Expert: Obama doc is 'proof' – of fraud

World Net Daily ^ | June 7, 2011 | Jerome R. Corsi

[conservativegramma]

Typeface analysis shows images come from different machines

The online image of a Hawaiian "Certificate of Live Birth" was trumpeted by the White House when it was released on April 27 as "proof positive" that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii.

Now an expert in typefaces and typography says it sure was "proof," but not of what the White House would have wanted.

Paul Irey, a retired professional typographer with 50 years experience in his business, has says an analysis of the typefaces used in the Barack Obama's long-form birth certificate that the White House released on April 27 reveals it absolutely to be a forgery.

"My analysis proves beyond a doubt that it would be impossible for the different letters that appear in the Obama birth certificate to have been typed by one typewriter," Irey told WND.

"Typewriters in 1961 could not change the size and shape of a letter on the fly like that," he said. "This document is definitely a forgery."

Irey acknowledges that an IBM Selectric typewriter could have produced different typefaces in a given document, but only if the Selectric ball was changed every time a different typeface letter was struck which would be unlikely to have been done to produce the word "Student," for example, that had two different styles of the lower case "t."

[Fred Nerks]

May I make a few observations, using some of the immigration data as shown on the WND website...

WND LINK

VISA ISSUED: August, 1959 - Date of birth 18/6/34 (I think that's June 18.)

31st August 1961 - Date of birth 18th June 1934 NAME OF WIFE CROSSED OUT, THEN ANN S DUNHAM ENTERED NO CHILDREN

31ST AUGUST 1961. MEMO, extension granted. Full name of child and date of birth. MOTHER NOT NAMED.

17th August 1962 - Date of birth June 18, 1936

MARRIED. NO NAME OF WIFE. ONE SON: ROY

June 6, 1963 - Date of birth June 18, 1936

NO NAME OF WIFE OR CHILD GIVEN

25 years of age on arrival in Hawaii in 1959=BIRTH YEAR 1934

YEAR OF BIRTH ON TOMBSTONE 1936

Year of birth according to above 1961 document: 1936.

Make sense of it? I certainly can't, the MEMO looks like a plant, and they buried him with a year of birth that contradicts his own initial documentation and the newspaper article.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

obviously not.

Says the person who can't tell the difference between a curve and a straight line.

[Jim Robinson]

Here you go. Good luck with your lawsuit.

[Fred Nerks]

That added sentence changes everything...so conveniently.

[TigersEye]

Why do you claim that the sentence was added? The ink and handwriting appear to be the same.

[Fred Nerks]

Why do you claim that the sentence was added? The ink and handwriting appear to be the same.

Because the reason for granting the extension was covered when you get to the word 'Kenya.'

[TigersEye]

So this is just a presumption of yours not something that has been proven technically?

[Fred Nerks]

What are you? The thought-police?

It IS an added sentence...it has nothing to do with granting a visa extension.

[TigersEye]

I was just asking you for the source of the supposition. Are you afraid of reasonable questions?

[Fred Nerks]

No, not afraid, the source of the supposition is all mine...and if you look at the way the names Barack Obama are written, they do NOT appear to be written by the same hand.

[TigersEye]

...the source of the supposition is all mine...

That is all I was asking. I don't know why you got your back up about it unless you feel embarrassed to admit it is just a guess on your part.

[Fred Nerks]

You wrote: So this is just a presumption of yours not something that has been proven technically?

I found your comment offensive, yes. Just as I do now, with your suggestion that I might be embarrassed. Please confine your responses to the material and leave the personal barbs out of it.

[TigersEye]

The offense was all in your head. I don’t take orders from snippy little punks either. You have my permission to take offense at that. I meant that to be offensive unlike the simple straightforward questions I asked before.

[Fred Nerks]

It was the words ‘proven technically’ that floored me. There’s NOTHING been proven technically in this entire saga...has there? If we could only discuss what has been ‘proven technically’ there would be nothing on this forum.

And I’m no punk, I assure you. I’m a RETIRED Australian.

[TigersEye]

Is it the word ‘proven’ or the word ‘technically’ that intimidates you? Or is it the combination of them? I will try to coat my words in soft velvet and sugar icing for you from now on so as not to offend your delicate sensibilities.

[Brown Deer]

I know that you have mentioned this a few times since these documents were released, but I’ve never taken the time to examine it very closely until now because I also thought the handwriting looked the same.

I just spent a while comparing first letters and other common letter combinations between that sentence and the upper part of the memo. There seem to be a number of inconsistencies. The two “Barack”s are not the same. Up above, all the ‘i’s are dotted, but most of the ‘i’s and ‘j’s in the hgihlighted sentence have little circles for the dot. The bottom ‘H’ looks forced. The word “have” appears in both places. There is the word “at” up above that is consistent with the word “that”, but in the hightlighted sentence it does not look the same at all. The word “one” is in both places, but doesn’t look the same. Look at the difference in the “re” of “return” and “resides”.

50+ pages and that is the only mention of him? Seems odd.

[Brown Deer]

not very logical are you?

[TigersEye]

I saw those differences, which are slight, and some letters that look very much the same such as the 'o's and 'e's. The reason I wanted to know more about that memo was that it has relevance on another thread where 0baMao claims he has memories of his father until "he left when I was two years old." I don't see any relevance to the subject of this thread and it had nothing personal to do with Fred Nerks. (that was his narcissism that lead him to think that)

Since Fred couldn't give me anything more solid than his hunch (which is fine but isn't a solid disproof) I went ahead and posted it there.

[Fred Nerks]

You could try being polite.

[TigersEye]

Your snotty reply to a simple question fixed that. lol

And then there was the second snotty reply to another patient question.
Twice burned is enough for me.