Replies

It also implies that Barry’s BC was filed on or around august 4, 1961 his so called date of birth and not filed much later when mom got back from Kenya. I think this is damning to our birther argument.

First, everything you say will be suspect until you get some posting history. We are constantly hit by trolls here.

Second, the closeness in numbers does nothing to damage the possibility of the forged birth certificate. Do you really think that anyone who tried to pass off a bogus birth certificate for the president of the US would just yank a serial number out of his behind? Anyone with half a brain would look for a serial number that was relevant for the place and time period. If Freepers can find out what the range of serial numbers used in those days are, then surely any potential forgers could, too.

Serial numbers are stamped on. Obama’s can be compared with the ones just before and the ones just after to see if they have a similarity. I would think it would be hard to fake a stamp from 1961.

the closeness in numbers does nothing to damage the possibility of the forged birth certificate.

I don't disagree. It does say that IF the short form BC is fraudulent, then the forger doing it went through some work to get a number very close to the "birth date." I agree. This does not prove that we are wrong. But having a number in the ballpark may lend some credibility to this being the real deal. Then, the argument would be, what is he hiding on the long form certificate? What in the heck could be so damning that he won't release it?