“I believe Obama’s form is fake as it doesn’t even have his Selective Service number on it.”
The computer generated record of Obama’s registration does show his SS number on it, right at the top (61 1125539 1). This is consistent with other SSN issued in 1961. The center digits are random. The last digit is a checksum and can be any number between 1 and 9.
The handwritten registration form will of course NOT have his SSN on it, because he was just registering for the draft. The number is assigned later at the SSS processing data center. Then they send you your SSS (draft) card, which is how you find out your number.
The DLN number as I pointed out earlier is not something you would generally know. You would have to request your registration forms with the FOIA to obtain your DLN. It is the DLN that begins with the year you first registered. In Obama’s case this was 1980, so the first 2 DLN digits are 80. This is what the computer records also says: 8089 708 0632. So what is the problem?
The problem is the handprinted registration certificate number is MISSING the first digit, “8”. There should be 11 digits in the DLN. There are only 10 digits on the registration form. If this was a DLN from 2008, there would be also be 11 digits, NOT the 10 digits in the copy shown on Debbies’ site.
So either the correct DLN was printed without the leading 8, for 1980, or the first digit has been erased.
The background analysis of the registration form shows the background has in fact been whited out - right up to the leading DLN “0”, and in most other areas of the card. This is a photoshop operation. Someone has modified the photo Debbie put on her site. This photo was scanned from a paper document - so the government did not photoshop anything - the photo had to be first scanned from the FOIA original paper copy, and then the background digitally cleaned up, replacing the original paper scan background with pure digital white. CHECK THIS OUT YOURSELF. You use the “sharpen” function to bring up the background noise. White out areas have no noise by definition. The original background always has noise that is visible with enough sharpening (or noise differential enhancement).
The date stamp also was whited out where the “19” should be. The rest of the information appears to be valid. The publication date of the form is hard to resolve, but looks like SSS Form (Feb 80) to me. Not the Feb 90 date Debbie is speculating.
In other words the original form has been doctored to appear forged and/or in disagreement with the computer printout from the SSS, and this was done after it was scanned by the retired Texas govt worker. WHY and WHO would do this? If the two forms agreed in DLN and post office date stamp where the 19 was missing, there would be no story here. Is someone trying to create a story by doctoring with the document?
You can see this selective erasing of the background here:
http://img221.imageshack.us/my.php?image=obamaselectiveservicereaf3.jpg
Just to follow up on the round stamp age (USPO) issue.
I have searched for old round stamps from the 1980’s and I have found them, for 1980, 1985, 1987, and 1988. They are from my own stamped certified return receipt slips when I mail in my tax returns with a CMRR, as I usually do.
First, there were MANY round date stamps with USPO used at least up to 1988. This is 17 years after the USPO became the USPS. Obviously the post office continued to use their old stamps for many years. Vickie551at was wrong. Also you will find NO personal ID marks on any of the date stamps. In one case the postal employee added his/her initials near the stamp, as in the Obama registration stamp. So Vickie551at was wrong here too. Makes me wonder if she ever worked for the post office at all.
So this shoots down one “theory” of DS. The USPO stamp was valid and common in 1980 and there is no ID number on the
stamp.
Here are my scans of my certified mail stamps. Only one is USPS, from 1988, while there are USPO stamps still in 1988. In one case the same post office was using BOTH USPO and USPS stamps in 1988.
http://img212.imageshack.us/img212/7600/datestamp1980st2.jpg
http://img212.imageshack.us/img212/8343/datestamp1988rc3.jpg
http://img212.imageshack.us/img212/9724/datestamp1985qu9.jpg
The SSS registration form used was also dated “SSS Form 1(Feb 80)” upon close inspection. And her argument about it being canceled is also nonsense. Only an order for future forms that was ~requested~ in Feb 80 was canceled. If this order had been printed the forms might have been dated Apr 80 or May 80, however long it would take to print the forms. Shoot down another of her arguments. And so it goes. The truth will come out eventually - and DS probably won’t like the truth.
