Inconsistencies abound in FactCheck report on Obama "birth certificate"

Israeli Insider ^ | 8/24/08 | Reuven Koret

[bvw]

Check my post on Obama's reported cert number on the long thread "Blogger admits Hawaii birth certificate forgery, subverting Obama claims (Uh-oh)", post 5364:

Obama’s alleged cert shows “151 1961-010641”. It encodes the state (151 is Hawaii), the birth year (1961), and remaining number may be a serialization of the filing of a birth record within a year.

Based on births for Hawaii in 1961 according to US Vital Statistics, there were 17578 births in Hawaii in 1961. Assuming they are equally distributed per day, the 10641 corresponds to August 8th. Obama claims to have been born on the 4th, and his birth announcement is printed in local papers on the 13th, so it is likely the 10641 number is the serial number of when the birth was recorded in 1961 in Hawaii.

[Polarik]

Obama was born in 1961, so the second set of numbers should be 1961! But that is not the case!

It's OK to correct yourself.

[Polarik]

Holy Sh**! I think You're right. What was the Patricia De Costa Certification number...?? Part of the C.N. is the year of birth.

This looks like a potential bombshell.

Not really. I mentioned that a long, long time ago. FactCheck's Birth Year field in the Cert. No. is 1961.

[Polarik]

Even after all this time, the idiots can't get their stories straight.

Okubo knows nothing about hacking (except when she gets a cold). That number will not break into their system.

It's the form number, birth year, and sequential number of the birth record for that year.

[Polarik]

For starters, no one accepts any CoLB with the C.N. concealed. And Polarik his listed a wealth of evidence of to show how the CoLB's on the sites differed from actual CoLB's from the Hawaiian DoH.

Thank you, Cyropaedia.

If FactCheck really had nothing to hide, then they would have posted another scan of their photographed, both front and back. Instead, Their photos raise far more questions than answers.

For starters, why is the Exif data in FactCheck's photos screwed up?

Exif stands for "Exchangeable image file format" that consists of specific photo, image file, and camera information. Virtually all digital cameras add this information to their photo images.

The Israel Insider noted, as I did, that according to the Exif information in the FactCheck photos, all nine photos were allegedly taken on March 12, between 10:40PM to 10:47PM. The date is problematic because FactCheck said on August 21, that they "recently spent some time with Obama's COLB (in Chicago) and took some photos."

When they asked FactCheck about the disparity in the dates, they said that the photographer "forgot to set the correct time and date."

By now, you should know that it was FactCheck (along with the Obama Campaign) who posted what was allegedly a scan of Obama's "original birth certificate," and who also refused to make any additional scans of it, including one or more of the COLB shown in these photos.

Israel Insider did not know what to make of the nine photos allegedly taken in less than seven minutes. They said that they were taken "in suboptimal lighting conditions" with very little time for proper positioning.

My take of these photos is that they are as bogus as the phony image scan they posted on June 16. Does anyone else see the irony here?

The date that the Obama COLB image was allegedly scanned was June 12.

The date on which these photos were allegedly taken was March 12.

The time that the Obama COLB image was scanned was 8:42 AM.

The time that the fifth photo was allegedly taken was 10:42PM

The date that FactCheck first posted the bogus scanned image was June 16.

The date that FactCheck first wrote about these suspicious photos was August 16.

It's not exactly the DaVinci Code, but it cannot be just coincidence working here.

Stay tuned. I am preparing a thorough debunking of these photos, which will only serve to compound FactCheck's fraudulent actions.

It should also come as no surprise that FactCheck has refused to return any of my calls or emails to them, challenging them on their authenticity.

[Cyropaedia]

Well that’s your mulligan for the day!

Yeah, I made a complete ass out of myself.

But at least I didn't need George Stephanopolous to correct me. ;^)

Now it is time to do my penance and perform some "organizing" in my community.

[Cyropaedia]

Thanks. Very interesting.

[Cyropaedia]

Thanks. Very interesting.

[TheNewPundit]

No, it took one.