Obama's NEW Birth Certificate proven to be fake hours after release

jeez morons are at it again it seems about this "theory"

My birth certificate does EXACT same thing as Obama's in illustrator

this is how I did it

I always scan from photoshop


I open photoshop click import and choose my scanner I have a canon pixma mp560 I don't use the scanning software it came with I use photoshop's built in scanner software to import.

so I import into photoshop then saved as pdf

opened in illustrator and guess what I can move around the text boxes also! exactly like pretend intelligent are doing with obama's claiming it's fake.

people claiming fake only show the lack of intelligence they have and for that perhaps they should file for disability and get some free government Obama money to help them take some classes at the Sylvan learning center to help with their disability

reply to post by Bonified Ween


Okay then. I hadn't seen that. I did see explicit reports that someone went to Hawaii to pick up the documents.

Here is a MSNBC story and a quote:

Corley [Obama's personal counsel] traveled to Hawaii to pick up the documents and carried them back to Washington on a plane. The documents arrived at the White House around 5 p.m. Tuesday.

Link:
www.msnbc.msn.com...

All you Cert Trusters, are we supposed to just ignore "U K L LEE" as Local Registrar? If nothing else whatsoever were amiss with this freakish document, "U K L LEE" alone would scream for an official explanation.

If it were signed by "Dole Pineapple" or "Steve McGarrett, Five-0" would you find that unworthy of questioning and further explanation as well? Get real. This thing stinks to the high heavens.

"U K L LEE." I still can't believe my own eyes when I look at it.

Originally posted by DeusVult
reply to post by Bonified Ween

 

Okay then. I hadn't seen that. I did see explicit reports that someone went to Hawaii to pick up the documents.

Here is a MSNBC story and a quote:

Corley [Obama's personal counsel] traveled to Hawaii to pick up the documents and carried them back to Washington on a plane. The documents arrived at the White House around 5 p.m. Tuesday.

Link:
www.msnbc.msn.com...

edit on 28-4-2011 by DeusVult because: grammar

edit on 28-4-2011 by DeusVult because: (no reason given)

Thanks, I am going to post the pdf that was released regarding what your talking about, because now there are two different stories

Another story detailing the process whereby the documents were picked up by hand in Hawaii:

www.hawaiinewsnow.com...

That day President Obama's personal lawyer Judith Corley flew to Hawaii and picked up the birth certificate copies. She paid ten dollars for the first copy and four dollars for the second. The fees were paid in cash. Corley then flew back to Washington DC to deliver the copies.

In my opinion it is a bit sad that politics in the USA has come to this. Not saying it is any better where I live, it is a trend that seems to run through the whole western world. People, including politicians, seem to be focused on populist non-issues. Its a bit shocking this gets airtime in the news media.

I have been away from the computer for a while and this thread has grown too much for me to have time to go back over all of it so if what I am about to post has already been posted; my apologies...


Item - As president; Obama is the commander in chief of the American armed forces.

Item - All members of the military are subject to the UCMJ or Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Item - Then, as commander in chief, is Obama also subject to those very same laws in the UCMJ?

Item - If so then he could face a military courts martial for any infraction of the UCMJ, like impersonating an officer, and be sent to a federal penitentiary.

Item - Do you think that since all military are sworn to defend America against all enemies both foreign and DOMESTIC that he should face a court martial?????

reply to post by happykat39


I've seen things discussed along these lines before, not regarding this birth certificate question, but other matters relating to whether the POTUS comes under military law. My understanding is that the POTUS, even though he is commander in chief, is not a member of the military; he is a civilian and subject to civilian laws and its criminal justice system.

Originally posted by Elbereth
All you Cert Trusters, are we supposed to just ignore "U K L LEE" as Local Registrar? If nothing else whatsoever were amiss with this freakish document, "U K L LEE" alone would scream for an official explanation.

If it were signed by "Dole Pineapple" or "Steve McGarrett, Five-0" would you find that unworthy of questioning and further explanation as well? Get real. This thing stinks to the high heavens.

"U K L LEE." I still can't believe my own eyes when I look at it.

This whole barrel of fish is starting to stink like some bad joke being deliberately foisted on the American people by an arrogant presidential pretender who thinks he can do anything he wishes, even make up a gag document no real professional forger would lay claim to and risk ruining his reputation.

reply to post by DeusVult


Link to PDF for Comms

Here ya go Deus - read the last page all the way at the bottom it states

" Enclosed please find two certified copies of your original Certificate of Live Birth. I have witnessed the copying of the certificate and attest to the authenticity of these copies. A reciept for the payment of these documents is attached for your files. " blah blah blah

MSNBC is full of # - busted again their little lies. The document is also dated April 25th is last day of their communications. 2 days later it was out on the market

reply to post by DeusVult


You are probably right, but hey; a guy can dream can't he!!!!

The layers within PDF's and then opening with Illustrator has been reproduced. Move on to some other theory that had some credibility. I love the one where people are finding what looks like text in this scanned document. It's like looking at clouds and seeing a bunny...

Very entertaining watching people scramble for their "no-prize" in explaining how this is fake...

Common sense... So uncommon it's a damn super-power...

Originally posted by WildWorld
African is not a race. People now use African American instead of black or Negro to be politicly correct, but that was not the case in 1961.

Just to put this "African" issue to bed.... here's an extract from Fact checkers:

"Update, August 26: We received responses to some of our questions from the Hawaii Department of Health. They couldn't tell us anything about their security paper, but they did answer another frequently-raised question: why is Obama's father's race listed as "African"? Kurt Tsue at the DOH told us that father's race and mother's race are supplied by the parents, and that "we accept what the parents self identify themselves to be." We consider it reasonable to believe that Barack Obama, Sr., would have thought of and reported himself as "African."

www.factcheck.org...

Originally posted by grahag
The layers within PDF's and then opening with Illustrator has been reproduced. Move on to some other theory that had some credibility. I love the one where people are finding what looks like text in this scanned document. It's like looking at clouds and seeing a bunny...

Very entertaining watching people scramble for their "no-prize" in explaining how this is fake...

Common sense... So uncommon it's a damn super-power...

Common sense. It's so miraculous that Adobe knew to separate all of O's information from the background that contained the the signatures.

Originally posted by happykat39

Originally posted by Elbereth
All you Cert Trusters, are we supposed to just ignore "U K L LEE" as Local Registrar? If nothing else whatsoever were amiss with this freakish document, "U K L LEE" alone would scream for an official explanation.

If it were signed by "Dole Pineapple" or "Steve McGarrett, Five-0" would you find that unworthy of questioning and further explanation as well? Get real. This thing stinks to the high heavens.

"U K L LEE." I still can't believe my own eyes when I look at it.

This whole barrel of fish is starting to stink like some bad joke being deliberately foisted on the American people by an arrogant presidential pretender who thinks he can do anything he wishes, even make up a gag document no real professional forger would lay claim to and risk ruining his reputation.

You mean that there aren't people out there with odd names like Mike Hunt, or Chip Munk, or Richard Head? Yeah... Totally unheard of. Gullibility is awesome! Those names would NEVER exist in real life. Consider that Lee is a very common Asian surname and that Hawaii has a large number of Asian residents. Totally impossible that it could be a valid name... Er... whut?

I noticed some other discrepancies.

photoblog.msnbc.msn.com...

If this were a typewritten true document, would not the typewriter error have been duplicated throughout the document? Manual typewriters do not self correct to baseline, they keep the same errors.

This is how documents in the days before computer written text were verified for authenticity and proven to be authentic or tampered with by forensics experts.

Even now, printers can be tracked and proven to have produced a document based on their series of errors, because they remain steadfastly a known error until the printhead is replaced or repaired.

Examples:

Line 1. The "O" in Obama is in perfect line with the baseline of the text, exactly as it is in line 8. However, look at line 6b. The "O" is raised from the baseline.

Line 6c. The "K" in Kapaloni is at baseline with the other letters. Seen again on Line 7d., the "K" in Kalanaianole is at perfect baseline. Line 11, the "K" in Kenya is at perfect baseline. However, in line 16, the "K" in Kansas deviates from baseline.

This makes the word "Kansas" look legitimate, and the other letters with "K" appear to be added in.

Line 11. The "A" in Africa deviates slightly from baseline, yet in Line 13, the "A" in ANN does not deviate at all.
Line 5a. shows the "A" in August at perfect baseline.

Again, this makes the word with "Africa" appear original, and the other "A" words added in.

Line 11. The "E" in East deviates from baseline. Line 8 the "E" in Hussein does not, nor Line 13, the "E" in Stanley, nor Line 1, the "E" in Hussein does not deviate.

This lends to consideration that all of Line 11 is authentic and original text.

Line 5a. The last "1" in 196"1" appears to be a different font from the "1" used in Line 15. In Line 15, the one appears as large as the 8, and even shows the "8" dropping ever so slightly below baseline.

omgq.com...

Shows another cert image. In this one, you can see the printed name of the "attendant" in box 19a. This is not on the new document.

Note also, line 1. The name is in proper upper and lower case, not screaming at you in all upper case like the new document.

The A in AM is consistant with the new document P in PM being larger, however the period following the P is different.

The "M" is the same font on both documents. It appears the "M" is an actual part of the blank document and not something typed when the cert is filled out.

Throughout the document, certain text is a shade darker that the other text. Standing back and looking at the document in it's entirety, instead of at certain text shows this. The darker text appears to be the "added" text, while the consistantly, somewhat faded text appears to be the original.

Also, certain letters that have light and dark spots is typical of a typewriter ribbon, commonly used letters will fade the ribbon in spots before uncommonly used letters. However, the "added" text does not show these ribbon inconsistancies. In fact, the "added" text looks to be perfectly evenly colored, and as pointed out above, a shade darker.

Why is the text in Line 22 slanted to the right, when the text in Line 18 slanted the other direction, when the date clearly shows they were typed the same day?

connect.in.com...

Show the signature of Stanley Ann Dunham. The "D" shows a loop that goes throught the top and returns to the baseline to make the "u", in one continuous movement. People usually sign their documents the same. Note also, the "m" in Dunham shows a loop going back over the top of "Dunham". She also consistantly signed her name making the "A" in Ann appear to be a cursive upper case A, as opposed to the printed A, exactly like the "A" in Line 19a. The "A" in Ann on the new COLB appears as the signer halted twice, once at the top of the A and once at the bottom, showing an uncertaintly of the signer.

Oddly enough, the handwriting on the new "COLB" appears the same as the handwriting on the alleged Social Security card. Of the attendant, that is.

connect.in.com...

The "D" in Dunham shows the stopping loop, exactly as the "new" COLB shows.

Another sample of her signature:
3.bp.blogspot.com...

On the newly released "COLB":

In the name "Obama", you can see where the line goes from the "b" to the "a" without returning to baseline. Then, from the "a" to "m", returns to baseline, and from the "m" to the "a" also returns to baseline.

In fact, throughout the entire signature, all lower case letters return to baseline. Compare the other signatures, and you will see this was *not* how she signed her documents, including the one linked to above that shows the name "Obama". You can see the signature clearly shows the "m" to the last "a" does not return to baseline.

There are basic things about peoples' handwriting that typically do not change, especially in their cursive habits.

www.scribd.com...

The signature on page 3 of the divorce decree even shows this point.

How does one type on a document in a large binder?

Originally posted by Elbereth
All you Cert Trusters, are we supposed to just ignore "U K L LEE" as Local Registrar? If nothing else whatsoever were amiss with this freakish document, "U K L LEE" alone would scream for an official explanation.

Did you bother to check other Hawaii birth certificates? No. Expecting birthers to do any research before they open their uninformed mouths is asking too much.

Here’s someone else’s birth certificate from 1962 with the same local registrar signature. Do you think this person’s certificate was forged as well?

It was funny at first, but you people are beyond hope.

There is no way....absolutely NO WAY for this document to scan two different ways at once. the layers are scanned differently. All of the layers are monochrome except one. The color scan of course is the one with the green back ground and various black letters and numbers on it. Monochrome only has two colors period. There is only black and white with no gray. Interestingly, there are two of the layers that have no black at all. They are in fact only white splotches where a seal would have been on two parts of the document. Scanners don't scan white. This was painted over with white once in a photo editing software. OCR theory is total bunk. OCR wouldn't change images to white nor would it take half of a signature.

Obots are grasping at straws and anyone who is unfamiliar with photo editing are getting confused and off track. It's not possible people. This was scanned, cut, rotated, changed to monochrome, edited and put back together in pieces.

Face it. It's a fraud.

Originally posted by Bonified Ween

Originally posted by grahag
The layers within PDF's and then opening with Illustrator has been reproduced. Move on to some other theory that had some credibility. I love the one where people are finding what looks like text in this scanned document. It's like looking at clouds and seeing a bunny...

Very entertaining watching people scramble for their "no-prize" in explaining how this is fake...

Common sense... So uncommon it's a damn super-power...

Common sense. It's so miraculous that Adobe knew to separate all of O's information from the background that contained the the signatures.

Similar typefaces/markings are separated during the OCR pass. VERY common sense. Even if OCR is not applied to make the document searchable, MANY enterprise scanning app have it built in.

reply to post by Bonified Ween


It is possible that the courier picked up the hardcopy birth certificates, attached to the letter you posted. In fact, that is exactly what seems has happened. The mention of "computer generated" in the Hawaii DOH letter only indicates to me that they had to use a computer to reproduce the document so they could print it out. The letter does not indicate they emailed or electronically delivered anything. On the contrary, what you posted is a copy of a standard business letter, not an email correspondence.