question... how can something be embossed only on one side???
Posted on 06/29/2008 11:18:17 PM PDT by Kevmo
the whole book was a latter day reconstruction and largely a work of fiction; sure, fifteen years later when he wrote the book, he "remembers" exactly what was in this packet he found, etc. Do you have any such indelible memories from 15 years ago? He couldn't even remember touring the house with Rezko on the day of purchase much less long ago.
He needs to show us one like this... I was born in 66 and mine looks almost exactly like this. I wasn’t born in IL either. So I know he has one like this.
http://www.peterspioneers.com/marilynBC.jpg
I ended up paying about $75 to overnight (3 days) the same copy I had, except it was on watermark paper ... the same fold shadow and page number on the "official" doc as my copy.
a) The official seal of the department of health
shall be circular in shape, TWO AND ONE-FOURTH INCHES IN DIAMETER. At the curve on the top portion there
shall be the words “DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH” and at the
curve on the bottom portion there shall be the words
“STATE OF HAWAII.” At the curve on each side portion
shall be a star. In the center of the seal shall be
the Caduceus, a winged rod entwined with two serpents,
which has long been recognized as a universal symbol
of medicine. The Caduceus shall be encircled by an
indentation, which shall separate it from the words
“DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH” and “STATE OF HAWAII.” For
illustrative purposes, a black and white drawing of
the official seal is attached at the end of this
section as Exhibit “A,” titled “Seal of the Department
of Health,” and dated November 1, 1988, and made a
part of this section.
(b) The official seal of the department of
health shall be embossed near the signature of the
director of health to verify commissions of
appointment of deputy directors and notaries public,
certificates, and other formal official documents on
which the official seal has been customarily used or
is appropriate to be used, as the director of health
may determine on a case-by-case basis.
(c) The seal of the department of health may
also be reproduced, in either an enlarged or a reduced
size, on official stationery, reports, certificates,
equipment, supplies, uniform insignia, and other
objects and items to be used or produced by the
department of health, but the reproduction and use of
the seal shall always be subject to the exclusive
control of the director of health.
[Eff 2/14/2005 ] (Auth: HRS §§321-9, 91-2)
Compare the DeCosta and Obama embossed seal areas (for those who can see it on Obama’s). DeCosta’s diameter top-to-bottom covers 9.5 green background || marks which can be taken to meet the standards noted above at TWO AND ONE-FORTH INCHES IN DIAMETER. Obama’s only covers 6.5 green background || marks which cannot then also be the size specified by Hawaii statute.
An embossing so faint that it is unrecognizable is no embossing at all.
This video from Pamela is so bogus. A few 5 second stills showing how she “uncovered the seal” in a 3 minute video.
And in none of these silent pictures is she using the program she’s talking about. I tried her suggestions and couldn’t see any hint of a seal. What a load of bunk.
And she claims the “FightTheSmears” site released the birth certificate early and didn’t show how the seal could be shown until now for a reason. Why? And I kid you not this is how it was spelled... “This was Bate.” Lol. Hilarious.
Why is the number on the right side of the (alleged) certificate image blacked out?
Why do you assume opendna “cleaned it up”?
That makes no sense. Why would you “blank one up”? Because you’re bored? Besides, Opendna and this corvo guy are too busy blogging all day long.
The latest copy. The 3rd or fourth version. :)
Of course now that they have a version that looks accurate the issue will go away and no one in the MSM ( including Faux News ) will ever ask him why he released so many different versions......................
I’ve emailed Ann Hollyfield the following.
Dear Ms. Hollyfield,
I realize you have posted the Final Chapter on this issue, but there’s some puzzles that don’t appear to have been addressed regarding Senator Obama’s birth certificate:
Why is the Obama Copy Dated June 7, 2007?
1. In mid-April, you stated “We tried to obtain a copy of Obama’s birth certificate, but his campaign would not release it and the state of Hawaii does not make such records public.”
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/464/
2. You stated “Okubo said a copy of the birth certificate was requested in June 2008, but she wouldn’t specify by whom.”
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/13/obamas-birth-certificate/
3. Yet the date stamped on the back of the Certificate you posted is June 7, 2007.
4. If the campaign had this document in their possession for over a year, what would motivate them to delay releasing it for months, especially given that McCain had quickly addressed the issue of whether he was constitutionally qualified to seek the Presidency?
Why Does Father’s Race Say African?
1. The U.S. has a Standard Birth Certificate form that they encourage states to use.
2. FWIW, I think constitutionally Feds probably can’t MAKE states use this, but they preempt objections by:
• determining the data elements that should be collected “through consultation with State health officers and registrars; Federal agencies concerned with vital statistics; national, State, and county medical societies;” and
• letting states customize it to collect whatever additional information they want: “It has been modified in each state to the extent necessitated by the particular needs of the State or by special provisions of the State vital statistics law. However, the certificates of most States conform closely in content and arrangement to the standard certificate.”
Therefore, I cannot PROVE Hawaii used this form in 1961, but there is no indication in any of the numerous vital statistics tabulations regarding Color that Hawaii’s form did not collect this information.
3. You can see a copy of the standard form in use in 1961 here: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsus/vsus_1961_1.pdf on pdf page 228.
• Item 8. requests “Color or Race” of Father.
• Item 10. requests Birthplace (State or foreign country) of Father
• Item 13 requests “Color or Race” of Mother
• Item 15 requests Birthplace (State or foreign country) of Mother
4. “Births in the United States in 1961 are classified for vital statistics into white, Negro, American Indian, Chinese,Japanese, Aleut, Eskimo, Hawaiian and Part-Hawaiian (combined), and “other nonwhite.” See pdf page 231 at same cdc.gov URL. Thus, whoever was coding Obama’s birth should have been following this classification scheme.
5. “African” is not a race. While there certainly are many Blacks in Africa, there also are Afrikaners who are white, not to mention Arabs, Indians and others who certainly would not designate themselves as Black. So putting “African” in the race field would not have made sense. Moreover, if someone accidently did this in field 8, they would likely quickly recognize their mistake when they got to field 10 and had to fill in the father’s birthplace.
6. While the original birth certificates are filled out by hand and signed by doctor, I assume these records long ago were computerized, in which case “funny stuff” such as an inadvertently miscoded Race field likely would have been flagged and corrected a long time ago.
7. I also assume that certified copies are generated automatically by a computer, on the Certification of Live Birth, it clearly states Father’s Race—not Birthplace—so if a computer was generating the copy, there’s no way it would have “mistakenly” grabbed the incorrect field (moreover, “African” wouldn’t be the correct way to fill in the Birthplace field in any case: it should either have been Kenya or the town where Obama’s father was born).
8. But even in the unlikely event these certified copies are generated by having a bureaucrat literally transcribe the relevant info from an original hand-written certificate that is on file, the fact that the mother is listed as Caucasian in the Mother’s Race field suggests that unless the person was very sloppy, they should have recognized that “African” was not an appropriate entry in the Father’s Race field etc.
Why Are There No Crease-Marks on the Obama Copy?
1. Notice the crease-marks and clear evidence of fading in the greenish background image used for the forms in the 2 presumably genuine copies of Hawaiian birth certificates that have been posted
here: http://tomo-dachi.net/pics/misc/BC.jpg and
here: http://www.valeehill.net/genealogy/documents/doc_decosta_pat_birth.jpg
2. Poster Naomiekeys claims that Hawaii”s State Department of Health has confirmed: “Certified copies of birth certificates are NEVER sent electronically. Copies can be requested by qualified individuals in person, by mail, or on line; and the Vital Records (VR) office will MAIL the Certification of Live Birth within 4 to 6 weeks.”
http://web.israelinsider.com/bin/en.jsp?enDispWho=TalkBack^l246689&enPage=EmptyPage&enDisplay=view&enDispWhat=object&enVersion=0&enZone=TalkBack&&Index=21&Article=Article^l12932&Max=29.
3. Similarly, Israel Insider claims that Janice Okubo, Director of Communications of the State of Hawaii Department of Health, told Israel Insider: “At this time there are no circumstances in which the State of Hawaii Department of Health would issue a birth certification or certification of live birth only electronically.” http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12939.htm
4. Claims #2 and #3 above are consistent with what I have seen regarding ordering:
• On-line (which apparently can only be done by a family member): https://www.ehawaii.gov/doh/vitrec/exe/vitrec.cgi
• Or in-person or by mail by a non-family member, but if so,
o “Certified copies are usually not issued on the day the application is made. Same-Day service may be provided upon presentation of written documentation establishing the need for urgency. Certified copies will normally be available for pick-up about 10 working days after the request is approved.”
o Moreover, “If you are applying for a certificate on behalf of someone else, you must provide an original letter signed by that person authorizing the release of their certificate to you.” http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/vital_records.html
4. Thus, unless someone obtained a copy in person (which no one at Obama campaign has claimed, to my knowledge), this implies that the Obama certificate—like the 2 posted—would have been folded up and mailed, yet the posted copy is absolutely pristine: not even a smidgeon of creasing or fading is discernible.
Why Does Obama’s Certificate Say “Date Filed by Registrar” instead of “Date Accepted by Registrar”?
1. Note also that the 2 genuine copies both state “Date Accepted by State Registrar” even though the DeCosta document was to retroactively certify a birth that occurred before Hawaii was a state and the Tomoyasu document (like Obama’s) was to record a birth after Hawaii became a state.
2. Yet the Obama certificate states “Date Filed by Registrar” even though:
• It had the identical purpose as the Tomayasu certificate; and
• All three documents purport to be printed on the identical form OHSM 1.1 (Rev. 11/01) LASER, as indicated in the lower left-hand corner.
Why Is the Border on the Obama Copy So Different Than The Genuine Copies?
1. You can just visually inspect the 3 images yourself. Even though all are allegedly printed on the identical form, only the 2 genuine copies have nearly identical dark-hatched borders, whereas the Obama version is clearly much lighter and very different-looking.
2. Or, for a close-up view, see Polarik’s analysis here:
http://polarik.blogtownhall.com/2008/06/22/now_lets_compare_apples_to_apples.thtml
2. Moreover, I concur with Polarik’s analysis that the intersections of the vertical and horizontal border in the Obama copy are very sloppily done compared to the much crisper printed border on the DeCosta copy.
Why is the Certificate Number Blacked Out Using a Graphics Program?
1. The release of Obama’s certificate would have had to have been authorized by a family member. There is no particularly good reason to blank out the birth certificate number either on privacy grounds or other grounds, since that number could not have been used by anyone to obtain Obama’s records etc.
2. But even if there were grounds for suppressing that information, Polarik has shown it was done using a graphics program even though it would have been easier and just as effective to just cover that portion up with paper.
http://polarik.blogtownhall.com/2008/06/28/why_the_certificate_no_on_obamas_bogus_bc_is_blacked_out.thtml
3. Running the image through a graphics program to black out this information simply unnecessarily creates suspicion that other elements of the image also were faked. Why would a campaign intent on trying to dampen rumors do this? Polarik has offered some thoughtful speculation on some deceitful motivations for doing this: I can’t think of an innocent explanation, can you?
Why Are There Obvious Signs of Photoshopping?
1. Polarik has shown that the image properties for the Obama jpg show unequivocal markers that the “image was produced by Adobe Photoshop CS3, on a Mac running OS 2.0, and saved at 8:43am on June 12th — around the same date it was posted online.” http://polarik.blogtownhall.com/2008/06/29/proof_positive_that_photoshop_was_used_on_the_bc_image_posted_in_the_daily_kos.thtml
2. Likewise, his analysis of the sharp contrast in lettering between the DeCosta certificate and Obama certificate is pretty compelling:
http://polarik.blogtownhall.com/2008/06/22/now_lets_compare_apples_to_apples.thtml
None of these individually represents a “smoking gun.” But collectively, they surely pose a puzzle. Either Senator Obama or his campaign is:
1. deliberately hiding something for some motivation such as:
• concern about something potentially quite serious [e.g., he is ineligible to serve as president];
• possible embarrassment [e.g., his birth was listed as Not Legitimate in item 23 of his detailed birth certificate, and hence he was given his mother’s last name]; or
• fear that public concerns that might be raised about his trustworthiness [e.g., once the public observes that he has written or lied repeatedly about some aspect of his childhood], or
2. resorting to a deliberate campaign dirty trick aimed at diverting his opponents from focusing on more serious matters and/or deliberately creating smoke in hopes they’ll look foolish by shouting “Fire.”
I don’t pretend to know where the truth lies here. But either of the two possibilities suggested above arguably should be of great concern. If Senator Obama is dissembling on a matter this small (in the grand scheme of things), what should voters or world leaders conclude about their ability to trust his word? And if this is nothing more than a campaign trick, then what does that tell us about Obama’s claims to be a different kind of leader?
I don’t expect a reply, but I am hoping you might conclude there’s at least one more chapter to write in your assessment of this situation.
Blacking out the number avoids another possibility-that someone might come out of the woodwork with the same number on their legitimate birth certificate, thus proving the forgery.
question... how can something be embossed only on one side???
So, this one blogger has been able to do what probably thousands have been unsuccessful in doing? Bull.
It doesn’t make anyone look foolish to demand a genuine bc for all presidential nominees. It’s just makes sense.
Barry could very well pay someone off in the HI vital stats office to produce a certified embossed copy, but then the matter could be laid to rest. Course, he’d have to keep paying and that someone could eventually decide there wasn’t enough money to keep silent.
Excuse me for being simplistic, Didn’t B.O. travel abroad and to do that you must have a Passport. When I obtained my US Passport, I had to have a valid birth certificate. I believe this was settled by the US Government quite a while ag
“Mitchell Langbert has written a Freedom of Information Act Request for Barack Obama’s Birth Certificate”
Let us know when he gets it, until then it isn’t over.
All he has to do is release it. Period. Why this is so hard for him to do is just bizarre.
The issue is not whether the certificate is valid, but whether he was born in Hawaii. If the State of Hawaii will tell us that they have a valid public record of his birth, that will satisfy me.
This “newly found” stamp was not made by a typical embossing stamp. The stamping is done by hand. That is why they can be deep in some instances, and faint in others. Hand stamp devices place the stamp near the edge of the document. There is only limited clearance for the edge of the paper. The “newly found” stamp is too near the center of the page to be placed there by an hand applied embossing stamp device.
Is this some sort of watermark?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.