Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Was Obama's "Certificate of Birth" manufactured?
Blogtownhall ^ | 6/20/08 | Polark

Posted on 06/17/2008 6:00:53 PM PDT by freespirited

 

Was Obama's "Certificate of Birth" manufactured?

Posted by Polarik on Friday, June 20, 2008 12:00:00 AM
The Daily Kos blog has posted a JPG that allegedly is Barack Obama's "Certificate of Birth." From a detailed analysis of the image and the text, it looks like it was created by a graphics program, and is not a true copy of an original, certified document.

I've been working with computers, printers, and typewriters for over 20 years, and given a set of printed letters, I can discern what kind of device made them. Printer output is quite different from the text created by a graphics program, and even if a document looks "official," it may not be.

The "Certificate of Birth," which I will call "COB," is posted on the Kos website as a color JPG. The reason for making it a color JPG, IMHO, is to induce the viewer to believe that this is a genuine copy of an original document -- something that a black & white, or even greyscale, reproduction would not convey as well.

Basically, anyone could have produced this document on his or her own computer, and I'll tell you why.

As represented by the JPG, the "original" COB seems to be a sheet of paper measuring 8.09" x 7.90" with a green "Rattan" pattern embedded in, or printed on, the paper and a "Bamboo mat" pattern for its border:

Photobucket

At the bottom of the JPG image, reading right from left, one can see following text:

OHSM 1.1 (Rev. 11/01) Laser     This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding. [HRS 338-13(b), 338-19]

There are a lot of problems with this statement, foremost of which is that the text in this document were produced by a graphics program and not a laser print, or any other printer, for that matter.

If the letters were made by a laser printer, you would be able to see the background, the pattern, through the spaces of the letters.

Here's a genuine copy of a real certificate of birth -- my own:

Photobucket

When text is entered via a graphics program, the pattern cannot be seen without noticeable distortion. However, when text is entered with a computer printer or typewriter, you can clearly see the pattern below the letters.

Here is a segment of the COB showing the letters, "Certificat" (from the "Certification" field) enlarged about: 500%:

Photobucket

Now, let's enlarge it some more:

Photobucket


The fuzzy outline is a dead giveaway that these letters were made by a graphics program. Also a dead giveaway is that the letters still retain a sharp outline. With printed or typed text, there is a clearly definable characteristic of a symmetrical shadow when the image is saved at a lower resolution,  that is, a more compressed JPG file.

Here is the word, "Certification," from my certificate of birth enlarged :

Photobucket

As you can see, there is virtually no distortion and no pixelation around the letters, and no dropouts from the background. The most noticeable pixelation and dropouts from the background can be seen in the Barack's father's name "HUSSEIN" on the COB:

Photobucket

Take a look at the area between the "S's in "HUSSEIN."  No hint of any background color. Plenty of grey and white pixels -- exactly what would result from enlarging text entered with a graphics program.

WAIT, there is an even bigger red herring here. All of the type on this document was produced by the same program.

Whatever made the text for all of the headings also made the text for all of the entries.

What's wrong with that?

Well, only that real certificates are created ahead of time by a commercial printer, or, at least, a different printer than the one used to create the data entries. This is why the headings on my certificate of birth look entirely different than the entries.

That is questionable by itself. But it is the way the text looks that gives it away.

Any text made by a typewriter, laser printer, or even inkjet printer, would NOT have the smeared, black & white pixels underneath it -- there would be several pixels bearing the same color as the paper, nor would the left side of the letters be clear and free of any artifacts or shadows. Scalable type produced by a graphics program will look about the same regardless of the magnification with a minimal or uneven staircase pattern of pixels on its sides, whereas printed text -- even laser text -- will show a clear, uniform staircase pattern of pixels on both sides of each letter that proportionately increase in size with magnification.

Here are some examples:

Here is the "Certificate" heading from Barack's COB enlarged 5 times:

Photobucket

Virtually all of the letters lack any shadows, and only the "A" and the "R" show only a slight, uneven staircase effect. Basically, the letters would look essentially the same -- especially letters made from straight lines like "I," "E," and "T," regardless of the magnification used to view them, and this is a key feature of scalable type produced by a graphics program.

Now, here is the "Certification," heading from my genuine certificate enlarged 5 times:

Photobucket
 
The double shadow appears on all letters, and this shadow grows proportionately in size as the letters are enlarged. Also, there is pronounced staircase effect on the "C," "A," and "R." Notice, too, that the "steps" are uniform in size, in contrast to the uneven staircase effect on the Barack headings.

Again, the most glaring anomaly in Obama's COB is the following:

All of the letters that appear on Barack's Certificate of Birth were made, at the same time, and by the same method -- which was the use of a graphics program and not the use of any printer.

You can also tell that this is an obvious Photochop by looking at the border patterns.

Looking at the corners of the darker green border, you can see that the border is discontinuous. In other words, the vertical border bars were made by drawing a long rectangle, copying that rectangle, and then overlaying each of them on either side:

UPPER LEFT CORNER OF BORDER

Photobucket


LOWER RIGHT CORNER OF BORDER


Photobucket

What is readily apparent is that the top and bottom horizontal border bars are overlapped by the top and bottom edges of two vertical rectangles.

If this certificate was a professionally-made, there would not be any overlaps, or any outlines of the side rectangles -- the border would appear to be one, continuous whole. Note, too, that both the left and right side rectangles are equal in length. It appears that they were made that way ( or cloned) to make the patterns line up.

Now, getting back to statements on the certificate, there is something else clearly wrong with the "OHSM 1.1" statement at the bottom -- besides the fact that it was produced by a graphics program. There should have been that distinctive "double S" mark preceding the Section number of the statute -- , as in §338-13 --  so as to indicate that a reference is being made to a particular section of a statute, which, in this case, is Chapter §338, Section 13.

As for the first part, the acronym, "OHSM," stands for "Office of Health Statistics Management," which is not the responsible office within the Department of Health for issuing a certificate of birth. The "1.1" that follows refers to a non-existent document. If there were a "1.1", it would mean a revision of "Form 1" or "Document 1," and since "Document 1" is the form for a "Marriage Certificate," "OHSM 1" would refer to a Marriage Certificate form, and "OHSM 1.1," would refer to another version of that Marriage Certificate form, rather than a "Certificate of Live Birth" form.

Also, in this line, there is a reference to "HRS Section 338-13, paragraph (b)" which states, "Copies of the contents of any certificate on file in the department, certified by the department shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original, subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18."

OK...so where is the certification by the department?

Not only is there no department certification, there is also the absence of any watermark on the paper. Official state documents are supposed to have a watermark on the paper -- like my certificate of birth -- especially when that document is a very important one, like a certificate of birth.

A certified document must have a signature (or signatures) from individuals within the State's Department of Health who are authorized to reproduce the document, and to certify that the document is genuine.

Nothing like that appears anywhere in this JPG.

Also, the official Seal of Hawaii in this JPG is a 2nd generation, black & white bitmap copy of the original seal -- at best.

Photobucket

You would think that the seal would be in color, like the original
Photobucket
or at least a higher quality reproduction if this was a copy of an original document.

In short, there is nothing in this copy to indicate that it is, in fact, a "certified copy."  As I have shown above, there is a whole lot of evidence that it is a manufactured copy. There certainly is a very strong motive for creating one.

Unless the voting public is given a real birth certificate to examine, the question of Barack's birth is still up in the air.


TOPICS: Politics/Elections; US: Hawaii
KEYWORDS: birthcertificate; certifigate; kos; obama; obamafamily; obamatruthfile
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-334 next last
To: freespirited

What are the letters in the middle of the document? Very faint and appear backwards.


51 posted on 06/17/2008 6:42:04 PM PDT by count-your-change (you don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy

They do respond with a computer generated document. He is saying that this is a fake computer generated document


52 posted on 06/17/2008 6:42:29 PM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

[... It’s interesting that the person who wrote this
analysis ignored the reverse datestamp on the document...]

I didn’t think much about it because I thought it was
a water mark.


53 posted on 06/17/2008 6:43:07 PM PDT by Jo Nuvark (Those who bless Israel will be blessed, those who curse Israel will be cursed. Gen 12:3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy

My sister law was born at St Francis Hospital in Honolulu around the same time . Her birth certificate is hand written with ink . Her assessment is this is strange since most were had written back then on the islands except the base babies.


54 posted on 06/17/2008 6:44:09 PM PDT by ncalburt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: RedVirginia

“Check out ExposeObama.com and look at the ads the “Willie Horton” people are planning to drop on the airwaves after Labor Day.”

Some day we’ll get an American running for the President again.


55 posted on 06/17/2008 6:45:40 PM PDT by CalifChris
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

This document seems to be a correct document, just not what is claimed. See: http://suitablyflip.com/suitably_flip/2008/06/kos-tries-to-pa.html

But there’s a bigger problem here than the document’s chain of custody. It involves the difference between a “Certificate of Live Birth” and a “Certification of Live Birth”. This is the latter, despite Kos’ identification of it as the former.

Per the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (a state agency that happens to detail the difference):

In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL.

Indeed, the Kos document offers scant details, limited to name, gender, date, location, and names and races of parents.


56 posted on 06/17/2008 6:45:56 PM PDT by NathanR (Obama: More 'African' than 'American'.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: freespirited

Without signatures, stamp and date issued it looks to be something whipped up for public consumption. A fake.


57 posted on 06/17/2008 6:47:18 PM PDT by count-your-change (you don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
What are the letters in the middle of the document? Very faint and appear backwards.

JUN 6 2007. It looks like bleed through from a date stamped on the back.

58 posted on 06/17/2008 6:48:50 PM PDT by KarlInOhio (Whale oil: the renewable biofuel for the 21st century.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: pissant

Thank you OP!

I saw all of this, too, when I downloaded this form and looked at the backgrounds.

Look at the two I’s in Hawaii. Really sloppy.

I do not know if this helps, but I found a marriage certificate of the same Hawaii issue type on another bbs. I downloaded it, but it is too blurry to read. Maybe OP can see what is on it in terms of official seals, form numbers and so on.

http://www.foreigndocuments.com/images/docs/marriage_usa_hawaii_small.jpg


59 posted on 06/17/2008 6:51:16 PM PDT by xiangchi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: ncalburt

We are looking for your sister-in-law’s birth certificate type. Is it hospital-issued? With baby footprints? Does a doctor sign off on her birth time and health status?


60 posted on 06/17/2008 6:53:59 PM PDT by txhurl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: KarlInOhio
In looking at a cert. copy of my own birth cert. I see a date of issue and signature of person issuing, where original record can be found and imprinted seal. It looks like this purported cert. lacks all of these.
61 posted on 06/17/2008 6:55:12 PM PDT by count-your-change (you don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: freespirited

It’s amazing. Another PR work in progress. Let someone else like Daily Kos do the dirty work and just in case it passes muster Obama will take the credit and if it doesn’t so what; we didn’t authorize, etc this and had nothing to do with it. We swear.


62 posted on 06/17/2008 6:59:01 PM PDT by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker

Actually not. They reprint the old one and certify it is a true and correct copy. The original usually stays the same.

My problem is the lower left hand corner which says ‘Rev. 11/01.” That means the form was REVISED November 2001. At least in Florida that is the way it would be.


63 posted on 06/17/2008 7:00:49 PM PDT by esquirette (If we do not have our own world view, we will accept theirs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker

But modern birth certificates have watermarks and other anti-copy features. Also, that seal looks crappy. In addition, would a birth certificate filled out at a US hospital in 1961 list “African” as the father’s race? No, he would have been listed as black or possibly Negro or colored.


64 posted on 06/17/2008 7:01:49 PM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (G-d is not a Republican. But Satan is definitely a Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: freespirited

If the birth certificate is phony, those involved in creating it have engaged in a criminal act.

The best way to handle this is to take a copy of Obama’s “certificate” to a Republican prosecuting attorney in Hawaii (there must be at least one), and discuss the issue with him. If it is phony, charges can be filed against those responsible.

Another option would be to take it to a Republican private attorney in Hawaii, preferably someone active in state GOP politics.


65 posted on 06/17/2008 7:02:01 PM PDT by FFranco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freespirited

Now we have another reason why we can’t interview his maternal grandmother.


66 posted on 06/17/2008 7:02:01 PM PDT by OldEagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freespirited

The more interesting question is why Obama’s campaign refused to release it but Kos could get a copy ?

Shades of Kerry’s “full disclosure”.


67 posted on 06/17/2008 7:02:28 PM PDT by 1066AD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: originalbuckeye
I heard that he has mohammud somewhere in his name but I'm not sure about that. There has to be something damaging about his birth certificate for him to want to keep it hidden. Doesn't a presidential candidate have to show his birth certificate and social security card?
68 posted on 06/17/2008 7:02:30 PM PDT by peeps36 ( Al Gore Is A Big Fat Lying Hypocrite)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: freekitty

If you hold the Messiahs “certificate” upside-down, then look at in reverse in a mirror, it is very faint, but I believe it says...”Paul is dead......I burried Paul.”

Move along folks, nothing to see here......


69 posted on 06/17/2008 7:02:41 PM PDT by ExcitableBoy (Beware The Empty Messiah)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: freespirited

The Daily Kos probably got their inspiration for this phony document posting from Dan Rather and his friends on CBS!


70 posted on 06/17/2008 7:05:55 PM PDT by justiceseeker93
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants

Your statement about race is true. In 1961 white or black or negro or colored would have been on there for race.

The other thing is that a certified copy is certified by someone who made the copy in the office of vital records. The original was signed by someone and that signature remains a part of the permanent record. Then the copy is certified by the clerk making the certified copy.


71 posted on 06/17/2008 7:06:30 PM PDT by esquirette (If we do not have our own world view, we will accept theirs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

That’s what I don’t understand. Birth Certificates are hardly national secrets. I had to give a copy of my kid’s certificates just to get them into soccer.

Why doesn’t he simply order up a clean copy of the certificate and hand it to the New York Times?

I doubt there is anything to this story, but Obama is doing his best to make it look like there is. Maybe that’s the point — to drag it out, and then release it and make everybody who questioned it look stupid.

That’s why I focus on the stupidity of not releasing a simple document, rather than what could be IN the document.


72 posted on 06/17/2008 7:08:23 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: esquirette
My problem is the lower left hand corner which says ‘Rev. 11/01.” That means the form was REVISED November 2001. At least in Florida that is the way it would be.

Is the Revised date for the printed certificate or is it for the blank form on which the individual's personal information is printed?

73 posted on 06/17/2008 7:08:29 PM PDT by KarlInOhio (Whale oil: the renewable biofuel for the 21st century.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: freespirited

Interesting.

Also- for the record- it appears Obama is using the same one as Daily Kos.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/birthcert


74 posted on 06/17/2008 7:09:37 PM PDT by SE Mom (Proud mom of an Iraq war combat vet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KarlInOhio

That would be the blank form.


75 posted on 06/17/2008 7:10:15 PM PDT by esquirette (If we do not have our own world view, we will accept theirs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: freespirited

It’s interesting that he was named Barack Hussein Obama II and not Jr. on his birth certificate. One is usually not called II until a III comes along as with the birth of a grandchild who is given the same name.


76 posted on 06/17/2008 7:10:38 PM PDT by Bluebird Singing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freespirited
Why would the Certificate No. on the alleged "Certificate of Live Birth" be blacked out?

The guess here is that the creator of this bogus document didn't have the real document at all, and thought that putting a phony certificate number on it might give the forgery away - if that number could be checked against the state birth registry.

77 posted on 06/17/2008 7:14:22 PM PDT by justiceseeker93
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
But a modern computerized birth certificate output doesn't raise any red flags for me.

That's the catch. It was not consistent with a laser printer printout of a document. It was consistent with a digitally created image not a laser printed form. If it was simply laser printed, the background where the printing occurred would match the background where there wasn't printing.

78 posted on 06/17/2008 7:17:04 PM PDT by Always Right (Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: esquirette

Obama would not have changed the race to African since he would love to maximize the impact of having his father called a Negro or colored to emphasize it and once again play the race card.


79 posted on 06/17/2008 7:18:51 PM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (G-d is not a Republican. But Satan is definitely a Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: freespirited

I don’t see how the fact that it was produced on a computer proves anything. That’s probably how the State of Hawaii produces them.


80 posted on 06/17/2008 7:19:24 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freespirited
There is plenty of evidence of graphic fakery -- especially the dark border rectangles. If they had been done with a proper vector graphics program, the outlines should have "snap-aligned", rather than having an offset where the overlaid verticals were too long for the space between the horizontals. Real or fake. it is certainly inexcusably sloppy workmanship!

OTOH, questions like this would be moot if we had a law requiring that all presidential candidates be required to pass a full Final Top Secret background investigation.

Of course, under such a law we would never have had Clinton as a President, either... :-)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

FWIW, & for full disclosure, I had to pass a FTS investigation before I was allowed to take my final USAF training. Those investigations are amazingly thorough. The OSI even noted that, in high school, my buddies and I called each other, "Comrade Idiot" -- as an insult -- when one of us did something really stupid! LOL!!!

81 posted on 06/17/2008 7:20:22 PM PDT by TXnMA ("Allah": Satan's current alias...!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants

The only thing that matters is was he born in Kenya, or Hawaii?


82 posted on 06/17/2008 7:20:58 PM PDT by smalltownslick (All)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
But a modern computerized birth certificate output doesn't raise any red flags for me.

It should. If a legimate Hawaii birth certificate for Obama really exists, a legit photocopy of it, without any computer technology on its face, should be available for a reasonable fee from the state or local government. Any person of even moderate intelligence would want to obtain a true certified copy of such a document to prove beyond doubt that Obama was really born in Hawaii on the date indicated. Otherwise there are reasonable questions as to the document's authenticity, which in turn raise questions as to Obama's real place and date of birth.

83 posted on 06/17/2008 7:24:39 PM PDT by justiceseeker93
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants
Obama would not have changed the race to African since he would love to maximize the impact of having his father called a Negro or colored to emphasize it and once again play the race card.

No, but it's possible that the politically correct state of Hawaii issued an order changing the usage from Negro to African American. Since his father was NOT an African American, it would have been logical to change it to African. Obama would not need to have had anything to do with it.

Again, just speculation. But it's disturbing that birth records can be repeatedly changed like this at the order of a court or the whims of politicians.

84 posted on 06/17/2008 7:27:01 PM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: OldEagle

We also can’t declare his boyhood home an historical landmark, since he won’t tell us where it is.


85 posted on 06/17/2008 7:29:24 PM PDT by txhurl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: freespirited

I didn’t bother to read the whole thing. Reasons? First, the fuzzy outlines he complains about are a product of the compression of a graphic image. It doesn’t mean it’s been Pshopped.

Second, the State Seal is pressed into the paper of an official certificate, so it would NOT be in color.

Critique busted. I say the certificate is genuine.

Can we move on to more meaningful critiques of Obama? There are plenty of them to take up.


86 posted on 06/17/2008 7:29:30 PM PDT by savedbygrace (SECURE THE BORDERS FIRST (I'M YELLING ON PURPOSE))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pissant
It’s even more interesting that he dissected this thing so completely as a fraud.

Does that mean that we can finally move to Stage 2 of the scandal, finding out what Kos's expectations were by putting this in the blogosphere in the first place? Then we can find out if this was a lone individual who posted this as a lark, or trying to "help" Obama, or planted by others in the Obama campaign?

-PJ

87 posted on 06/17/2008 7:29:46 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (Repeal the 17th amendment -- it's the "Fairness Doctrine" for Congress!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: angkor

Obviously, the Birth Certificate form used by the state for Obama’s supposed birth there would not read “(Rev 11/01),” which indicates in bureaucrat-speak that the form was revised in 2001, 40 years after the birth. Thus the form itself is not the one that would have been used in 1961.


88 posted on 06/17/2008 7:30:13 PM PDT by justiceseeker93
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: NathanR

Thanks for the clarification.

Again, it seems logical that we should demand that Obama give permission for trustworthy persons and/or legitimate investigative reporters to access his birth records directly from the state of Hawaii, and not from an untrustworthy third party, converted to an internet image, and authorized by some anonymous person.

The certificate, as you say, not the certification.


89 posted on 06/17/2008 7:31:35 PM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: esquirette
That would be the blank form.

Interesting how the 'blank form' doesn't have a consistent and even some places blank background where the printing is. I think there are enough discrepancies here to believe the document is likely a fake. Unless the jpeg compression around the letters is what altered the background.

90 posted on 06/17/2008 7:33:57 PM PDT by Always Right (Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: angkor
As for the first part, the acronym, “OHSM,” stands for “Office of Health Statistics Management,” which is not the responsible office within the Department of Health for issuing a certificate of birth.

According to the page at your link, "OHSM" = "Office of Health Status Monitoring".

Same acronym. I don't see that as an issue...

91 posted on 06/17/2008 7:34:35 PM PDT by TXnMA ("Allah": Satan's current alias...!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: freespirited

OK, I just went back and read more of the critique, and he’s won me over on his point about the corners of the doc. It’s a fake.


92 posted on 06/17/2008 7:34:45 PM PDT by savedbygrace (SECURE THE BORDERS FIRST (I'M YELLING ON PURPOSE))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smalltownslick
The only thing that matters is was he born in Kenya, or Hawaii?

Oh there could be lots of interesting details. What was his real name? Is his religion listed? Was his father listed on the birth certificate? Were his parents married? Has Obama lied about his past?

93 posted on 06/17/2008 7:36:48 PM PDT by Always Right (Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Buckhead

Ping.


94 posted on 06/17/2008 7:37:02 PM PDT by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

Yeah, I saw that right away, too: “2007” reversed in pretty large letters near the bottom.


95 posted on 06/17/2008 7:37:46 PM PDT by cookcounty (Obama reach across the aisle? He's so far to the left, he'll need a roadmap to FIND the aisle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

Dude, read the analysis!!!! It has nothing to do with it being a computer document per se. That is completely understood. It is that it is a fraudulent computer document.


96 posted on 06/17/2008 7:42:54 PM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

Yep, stamped JUN - 6 2007 or possibly 2003 on the back.


97 posted on 06/17/2008 7:43:44 PM PDT by ltc8k6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: cookcounty
Yeah, I saw that right away, too: “2007” reversed in pretty large letters near the bottom.

That is the one thing that makes it look legit. I would imagine they do stamp on date they issued the document on the back. Other than that, there are a lot of oddities with this image.

98 posted on 06/17/2008 7:44:02 PM PDT by Always Right (Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: DuncanWaring

Good thinking.


99 posted on 06/17/2008 7:45:07 PM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change

It’s a date stamp on the back.

JUN - 6 2007 or 2003


100 posted on 06/17/2008 7:45:30 PM PDT by ltc8k6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-334 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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