Skip to comments.Obama's BC says it's an "abstract," it's on modern computer paper, and it's dated "April 25 2011."
Posted on 04/27/2011 8:58:36 AM PDT by grundle
I don't consider myself to be a "birther," but I am not a fool either.
The document that Obama released today says that it is an "abstract" of the record on file.
In law, an "abstract" is defined as "a brief statement that contains the most important points of a long legal document or of several related legal papers."
So it's not the actual form.
Also, it's printed on modern computer paper.
And it's dated "April 25 2011."
People sign the original document. They don’t show up to also sign an abstract. Obama can request a certified copy of the original document with an impressed seal and show that. That would end this, but that’s not what they want. I want to see the real thing.
Note that the green security lines don't bend when the black lines do.
Until today I was not a "birther," but now I am. The reason is the document released. Look at the black line above block 1a where it curves down. Where it is horizontal (not curved), and behind it are two horizonal dashed green lines on the paper. That black line is just above the lower of the two green lines. Now where it curves down, at the far left side where it is shadowed and you will see the curved black line is far below BOTH dashed green lines. Furthermore, the dashed green line on the left side of the tear perfectly matches horizontally with the dashed green line in the shaded area, in other words the black line has curved downward, but the dashed green lines did not. This is physically NOT possible for either the black line to now be below the green lines, or for those green lines to match up, unless this is a forgery which I am convinced it is now. I am going to post this observation as many places as possible, and would like someone to explain away both of these anomalies as being something other than proof of a forgery. - JohnDD (Arizona and Washington State)
I've got bad news for you: you are both.
I believe the information from the original abstract is transferred to the computer paper but the font looks like 60s era typeface to me. At any rate, I think its legit and am ready to move on. Lets have Obama explain how since his father was not a citizen, he is a natural-born citizen.
Wouldn’t it be easier to just photocopy and certify? Istead they match up the type on the original to issue it on modern computer paper? That makes no sense.
Because the green security lines aren't original, but part of the paper it was printed on.
Well, it’s foolish to compare the reservations folks SHOULD HOLD about this certificate to the 9/11 Truthers. Real forensic engineering does show that the buildings would fail just as they did on 9/11 when hit by a high speed fuel loaded heavy passenger jet.
But here in the Birth Certificate issue, WHERE are the honest forensic examinations? None, at least as yet. And YOU know how HONEST Obama is, don’t you?
People sign the original document. They dont show up to also sign an abstract. Obama can request a certified copy of the original document with an impressed seal and show that. That would end this, but thats not what they want. I want to see the real thing.
So that makes 3 big problems with this and we aren’t even remotely experts. I can’t wait til the experts get hold of this.
So, this is the same birth certificate, that, didn’t exist, and no one could find. How come, all of a sudden, it shows up out of nowhere. How can such a thing be?
Zoom in by 5x.
What is all the whitespace around all the words. Copy / Scanner artifacts?
It’s a total forgery:
How come there isn’t a raised seal on what is supposed to be a certified copy or abstract of the original? The Registrar has signed it verifying it as a copy. Shouldn’t a raised seal be on it as well? I just checked the two copies I have of my birth record, and both have a raised seal. I had to request those when I wanted to apply for a passport, because my original birth certificate from 1947, which was issued by the Health Department in Rochester, NY, had a seal, but it wasn’t raised.
In a 2008 article published by the Michigan Law Review Lawrence Solum, Professor of Law at the University of Illinois, stated that "[t]here is general agreement on the core of [the] meaning [of the Presidential Eligibility Clause]. Anyone born on American soil whose parents are citizens of the United States is a 'natural born citizen'". In April 2010 Solum republished the same article as an online draft, in which he changed his opinion on the meaning of natural born citizen to include persons born in the United States of one American citizen parent. In a footnote he explained that "[b]ased on my reading of the historical sources, there is no credible case that a person born on American soil with one American parent was clearly not a 'natural born citizen.'" He further extended natural born citizenship to all cases of jus soli as the "conventional view".,
Not saying I agree, but this will be the argument.
Assuming the original does exist bound into a book, as has been claimed, it was scanned and printed on security paper. The bend at the left margin of the image is exactly what you get when you scan from a book.
Someone on Facebook posted that very thing...U K L Lee...ukulele......??? Huh?.....the finger to all of us stupid people perhaps? Obama thinks he is so clever something like that wouldn’t be “beneath” him to do....
I usually don’t pay much attention to forensics, but it looks suspicious to me.
Is it just me, or does it look like a physically transparent document laid over modern computer paper? (The paper pattern is visible BENEATH the data fields).
What’s up with that? I’ve never seen anything like that bekore.
And by the way, the document states that Barack Obama Sr. was born in “Kenya, East Africa.” So unless Obama Sr. later became a U.S. citizen, the POSOTUS is not NBC and is not prez.
The second document doesn’t contain anything really new and, so far as it’s accurate, convicts Obama of treason yet again.
Leo Donofrio seemed very pessimistic. I’m not sure why. The “new” document doesn’t settle anything.
God Save the First Republic (1789 to 2009).
From the .pdf document
The actual .pdf was created on 4-27-2011 at 12:09:24 Z, but the document is dated as having been signed by the officials on 4-25-2011
Mine also has a raised State Seal and the declaration: “This is a true and correct copy of the official record on file in this office.” Now, that being said, in 1961 the race of the father would not have been listed as “Africian”. It would have read “Negro”. Therefore this is NOT a copy of the original IMHO.
It’s a certified copy of a document. It’s what you would get in most states if you lost your birth certificates and needed an “official copy” for some reason, such as getting a passport. They photocopy the orginal document, then the copy is signed (and maybe sealed) by the appropriate official and is stamped with the date on which he signed it.
Surely, this must be pretty easy to solve...are their other "Africans" born in Hawaii during this time period? Could we see their birth certificates, and see what they have for race?
You hate “the stupid crap you read here,” yet you are here to read it.
Aren’t there some hand-me-outs and walking around money you should be picking up?
The white halo should not be there. Also if it is a “scanned and photocopied” document it would be a solid image file. There would not be a clipping mask with removable text when opened in Illustrator.
When did that kind of paper become available and used by the State of Hawaii?
Sure. It’s not a completely baseless argument. And that’s a decision a court needs to render: what exactly is a natural born citizen within the context of Article II, Section 1?
“Note that the green security lines don’t bend when the black lines do.
Because the green security lines aren’t original, but part of the paper it was printed on.”
your explanation does not make any sense. how can you print one document onto another without the original blocking out whole portions of the underlying paper? in other words, if the BC had been printed on green security paper, the BC would have to be transparent in order for the green security paper to show through? right??? can someone expand?
I expect this from the lamestream media and moveon.crap:
Me KnO obama. oBamA wEre bOrn Haer.
ThiS Berth SertifakiT is Jen youwine.
Yoo make hayt speech iF yoo say hE not born hear.
BorN in 1961 in sumer, how mini timez?
Simple. The security paper comes in blank sheets. Take a blank piece of security paper, load it in a copier, and then make your copy of the original.
Someone said that it was copied onto patterned paper. I am going to look around and see if I have any patterened paper and then copy an open book page and see what it looks like.
Simple. The security paper comes in blank sheets. Take a blank piece of security paper, load it in a copier, and then make your copy of the original.
i understand that. however, if you load the blank security paper into the printer and then photocopy the BC onto the security paper, the BC or any photocopied document would block out the portion of the security paper relative to the photocopied document UNLESS the BC or other document is itself is a transparency. can someone please explain that???
Huh? The image would just be printed on the security paper. I don't see what's confusing you or what you think should be blocked out.
Looks to me like they pulled the bound book of BCs from 1961, put a piece of security paper in the paper tray, laid the book on the copier and made a B&W copy. They then took that copy, stamped it with Monday's date, had the registrar sign it to make it official, then scanned it as a color pdf and e-mailed it to the White House.
I honestly don't see any thing funny here.
In 1961 you couldn't just fly anywhere at the drop of a hat. You had to be immunized to travel overseas so you could come back. I doubt seriously a prego that far along could be immunized.
Zippo would have been born a Kenyan so they probably wouldn't let him into the country without his shots, and he would have been too young to get shots.
Not to mention the time it would take to go to and from Kenya.
In 1961 I'm not even sure they would let a newborn that young on a plan.
“I honestly don’t see any thing funny here.”
what’s funny here is that you can see the green paper THROUGH the BC. the BC is NOT be a transparent image. the ONLY way for that to occur is if you PRINTED a document onto the green paper. that would not be possible if you COPIED the BC onto te green security paper. can’t you understand that? anyone else know what I’m referring to???
OK. Try a little experiment. Take a piece of colored paper. Put it in your printer paper try. Then take a printed document on white paper. Copy it in b&w onto the colored paper.
What color is the background of that document on the copy?
On b&w copiers, the printer only sees and copies very dark images. If it does not see something, it does not lay any ink or toner in that area of the copy. Even if the original bound certificate was on a security paper, the background would not copy in b&w. They is the idea of using security paper in the first place.
“On b&w copiers, the printer only sees and copies very dark images. If it does not see something, it does not lay any ink or toner in that area of the copy. Even if the original bound certificate was on a security paper, the background would not copy in b&w. They is the idea of using security paper in the first place.”
you’re EXACTLY right. the design on the security paper would NOT show through on a copy. Rather, it would appear as solid white, as you indicated. however, looking at the attached image (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/barack-obama/birth-obama-certer-movement-098513?page=2), you can see the green security paper THROUGH the BC which indicates to me that the BC would have to be transparent in order for that to happen. the entire portion of the BC should be white and therefore block out the underlying green security paper. the image appears to be PRINTED on green security paper rather than an a photocopied image SUPERIMPOSED onto green security paper. do you see?
It would appear as whatever color the paper it's being printed on. The copier just picks up the dark parts and moves them over to the new paper.
Uh.... my friend.... copy machines do not have white ink. They can't print white. The can't see white. They can only copy images. White is the absence of an image.
the BC or any photocopied document would block out the portion of the security paper relative to the photocopied document UNLESS the BC or other document is itself is a transparency.
The white sections would not be copied ,, only the black or dark sections ,, what I don’t understand is the “curve” in the left of the copy ... the security paper should be flat and undistorted with print as scanned (distorted at scan time due to the binding) being “bent” .. the security paper cannot be “printed” at the time the document is produced ,, you quite simply don’t have the ability to keep the template secure and you cannot incorporate the security features..
Sequence numbers are WRONG compared to Nordyke ,,, Nordyke’s local registrar is different although they were at the same hospital at the same week... 8-8-61 was a tuesday , 8-11-61 was a friday ... I would like to see the microfilm these records were originally copied onto ... a single sheet would contain perhaps 120 images and would be far too large a job to fake convincingly... It appears as if the microfilm record was converted into a computerized record sometime in the (somewhat) recent past ,, large capacity optical storage (nobody would use dasd to store images in the 1980’s or 1990’s ,, FAR FAR too expensive.. IBM 3380K’s were only 2gb in capacity and cost $250k each ) came into use in the mid 1990’s ... As the microfilm is compact and easy to store it is usually RETAINED even after conversion ,, the conversion allows decentralized offices to re-create documents ,, especially important in an island environment where inter-island travel slow or expensive...
I would investigate whether the group surrounding his number also lists African. That's how I would investigate it.
African at that time makes no sense.
Don't forget Hawaii was a pretty new state so I'm sure they set standards because it was NOW required.
So the doctor signed it on the 8th and it got recorded on the 8th?? That doesn’t sound right. Someone ran it to the registrars...local and state? and this all got done in one day. Not in my world.
That's definitely significant!
bump for later
Except that, according to both British and American law, Barack Hussein Obama and Stanley Ann Dunham could not have been married because Barack Hussein Obama was already married to Kezia.
Again, according to British law, American law, and the common law, any child born to the unmarried Stanley Ann Dunham could not have inherited nationality from any man, because the law in 1961 in all relevant places only recognized "putative" fatherhood for bastards. Without an acknowledgement of paternity BY THE MAN, there is no way the child of Stanley Ann Dunham could have inherited his nationality.
And, in this very strange matter, there is no evidence whatsoever that Barack Hussein Obama EVER acknowledged paternity. There is some suspect evidence that he told Kezia and others that he had taken another wife, but none that he had a son.