Skip to comments.NBC's Savannah Guthrie Unintentionally Proves Obama Birth Certificate Tampered With (pencil marks)
Posted on 05/23/2012 12:55:05 PM PDT by Seizethecarp
After downloading the file from whitehouse.gov and importing it into Adobe Illustrator, one need only to release the clipping mask in order to see two pieces of vital statistics coding not present on the original Ms. Guthrie photographed. A clipping mask that hides information is in and of itself a clear sign of document tampering, but we'll save that for another day.
Since it is impossible to scan a document and have additional information show up on the computer file that was not on the original, one must conclude that the electronic file Obama released has been tampered with and that the computer file might be the parent of the certified paper copy instead of the other way around. It also opens the possibility that yet another electronic file constructed on computer is the parent of both the certified copy Ms. Guthrie photographed and the electronic file posted on whitehouse.gov. Regardless of the exact cause of this anomaly, one this is for certain: The certified copy of Obama's birth certificate photographed by Ms. Guthrie cannot be the parent of the electronic scan posted for download at whitehouse.gov.
(Excerpt) Read more at obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com ...
Check my posting history. I have never called the monstrosity Obama digitally displayed a “forgery”, nor have I ever alluded to a “conspiracy”. What I have said, repeatedly, is that Obama released an “abstract”, which is what in fact he did release. This does not involve criminality on HI’s part. [Though they did obviously participate in making this particular abstract look like something it isn't. That, however, is not a criminal act—just a very deceptive one.] It only makes them an accessory to Obama’s ugly eligibility shell game.
The info on the abstract probably represents what Obama’s record currently looks like, following at least two adoptions. From that perspective, HI can cover their butt by alluding to the COLB, which also reflects the results of Obama’s adoptive machinations. Obama is the real deceiver here. He has released one thing and called it something else. In that sense, Sheriff Joe has him dead to rights, and I hope he nails Obama’s hide figuratively to the wall.
If you've spent half an hour reading over the various anomalies and other issues w the abstract, you would know there's no way it is the original LF BC. Plus, as I said, it doesn't look like the description of the ‘birth record’. As you noted, Fukino said it was half handwritten. That doesn't refer to a fully typed form that has been signed. It refers to a document that is partially typed and partially handwritten.
Here's what Abercrombie said: It was actually written, I am told, this is what our investigation is showing, it actually exists in the archives, written down.
He is referring to a notation or a listing, obviously not the standard form typed BC that was released. Unless you are deep in the tank for Obama, you can plainly see that the description of the ‘birth record’ in no way matches the mongrel form that was released. [Mongrel, because it was clearly pasted together from several other documents.]
The abstract is the reason HI gets the vapors when someone like Bennett asks for simple info. HI is walking a tightwire. They have to finagle a way to affirm the info on the COLB w’out referring to the most recently released form as an original LF BC. This explains why it took them three mos to answer Bennett's straightforward and reasonable questions.
Obama is lying like no POTUS has ever lied. You do yourself and no one else any favors by not digging in and informing yourself of the various inconsistencies and issues involved in Obama’s documents. W the MSM and the corrupt HI officials in his corner, Obama has very little to worry about. (Hopefully Sherriff Joe will nail him; Joe's really our only hope right now.) One thing we don't need is to have people shilling for Obama who haven't bothered to educate themselves on his various deceptions. The sooner Obama is called out for his lies, the better it will be for us all.
On April 25, 2011, pursuant to President Obamas request, Director Fuddy personally witnessed the copying of the original Certificate of Live Birth and attested to the authenticity of the two copies. Dr. Alvin Onaka, the State Registrar, certified the copies.
President Obama authorized Ms. Corley to pick up the documents. On April 25, 2011, Ms. Corley appeared in person at the Hawaii State Department of Health building in Honolulu, paid the requisite fee, and was given the two certified copies, a response letter from Director Fuddy to President Obama, and a receipt for payment. (Letter from Director Fuddy is attached).
In June 2008, President Obama released his Certification of Live Birth, which is sometimes referred to in the media as a short form birth certificate. Both documents are legally sufficient evidence of birth in the State of Hawaii, and both provide the same fundamental information: President Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii at 7:24 p.m. on August 4, 1961, to mother Stanley Ann Dunham and father Barack Hussein Obama.
So are all these people lying? The governor, the director of health, the state registrar?
Youtube Demo of how layers are created by adobe:
I know you haven't said there is a conspiracy, but the point I'm making is that for your theories to be true it necessitates a conspiracy because so many high ranking hawaiian officials are telling the same story.
I’m sorry Freepers, I’ve been a Birther from day one. I was the first to put a video on Youtube questioning Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth. I believe that his long form Certificate of Live Birth is a total fraud. I do not believe Obama is a natural born citizen, and therefore he is not legally or Constitutionally eligible to be our President.
However, this article is total baloney. If you download a copy of the photo Savannah Guthrie posted of Obama’s long form Birth Certificate and then brighten the image, so you can see the security pattern and compare it to the “unmasked” image, presented in this article, you’ll see that Savannah’s photo shows a wider edge than the “unmasked” photo. How could that happen? Mark Gillar claims it’s not possible. Simple. Remember Obama got two copies of the document. He showed one of them to Savannah, and scanned the other, which may have gotten smudge marks on it.
Based on your logic, Sun Yat-sen was born in HI. You really are an Obot. You ignore any info that conflicts w the Obot narrative and accept anything at face value that affirms your faith in Obama and his records. Well he said he was born in Kenya. Maybe for once he was telling the truth; have you considered that?
So if you believe that zero is the son of the kenyan and the white teenager from Kansas, what are you doing here? You aught to be thrilled that the WON you voted for is where he is, and go back to sleep.
The National Review explanation was just painfully and obviously stupid. The video demo was rather poor and lacked the obvious expertise that the demos linked in post #47 has.
Can you not differentiate the Sun Yat-sen story from over 100 years ago when Hawaii wasn’t even a state from a certified document signed by a doctor and filed within 2 days of the birth date? What’s your standard for validity in Hawaii - no certificates are real because of Sun Yat-sen?
I’m trying to help you not make conservatives look like idiots, so just calm down.
You don't believe Obama is the son of the kenyan and the white teenager from Kansas? This sounds like a fun new birther twist. What's your angle? He is really the child of...?
The national media is giving this issue the UFO treatment...keep laughing at the people who report this...and hope it will go away.
Why are we letting them alinsky us? We need to point out that rather than answer these logical questions, they mock the questioner. Don’t let them win! These are fair questions.
What was stupid about the National Review explanation? They are just presenting a fact: the PDF creation process creates layers and visual artifacts similar to the ones that birthers point to as evidence of forgery.
Why would National Review defend the validity of the certificate if they didn't believe it was real? They clearly don't like Obama and want to get rid of him.
Yeah, right the National RINOview, mouthpiece of the GOP-e, wants to get rid of 0bama. LOL
You can divest yourself of your ignorance on Adobe Illustrator anytime you want to.
If you believe the certificate is fake, do you think that the Governor of Hawaii and Director of Health and State Registrar are all in on it?
Bookmarked for morning coffee.
So you are making my point about birthers being delusional conspiracy theorists. National Review doesn't want to get rid of Obama? Suuure. All their writers are covering up for Obama - Mark Levin, Victor Davis Hanson, Frank Gaffney, Dennis Prager, Thomas Sowell. Mark Steyn. Those guys are all RINOs..
and you are doing a great job, 0BOT IDIOT!
Apologies to you, sir. The image I posted referenced your nic, and I failed to include you on the “to” line of my comment.
... and just who, specifically, is on the hook legally for this? Who has been held to account?
I use Adobe Creative Suite every day. A PDF is a document format, a file type. It can have layers. It can have vectors. It can be a flattened uneditable document. It can be RGB, it can be CMYK, it can be grayscale, etcetera etcetera. Attempting to ascertain or condemn the accuracy of any content of a PDF by means of the manner in which the file was saved is meaningless. A PDF, again, is merely a document file type, one of many. It is not automatically a scan of anything and it is not “fake” or a “forgery” if it isn’t. It’s not automatically authentic or valid if is a scan. This whole thing is a fool’s errand. It is what it is, independent of the factuality of any representation it may appear to make.
The best way to take care of a pest (troll) like that is to just ignore him.. Every comment to him feeds him and makes him bigger (in his own tiny mind)..
Shoop, here is the point. The layers is but one of many, many anomalies connected w Obama’s supposed BC. Even if you could explain every single issue, here are the facts that remain. HI is known to give COLBs to persons not born there. Obama has shown himself to be a pathalogical liar. Obama claims he was born in Kenya. These are FACTS.
Now how do you know which version to believe? Granny Dunham could easily have placed the birth announcements [though according to Butter, they are latter day developments]. She could also have been involved in the theft of Obama’s CT SS#. Obama’s draft card was forged—that is indisputable. The only parts of Dreams not shown to be lies are those that either involve Obama’s word against no one else’s or cases where his records have been sealed or put off limits.
What's more, the ONLY credible explanation for what Evans did is that Abercrombie told him in plain, simple language that no BC exists in HI for Barack Obama. Any other explanation is but an Obot’s desperate and silly attempt to cover up the obvious.
Furthermore, Evans' initial acct jibes perfectly w what was known prior to the release of the mongrel BC. I.e.: this “half handwritten” [and not even Obots believe that “half handwritten” refers to a fully printed form that has been signed; you'll have to do better, way better, than that] thing that “actually exists” “in the archives, written down”. Fukino and Abercrombie were not talking about a standard form BC. Anyone who reads their words and extrapolates a normal, regular, non-problematic BC is too awash Kool Aid to find their fanny w both hands and a map.
Yet in every single case in which Obama’s words and documents are suspect, you side w the Obots and Obama, and repeat their improbable, counter-intuitive explanations. Why??? What has Obama ever done to win such blind loyalty? Have you honestly not realized the degree to which this man lies? He is a pathological liar. When a pathological liar gives two differing/mutually exclusive accts of the same incident, it is impossible to know which—IF EITHER—is true. That is just a fact.
So why do you resolve every issue in Obama’s favor?
No it is not a fools errand.
Millions of people regularly use Adobe Creative Suite every day. They also use many other graphics programs and are familiar with file types and how they work.
Right here on FR we have people who have actually written the software for these types of programs.
It doesn’t matter that it was ultimately saved as a PDF file. What’s important is what is revealed by the fact that the creator forget to flatten the layers.
We get information when it is opened up in Adobe. And you can see that it was NEVER a scan of one piece of paper as is the story from the White House. That is a lie.
What was represented to the public was that Judy Corley (a lawyer for Obama) personally flew to Hawaii to pick up two certified copies of Obama’s long form birth certificate. Hard copies complete with an embossed seals, hand-stamps (both security features) and on printed security paper.
One of these copies was purported to have been scanned and ultimately released as a PDF document.
What was put on the White House website demonstrably was NEVER the scan of one paper document. It is a created computer image that was manufactured out of different parts and then SAVED OR CONVERTED to a PDF file.
Regardless of whether the original computer file started out as an .EPS, .SVG with a combination of bitmaps and then was converted to a PDF file one can plainly see that in no way would a scanned document have a hand-stamp that was labeled as “imported” be ROTATED 90 degrees and then REDUCED in size as the hand-stamp was. That means, the hand-stamp was scanned in vertically instead of horizontally. That means it was scanned at a different time than other “PARTS” of the “supposed” birth certificate
It’s absurd to think that, for example, a cover letter with a signature at the bottom could be scanned to a PDF file and through some process of Opitimization/Optical Recog. have the signatures signature show up vertically instead of horizontally.
I seem to recall that even the security paper background was actually reproduced using the “tiling” feature. That means not even a security sheet of paper was scanned. Only a tiny bit that could be repeatedly tiled to create the background.
AGAIN, that is not something that would happen with a scanned piece of paper from Hawaii.
That makes everything suspect since Hawaii doesn’t release computer files in lieu of certified paper birth documents. It means somebody that was not authorized was representing themselves with authority to notarize something. That’s FRAUD.
The authority with the power to notarize birth certificates in this case is Alvin T. Onaka, the state registrar or a representative of his.
Even with that weasely worded verification letter, Onaka DOES NOT represents that what Obama released via PDF file has his legitamate stamp on it. He says that the INFORMATION MATCHES, not that it is a TRUE COPY.
Why is he letting his stamp be used in what appears to be unlawful?
Hawaii has also verified that the LFBC that Arizona Secretary of State Bennett has matches the original BC that they have on file.
Just this week the DOH again verified the information on the birth certificate (pdf).
Also you said that the COLB is an abstract and the LFBC is not. This is not correct. The original BC that is in the bound volume at the DOH contains additional information (medical data) that was collected at the time of birth. The medical information was required by the National Institute for Health Statistics although the individual states could also have addtion medical data. That medical information is not included on the LFBC given to the parents. So in fact, the LFBC is also an abstract.
Look on President Obama’s LFBC or the Nordyke’s LFBC, you will not see a box listing weight of baby, yet this is a required (by NIHS) piece of information.
Hint: ‘half foreign w fundamentally/dangerously divided loyalties’ is not a definition of ‘natural born citizen’ the Framers would have advanced or agreed to. Nor is the of this Obot-dream-definition as it is playing out in reality (w Obama) what the Framers envisaged when they placed that restriction on the office of POTUS in the Constitution; it/he is *precisely* what they sought to guard against.
MrShoop, a fellow Obot apologist has arrived to support you. You must be so proud.
RegulatorCountry and MrShoop, just how do you get around this very basic and determinative absolute? Please be specific.
*bold and red mine.
I like the red part. LOL.
FACT - This story has a CREATOR instead of just a person who used the scanner once during some secretarial duty.
CREATOR - defined as one that creates usually by bringing something new or original into being.
The meaning you attach to layers in the document is just not a valid association. Either the information is representative of fact, or it isn’t. Layers or the lack of them have nothing at all to do with it.
Please explain just how the presence of layers alters the accuracy of information contained therein.
I didn’t specifically say that “layers” in and of themselves is indicative of the document being manufactured.
The Cold Case Posse’s experts say the same thing. That’s why the control document only came up with 9 layers while the manufactured (fake birth cert) came up with something like 44 layers. (The actual number escape me right now).
IT IS THE INFORMATION that the individual layers give that is of importance here.
I’ve explained in my previous post that nothing (ex. hand-stamp) would be ROTATED or REDUCED into proper position without it being manipulated by a human being. The hand-stamp also had to be scanned at a different time. It’s MANUFACTURED not one scan.
Now how does that work? How does a person not know the location, geographically, of their birthplace? I was born in FL. I've never imagined I was born in Cuba, Mexico, the Bahamas or Asia. I know that FL is in the USA; this knowledge comes w the territory of actually having been born there.
What makes Obama think the place he claims as his birth location is in Asia? Could it be that his claim to be born in Kenya is the truth? He's never said Kenya is in Asia; he knows that Kenya is in Africa. Perhaps he knows all about his true birth spot, but is too lazy and intellectually challenged [57, 58, 59 states, anyone?] to learn about the place he selected as a birth location to further his political aspirations.
Otherwise, how can any sane, non-moron not know the physical/geographical location of his/her birthplace? This is a serious question. What's your explanation?
OMG you must be stupid...
There are DOZENS of things wrong with this hilarious forgery.
Look online at any of the youtube videos that explain, some of them are extremely good and I will not bother to try to educate you when you are obviously NOT willing to be taught
There is several hours of video explaining what is wrong with this image forgery Obama sham
Did you know that the State of Hawaii has a Department of Health and a State Archives and that they are two separate departments?
So when Abercrombis says, It was actually written, I am told, this is what our investigation is showing, it actually exists in the archives, written down.
He is not talking about the birth certificate in the DOH but a written notation in the State Archives.
Have you ever read this 1955 Hawaii Medical Journal?
In it there is this:
“A nurse or clerk in the hospital fills in the certificate form and gets the mother to sign it. Then the attending physician enters certain medical data and affixes his signature. Finally, the hospital sends the completed certificate to the local registrar.”
Here is the 1961 Vital Statistics of the United States:
Go to Section Five - Technical Appendix, Figure 5.1 for an example of the Standard Birth Certificate used in 1961. See at the bottom where there are three boxes (22a, 22b and 23) and space for the states to include additional medical and health items.
This is the “certain medical data” referred to in the 1955 medical journal.
Now look at the left hand edge of the President’s and Nordyke BC’s do you see that there are additional boxes with penciled notations. In fact if you zoom in on the left hand edge of the President’s BC next to box 7d. you can actually make out a small printed ?.
Is this the “certain medical data”? Is it handwritten?
Fantasy - under your theory of citizenship - Senator Rubio, Governor Jindal and possible Senator Santorum and Governor Haley would not be eligible to be either President or Vice President. I don’t believe the Founders had that in mind.
And the implied conclusion is that the presence of layers makes the information untrue.
But, that’s just not so. No layers versus layers is not synonymous with true or false, or real or fake.
It just is. It’s how the document is constructed. Open a PDF in Photoshop and it will have a layer. Open a PDF in Illustrator and it may have layers and even vectors, aaaaiiiieeee!!!
Abercrombie was asked, and was responding to, a question about the BC. Your own explanation dooms the explanation itself. I repeat. Abercrombie was asked about the BC, and he responded w info that even you admit had nothing to do w a BC. After which Abercrombie informed his friend that no BC existed in HI for Obama. His friend publicly repeated the story over and over and over. The idea that Evans couldn’t understand such a simple concept is belied by his history. He’s not in the habit of getting the story completely and ridiculously wrong. [Spare me the moonbat explanation. It’s just stupid, and only Obots believe it. The rest of us believe the obvious and common sense explanation.]
Obama’s father was a foreigner. Obama was born w divided loyalties. He made clear that he opted for his foreign over his American allegiance. This is what the Framers intended to spare the Republic: a man w divided loyalties. Nothing you can say changes that fact. Obama is half foreign, and he chose his foreign half over his American half. He is *recisely* the person the Framers sought to exclude from the office of POTUS.
Or do you think Obama is exactly what the Framers wanted? If so, why—and be specific.
“Please explain just how the presence of layers alters the accuracy of information contained therein.”
You’ve got to be kidding. I just wrote a whole long post about it.
You keep twisting this to “layers” having human capabilities or superpowers. It’s the information about the building process. The manufacturing or lack thereof
“Layers” are not some “all-knowing” arbitrators of fact. “Layers” don’t access accuracy. Does a book have an opinion or consciousness of words contained within it?
What the layers tell us in this case is that the way the information on the PDF came into being (created)is not the way it is purported to be (one scan).
“Obama claims to have been born in HI, a place known to give COLBs to persons not born there.”
Would you please give some reliable evidence to back up that statement — and not just something that happened over 50 years before Hawaii became a state?
recisely = precisely
I think it was the other way around. Plus the control document layers appeared randomly. In the fake one, the last 4 layers ( including the one with the rotated and resized seal ) appeared in order- one after another
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.