Free Republic

I should have given some instructions for the timeline page:

http://www.kapiolanigift.org/timeline/index.html

First click on 1950 tab and see the new Hospital building. This is where Obama was born in 1961.

Then click on the 1975 tab and see the new Hospital building that was being constructed in 1975 to replace the 1950 hospital building.

Pictures and addresses for both hospitals. Right from the
Kapiolani’s own website.

You were driving a cab when they were building the 1975 hospital. The 1950 Kapiolani Hospital was still being used while the new one was being built in the 1970’s. They called it a Hospital in 1950, they show babies being delivered in the 1950’s building - I’d say it was a Hospital. And the 1950 hospital replaced an earlier hospital, etc, all the way back to 1909.

There may have been a clinic in 1972 also, and even a new hospital building by then (being constructed) but as this photo shows there was definitely a new Kapiolani Hospital, built in the 1950’s. See the picture below. The Hospital was in use in 1961 when Obama was born. Geez, how obvious is this?

Your experience is from 1972 - I’ll believe what the Hospital says about it’s history and buildings in the 1950’s and 1960’s. Kapiolani Hospital’s have been delivering babies in HI since 1909!

http://www.kapiolanigift.org/timeline/index.html

Ken

“Too bad the hospital didn’t acknowledge the fact or add it’s own note.”

Watch the celebration video on the web page. The Hospital did mention the Obama Letter and his birth there in the video in front of 500 guests.

Besides putting the letter on their web page. Has Polarik declared Obama’s letter to the hospital a forgery yet?

Face it, Obama was born where he said he was and the Hospital says he was. And those birth announcements in two Honolulu newspapers, direct from the HI DOH can be looked up on microfiche. You guys wouldn’t be safisfied if they made a color movie of the birth with the nurses holding up newspapers and shots of the harbor in the background.

“In 1961 Kapiolani Clinic for Women and Children was just that....a clinic. Kapiolani hospital wasn’t opened until the early ‘70s. There are no records since there was no hospital at the time.”

Your information is wrong - very wrong.
Kapi`olani Children’s Hospital just celebrated it’s 100th Anniversary. Here is their web page:

http://www.kapiolanigift.org/centennial.aspx?id=1728

Notice the letter they proudly display that claims Obama was born there. This is the closest thing to a confirmation you can get without violating privacy laws.

The one thing no one here wants to talk about.

The Hawaii Dept of Health director has said publically that their records do show them sending a COLB to the Obama people back in June 2007. She has also said the scanned web pages look like the same document that he was sent, though she could not tell if it was the authentic one based on a computer scan, only that it had the same information and stamps and therefore looked like it was the same COLB that they sent to Obama.

So if this is all a forgery according to Polarik, where is the COLB that looks the same and that WAS sent to Obama in Chicago by the Hawaii Dept of Health in June 2007?

After all that is all that really counts. If any court did decide to look at this, the first thing they would do is request as part of Discovery another COLB from Hawaii. It would show the same information as the 2007 COLB, and it too would be certified by the State to be a representation of the original certificate. Well, Case Closed then, the judges would say. Obama was born in Hawaii because we have independently confirmed it with the Hawaiin COLB.

Berg and Polarik have NO case here - and they know it. But Berg is getting rich collecting donations from you all in his Pay Pal account. This smells like a scam folks - time to wise up.

“Ken Woods Since Nov 14, 2008 And every post on the subject of Obama’s “documentation”.
Welcome to FR.”

Thanks, and I’ll try to not double post again. Thought I wasn’t logged in when my two posts didn’t appear for awhile, so I re-did them.

Yes, I joined FR recently to add to that discussion on Obama’s selective service registration form after Debbie Schlussel wrote her story about it. I found some evidence the form was forged too, except it was doctored to make it look like a fake after the form was scanned. I’m all for exposing a conspiracy, even if the real conspiracy is creating a false conspiracy.

Sometimes biased investigators make assumptions that are only assumptions, but they try to turn them into facts. Like the assumption DS made that a date stamp with USPO would not be used after 1971, when in fact they were used for at least 18 years after that, as I showed with my own certified mail date stamp scans from the 1980’s. (Sorry for wandering off topic.)

I am finding it hard to see how this closeup of the fold in Obama's BC at the seal could be photoshopped in as you claim. Note the paper and seal interaction at the fold. And the paper fibers conforming to the seal. How could that be faked. Here's the close up of the front BC seal/fold:

“The Seal should have been a 2007 seal, to go with the 2007 registrars date stamp. The year of birth is irrelevant, this things are produced on demand, and the stamp should be the one in use the year there are produced.”

Why should a different seal be used each year? Where is the evidence for that? The mechanical metal seal used for a 2008 BC could have been made in 1960 for all we know. The HI Health Dept has many embossing seals they use. None of them have the date on them, so they can be used for any year. They will differ slightly in seal design depending on what company made them over the years. You can’t claim there is a “new” 2008 seal ONLY used on 2008 BC, based on a single 2008 BC. But at least Polarik confirms that the seal on Obama’s BC is the same as one used by the Hawaiian Health Dept.

“The Seal should have been a 2007 seal, to go with the 2007 registrars date stamp.”

Who said they use a new mechanical seal every year? The seal has no date on it. It could have been in use since 1960 for all we know. Just because one 2008 BC has the same stamp pattern as the 2007 BO stamp does not prove the stamp was made in 2008 or the stamp wasn’t used in 2007 or earlier years. The HI health dept probably has dozens of embossed stamps they use, manufactured by different companies over the years, with slightly different features.

The rubber stamped name is not part of of the metal stamp. They are all applied by hand and may end up anywhere the employee decides to stamp them.

I find it hard to see how this closeup of the seal (frontside of BC) has been photoshopped in. Note the paper distortion at the fold around the seal. Looks real to me:

Just to follow up on the round stamp age (USPO) issue.
I have searched for old round stamps from the 1980’s and I have found them, for 1980, 1985, 1987, and 1988. They are from my own stamped certified return receipt slips when I mail in my tax returns with a CMRR, as I usually do.

First, there were MANY round date stamps with USPO used at least up to 1988. This is 17 years after the USPO became the USPS. Obviously the post office continued to use their old stamps for many years. Vickie551at was wrong. Also you will find NO personal ID marks on any of the date stamps. In one case the postal employee added his/her initials near the stamp, as in the Obama registration stamp. So Vickie551at was wrong here too. Makes me wonder if she ever worked for the post office at all.

So this shoots down one “theory” of DS. The USPO stamp was valid and common in 1980 and there is no ID number on the
stamp.

Here are my scans of my certified mail stamps. Only one is USPS, from 1988, while there are USPO stamps still in 1988. In one case the same post office was using BOTH USPO and USPS stamps in 1988.

http://img212.imageshack.us/img212/7600/datestamp1980st2.jpg

http://img212.imageshack.us/img212/8343/datestamp1988rc3.jpg

http://img212.imageshack.us/img212/9724/datestamp1985qu9.jpg

The SSS registration form used was also dated “SSS Form 1(Feb 80)” upon close inspection. And her argument about it being canceled is also nonsense. Only an order for future forms that was ~requested~ in Feb 80 was canceled. If this order had been printed the forms might have been dated Apr 80 or May 80, however long it would take to print the forms. Shoot down another of her arguments. And so it goes. The truth will come out eventually - and DS probably won’t like the truth.

“I believe Obama’s form is fake as it doesn’t even have his Selective Service number on it.”

The computer generated record of Obama’s registration does show his SS number on it, right at the top (61 1125539 1). This is consistent with other SSN issued in 1961. The center digits are random. The last digit is a checksum and can be any number between 1 and 9.

The handwritten registration form will of course NOT have his SSN on it, because he was just registering for the draft. The number is assigned later at the SSS processing data center. Then they send you your SSS (draft) card, which is how you find out your number.

The DLN number as I pointed out earlier is not something you would generally know. You would have to request your registration forms with the FOIA to obtain your DLN. It is the DLN that begins with the year you first registered. In Obama’s case this was 1980, so the first 2 DLN digits are 80. This is what the computer records also says: 8089 708 0632. So what is the problem?

The problem is the handprinted registration certificate number is MISSING the first digit, “8”. There should be 11 digits in the DLN. There are only 10 digits on the registration form. If this was a DLN from 2008, there would be also be 11 digits, NOT the 10 digits in the copy shown on Debbies’ site.

So either the correct DLN was printed without the leading 8, for 1980, or the first digit has been erased.

The background analysis of the registration form shows the background has in fact been whited out - right up to the leading DLN “0”, and in most other areas of the card. This is a photoshop operation. Someone has modified the photo Debbie put on her site. This photo was scanned from a paper document - so the government did not photoshop anything - the photo had to be first scanned from the FOIA original paper copy, and then the background digitally cleaned up, replacing the original paper scan background with pure digital white. CHECK THIS OUT YOURSELF. You use the “sharpen” function to bring up the background noise. White out areas have no noise by definition. The original background always has noise that is visible with enough sharpening (or noise differential enhancement).

The date stamp also was whited out where the “19” should be. The rest of the information appears to be valid. The publication date of the form is hard to resolve, but looks like SSS Form (Feb 80) to me. Not the Feb 90 date Debbie is speculating.

In other words the original form has been doctored to appear forged and/or in disagreement with the computer printout from the SSS, and this was done after it was scanned by the retired Texas govt worker. WHY and WHO would do this? If the two forms agreed in DLN and post office date stamp where the 19 was missing, there would be no story here. Is someone trying to create a story by doctoring with the document?

You can see this selective erasing of the background here:

http://img221.imageshack.us/my.php?image=obamaselectiveservicereaf3.jpg

Here is my second post to you all. I’m not the Ken Woods someone found posting elsewhere. I don’t use profanity in my posting. If you google my name you’ll find there are quit a few of us around.

This SSS conspiracy gets more curious every day. Now Debbie has revealed her source for the FOIA SSS cards for Obama, name and email. He has also posted and claims he just scanned the two copies from the FOIA in his HP printer and mailed the scans to Debbie. If that’s true, then maybe Debbie did the cleanup job on the SSS forms. Of maybe she is getting ‘DanRathered’, rather ironic that would be.

Some have been looking at the SS number, which is all most can find, to see if Obama’s fits into numbers issued in 1980. Here is a quote from Debbie site by someone (not me):

“My Selective Service number (I’m going out on a limb here because I don’t think there’s any personal data in the number) is 61-1076250-4. I looked it up on the Selective Service website and do not have a physical card to examine.

Clearly the first 2 numbers indicate year of birth “61”. I think the middle numbers are sequential, as in 1,076,250. Obama’s SSSN is 61-1125539-1. Again, 1st 2 numbers are year of birth. 2nd set probably means the 1,125,539th registrant. This is plausible.

Since this would be the beginning of re-registering for the draft, the data center would be handling very heavy volume. Our two numbers, processed on the same day (9-4-1980), would be 49,289 apart. That’s quite a few cards in one day. I’ve never worked in a data center such as Selective Service used/uses, so I really can’t speak to whether that type of one-day volume is do-able or not.”

There is also some digital funny business around the post office date seal. I’ve put these on my photosite:

http://profile.imageshack.us/user/truthsquad73/images/detail/#99/obamaselectiveservicerezu5.jpg

Was the “19” also white erased from the seal? Investigate yourself. I don’t expect anyone to take my word for anything.

Oh, I think my mug shot is on that site too :)

Regarding the “oddities” on Schlussel’s site:

First of all the DLN# is NOT the Selective Service number. You have no idea what your DLN# is unless you request it with the FOIA. It is an internal data locating number only.
It is an 11 digit number starting with a 2 digit year of registration. It does not appear on any SS card or documents you may own.

The registration form DLN # on Debbie Schlussel’s site has simply been photoshopped to remove the leading number 8 from the DLN on the original registration form. Just download the photo and do a few “sharpen” operations to bring out the background. I used Irfanview. It’s pretty clear the background has been whited out removing the leading number, before the blue “A” was added just above where the initial small number 8 once was. If the leading “8” had not been washed out there would be no disagreement between the registration form and the computer record.

DLN numbers are 11 digits long - the registration form only has 10 digits. Without the DLN number discrepency, there would be no real issue. Looks like a case of a dirty tricks.

This was a deliberate hoax or deception. Wonder who did it?

Here’s what I am talking about:

http://imgcash5.imageshack.us/Himg99/scaled.php?server=99&filename=obamaselectiveservicerezu5.jpg&xsize=640&ysize=480

and

http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/4085/obamaselectiveservicerevc6.jpg

Note the removal, in rectangular blocks, of much of the open areas on this form. Why was this done? Because then there would be no contrast to reveal the removal of the number 8 from the DLN. A careful job of deception, but not professional enough to avoid detection. You can still wonder about the other small oddities like the stamp, but the main case, that this registration form copy was faked in 2008 is not true. It was produced in 1980, just like it says.

Don’t believe it? Check out the doctored photo published on Debbie Schlussel’s website - download it, use sharpen function a few times to bring out the background and draw your own conclusions.