WHAT ORLY TAITZ NEEDS TO DO WHEN SHE EXAMINES OBAMA'S "ORIGINAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE"

Naturally, the title of this column suggests that when Dr Taitz arrives at the Department of Health in Hawaii, reported to be at 10:00 AM on August 8, with subpoena in hand and a seeming legal right to examine the documents, the DOH will not do what they have unbelievably suspiciously done for ages: find a way to keep Dr. Taitz from seeing it.

          A jpeg image of the birth certificate PDF proven by some of the 

        world's best graphics experts to be an "amateurish fake"

However, there is always the chance that Taitz will be allowed to see the document.  My concern is that because the document Obama released has a potential backdoor qualifier as being a potential "abstract", that the "original" document they may be allowed to see will simply be Round Two of the release of the forgery: different enough to start the process all over again and slick enough after learning their lessons and being taught how it's supposed to look by the analysis of the aforementioned experts that it will leave the issue "inconclusive". This time Obama's people  are certain to have their typeset correct, stamps in place and all the rest (if Taitz is allowed to see anything).

While the experts Irey and Vogt are very good, as I understand the process they will only be able to make a visual analysis. In short, a visual inspection is almost certain to fail to conclusively prove anything unless Obama's resources are much tighter and more restricted than we might guess - in that case he must be having some sleepless nights.


While Vogt and Irey should be there, if I understand the approach they are taking correctly, Orly Taitz is missing the most critical analyst and most important person who could possibly be there: a forensic document analyst of the laboratory/chemical UV light on-site variety. The reason is that the success of this examination won't be based on typesetting or any kind of visual analysis. The proof will be in determining the age and consequent authenticity of the document. THIS kind of thing.

THIS KIND OF CHEMICAL/FORENSIC EXAMINATION in determining the age of a document IS ABSOLUTELY ROUTINE.

ORLY TAITZ MUST HAVE AT LEAST ONE FORENSIC LAB SPECIALIST PERIOD. THERE IS NO EXCUSE AND NO OTHER WAY TO PROVE THE AGE - AND HENCE AUTHENTICITY, OF THE DOCUMENT.

More "suspicious" aspects of the document won't settle anything. Without the press behind us on this we're banging our heads against a wall with "suspicious evidence". This is the President and the press and congress are in full protection mode, that's just the fact of it. This is the subpoena for which we have all waited for 3 years. This is it. If the good Dr. Taitz does not have the proper authority to make a forensic determination on the age to qualify whatever Vogt and Irey determine, that's it. We lose. Not maybe. We lose. Why? Because realistically we'll never get this opportunity again and the press will spin this mercilessly and with sadistic glee against us. THIS NEEDS TO BE DONE RIGHT.

For example, Bill Clinton almost got away with destroying Monica Lewinski for his own political gain after she did little more than be nice enough to service is base desires; It was the DNA of his own semen on her dress that she kept as a bizarre keepsake that forced him to admit his grotesque affair to the nation. We need chemical proof besides what the document says, because it can say anything unless it's 50 years old, and the age then becomes the proof positive.


Forensics experts are everywhere - there is no excuse for this not to be done. 


A SMALL SAMPLE:

Maryland
Forensic Document Examiners, Inc. Katherine Mainolfi Koppenhaver
Forensic Document Examiners, Inc. consists of a staff dedicated to providing professional services in a timely manner in the field of questioned documents.

Integrated Paper Services, Inc (IPS)
Paper Forensics and Age Dating. Testing a Paper's Age-Old Story Using Fiber Science

Geochron Laboratories - Radiocarbon dating for paper
Radiocarbon dating is the principal method for determining the age of carbon-bearing materials from the present to about 50,000 years ago.

THIS scribd article show some of the on-site methods used outside the lab:

Level 2 refers to features to be checked with technical facilities such as: visible light to look at printing quality, traces of substitution or relief effects; UV light to detect UV-fluorescent securities (paper bleaching, fibers, printing) and UV-visible forgery traces (chemi cal eradication); infrared radiation to examine writing inks; reading devices to detect magnetic printing; special viewing systems for retro-reflective securities; reading systems for machine readable devices.

They need someone with chemical analysis and UV forensics experience to confirm the age of the document.

Remember, some of the most esteemed graphics people in the world have called the forgery out as a fake and the media won't cover it. Whatever is done has to be of a caliber that no courtroom could deny the evidence - like Clinton's DNA.  Indeed, the judge may have allowed the examination on the assumption that only an inconclusive visual (and not chemical) analysis would be done, so as to appear fair while ensuring that no judgement against Obama would be rendered.

Dr Taitz says she is busy right now. I beseech her: if she is too busy to organize this with a chemical forensics analyst in 7 days, then she needs the re-schedule. Irey and Vogt will presumably still be there when the time comes and the document no matter how old - if it exists - will still be there, also.

The age of the document must be ascertained or nothing else will fly.

ADDITIONAL ARTICLES ON DOCUMENT AGE FORENSICS. 

HERE

HERE

HERE

HERE

HERE

PLEASE DO THIS RIGHT

ADDENDUM: I mentioned this to someone active in this cause and they said they had heard that the Obots were publicly boasting that they had gotten their hands on "1961 paper and ink" for a forgery. I think this is absolute BS, probably designed to demoralize birthers and shore up morale among the Obot ranks (Obama's polls are looking pretty dismal right now, though it is interesting to think that Obots would essentially acknowledge that Obama is ineligible by admitting he needed a forgery for which "1961 inks and paper" had been gotten).

Anyway, on the issue of "1961 paper and ink" I'd like to say this:

1. Where do you get 1961 ink? - it's possible, but it needs to be the same kind of 1961 ink as other birth certificates, and you need at least three different kinds: the ink with which the document was printed and two at least for credible variation on the signatures, and these need to match similar documents, such as the Nordyke's BC, a manifest piece of evidence with which it can be forensically compared.

2. Ditto the paper. Maybe 1961 unused paper is around (I doubt it), but it has to be the same kind of 1961 paper. (electron microscopic analysis of the paper weave and decay would tell you that in two seconds)

3. Hawaii is a particular and sometimes unique place. The paper will have absorbed traces from the air which will be uniform to other Hawaiian documents but not elsewhere. So they have to get the same kind of Hawaiian 1961 paper. My feeling is such a thing does not exist. Many things don't exist. I think 1961 Hawaiian document paper in unused condition is one of them.

4. They have to find a way to duplicate the changes in the ink and paper combinations that occur with half a century of aging. When paper and ink combine and age over time, there is a recognizable signature to the chemistry which can be compared to like-date and like-geographic documents. This is simply impossible to duplicate. This is how forgers get caught. That's what chemical document forensics are all about. That one is just a done deal - you can't duplicate this aging process. Period. Impossible.

I wouldn't worry about "1961 paper and ink". That's a weird, anti-birther fantasy. In fact, it doesn't even make sense from a practical perspective.