Posted on 04/22/2012 9:10:12 AM PDT by Daffynition
Let me tell you a little story.
A year ago this month, Jerome Corsi’s “Where’s the Birth Certificate?” blockbuster was the top-selling book in the nation – weeks before it was even released!
On top of that, Donald Trump was telling everyone who would listen that he couldn’t understand why Barack Obama refused to release his birth certificate.
It was in the midst of all this that I got a call from Corsi one morning. He told me his sources were telling him Obama was so desperate he was going to release a phony birth certificate to quell the controversy.
Within a week or 10 days, Obama did just that.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Even if I were an amateur, I'd make sure that I studied all the FBI forensic info I could get my hands on. But still the typed instances of letters and numbers wouldn't be exactly the same. As you know, the characters would appear different based on how much ink was on them, how hard the key was hit and the texture and absorbancy of the paper, so there would always be little differences from one "p" to another "p." Indeed, if they were all the same that would be a dead giveaway that something was wrong. An expert could tell if they came from the same machine. I'm not sure an amateur could.
So when I read people taking the differences in the typewritten characters as a sign the document was forged, that letters and numbers were supposedly taken from all kinds of different documents, it made me very skeptical of a lot of the theories. That doesn't mean that the document is real. Maybe it's fake, but in my opinion it's not as easily detectable a fake as some people think.
Diogenes,
On your theory of the adoption BC. I know that an adoption BC will be generated at the time of adoption and will show the adopted parents as if they were the birth parents.
Would such a BC have original signatures (doctor, mother and registrar)? And the dates that the people signed the certificate, would they be backdated to the date of birth?
As far as the differing fonts go, I am sure that there is no lack of odds and ends in the HDOH's files about Barack Hussein Obama, Jr (or II) and Barry Soetoro (or Soebarkah)that date from differing eras. Track it:
(a)Birth name: Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. (or II)... we think ... or so we have been told.
(b)Upon adoption by Lolo Soetoro (or Soebarkah), that original COLB, BC, or whatever it is, would be sealed and a new birth certificate issued in the child's "new Name." That is what would happen in most states.
(c) Upon his repatriation from Indonesia, the parents (his mother anyway) and the grandparents, who had physical custody of the child in Hawaii, gave the young Soetoro (or Soebarkah)his old name back, probably unofficially, upon enrolling him in Hawaiian school. Whether or not they sought to reinstate his original Birth Certificate, or whether or not that original document showed a reported home birth (The most popular scam in Hawaii for foreign-born children) we are never going to know, if Team Obama has anything to say about it.
That apparently is what the HDOH meant when they said they gave Team Obama an ABSTRACT of data on file. The State of Hawaii , in my opinion, feels legally covered. What happened to their digital files after they turned them over to Team Obama's lawyer is none of their concern! The HDOH undoubtedly delivered a mass of data, covering a rather long period of time. There is probably more than enough data to cut and paste together the documentation in such a way as to prove he is Elvis, or The Lost Dauphin of France. When one is creating a document from digital scraps, a lot depends upon exactly what among the plethora of data on file one chooses to select, or to ignore.
Sheriff Joe and his Posse fastened onto what is missing here. Simply put, a Birth Certificate has not been forthcoming. I think that's because there is no longer one extant. Others think that the original is in the archives but contains damaging information. Still others suspect it was "lost" on purpose.
Hook or by crook, the thing the WH and Team Obama have released as "The Birth Certificate" is simply NOT what they said it is.
FYI: A "Certified Copy" is a facsimile, or photostat that is notarized, witnessed, and is legally warranted to be a True And Complete copy of an original document on file. OTOH, an ABSTRACT is a report of the salient facts within a document on file. It is also notarized but as an abstract is not warranted to be
(1) a copy nor
(2)complete.
In regard to the stamp you have seen that says Abstract or Copy: it cannot be both, and the HDOH said it was an Abstract.
WND produced a Long Form Hawaii BC that they say was produced by the DOH in March, 2011
http://www.wnd.com/2011/04/292053/
They later posted a closeup of the registrar’s stamp:
http://www.wnd.com/2011/05/298101/
It also says true copy or abstract.
Is it possible that the registrar uses the same stamp for both the short forms which are abstracts and for long forms which are copies?
Danae’s COLB from Hawaii also has the copy or abstract stamp. It was issued in 2007.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2713796/posts
Your point is well taken. However, the HDOH has referred to it as an "Abstract."
If an attorney were to ask for a "Certified Copy," this ambiguity would certainly, or should certainly, attract his attention.
On your theory of the adoption BC. I know that an adoption BC will be generated at the time of adoption and will show the adopted parents as if they were the birth parents.
Would such a BC have original signatures (doctor, mother and registrar)? And the dates that the people signed the certificate, would they be backdated to the date of birth?
Yes. Here is an example of mine, created 6 years (1967) after I was born.
Note it contains the Doctor's signature as if he signed this document.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Here is LtC Lakin’s BC, that he posted onsafeguardourconstituion.com
There are no signatures (just typed names), even his mother’s signature appears to be typed.
When I first saw it, I thought maybe he was adopted.
If I'm judging on the basis of everything that's happened over the last 50 years, your adoption theory doesn't look that plausible.
But who's to say what Obama's mom might have done at some particular moment 50 years ago when she assumed her second marriage would last?
People do a lot of crazy things when they think the relationship they're in will last.
DiogenesLamp,
OK, so on an adoption birth certificate they transcribe everything except parents names, and type it in on a fresh piece of paper.
ONE piece of paper, that would have at most TWO kinds of entry, typewritten and handwritten... that would come out FLAT when scanned and emailed.... no pieces and multiple layers.
What do they do for the doctor’s signature and date? Just sign it so it would look like the origi.al?
orig.al should be original.
And the date would be typed in.
New parents names also get typed in and anyplace for them to sign would be handwritten in by them, I suppose.
Where you born in June, 1960? Or March, 1961?
June 1960 is the date they say that put the drops (silver nitrate?) in your eyes. But the doctor signed it in March, 1961. Is that when the adoption took place?
My birth certificate not only has the parent's names listed, it also has Where they were born, What the father's occupation was and in what industry, and what is the current residence.
Basically anything which is not about me, is completely different from what it was on the original.
What do they do for the doctor’s signature and date? Just sign it so it would look like the origi.al?
I don't know. I've wondered if they brought him the new document to sign 6 years later, or if they simply copied his signature off of the original. I would guess that in some cases the Dr. might not be available, and they would have no choice but to copy it from the original.
March, 1961.
June 1960 is the date they say that put the drops (silver nitrate?) in your eyes. But the doctor signed it in March, 1961. Is that when the adoption took place?
No. I was adopted in 1967.
Nevermind I misread the certificate, the June, 1960 is when they tested your birth mother’s blood.
It is interesting that your BC has all this addtional medical information listed. Some of it was required by the National Institute for Health Statistics and some of it was added by the individual states. But in the case of Hawaii, they didn’t report the medical information to the parents.
OK many thanks for clarifying.
What the important difference is, on your b.c. it is most likely ONE piece of paper, that would have at most TWO kinds of entry, typewritten and handwritten... that would come out FLAT when scanned and emailed.... no pieces and multiple layers.
What the important difference is, on your b.c. it is most likely ONE piece of paper, that would have at most TWO kinds of entry, typewritten and handwritten... that would come out FLAT when scanned and emailed.... no pieces and multiple layers.
Yes it is, but then I'm not the President who happens to have a problem with his birth records.
I suggest that the file he posted on line was originally created by Hawaii DOH, and sent to Obama's lawyer for the purpose of verifying that they had created the document to conform with his petition to the court to have it amended.
I think the lawyer approved it, and sent it on to the White House where they stupidly posted it on line after adding the green hash background. Neither the Lawyer, nor the White House staff had any idea that it would contain the evidence of it's own creation within it.
OK, here’s the problem with what Hawaii did, in areas where there should be only one layer, such as signatures or one word, they may be on different layers in separate pieces.
I think we should get input from parents that have adopted children more recently, say, in 1980, (or from somebody that was adopted in 1980)so we can see what methods are used nowadays to create the new birth cert.
“I think the lawyer approved it, and sent it on to the White House where they stupidly posted it on line after adding the green hash background.”
So is the high resolution jpg of the BC, what was sent to the lawyer?
http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/ap_obama_certificate_dm_110427.pdf
And what is the actual document photographed by Savanah Guthrie?
It clearly has a raised seal, in fact you can see how the paper was slightly wrinkled by the seal.
So is the high resolution jpg of the BC, what was sent to the lawyer?
http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/ap_obama_certificate_dm_110427.pdf
I have seen that. I don't know what to make of it exactly, but I would suggest that one of the documents is likely a byproduct of the other. One of them was created first, and the other was derived from it.
While we are on this subject, I *HAVE* seen a very interesting analysis of the pencil marks on the document over at the Daily Pen. It seemingly conflicts with my own theory, but I regard it as a credible alternative.
I'm not even saying my theory is correct, just that it fits better than other theories of which I am familiar.
And what is the actual document photographed by Savanah Guthrie?
http://lockerz.com/s/96540937
It clearly has a raised seal, in fact you can see how the paper was slightly wrinkled by the seal.
And what we can see of it looks exactly like the PDF they posted. Even if a Department of Health is cobbling together a replacement birth certificate, they eventually have to print it and put an official seal on it. I see no mystery here. The PDF was an approval proof, and the paper version is the resulting official document.
I have a paper document too. It's full of stuff that isn't actually true, but the state stands by it! :)
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.