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

Skip to comments.

Pixels Don't Lie
March 4, 2012 | Linda Jordan

Posted on 03/04/2012 11:50:20 AM PST by ethical

To prove that the birth document Obama posted on the White House website on April 27, 2011 is a fraudulent document, all you need to determine is whether or not it is a computer created document or a scanned photocopy.

It is a computer created document. Even the obots can not deny that.

You do not need to ask the Hawaii DOH for a "waiver" in order to get a computer created birth document. Obama asked for special permission from Hawaii DOH to get photocopies of his original birth certificate. Loretta Fuddy granted that request and gave Obama, she says, photocopies of his original birth certificate.

Scanning a photocopy, in order to post it on a website, does not turn it in to a computer created document with multiple layers and movable text. Although interesting, it isn't all the details of the forgery that first reveal that it's a fake; different fonts, the halos, the weird bent page, the strange behavior of the security paper. It is the fact that it IS a computer created document and NOT a scanned photocopy.

But let's look at one of those fun forgery details. I included the web addresses for the quote and images I describe.

Here is what Chiyome Fukino [Former Director of Hawaii Public Health Department] had to say about how the “birthers” would respond to the release of Obama’s birth certificate.

“They’re going to question the ink on which it was written or say it was fabricated.” Said Fukino. “The whole thing is silly.”1

Let’s start with the ink, shall we?

From Hawaii Public Health Regulations Title: Vital Statistics, Registration & Records. Chapter 8, Certificates of Vital Statistics Events, Section 1. Preparation. Certificates of vital statistics events are to be filled in by typewriter or in ink. If ink is used only permanent ink will be acceptable. All signatures are to be made with permanent ink. In all other respects, the certificates shall comply with provisions of Section 57-14, R.L.H. 1955.”

On April 27, 2011 Barack Obama revealed what he said was a photo copy of his original long form ‘Certificate of Live Birth’ from Hawaii (it was posted on the White House website). The signatures on this ‘Certificate of Live Birth’ are required to be made in permanent ink.

Pixels Don’t Lie

Download the BC document off the White House website and open it in Adobe Illustrator. Now zoom in on the signature of Obama’s mother. The pixels reveal that only a portion of the signature is in ink as required by Hawaii Public Health Regulations Chapter 8.

The Ann and the D in Dunham are in ink. The pixels are a variety of gradations in greys and blacks, like ink signature pixels are. But what’s really interesting is that the rest of the signature, ‘unham and Obama’, are not in ink.

The letters are a solid greenish–black color with no gradation in color at all. This lack of gradation reveals that this part of the signature was created in the computer and is not even penmanship.

And what’s it called when you forge a signature on a “Certificate of Live Birth” from Hawaii? FORGERY! Well that would be my top pick but hey they also violated Hawaii Public Health Regulations by not using permanent ink in their forgery! Maybe that’ll tick someone off.

If you ignore the fact that this document was computer created and that fact, in and of itself, makes it a forgery, you can't deny what the pixels are telling us.

The Stanley Ann Dunham Obama signature on this document is a forged signature and that makes the whole document a forgery.

Figure 1. The Dunham part of the signature of Obama’s mother on the alleged long form original ‘Certificate of Live Birth’, posted on the White House website. Here it has been downloaded into Adobe Illustrator.

Figure 2. Zooming in on the top part of the ‘D’ in Dunham. You can see the variation in color pixels—variations of grays to black tones. This is how pixels of a signature will appear when it is applied with ink and scanned.

Figure 3. Focusing now on the start of the ‘u’ next to the D in Dunham. You can see there is no gradation of color at all. A solid dark greenish-black color displays no evidence of the gradation in color for these pixels which implies that this “signature” was created with image editing software and not with ink.

Figure 4. The last image focuses on the O in ‘Obama’ and part of the b. You can see there is no color change in the pixels. The solid pixel color again suggests the signature was not scanned or representative of ink. The ‘Obama’ portion of the signature was computer generated.

1. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42519951/ns/politics-more_politics/t/ex-hawaii-official-denounces-ludicrous-birther-claims/ 2. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf

3. Albert Renshaw Obama BC Fake http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7s9StxsFllY


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 2manycrooks; 2manyingovernment; 2muchisfixed; birftards; birthcertificate; birther; certifigate; fake; forged; hopespringseternal; lucyhazfootball; naturalborncitizen; obama; thefixisin; thistimeforsure; vanity
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-140 last
To: expat2
But isn't the whole point of using layers that you can work in one layer for things like (in the case of forging a birth certificate) the entries you're altering/forging, but leave things like the basic form elements alone? So that if you make a mistake or are unhappy with the results of your forgery, you can go back and have another go at those parts without altering the basic form elements? It doesn't make sense that a forger would go through the trouble of working with all of these different layers, only to place elements he's forging in the same layer as basic form elements that remain the same in any version of the document, forged or not.

Also, in the case of the "Name of Hospital or Institution (If not in hospital or institution, give street address)" line I cite above, both the form box in which that text appears, and the box above it are typewriter-entry boxes, with the typewriter entries coming nowhere near the "Name of Hospital or Institution . . ." text. Even if the forger had placed that text on the same layer as elements of the document that were being forged, it seems implausable that any mistake would have affected that text.

101 posted on 03/05/2012 4:08:07 PM PST by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: MrShoop

It only helps them because there are those on OUR side who won’t take five minutes to examine the issue out of fear of being called a birther.


102 posted on 03/05/2012 4:24:59 PM PST by HMS Surprise (Chris Christie can still go to hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative
You CAN go back and start again, if you choose to do so. You can also flatten (i.e., merge the layers into one) the edited document before publishing it, but that wasn't done. But if you are non-competent or lazy, then you may well also allow the software to start new layers, as well as fail to flatten the final version.

Of course, it's possible that the forger was disgusted with what was going on and left the separate layers on purpose.

103 posted on 03/05/2012 5:10:20 PM PST by expat2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: MrShoop
No. Computer generated is where the document originated. that's why Hawaii calls their short form Certification of Live Birth a “computer generated’ document. Some of the data from the original BC is entered in to the computer and then an abstract of some of the birth information is printed out from the computer. Totally different than taking an original 1961 document, making a photocopy of it and then scanning that photocopy in to the computer. It did not originate in the computer and was not created in the computer it was simply scanned in to the computer. No comparison. OCR and optimization don't explain away any of the many forgery identifiers in the document posted on the White House website. it is a flat out forgery. national Review did not duplicate was you find on Obamas document and they had to acknowledge that you don't get that kind of layering from simply scanning a photocopy. So, go watch the many excellent tutorials on this. But it would be easier for you to just admit that the document is computer generated and created and that it is not a scanned photocopy. This in and of itself proves that it is not what B.O. said it was.
104 posted on 03/05/2012 6:27:02 PM PST by ethical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: MrShoop

Scanning with OCR created 49 layers helter skelter with no rhyme or reason. Bo’s forgery had nine layers, nine thought out and obviously planned layers. There is no comparison. You guys are desperate and I can understand why.


105 posted on 03/05/2012 6:29:48 PM PST by ethical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: MrShoop
Pixels guys and gals. Pixels. I understand why you don't want to touch the signature of Stanley Ann going from ink to computer-created non-ink. It is a problem isn't it?

I can imagine how it went down. It's 1961, Stanley Ann has just given birth in hospital. It's hot and she's so tired but before she can go home to her adoring husband Barack she has to sign the birth certificate for her son. Dang, the pen she was using ran out of permanent ink right after the D in “Dunham”. “I hate it when that happens” pouts Ann. “Not to worry.” says the attending,”"In 40 or so years, when your son is forced to produce a birth certificate we will have the technology to create the rest of your signature inside a computer with a computer program.” “A what?” says Ann. “Is that legal?"she wonders.” “Don't worry about it honey. Just take care of this baby with such a musical name, Barack Hussein Obama II. So musical I will talk about it with my daughter and her friend at dinner this week." ”.'Oh, thank you Dr. West. You are a lifesaver." sighs Ann.

Dream a little dream. While others try and save our country.

106 posted on 03/05/2012 6:53:23 PM PST by ethical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: ethical
Scanning with OCR created 49 layers helter skelter with no rhyme or reason. Bo’s forgery had nine layers, nine thought out and obviously planned layers.

Again, if the layers were so well thought out, why was the line "Name of Hospital or Institution (If not in hospital or institution, give street address)" split among two layers as follows:

"N___ _f H______l __ I__________ (If ___ __ h_______ __ ____________ ____ ______ add____)"

and

"_ame o_ _ospita_ or _nstitution ___ not in _ospital or institution, give street ___ress_"

How was this (and other similar instances) "obviously planned" and why?

107 posted on 03/05/2012 7:32:12 PM PST by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: HMS Surprise
It helps Obama in several ways:

1: Since most people see birthers as kooks, it makes conservatives look bad by association

2: There is an inordinate amount of time wasted discussing this, and that takes away from serious discussions about real issues.

Do you think the hardcore leftists who still swear than the dan rather memo was real helped their cause, or just looked like idiots and alienated most people with common sense?

108 posted on 03/05/2012 8:05:56 PM PST by MrShoop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: ethical
The original post claimed "Scanning a photocopy, in order to post it on a website, does not turn it in to a computer created document with multiple layers and movable text."

You are now at least admitting that scanning a document can create layers, right?

109 posted on 03/05/2012 8:08:50 PM PST by MrShoop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative

Computer generated document V scanned photocopy. Ink to non-ink. Focus on that and take it from there.


110 posted on 03/05/2012 8:10:16 PM PST by ethical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: MrShoop
OCR does not turn it in to a computer created document. Where did the document originate? Obama says it came from a photocopy of his original 1961 BC. Yet, he did not post that. He posted a computer created document. Do you understand that? OCR also does not turn an ink signature in to a non-ink signature. OCR won't save you or the document.
111 posted on 03/05/2012 8:13:53 PM PST by ethical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: ethical

So you have no answer as to why a forger would split the line “Name of Hospital or Institution (If not in hospital or institution, give street address” across two layers?


112 posted on 03/05/2012 8:20:00 PM PST by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative
That is not an answerable question. You can't determine what was in the forgers mind. Deal with the facts the document presents. It is computer created not a scanned photocopy. The ink signature turns in to a computer created non-ink signature. Right there you can stop your wonderings. It is a forgery. Get past it and let it sink in. The man in the White House is a fraud and a huge number of people with the responsibility to protect us from this usurper have turned a blind eye to it or aided the crime.
113 posted on 03/05/2012 8:29:04 PM PST by ethical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: ethical
And what about the PDF from post 13 in this thread? Y'know, the one that was released the same day, had no layers, and did not have the same pixellation? See this post from a FR thread shortly after the long form was released, which includes a blow-up of the relevant part of the other PDF. No layers. No mis-matched pixels.
114 posted on 03/05/2012 8:48:34 PM PST by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative

Don’t deflect. Deal with the facts. I dare ya.


115 posted on 03/05/2012 9:21:01 PM PST by ethical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: ethical

No one. No one can say that B.O. posted a scanned photocopy of his original BC. You have not seen a scanned photocopy of his original. That should bother you. You want to defend the forger? Ask him, pretty please, to reveal the photocopy he says his lawyer brought back from Hawaii. I am sure he will do what you ask.


116 posted on 03/05/2012 9:25:49 PM PST by ethical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: ethical
We are viewing a PDF on a computer, so by definition it is a computer generated document. The question is whether layers are any indicator of what the original source doc is. Because It is well established that scanning and enabling OCR separates text from background and sharpens the text, you can't conclude anything.

And what makes you say it is a non ink signature?

How do you explain this document, which the white house released the same day as the PDF? http://www.wbur.org/files/2011/04/0427_obama-certificate.jpg

117 posted on 03/05/2012 9:34:46 PM PST by MrShoop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: MrShoop

I only look like an idiot if the BC is real. Guess what? It’s not real. Arpaio had lawyers, computer experts, and seasoned investigators look at it for 6 months... What exactly is so hard for you to understand here?


118 posted on 03/05/2012 10:10:33 PM PST by HMS Surprise (Chris Christie can still go to hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: ethical

I am dealing with the facts. The facts are that there were two PDFs of the document released that day. One PDF (the one you are focused on) has a number of abnormalities, which could have been caused by a human forger or which could have been caused by scanning/OCR/optimization. The other PDF (which you have ignored as “deflect[ion]”) has none of the abnormalities of the first.

Assuming that your argument is correct and that the inconsistent pixel size and color gradation of Dunham’s signature is evidence that the signature was forged electronically, how is it possible that the other PDF (in which the pixel size and color gradation of the signature are consistent with other similar text in the document) even exists?


119 posted on 03/05/2012 11:39:34 PM PST by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: HMS Surprise
Arpaio didn't have computer experts working on this, he had a woman who contributed graphics and articles to a few photoshop books. There is nothing in new the report that wasn't discussed on freerepublic on the day the cert was released. It is a tired rehash of speculation and ignorance.

Arpaio is a good man, but he is almost 80 years old, not a computer expert, and is being made a fool by the people around him. Trump was the savior 6 months ago, and now it is Arpaio, and he'll ending up looking like chump, just like Trump did.

The report, like most birthers here, also ignores the non-pdf version of the cert that was released, and I posted, that doesn't have OCR artifacts that you are all obsessed with. I'll post it again:

120 posted on 03/06/2012 12:09:53 AM PST by MrShoop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative
Jeesh. Computer generated and computer viewing are not the same. How far you guys will go to avoid the truth. Review all the Hawaii Department of Health descriptions of exactly what a computer generated ‘Certificate of Live Birth’ is. You can also read White House General Counsel Bob Bauer's description of what a computer generated birth certificate from Hawaii is. It is an abstract of an original birth certificate created in a computer and then printed out from the computer.
You do not need to get a ‘waiver’ from Hawaii in order to get a computer generated birth certificate. Obama says he asked for a ‘waiver’ to get a photocopy of his original birth certificate. Hawaii granted his request and say they gave him photocopies. What you see on the White House website is not a scanned photocopy. It's very simple. The minutia of all the different ways the document was forged are secondary.
121 posted on 03/06/2012 5:49:14 AM PST by ethical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: MrShoop

And don’t forget the third version of the document that the White House showed. They let the pretty little news lady actually touch it and take photographs of it with her cell phone. They really do have the photocopy of the original but it was too hard to scan it in to the computer to post it so they just had someone make a “stand in” version of it. But they really do have it, Guthrie says so. Yeah...that’s the ticket.


122 posted on 03/06/2012 5:58:19 AM PST by ethical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Tex-Con-Man
Hey moron, the cut and paste document came from the white house.

You can stick your head back up your colon now.

123 posted on 03/06/2012 8:12:20 AM PST by PA-RIVER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: ethical
Jeesh. Computer generated and computer viewing are not the same. How far you guys will go to avoid the truth. Review all the Hawaii Department of Health descriptions of exactly what a computer generated ‘Certificate of Live Birth’ is. You can also read White House General Counsel Bob Bauer's description of what a computer generated birth certificate from Hawaii is. It is an abstract of an original birth certificate created in a computer and then printed out from the computer.

You do not need to get a ‘waiver’ from Hawaii in order to get a computer generated birth certificate. Obama says he asked for a ‘waiver’ to get a photocopy of his original birth certificate. Hawaii granted his request and say they gave him photocopies. What you see on the White House website is not a scanned photocopy. It's very simple. The minutia of all the different ways the document was forged are secondary.

The only evidence you have cited for your argument that the document was "computer generated" is the pixellation and . I'm pointing out that there is another version of the document, also released on the same day, that does not have the inconsistent pixellation and layering:

If, as you assert, Dunham's signature was computer-generated (as opposed to being an actual ink-pen signature), how could there be a version of the document that has an ink-pen signature for Dunham?

124 posted on 03/06/2012 8:16:21 AM PST by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: PA-RIVER
Hey moron, the cut and paste document came from the white house.

How could I possibly counter such a succinct and compelling presentation of evidence? ...or recover from the complete destruction of my self-esteem?

125 posted on 03/06/2012 10:32:43 AM PST by Tex-Con-Man (T. Coddington Van Voorhees VII 2012 - "Together, I Shall Ride You To Victory")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: MrShoop

Even the BC you post is clearly a fraud, and of course could have easily been printed and scanned to wash the digital data away. Omg, of course a “non-pdf” version won’t have layers, it’s just a copy of the pdf. You must think I’m a moron to consider your drivel anything but the ravings of a madman.


126 posted on 03/06/2012 11:13:04 AM PST by HMS Surprise (Chris Christie can still go to hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Tex-Con-Man
The truth is usually succinct and compelling.

Bull shit stories require sophistries, like there are three versions of one document, one of them is real blah blah blah ..... why would our president commit a crime .... blah blah blah ...the most powerful man could hire a better forger ... blah blah blah....

Repeat after me “The president has a forged BC.”

Pretty simple. We all downloaded it from the white house and its a cut and paste pile of crap.

127 posted on 03/06/2012 11:20:05 AM PST by PA-RIVER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: HMS Surprise
The BC image I posted isn't a copy of the PDF because it has MORE detail. not less. You can't take the blocky OCR text from the PDF and generate that image.

I don't think you are moron, but I question your inability to address specific questions. You say the non-PDF BC image is clearly a fraud. Why? What do you see in it that is any indication of a forgery?

128 posted on 03/06/2012 2:27:05 PM PST by MrShoop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: ethical
You said: OCR also does not turn an ink signature in to a non-ink signature.

I asked you why you think it is a non ink signature, and you have dodged answering. Why do you make that claim?

129 posted on 03/06/2012 2:30:48 PM PST by MrShoop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: MrShoop

The “D” in “Dunham” is clearly written by pen, the rest clearly not.


130 posted on 03/06/2012 3:30:08 PM PST by HMS Surprise (Chris Christie can still go to hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: HMS Surprise
The “D” in “Dunham” is clearly written by pen, the rest clearly not.
This is the crux of the issue, and why I find the birther nonsense so frustrating. The pixelation of the "unham" is the artifacting I've been trying to explain when you generate the PDF. The computer is trying to separate the text from the background so it is easier to read. It then applies a sharpening filter, which makes the edges blocky.

Even if you are a scanning denier, then there is another piece of evidence that it refutes you. The AP image. You can see the signature is smooth - nothing to indicate it wasn't originally in ink.

Last, Even if you deny scanning technology, and ignore the AP image, it still doesn't make sense that the blocky text is a forgery - why would you do it that way? Why would they fake the "unham" but not the D? Why would you forge in blocky letters?

131 posted on 03/06/2012 4:46:35 PM PST by MrShoop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: HMS Surprise; ethical
Here is one example of how the left associates birthers with the tea party. Their goal is to make the tea party look extreme and out of touch in order to turn off moderate voters. This image is from the obama birth cert wiki page/


132 posted on 03/06/2012 4:52:48 PM PST by MrShoop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: HMS Surprise; ethical
Here is one example of how the left associates birthers with the tea party. Their goal is to make the tea party look extreme and out of touch in order to turn off moderate voters. This image is from the obama birth cert wiki page/


133 posted on 03/06/2012 4:52:48 PM PST by MrShoop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: MrShoop

OMG you’re beyond the beyonds. It’s “obvious” to me that either she wrote the D, and then switched to a sharpie, or something is rotten in Kenya. Your attempts to convince yourself of Obama’s purity is an epic fail.


134 posted on 03/06/2012 5:57:22 PM PST by HMS Surprise (Chris Christie can still go to hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: MrShoop

Here’s how we know that you are probably the same guy who created the doc in the first place: Shakespeare: Methinks he doth protest too much.” Who would go to all of this trouble to prove something that they can’t possible establish with any high degree of certainty? I would understand if you posted once, maybe twice, just to say hey, you looked at it, and it looks good. But what you are doing is over the top, ergo suspect. You car ten times more about this than I do, and I’m the conspiracy nut. The gears are stripping and your transmission is leaking... overdrive doesn’t work when you’re climbing a 9% grade.


135 posted on 03/06/2012 6:07:17 PM PST by HMS Surprise (Chris Christie can still go to hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: HMS Surprise

Really? You, who signed up on Feb 9, 2011? I’ve been here since 2003. I’ll give you a better theory. You work for the Obama campaign, and you are paid to come to forums and make republicans look stupid by posting supporting inane conspiracy theories.


136 posted on 03/06/2012 6:35:01 PM PST by MrShoop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: MrShoop

I love the detective work. Yeah, I became a patriot a year ago. Or, maybe I just joined FR and posted some stuff. Obama is a Constitutional Scholar. Does that mean he loves the Constitution? Or does it mean that people around him knew that the imprimatur of such a title imbued a candidate with teflon, and allowed him or her to advance an even more radical agenda than would otherwise be possible. Here’s a perfect theory: MrShoop is wrong.


137 posted on 03/06/2012 6:45:37 PM PST by HMS Surprise (Chris Christie can still go to hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: MrShoop

Mike Zullo, lead investigator, Cold Case Posse:

“He said some people have stated OCR (optical character recognition) software was used in an attempt to explain away the anomalies in Obama’s birth certificate. But the document failed all three parts of the test that would demonstrate OCR was used. Zullo said they were able to determine “with 100 percent certainty it was not put through OCR.”

Other people claimed the anomalies were caused by “optimization.” However, the document failed the optimization test as well. “Optimization doesn’t explain a single anomaly in Obama’s birth certificate – not a single one,” said Zullo.

Continue reading on Examiner.com Cold Case Posse reveals Obama’s documents are forgeries - Phoenix Crime | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/crime-in-phoenix/cold-case-posse-reveals-obama-s-documents-are-forgeries#ixzz1oOmVRPOq


138 posted on 03/06/2012 7:39:53 PM PST by ethical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: MrShoop

Deniers of forgery have a one track mind. Deny, deny, deny.


139 posted on 03/06/2012 9:26:34 PM PST by ethical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative; mojitojoe
I'm pointing out that there is another version of the document, also released on the same day, that does not have the inconsistent pixellation and layering:

It was a photograph. The document released by the White House was a proven forgery!

Here, go learn something: MCSO: Obama Eligibility Cold Case Investigation (Full Press Conference)
140 posted on 03/08/2012 2:49:36 PM PST by Brown Deer (Pray for 0bama. Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-140 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