The source calls itself 'FACTCHECK.' How do you vouch for facts when you can't get your own right?? And the 'fact' that they scrubbed their camera data means they're trying to hide their own incompetence or complicity. IOW, these knuckleheads don't have any credibility.
Seems to match fine to me.
Good, so you can explain how the paper grew?? The image below has the original scan pasted over top of one of the factlack photos. Notice how much extra margin there is outside the security border on the factlack document, yet you can see where the edge of the paper stops on the Obama scan. These documents do not match. Paper doesn't grow.
Sorry. I don't see the relvance.
Of course. No faither can see the 'revlance.' Honesty isn't one their hallmarks.
They verified the birthplace, which is all that matters for the purposes of eligibility.
No, actually they didn't verify. They said they saw alleged documents that allegedly verify a place of birth. This would have no value in court without producing the documents.
The only reason I'm bothering to post here is because I think the birther movement is hurting conservatives.
The only way it 'hurts' anyone is when people like you go around trying to tell them the issue hurts them. Honest people recognize that Obama hasn't proved his eligibility. Ridiculing the people who point this out is simply an agenda to make excuses for a fraud.
It's not unheard of for step children to use their step father's last name, even if they weren't legally adopted. In fact, I've know people who did this.
There are legal limitations on when and how this can be done. Otherwise one is committing fraud.