search
top

Sometimes Blind Squirrels Go Hungry.

Taitz-Irey-ROH As a lot of blogs are covering the Bergdahl / Taliban prisoner exchange we decided to head on over to self proclaimed “Birther Queen” Orly Taitz to see what was happening in her world.

There are a lot of posts with the normal “woe is me,” “the world is against me,” and “can you donate to the cause?” type posts.

BTW – in all our years of watching Taitz, we have never see her give an accounting of the money she has collected in donations. That does not mean she has not done so, but we have never see it. In fact, unlike other sites that seek donations, we have never seen her state how much she has collected from people.

While we were skimming her site we came across a post where she has taken up the cause that a Certificate of Copyright issued for Obama’s book “Dream of My Fathers” was forged. Leading the charge with this accusation was our ol’ buddy Paul Irey. We clashed with Paul Irey before on Raised on Hoecakes over his belief and fatally flawed “investigation” into the Obama Hawaii birth certificate. Irey has now turned his sights on the Certificate of Copyright.

The blinds squirrels of Irey and Taitz are looking for nuts, but alas, they go hungry.

Here is the the document in question:

Writing to Taitz, Irey says in part:

Otherwise I think it should be made public that the one you have presents a form with typewriter type from an old manual typewriter not likely used at Random House publishing in 1994.
In addition … the part of the form identifying the country of birth … USA … is typed twice on the in two places but the size of the typewriter type is obviously not the same for each.

Irey’s assertion that Random House would not have used a manual typewriter (and we assume he means an electric typewriter as well) fails the test.

First, look at the bottom of page 2. There you will see that this is not an electronic form. This was a form that was printed (on recycled paper) by the US Government. We know that we are dealing with a printed form that was filled out. While a case could be made that someone would make a template for a Microsoft Word or other word processing program and then print it on the form, it would have been easier to simply type the information in using a typewriter.

Also, take a look at the three “USA’s” that appear on the document. They can be found on lines 2a and 2b. Here they are cut out of the document and enlarged:

Copyright-USAs

If one were to claim the letters were printed on a laser printer (or even an inkjet) one would expect to find the letters to be crisp and identical. They are not and the only way that can be explained is if the letters were typed and not printed. The impact of the letters from the type wheel or type bars onto a ink impregnated cloth ribbon and then onto a piece of fibrous paper is the only way the differences in the individual letters can be accounted for. A laser or inkjet printer would not have those variations.

Another reason the typewriter makes sense is the spacing or more accurately, the “line spacing” on the form.

Word processing templates are very accurate in their line spacing. It takes some effort to get the input of the information just right on a form that was not computer designed or a form that is not being filled out on a computer.

With actual typewriters, when one wished to move to another line, a typist would either physically move the carriage across the typewriter using the carriage return lever or if the typewriter was electric, the typist would strike a key labeled “return.” Either manually or electrically, the carriage with the paper would then be moved from where the keys were striking the right side of the paper back to the left side. In addition, the carriage roller would advance the paper a preset number of lines.

To fill in blocks that were not evenly spaced, a typist would release the carriage ratchet mechanism which then allowed the carriage roller to be positioned where the type wheel or heads would strike.

Here we have the mailing address information from line 4 of the document. Notice that the line spacing is consistent. We then took the “USA’s” from line 2b, changed the hue (color) to make them more visible pasted them onto the mailing address.

Copyright-Spacing-ROH

It is clear that the spacing between the two “USA’s” and the mailing address is different. As we said, if the spacing was identical, it would more than likely be set on a computer. But as it is not, while not proof on its own that this document was filled out on a typewriter, when taken along with the differences in the letters shown above, there is little doubt that contrary to Irey’s claim, this was a form that was filled out using a typewriter.

So why would Irey get something like this wrong?

After all, in her post, Taitz says that Irey is a “expert in typography.” Shouldn’t he know?

The answer is “no.” One would think that he would, but the answer is “no.”

This is the same misinformation Irey tried to pull with his examination of the Obama birth certificate. Irey has 50 years of experience in the world of typography, which is printing via a printing press. By his own admission, Irey’s experience with a typewriter was in the military where he used a typewriter for four years. He admits he never studied, repaired or examined a typewriter. Just like a driver of a car who puts in gas and turns on the key, using a piece of equipment is not the same thing as being a mechanic and knowing how it works. So while we are willing to initially accept his expertise in typography, we question his knowledge of typewriters. His conclusions in both the birth certificate and this Certificate of Copyright shows the questioning of that knowledge to be valid.

As we said earlier, Irey made this claim as well:

In addition … the part of the form identifying the country of birth … USA … is typed twice on the in two places but the size of the typewriter type is obviously not the same for each.

When discussing the Obama birth certificate, Irey made the claim that the type was different sizes and even from different font families. When challenged to identify the supposed additional fonts that were used on the birth certificate, Irey could not. In fact, we showed that the type sizes were the same and the font itself was identical.

Irey has not learned and his “expertise” is severely damaged by the Certificate of Copyright document in question here.

(As we are about to start comparing letters and specific fonts on the first page, we loaded a larger copy of that first page which you can view. The full size image can be seen by clicking here. The image is large – over 6 megs in size – so if you are reading this on a phone or tablet with data limits, you might not want to open the image up while on those devices.)

Here’s what we did:

We cut from the document the two areas where “USA” appears. (Lines 2a and 2b.) We then took the top “USA” from line 2b, copied it and changed the hue. You can see what we did below. We then copied the “new” orange “USA” and pasted it on top of the second “USA” in line 2b and the “USA” from line 2a. We lowered the opacity of the orange “USA’s” to 43% in order to see the “USA’s beneath them. (That is why the color of the overlays seem darker you are seeing the black type below through the orange type.

Copyright-USAs-Size-Comprison-ROH

As you can see, contrary Irey’s assertions, the size of the USA’s are the same.

The “typographical expert” is wrong: demonstrably wrong and everyone who looks can see it.

Just when you think that the errors cannot get anymore ridiculous, in her opening paragraph of her post, Taitz says:

In the area where one has to post the birth date of the author, Obama posted USA. Clearly, a constitutional scholar and editor of Harvard law review should understand the meaning of the question : “what is your date of birth”. Shockingly, Obama answered USA.

What is shocking here is that lawyer Taitz, who has in the past and continues to have difficulties with legal orders, documents, decisions, etc., doesn’t understand that Obama did not prepare the form.

His agent did.

On the second page of the document, one can see that a man by the name of Michael Greveas prepared, signed and sent the application to the Copyright Offices as the designated authorized agent.

There is no indication that Obama had anything to do with the preparation of the form other than in the mind of Taitz.

Anyone who reads this blog knows that we are not a friend of President Obama. While we respect the office of the President, we don’t respect Obama. However, we respect the truth more. Even though accusations like the ones Irey and Taitz are throwing out could hurt Obama, we would rather stick with what is true.

It is a shame that some people will allow their dislike of a person to cloud their judgement, willfully and gleefully accepting lies and falsehoods because they meet their agenda.

Irey’s and Taitz’s assertions on the Certificate of Copyright are easily proven to be false. It is a case of two blind squirrels hunting for nuts and failing to find any.

We took a lot of heat when we came out in defense of the Obama birth certificate. (Actually, we didn’t defend the certificate, we looked at the claims that the certificate was forged and found those claims to be untrue.)

We don’t care.

We believe more in the truth than politics.




(We want to thank our graphics guy who did more work than usual in helping prepare this post.)

Comments are closed.

top