Skip to comments.Oblivious to the Obvious
Posted on 04/10/2012 2:05:39 AM PDT by matt1
Is Barack Obama's long-form birth certificate a forgery? Definitely yes, for those of us who have spent a lifetime writing and producing technical documents, and who remember how they were produced in pre-computer days, and who have the technical expertise today to produce them using computers. For us, it's been an "open secret" that the document image released by the White House on April 27, 2011 is a complete fake.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
sorry for the double post! but then again, this topic needs to be double-posted!
An illegal President! Yes! But what are we going to do about it?
vote him out of office
Fixed it! ! ! !
Sen Jon Kyl (he who that feckless, flake and ditzy, Mooncalf Coulter is pushing for VP) has taken a pass and repeats the Left's mantra that Hawaii has certified that Dear Leader's BC is genuine, thus nuttin' to see here, let's concentrate on the Nov elections.
The Republican establishment is running scared and would as soon call O'Bummer the "N" word in broad daylight on the steps of the Capital building before daring to hint there might be something amiss in his background or bona fides.
Bunch of whipped, wuss, sheeples.
Our Constitutional Republic is in danger every minute this petulant cipher continues in the White House.
Countdown until Jackwagon leaves Office: 285 days as of April 10, 2012.
LOL! This is a great non-technical proof that Barack Obama's long-form birth certificate a forgery.
What may be more important is this article answers all the objections libs have about the "Birther" issue.
This article is a keeper!
Thanks for posting.
3 posted on April 10, 2012 3:59:18 AM MDT by Balata (It's 'WE THE PEOPLE' Obama, not 'WE THE SHEEPLE'!)
It is critial to the Obama administration that everyone keeps the birth certificate issue stewing to avoid the REAL disqualifier.
Forged BC and SS card not a disqualifier as well? Though I agree with you that O is not a NBC, therefor not eligible, but forgery is something the average Joe can clearly wrap his head around. Sheriff Arpaio is a God send.
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:
Thanks for posting it. It is brilliant. Just brilliant.
I have tried half-heartedly to explain to people how and why. Those how and whys make sense to me, since I have been using Photoshop since 1992, but most people’s eyes glaze over upon hearing the ‘evidence’. It is like trying to explain the Whitewater scandal to people.
In this case, though it is simple, easy to explain, and clear.
And simplicity has a truth all its own.
No one in the media want’s to touch it as well.
I guess there are no Woodword or Burnsteins out there anymore.
Heather Childers at Fox was punished for merely tweeting about the subject. Was off the early AM show for about a week.
The BC “problem” explains why Obama wants radical frevor, i.e. trumped-up Trayvon protests, to spread throughout the land. A volatile situation makes it less likely that the MSM will introduce an explosive issue into the national debate.
“the document image released by the White House on April 27, 2011 is a complete fake.”
If you noticed that, you must be a racist, a bigot, a kook, and completely crazy
-Signed, the Mainstream Media.
Do we still bade a cadre of Freepers who ridicule those of us who question the validity of Obama’s BC and join the MSM and mockingly refer to us as “birthers”?
Hey all you anti-birthers, come out of your cave and ridicule us.
You are first likely to hear, "I don't believe you." What your friends really mean is that they are confused because you have disturbed their belief system. Most anybody who has spatial perception and knows even a little bit about typewriters will understand what you have shown them -- even liberals. They can choose -- which are they going to believe, the president, whom they worship, or their own lying eyes? You can almost see the smoke curling out their ears as their brains begin to fry.
Indeed, this is quite an exact description of what happens when a victim of a Big Lie realizes that he has been gulled.
Here, in the originator's very words:
All this was inspired by the principle--which is quite true within itself--that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation.
(Quoted from the Big Lie wikipedia page.)
The differences he describes might be caused by the fact that the image used is a photo of the paper version. He SHOULD have used the digital copy, and not the photo. If the camera used to take the photo is not centered over the original, it must be tilted slightly to center the image. In this case it was likely tilted up.
What happens then is that words on the bottom of the doc appear larger. This explains some of the author’s points concerning change of pitch and size of characters.
But it still does NOT explain the one major flaw, which is the spacing between 6085 and Kalanianaole. No matter how you move things around (even on the digital version), that spacing in NOT equal to a whole number of characters.
Try it yourself on the digital version.
it’s about time for the “everybody lies” defense. Hope the whole story will come out some day.
‘Obama thugs history revealed in Michele Thomas Bettina Viviano interview, Obama stole 1996 Alice Palmer election and 2008 DNC primaries caucuses’
jbjd | April 9, 2012 at 9:50 am |
President Obamas ballot eligibility problem is about to blow wide open. When it does, you will need to understand how to explain to your public officials that while they might (genuinely) believe he has released a bona fide copy of his long form birth certificate evidencing he was born in HI; and the HI DoH confirmed, its real; neither claim is true. On the contrary, this was all part of a well orchestrated political ad campaign, carried out in full compliance with applicable state and federal law.
RECOGNIZING when the PEOPLE INVOLVED with the PRESS ROLLOUT of PRESIDENT OBAMAS 2011 LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE AD CAMPAIGN WORE a PUBLIC v. PRIVATE HAT
I agree 100%.
It's time for Soda Crackers and Oreos to unite. . . . .
“voteThrow him out of office and into jail! ! ! !”
AMEN!! That’s where Obama belongs...Jail!!
Obama is destroying our Country!!
He is a “FRAUD”!!
I agree. It was well thought out.
The point is valid, but it has been repeated in a misleading manner. The rules governing the ability of the mother to transfer citizenship ONLY APPLY to a birth in a foreign country. They DO NOT APPLY if he was born in the United States. The 14th Amendment applies in this circumstance. (Under one interpretation of it) Even so, the 14th amendment would only make him a "citizen", not a "natural born citizen."
A law cannot make someone "natural born" who is not. Were it otherwise, the Founders would have simply declared themselves "natural born" rather than add an exception for themselves in Article II.
When a state produces a replacement birth certificate for an adopted child, they do not regard them as "forgeries" because they were produce in accordance with a normal legal process.
Do you also have a forged Selective Service registration, and are you currently using the Social Security # of someone who was born over a century ago?
He needed that.
Let us not conflate one thing with another. I make no claims or observations regarding his selective service registration. I will point out that Obama, as head of the FEDERAL government, can completely control that issue. I will also point out that it is the STATE of Hawaii which has issued his birth document, and while he may threaten and cajole them, he cannot control them to the same extent that he can control anyone in his direct chain of command in the FEDERAL government.
He can get away with covering up a forgery of his Selective Service registration as long as he is in power, but he cannot force Hawaii to go along with his narrative unless they chose to do so willingly. The best way to get them to go along willingly is to utilize their legal system in such a way as to achieve the result he wishes.
The same above points regarding his control of the FEDERAL government apply as well to his social security number. That rumor that he is using a Social Security # of someone who was born over a century ago is not well documented, and at this stage is still not clearly established. *I* myself have tried to verify this and at one time that number was producing multiple hits in various data bases.
And for what reason did you feel I "needed that"?
Because you keep peddling your ridiculous theory of a legal forgery.
RWA:”What happens then is that words on the bottom of the doc appear larger. This explains some of the authors points concerning change of pitch and size of characters.
But it still does NOT explain the one major flaw, which is the spacing between 6085 and Kalanianaole. No matter how you move things around (even on the digital version), that spacing in NOT equal to a whole number of characters.”
I agree with you here Right Wing. I did the same cut and paste with the PDF and all the characters align just as a typwritten document would expect. So I think this argument by the American Thinker author is bogus. But when I did the test on the 6085 spacing to Kalanianole, I did not get any discrepancies as you suggested. So I could not find any type spacing issues using the digital version.
I tend to think the author has made a mistake in his assessment. A suspect photograph of a document brings into account many potential imperfections and is not a good source document.
If you think the theory is ridiculous, you must have a reason for believing so. I would certainly like to hear of some fact or logic that disproves the theory. Why don't you tell me why it is you believe the theory is wrong?