PING to post 47
It looks like this thing is a fake.
FAKE! FAKE! FAKE!
BWA-HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA!
It’s a forgery. The Dunham Obama signature is a composite of two signatures. Speculation: the original DOB was earlier in the year. Speculation: the original signature did not have Ann as the first name.
Let’s suppose a few things, and see where our mind goes:
1) Suppose it is a forgery
2) Suppose that only the layers identified so far are the variances from an original document that were chosen for forgery.
3) Suppose that the main body of the document in white is the non-forged bit.
4) What important components vary, then, that could be forged?
Answer:
1) Doctor’s signature.
2) The last numeral in the File Number.
3) Dates accepted by the two Registrars.
4) The certification of the copy.
5) The signature of the Local Registrar.
6) A couple of white boxes that may have been placed over the top of compromising information.
Question: Are any of those potentially manipulated components of the file sufficient to cause the reader to envision forgery?
Answer: Sure.
1) At a minimum, who the doctor was that delivered 0bama has always been in question. Now, we have a composite document that calls into question the signature of any doctor.
2) What dates the Registrars attested to is now in question.
3) Who the Local Regitrar was is now in question. Is the person alive, dead, talking, real, etc?
I don’t have time to continue this line of thinking. Back to work.
Y’all keep it up!
That’s it. The non-deformed security imprint is the postscript “th” smoking gun.
Take a look carefully at the green version. Enlarged to 400%, you can see the distortion caused by a State embossed stamp directly under item #21. It is a circle, and extends well into the white space.
Perhaps coincidentally, the bottom portion of the embossed symbol’s distortion artifact is layered over by a white box.
Hmmmmmm........
Why wouldn’t the 0bummers WANT to show the State embossing?