Wednesday, April 27, 2011

FORGERY!...MORE LIES AND DECEPTION...THIS GUY IS GOING DOWN!...TALK ABOUT DESPERATION!...

President Obama’s “Real” Birth Certificate…


Katie Green has Highlighted the Issues in Yellow
• If the original document was in a bound volume (as reflected by the curvature of the left hand side of the certificate), how can the green patterned backgroundof the document’s safety paper be so seamless?
• Why, if Obama was born on August 4, 1961, was the “Date Accepted by Local Reg.” four days later on August 8, 1961?
• What is the significance of the smudges in the box containing the name of the reported attendant?
• David A. Sinclair, the M.D. who purportedly signed the document, died nearly eight years ago at age 81. So he is conveniently unavailable to answer questions about Obama’s reported birth.
• In the “This Birth” box there are two mysterious Xs above “Twin” and “Triplet.” Is there a sibling or two unaccounted for?
• What is the significance of the mysterious numbers, seen vertically, on the document’s right side?
• Finally, the “Signature of Local Registrar” in box 21 may be a desperate attempt at establishing the document’s Hawaiian authenticity. Note to forgers: it is spelled “Ukulele.”
(Via: The Smoking Gun)
Things we’ve noticed:
  • “Hussein” is typed one pixel higher across the page than the word “Obama”
  • Obvious forgery. Look at the 41 at the top right of document.
  • Look under Race Of Mother….Caucasian….The top half of every letter is perfectly cut off at the exact point on every letter. A type writer would not be this perfect in 1961 or 2011! A type writer did not make these perfect mistakes, only a computer with photo-shop does
  • Any other birth certificate that didnt have the footprint and statistics of length and birth weight at time of delivery? No…
  • The pdf shows a photoshop layer effect on the text: zoom in to see the “white glow” around the text and lines. I can only assume this reproduction was produced for “clarity”.
  •  the “M” in P.M. is a small font of a capital M. That would have been impossible on a manual typewriter.
What do YOU think???

2 comments:

  1. The Dates appearing next to the certifying authorities @ bottom of page appear to be feeble attempts by the same writer to make them look different. In particular, look at the way the 6 in 61 is formed, despite the flag on the lower of the two.

    Another easy test of authenticity: If the document was truly created on a typewriter, the weaving of the cloth used in the ribbon should be apparent in the impressions left by the characters on the paper. Magnify any truly typewritten document, and the effect is obvious! ( and in 1961, CLOTH ribbons were predominant. Mylar was not yet in popular use, if @ all...)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Still say that "August" is lifted a little higher than the numbers at date of birth. The month and date (numbers) do not line up on a level line. As one who used those old typewriters I have a hard time believing that a typist (especially a person used to these machines) would have adjusted the roller that small amt necessary to create the slight difference. A typist would have just continued typing August 4, 1961.... just saying...seems a little strange...but what do i know

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.