Moderated Obama birth certificate CT / SSN CT / Birther discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
BeAChooser said:
*snip*
Click to expand...

So, no one ever has been able to obtain a "long form" certificate from Hawaii (from birthers like Miki Booth and LTC Lakin on down), state officials say "we don't give out certified long forms to anyone, and even an uncertified copy takes a FOIA request", and when Obama personally writes to the Director of the Department of Health saying "look, can you maybe find a way to treat me different from everyone else born in your state, and get me a long form anyway?", the Director responds with "okay, we'll make a special exception just for you because you're the president" (and if the Director had said "no" instead, Obama would have been SOL, unable to even file a lawsuit saying Hawaii state law allowed him to get a certified long form)...

...and from this you conclude that you were right all along about anyone being freely able to obtain a certified long form from Hawaii, and demand an apology from those of us who (correctly) informed you otherwise?

Well, I can't say I'm surprised...
 
Last edited:
Saggy said:
They should post an non-photoshoped scanned image. Period.
Click to expand...
So basically they can't post any scan then? So the President should personally show up to your home, because any scanned document will have artifacts that people will latch unto and claim it was photoshopped.
 
so, what happens in the coming primaries when polls show that a plurality of Republican voters STILL think President Obama was not born in Hawaii?? Will the candidates still have to "go birther"??
 
fullflavormenthol said:
So basically they can't post any scan then? So the President should personally show up to your home, because any scanned document will have artifacts that people will latch unto and claim it was photoshopped.
Click to expand...

They should post a non-photoshoped image. The posted documented was photoshoped and assembled. The green backgound, which appears as both background and as part of the BC, was not scanned with the BC.

ShadowSot said:
Looks like it was released:
Click to expand...

No, that's just a clip of the WH document. The green crosshatching was not part of the scanned image*, the WH document, at best, was assembled from a scanned image and a green background document. Look at the WH document, the backgound border, clipped on the CBS image, merges with the presumed BC, the background underlies the whole image.

* this is obvious, but for confirmation note that the background crosshatching does not bend on the left side of the BC, where the BC does bend.
 
Last edited:
You know it could be that they just photocopied onto the official paper, and maybe you are interpreting artifacts of scanning as evidence.

I went through a rather longer winded explanation of file formats and such earlier in the thread. Consider it a free lesson in the fundamentals of raster and vector graphics. Oh and your welcome.
 
Last edited:
I don't know if this already has been posted:

"Well, no. The layers exist because the printed document was scanned by software that recognises text and lifts it from its background. A cursory examination of the file shows that that's what happened here."

Full article: http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/78274...birth-certificate-rumours-begin#ixzz1KpO0nuEu

But does that really explain the anomaly with the added '1'? That the software somehow would have scanned the last digit in the number 10641 in a different way, and then made a separate layer out of that? I remain skeptical.
 
fullflavormenthol said:
You know it could be that they just photocopied onto the official paper, and maybe you are interpreting artifacts of scanning as evidence.
Click to expand...

It's a good theory, I hadn't thought of it. And it could explain a lot. But, it doesn't explain the grayscale 1 as part of the 10641 number, and the complete lack of bleedthrough on the black text. But, there could be an explanation for that too I suppose. Now we need to see a known image of a BC copied with a b/w scanner on official paper, for purposes of comparison.

The more I'm thinking the less likely your explanation seems, as surrounding each letter is a white border, which should not appear if the doc was copied onto crosshatched paper.

fullflavormenthol said:
I went through a rather longer winded explanation of file formats and such earlier in the thread.
Click to expand...

Didn't see it, will check it out.

edit: Excellent. Now to some particulars ...

Let's go with your theory. The BC was photocopied onto official BC stock with green crosshatching. And then this document was scanned to create the image posted. However the image was manipulated with Illustrator, but that did not affect what we see. Is that your theory?

And if so, why do we see artifacts like the different scans for the 1064 (1-bit) and the 1 (grayscale).
 
Last edited:
Anders Lindman said:
I don't know if this already has been posted:

"Well, no. The layers exist because the printed document was scanned by software that recognises text and lifts it from its background. A cursory examination of the file shows that that's what happened here."

Full article: http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/78274...birth-certificate-rumours-begin#ixzz1KpO0nuEu

But does that really explain the anomaly with the added '1'? That the software somehow would have scanned the last digit in the number 10641 in a different way, and then made a separate layer out of that? I remain skeptical.
Click to expand...

Maybe it does explain it. I found:

2dhbh5k.jpg


It shows a similar mix of different types of scanning. Ok, then it's normal, BUT the Obama administration must surely have known that the conspiracy speculations would go wild with such a document.
 
Would somebody debunk, point by point, this birther reference on Obama's long form

I honestly haven't paid much attention to this, since I assumed, as my reference says, that if Obama was ineligible for office, this would have been found out by his political opponents.

If there were anything to this claim that Obama is not legally entitled to be President, don't you think Hillary would have used it to win the nomination, or John McCain to win the election, or Joe Biden even now to become President?
Click to expand...
However, in Obama the love child?, while arguing for Obama's birth in Hawaii, the author also contends that Obama has released a fraudulent "long form" birth certificate:


Look carefully at the bottom. What you are seeing is a certified copy made just a few days ago. There is a date stamp from April 25th 2011 on it. See that phrase, "I certify this is a true copy OR ABSTRACT OF THE RECORD ON FILE?" An abstract means that the current registrar just made a hand copy of the exact same information seen in the computer-generated record Obama already released, then certified it as an exact same copy of the computer-generated record Obama already released. There is nothing new here. There is nothing to suggest that this document was was actually created in 1961.
Kenya (listed as Obama's father's nation of birth) wasn't called Kenya in 1961. It was the British East Africa Protectorate. It was not known as "Kenya" until 1963.

In 1961, the hospital Obama was born in was NOT named the Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital , as shown on the above certificate. In 1961, the hospital Obama was born in was named the Kauaikeolani Children's Hospital. It did not change its name to the Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital until it merged with the Kapiolani hospital system in 1978.
Click to expand...

The thesis of this article is that Obama has been dishonest about his birth circumstances due to the fact that he is illegitimate, and his real father is Frank Marshall Davis. In this video, we can see Obama telling us that his father served in WW2 - which would mean that his (biological) father can't be either Obama Sr. or Soetero, as both were too young to serve in WW2. (They were about 9 and 10 years old, respectively, when WW2 ended)
 
Last edited:
metamars said:
However, in Obama the love child?, while arguing for Obama's birth in Hawaii, the author also contends that Obama has released a fraudulent "long form" birth certificate:
Click to expand...

Pretty much everything in the quote from that link is false. The form contains lots of information not found on the computer generated form, including the signatures of both Obama's mother (who died in 1995) and Dr. David A. Sinclair (who died in 2003), meaning the document could not have been produced any later than then (so the one Obama showed is not a recently-created abstracted, but a photocopy or printed scan of the 1961 original).

Kenya was indeed called Kenya before 1963 - see, for instance, this Kenyan census form from 1962 (which incidentally confirms that Obama Sr. would have considered his race to be "African").

And Kapi'olani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital was indeed named that long before 1978. That exact name appears on the birth certificates for the Nordyke twins (born the day after Obama was), as well as published papers describing studies done at the hospital, such as this one published in 1969 and this one published in 1950.

The thesis of this article is that Obama has been dishonest about his birth circumstances due to the fact that he is illegitimate, and his real father is Frank Marshall Davis. In this video, we can see Obama telling us that his father served in WW2 - which would mean that his (biological) father can't be either Obama Sr. or Soetero, as both were too young to serve in WW2. (They were about 9 and 10 years old, respectively, when WW2 ended)
Click to expand...

He was speaking about his maternal grandfather (who did serve in WW2), and misspoke.
 
Last edited:
metamars said:
... In this video, we can see Obama telling us that his father served in WW2 ...
Click to expand...

Here are the second and third comments following that video:

He is referring to the man who raised him from the age of ten. His maternal grandfather Stanley Armour Duncan, who served in the US Army in Europe during WWII. As a former stepdad who has heard the phrase "You're not my father", I find it refreshing that he would refer to the man who took him in and nurtured him as "father"
Click to expand...

He meant his grandfather, Stanley Dunham. Haven't any of you ever mis-stated something like this? The comments many of you made on here are ridiculous!
Click to expand...

So he called the man who raised him "dad." You see this as evidence of a vast conspiracy?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom