Blogger admits Hawaii birth certificate forgery, subverting Obama claims (Uh-oh)

Israel Insider ^ | 3 July 2008 | Reuven Koret

[SE Mom]

Jay McKinnon, a self-described Department of Homeland Security-trained document specialist, has implicated himself in the production of fraudulent Hawaii birth certificate images similar to the one endorsed as genuine by the Barack Obama campaign, and appearing on the same blog entry where the supposedly authentic document appears.

The evidence of forgery and manipulation of images of official documents, triggered by Israel Insider's revelation of the collection of Hawaii birth certificate images on the Photobucket site and the detective work of independent investigative journalists and imaging professionals in the three weeks since the publication of the images, implicate the Daily Kos, an extreme left blog site, and the Obama campaign, in misleading the public with official-looking but manipulated document images of doubtful provenance.

The perceived unreliability of the image has provoked petitions and widespread demands for Obama to submit for objective inspection the paper versions of the "birth certificate" he claimed in his book Dreams from My Father was in his possession, as well as the paper version of the Certificate of Live Birth for which the image on the Daily Kos and the Obama "Fight the Smears" website was supposedly generated.

Without a valid birth certificate, Obama cannot prove he fulfills the "natural born citizen" requirement of the Constitution, throwing into doubt his eligibility to run for President.

McKinnon, who says he is 25-30 years old, operates a website called OpenDNA.com and uses the OpenDNA screen name on various web sites and blogs, including his comments and diary on The Daily Kos. In recent years he has divided his time between Long Beach, California and Vancouver, British Columbia. He is a Democratic political activist, frequent contributor to the left wing Daily Kos blog, and a fervent Barack Obama supporter.

[El Gato]

So why don't all the Polygamist Mormons, such as FLDS, go to somewhere that allows polygamy to get married and then come back all legal?

Even if it wasn't a Kenyan marriage, and the Maui wowie marriage was invalid, the courts would still need to be involved to protect the interests of the baby

Would that be a divorce, or some other term for dissolution of a relationship? I guess it might be sort of like a divorce where the marriage was common law, rather than state sanctioned.

[null and void]

No idea.

Somewhere up thread David maintained that the law was inclined to err on the side of the existence of a valid marriage. Sorta like a full faith and credence thing between countries.

I recall seeing a thread a few days ago about a muslim suing to have his multiple marriages recognized as valid in the US on religious discrimination grounds.

Since he’s muslim, I expect that oil and massive infusions of Saudi petrodollars will sway the courts.

Color me cynical.

As for a common law relationship requiring divorce proceedings?

Dunno. But the word “palimony” comes to mind...

[Calpernia]

>>>The tie is too wide -- just like the watchband is too wide -- for 1961.

You can't date by the attire since the airport photos were confirmed by the airport renevation site that jellybean found.

>>>One: don't assume anybody else is doing the work to track this down, that is unless they post the results.

Odd advice for you to offer up. Why? You have no idea where this information is going to nor do you know who is reading it.

>>>Don't be afraid of some trap by Obama.

I know that is not an issue either. :)

[David]

As I stated in a previous post, that filing date is not a smoking gun. My own birth was such and such a day and the filing date was 14 days later. That would all depend on when all the information got to the vital statistics office. Mail usually takes several days. They would then put the date they received it as the filing date.

I knew you said that and I thought I responded but I guess I didn't.

I went back and looked. All the samples that were "date filed" were all filed on the birth date except for Obama. All the samples that were "date accepted" were accepted a week or so later.

That doesn't make a rule either. So for all we know, your view might well be correct--it just sat on somebody's desk. And obviously, the further back you put it toward August 4, the more difficult it is to see mother getting him back from Kenya in time to file it.

I have also considered the possibility that when Stanley Ann doesn't make the plane, she calls her mother. "Mom, we have this problem if the kid drops out here in Kenya--how about his citizenship? Mom, I'll call you when he is born; maybe you go down to the Health Department the day after and file an affidavit of home birth?" Or maybe it works the other way--mom is thinking even when Ann is not.

[Spunky]

I have been studying and studing these pictures and have FINALLY come to the conclusion that the one with Obama Sr. and (I still think) Obama Jr. may have been PhotoShopped. My reason for now thinking this is, look at the gold tree above the boys head. It has two lines going down the sides and is not the same shape. Also there are no flower looking things below it like in the Obama Sr, Ann photo.

It was stated that the ticket agent was the same man in both pictures because of his clothes. But look at the ticket agents watch band. It is a wide gold band in the photo with Obama Sr. and Jr. and a black narrower band with Obama Sr. and Ann.

So I concede that the photo of Ann and Obama Sr could have been taken in 1960-61, but I still believe that is Obama Jr. with Obama Sr. when he came to visit in 1971-72, but someone photo shopped that little gold tree into it, to make us think they were both taken in 1971-72.

Has someone said all this before? LOL! My memory isn't as good as it used to be.

[El Gato]

I guess I'm asking if it's jumping to conclusions to assume that the old terminal wasn't still in use after the new one was dedicated in 1962?

No it's not, the same site, different page, says:

The old Honolulu International Airport on the South Ramp was bulging at the seams in the 1960s, and construction of new Overseas and Interisland Terminals on the North Ramp was well underway. A dedication ceremony for the new facility was held on August 23, 1962 and all operations switched to the new terminal on October 14, 1962. The new Interisland Terminal was dedicated in April 1964.

[Political Junkie Too]

Two quick thoughts:

1. I think the "flower looking things" below the tree is actually the back of a woman's dress. I think someone can lighten that picture to bring out more details.

2. The "two lines going down the side of the tree" is another counter pole on the other side. The line on the right is the pole. The sign is square, not like the "San Francisco" sign, and the line on the left is actually the left edge of the sign. On the B&W of the terminal, you can see an example of the square sign, too.

-PJ

[El Gato]

As for a common law relationship requiring divorce proceedings?

Oh they do, most certainly. However you can't estalish a common law marriage if one of the partners is already married.

Brings to mind the case of a guy who was a POW, but had been declared dead. His "widow", actually wife, married his friend and had children with him. When the original husband returned....what a mess.

Palimony has nothing to do with common law marriage, the couple would not have represented themselves as a married couple, even if they were *known* to be living together. It occurs when one of the couple promises that there will be a wedding someday, perhaps he is already married and the divorce is not final for instance. But the promissed marriage never comes, and the aggreived party sues for "palimony" on some grounds or other. Perhaps compensation for time out of ciruclation?

[null and void]

Thanks!

[SE Mom]

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/07/who-died-and-ma.html

Some important information here- comments by Polarik and Techdude refuting AJStrata’s opinion that the birth certificate is real and legit.

[Spunky]

I agree the flower looking things could very well be a womans dress. But if that is a square sign why isn’t it cutting off the top of the tree in the Obama Sr and Ann’s picture like the other. Also what is cutting off the bottom of the tree in the Obama Sr and Obama Jr picture?

[tsmith130]

1. I think the "flower looking things" below the tree is actually the back of a woman's dress. I think someone can lighten that picture to bring out more details.

THANK YOU! Those disappearing flowers have been bothering me for 3 days!

[Political Junkie Too]

Thanks. As you can see from the dialog that followed, the question was:

1. Is that Obama in the 1970's or 1960's, based on the location of the photo?

3. If the photo was taken in the 1970's, then why does the ticket lobby look a lot like the old terminal photo? Was that photo mis-dated?

4. Did they build the new ticket lobby using the same counter styles as the old terminal? I've seen some photos of the 1970's ticket lobby that moved away from the central cluster of counters to the perimeter row of counters.

We're trying to rule in or out whether that photo was taken in a ticket lobby that was demolished in 1965, or somewhere else that looks just like it.

-PJ

[Political Junkie Too]

But if that is a square sign why isn’t it cutting off the top of the tree in the Obama Sr and Ann’s picture like the other. Also what is cutting off the bottom of the tree in the Obama Sr and Obama Jr picture?

It's the angle of the shot.

Look at Obama Sr. In the picture with Ann, his head is blocking the tree on the left, in the picture with the boy he's to the right of the tree; so this means the photographer was further left in the boy picture, shifting the square sign to the left as well. I think you can faintly see the pole to the left of the tree, too. This would move the ticket machine to the left of the tree, too, unblocking it. In fact, the whole background shifts to the left as the photographer changed angles slightly.

Also, you can just barely see the bottom of the San Francisco sign blocking the top of the Philippines Airlines sign in the photo with Ann; the sign is clearly above the entire Philippines Airlines sign in the photo with the boy. This means that the photographer was kneeling when taking the picture of the boy, shifting the San Francisco sign higher in frame than when standing. You can also see that Obama Sr. head is a lot higher relative to the lit background sign in the picture with the boy.

-PJ

[RubyR]

Did you see this pic I posted at 2724. It is the new terminal circa 1974. Along the back I think it says: Pan american, Philippine, Japan airlines. which would match the 1971 terminal map posted at #2725:

[David]

Your #2825: The watch band. Do you have the capacity to blow the band up in the Ann picture. That is an important catch if they are really different. But in the Ann picture, it is not in the light so that you would see the gold glitter. So it looks brown.

I view that as an important point. If a photoshop expert says the pictures have been modified, that is one thing. But I see these pictures as a fairly important piece of evidence because they give you something of the time line.

I suppose you can say that the Ann Wedding Picture was taken in 1960-61 and we know that because the terminal was torn down. If the terminal picture with the boy was taken at a different time, we don't know when it was taken; we don't know who the boy was either but neither one affect our interpretation of the time line. Obama Sr. looks too young to be 1971. But we don't know where that picture came from.

[Political Junkie Too]

Yes I did, thanks. I posted the terminal map. I'm just trying to unambiguously lead people to the conclusion that the photos were taken in the old terminal, demolished in 1965. Other conclusions about timelines can then be drawn from that fact.

-PJ

[RubyR]

Gotcha :) I noticed after I had posted that it was you who posted the map.

[bvw]

Why? To enable anyone to join the effort. This nation is sickened almost beyond repair by a case of "somebody else is responsible for taking care of this".

Like "big oil companies" are responsible for making oil cheap for us. Alternative version of that is "the government should nationalize the oil industry so it will be responsible for making oil cheap for us." Or "My insurance plan is responsible for covering that." Or the State Department, state or federal, is responsible for vetting the candidates thoroughly. Or the some party big-wigs will investigate the other candidate with a nit comb.

Better we do it, by ourselves. The more we practice that, the more we have a chance.

We, as individuals acting in concert and appreciating -- by both vigorous criticism and sometimes small encouragements, have a citizen's duty to the ideals of this Republic to do first by ourselves, and only begrudgingly ceding authority to government, and then only for such times and limited powers as would be needed to fill the role.

Nor should we -- free citizens, intelligent and educated -- easily cede any authority to judge matters as they arise to experts, rather than to make some reasonable effort to judge the matter each for ourselves. Experts are welcome, and needed, but we do not help them in their expertise or us in our life duties unless we keep to that good man's motto "Trust but Verify" -- for in failing to do our own researches and experiments on matters of public merit we make ourselves the subjects of another good man's proverb: "There's a sucker born every minute."

[Calpernia]

I said the pictures were put in photo software, not ‘shopped’. One was lighted (flash), the other darkened (contrast). They are both taken in the same time frame as already demontrated by freeper jellybean who was able to find the sample photos and timeline of when the airport was updated.

Since the photo of Obama Sr. and Ann was saved in the darkened format, it will be very hard to determine if the men behind the counter are the same or another employee with the same uniform picking up a call.