Garnering attention after alleging that Sen. Barack Obama was not born in U.S.

Times Herald ^ | 9/6/08 | Keth Phucas

[pissant]

WHITEMARSH - In a society criticized for being too litigious, lawsuits filed by local maverick attorney Philip Berg rank as some of the most sensational. In the past decade, Berg challenged the results of the 2000 presidential election, sued the Bush administration in 2004 for alleged complicity in the Sept. 11 attacks and filed a suit recently claiming that Sen. Barack Obama is not really a U.S. citizen.

After the U.S. Supreme Court's election decision, the Lafayette Hill lawyer demanded that three Supreme Court justices be disbarred for alleged conflict of interest. Several counts in the Sept. 11 lawsuit were eventually dismissed, Berg said, and the plaintiff, William Rodriguez, eventually withdrew the suit.

But the 64-year-old's legal challenge to Sen. Obama's birth records is currently percolating across the Internet blogosphere and has generated near 8 million hits on the attorney's Internet site, www.obamacrimes.com, he said during an interview Friday.

He has received about $2,500 in donations to help support the legal action.

Berg, a former Pennsylvania deputy attorney general and Montgomery County Democratic Party chairman, was prepared for an onslaught of e-mail messages and phone calls attacking him. However, the opposite has occurred. "I'm totally amazed by the positive responses we're getting," he said.

[Teacher317]

Personally, I think we should let this slide until after the election. I’d rather not open Pandora’s Box and allow Hillary back into the race. Obama is far easier to beat, and probably has far less-talented cheating organizations.

[Polarik]

I just wrote a nice letter to Mr. Keith Phucas (is his last name pronounced like I think it is?)

Here is my email letter

---

You wrote:

“When the birth certificate rumors began swirling in June, the Obama campaign posted a “Certification Of Live Birth” document [a COLB] on a special section on its web site, “Fight the Smears,” that debunks the many questionable stories that have circulated about the senator during the campaign.”

Are you always this far off the mark? First of all, Which part of “Obama refuses to show his current birth record,” did you NOT understand?

Secondly, the “smeared” image posted by “Fight The Smears” is totally bogus, as I have proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it is a graphically altered image, aka, a forgery.

For your reference:

polarik.blogtownhall.com

Before you make any more sweeping claims like the one above, you really need to do a little investigative journalism first.

Sincerely,

Ron Polarik

[Polarik]

Not this one. This is the real deal by the certification number that the photoshopped one doesn’t have. This one also has the raised seal.

Sorry, but the photo is even a bigger forgery.

There is no way in Hell that this extremely embossed Seal on this "paper COLB" would NOT show up on a scan it of. Heck, you cannot even hide it in the photos.

Somebody tell me how it is that the top of this seal is reflecting light when no other part of the paper around it is lit?

Not to mention the fact that the actual seal on a 2007 and 2008 COLB is about the size of a quarter and is almost flat.

And why is this exact same portion of the seal cut off in every photo taken of it from behind?

Maybe the same reason why there was never a second fold in the Obama "COLB" image. Again, that second fold shown in the photos is so definitive, that there is no excuse for why that never showed up in the scan either.

Go back and look carefully at that picture posted. Do you notice those white specks (pixels) around the letters in the names? They should NOT be there...unless they used the image they made as the source for the photo.

[Shooter 2.5]

I think you want to go here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2076197/posts

There’s more questions that have to be answered.

[Shooter 2.5]

I think you want to go here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2076197/posts

There’s more questions that have to be answered.

[kabar]

sued the Bush administration in 2004 for alleged complicity in the Sept. 11 attacks

Sounds like a nut case.

[Polarik]

Here are the photos in question:

Acording to the Exif data embedded in these nine digital photos, all of them were allegedly taken on March 12, 2008 from 10:40:18 PM (PHOTO #1) to 10:47:02 PM (PHOTO #9).

Now. here comes the weird stuff.

Is the Exif data accurate? Were these photos actually taken on the 12th of March at 10:40PM in the order as numbered?

Yeah, if the photographer could bend Space-Time, or jump through a worm hole. OK, check this out. Please...read it slowly and carefully.

Although the images are sequentially named and numbered from birth_certificate_1.jpg to birth_certificate_9.jpg, there is absolutely no way that BC #8 was taken after BC #7 and before BC #9.

The Exif data "allegedly" indicates that BC #7, a shot of the signature stamp, date stamp, and 4/5th of the Seal on the reverse side, was taken only 15 seconds after BC #6, a shot, taken from the front side, of the lower half of the COLB, with the second fold prominently displayed, the slight bleed-though of the date stamp, and the entire Seal, with the lower fold cutting right through the top 1/5th of the Seal (which was curiously cut off in the photos of the reverse side)

BC #8, which shows a close up of the Seal, and also cutting off the same 1/5th of the Seal (as was done in BC #7), was supposedly taken one minute, 20 seconds after BC #7, but two minutes, 5 seconds before BC #9.

Here is BC #6:

Here is BC #7:

Here is BC #8:

Here is BC #9:

Now, the fun begins.

I created a two photo overlay. First I made BC #9 partially transparent and reduced it to be exactly 80 percent of its original size -- a significant discovery. Then, I copied it and pasted it over BC #7. the last step was moving the date stamp of BC #9 over the date stamp of BC #7. They aligned perfectly. Another significant discovery.

Here's the photo overlay before I covered one date stamp with the other:

As you can see above, the size and orientation of the date stamps are the same. Now, here's the overlay with one date stamp aligned on top of the other:

Even though the camera was hand-held and probably not mounted on a tripod, the date stamps match exactly, but the signature stamps are not. The odds of being able to move the camera from its position in BC #7 to another position to take BC #8, and then moved once again to take BC #9, such that the date stamps on #7 & #9 align perfectly when the size of BC #9 is reduced 80 percent, are rather slim.

THe easiest explanation for the date stamp match is that BC #9 was photographed after BC #7 by first increasing the zoom lens to 120 percent of BC #7.

The other possibility is that the photographer just got off a lucky shot that was made without any artifial light on the COLB.

But, why take what amounted to a second shot, and in poor lighted conditions? If that is true, then the 10:40 pm time stamp is false. Also, why did it take over 4 minutes to shoot BC #9 after BC #7 if they were, indeed, shot separately?

[Polarik]

Here are the photos in question:

Acording to the Exif data embedded in these nine digital photos, all of them were allegedly taken on March 12, 2008 from 10:40:18 PM (PHOTO #1) to 10:47:02 PM (PHOTO #9).

Now. here comes the weird stuff.

Is the Exif data accurate? Were these photos actually taken on the 12th of March at 10:40PM in the order as numbered?

Yeah, if the photographer could bend Space-Time, or jump through a worm hole. OK, check this out. Please...read it slowly and carefully.

Although the images are sequentially named and numbered from birth_certificate_1.jpg to birth_certificate_9.jpg, there is absolutely no way that BC #8 was taken after BC #7 and before BC #9.

The Exif data "allegedly" indicates that BC #7, a shot of the signature stamp, date stamp, and 4/5th of the Seal on the reverse side, was taken only 15 seconds after BC #6, a shot, taken from the front side, of the lower half of the COLB, with the second fold prominently displayed, the slight bleed-though of the date stamp, and the entire Seal, with the lower fold cutting right through the top 1/5th of the Seal (which was curiously cut off in the photos of the reverse side)

BC #8, which shows a close up of the Seal, and also cutting off the same 1/5th of the Seal (as was done in BC #7), was supposedly taken one minute, 20 seconds after BC #7, but two minutes, 5 seconds before BC #9.

Here is BC #6:

Here is BC #7:

Here is BC #8:

Here is BC #9:

Now, the fun begins.

I created a two photo overlay. First I made BC #9 partially transparent and reduced it to be exactly 80 percent of its original size -- a significant discovery. Then, I copied it and pasted it over BC #7. the last step was moving the date stamp of BC #9 over the date stamp of BC #7. They aligned perfectly. Another significant discovery.

Here's the photo overlay before I covered one date stamp with the other:

As you can see above, the size and orientation of the date stamps are the same. Now, here's the overlay with one date stamp aligned on top of the other:

Even though the camera was hand-held and probably not mounted on a tripod, the date stamps match exactly, but the signature stamps are not. The odds of being able to move the camera from its position in BC #7 to another position to take BC #8, and then moved once again to take BC #9, such that the date stamps on #7 & #9 align perfectly when the size of BC #9 is reduced 80 percent, are rather slim.

THe easiest explanation for the date stamp match is that BC #9 was photographed after BC #7 by first increasing the zoom lens to 120 percent of BC #7.

The other possibility is that the photographer just got off a lucky shot that was made without any artifial light on the COLB.

But, why take what amounted to a second shot, and in poor lighted conditions? If that is true, then the 10:40 pm time stamp is false. Also, why did it take over 4 minutes to shoot BC #9 after BC #7 if they were, indeed, shot separately?

[21stCenturyFreeThinker]

In the past decade, Berg challenged the results of the 2000 presidential election, sued the Bush administration in 2004 for alleged complicity in the Sept. 11 attacks [ ie. a troofer ] and filed a suit recently claiming that Sen. Barack Obama is not really a U.S. citizen.

After the U.S. Supreme Court's election decision, the Lafayette Hill lawyer demanded that three Supreme Court justices be disbarred for alleged conflict of interest. Several counts in the Sept. 11 lawsuit were eventually dismissed, Berg said, and the plaintiff, William Rodriguez, eventually withdrew the suit.

He has had a remarkable record of success in these endeavors.

See my about page for more information on the eligibility issue.

[FreedomProtector]

marking...

[Dajjal]

obumpa

[Polarik]

I just wrote a scathing comment to the article.

[Polarik]

I just wrote a scathing comment to the article.

[pissant]

Excellent.

[Sibre Fan]

Hi Polarik. Do you have any idea who the "third" expert is that Berg references in his lawsuit? I'm assuming (and I may be wrong, of course) that you are one, and TechDude is two, but I can't figure out who the third person is. I'm trying to submit a comment to What's Your Evidence on this set of allegations, but can't find the references to identify the third person. (Who knows if it'll get published, but gotta try!) Any ideas?

[Polarik]

I just wrote a scathing comment to the article.

[Polarik]

Hi Polarik. Do you have any idea who the "third" expert is that Berg references in his lawsuit? I'm assuming (and I may be wrong, of course) that you are one, and TechDude is two, but I can't figure out who the third person is. I'm trying to submit a comment to What's Your Evidence on this set of allegations, but can't find the references to identify the third person. (Who knows if it'll get published, but gotta try!) Any ideas?

Not TechDude anymore. I don't know who the third one might be.

[Polarik]

'm trying to submit a comment to What's Your Evidence on this set of allegations...

BTW, I'm the first to submit a comment. Now, let's hope it gers published.

[Trallfaz]

polarik wrote:

“There is no way in Hell that this extremely embossed Seal on this “paper COLB” would NOT show up on a scan it of. Heck, you cannot even hide it in the photos.”

I can see some of the seal in the picture posted at Daily Kos.

“Somebody tell me how it is that the top of this seal is reflecting light when no other part of the paper around it is lit?”

The paper around it has to be lit or else it would be black. I took a sheet of some paper towels that I have that has a pattern embossed into it and folded it like the birth certificate and arranged it under a light so that the middle part was darker than the bottom part like in the photograph and I could see that the bumps in the embossing were much lighter just like the top part of the seal in the photograph.

It looks like the bumps in the seal are getting light at a different angle which makes them look brighter.

[Trallfaz]

How can I post pictures here?

Tnx.