Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Oblivious to the Obvious
American Thinker ^ | April 10, 2012 | Nick Chase

Posted on 04/10/2012 1:30:58 AM PDT by Flotsam_Jetsome

But the problem with most of this research is that it's "geeky," requiring at least some computer knowledge ("layers," "fonts," "anti-aliased," "chromatic aberration," and the like) to understand that the technical arguments for the "birth certificate" being fake are valid. Thus, it's very difficult to prove to the general public, which typically doesn't know much about documents except how to read them, that the Obama "birth certificate" really is a forgery.

So last summer, I wondered if there would be some way to demonstrate that this "birth certificate" is indeed a fake, just by looking at the document itself and without resorting to computer software or to any knowledge about how computers produce documents. And, after studying it for a while, I realized that the forgery fails the "pitch test."

This is a check you can perform yourself, without fancy software of any kind -- or even a computer -- once you have printed out the forgery onto a piece of paper. Even a six-year-old with scissors and the paper image can perform, and understand, this test. (In other words, the test is simple enough that even a dumbass journalist can understand it.)

(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...


TOPICS: Conspiracy; Government; Politics
KEYWORDS: coldcaseposse; forgerygate; naturalborncitizen; obama
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-54 next last
Low tech analysis.

Figure D. Forgery Dissection for Dummies

1 posted on 04/10/2012 1:31:07 AM PDT by Flotsam_Jetsome
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Flotsam_Jetsome; LucyT; Brown Deer
"I carry a copy of Figure F in my iPhone so I can show people why the "birth certificate" is a forgery whenever the subject comes up. Or, occasionally, even if the subject doesn't come up but I'm in the mood to annoy a liberal."

I like that idea of carrying a snapshot of the misaligned characters on one's phone. Great conversation starter (stopper?) at parties, at the bus stop, in line at the DMV, etc. :)

2 posted on 04/10/2012 1:39:43 AM PDT by Flotsam_Jetsome (If not you, who? If not now, when?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Flotsam_Jetsome

This is something that puzzles me. Back in the day, Rush used to reference articles from American Thinker almost everyday. One might assume it was one of his favorite places to visit. Now...nary a peep.


3 posted on 04/10/2012 2:03:06 AM PDT by sueQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Flotsam_Jetsome

BTW, Heather Childers must have “done her time”. She’s back on Fox News.


4 posted on 04/10/2012 2:11:58 AM PDT by sueQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Flotsam_Jetsome

It is obvious the Pres has access to forgers of the highest quality. So why would he produce a phony certificate that is easily shown to be forged?

There are only two possibilities I can see.

1. For some obscure Machievillian reason, he wants it to be determined to be fake.

2. It isn’t fake but merely appears to be so.

Occam’s Razor, to my mind, indicates 2 as considerably more likely. In fact, the “fakeness” of it makes it more likely to be real.

This is similar to the claim that “Bush lied” about WMDs in Iraq. That he knew they weren’t there.

It is obvious to me that if this were the case, intelligence officers would have brought WMDs along to be “found.” You can believe Bush to be stupid if you like, but certainly some of his handlers were not dumb.


5 posted on 04/10/2012 2:12:08 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sueQ

not sure what’s going on with rush but he’s changed A LOT recently. can’t even listen to him anymore. he seems to spend a lot of time talking about nothing in particular. just my opinion though...


6 posted on 04/10/2012 2:13:56 AM PDT by matt1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Flotsam_Jetsome
"...the general public, which typically doesn't know much about documents except how to read them..."

The writer gives FAR too much credit to Obama voters here.

7 posted on 04/10/2012 2:19:29 AM PDT by RightOnline (I am Andrew Breitbart!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Flotsam_Jetsome
Interesting; and better; so convenient a 'demo'; inasmuch as this is 'simple' in it's availability. May use my i-phone as well; so as to more easily share.

Am wondering, given the predominance of the 'Courier 10' and "Elite 12"; if either of these is either; or, if some other less popular/available type is used here and can origin be identified; as in typeface from a typewriter made in China versus USA; or elsewhere?

Meantime; innovation/technology changed more than a few faces of time.

Built in 1910, the Emerson Typewriter Factory has served the Woodstock community in a variety of functions for nearly 100 years. This exceptional and unique industrial building that was once the origin of half of the world’s typewriters is now being transformed into stunning modern loft spaces. Once again, this famed building is a jewel in the crown of the historic city of Woodstock. . .http://www.emersonlofts.com/

8 posted on 04/10/2012 2:55:29 AM PDT by cricket (. It is more than the economy. . .and Newt knows it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Flotsam_Jetsome
I like that idea of carrying a snapshot of the misaligned characters on one's phone. Great conversation starter (stopper?) at parties, at the bus stop, in line at the DMV, etc. :)

On the 'etc'; the Post Office often has long lines. . .grocery store; and of course; there are those lines outside voting booths at one's polling/precinct where the 'conversation and demo' could be particularly interesting.

How about a slow line at Starbucks/lol. . .am imagining the response, say. . .in San Francisco.

9 posted on 04/10/2012 3:04:28 AM PDT by cricket (. It is more than the economy. . .and Newt knows it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan; DiogenesLamp
"It is obvious the Pres has access to forgers of the highest quality. So why would he produce a phony certificate that is easily shown to be forged?"

Actually, DL has an intriguing theory on that. Said theory aside, who are these forgers of the highest quality that he can call up and demand spring into action to produce this masterpiece of a fugazzi? These charlatans have been bluffing, bullying and race-carding their way through this entire diabolical saga from the beginning and didn't count on Donald Trump "going 'birther'". They rushed this thing, because they never expected to be called on it in the national media by a well known, charismatic personality who's very hard to ignore.

"There are only two possibilities I can see."

Really? Just two? That seems a bit. . . myopic.

"In fact, the “fakeness” of it makes it more likely to be real."

Okay, that just doesn't make any logical sense. Did you read the article?

"It is obvious to me that if this were the case, intelligence officers would have brought WMDs along to be “found.” You can believe Bush to be stupid if you like, but certainly some of his handlers were not dumb."

I don't think that Bush is either stupid or dishonorable. Likewise, I don't think that's an apt analogy.

You're of the opinion that you think the "birth certificate" released by the WH on 27 April 2011 isn't fake. Got it. Your arguments to that effect however, could use a bit of buttressing. Throwing around terms like Occam's Razor does nothing in that regard if the follow up argument is less than solid.

10 posted on 04/10/2012 3:24:13 AM PDT by Flotsam_Jetsome (If not you, who? If not now, when?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Flotsam_Jetsome

The author’s website is well worth a visit.

There’s alot of info on the issue.

Check out the March 26, 2012 entry on this page:

http://contrariansview.org/Site/About_Me.html


11 posted on 04/10/2012 3:33:14 AM PDT by No One Special
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #12 Removed by Moderator

To: butterdezillion

It’s always so good to read your comments. Wish you could stick around. Nonetheless, have a good day at work.


13 posted on 04/10/2012 3:57:34 AM PDT by sueQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: cricket
"How about a slow line at Starbucks/lol. . .am imagining the response, say. . .in San Francisco."

I'd buy tickets to watch that exchange (from a safe distance).

14 posted on 04/10/2012 4:03:21 AM PDT by Flotsam_Jetsome (If not you, who? If not now, when?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

Is that why the HDOH changed the BC#’s on Virginia Sunahara’s and Stig Waidelich’s BC’s too?

And why they refuse to allow anybody to see original documents rather than a computer-generated abstract?

Is it why they altered their 1960-64 birth index to include legally nonvalid BC’s, or why they refused until a year after the election to post their Administrative Rules online as required by law?

Is that why HI Gov Neil Abercrombie told a Star-Advertiser columnist that his investigation had found something “actually written down” but that it was not going to convince skeptics that Obama was born there?

Is it why 2 different posters both claimed to go personally to the Hawaii State Library and make birth announcement copies from the Star-Bulletin microfilms when in fact what they produced was a scan identical (right down to the hair on the page and waviness of the scan’s edges) to a scan given to Michael Rivero by somebody at the Advertiser Office?

Is it why the HSL librarian gave Lori Starfelt a deliberately-blurred image of the Advertiser announcement that didn’t follow their protocol of having a copyright notice on the copy?

Is it why the microfilms that are in the libraries now have been microfilmed so poorly that they can not have been produced by the microfilming company who handled all the microfilming for the Advertiser and the Star-Bulletin (whose company name is on the boxes at these libraries)?

I could go on a long, long time but need to go to work. There’s WAY TOO much stuff that doesn’t add up for this to be just some silly little game.

If it was some silly little game then Obama should face justice for what he did to Lt Col Terry Lakin and every other officer who (unlike him and all his stooges) had the honor to actually mean what they said when they swore to protect and defend the US Constitution.


15 posted on 04/10/2012 4:14:24 AM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: No One Special
"The author’s website is well worth a visit."

Thanks for the link.

It'd be interesting to see a news story timeline paralleling this data:

http://contrariansview.org/TT1982onward.html

16 posted on 04/10/2012 4:16:36 AM PDT by Flotsam_Jetsome (If not you, who? If not now, when?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: sueQ

Thank you. I actually came back from work to ask the mod to delete that comment because somebody could misconstrue it to be a threat. I posted a revised comment.

It’s just so difficult for me to express how putrid the behavior of Obama and his stooges is, and especially when I think of the military guys who offer everything in defense of this country I get so angry. It’s like he has conspired to steal their honor, and that’s more valuable than everything someone of his caliber will ever see or hold in a lifetime. Because he has no honor himself he acts like it is a small thing to trample the honor of those who have it.

Sometimes with all the stuff going on I feel numb. But for some reason, the messing around with the military cuts me to my heart and it’s a stinging, burning fire whenever something twists that knife in my heart. I have to try to stay quiet because I care too much and then say things that should probably only be felt and not spoken.

I love our military people, and I hate what we have done to them.


17 posted on 04/10/2012 4:29:26 AM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

Putrid is an excellent word for Obama! I can’t express my thoughts as well as some, but maybe I can be an encouragement to you and others such as Flotsem for keeping this subject alive. It is scandalous that it has dragged on so long! I have to tell myself that the truth will come out. Any day now...


18 posted on 04/10/2012 4:43:16 AM PDT by sueQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
"It is obvious the Pres has access to forgers of the highest quality. So why would he produce a phony certificate that is easily shown to be forged?"

The forgers would not only have to be "highest quality", but they would also have to be loyal. I'm sure it is quite easy for Obama to acquire a large army of liars and cheats, but it would be nearly impossible for him to get a large army who would also stay quiet about it. His circle of confidants who can be counted on to remain discreet is quite small, and not very capable.

19 posted on 04/10/2012 6:23:54 AM PDT by norwaypinesavage (Galileo: In science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of one individual)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Flotsam_Jetsome
Said theory aside, who are these forgers of the highest quality that he can call up and demand spring into action to produce this masterpiece of a fugazzi?

.Unless I'm mistaken, there are a number of intelligence agencies working for the president.

I believe the production of false documents is a not uncommon activity of such agencies.

I'm highly agnostic on the whole subject.

I also think it is irrelevant. The Constitution allows for only one method of refusing a president from office, impeachment. There is, and should not be, any way for a lawsuit to remove him.

Of course, we the people have an opportunity to remove him this year, if we so choose.

20 posted on 04/10/2012 6:31:09 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Flotsam_Jetsome
Actually, DL has an intriguing theory on that. Said theory aside, who are these forgers of the highest quality that he can call up and demand spring into action to produce this masterpiece of a fugazzi? These charlatans have been bluffing, bullying and race-carding their way through this entire diabolical saga from the beginning and didn't count on Donald Trump "going 'birther'". They rushed this thing, because they never expected to be called on it in the national media by a well known, charismatic personality who's very hard to ignore.

I don't think they rushed it. I think this is the normal standard of quality for replacement birth certificates from The DOH in Hawaii.

*IF* it was created by the Department of Health in Hawaii as a replacement birth certificate per a Judge's order, it was only intended to pass a cursory inspection, not the detailed Anal-probe it received from we "birthers." :)

I have been thinking about how to better convey my theory to others who seem resistant to it, and I think I've figured out a way to make the idea more clear. Here it goes:

Significant event number 1: (1965)
There are six pieces of circumstantial evidence of which I am aware that Indicates Lolo Soetoro legally adopted Barack Obama in 1965. *IF* Barack Obama was legally adopted by Lolo Soetoro, then he WOULD have been issued a NEW BIRTH CERTIFICATE showing Lolo Soetoro as his Father on his birth certificate, and his original birth document would have been sealed by the Adoption court.

Once again, *IF* Barry was adopted by Lolo Soetoro, then he is GUARANTEED to have a "replacement birth certificate" i.e. a legal but "fake" document.

Once again, I will mention that I am aware of six pieces of circumstantial evidence which indicate Lolo Soetoro did indeed adopt Barack Obama.

Significant Event number 2: (1971)
From 1971 onward, Barack Obama lived with his Grandparents while his mother went back to Indonesia. During Christmas of 1971, both Barack Obama Sr. AND Stanley Ann Dunham happened to be in Hawaii at exactly the same time. Barack Sr. was said to have been there for some "family business". A review of Hawaiian Adoption law indicates that the Birth Father has absolute rights regarding a subsequent adoption of his child. His permission MUST be sought, and his acquiescence MUST be obtained.

From various bits and pieces of circumstantial evidence it is a virtual certainty that Barack Obama Sr was in Hawaii to grant his permission for the Adoption of Barack Obama II by his grandparents.

If either or both of the above two significant events occurred as suggested, then Barack Obama is guaranteed to have a "replacement birth certificate" and not an original. His current document is guaranteed to be a fabrication by the Department of Health in Hawaii per a Judge's order.

21 posted on 04/10/2012 7:20:00 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: sueQ
This is something that puzzles me. Back in the day, Rush used to reference articles from American Thinker almost everyday. One might assume it was one of his favorite places to visit. Now...nary a peep.

I have noticed that American Thinker is carrying a lot of eligibility articles/birth certificate articles lately. I am thrilled! What's more, they are generally well written! I have hopes that if this keeps up we may finally get some traction on this issue.

22 posted on 04/10/2012 7:58:08 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Flotsam_Jetsome

I don’t understand why our Government can’t remove this fraudulent document from government web sites. Isn’t this a crime?

This is like the twilight zone. A Federal web site is distributing fraudulent documents on a web site paid for by the citizens. Right?

Can we report fraud to a federal office and get the document removed?

Maybe we can try this avenue and report it:

http://www.usa.gov/Citizen/Topics/Internet-Fraud.shtml

Is there a lawyer out there that can sue to get this crap off a federal web site???


23 posted on 04/10/2012 10:43:11 AM PDT by PA-RIVER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PA-RIVER

Select internet crime complaint center, and it links to FBI crime reporting portal for internet crimes:

http://www.ic3.gov/default.aspx

It will ask for details about how you were defrauded.


24 posted on 04/10/2012 10:50:14 AM PDT by PA-RIVER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

I want him hauled away in handcuffs. And all his accomplices with him.


25 posted on 04/10/2012 11:49:46 AM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

But any document that they created would be a PAPER document, and the posse has shown that the scan Obama produced was never taken from a paper document.

Thus what Obama produced CANNOT be from the HDOH, period.

That digital image was not a scan of any birth certificate at all - not an original, not a supplemental. The adoption theory may well be what happened, but it does not explain why Obama presented a criminal forgery.


26 posted on 04/10/2012 11:55:57 AM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

What I don’t understand is why this fraudulent document is still sitting on a Government website?

Honestly, this is incredible, the fact that they have the stones to leave it posted up there. It’s in your face fraud.

How do people in the FBI go to work everyday, knowing that the biggest fraud is their own boss?

There has to be a way to get some FBI agent to look at the document.... unless the FBI is rotten to the core.


27 posted on 04/10/2012 12:30:28 PM PDT by PA-RIVER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: PA-RIVER

The guy at the local FBI office told me repeatedly and angrily that they don’t investigate document/identity fraud.

The FBI is either totally corrupt or a sad joke.


28 posted on 04/10/2012 12:58:25 PM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
Maybe if we report through the web site as Internet fraud, maybe they will be required to respond.

I have reported the SSR to SS through my congressman, and they did respond. They defend his registration. So I have the record. That way, if it's proved to be fraud in court, I can demand answers as to why they ignored my concerns.

Maybe the FBI needs a “Ticket” before they can investigate. If they choose to drop it, they may need to explain why at a later date.

29 posted on 04/10/2012 1:11:44 PM PDT by PA-RIVER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: PA-RIVER

Right after I got off the phone with my angry local FBI guy who told me the FBI doesn’t investigate document/identity fraud, I went online to report document fraud. I filled out the form and submitted it. The page said it would be sent to the FBI...

Shortly after that I contacted my state US Attorney’s office. I was told they don’t take leads from individuals but from the FBI, so I should contact the FBI...

In this whole country, we’ve got ONE GUY in law enforcement who is willing and able to do his job: a county sheriff in Maricopa County, Arizona.

Next thing we’ll find out the future of the entire world falls onto the shoulders of a mall cop.

This foreign enemy combatant in the White House has put this nation in SUCH a vulnerable place. We can’t count on ANYTHING working like it’s supposed to.


30 posted on 04/10/2012 2:00:13 PM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
It is obvious the Pres has access to forgers of the highest quality.

Your logic fails here.

Going around trying to recruit a top expert in forging documents greatly increases the people in on the scam and the chances of the operation being blown.

Especially risky is hiring someone on the basis of money or trying to order someone in an intelligence agency to do it.

This would have been done by a small circle of hard-core Obama insiders and ideologues who are politically committed to him come hell or high water.

Beyond the small circle, they would only have had to turn a couple of bureaucrats in Hawaii. In fact, that is probably the weakest link in the scam and where a professional law enforcement agency would have the most success in getting someone to turn state's evidence.

31 posted on 04/10/2012 2:12:59 PM PDT by Meet the New Boss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion; PA-RIVER
"Next thing we’ll find out the future of the entire world falls onto the shoulders of a mall cop."

That'd be a funny line if this situation wasn't so deadly serious.

PA-R: The only conclusions that I'm able to come to regarding the universal silence/acquiescence (if not complicity) of the very top people in the highest reaches of the government is that either they are completely corrupt and compromised and have sold us out to our enemies, or they are absolutely terrified of the national security fallout should the fraud be exposed for all to see.

I've racked my brain hour after hour, trying to understand why people who should, no, must know that the "Obama" life narrative is a complete fraud would allow this charade to continue for this long, and other answers just don't seem to make any logical sense. For awhile, I thought that perhaps the NSA/CIA/FBI etc allowed things to play out as they have in order to "out" communist infiltrators before springing the trap and making mass arrests, but if that's the case then they've had three years for the bad guys to "out" themselves and no arrests seem to be in the offing.

You're right, butter. At this point we can't count on ANYTHING working like it's supposed to. More's the pity.

32 posted on 04/10/2012 5:02:15 PM PDT by Flotsam_Jetsome (If not you, who? If not now, when?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Flotsam_Jetsome

Especially after what the producer of “We Will Not Be Silenced” said about top dems saying Soros met with both Hillary and Obama to see if they were on board with his plans to destroy the US economy, I really do believe that Soros has united the communists and Islamists to destroy this country - making the run on the bank in Sept of 2008 and threatening to do it again whenever anybody with singular power (like a judge, Pres Bush, etc) acts like they will stand in their way. For the smaller people I think they may have used more general threats like FCC/FTC annihilation or race riots.

I was thinking about that. Hillary and Bill would both be on board the communist half of that alliance but probably balked at the Islamist alliance because she couldn’t agree to sharia; too much a feminist. And Bill probably balked at it because as a Baptist he believes he will go to Hell if he abandons Israel. I sort of wonder if Hillary negotiated for the SOS position thinking when the critical time comes she might be able to thwart Obama’s plans to destroy Israel and so save Bill’s soul.

In any event, Soros didn’t have enough money to control in order to make an effective run on the bank without the Islamists so he had to make the alliance. And Obama was totally fine with it.

When law enforcement was under Bush’s control, Bush (in this theory) was brought around to thinking that Soros had a gun against America’s head and that if Bush did anything to stop Soros America would be shot dead. Remember Bush talking about Armageddon and the end of the world economy as we know it if we didn’t pass TARP. That man had the fear of God put in him by somebody, and I believe it was Soros.

Anyway, you’ve probably seen me talk about this theory. I know it sounds far-fetched, but the more I see, the more I think about it, and the less other explanations make sense, the more I think this is what actually happened.

Once law enforcement was under Holder it became a sick joke. His job is to keep anybody from prosecuting “his people” (and by that I mean the whole communist-Islamist cabal and their accessories - which is why at one point there was an order to not investigate Black Muslim converts, why our southern border is wide open, partially why they armed the drug cartels who are allies with Hezbollah as is the New Black Panther Party...)

Gotta scoot. The main part of the theory that applies to what you were talking about is that the people who love this country and seemingly betrayed us may have done so because they didn’t want Soros to shoot - to spark a world economic collapse.


33 posted on 04/10/2012 5:39:38 PM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp; Flotsam_Jetsome; butterdezillion

DL, based on your timelines, when do you hypothesize the COLB was constructed that Obama presented last April? If the HDOH made this (which I agree could be possible since they are so incompetent on a number of levels), did they construct it in 1971? Or maybe it was recently done?

And there appears to be a number of difficulties that don’t jibe with your theory (as others have already mentioned previously). Such as:

1. Why didn’t the HDOH just use a real seal instead of constructing a seal out of PDF layers since the seal and date stamp are contemporary (dated April 25, 2011)?

2. If the intent of the constructed, fake COLB is to fool the subject and other governing bodies, whey wouldn’t they be better at constructing the forgery? You would think that they had done this on numerous occasions since adoption is a pretty regular occurrence. Since it is a government entity, you would even think there would be some sort of form or guideline defined on how to generate a fake COLB instead of every single one just an arbitrary mish-mash.

3. Wouldn’t the manufactured COLB be kept on file in Obama’s records as an “original” instead of a manufactured PDF? Surely they don’t generate these things only on-demand?

4. And isn’t copying someone’s signature (such as the attending Physician) illegal no matter who does it? Even if it is intended to satisfy an adopted child? Unless, of course, you believe that the doctor on the COLB was actually his attending physician...

And there are many other questions that just don’t seeem to coordinate your theory. Seems you may be attempting to give the Hawaiian DOH some credibility where it doesn’t have merit?

But I think we can both agree that Hawaii must be somehow complicit with the generation of the document no matter how it was fabricated because they have failed to dismiss its legitimacy


34 posted on 04/10/2012 7:33:59 PM PDT by visually_augmented (I was blind, but now I see)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
But any document that they created would be a PAPER document, and the posse has shown that the scan Obama produced was never taken from a paper document.

You've said that before, and I don't understand why you think it's significant. In order to create a new paper document, you must first create a digital file. (nowadays, not yesteryear.)

Thus what Obama produced CANNOT be from the HDOH, period.

That does not follow. Your reason above does not support your subsequent conclusion. DOH MUST create a digital file (nowadays) before they can create a paper document. (In the case of Adopted Children.)

That digital image was not a scan of any birth certificate at all - not an original, not a supplemental.

I know. It was a digital image file. So?

The adoption theory may well be what happened, but it does not explain why Obama presented a criminal forgery.

If it is the product of DOH Hawaii, it is not criminal, and it is not considered by law to be a forgery.

From my perspective, it is a virtual certainty that Obama was adopted not once, but twice. (1965 by Lolo Soetoro and again in 1971 by his grandparents.)

It is likewise axiomatic (from my perspective) that if he was adopted, he MUST have a replacement birth certificate.

If the initial premise is true, (he was adopted) then the subsequent conclusions must also be true. (He has an official fake replacement birth certificate.)

35 posted on 04/11/2012 8:25:47 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: visually_augmented
DL, based on your timelines, when do you hypothesize the COLB was constructed that Obama presented last April? If the HDOH made this (which I agree could be possible since they are so incompetent on a number of levels), did they construct it in 1971? Or maybe it was recently done?

I believe it was recently done. Certainly after Obama took office, and possibly as recently as just before he released it. Prior to the time he started running for President, there was no need for him to do anything whatsoever with his birth certificate. He certainly had no need to petition a court in Hawaii for any changes to it. It is only as a result of his running for President that he had any reason to bother with it at all. I would guess it was the publicity created by Trump that caused him to get a long form from Hawaii.

And there appears to be a number of difficulties that don’t jibe with your theory (as others have already mentioned previously). Such as:

1. Why didn’t the HDOH just use a real seal instead of constructing a seal out of PDF layers since the seal and date stamp are contemporary (dated April 25, 2011)?

My answer is only speculation, but I have suggested that the attorney was given a "proof" copy to approve so as to insure that it complied with what he requested from the Hawaiian Judge.

I will also point out that my own "official" birth certificate (Obtained in 2000) is completely printed. It has no separate "stamped" seal. This may be the way States are handling birth certificates nowadays. They may not be using "stamped" seals any more. I asked Danae for comment (She has a Hawaiian birth certificate obtained last year or so.) regarding whether her birth certificate is completely printed like mine, or if it had a separate stamped seal. I have so far heard no response. If her's is completely printed, then that will bolster my theory, if it has a separate "stamped" seal, then it will weaken my theory.

2. If the intent of the constructed, fake COLB is to fool the subject and other governing bodies, whey wouldn’t they be better at constructing the forgery? You would think that they had done this on numerous occasions since adoption is a pretty regular occurrence. Since it is a government entity, you would even think there would be some sort of form or guideline defined on how to generate a fake COLB instead of every single one just an arbitrary mish-mash.

The creation of a replacement birth certificate for an adopted child is only intended to pass a cursory inspection. The original intent of such a document (other than to identify the child under the new name) is to conceal the fact of adoption to the child. The process used to accomplish this concealment is straightforward and consistent. They simply erase the original parents and their information from the original document, and paste in text with the new information on it. In this case, it looks like they had to actually create certain words and names by combining pieces of text which were stored in different file formats in their large data base. That is why you get different pixel resolutions and bit depths, as in this example.

The fact that they had to paste together different pieces of text to get the words they wanted indicates that they had no original source document from which to copy these words in their database. It is a cobbled together Frankenstein monster document because they couldn't produce one in any other way.

If you keep this in mind, you can see why Hawaii would prefer to just issue "COLBs" which are simply saved as data in a computer file. It can be changed with absolutely no way of telling what was in the file originally. Unfortunately for Obama, no one was going to accept anything which did not resemble a 1961 document, so Hawaii DOH had to go back and use the "Old" system. Cut and paste.

3. Wouldn’t the manufactured COLB be kept on file in Obama’s records as an “original” instead of a manufactured PDF?

Yes, after it is created, but I am postulating that it was only created at the request of Obama's lawyer, most likely some time last year. (After Trump made it a public issue.) If Obama went to court to get his adoption annulled or amended, they would have to create a new document "on demand" and it would have to follow the court order detailing what is to be in it.

Surely they don’t generate these things only on-demand?

They create NEW ones on Demand. (Normally by order of a court.) Nowadays, they are trying to make the process much simpler. Hawaii, having been deluged with requests for long form birth certificates and other inquirys into their birth certificate records, decided to only issue COLBs. (Printed out computer records.) Most of the time, people are satisfied with these. It is only the occasional request for a "long form" that would have them going back to their files to make a copy, and it is ONLY when they are told by a court to create a new document for an old birth certificate will they go to the trouble of actually searching through their database for images they need to paste together. Under the new system, they only have to type in some new text and print it. You can see why they would like the COLBs better. Much less work/trouble.

4. And isn’t copying someone’s signature (such as the attending Physician) illegal no matter who does it? Even if it is intended to satisfy an adopted child? Unless, of course, you believe that the doctor on the COLB was actually his attending physician...

Apparently not. On my birth certificate is a copy of the signature of the Attending Physician, though my replacement birth certificate was created six years after I was born. Here is an excerpt from *MY* official birth certificate. I will repeat, this document was created six years after I was born.

Now I don't know if they got him to sign the new document six years later, or if they simply pasted his name on it from the original. I would suggest that if a physician died or was otherwise unavailable, they would have no choice but to copy his name from the original.

And there are many other questions that just don’t seeem to coordinate your theory. Seems you may be attempting to give the Hawaiian DOH some credibility where it doesn’t have merit?

In what manner am I giving them more credibility than they merit? They are being cagey, and they continue to be cagey. As a matter of fact, they are required by law to be cagey.

But I think we can both agree that Hawaii must be somehow complicit with the generation of the document no matter how it was fabricated because they have failed to dismiss its legitimacy

Oh absolutely. Where I differ from most people is I do not believe that Hawaiian officials are involved in a provable criminal conspiracy. I think they value their own skins too much to take such a risk, especially with the possibility of their complicity being discovered in the near future.

No, I think they bent every rule and gave Obama every consideration that they possibly could, but I think they kept within the boundaries of what can be proved as legal.

36 posted on 04/11/2012 9:19:45 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

If he was adopted in 1965 and/or 1971 he had a paper supplemental BC made then. Why, then, would the HDOH create a C&P’ed digital file in 2011 rather than copyihg the original that’s in their files and certifying it, like they said they had done in the cover letter?

The only way your theory works to explain the PDF Obama posted is if Obama was adopted by Barack Obama Sr in April of 2011 (an impossible event since Sr is dead) and the HDOH was still working on creating the supplemental BC when they received the April 2011 request from Obama so they sent him a working electronic file instead of a copy of an actual paper document. And even at that Fuddy would have had to lie in her cover letter by claiming she had personally observed Onaka make the copy from the original.

No matter how you slice it, that PDF cannot be a scan of what the HDOH sent Obama. And the HDOH knows it full well.


37 posted on 04/11/2012 11:40:48 AM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

Wouldn’t the parents involved have to sign off on either an amendment or annulment of an adoption? Stanley Ann, Barack Sr, and Lolo Soetoro are all dead.

HI law says that when an adoption is set aside the original birth certificate replaces the supplemental (adoptive) BC in the file. If somebody adopted Obama as an adult and then in April 2011 that adoption was set aside, the BC Obama would use would be the original paper document that was created in 1961 (or, if he was adopted at other points in his life, whichever BC immediately preceded the adoption that is now being set aside).

So if Obama was adopted by Lolo in the mid-sixties and that adoption was set aside in 1971, the original BC would be in effect after that. If Obama was then adopted as an adult (for instance, by that Native American couple), a new BC would be created showing that couple as his parents. If that adoption was set aside the original BC would once again be in effect.

I just can’t think of any way that what you’re saying could work out.


38 posted on 04/11/2012 11:58:45 AM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
If he was adopted in 1965 and/or 1971 he had a paper supplemental BC made then. Why, then, would the HDOH create a C&P’ed digital file in 2011 rather than copyihg the original that’s in their files and certifying it, like they said they had done in the cover letter?

Because the Original will reveal things he does not want revealed. I keep saying that I think the original is not an ordinary birth certificate, it is a "born at home" affidavit written by his Grandmother. It contains the same information as would a birth certificate, but it is clearly not a "normal" birth certificate.

By getting his adoption set aside, he can get the court to create him a new document which contains the information from his original (half written, half typed) document, but one that resembles an ordinary 1961 original.

The only way your theory works to explain the PDF Obama posted is if Obama was adopted by Barack Obama Sr in April of 2011 (an impossible event since Sr is dead) and the HDOH was still working on creating the supplemental BC when they received the April 2011 request from Obama so they sent him a working electronic file instead of a copy of an actual paper document. And even at that Fuddy would have had to lie in her cover letter by claiming she had personally observed Onaka make the copy from the original.

No, Barack Obama Sr doesn't have to adopt him. All that has to be done is for him to petition the court to have his previous adoptions set aside, or nullified. He can then ask the court to order the creation of a new document based on the INFORMATION contained in the original, but designed to look like a "NORMAL" birth certificate from 1961. He doesn't have to ask that the original be unsealed.

No matter how you slice it, that PDF cannot be a scan of what the HDOH sent Obama. And the HDOH knows it full well.

I think that PDF is the files which was used to create the paper document that he has now. The PDF came first.

39 posted on 04/11/2012 2:25:51 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
Wouldn’t the parents involved have to sign off on either an amendment or annulment of an adoption? Stanley Ann, Barack Sr, and Lolo Soetoro are all dead.

No. An adult can have any of their previous adoptions set aside.

HI law says that when an adoption is set aside the original birth certificate replaces the supplemental (adoptive) BC in the file. If somebody adopted Obama as an adult and then in April 2011 that adoption was set aside, the BC Obama would use would be the original paper document that was created in 1961 (or, if he was adopted at other points in his life, whichever BC immediately preceded the adoption that is now being set aside).

This is how things would ordinarily work, but Judges have great leeway in interpreting and applying the law. If the Original document is an affidavit of "at home birth" then Obama's attorney can argue that revealing it will infringe the privacy of his client who does not wish such information to be made public. The attorney can further argue that releasing such a document will be very injurious to his client because we neanderthals won't understand that a "born at home" affidavit is just as good as a real birth certificate because Hawaii accepts it under Hawaiian law. I believe that with these arguments the attorney can ask the court to create a new replacement document designed to resemble a "normal" 1961 Hawaiian birth certificate.

All he has to do is get the judge to agree, and DOH will print him up anything the judge orders it to print.

So if Obama was adopted by Lolo in the mid-sixties and that adoption was set aside in 1971, the original BC would be in effect after that. If Obama was then adopted as an adult (for instance, by that Native American couple), a new BC would be created showing that couple as his parents. If that adoption was set aside the original BC would once again be in effect.

Again, that is how things would NORMALLY work. Has there been anything about this guy that works according to a "normal" process?

I just can’t think of any way that what you’re saying could work out.

Will you agree that if they (Obama and attorneys) can get a judge to order it, DOH will produce whatever the Judge says?

40 posted on 04/11/2012 3:03:58 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

As for changing a BC so it doesn’t reveal things that somebody doesn’t want revealed there are 3 instances where the law allows that: adoption (changing the relationship of child to parents), sex change/determination, and legitimation (changing the marital status of the parents at the time of birth, if the birth parents married sometime after the birth). The law does not allow laundering of place of birth or quality of documentation simply because those things are embarrassing to somebody.

There are three kinds of BC’s that exist in Hawaii: a standard BC, a delayed BC, and a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth. There is no such thing as a simple affidavit that passes as a birth certificate. If there is an at-home birth the birth still has to be registered on a regular birth certificate, the difference being that the parents and/or registrar complete the form and sign as the witness(es). As long as the birth was registered within 30 days of the 30-day deadline, nothing is marked as late or anything else. If the child and mother are examined by a doctor within the first month the doctor signs the BC as if he/she was present at the birth and there would be no way to know it was an at-home birth.

Only if there is no witness to the birth or the birth was registered a year or more after the birth would there have to be affidavits to support any initial claims on the BC - in which case the BC would be either a COHB (which is a totally different form and which can only be converted to a standard BC (maked as late) by surrendering the COHB. And in that event there would STILL be a BC filled out, with a note describing the evidence submitted in support of the claims.

And Hawaii law says that such BC’s MUST be marked on their face as being “late” - because late and altered BC’s are not prima facie evidence. When a late or altered BC is presented as evidence HAWAII LAW says that it is up to the judicial or administrative person or body to determine how credible the claims on that BC are. That’s because HI won’t vouch for the accuracy of claims under those suspicious circumstances. They only collect the evidence offered and relay it to those who have to decide whether the claims are supported well enough to be considered accurate.

IOW, Hawaii law does not allow the State of Hawaii to pass off a late or altered BC as if it was prima facie evidence.

If Barack Obama was born at home in Hawaii the standard procedure would be to have mom and baby examined by a doctor (within the first month) who would then fill out and sign a standard BC. There would be no reason for affidavits, C&P, or anything else. The only reason there would need to be affidavits is if mom and baby weren’t around to be examined - but in that case, there would be reason to seriously question why they weren’t there to be examined if the birth happened in Hawaii as claimed.

So if Obama’s “birth/vital record” (as Fukino keeps calling it, rather than a “birth certificate”) was half-handwritten and half-typed that would indicate a birth certificate supported by an affidavit(s) - which is what former OIP Director Paul Tsukiyama indirectly confirmed as existing. That would only be necessary if the BC was still incomplete after the 2-month window for a standard BC to be completed and thus had to be amended to add missing information. That would be a LATE BC and would show up as a standard BC with LATE stamped on it, a BC# with an L in front of it, and a note on the BC to say what amendment/addition was made, when, and on the basis of what documentation. Or it could be a DELAYED BC, which is actually a different form than the standard BC and is used for births registered a year or more after the birth. A delayed BC has to have additional documentation such as affidavits.

None of that would be necessary if mother and baby were examined by a Hawaii doctor within the first month - regardless of where the birth took place. The birth could have taken place in Canada, Kenya, or Jupiter and as long as mother and baby were examined by a Hawaii doctor within the first month of the claimed birth date, there would be a normal BC that qualifies as prima facie evidence (so that the burden of proof would fall on the person claiming the BC was NOT accurate).

Any adoption after that time would result in a supplemental BC being created that simply has the parents’ and child’s name altered to reflect the legal relationships. The rest of it would stay the same. That supplemental BC would take the place in the file. If an unadoption happened the original would be restored back to the file as the legally-binding document.

The only reason for Obama to have to ask a judge to launder his BC to make it appear that his wasn’t claimed as a home birth is if mom and baby were not examined by a Hawaii doctor within the first month after the claimed birth. What Obama would be asking a judge to do is turn a LATE (legally non-probative BC) into a non-late BC - supposedly because it would be “embarrassing” to him to have a LATE BC.

If judges can create “1961” documents in 2011 for people simply because they are “embarrassed” because they don’t have anything that actually dates back to 1961, we may as well forget about keeping birth records at all. If you could have that, what would keep a judge from creating a 1980 draft registration for those who are “embarrassed” because they never registered for the draft in 1980? Or a US passport for a POTUS candidate who is “embarrassed” that he only had an Indonesian and/or Kenyan passport before he got a diplomatic US passport as Senator? Or create INS records, school records, etc all for the same reasons?

Heck, what would stop judges from creating identities out of nowhere and giving those identities to people who are “embarrassed” by their real identity?


41 posted on 04/11/2012 5:00:34 PM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
Again, it is my understanding that Judges have a great deal of leeway in interpreting and applying the law. I believe the document which has been produced was the result of a Judge bending over backwards to help Obama.

But let's set that aside for a moment. Let us ask instead why his document looks "normal". (to a casual inspection.) I think there is very good circumstantial evidence to indicate that Obama was adopted by both Lolo Soetoro, AND his grandparents. *IF* this is indeed true, then he ought not have a "normal" looking birth certificate. (As you yourself pointed out.)

It is a fact that he does. I see two possibilities. He was never adopted and his document is completely legit, or he WAS adopted and they have managed to create him a document that resembles an original after he had his adoption(s) annulled.

42 posted on 04/12/2012 6:17:29 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

No, you’ve totally reversed what I was saying. I’m saying that he WOULD have a normal-looking BC if he was adopted or reported as a home birth by his Grandma.

The only instance where he wouldn’t is if mother and baby were not examined by a Hawaii doctor within the first month or two after the birth. And that is a whole ‘nother problem that has nothing to do with his adoption or parentage but with the credibility of the claim of a Hawaii birth. That credibility problem doesn’t go away just by him being adopted and having paperwork that claims different PARENTS for him.

Something people need to absorb: Obama is using a stolen BC# - almost certainly Virginia Sunahara’s, since her birth and death situation (including a misreported name on the death certificate) is a very, very rare combination in which there could be a legitimate discrepancy between the “date filed” and the out-of-sequence BC#. There would be no need for him to do that if he had a HI BC that originated in 1961 - regardless of how many adoptions he went through. An adoption would not require the HDOH to give Obama the BC# of Virginia Sunahara.


43 posted on 04/12/2012 6:46:10 AM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
Something people need to absorb: Obama is using a stolen BC# - almost certainly Virginia Sunahara’s, since her birth and death situation (including a misreported name on the death certificate) is a very, very rare combination in which there could be a legitimate discrepancy between the “date filed” and the out-of-sequence BC#. There would be no need for him to do that if he had a HI BC that originated in 1961 - regardless of how many adoptions he went through. An adoption would not require the HDOH to give Obama the BC# of Virginia Sunahara.

I have heard this repeatedly alleged. Do we now have proof that this is true? (That Obama's birth certificate number is the same as Virginia Sunahara.)

44 posted on 04/12/2012 8:41:14 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

The only direct proof of that would be either the computer logs, security microfilm roll with the BC’s in question, or a genuine, original 1961 birth certificate for Virginia Sunahara.

Inspection of the latter by a close relative of the registrant is a required disclosure according to Hawaii’s UIPA, but Hawaii is refusing to obey those laws.

Which is strong circumstantial evidence that there is foul play and that the HDOH itself is willing to break laws to cover up the foul play.

The indirect evidence that the BC# and “date filed” combination on Obama’s forged BC would require the unusual circumstances that Virginia had includes the HDOH’s own disclosure that the BC#’s were routinely given by the HDOH on the “date filed” for Oahu births, and the long-form BC information (”date filed” and BC#’s) for the Nordyke twins.


45 posted on 04/12/2012 9:21:26 AM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
The indirect evidence that the BC# and “date filed” combination on Obama’s forged BC would require the unusual circumstances that Virginia had includes the HDOH’s own disclosure that the BC#’s were routinely given by the HDOH on the “date filed” for Oahu births, and the long-form BC information (”date filed” and BC#’s) for the Nordyke twins.

So there's nothing conclusive, so the idea is still just in the "theory" category. It is just one more among many.

We just need more information.

46 posted on 04/12/2012 9:53:17 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

The HDOh is going to break laws before they will allow “information” to be public. We’ll get “information” when we take it out of their cold dead hands (figuratively speaking).

Why do you think they’re refusing to obey UIPA and disclose Virginia’s original birth certificate to Duncan? What possible reason could they have?


47 posted on 04/12/2012 10:42:56 AM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
Why do you think they’re refusing to obey UIPA and disclose Virginia’s original birth certificate to Duncan? What possible reason could they have?

It did puzzle me. My current guess is that someone at DOH back in 1961 didn't do their job, and they didn't actually create the document. They may have created a space for it, but they probably found out the child died and just didn't bother completing it.

Obviously Hawaii wouldn't want anyone to question the competence or integrity of their record keeping, so I can understand why they wouldn't want this malfeasance exposed. A court should not let them get away with it though.

48 posted on 04/12/2012 12:09:35 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

The HDOH doesn’t create BC’s. The hospital creates the BC. All the HDOH had to do with the actual paper document was make sure it was complete, put the number on it, and file it.

So that explanation doesn’t wash.


49 posted on 04/12/2012 12:38:38 PM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

Also they didn’t have the current electronic database back in 1961. For them to have the birth info for Virginia Sunahara that is on her COLB they had to transcribe that info directly from the original paper documents into an electronic file. If they’ve got anything in their system for events that happened before they began electronic filing for BC’s, it came from a paper document.

So they’ve got a paper document for Virginia’s birth, and the information has been entered into their database. Just like anybody else.

They just refuse to let her brother see it.

Why?


50 posted on 04/12/2012 12:44:16 PM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-54 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson