News Release: Legal Proof That pResident Obama’s Certificate Of Live Birth Is A Forgery (Lengthy)

ObamaRelease YourRecords ^ | Tuesday, May 17, 2011

[CommieCutter]

I see this smiley face on that. But this is the one thing I see as a stretch...

[TheCipher]

It's easy to see here Obama is a CONman.

And so are the members of the White House Travel Office:

Passport Con

[firefox]

What you all should know is that Obama by his own admission in his biography has shown that he is NOT qualified for Presidential office by definition.
The Constitution requires a “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN” as eligibility for the Presidency. The historical definition for “natural born citizen” means the parents, particularly the father must be a citizen(s) of the country in which the child may claim “natural born” status.
Barack Obama could or could not have been born in America...doesn’t matter...he is NOT eligible for the Presidency. His father was not an American.

[Red Steel]

The lawyers arguing for Obama in the eligibility case, at least some of them, have to know the truth. They would have explored closing the cases by providing a birth certificate to the court. The decision to argue on ‘standing’ and not provide a direct refutation must have been debated.

About two and a half years ago in the Hollister or the Berg case against Obama, I believe it was Robert Bauer (now White House Counsel) who is quoted as saying it would "be an embarrassment" if Obama showed his birth certificate.

...

Taking a look around...

and I found this at http://www.theobamafile.com/_eligibility

"She said opening up such evidence could be an "embarrassment" to Obama, and it's up to Congress to call for impeachment of a sitting president.

There's more here . . .

Well, we mustn't embarrass Obama. 

This is the same argument Obama's lawyers presented in the original "Birther" case filed by Phil J. Berg, Esq, a former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania; former candidate for Governor and U.S. Senate in Democratic Primaries; former Chair of the Democratic Party in Montgomery County; former member of Democratic State Committee, back in 2008.

The Obama team contented itself with a motion to dismiss the case and a protective order.  In these motions, Obama’s lawyers argued that revealing the information (birth certificate, citizenship in other countries, college admissions records etc.) would "cause a defined and serious injury" to Obama and/or the DNC.  They argued that revealing these documents raises a "legitimate privacy concern" and the above mentioned risk that "particularly serious embarrassment will result from turning over the requested documentation."

Makes you wonder, what's on that birth certificate -- or not on that birth certificate -- that could be soooooo embarrassing to the Obamamessiah?
"

-end snip-

Another inconsistency.

So what was so embarrassing and that would cause "serious injury" to Obama and the DNC in his "released COLB?" I don't see the big serious injury or embarrassment in Obama's latest art work. More like the reason to forge Obama's COLB.

[Jeff Winston]

Is it your contention that the guy who wrote this is a bs artist?

No, that's not my contention at all.

I do think that a FEW people, at least, who are pushing demonstrably false forgery theories are bs artists. There appears to be a lot more popularity and even money to be made in pushing conspiracy theory.

I think that most people pushing some of these theories are not technically equipped, and really want to believe the document is a forgery. So they believe it, and push it. Simply because that's what they really, really want to believe.

I think that SOME people pushing such things ARE technically equipped, but haven't really examined it that deeply.

Obama & company have made it very easy to believe he wasn't born in Hawaii. For at least two years, they ridiculed skeptics instead of producing the asked-for documentation.

People normally only do that if they have something to hide.

There are also quite a few other valid questions that have been asked and not answered.

I would place the author of this document in the latter category - probably technically equipped, but didn't dig deep enough.

How can a layman evaluate what is true vs false in the technical realm ?....In my mind it all depends on who you trust. If I know nothing technical how do I trust anyone?

I will grant that it is very, very difficult.

About the only thing I can say is: First, look for someone who you feel is committed to the truth. Second, look for things that you can get to the bottom of, one way or another. In my own case, I've posted 4 specific items here that you ought to be able to verify for yourself.

If you can find things that you can verify for yourself, and one "expert" is consistently wrong, and another is consistently correct, I'd say that gives you a fairly good clue. Because it tells you one person is careful with his facts and analysis, and the other - not as much.

If it turns out that the person who wrote the original document is demonstrably correct in what he said, then believe him. If it turns out that I'm correct in the things I've said that you can verify, then (as I posted above) I might just know what I'm talking about.

Even then, it's possible to go wrong. Always verify for yourself what you can. And in any matter involving your own personal interests, you need to BE the expert as much as possible, rather than rely too much on others.

But those are about the best tips offhand that I can give, and I do hope there might be something helpful in there.

[PA Engineer]

I guess I can just give up and let the nutjobs run FreeRepublic and promote demonstrably false nonsense as much as they want.

I find this statement to be the most revealing element of who you are.

I follow the COLB fraud threads. You have been shot down on every one of them. You do not offer facts, but claims and testaments.

I have also done photoshop work for fun and have been involved with computers from punch cards and the only real computer language Fortran (college). Even when I was in Junior high I would log into the Westinghouse computer with punch tape. There was no CRT then.

Many of us have been around from the beginning of the "real" computer age and don't need to fall back on the fallacy of authority that you claim. We can download the White House image and go to work. We follow what others have found. We also slap ourselves in the head when others find things we missed as obvious. One item that came to mind was the chromatic aberration pointed out by Mr. Denninger. I should have caught that. My college minor specialized in the physics of light. Hey, I was even a geeky amateur astronomer with a Celestron Reflector and a K1000 camera. You know I even had one of them funny prism devices to record the shifts.

What I have found is that there is no large conspiracy. There is a small group in the HDOH including the new Governor who have created a new "COLB" from at least three different existing COLBs. The "PDF" COLB was a fraud as was the previous one. Do you remember that one? They got away with it during certification. They threw it under the bus when things heated up.

Millions of dollars have been spent (in many ways) to conceal this. There is no denial that Obama's law firm in Washington is using campaign funds to prevent any legal challenge. There is also no denial that the lawyers in this firm were the highest ranking members of the DNC. Think about it. I believe you already knew that.

My question for you is simple. Without a gossamer of evidence you pretend to parade out testimonials. When others point it out, you attack with vicious ad hominem venom. Why are you really here on these threads?

[bluecat6]

More accurately?

Seems the opposite. And why capitalize? Why waist the energy on the shift (a burden on a true manual since it has to physically lift the carriage)? Just type a lower-case x - like every other known LFBC of the period.

An alignment - pre-set tabs were clearly used in all other LFBCs of the period.

And Obama’s seniors age? He was 27 in 1961. Though for some reason he changed it on his I-539 forms later. But from 1959 to August 31, 1961 (in a form in his own hand) and in all INS records he was born in 1934 and was 27 in August 1961.

Kenya, East Africa....not a valid term. “Kenya” was used. But not Kenya, East Africa. It was British East Africa....

And ain’t Alvin smiley fact cute.....

The forgers had to have some fun....this is image is crap, pure crap - as a forgery. But it does make a statement.

The statement is ‘untouchable - catch me if you can.’

[Red Steel]

Why did the forger/s make the smiley face? Just to rub peoples’ faces in it? Cos they were on drugs? ??

Maybe the forger was smoking the same stuff that people who think Obama's COLB is real? Heehee.

One conjecture goes that the forger didn't want Obama to get away with it. He wanted to make sure everyone one knows it is a forgery. Or he couldn't help himself and had to add his "signature" to it.

[PA Engineer]

So its a fair call that the Perkins Coe lawyer that picked up a document in Hawaii - and handed it to some PDF/scanning/potential forger was in on the game.

That may very well be the case. The law firm partners seem to flow back and forth between the firm and the DNC.

[little jeremiah]

I’m not sure I understand your point?

[little jeremiah]

It’s really odd.

[PA Engineer]

Why did the forger/s make the smiley face? Just to rub peoples’ faces in it? Cos they were on drugs? ??

That seemed to be artifact from another COLB and probably another signature.

[little jeremiah]

You mean you think it’s not an actual smiley face, just little miscellaneous doodads left over from the various sources for the forgery, and coincidentally look like a smiley face?

Because I’m a technical idiot, I have no idea, just trying to see what more knowledgeable people say.

[woofie]

I havent seen the smiley face ...is there a link?

[Jeff Winston]

You claim that it's a piss poor response.

Then please explain to us: How did they get a HIGH-resolution document (a small portion of which I post below) from a LOW-resolution forgery?

I will be waiting for your explanation.

[bluecat6]

I see this smiley face on that. But this is the one thing I see as a stretch...

I agree. But last night I cropped it, blew it up and showed it to my wife with no other context and she glanced at it and said - "its a smiley face" without hesitation. Then I told her the source (and she hates this stuff) and she said - "its still a smiley face, its obvious."

[bluecat6]

Easy answer...

That is ABC news’s true SCAN of a paper COPY handed out at the briefing.

THAT is a real scan of a printed copy.

Easy....

[TauntedTiger]

“Actually, in this case, the ORIGINAL document almost certainly no longer exists.”

Only complete morons or deviant operatives would toss original birth certificates after they are scanned. Systems crash, files get corrupted, etc. Ever heard of long-term storage? It’s what competent agencies do when they scan important documents.

There is no logical reason to believe the ORIGINAL birth certificate has been officially destroyed.

[PA Engineer]

You mean you think it’s not an actual smiley face, just little miscellaneous doodads left over from the various sources for the forgery, and coincidentally look like a smiley face?

What stood out was the security paper. Look again at the "smiley". There should never be any whiting out of the security paper behind the signature. The "smiley" actually falls outside the manipulated region. This struck me as an unintentional (and sloppy photoshop) artifact left behind from the original COLB used by the forgers.

[PA Engineer]

Post 82 of this thread.