I have found a fool proof way to PROVE this chnck of junk was CONSTRUCTED in LAYERS
try this
http://tinyurl.com/transparentfake
go to that link
grab the photo of the FAKE with your mouse.
Move it... over the other images on the page
SEE THE TRANSPARENT LAYER for yourself
Enjoy!
WE MAY HAVE VUSTED THIS WIDE OPEN!
pfl
Where is Buckhead??
PEOPLE!!!
ALL THIS ENERGY SPENT EXAMINING EVERY LITTLE MINUTE DETAIL OF THE LETTERS, SPACING, DATA, ETC...OF THIS DOCUMENT IS A TOTAL UTTER WASTE OF TIME!!!
WHY?
BECAUSE THE DOCUMENT HAS NO EMBOSSED SEAL TO BEGIN WITH!!!
This document proves nothing in Obama’s favor.
This document proves nothing against Obama’s.
It literally has no certification value whatsoever...
This was put out by the Whitehouse to keep the charade/game they are playing going.
We still don’t have a certified BC.
We still don’t have a certified COLB
We still don’t have his college records...
...etc...
=8-)
Unless these guys are complete idiots, they learned from the Dan Rather debacle and gone forward accordingly. That means that if this is fake, it would be very difficult to prove it, and even if you did, it would be difficult to convince many people that it is a fake.
I like making snarkey comments about calling a negro an “African” in 1961 would be like calling a homosexual man “gay” at that time. It is absurd.
But beyond that, it’s time to get the college records now. :)
Then again, maybe they ARE idiots...
So, why would a form processed 3 places in sequence after the Nordykes be processed 3 days earlier, and apparently outside the normal procedure, hmmmmmm?
Karl Denninger, an Obama voter by the way, has done yeoman’s work on this new document. Today he has responded to National Review. He brings up other non-technical problems with the document. His posts the past two days on this are worth your time. You should also scan the conversation on his forum. He goes into further detail and responds to objections to his analysis. Between Denninger’s analysis and the analysis of some of his regular commenters, a very strong case can be made that the new birth certificate is not what it purports to be.
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=185202
For those who don’t know, Denninger was founder and CEO of a tech company in Chicago (MCSNet?). He made millions when he sold out and now plays the market and runs the Market Ticker group of sites. He’s a tech guru who really understand this stuff.
Very interesting information here
also compare each of those same fields with the Nordyke birth certificates which were typed up on the same day at the same hospital. How could there be so many differences?
Andy, can you reposition the measuring lines to place the majority of the letters centered inside each line? The way it is now, the lines are running through the letters. It would be much easier this way to see your example and flush out the oddities.
Very few boxes fit your grid. Not sure what that proves. This writing appears to be perfectly centered, so it wasn’t written with a typewriter, as centering was too hard back then, and no clerk would have bothered. The other BCs from the time are NOT centered.
Since this in an “abstract,” I (no expert) figure it was printed electronically with the “facts”* and copied signatures of the original document.
* How will we ever know if all the facts are correct, from an abstract??
Has anyone ever actually SEEN the paper document or just this clearly tampered-with facsimile?