Skip to comments.Proof of Forgery Ignored
Posted on 09/13/2012 9:42:24 AM PDT by chatter4
Youtube user Bigone5555J found a photo of one of the Birth Certificates given to Obama's attorneys by the Hawaii Department of Health on April 25, 2011. You might recall that after Obama released his long form in a Pdf for the public to download on April 27, 2011, NBC's Savannah Guthrie boasted she was allowed to look at and feel the seal on Obama's Birth Certificate and reported that it said Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii. She also took a picture of it and posted that photo on site called Lockerz.com. The photo she took can be seen here: http://lockerz.com/s/96540937 You can download a copy by right clicking on the photo and then clicking "Save Picture as...".
If you enlarge the photo, you will see in box 7c, "Honolulu, Huwaii". That's right, the word Hawaii was misspelled as "Huwaii". Also, if you look at the father's middle name, HUSSEIN, in box 8, you will see there are two different sized "S"'s, and in box 11. These errors were "corrected", before copies were made available to the press. This photo proves that Obama's Birth Certificate was altered before it was released to the public. It also proves that Obama's attorneys and those in Hawaii that saw Obama's Birth Certificate, were well aware that what Obama posted, was not what they provided to him. He posted a video about the "Huwaii" misspelling on Youtube, which can be viewed here: http://youtu.be/dL6hZRYZ6wU
Additionally, a photocopy of what was handed out to the press that day was released by the Associated Press in Pdf format. It is a much higher resolution than the Pdf version on the White House servers. You can get a copy here: http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/ap_obama_certificate_dm_110427.pdf
If you view that Pdf at, at least 600%, you can see that the typed letters may have actually been forged by hand, or if they were originally typed, they have been written over with a pen. If you look closely at the document number, in the upper right hand corner, you can see that the numbers were actually outlined and then filled in. The last number one looks like the profile of a man's face. His ear is a question mark, and you can see what appears to be drops of sweat dripping down his neck. That was covered up, or distorted, and placed on a different layer, so it can't be seen in the lower resolution White House Pdf version. A video about the AP version can be seen here: http://youtu.be/XuyV7V853kk
What I have found disturbing, is that not only has the MSM chosen to ignore this evidence, but, so haven't nearly all of the websites, blogs, and news sites that claim to support Birthers. Can you just imagine the look on that CBS reporters face, who asked Mike Zullo, "Why should we believe you?", if Zullo had responded with Savannah Guthries' photo, showing "Huwaii"? I'd also love to see Donald Trump ask Savannah Guthrie about it right on a national broadcast.
Well so what. Only when y’all understand that we live in a controlled, corrupted in all factions, nation that is no better than a banana republic will these issues become insignificant because we have no authority nor power to do a damned thing about it.
forget trying to get them to look at it as a forgery...
instead, we must try to force 0bama and crew to submit the document as proof of his eligibility... as required by the Constitution
one step at a time.
Touching up photocopier artifacts is reasonable and doesn’t mean the document was forged. To be forged implies someones BC was used as a base and then had select fields overwritten with hussein family data. I’ve seen no evidence that entire fields were overwritten.
“we must try to force 0bama and crew to submit the document as proof of his eligibility... as required by the Constitution”
That would never happen. Obama’s attorney stated to the press, the day it was released, that the short form is the document that would be used for any legal purposes. That is an admission that the long form is not a legal document.
Why correct a spelling from an official Huwaii document? Maybe that’s why he has shied away from releasing his BC because he’s embarrassed it has a spelling error on it?
“Ive seen no evidence that entire fields were overwritten.”
Well, then you haven’t looked at the AP version or watched the video about it. Bty, changing the spelling of words is not, “Touching up photocopier artifacts”.
The birth record number is odd, however. Someone pointed out that if you magnify this number 800%, the '1' disappears COMPLETELY.
“Maybe thats why he has shied away from releasing his BC because hes embarrassed it has a spelling error on it?”
I had that thought too, but, after viewing the video about the AP version, and then comparing the three versions against each other, it is clear that the entire document is a forgery. I really doubt that people at the Hawaii Health Department, doodled on Obama’s original Birth Certificate.
Think about it for a few seconds. Assume the forger began with a BC issued to a male born the same day and same hospital as Obama.
Field 1a would have to be changed to the new name "BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, II"
Field 7d would have to be changed to reflect the mother's address of "6085 Kalanianaole Highway"
Field 8 would have to be changed to reflect the full father's name of "BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA"
Field 11 would have to be changed to reflect the father's birthplace of "Kenya, East Africa"
Field 13 would have to be changed to reflect the full maiden name of the mother "STANLEY ANN DUNHAM"
Field 16 would have to be changed to reflect the mother's birthplace of "Wichita, Kansas"
So, until I see someone show how all the above fields were changed in their entirety, I assume any identified changes were due to touchup.
See post #12
Also, note that the 'R' in BARACK is different than the other letters. THIS IS BECAUSE THE 'R' IN 'VIRGINIA' WAS RETAINED TO KEEP THE CHARACTER SPACING CORRECT FOR 'BARACK'. Trivial but interesting.
“Some of your observations are correct. However, the ‘Huwaii’ thing is an anomaly which occurs because of low resolution imaging. I have analyzed this particular anomaly and have come to the conclusion the word is indeed correctly spelled ‘Hawaii’.” Then why doesn’t the “a” in the word “Oahu”, both above and to the left of box 7c, look like a “U” too?
“The birth record number is odd, however. Someone pointed out that if you magnify this number 800%, the ‘1’ disappears COMPLETELY.”
Yes, it totally breaks up in the Whitehouse version, but, not in the AP version. Also, explain how a tiny lower case “f”, got inside the final “a” in Africa in box 11. It can be seen clearly in the AP version. I’m thinking it just might be the forgers initials-FA or AF.
“Assume the forger began with a BC issued to a male born the same day and same hospital as Obama.”
Why would a forger need to do that? Couldn’t he just start out with a blank form? Think about that.
That's a valid scenario. However, it begs the question why the selective "edits" cited by those claiming forgery?
Perhaps the forger wanted to make the image look as if it had been touched up. That may be the case but it can't be proven without the paper original.
Although the Certificate of Live Birth is a very incompetent and blatant forgery, you would never know it by this blatantly erroneous and false set of claims. For example, where it is claimed that Hawaii was misspelled as Huwaii, the word is in fact spelled correctly as Hawaii. Some folks may at first glance be misled by what seems to be a solid stroke on the left side, it is when viewed at higher magnifications with care the letter “a” which is being distorted to some degree by the camera lens and resolution of the image. In other words, it is much to do about a non-eexistant flaw.
Likewise with the claims of the handmade chracters. The document has many real flaws indicative of a forgery. Unfortunately, the claims being presented here are again generally false, with the possible exception of a few examples. Characters which are distorted due to gaps on the typewriter ink ribbon and variability in the type bar striking the ribbon against a paper document. Additionally, the digital resolution artifacts help to confound a proper interpretation of the image. Bottomliine, however, is the erroneous misrepresentations about fictitious flaws in the document cloud recognition of the genuine falws that exist in the document.
If someone wanted to discredit the genuine evidence that the birth certificate is a forgery, the sources given in this topic thread would certainly qualify as such sources of disinformation.
“Ive seen no evidence that entire fields were overwritten.”
So, I’m guessing you didn’t watch the Arpaio press conferences, eh?
Some but not all of it.
Ah, well you might want to go back and check out the last one he gave. In that, he gives pretty indisputable evidence that at least two of the fields on the form have been completely fabricated.
I just did that and my opinion remains unchanged. The ethnicity and occupation fields are interesting but he showed no evidence that the crucial name fields were changed.
If it is true that the misspelling was caused by the camera lens, why wouldn’t ALL of the “a”’s look like “U”’s. Why would it only affect only one letter on the entire document?
“Characters which are distorted due to gaps on the typewriter ink ribbon and variability in the type bar striking the ribbon against a paper document.”
Typewriter letters are made of metal. While a worn ribbon will cause the letters to appear lighter, the letters will NOT change shape. Letters will not become taller or shorter and parts of the letters will NOT move in relation to one another because of a worn ribbon.
“If it is true that the misspelling was caused by the camera lens, why wouldnt ALL of the as look like Us.”
The word is spelled as Hawaii and not as Huwaii. You are simply misreading the “a” as a “u”. We can see it, albeit with some little difficulty. Why can’t you?
“Typewriter letters are made of metal.”
Not all of them were cast in metal. In 1961 the typewriter typeface was cast in metal. In later years it was also cast in meetallized plastics and plastics, especially with respect to printer thimbles and daisywheels.
“While a worn ribbon will cause the letters to appear lighter, the letters will NOT change shape. Letters will not become taller or shorter and parts of the letters will NOT move in relation to one another because of a worn ribbon.”
You are very badly mistaken in your comments. The Obama Certificate of Live Birth is most certainly a forgery. Many of the characters and other elements are evidence of the forgery. Nonetheless, the forgery includes the kinds of typographic flaws typical of most typewritten documents. Alingment of the character on the baseline is a common problem in typewritten documents. Some typewriters are much worse than others.
In particular, the shifting on a manual typewriter tends to create a varying height above the baseline depending on the typists operation of the shift key. Monospacing manual typewriters do not kern characters on the baseline. Nonetheless, some typewriter mechanisms were not tight in their adjustments, and rapid typing could slightly alter the placement of the character because the escapement of the platen was still in motion as the typebar was brought against the typewriter ribbon. The shifting up of the typewriter ribbon in front of the typebar was also affected by the manual typist’s tempo of typing, resulting in slight variations in area of the ribbon struck by the typeface. To better utilize the ink on the ribbon, typewriters did not advance the ribbon to a pristine section of the riboon for the typeface to strike. Instead, the areas struck by the typeface overlapped on the ribbon. This overlap on the ribbon resulted in some areas of the typeface being more fully inked, while other parts of the typeface received less ink. The heavily inked portions of the typeface would smear the exxcess ink, the medium inked areas tended to look more normal, and the areas with too little ink would print poorly on the paper or not at all in some small spots. This variation in ink transfer, tempo of opration, and manual variations by the typist created what appeared to be distoritons in shape, vertical alignment, and horizontal alignment. Examining and comparing known historical typewritten documents provides innumerable examples. Look at the historical typewritten documents online at the Presidential Libraries, and anyone kind find copious examples of these flaws in typewritten documents.
I own a number of manual and electric typewriters. They range from 19th Century pioneers to the latest daisywheels. I’m an IBM trained and authorised customer service engineer for the IBM Selectric and IBM Wheelwriter typewriters and printers. When I examined the Obama documents, one of the first things I did was perform some real world tests to compare typewritten results and find anything that looked like discrepancies. Suffice it to say the natural imperfections in typewritten documents, especially from manual typewriters of unknown origin can be highly problematic in certain instances. Before anyone goes around proclaiming an ability to see and interpret evidence of forgery in the alignment of the typed characters, they had better be fully prepared to demonstrate beyond all reasonable doubt how the claimed flaw cannot be found in known typewritten original documents. The failure to recognize the letter “a” and misidentification of it as the letter “u” in Hawaii fails such a test coming right out of the gate.
The one thing not needed is for well intentioned people and/or Obama shills to be crying wolf about the evidence of forgery, especially when there is so much more solid and blatant evidence of real forgery in this document.
“The word is spelled as Hawaii and not as Huwaii. You are simply misreading the a as a u. We can see it, albeit with some little difficulty. Why cant you?”
If YOU can’t see that it is a “u” and NOT an “a”, I suggest you get your eyes checked. After reading your entire comment, I’m convinced that you simply are unwilling to admit it is a “u”. There is absolutely no reason that the camera would make only one “a” look like a “u”, but, only that one letter.
“In 1961 the typewriter typeface was cast in metal. In later years it was also cast in meetallized plastics and plastics, especially with respect to printer thimbles and daisywheels.”
Who cares what letters were made of “In later years”. It is supposed to be a document typed in 1961. Why make excuses for a forger? What you are saying is that it’s OK for the letters to be inconsistent because the forger may have used a newer typewriter. Each and every letter “a” on that document should look exactly the same shape, just as they do in this text. A worn ribbon will not make “a”’s or any other letter change shape. It will NOT shift parts of letters in relation to the other parts. The fact that you bring up kerning, letter spacing, high or low letters or leaning letters, shows just how off the mark you are. No
one, up to this point, has raised any of these issues-That is not what I or the video poster is talking about. When he says leaning letters, he means that on side of a letter is visibly taller than the other. You claim to be an expert, yet you didn’t notice that? Get your eyes checked.
Every field is “crucial” on a vital record. If they have clearly manipulated even one field, it’s a bogus document.
“If YOU cant see that it is a u and NOT an a, I suggest you get your eyes checked. After reading your entire comment, Im convinced that you simply are unwilling to admit it is a u. There is absolutely no reason that the camera would make only one a look like a u, but, only that one letter.”
Sorry, but I have to say, there are absolutely reasons why the camera would do that. This is the digital camera age, which means that every picture taken by the camera is undergoing digital processing and compression. It’s extremely common for that type of processing to alter the fine details of a photograph, such as a typewritten letter. There is no reason to assume such distortions would be consistent for every letter, because the algorithms that cause them just don’t work that way.
You need to take your won advice, instead of telling myself and allof the other people in the room here to get their eyes checked. WE are all in agreement here that the letter is without doubt the letter “a” with the solid top stroke and the stroke describing teh bowl of the letter “a”, whereas the letter “u” cannot have the solid line on top which is unambiguously present in the image. We’re all in agreement hee, so your inability or refusal to to acknowledge your mistake and your attack upon our motives is simply destroying your credibility.
The rest of your comments are dismissed as nonsense. You obviously ignored the invitation to compare the same typewritten flaws found in other historical documents. for example:
President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Safe Files.
Safe Files - Box 1
America, Britain, China, and Dutch East Indies (ABCD Powers) II Index
Memo. for the President Land—>FDR-2/17/42
The word Russia is mispositioned vertically by the manual shift key and horizontally by misposition of the platen escapement. Monospacing typewriters are alleged to be incapable of causing letters to overlap their character box as it occurs when a typesetter kerns together letter pairs, yet this typewriter has clearly moved the capital R and the lowercase u together far enough for the last stroke of the R to slightly underlie and overlap with the lowercase letter u and its overhanging stroke. In the word proposal the typeface striking the lowercase letter s resulted in a misshapen letterform giving the appearance of a misshappen numeral 5 having a flat top stroke rather than the curved top stroke of the letter ‘s. On the same line as each other the word except has a pt letter pair which touch and therefore have letter boxes which overlap, while farther down the same line the word not has a letter pair ot which have very wide separation from each other and no oveerlapping of their character boxes that you would see in computerized kerning of letter pairs. The salutation, Dear Jerry has the overlapping letter pair ry, which some people could also attempt to claim had to be kerned to gether by typesetting instead of by the inexact escapement positioning of a typewriter.
This example comes from a typewriter with fairly good performance. Other typewriters with much worse adjustments and ink ribbons produce more and more glaring anomolies in shape and positioning of the characters.
OK, You are 1000% right. You have explained fully, everything wrong with Obama’s Birth Certificate can be attributed to a worn typewriter ribbon. So, I guess it’s genuine after all. Now why in the world did the prior director of the State of Hawaii’s Health Department claim on national TV, that it was half typed and half hand written? I guess she should get in touch with you, so you can set her straight. Matter of fact, perhaps FR could hire you to prescreen all submissions before they’re posted-that way nothing you disagree with will ever see the light of day.
can Obamas mother prove any other way that she was in Hawaii that day? maybe hospital bills , travel proof ? a staff member that may remember her? a news paper with birth announcement,maybe how she left the hospital ? Taxi, personal car, room mate at the hospital, anybody out there remember Barack being delivered? this is a very important issue for our countries security, all other Americans must verify their citizenship for a lot more trivial reasons, make this man prove this without doubt, and if he is found fake charge him with treason !!!!!
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.