFICATE in PDF versus JPEG (Updated 11.16.13)

  1. ehancock says:

    The above is an excellent example of why Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly all call birthers crazy.

    In this case we have a claim that a birth certificate is forged despite there not being any proof that Obama was born outside of Hawaii and the proof of the Hawaii officials who confirmed and the birth notices in the Hawaii newspapers in 1961 that Obama was born in Hawaii.

    At this point birthers then say that they believe that Obama’s birth certificate was forged EVEN IF HE WAS BORN IN HAWAII. And they say that they do not know why the birth certificate would have been forged, that being the case, but that it was forged anyway.

    And the above posting says that despite the obvious evidence that the White House staff who copied the document were lazy and sloppy and did not know the difference between PDF and JPEG, they were brilliant and used PDF deliberately.

    Well, it would be nice to think that they were brilliant–but they are not. Woodman is right; the birth certificate is not forged.

    • jbjd says:

      ehancock: I will answer you shortly. I had completed a response and attempted to post it when we lost internet and so, I have to start all over again. ADMINISTRATOR

    • jbjd says:

      ehancock: Ah, the proverbial ‘straw dog’ rears its ugly head. Of course, I did not say “a birth certificate is forged…” That would be stupid, given my insistence, it is only a mock-up for a paid political advertisement, anyway! And, consistent with that fact; of course, you are correct in opining “Woodman is right; the birth certificate is not forged.” That said, however, you failed to address these seminal points mentioned either directly or inferentially in the article: 1) under the U.S. Code, Mr. Obama’s long form birth certificate is not an official identification document but rather, a political campaign expenditure; 2) under both the U.S. Constitution and the OPM, Communication Director Dan Feiffer is employed specifically to spin Obama’s political message; and 3)the WH.gov domain on which Mr. Pfeifer posted the birth certificate handiwork is not an official government portal. ADMINISTRATOR

  2. Pete says:

    jbjd,
    I think you missed an important, but very real point. Your blogger, stated the above (and I would like to give credit) Elana I am:

    “i know this is real, because it came directly from the white house website….”.

    This is ABSOLUTELY no reason to believe anything is genuine or real that comes from the White House. Democrats, and Obama supporters stated that everything that Bush/Cheney, Reagan, Ford, Nixon said or released was a lie or cover-up. Yet, they can’t seem to remember the Gulf of Tonkin or “I did not have sex with that woman, Monika…..”. There is inherent distrust, and rightfully so, between political parties, Government, and the American people. The founding fathers all wanted it that way, and stated it was necessary for a healthy republic.

    My point is simple. You cannot debate or convince TRUE BELIEVERS, those that cannot question or look at outside evidence. Obama has never put to rest simple issues like his SS number, his obviously forged Selective Service Registration (which makes him ineligible for public office alone), his school records or even his college registration and student loan information. That black hole of information, the media’s attempt to blackout attempts at the truth, should be enough for any rational American to be very, very, very concerned. Elena I am is a true believer, and states that openly, she cannot accept that there is a possibility that she has been ‘taken’ and is supporting the destruction of her own Country and Constitution.

    Having respect for the Constitution and the law should be evident by Obama’s past, and whom he has selected to work with. What we have seen is TOTAL disregard for the Constitution in search of payouts to cronies and agenda. Obama and his Administration (including Eric Holder) are strong evidence that we no longer live in a country of laws, but a lawless country. My advice to Elana I am is to open your mind and start asking if the ‘impossible’ has already happened. I have done the research, asked experts in Adobe and video imaging whom have testified in court, and they all agree that the image displayed on the White House website has been altered. Obama and the Black Panthers involvement in the last election process should be evidence enough, even for “true believers’ that we ‘aren’t in Kansas anymore’.

    Pete

    • jbjd says:

      Pete: I kept your comment intact notwithstanding it contains many speculative assertions not based in fact. We all need to vent sometimes. But I will point out, focusing on these distractions does not make you a better informed citizen, or shore up your state’s electoral system so as to ensure candidate eligibility in 2012. ADMINISTRATOR

  3. kjcanon says:

    Excellent write-up once again, jbjd! I think what people need to really “digest” here is that the ‘whitehouse.gov’ website is indeed just a “blog”, but also more to the point – it’s domain name could have been acquired by anyone who wanted it (at least back in 2003, when it was first snatched from a list of “available domain names”). In other words, the ‘whitehouse.gov’ domain is NOT, I repeat, NOT a ‘government’ website. You see, even someone like myself could easily go to a site like “godaddy” (or any other web-hosting source), and enter a preferred domain name into their search box. Once that user clicks on the “search” button, that host performs a kind of global search for that domain name – no matter what the suffix is (gov, com, net, org, or any other suffix). If the name hasn’t been claimed, then the user can purchase the “rights” to that domain name for whatever time period they wish. Here’s the kicker: Let’s say that “whitehouse.gov” is taken (which we all know that it is), but the web hosting entity still sees other suffixes available, like “.org”, or “.us”, or even “.net”. This means that ANYONE can purchase this domain name with the alternate suffix. If you actually did a domain search on ‘godaddy.com’, you would get a whole host of other suffixes that are still available. This site also offers other domain name alternatives, like “2012whitehouse”, which is available for a whopping bargain-basement price of $13,800.00! This means that someone has purchased the domain, but is listing it as “for sale”, and they’re NOT using it right now. (http://www.godaddy.com/domains/searchresults.aspx?ci=54814) This easily explains the early dates in 2003 for minimal activity on the ‘whitehouse.gov’ domain (reported by alexa), which is where someone made the purchase of the domain name, and sat on it until April 8, 2011. Easy-peasy…

    Also, even though “RC” is not a notable “graphics expert”, I have to point out one fundamental error in what he made, when he said: “…is that PDFs render a lot better across multiple platforms. It’s..sometimes there are problems with JPEGS on web pages.” The real truth to that is that “rendering across multiple platforms” is a misconception, easily made by those who really have no clue about what they’re talking about. PDF files are simply more easily *viewable* on more computers than any other image file, because of the widely available (and free) version of “Adobe Acrobat Reader”. (not to be confused with “Adobe Acrobat Pro” which lets you deconstruct the PDF image.) And since the method of generating a PDF file can also be made by simply “printing” a document in to a PDF format (instead of sending it to an actual printer) by a large variety of different software packages (like word, excel, most windows-based software, etc), this makes a PDF file the most popular method of file *production* and *viewing*, across the country – and across all platforms. So basically, PDF files are generated in two distinct methods: Printing, and composing. The latter method is what was used by the white house “geniuses”. Composing a PDF file means that the image was first brought in to a graphics program (like Corel Draw, or Adobe Illustrator, or even in some cases Autocad!), that has the ability to separate images into layers, and allows a user to “compose” and manipulate the various graphical elements independently between layers. Conversely, there are a wide variety of image viewers for “jpeg” files, but not everyone has the same image viewer loaded on their computer. Moreover, most image viewers offer a vastly different variety of tools by which to deconstruct the image files. (For instance, some image viewers can distinguish the use of layers and some cannot.) And it is important to note that most image viewers are not as readily available to users as is the free version of “Adobe Acrobat Reader”. And I’m sure the white house “geniuses” knew this. :-)

    • jbjd says:

      kjcanon: Thank you. While I think Obama’s campaign has made some glaring mistakes – Bauer’s infamous footnote in Hollister immediately comes to mind – I have no doubt that, in the case of the appearance of the long form birth certificate, things are exactly as they were intended to appear. And thanks for that explanation of technical aspects of the release; I actually think I understood what you said! ADMINISTRATOR

  4. kjcanon says:

    To ehancock,

    You have obvious reading comprehension skills. Did you not read the part about the “deliberate” use of the PDF file? The legal ramifications of posting a scanned jpeg would have been insurmountable, had any SoS downloaded the document, in order to claim that it was “real”. Don’t you get ANY of this? Are you so wrapped up in your love-fest for Obama that you can’t the see the writing on the wall? And Woodman believes that this is possibly “standard protocol” for documents that are put forth from a “government website”! AS IF! The ‘whitehouse.gov’ website is NOT a “government” website! It is a campaign ADVERTIZEMENT. They can put whatever they want on that site! It doesn’t even have to be “true”! This is the BIGGEST misconception by people like yourself, to think that this site is “official” in any way other than that of a campaign website! Please wake up! Woodman is patently WRONG. The BC was not only a blatant forgery, but was done so deliberately. I can’t make it any clearer than that.

  5. ehancock says:

    Re“ under the U.S. Code, Mr. Obama’s long form birth certificate is not an official identification document but rather, a political campaign expenditure;

    Please cite the relevant portion of the US Code that says that a state birth certificate is a political campaign expenditure. Remember that not only did Obama post the birth certificate, but he had the physical copy of it passed around in the White House press room, and he also gave the press Xerox copies of it. This was the same long-form birth certificate that the director of health of Hawaii stated in writing that she had given to Obama’s lawyer.

    Re: “ 2) under both the U.S. Constitution and the OPM, Communication Director Dan Feiffer is employed specifically to spin Obama’s political message;

    Answer: I am not sure that that is true, but if it is, so what?

    Re: “and 3)the WH.gov domain on which Mr. Pfeifer posted the birth certificate handiwork is not an official government portal.”

    Answer: I’m not sure what you are getting at. Are you saying that Obama does not have the right to make copies of his birth certificate and to show the image of his birth certificate on the Web?

    Re: ““i know this is real, because it came directly from the white house website….”.

    Answer: I never said that. I don’t know who did. I certainly never said it, nor do I believe it.

    I believe that the birth certificate is real because the officials in Hawaii have confirmed the facts on it, and because there was a birth certificate issued to Obama in 1961, as the birth notices in the Hawaii newspapers in that year show. (At the t ime the Hawaii newspapers took the birth notices only from the DOH of Hawaii. They did not accept ads or notices from relatives, and the DOH only sent out birth notices for people born in Hawaii.) And there is no proof that Obama’s mother either exited or entered the USA in 1961, or that Obama did, or that he received a US travel document, such as being entered on his mother’s birth certificate.

    Re: “Obama has never put to rest simple issues like his SS number…”

    Answer: Because birthers do not tell you that there are millions of errors in Social Security files causing errors in numbers and millions of multiple numbers in files, and that the cause was mainly data entry errors by Social Security clerks.

    cnbc.com/id/38678753/How_Many_Social_Security_Numbers_Do_You_Have

    securityworldnews.com/2010/08/12/20-million-americans-have-multiple-social-security-numbers-associated-with-their-name/

    cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-20013733-501465.html

    The Connecticut SS number was caused by a data entry error. SS numbers were generated by the zip code of the applicant’s address. Obama’s address in Hawaii was in zip code 96814, and the zip code for Danbury, CT. is 06814.

    Re: “obviously forged Selective Service Registration “

    Answer. I have not studied the matter, so I will let Dr. Conspiracy answer:

    obamaconspiracy.org/2012/03/sheriff-joes-selective-service-fraud-debunked/

    Re: “…his school records or even his college registration and student loan information.”

    Answer: Were you under the impression that the Republican candidates for president have released their school records and student loan information? Or that Bush did (his transcript has been posted, but not by Bush) or McCain or Clinton? There is no law that says a president or a candidate should release that information, and most don’t.

    Re: “payouts to cronies and agenda.”

    Answer: That is a perfectly valid issue to vote against Obama on. However, if it is true, you do not have to make up lies about Obama’s place of birth or that his birth certificate was forged.

    Re: “I have done the research, asked experts in Adobe and video imaging whom have testified in court, and they all agree that the image displayed on the White House website has been altered…”

    Answer: BIRTHER “experts” said it, but they have not proved that they are really experts, and they certainly have not shown that they are impartial. One of them, Paul Irey, has been saying for years that Obama never attended Columbia College—despite the fact that Columbia said that he did.

    The following experts say that there is nothing wrong with Obama’s birth certificate, and the State of Hawaii, which is the real expert, has not said that there is anything wrong with it.

    Dr. Neil Krawetz, an imaging software analysis author and experienced examiner of questioned images, said: \ldblquote The PDF released by the White House shows no sign of digital manipulation or alterations. I see nothing that appears to be suspicious.

    Nathan Goulding with The National Review: We have received several e-mails today calling into question the validity of the PDF that the White House released, namely that there are embedded layers in the document. There are now several other people on the case. We looked into it and dismissed it. \’85 I\rquote ve confirmed that scanning an image, converting it to a PDF, optimizing that PDF, and then opening it up in Illustrator, does in fact create layers similar to what is seen in the birth certificate PDF. You can try it yourself at home.

    John Woodman, independent computer professional, said in a series of videos that the claims of fakery that he examined were unfounded.

    Ivan Zatkovich, who has testified in court as a technology expert, and consultant to WorldNetDaily: “All of the modifications to the PDF document that can be identified are consistent with someone enhancing the legibility of the document.”

  6. ehancock says:

    Re: “Did you not read the part about the “deliberate” use of the PDF file? The legal ramifications of posting a scanned jpeg would have been insurmountable…”

    Rave on.

    THREE Republican officials in Hawaii and the current head of the department of health of Hawaii have confirmed the facts on Obama’s birth certificate.

    No official in Hawaii-–and they are the authorities after all–-has said that there is anything wrong with Obama’s birth certificate or that there is anything different in the published image of it from what they sent to Obama.

    Other research done on this issue:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/03/book-revie…

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/03/obama-cons…

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/03/decoding-t…

    http://www.thefogbow.com/arpaio-report/

    http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirt…

    http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/292780/con…

    The director of health of Hawaii stated in a letter that she had seen the original birth certificate being copied onto security paper and that was the document that she gave to Obama’s lawyer. That physical copy was passed around in the White House press room and everyone there got a chance to hold it, and feel the seal. One reporter even photographed it.

    • jbjd says:

      ehancock: Until I get out the next article in this series; the present article should provide a hint as to where your focus needs to be if your goal is to authenticate statements of public officials. First, determine the lawful scope of their authority to say anything. Then, carefully, parse what they actually said. Finally, consider whether they face any possible legal or penal sanctions if they lied. ADMINISTRATOR

      • ehancock says:

        There are more than just legal sanctions, a Republican who lied about a Democrat having a birth certificate would not be likely to get appointed by the Republicans again, and THREE Republican officials (and several Democrats too, of course) have confirmed the facts on Obama’s birth certificate repeatedly, with the first of the two confirmations taking place BEFORE the presidential election.

        Then there are theoretical legal sanctions, which the commentator need not worry about, such as falsely signing an affidavit in a case that will be thrown out.

        Then, indeed parse what they actually said, of course:

        Here is the photographic image of the physical copy of Obama’s short form birth certificate, front and back (which, by the way, is in JPEG. YOu may not like FactCheck, but the ideaw that they could forge such a detailed doument is laughable)

        http://factcheck.org/2008/08/born-in-the-usa/

        Here is confirmation that it is the official birth certificate that Hawaii issues. (Yes, the short form is the official birth certificate now, the long form was discontinued in 2001.)

        (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574320190095246658.html)

        Here is the first of the confirmations by the officials in Hawaii.

        http://www.kitv.com/r/17860890/detail.html

        Notice where it says that there is an original birth certificate filed. Well, in 1961 foreign birth certificates, even those from other states, could not be filed in Hawaii. So the birth certificate in Obama’s files must be a Hawaii birth certificate.

        Here is the second of the confirmations by the officials in Hawaii.

        http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-07-27-obama-hawaii_N.htm

        Notice where it says that the document in the files VERIFIES that Obama was born in Hawaii. So, not only is there an official Hawaiian birth certificate in the files, but it says right on it that Obama was born in Hawaii. Hawaii has never allowed the Department of Health to issue a birth document of any kind that says on it that anyone was born in Hawaii unless there was proof that the child was born in Hawaii, and that is what the officials in Hawaii have confirmed twice.

        And here is the confirmation by the former governor of Hawaii, Linda Lingle, a Republican, that says that Obama was born in Hawaii, in Kapiolani Hospital

        http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/hawaii_gov_lingle_answers_the.html

        And here is the statement of a witness who recalls being told of Obama’s birth in Hawaii, in Kapiolani Hospital, in 1961:

        http://www.buffalonews.com/incoming/article137495.ece

        Here are the birth notices of Obama’s birth in the Hawaii newspapers in 1961. (and the Hawaii newspapers took their birth notices for this section of the paper ONLY from the DOH of Hawaii.)

        http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/obamabirth.php

        And Here is the photographic image of the physical copy of the long-form birth certificate that was passed around in the White House Press room, and the statement of the reporter who photographed it that she had felt the raised seal:

        http://lockerz.com/s/96540721

        Oh and there is another sanction that people should consider. if a journalist lies, and gets found out, she or he can be fired–and the chance of getting another job in the field is not good.

  7. ehancock says:

    Re: “This is the BIGGEST misconception by people like yourself, to think that this site is “official” in any way other than that of a campaign website!”

    In addition to the image on the White House site, Xerox copies were also given out to the press, and the official physical copy of the birth certificate–the one that the director of health of Hawaii had stated that she had seen being photocopied and that that was what she gave to Obama’s lawyer–was passed around in the White House press room, and everyone there got a chance to hold it, examine it, and feel the seal on the back.

    So, I do not rely on the White House web site AT ALL.

    • kjcanon says:

      ehancock, you really need to stay away from sites like “fogbow”, and “obamaconspiracy”, and the “obamabirthbook”. Those sites have clearly fried your brain. Why don’t you actually READ some of the articles that jbjd has written? It’s obvious that you haven’t read a single article, which makes your “points” so insignificant. And you may need to actually crack a few law books open, while you’re at it. Clearly, you are still under the impression that the “whitehouse.gov” website is an official government portal. It isn’t. And White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer’s salary is NOT being paid for by the taxpayers of this country. His position doesn’t even require a senate confirmation! Step back for a minute… close your eyes, and just THINK for a second: Here, we have a non-government website, and a non-government-employee “communications director”, who is in charge of posting “stuff” on this non-official website, all in the name of…. wait for it….. CAMPAIGN ADVERTIZING. Mr Pfeiffer can post *anything he wants* on this non-government website. Why? C’mon… say it with me… because he’s working directly for Obama. Period. All of your arguments are falling flat on their face, and will continue to garner zero respect and credibility, until you can at the very least acknowledge the FACT that the “whitehouse.gov” website is NOT an official government portal. That would be an excellent starting point for you. Go on, now… run along. Enjoy your reading assignments. We’ll wait for ya.

      • ehancock says:

        The facts that I have cited have nothing whatsoever to do with the White House Web site. They have to do with the Web sites of Hawaii–where the DOH has repeatedly confirmed that Obama was born there. And there is a JPEG of the short-form birth certificate on FactCheck’s web site. The NBC reporter who stated that she had felt the long form birth certificate and photographed it has her own web site. http://lockerz.com/s/96540721

        YOu can keep on repeating that what is on the White House site is not true, but you haven’t showed it. You can say that since it is not a government site, they can lie, and that members of the Obama campaign can lie. But you have not actually shown that they HAVE lied about the birth certificate, and besides I am taking my facts from other publications.

        Re: “until you can at the very least acknowledge the FACT that the “whitehouse.gov” website is NOT an official government portal…”

        You claim that it is not an official government web site. I have not done the research on the matter. You may be right. It has nothing to do with the facts, which come from other sources. I have not quoted the whitehouse.gove web site AT ALL.

        You can at the very least acknowledge the FACT that i HAV3 NOT QUOTED the “whitehouse.gov” website at all.

  8. kjcanon says:

    ehancock, you just don’t quit, do ya! Ok, I’ll play this game with you just one more time. (and it’s really more of an entertainment value for me at this point, but I digress) Let’s start with the basics…

    #1: The whitehouse.gov (WH.Gov) site is not a government site. FACT. (research was done)

    #2: Obama began his campaign for the 2012 election on April 4, 2011. FACT. (common knowledge by now)

    #3: “Activity” began on the WH.gov site on April 8th, 2011. FACT.

    #4: In 2008, “fightthesmears” (FTS) website was launched as campaign ad site. FACT. (research was done)

    #5: In 2007, the FTS site was trademarked just shortly AFTER Obama announced his candidacy. FACT. (research was done)

    #6: On both FTS & the WH.gov sites, an image of a “birth document” was posted for all to see, seemingly in an effort quell any concerns of Obama’s eligibility to be President. (First in 2008, and then again in 2011) These images were posted in their respective campaign years – AFTER Obama’s candidacy was announced.

    Are you starting to see a pattern here yet? Probably not, so I’ll continue.

    #7: Factcheck.org is a two-person-operated website, funded by a branch of the Annenberg foundation. George Soros is behind the Annenberg foundation, and Obama had (at one time) served on it’s board. FACT. FACT. And FACT. Factcheck had obvious “priorities”, making their “verification of facts” in this matter highly questionable, and completely biased. They knew where their bread was buttered. Their credibility is shot, and citing their website makes anyone look like a fool, now, who can’t be taken seriously.

    #8: FTS partnered up with Factcheck (linked to their site), so as to give some credence to their claim that the COLB was real. (keep in mind, we’ve only seen an image on a computer, or “photos” of a document of a print-out of a computer image, all of which are/were posted on a campaign website.)

    Stay with me… I’m getting to the good stuff.

    #9: What makes a document (a birth certificate, for example) an “official” document, admissible in a court of law? Answer: When one official entity (for example, a Secretary of State for the state of Texas) makes an official request to the official entity where the document is held (like the Dept of Health in Hawaii), and that entity delivers said document to the requesting authority. This is absolutely the only way a document or record is considered “official”, in this matter. Not an image on a screen, a jpeg, a PDF, or even a printed version thereof from said image.

    #10: Obama cannot use whatever that lawyer supposedly “brought back from Hawaii” (April 26th, 2011) in any official capacity what-so-ever. Why? Did you ever go to college? I did. And my first employer required a copy of my college transcript. But here’s the kicker – I couldn’t give that employer *my* copy of the transcripts. Nope! My employer had to request in writing for a certified copy of my transcript. This preserves the integrity of the document in question. The same holds true for Obama’s COLB and long form BC, as well. Obama can get his own copy of the documents whenever he wants. Heck, he can wall-paper the entire oval office with them! But that document can’t be used in a court of law, unless that document was requested, as I described in item #9. Moreover, if any government official made any claim that they “have personally seen the documents” and that “Obama was born in Hawaii”, these are not official declarations! They can say whatever they want! It doesn’t matter, no matter whether they are republicans or democrats, or even the director of the DOH! Re-read item #9 once more.

    Is any of this sinking in yet? I can go on… but basically, ALL of the above information has already been covered on jbjd’s articles, where she cites her sources. (hence, the statements on the above items that say the “research has been done”) If you really want to be taken seriously in any debate on this subject (from this point on), I strongly suggest that you read as many of jbjd’s articles as possible. Then you can come back here and sound like a quasi-intelligent individual who at least has a few facts under his/her belt. Gosh, this was fun. We should do it again sometime. :-)

  9. ehancock says:

    Why should a CONSERVATIVE Republican governor of Hawaii, who is currently running to be a US senator from Hawaii take the chance of lying about Obama’s place of birth?

    HOW come there were birth announcements for Obama in the Hawaii newspapers in 1961? (The birth announcements could only have been sent to the papers by the DOH of Hawaii in 1961 because at that time the Hawaii newspapers did not take birth notices for that section of the newspaper from anyone other than the DOH, and the DOH did not send out birth announcements in 1961 for people who were born outside of Hawaii?

    How come there is absolutely no proof that Obama was born in Kenya or in any other country or that he was admitted to the USA by the INS in 1961, or that his mother was, or that he received a US passport or was added to his mother’s passport or received a US visa in 1961–one of which would have been necessary if he had been broad i na foreign country and was taken to the USA. (That and an INS check in, which if he were born in Kenya would have taken place in New York, where the INS files are not missing.)???

    Re: “They can say whatever they want! It doesn’t matter, no matter whether they are republicans or democrats, or even the director of the DOH!”

    Sure, but why should they? Why should these three Republicans lied about Obama’s place of birth?

    People who hate Obama often lie. They lied about his grandmother saying that he was born in Kenya–when the transcript of the call shows that she said that he was born in Hawaii. They lied when they posted forged videos of Obama allegedly saying that he was born in Kenya. They lied when they posted forged “birth certificates” from Kenya.

    But why should three Republican officials and the DOH and a member of the press who stated that she saw the birth certificate and felt the seal all lie? How come there were birth notices in 1961? How come there is no evidence that Obama was born in any foreign country? How come there is a witness statement?

    Here is the photographic image of the physical copy of the long-form birth certificate that was passed around in the White House Press room, and the statement of the reporter who photographed it that she had felt the raised seal:

    http://lockerz.com/s/96540721

    Here is the photographic image of the physical copy of Obama’s short form birth certificate, front and back. (YOu do not like FactCheck, too bad, but the idea that it could forge such a detailed birth certificate is crazy, and by the way, no one in Hawaii has said that there is anything wrong with the document–NO ONE.)

    http://factcheck.org/2008/08/born-in-the-usa/

    Here is confirmation that THIS ONE, the short form birth certificage, is the official birth certificate that Hawaii issues

    (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574320190095246658.html)

    Here is the first of the confirmations by the officials in Hawaii.

    http://www.kitv.com/r/17860890/detail.html

    Notice where it says that there is an original birth certificate filed. Well, in 1961 foreign birth certificates, even those from other states, could not be filed in Hawaii. So the birth certificate in Obama’s files must be a Hawaii birth certificate.

    Here is the second of the confirmations by the officials in Hawaii.

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-07-27-obama-hawaii_N.htm

    Notice where it says that the document in the files VERIFIES that Obama was born in Hawaii. So, not only is there an official Hawaiian birth certificate in the files, but it says right on it that Obama was born in Hawaii. Hawaii has never allowed the Department of Health to issue a birth document of any kind that says on it that anyone was born in Hawaii unless there was proof that the child was born in Hawaii, and that is what the officials in Hawaii have confirmed twice.

    And here is the confirmation by the former governor of Hawaii, Linda Lingle, a conservartive Republican, that says that Obama was born in Hawaii, in Kapiolani Hospital

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/hawaii_gov_lingle_answers_the.html

    And here is the statement of a witness who recalls being told of Obama’s birth in Hawaii, in Kapiolani Hospital, in 1961:

    http://www.buffalonews.com/incoming/article137495.ece

    Here are the birth notices of Obama’s birth in the Hawaii newspapers in 1961.

    http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/obamabirth.php

    • jbjd says:

      ehancock: Your questions would be answered if you read my blog. They would be answered if you only read the specific articles I already provided to you. I cannot play this game with you any longer. Do the homework; and this now includes reading the next article in the ‘long-form-birth-certificate-as-political-advertising’ series. (Hint: as always, pay attention to the absence of identifying information, such as microfiche/film catalog numbers or birth index record identifier, which could provide a basis for verifying the information presented by Obama’s team.) ADMINISTRATOR

  10. ehancock says:

    Re: “Your questions would be answered…”

    Your hatred has obscured your ability to deal with the facts. The facts are overwhelming that Obama was born in Hawaii. That is why Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly and the National Review have all called birthers crazy.

    • jbjd says:

      ehancock: Even assuming I am crazy, this still does not explain why 1) so many people, including perhaps those you mention, fail to distinguish between an electronic image which is part of a legal political advertising campaign and a bona fide vital document delivered directly from the issuing authority to the (hands of the) government or court official responsible for its authentication; or, even if they appreciate this distinction 2) they refuse to publicly admit, this whole ‘Obama-produced-his-birth-certificate’ production, is a fraud. ADMINISTRATOR

      • ehancock says:

        Re: “government or court official responsible for its authentication…”

        There are no government or court officials responsible for its authentication. IF a court actually asked to see the physical copy of the long-form birth certificate, it would be there to be sent to the court. But no court has asked to see it.

        Until a court asks to see it. Who must decide? Well, since WE are discussing it, it is we who must decide.

        The question is whether the birth certificate actually exists. You think that it doesn’t. But that requires three Republican officials in Hawaii and the current Director of Health of Hawaii and the reporter who said that she saw the physical copy and felt the seal and photographed it and put the image up on her own Web site to ALL BE LYING.

        That happening–a lie by all those people–is remotely possible. But then we do have the birth notices in the Hawaii newspapers in 1961 that prove that a birth certificate was actually issued to Obama in 1961.

        And. guess what, not one single Republican candidate for president has shown his birth certificate at all.

        • jbjd says:

          ehancock: What I meant by that phrase “government or court official responsible…” was this. If an applicant for a driver’s license, or a guaranteed student loan, or survivor benefits, for example, needs a birth certificate as proof of identify then, the person receiving the document attests to its veracity. At that point, both the submission of that document and its authentication are governed by applicable law, which prescribes penalties for false submission and authentication. Any of these officials not acting in an official capacity is subject to legal sanctions for lying about what s/he sees.

          And please stop repeating the lie about contemporaneous birth announcements. You litter up the blog repeating this tripe. Better you should ask why Bob Bauer, then counsel to the DNC and Barack Obama and about to be WH Counsel; only told the federal court in Hollister that APFC “noted” such announcements, which they did; but didn’t cite to the ‘fact,’ such announcements were published or, provide library references for such alleged publication. (Neither did APFC.)

          I won’t repeat myself. Read the articles I linked for your benefit. Demonstrate your commitment to the truth and not ‘the party line.’ ADMINISTRATOR

          • ehancock says:

            Re: “If an applicant for a driver’s license, or a guaranteed student loan, or survivor benefits, for example, needs a birth certificate…”

            Yes, and they show the official physical copy, not the original in the files. No official has asked to see Obama’s official physical copy–not even the Sheriff’s posse. They made claims about Obam’s birth certificate without even asking to see it.

            Nevertheless we know that it exists because of the statements of the three Republican and several Democrat officials. Because of the birth notices in the Hawaii newspapers in 1961–which at the time were sent to the papers only by the DOH, and only for births in Hawaii. There is even a statement by a reporter that she saw the document and felt the seal.

            Re Bob Bauer. There is no law that actually requires either party to check the place of birth of a candidate. The Republican party did not ask to see McCain’s birth certificate, or that of Bush, his father, Reagan, Ford, Nixon, etc. And the Democrats did not ask to see Obama’s birth certifiate or Clinton’s or Carter’s or LBJ’s, or JFK’s.

    • kjcanon says:

      ehancock, I will counter ALL of your little “images” of so-called “valid” birth certificates with this little gem:

      Oh! Oh! Do you see the raised seal? Huh? Do you??? I just wanted to make sure you see that seal, because by gosh that just makes it look soooooo “real”, now doesn’t it? LOL!! I guess we should now all vote for “Mickey Hussein Mouse II”? I’m sorry, but you’re becoming your own worst enemy, here. I really needed that laugh, by the way! LOL!!! Thanks!!

      But seriously, jbjd has already laid everything out for you in her articles, and you’re just too dense, or too stubborn, or too what-EVER to ‘get it’. I almost feel a little sorry for you, but I just can’t seem to stop laughing long enough to really care about your “opinions” any more. Have a nice evening!

  11. ehancock says:

    The raised seal–on both the short-form (which you show) and the long-form birth certificates–are on the back, where they are supposed to be.

    • jbjd says:

      ehancock: Read what the press gaggle said about those seals. And stop asking questions without reading the article to which your comment is appended. At the risk of appearing to be a rude hostess; let me point out, it’s impolite to come here to obfuscate when my express purpose is just the opposite. ADMINISTRATOR

  12. [...] OBAMA WAITED until APRIL 27, 2011 to RELEASE a FACSIMILE of his LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE; 2) WHY PRESIDENT OBAMA RELEASED the LONG-FORM IMAGE of his BIRTH CERTIFICATE in PDF versus JPEG; and 3) SHE SAID / HE SAID: SCRIPTING the 04.27.11 LAUNCH of PRESIDENT OBAMA’S LONG FORM [...]

  13. [...] OBAMA WAITED until APRIL 27, 2011 to RELEASE a FACSIMILE of his LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE and WHY PRESIDENT OBAMA RELEASED the LONG-FORM IMAGE of his BIRTH CERTIFICATE in PDF versus JPEG, which are meant to be read before tackling the present post,) But the article I originally had in [...]

  14. ehancock says:

    There have now been four state court cases and one federal court case that specifically ruled that Obama is a Natural Born Citizen.

    Obama’s physical birth certificate was sent by Hawaii to Obama twice (the short form and the long form). It was shown by the White House to the press, and its facts were repeatedly confirmed by the officials in Hawaii (three Republicans and several Democrats) and it is further confirmed by the birth notices in the Hawaii newspapers in 1961 (which in those days were only sent to the papers by the DOH of Hawaii, and only sent for births in Hawaii).

  15. John Woodman says:

    jbjd,

    I happened across your post this evening. I’ve long since ceased commenting on the birther issues — I said all I had to say and then bowed out more than a year ago — but I was struck by your depiction of my interview back in September 2011.

    “Surely I couldn’t have been THAT incoherent,” I thought. So I went back and listened to the audio. Sure enough, while your transcript of it is virtually unreadable, the audio itself is not unlistenable. For some reason, it seems, you chose to put commas where my pauses indicated a period, and to generally portray me as completely incoherent.

    Now I’ll admit that on that particular question, I was less than eloquent. A lot of the reason for that is that it was a question I hadn’t really thought about before. So I was thinking on my feet. Perhaps I should’ve simply said, “I haven’t thought about that.” Instead, I thought on my feet and attempted to give a real answer to the question.

    And I still think that the answer I gave was the correct one.

    The White House staffer who posted the image chose to publish it as a PDF because that’s the format in which they publish documents. And he (or she) optimized it because it’s good practice, and because it was going to be downloaded hundreds of thousands of times.

    They don’t routinely publish documents as JPGs, and they simply didn’t expect any brouhaha from publishing it as a PDF.

    Since you published this article a year and a half ago, despite the claims of some, several things have happened.

    First, despite some assertions to the contrary, not one significant point of the book I wrote on the subject has ever been successfully debunked.

    Second, claims made by birther authorities and “experts” have repeatedly and absolutely been shown to be false. See, for example, the proven false claims made by Arpaio’s posse regarding the 1961 Vital Statistics Instruction Manual, and the proven false claim of their “expert” Garrett Papit that MRC compression never produces multiple bitmap layers.

    Third, one of the top GENUINE experts in the world in image compression technology — a man who invented much of the underlying technology and who has many such patents in his name — examined the PDF and stated publicly that he saw essentially the same thing I saw.

    And finally, this year, it’s been demonstrated that a couple different models of the Xerox WorkCentre (one of which is known to be owned by the White House) produce the effects that I identified long ago as having been machine-produced — and that a simple and likely workflow produces all of the effects seen in Obama’s PDF.

    Sincerely,

    John Woodman

    • jbjd says:

      John Woodman: First, I am sorry this response to your extensive comment is so long coming.

      I am struck that, notwithstanding the length of this comment, it includes only 2 short lines directly addressing the point of my article, which is that a PDF image of a long-form birth certificate for President Obama was released (both in electronic and hard copy form) rather than a JPEG image because the former is an obvious construct which would provide its own defense against criminal sanctions, in the case that such image was later introduced as evidence of his birth in an official forum, such as a court of law.

      The White House staffer who posted the image chose to publish it as a PDF because that’s the format in which they publish documents. And he (or she) optimized it because it’s good practice, and because it was going to be downloaded hundreds of thousands of times.

      How did you come to know that what you now (in 2013) describe as a choice to post the so-called birth certificate in 2011 in PDF versus JPEG form, can be attributed to what you presently characterize as merely ‘the way it was done back then'; when in your interview back then, in September 2011, a mere 5 months after that initial image posting, you were only able to speculate this reason for the PDF versus the JPEG?

      Now I don’t know whether anyone consciously thought about them, but there might have been some protocol that says, ‘hey, for, you know, these things we put on our web, for documents that go on our web site, they shall be PDFs, done this way. It could have been that someone was just following a standard protocol for the WH web site or it could have just been someone said, ‘hey, let’s, ah, these are the options I chose when I did it.’ I don’t know whether we’ll ever know or not.

      And notice that inasmuch as your 2013 definitive statement contains what you present as a fact-based rationale behind the use of PDF – “that’s the format in which they publish documents” – which belies the speculative nature of your 2011 remarks – “It could have been that someone was just following a standard protocol” – it also alters the prediction accompanying that previous speculation: “I don’t know whether we’ll ever know or not [why the WH posted the long-form birth certificate in PDF versus JPEG format]. Now that you purport to “know” why the campaign released the image in PDF versus JPEG; why didn’t you cite to your source?

      In other words, assuming your present intent is to credibly counter my original claim that, the PDF was chosen over the JPEG so as to ensure the legal “reasonable person” would know outright, it’s a fake, through your use of a brand new argument asserting that the creators of that image were only being consistent with past practice; then, especially in light of your past inconsistent rationale, you have done no such thing. ADMINISTRATOR

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 56 other followers

%d bloggers like this: