Prediction: Obama will not run in Arizona over birth certificate

[JakeStarkey]

OK, bigrebnc as forensics photography analyst. Sigh.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

OK, bigrebnc as forensics photography analyst. Sigh.

and your point would be? What I said can be varified just google North Carolina BLET.
CJC 114 Investigative Photography

This course covers the operation of various photographic equipment and its application to criminal justice. Topics include using various cameras, proper exposure of film, developing film and prints, and preparing photographic evidence. Upon completion, students should be able to demonstrate and explain the role of photography and proper film exposure as well as development techniques.

Course Hours Per Week: Class, 1; Lab, 2

Semester Hours Credit: 2

Prerequisites: CJC 111 and CJC 112

Corequisite: ENG 090 and RED 090, or satisfactory score on placement test

CJC 114 Course Outline

Criminal Justice Course Descriptions at Durham Tech

 

[WorldWatcher]

OK, bigrebnc as forensics photography analyst. Sigh.

and your point would be? What I said can be varified just google North Carolina BLET.
CJC 114 Investigative Photography

This course covers the operation of various photographic equipment and its application to criminal justice. Topics include using various cameras, proper exposure of film, developing film and prints, and preparing photographic evidence. Upon completion, students should be able to demonstrate and explain the role of photography and proper film exposure as well as development techniques.

Course Hours Per Week: Class, 1; Lab, 2

Semester Hours Credit: 2

Prerequisites: CJC 111 and CJC 112

Corequisite: ENG 090 and RED 090, or satisfactory score on placement test

CJC 114 Course Outline

Criminal Justice Course Descriptions at Durham Tech

Not discounting what you were taught but...after taking the course your analysis of the presented photographs was not very good.

1. You claimed the folds were not present when they clearly are.

2. You claim they were of different sheets of paper, yet didn't mention the color variations resulting in photographs from different types and angles of light as a possibility to your analysis (or the analysis of others that you may have just been repeating).

3. You claim a seal is not present, when all that can be determined is that the embossed seal is not visible - two completely different statements.​

 

[LaShaun]

I find the whole controversy over Obamas Birth certificate almost a Right wing conspiracy to spark some sort of contest to have him possibly removed, when it is known very well that He is An American citizen. Conservatives dont really care WHERE he was born, they just plain out dont like the man for "what he is".

 

[bigrebnc1775]

OK, bigrebnc as forensics photography analyst. Sigh.

and your point would be? What I said can be varified just google North Carolina BLET.
CJC 114 Investigative Photography

This course covers the operation of various photographic equipment and its application to criminal justice. Topics include using various cameras, proper exposure of film, developing film and prints, and preparing photographic evidence. Upon completion, students should be able to demonstrate and explain the role of photography and proper film exposure as well as development techniques.

Course Hours Per Week: Class, 1; Lab, 2

Semester Hours Credit: 2

Prerequisites: CJC 111 and CJC 112

Corequisite: ENG 090 and RED 090, or satisfactory score on placement test

CJC 114 Course Outline

Criminal Justice Course Descriptions at Durham Tech

Not discounting what you were taught but...after taking the course your analysis of the presented photographs was not very good.

1. You claimed the folds were not present when they clearly are.

2. You claim they were of different sheets of paper, yet didn't mention the color variations resulting in photographs from different types and angles of light as a possibility to your analysis (or the analysis of others that you may have just been repeating).

3. You claim a seal is not present, when all that can be determined is that the embossed seal is not visible - two completely different statements.​

1. You claimed the folds were not present when they clearly are.

If you go back I said I corrected what I meant. I said the fold in the full version did not show the notary seal that it had shown in the small version.

2. You claim they were of different sheets of paper, yet didn't mention the color variations resulting in photographs from different types and angles of light as a possibility to your analysis (or the analysis of others that you may have just been repeating).

Well exactly what color did each image show? the one with the closeup of the notary seal was different than any of he other ones.

3. You claim a seal is not present, when all that can be determined is that the embossed seal is not visible - two completely different statements

For the 4th time and I will not repeat myself notary seal is what I meant. Now if there is a notary seal in he full sized version point it out.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I find the whole controversy over Obamas Birth certificate almost a Right wing conspiracy to spark some sort of contest to have him possibly removed, when it is known very well that He is An American citizen. Conservatives dont really care WHERE he was born, they just plain out dont like the man for "what he is".

It wasn't a republican that started this. It was a democrat.

 

[rightwinger]

I predict Obama will use his position as commander in chief to invade Arizona an use his power to establish a puppet government that will allow him on the ballot

The people of Arizona will be forced to obey or be rounded up and sent to Mexico

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I predict Obama will use his position as commander in chief to invade Arizona an use his power to establish a puppet government that will allow him on tha ballot

The people of Arizona will be forced to obey or be rounded up and sent to Mexico

If that is what obama wants to do then he will be on his own with exception of the sheeple. He will have over step his Constitutional authority.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Irony, bigreb. Sigh.

 

[WorldWatcher]

3. You claim a seal is not present, when all that can be determined is that the embossed seal is not visible - two completely different statements

For the 4th time and I will not repeat myself notary seal is what I meant. Now if there is a notary seal in he full sized version point it out.

As I previously said I understood you were talking about the embossed/notary seal and not the printed seal at the top.

It is impossible to point out something that is invisible, just because it can't be seen in the first photograph of the referenced post does not mean that it is not there.

Take a dime, place it on a table, now cover it with a napkin and take photograph. Is the dime still there even though it is invisible in the photograph?

Is something is visible in a photograph based on it's casting shadows, such as the embossed/notary seal being seen because of the ridges is causes in the texture of the paper. If the seals shadows become invisible because of a larger shadow over them, does that mean the seal is not there?

As I previously pointed out about your declarative statement that the seal was not present...

No Seal

First of all lets clarify, there are two "seals" that appear on document of this nature. One is the printed seal which is printed by the laser printer as part of the design layout. The other is the notary seal which is not printed at all and exists as a design caused by raised dimpling of the paper caused by the seal press. One is a design, the other indicates to someone holding a physical copy of a document that it is not a photocopy which would not have the raised seal.

I understood bigrebnc1775 to be referring to the notary seal which exists within the dimpling of the paper.

Again our eye (and the camera) "sees" an image based on wavelengths of light reflected off of a surface. Three factors (there are more, but three is all we need here) that impact that image are: (a) changes in the color of the reflective surface, (b) changes in texture of the reflective surface, and (c) the angle of incidence of the light source upon the object (i.e. the angle at which the light strikes the object and is reflected back to the observer).

The notary seal does not exist as a change in color, as does the printed seal at the top. The printed seal is heavily dependent on (a) a change in color between itself and the background to be seen and much less dependent on slight changes in texture or the angle of the light. The notary seal on the other hand is not produced by a change in color but by causing a physical change in the texture of the paper through the application of force through the seal's press. Visibility of the notary seal then becomes heavily dependent on the observer/camera being able to perceive differences in texture based on the angle of incidence. The observer/camera typically will not "see" the changes in the texture, they will perceive changes in the texture because the light causes small shadows.

Two occurrences can detract from the perception of the raised seal. One, if the angle of incidence is 90-degrees, then there are no "shadows" created around the dimples to be "seen". Also if a larger shadow appears over the dimpling, then the shadow cast by the larger object obscures the smaller shadows cast by the dimpling. An examination of the photo supplied shows that the light source is in front of the page, indicating a high angle of incidence. In addition the photographers shadow is clearly visible across a large portion of the photograph showing the light source was behind the photographer.

Most of the other people are work with (I am not) are Notary Republics as our office is often called on to notarize documents for employees. Notaries are trained to press their seal typically over their signature. Looking at the first photograph you can see the very slight discoloration caused by the ink stamp (second photograph) bleeding through the paper. Assuming the notaries in Hawaii are trained the same way they are in Virginia, then it is logical to assume that the raised seal (if there is one) would be within the shadow cast by the arm. So we have front lighting reducing the visibility of the seal and the larger arm shadow - well - overshadowing it and making it not visible.

Just because something is not visible does not mean it's not there. For example, take a dime and place it on the table. Take a picture of it. Clearly in the photograph the dime would be visible and you could state that it was there. Now cover the dime with a napkin and take another picture. Is the dime still there? Sure it is, we know it's there because we put the napkin over it. However, if the photograph is the only think we have to examine, we could not state definitively that the dime is still there because it's not visible, even though even though we know it is because we covered the dime with the napkin.

Not being visible does not mean it is not there.​

>>>>

 

[rightwinger]

I predict Obama will use his position as commander in chief to invade Arizona an use his power to establish a puppet government that will allow him on tha ballot

The people of Arizona will be forced to obey or be rounded up and sent to Mexico

If that is what obama wants to do then he will be on his own with exception of the sheeple. He will have over step his Constitutional authority.

it is well within his constitutional authority to make the State of Arizona submit to his power as Commander in Chief. Can you show where in the Constitution our founding fathers said you cannot invade Arizona?

John McCain would have done the same thing

 

[bigrebnc1775]

3. You claim a seal is not present, when all that can be determined is that the embossed seal is not visible - two completely different statements

For the 4th time and I will not repeat myself notary seal is what I meant. Now if there is a notary seal in he full sized version point it out.

As I previously said I understood you were talking about the embossed/notary seal and not the printed seal at the top.

It is impossible to point out something that is invisible, just because it can't be seen in the first photograph of the referenced post does not mean that it is not there.

Take a dime, place it on a table, now cover it with a napkin and take photograph. Is the dime still there even though it is invisible in the photograph?

Is something is visible in a photograph based on it's casting shadows, such as the embossed/notary seal being seen because of the ridges is causes in the texture of the paper. If the seals shadows become invisible because of a larger shadow over them, does that mean the seal is not there?

As I previously pointed out about your declarative statement that the seal was not present...

No Seal

First of all lets clarify, there are two "seals" that appear on document of this nature. One is the printed seal which is printed by the laser printer as part of the design layout. The other is the notary seal which is not printed at all and exists as a design caused by raised dimpling of the paper caused by the seal press. One is a design, the other indicates to someone holding a physical copy of a document that it is not a photocopy which would not have the raised seal.

I understood bigrebnc1775 to be referring to the notary seal which exists within the dimpling of the paper.

Again our eye (and the camera) "sees" an image based on wavelengths of light reflected off of a surface. Three factors (there are more, but three is all we need here) that impact that image are: (a) changes in the color of the reflective surface, (b) changes in texture of the reflective surface, and (c) the angle of incidence of the light source upon the object (i.e. the angle at which the light strikes the object and is reflected back to the observer).

The notary seal does not exist as a change in color, as does the printed seal at the top. The printed seal is heavily dependent on (a) a change in color between itself and the background to be seen and much less dependent on slight changes in texture or the angle of the light. The notary seal on the other hand is not produced by a change in color but by causing a physical change in the texture of the paper through the application of force through the seal's press. Visibility of the notary seal then becomes heavily dependent on the observer/camera being able to perceive differences in texture based on the angle of incidence. The observer/camera typically will not "see" the changes in the texture, they will perceive changes in the texture because the light causes small shadows.

Two occurrences can detract from the perception of the raised seal. One, if the angle of incidence is 90-degrees, then there are no "shadows" created around the dimples to be "seen". Also if a larger shadow appears over the dimpling, then the shadow cast by the larger object obscures the smaller shadows cast by the dimpling. An examination of the photo supplied shows that the light source is in front of the page, indicating a high angle of incidence. In addition the photographers shadow is clearly visible across a large portion of the photograph showing the light source was behind the photographer.

Most of the other people are work with (I am not) are Notary Republics as our office is often called on to notarize documents for employees. Notaries are trained to press their seal typically over their signature. Looking at the first photograph you can see the very slight discoloration caused by the ink stamp (second photograph) bleeding through the paper. Assuming the notaries in Hawaii are trained the same way they are in Virginia, then it is logical to assume that the raised seal (if there is one) would be within the shadow cast by the arm. So we have front lighting reducing the visibility of the seal and the larger arm shadow - well - overshadowing it and making it not visible.

Just because something is not visible does not mean it's not there. For example, take a dime and place it on the table. Take a picture of it. Clearly in the photograph the dime would be visible and you could state that it was there. Now cover the dime with a napkin and take another picture. Is the dime still there? Sure it is, we know it's there because we put the napkin over it. However, if the photograph is the only think we have to examine, we could not state definitively that the dime is still there because it's not visible, even though even though we know it is because we covered the dime with the napkin.

Not being visible does not mean it is not there.​

>>>>

As I previously said I understood you were talking about the embossed/notary seal and not the printed seal at the top.

Yet in your post you had to mention it several times.

It is impossible to point out something that is invisible, just because it can't be seen in the first photograph of the referenced post does not mean that it is not there.

Actually you would see some sign of the dimpples maybe not all but you will see something of the notary seal. There is nothing in the folded area of te paper. As a matter of fact I just took a picture of on of my purchase permits which has a notary seal on it an you can see the out line of the notary seal in it's full version. And I was using a cheap camera.

First of all lets clarify, there are two "seals" that appear on document of this nature. One is the printed seal which is printed by the laser printer as part of the design layout. The other is the notary seal which is not printed at all and exists as a design caused by raised dimpling of the paper caused by the seal press. One is a design, the other indicates to someone holding a physical copy of a document that it is not a photocopy which would not have the raised seal.

Yes any document when notarize becomes an offical document. The full view version does not have a notary seal.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I predict Obama will use his position as commander in chief to invade Arizona an use his power to establish a puppet government that will allow him on tha ballot

The people of Arizona will be forced to obey or be rounded up and sent to Mexico

If that is what obama wants to do then he will be on his own with exception of the sheeple. He will have over step his Constitutional authority.

it is well within his constitutional authority to make the State of Arizona submit to his power as Commander in Chief. Can you show where in the Constitution our founding fathers said you cannot invade Arizona?

John McCain would have done the same thing

For one thing over ruling the vote of the people is unconstitutional didn't you left nuts have a little temper tantrum a few years ago about a vote or something of that nature?

 

[rightwinger]

If that is what obama wants to do then he will be on his own with exception of the sheeple. He will have over step his Constitutional authority.

it is well within his constitutional authority to make the State of Arizona submit to his power as Commander in Chief. Can you show where in the Constitution our founding fathers said you cannot invade Arizona?

John McCain would have done the same thing

For one thing over ruling the vote of the people is unconstitutional didn't you left nuts have a little temper tantrum a few years ago about a vote or something of that nature?

There is nothing unconstitutional about Obama going in and kicking some Arizona ass. It is within his powers as commander in chief. We could even have a little tea party to celebrate

He might even find some Weapons of Mass Destruction

If "We the People" are unhappy that he invaded Arizona, we can vote him out of office. But I doubt that would happen

 

[bigrebnc1775]

it is well within his constitutional authority to make the State of Arizona submit to his power as Commander in Chief. Can you show where in the Constitution our founding fathers said you cannot invade Arizona?

John McCain would have done the same thing

For one thing over ruling the vote of the people is unconstitutional didn't you left nuts have a little temper tantrum a few years ago about a vote or something of that nature?

There is nothing unconstitutional about Obama going in and kicking some Arizona ass. It is within his powers as commander in chief.

He might even find some Weapons of Mass Destruction

If "We the People" are unhappy that he invaded Arizona, we can vote him out of office. But I doubt that would happen

Fine all I will say is obama please do it.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Yet in your post you had to mention it several times.

Yes I mentioned that there are two types of seals, the printed one part of the design layout and the the embossed/notary type, to prevent possible confusion such as occurred between you and gakeeper.

Actually you would see some sign of the dimpples maybe not all but you will see something of the notary seal. There is nothing in the folded area of te paper. As a matter of fact I just took a picture of on of my purchase permits which has a notary seal on it an you can see the out line of the notary seal in it's full version. And I was using a cheap camera.

Not necessarily, it would depend on the paper, the light, and any overriding shadows.

Yes any document when notarize becomes an offical document.

Never said otherwise.

The full view version does not have a notary seal.

From the photo presented that is indeterminant. You are of the opinion that it's not there, probably because you don't want it to be. Taking such a position allows you to find falt.

However a non-biased examination of the sample provided cannot conclude that the seal is not there or that it is there. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that if there it cannot be seen.

A very different result.



>>>>

 

[rightwinger]

For one thing over ruling the vote of the people is unconstitutional didn't you left nuts have a little temper tantrum a few years ago about a vote or something of that nature?

There is nothing unconstitutional about Obama going in and kicking some Arizona ass. It is within his powers as commander in chief.

He might even find some Weapons of Mass Destruction

If "We the People" are unhappy that he invaded Arizona, we can vote him out of office. But I doubt that would happen

Fine all I will say is obama please do it.

Reb....

The way I see it he can invade Arizona on the grounds he is rounding up illegal aliens. Even the Conservatives would support that. Once you round everyone up in Arizona, you check for long form birth certificates. Anyone who does not have one gets sent to Mexico

Sounds like a win-win doesn't it?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Yet in your post you had to mention it several times.

Yes I mentioned that there are two types of seals, the printed one part of the design layout and the the embossed/notary type, to prevent possible confusion such as occurred between you and gakeeper.

Actually you would see some sign of the dimpples maybe not all but you will see something of the notary seal. There is nothing in the folded area of te paper. As a matter of fact I just took a picture of on of my purchase permits which has a notary seal on it an you can see the out line of the notary seal in it's full version. And I was using a cheap camera.

Not necessarily, it would depend on the paper, the light, and any overriding shadows.

Yes any document when notarize becomes an offical document.

Never said otherwise.

The full view version does not have a notary seal.

From the photo presented that is indeterminant. You are of the opinion that it's not there, probably because you don't want it to be. Taking such a position allows you to find falt.

However a non-biased examination of the sample provided cannot conclude that the seal is not there or that it is there. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that if there it cannot be seen.

A very different result.



>>>>

Yes I mentioned that there are two types of seals, the printed one part of the design layout and the the embossed/notary type, to prevent possible confusion such as occurred between you and gakeeper.

No this is what you actually said

As I previously said I understood you were talking about the embossed/notary seal and not the printed seal at the top.

If you did know what I was talking about wy did you keep mentioning the state seal when I had already said I was talking about the notary seal?

Not necessarily, it would depend on the paper, the light, and any overriding shadows.

It's true I just did it with a cheap camera

 

[WorldWatcher]

If you did know what I was talking about wy did you keep mentioning the state seal when I had already said I was talking about the notary seal?

Because this is a public forum not a private conversation. There are others reading out posts.

Not necessarily, it would depend on the paper, the light, and any overriding shadows.

It's true I just did it with a cheap camera

Different paper, different lighting, different camera, no shadow.

Doesn't prove anything about the photo in question.


>>>>

 

[bigrebnc1775]

If you did know what I was talking about wy did you keep mentioning the state seal when I had already said I was talking about the notary seal?

Because this is a public forum not a private conversation. There are others reading out posts.

Not necessarily, it would depend on the paper, the light, and any overriding shadows.

It's true I just did it with a cheap camera

Different paper, different lighting, different camera, no shadow.

Doesn't prove anything about the photo in question.


>>>>

Different paper, different lighting, different camera, no shadow.

Doesn't prove anything about the photo in question.

They had better lighting than I did. It proves that if that was a certified copy it would show a stamped inage of the notary seal.

Because this is a public forum not a private conversation. There are others reading out posts.

And they would have read that I corrected my comment.