SA Dunham's actual signature.
Posted on 05/01/2011 6:45:48 AM PDT by eastexsteve
Bear with me, as I am rather new to this forum. The following is my unbiased examination of the Obama LFBC without any comment or input from outside sources. I'm sure others have made some of the same observations I have, but I assembled some observations that you can see yourself without using any specialized software whatsoever. I haven't seen some of these observations out on the web by anyone else yet. (Although, I'm sure I haven't looked everywhere.) Please feel free to copy the file from Google Docs and do what you wish with it.
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B1eQRJILO2U0ZWUwODM0ZDktZTg2OC00Yzc0LWI4YzAtODBkZWU2YjBhZDU1&hl=en&authkey=CKv6_hg
Only because most of the freepers have long since learned just to give the conspiracy theorists a wide berth.
Of course, I’m not telling you not to listen to the voices in your head. Just pointing out the questions you should be asking yourself.
When you can’t answer simple questions like “what would prove you wrong”, or “what part of the conspiracy required the name “Barack” to have it’s “R” replaced in the document, you are not thinking seriously.
But Loretta is part of the conspiracy. She’s willing to lose her job and go to jail to falsify records that don’t prove anything and are actually forgeries built by the Obama white house with no actual documents from Hawaii, by high-level members of the administration who are also all ready to go to jail and lose their jobs to fake a document that wasn’t needed and that is nothing we were already told and hadn’t already been accepted by a majority of the people.
There was never a good reason for Obama not to release his certificate, but “making conservatives look stupid” was a pretty good reason.
Those would have been revealing questions. I would guess he had to order the long form for one of three reasons:
1. He wanted to continue the appearance that he thought this was stupid, and that he had to go to extraordinary lengths to provide this stupid evidence to shut up stupid people like Trump.
2. He wanted a form that was signed by current official in Hawaii because he wanted this to conclusively stop any reputable news source from asking questions — he was happy when it was just tea-party people and conspiracy buffs, but when Trump raised it he was getting actual questions from actual news people. He knew that news organizations would accept the word of a state official.
3. He really didn’t have a copy of his long-form certificate, or at least not one that would pass inspection. I find this less likely, but I guess it’s possible; I found that one of the “birth certificates” in my house wasn’t any better than the ones people were trashing from Obama. And I only have real birth certificates for my kids, although my “birth certificate” has been good enough for everything I’ve had to do.
I also don’t know why Obama didn’t release his form a long time ago. I also support every state passing a law requiring all presidential candidates put on the ballot in a primary to provide a birth certificate to prove eligibility to appear on the ballot.
BTW, there may be an issue with requiring that for the general election, because the candidates are not officially ON the ballot, but instead we are voting for electors, who theorectically have the job of determining eligibility, and who don’t themselves have to meet the eligibility requirements.
I am willing to accept, because it doesn’t really matter to the outcome, that Dan Rather did not purposely aid the production of the false documents, and that he believed they were good documents until it was proven otherwise. Likewise with his daughter and her “friend”.
I guess there would have been a couple others working with Barnes to produce and sell the documents, but beyond that all you needed was people who were willing to believe anything.
In some ways, the conspiracy theorists here and elsewhere are a lot like Dan Rather. They see what they want to see, and are so certain the story is true that they assume all evidence that supports them must be true, and all evidence against their theory is part of the conspiracy.
SA Dunham's actual signature.
And look at 18b’s date compared to the Nordykes sig date in 18b’s.
A little too similar, eh?
barry is using a deceased CT’s persons SS# and it seems a dead baby’s BC.
Disgusting.
BTTT
Dan must have believed unknown Republicans with no access to Reserve Officer Records in the Clinton regime had somehow done something his friend Sandy, who had access to all records everywhere, hadn't done.
Dan's smarter than that.
It is easier for us to believe that Dan Rather engineered this whole deal than not!
1. He wanted to continue the appearance that he thought this was stupid, and that he had to go to extraordinary lengths to provide this stupid evidence to shut up stupid people like Trump.
******
June 2007: I wonder why Obama ordered a birth certificate in June 2007, because at that time there wsa no Trump breathing down his neck.
June 2007: I wonder why Obama ordered a short form, when, at that time, persons had a choice of ordering either a short or long form.
KAPIOLANI HOSPITAL OFFICIALS: April 27 to May 1: Depending on how you count the days, 4 or 5 days have passed and counting since Obama displayed his long form birth certificate on April 27, and yet not a sound from Kapiolani announcing that indeed Obama was born there.
Can you imagine the increase in tourist traffic and income for Kapiolani and Hawaii once Kapiolani comes out and officially verifies that Obama was born there and in room number so and so.
But, there is nothing coming for Kapiolani. Complete silence. I wonder why.
I may eat my words later, but I believe that the Kapiolani silence is due to the fact that Obama was not born there.
And the longer Kapiolani and Obama continue to resist demands to see Obama's mother's Kapiolani records in order to verify the authenticity of Obama's long form birth certificate, the more trouble Obama will face during the upcoming 2012 presidential campaign season.
Thanks - there’s one other thing that’s been bothering me, and I haven’t seen anyone comment on it...would be interested in hearing your take?
In box 20 & 22, the date - the proportion of ‘1961’ looks totally different than the font/spacing of the ‘AUG - 8’ part. Does that seem normal to you?
Hold the presses! I just accidentally extracted on of the modification layers by accident using Windows Paint. I copied the image in the PDF file, and dropped it into Paint, and there it was. It was too easy! Here’s a link to the jpeg file I saved:
http://i450.photobucket.com/albums/qq229/eastexsteve/Obamalongformlayer.jpg
Yes indeed. The last layer is what I pulled off by accident while copying the image in Windows Paint of all things.
As far as replacing certain letters or parts of words, imagine you are trying to construct a graphics document from near scratch. You might have part of what you need, but you need the rest to complete the document. To make it look authentic and reflect what you want it to say, you need to copy graphics images of letters or parts of words, and assemble them on the document image. Maybe some of the words, or letters in words, have the wrong background, wrong shade, or some other artifact in the text block that you don’t want. So, you are forced to copy and paste those images from the cleanest alternate sources you have available. Or, as a last resort, you computer-generate them on to the document image by using a graphics text box, much the way you would put text on to a Windows Paint picture. This is what the anti-aliasing in the “R” in “BARACK” shows. It was computer-generated, and not copied and pasted.
The only valid ‘long form BC barry bassturd has ever had did not come from the criminal sewer known as Hawaii. He may well have seen a BC tucked away among his relatives’ papers, but if it was the first and original, it wasn’t generated from Hawaii.
The only valid ‘long form’ BC barry bassturd has ever had did not come from the now criminal sewer known as Hawaii. He may well have seen a BC tucked away among his relatives’ papers, but if it was the first and original, it wasn’t generated from Hawaii and the name Barack Hussein Obama was not on it.
1. Just a thought: Does anyone have a copy of grandmother's signature or handwriting so that we can compare her handwriting to the mother's signature on Obama’s long form birth certificate? Thanks.
2. OBAMA'S LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE: When I examined the long form birth certificate, I was confused by Obama’s mother's signature, because of the way “Stanley” was in parenthesis and sitting on top of the main signature “Ann Dunham Obama”, as if “Stanley” was an after thought. It just seemed so peculiar to me.
3. My point is this: I believe that Obama’s mother would have written “Stanley” first on Obama’s long form birth certificate, not stick it in parenthesis on top of the main part of the signature, because whether or not she was ashamed of the boy's name, I believe she used it as her main name when she signed documents.
4. So, now that I can compare Obama’s mother's signature on Obama’s long form birth certificate to her signature on her Social Security card, I think that Obama has some serious explaining to do as to who really signed his mother's name to his long form birth certificate.
5. NOTE: On some documents from Obama’s past, his signature is very different from his signature of today.
6. Pro-Obama supporters dismiss such differences by saying that many people's signatures change with the passage of many years.
7. Well, Obama’s mother's signatures on her Social Security card and on Obama’s long form birth certificate occurred within a few years of each other, so the argument that a person's signature changes over time does not apply to this situation.
Again, you are interpreting what you are seeing, but without an explanation.
What name do you think they had an image for such that it spelled “Ba-ack”, and they had to add the “r”?
Do you think Barack was not born anywhere? Is he some alien life force from another planet? You don’t think they have some form with his full name on it, so they had to construct his name from parts?
How does that possibly make any sense to you? And what word do you think they found that had the letters “-enya”, so that they had to add the “K” to spell “Kenya”?
Your theory is based on a hypothesis that what we see is a combination of parts they had on the document, and parts they had to add. But the parts they had to “add” make no sense, and the parts the “had” make no sense.
Your theory would at least have some logical possibility if you found an entire name replaced, you could argue they took someone else’s certificate.
Further, where do you think the basis came for the document? Hawaii officials have said they sent THIS document to the White House. Are you arguing that the people who GENERATED the original had to cut-and-paste to build the name “Barack”? Or did the white house have to do that to what was sent? If the latter, why? Why wouldn’t Hawaii have printed a document with Barack’s full name? Why did they leave out the “r”?
Your analysis is lazy.
When the Dan Rather forgeries hit, a good freeper spent long hours on the issue. And the things found that were wrong made sense — bad kerning because they used a word processor instead of a typewriter; proportional fonts that weren’t in use on the typewriters owned by the guy who supposedly wrote the documents, among other things.
You have a mystery here of sorts, what caused the layers and the oddities you are seeing. But rather than solve the mystery, you are simply claiming the mystery proves your hypothesis, when you give no reason why that interpretation makes any sense.
Scanning software can be set to try to convert images into text. They apparently can do this in layers, so that the things that are text can be separated from the things that have to be left as images. Why is this not a more rational explanation for why some letters were turned into computer-looking letters, while others are still images? That’s exactly what the software is trying to do.
And it’s a better reason for “r” in barack to be wrong, rather than some unexplained need to substitute the “r” out from “barack”.
I still have it sitting on my computer. When I refresh it, the whited out copy shows, then the rest.
Weird.
They mixed vector and raster images.
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.
