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

Skip to comments.

Now Obama's birth certificate is 'irrelevant'
WND ^ | April 20, 2012 | Joseph Farah

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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Government
KEYWORDS: bcirrelevant; birthcertificate; birther; certifigate; forgerygate; joefarrah; naturalborncitizen; obama
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-183 last
To: Art in Idaho; advertising guy

Mossad.....

Hmmmm, 0 hasn’t exactly been friendly to Israel....


151 posted on 04/24/2012 2:03:48 AM PDT by WildHighlander57 ((WildHighlander57 returning after lurking since 2000))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: WildHighlander57
If it was just the birth certificate documents being looked at, and NOT the social security number and the selective service registration...

I have mentioned many times that I make no claims regarding whether or not his social security number or selective service application was forged. I HAVE pointed out that THOSE documents are under the control of the FEDERAL government, and Obama has complete control of that.

His Birthcertificate is not. It is under the control of HAWAII's Governmental officials, and he cannot simply order them to do this or that. He has to work with them in such a way that they have no concerns about going to jail.

I guess it boils down to this question:

How does somebody that was adopted via a “closed” adoption prove whether or not they are a natural born citizen?

By getting the records unsealed. It is doable, it's just very uncommon. I personally think that Obama's original record in Hawaii won't likely prove he was born in Hawaii, and therefore are no help to him.

Do they go get a court order to unlock the info?

Yes, exactly right.

It is axiomatic to me that Obama was adopted by Lolo Soetoro in 1965, and then had his adoption annulled or was readopted by his grandparents in 1971. They kept him for 8 years, for crying out loud! They certainly had to have SOME sort of legal papers regarding him.

152 posted on 04/24/2012 6:14:00 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunk
And I do not wish to believe it, either. However, as each round of evidence surfaces, I am forced to confront it.

And what evidence leads you to believe it is a White House forgery? I see none for that.

It is painfully obvious at this point that the WH used digital data from the abstract to create a new digital document.

How is this obvious? From my perspective this is completely NOT obvious. What is obvious to me is that the people who POSSESS the appropriate digital image files created the document, (and who do so routinely in the normal operation of their jobs) and those people are the employees of the birth certificate record keeping repositories in the Hawaiian government; The Department of Health in Hawaii.

Since what they originally received from HDOH is an "ABSTRACT," that cannot be legally maintained, nor indeed is it possible.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. They had to put the words "Abstract" on it because they cannot legally claim that it is the original document. Any birth certificate which is created by the DOH for an adopted child is NOT an original, so it cannot legally be identified as original. Saying that it could be an original OR an Abstract is just a means of getting around the fact that if you refuse to identify it as an Original, you by default identify it as a replacement.

Start with the basic fact of the matter. There is no legally certified copy of a Birth Certificate that is on file in Hawaii in anyone's possession, including the WH.

We do not know this as a basic fact. We only surmise this based on what we HAVE been able to learn. Sure, Tim Addams made the claim that there is no document, and rumors have circulated that there is no document, and Governor Abercrombie seemed to indicate that there is no document, but none of this is actual proof. On the other hand, we have two DOH directors assert that there *IS* a document. My point is, you cannot accept something as a fact until it has been shown to be an actual fact.

I am certain that there is SOME sort of document in Hawaii's files regarding Obama's birth in August of 1961. I suspect it is not an ordinary birth certificate, but I do not know this to be true.

Is that because there is no original? A reasonable fellow could easily be led to that conclusion.

There is SOME sort of document. We do not know what it is, but we can safely assume that there is some sort of problem with Obama showing it to the public. My guess is because it doesn't prove he was born *IN* Hawaii. Is that because there is no original? A reasonable fellow could easily be led to that conclusion.

153 posted on 04/24/2012 6:32:25 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunk

Please disregard the last couple of sentences in my last response. They were your sentences that I didn’t properly format before hitting the post button.


154 posted on 04/24/2012 6:34:02 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunk
After this at least suspicious non-imaging information available to any non-expert, none of which is in dispute .... experts can take over to quite easily show exactly how The WH Team took the abstracted digital files transferred from the HDOH and recast them as if that data were a certified copy of the Birth Certificate. They even went so far as to reproduce the carefully culled data onto digital "Safety Paper" to make them "look more official," cutting and pasting as they went along.

The "White House" didn't do this. DOH did it. The 50 states do it 120,000 times every year.

Does it not occur to you that the Chicago thug in the White House could hire a competent forger? The Department of Health in Hawaii simply uses a regular bureaucrat, thereby easily explaining the poor quality of the forgery.

You are also overlooking the fact that the DOH in Hawaii is not claiming the document is fake, which they would have to do if it were. (Misprision of Felony)

WE know it's fake, and THEY know it's fake, but it isn't a felony fake because THEY created it. (DOH Hawaii.) No one else has access to that digital file information, and one only need take a look at it to realize it is pasted together from bits and pieces of digital file image data stored in different resolutions and different pixel formats.

Who else would have access to multiple old (and different) image files that happen to be stored in different file formats? DOH Hawaii! (who have been changing their digital record storage systems off and on since the 1980s.) They probably went through several different digital document systems prior to today. THAT is why there are different image file formats contained in the document. Here is an example of what I mean.

Notice the gray scale character "R" is of a lower resolution than is the binary character "A". I've moved them closer together so the pixel size can be compared.

The reason they are different resolutions and pixel bit depths is because the letter "R" was copied from a document which stored the data in low resolution gray scale, while the other characters were copied from a document which stored the data in a higher resolution binary format.

Who has multiple copies of old typewriter characters stored in multiple resolutions and pixel formats? The people who have access to all the other original birth certificates; The Hawaii DOH.

155 posted on 04/24/2012 10:06:18 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunk

I am a first time poster and here are some thoughts regarding this issue.

The United States constitution states......

“””” No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.””””

In 2008, because candidate John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone and not on US soil, Senator Leahy (D-VT) and Claire McCaskill (D-MO) introduced a resolution requesting the affirmation of the U.S. Senate that as required in article 2 of the United States Constitution, presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) was a Natural Born Citizen and eligible to run for President of The United States.
When asked, John McCain promptly provided all necessary documentation. Further, he was well-known. His life was an open book.
At a Judiciary Committee hearing on April 3, Leahy asked Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, himself a former Federal judge, if he had doubts that McCain was eligible to serve as President. Chertoff replied……..
“My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen.” “That is mine, too,” said Leahy
On April 10, 2008, Sens. Patrick Leahy said “Because he was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen. I expect that this will be a unanimous resolution of the Senate.”
And so it was…… the resolution signed by every single member of the Senate concluded that John McCain was a natural born citizen because at the time of his birth on August 29, 1936, the United States exercised sovereignty over the Panama Canal zone, he was born on a U.S. military base and both of his parents were U.S. citizens.
Even though the senate found it expedient to analyze John McCain’s eligibility, the matter of Obama’s eligibility was also in doubt. Why the Senate never took up the issue of Obama’s birth status, we can only speculate.
There is no doubt of one thing however…. Obama’s Father was NOT a United States Citizen and never even applied to achieve that status. So, statements from Sens. Patrick Leahy and Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff that supported and resulted in the Senate resolution concluding that senator John McCain was a Natural Born Citizen largely because both his parents were American Citizens, can in no way apply Barrack Obama.
Since assuming the office and becoming president, in terms of his history and who he is, Obama has become very secretive. He has used manipulative tactics, abused his power and arranged through executive orders to prevent the release of relevant records that would reveal to the American people who really he is. In addition, the one document that he did finally release (after months of pressure) The Long form Birth certificate, is not a copy of an original document at all but rather according to almost every document and computer expert who analyzed it, a digitally generated fraud and a bad one at that.

There are those who say that since Obama has a non- U.S. Citizen Father, insisting to see the original birth certificate is a red herring and just a diversion. But I submit that if Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii as he claims, even considering the fact that he has a non U.S. Citizen father, there are many who would still insist that he falls under the definition of Natural Born Citizen. BUT there is no debate of one thing. If Barrack Hussein Obama was proven to be born overseas, to a non a US Citizen Father, he in no way could be a Natural Born Citizen. Rather he would be a usurper and not qualified to remain in office or to run for re-election.

No Debate…… even from the Far Left.

This is why we need to continue to insist that he produce his Original document Birth Certificate or micro- film.

Be strong….. Save the union


156 posted on 04/24/2012 12:55:34 PM PDT by Save-the-Union
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: Save-the-Union
Your reasoning is certainly congruent with mine.

However, we are not members of the Supreme nor any other court, neither are we Republican members of Congress, nor states' Attorneys General.

We belong to a group, perhaps about 20% of the electorate, that is concerned with the issue. That is, the 0ne in five who understand the problem.

If that is correct, whether or not this person was born in Hawaii, or his father was a foreigner, matters very little, especially to those in authority who have the power to correct the constitutional anomaly.

I have always had the the sneaking suspicion that the reason those in authority are in denial of even the existence of the issue is their deep-seated fear of "urban unrest."

The craven, illegal, and nonsensical behavior of the government and the media in regard to the Trayvon Martin shooting only confirms it to me.

157 posted on 04/24/2012 2:10:24 PM PDT by Kenny Bunk (So, Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Roberts can't figure out if Obama is a Natural Born Citizen?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
I think that is exactly my point.

The fakery is blatant. However, since the HDOH did not transmit a "Document," they have an excellent chance for plausible deniability.

I maintain that the creation of the document that was released was at the instigation of Team Obama.The "ABSTRACTED" data on file, which is ALL the HDOH claims to have released might well contain the archival fonts to which you refer. Who used them in the creation of the final fake is one damn good question.

A pox then on both houses, Hawaii and DC!

158 posted on 04/24/2012 2:20:49 PM PDT by Kenny Bunk (So, Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Roberts can't figure out if Obama is a Natural Born Citizen?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
I think you are familiar with my theory. Any further thoughts on it?

That Obama was adopted and his birth certificate was changed to reflect that? It's certainly possible.

If a politician can get elected without revealing anything about himself or herself, he or she probably wouldn't reveal anything.

Because of the lack of media scrutiny, Obama's been in that fortunate position, so he can keep a tight lid on all information about himself, whatever it is he has to hide.

But say he was adopted by Lolo. Would a new birth certificate definitely be created to reflect this?

It wasn't a situation where his (presumed) father was going to be airbrushed out of the family album. Though Barack Sr. had abandoned him, Barack II still bore his name.

His mother was still (presumably) his mother and maybe adoption papers would have sufficed to reflect his new status. I don't know how these things are done.

If a new BC was created, what would have happened to the original? Would it have been destroyed? Or kept in files somewhere (which would make forgery easier)?

159 posted on 04/24/2012 2:32:27 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunk
According to info at the bottom of the more complete image, it is an image of a certified copy dated April 25, 2011 and signed "Alvin T. Onaka, Ph.D". That gets clipped off in many of the online images.

It looks like you have been posting about this for a long time, so you'd know more about it than I do. I don't actually know the difference between a "certified copy" and a "digital abstract."

Would I be right in assuming that the earlier "Certification of Live Birth" was an abstract of Department of Health data? Something that contained information but not in the form of the original document?

The later image of the "Certificate of Live Birth" that you are calling a "digital abstract" -- is it called that simply because it is not in paper form? Presumably it is a digital image of some certified copy, or it pretends to be that, but because it's not on paper, they can't call it a "certified copy."

I notice you saying that this "digital abstract" may have contained the original fonts (not sure that's the right word) of the birth certificate. Why would that be if it were not a copy of the original birth certificate?

For all I know, it could well be a forgery. Team Obama could have reworked the file they were given to alter the information, but it looks a bit like you're playing word games here. I can see you've got a lot invested emotionally in this, though.

160 posted on 04/24/2012 2:50:55 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: rlmorel
Thanks for the response. If I were a forger faking a half-century old document, I'd make sure I got my characters from the same typewriter. That might be hard to do, but I'd try to avoid pasting characters typed on other typewriters that an expert would be able to see were not from the same machine.

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.

161 posted on 04/24/2012 3:03:25 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

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?


162 posted on 04/24/2012 4:58:19 PM PDT by 4Zoltan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: x
Rather than saying it is a certified copy, the stamp says "Abstract or Copy" and that's weird.

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.

163 posted on 04/24/2012 8:27:47 PM PDT by Kenny Bunk (So, Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Roberts can't figure out if Obama is a Natural Born Citizen?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunk; x

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?


164 posted on 04/24/2012 11:08:06 PM PDT by 4Zoltan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunk; x

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


165 posted on 04/24/2012 11:19:26 PM PDT by 4Zoltan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: 4Zoltan
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.

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.

166 posted on 04/25/2012 4:36:00 AM PDT by Kenny Bunk (So, Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Roberts can't figure out if Obama is a Natural Born Citizen?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: 4Zoltan
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?

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.

167 posted on 04/25/2012 6:28:43 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

Thanks for clearing that up.

Here is LtC Lakin’s BC, that he posted onsafeguardourconstituion.com

http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com/images/stories/documents/apf02-tlakincertificateoflivebirth.pdf

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.


168 posted on 04/25/2012 7:44:11 AM PDT by 4Zoltan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
Thinking about this again, it's hard to say.

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.

169 posted on 04/25/2012 3:24:04 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

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?


170 posted on 04/25/2012 6:36:59 PM PDT by WildHighlander57 ((WildHighlander57 returning after lurking since 2000))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: WildHighlander57

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.


171 posted on 04/25/2012 6:40:47 PM PDT by WildHighlander57 ((WildHighlander57 returning after lurking since 2000))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

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?


172 posted on 04/25/2012 7:43:09 PM PDT by 4Zoltan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: WildHighlander57
OK, so on an adoption birth certificate they transcribe everything except parents names, and type it in on a fresh piece of paper.

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.

173 posted on 04/26/2012 6:34:43 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: 4Zoltan
Where you born in June, 1960? Or March, 1961?

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.

174 posted on 04/26/2012 6:36:59 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

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.


175 posted on 04/26/2012 8:21:15 AM PDT by 4Zoltan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

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.


176 posted on 04/27/2012 5:05:35 AM PDT by WildHighlander57 ((WildHighlander57 returning after lurking since 2000))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: WildHighlander57
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.

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.

177 posted on 04/27/2012 6:30:52 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

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.


178 posted on 04/27/2012 7:07:52 AM PDT by WildHighlander57 ((WildHighlander57 returning after lurking since 2000))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp; WildHighlander57

“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?

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.


179 posted on 04/27/2012 12:55:10 PM PDT by 4Zoltan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: 4Zoltan
“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

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! :)

180 posted on 04/27/2012 5:49:45 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

“I don’t know what to make of it exactly”

The ABC document appears to me to be a higher resolution then the White House pdf. So I don’t see how the ABC document could have been made from the WH pdf. More likely the WH pdf was made from it. The ABC document must be earlier then the WH pdf.

If they created the paper document that Guthrie photographed, is that the document that they scanned to create the ABC document? Both it and the WH pdf have a seal.


181 posted on 04/27/2012 7:35:23 PM PDT by 4Zoltan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp; 4Zoltan

OK if they took a pic of the bound book page, then inserted it into a larger page onto which they put their raised seal, it may have the following layers:
Bound book page that has typewritten and handwritten characters on one sheet (this is the adoption era certificate that had info filled in) may have at most two layers.
Add a layer for the page that has the seal and signature.
But more importantly, would the bound book part be uniform from a picture having been taken of it? And would the Savannah Guthrie picture of the whole thing make it uniform?
How many layers are on the other images we’ve seen of this b.c.?

I still think we have a deep cover operative*, that happens to have been adopted maybe three times in his lifetime, occupying the white house.

*complete with forged selective service registration, stolen social security number, and fake autobiography books.


182 posted on 04/28/2012 11:33:58 AM PDT by WildHighlander57 ((WildHighlander57 returning after lurking since 2000))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: WildHighlander57; DiogenesLamp

“How many layers are on the other images we’ve seen of this b.c.?”

The ABC document has only one layer. And it doesn’t have the artifacts that the pdf has, for example, the certification number is uniform even the last number (1). And all the pixel sizes appear to be the same.

If you were the forger and you had green security paper and an embossing seal, would you make a hard copy from the electronic file (ABC document?) and stamp it with the seal, then scan that to a pdf?

That would explain why Savanah Guthrie’s image has a raised seal and the White House pdf has a seal but the ABC document doesn’t.


183 posted on 04/28/2012 6:27:14 PM PDT by 4Zoltan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-183 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