Not so fast. The pictures weren't taken later, but earlier. The camera data establishes they were taken in March, three months before the COLB was posted anywhere. So? I don't see why the timing concerns you. It's also possible that the digital camera's internal calendar wrong. That's happened to mine, and I haven't bothered fixing it.
The document in the photographs doesn't match the document scanned and posted by Obama.
Seems to match fine to me.
Factlack scrubbed the camera data, so they have undermined any integrity.
Sorry. I don't see the relvance.
No, they should be able to verify all the information contained on it, starting with the certificate number. So far, they've not verified anything.
They verified the birthplace, which is all that matters for the purposes of eligibility.
No, they said they saw unknown documents that allegedly verifiy Obama was born in Hawaii, but not the original birth certificate. Such a statement has no legal weight without documentation and certification.
Sure it does. The state vital record is definitive. What do you think you get when you request a birth certificate? Chances are all you'll get is a state-certified computer printout of information that's in the state's datbase. That's all I got when I requested by daughter's BC, and it was good enough to get her a passport.
They certainly did. Nonsense. If this were true, you wouldn't be posting repeatedly trying to disprove the problems.
The only reason I'm bothering to post here is because I think the birther movement is hurting conservatives.
Right. Obama just randomly started using his new father's last name.
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.
So? I don't see why the timing concerns you. It's also possible that the digital camera's internal calendar wrong. That's happened to mine, and I haven't bothered fixing it.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.