Robert M. Stanley, author "Close Encounters on Capitol Hill"
Posted on 04/30/2011 9:44:49 AM PDT by patlin
Robert Stanley, weekly correspondent for the Washington Times investigative radio, states that the purported birth certificate released by U.S. President Barack H. Obama on April 27, 2011 is a forensic forgery...Mr. Stanley reported the breaking news regarding the forensic fraud in Mr. Obama's newly released birth certificate on Washington Times investigative radio's America's Morning News while being interviewed by reporters John McCaslin and Amy Holmes, also a commentator for CNN.
LISTEN TO BREAKING NEWS
http://www.unicusmagazine.com/MP3/breaking%20news.mp3
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
For the Obama file, just open the PDF in Illustrator to see the layers. For my file I'm using CanoScan 8400F. The key is to scan to, or convert to, PDF, then open in illustrator. Even a jpeg will create a couple of layers this way. Open a more complex scanned file and you'll see the layers, named the same way (and grouped as funky) as the Obama pdf.
We’re starting to beat a dead horse here. For three years folks have demanded a long form birth certificate. One was provided. Whether we like it or not, it is now in the record and until forensic experts prove otherwise, it’s accepted as evidence of Obama’s birth in that hospital on that date and at that time. There comes a time to let it go.
Let me repeat: by focusing on the stupid birth certificate instead of the Constitutional question, Obama has p*wned everyone who questions his Constitutional eligibility to serve as POTUS. Gotta give him credit.
They probably won’t let Petraeus in the White House armed.
You’re quite welcome. Please ping me if cartan responds.
This would be a very technical “miss,” one I could see even a good forger making...
This place is getting as nutty as DU.
Can't get better than that.
Since many of you FR folks don’t know how to read or listen, I will recap:
That interview with Robert Stanley was great until toward the end where he got into extraterrestrials who are in Washington and in the Far East running the show in DC.
What a nut case.
Oh yes. According to Stanley, the power players in DC are all centered around the Vatican.
You go, Donald!!!
I’ve seen one, have you seen more than one?
In order to prove that the UKlL guy was a real registrar, we’d need to see a list of registrars, and/or more documents that have no possibility of taint. One is not enough, and one in actual hand is needed. Not something found on the internet.
I believe you are right. However, a difficulty could arise if it were proved that he used this putative Indonesian nationality to get aid as a foreign student at some point. I suspect that might be one of the reasons he is hiding the college records.
I see your point, but now that he has released his privacy rights on this, Hawaii has no excuse not to let the media come in and take pictures of the original. Right?
Please do a search on the name Sven Magnussen. He has posted State Dept docs describing how a minor child can legally renounce US citizenship. Sven doesn’t post a great deal so it’s easy to find his comments on this topic.
If, as you suggest, it wasn't known as "Kenya", why did that name appear on postage stamps from that era?
Because your stamp is a forgery and you are a CIA plant. Of course.
</silliness>
Thanks, and here is the law, chapter and verse:
The U.S. Immigration Law that covers the issue of children born abroad to 1 citizen and 1 alien.
http://library.uwb.edu/guides/USimmigration/66%20stat%20163.pdf
the McCarran-Walter Act, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952
Public law 82-414 Chapter 1 Section 301 (7)
This applies to Obozo, assuming he is the son of Barrack H. Obama, Sr. and that he was born abroad.
If born abroad with the stated father, he is not even a U.S. Citizen.....
Watch for the next Obama twitch.Its sure to come, the MSM is starting to turn.Fred I thought you especially would like this thread.
Robert M. Stanley, author "Close Encounters on Capitol Hill"
No, it's not that easy, it will take a fair amount of my time. You do the search for pdf of scanned image of single document on the internet before last week. Give me the links and I'll open them and give you the results.
The reporter from the Washington Times didn’t bring up the time travel stuff. It was the interviewer who spoke about that.
Contrary to claims of certain officials in Hawaii, I sincerely doubt that the original still exists. I doubt the first generation copy still exists (microfiche image of the page). Many many counties have destroyed the old books, and destroyed the microfiche libraries created off the originals once they scanned the microfiche images into computers.
I'm pretty sure that 'legally', these computer images are the 'original documents.' And I doubt that there's anything physical for press reporters to go photograph.
But who knows, so many things thought to be 'destroyed' turn up in people's garages - maybe someone's friend was in the same book as Obama, and they saved the book to give to a friend rather than destroying it. Or someone kept the microfiche page because they wanted to remember using the old films. But I really doubt it's out there.
However the document black tones are not pure grayscale. If they were, the R/G/B numbers would all be equal for each shade of black: 0/0/0, 23/23/23, etc. There is a color cast. I dunno.
Photocopier tech is not my area, so I'm cautious to tread more here.
“Hawaii has no excuse not to let the media come in and take pictures of the original. Right?”
I’m not a lawyer, but IIRC, in releasing the document, DHOH sent a letter explaining that it was going beyond its required duty to give him that doc, ostensibly under the new and ever so convenient HI law that henceforth only short forms will be issued.
I believe what was released this week is only an abstract, but it contains the information required by any venue that requires a BC (i.e., Passport Office/DMV).
One thing that struck me in this week’s released document was the absence of “amendments” or any notation about the existence of an ‘amendment.” It is known that he was adopted. (or thought that he was adopted .. with this guy who KNOWS anything?) That should be an “amendment” to the original. Yet there is nothing in this week’s release to reflect any amendment(s)at all.
I would think HDOH doesn’t have to allow media or anyone else into their archives to see the original, absent a court order. And you know how quickly such a court order would be issued!
His releasing the BC would only relinquish his privacy rights with regard to that document. You don’t see anyone assuming it gives them the right to his college or other records.
Only if Barry Soetoro never legally changed his name back to Barack Huessin Obama II.
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.