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.

[null and void]

If there was a new terminal built since 1971, the 1971 terminal would be the new old terminal, as opposes to the old old terminal with the thatched roof.

[Calpernia]

Photos and timeline for airports

http://hawaii.gov/hawaiiaviation/aviation-photos/1950-1959/

Left side is main nav for all the smaller runway type airports.

[jellybean]

The hawaii.gov site seems to be down right now.

http://hawaii.gov/hawaiiaviation/hawaii-airfields-airports/oahu-pre-world-war-ii/honolulu-international-airport/hnl-1960s-1

I’ll try again later.

[Spunky]

The birth certificate link he has posted at that site (from 1963) sure does look different than Obama’s. It has more of the pertinent information that most birth certificates have. Like mine does.

[aruanan]

Although the main server is down, you can still see a lot of photos from the 1950s of the Honolulu Airport at Google. It is a partially open building and the interior shots don't look anything like the one labeled 1960 under old terminal at the other link.

[David]

I would like to understand what you are saying about your borders. The approximate half inch wide checking around the border of the certificate--in the corners is mitered--the vertical border is notched into the base border? Is that the way yours is?

In the other Hawaii samples, in the case of certificates that are dated "filed on" as opposed to "accepted on", the filed on certificates are all dated the birth date except for Obama's. Is yours dated on the birth date?

Thank you.

[Diver Dave]

The birth certificate link he has posted at that site (from 1963) sure does look different than Obama’s. It has more of the pertinent information that most birth certificates have. Like mine does.

I've got BC's from both the hospital and the official county one. The hospital version lists birth time, weight, length, dr, and two footprints among other family stuff. The county one just has family info including birth order in family, parents, location and dr, and (now this will attest to the fact that I'm an old guy) the words "Legitimate Child" stamped near the top. :)

[PhatHead]

Okay, here you go. These are the first forms I grabbed from my old Army folder. This link will take you to scans of two different copies of DARP Form 249-2-E, Mar 91. Same form number, same rev date. I've noted some of the differences between them, but you can see them for yourself, too.

Again, this is only posted to make the point that government forms absolutely can change in appearance without changing in form number or rev date. this was true back in the paper form days, when different batches came from different printers, and it is still true today, when many forms are completely computer generated.

Compare them for yourself.

I'm only going to leave these up for a couple days at most. It was a minor point to make, and there it is.

[null and void]

(now this will attest to the fact that I'm an old guy) the words "Legitimate Child" stamped near the top. :)

Wow! And you can still function?

[Spunky]

The one at that site was not a hospital certificate. It is from 1963, closer to the time of Obama's birth and has a lot more information than Obama's does. It is a completely different format than Obama's. Also I can see the embossed seal bleeding through. If you look on the right where it says Honolulu Hawaii down to where it says U.S. Army, you can see a faint circle seal.

Pssst! Mine has a place where IF marked it would have shown illegitimate also. We are a couple of oldies. :-)

[Spunky]

Note this one also says ACCEPTED rather than filed. At this link #3490.

So KJCI if yours says filed like Obama's then I am not now sure what to make of the difference.

[Spunky]

Maybe I don't have the eye for it, but I don't see any difference in the 1995 form from the 1993 form. Other than the 1995 form says in the bottom left corner next to the form number "previous addition is obsolete" This means to me the form that was issued to you in 93 is obsolete.

I do not see anywhere where it has a REV number and it wouldn't since the forms are the same. Information contained in the form is different but that would not change what the orginal form looks like.

[OldEagle]

">>>In the “Father’s Birthplace” field: There is an “n” between the “U” and “S”."

Perhaps the clerk started to type United and changed to U S A because of limited space?

[null and void]

Da-yam.

I suppose I could be a prick and assert that “(Prior edition is obsolete)” is the functional equivalent of a rev letter.

But you are correct.

Identical core document numbers, dash numbers, and dash letters and issue dates.

Different documents.

If the Army can do that with over 215 years of experience in the havoc that can cause, 50 year old Hawai’i can certainly make the mistake, too.

I think you’ve proved your point.

There is no way to verify the validity of the BHO document, if we can’t discern what the form is supposed to look like.

In terms of actually knowing who anyone is, we’re pretty much doomed.

[MWestMom]

I didn’t realize that! I’ll put away my musket, lower the flag, and call retreat then.

[PhatHead]

I think you’ve proved your point.

Thanks. Have you seen KJC1's posts? He says he has a Hawaii birth certificate which appears like Obama's and has that same rev number, as well.

There is no way to verify the validity of the BHO document, if we can’t discern what the form is supposed to look like.

True, but, really, with scans posted online, the most you can do is raise questions anyway. Nothing could be definitively proven without the actual piece of paper, unless it was a forgery with a really, really glaring mistake, and I don't think that's the case here. I'm a little puzzled why the campaign does not put the paper certificate in some third party's hands, but it may well be, if they have a legit copy, they are just enjoying this, you know?

[PhatHead]

Mar 91 is the rev, and the “obsolete” does not refer to the 1993 form - they are the same form, same number, same rev date. I included a list of differences between them at the link I sent you. They are not big differences, but they are at least as big as the different borders on the birth certificates in question, and just as irrelevant to demonstrating that one or the other is a fake.

I’m sure you’ve seen KJC1’s posts by now regarding his own Hawaii birth certificate that matches Obama’s, not DeCosta’s, in appearance, and has that same form number and rev date.

Again, my only point is the very narrow one that slight differences between the appearance of two forms bearing the same number is not, by itself, evidence of anything at all.

[Diver Dave]

Wow! And you can still function?

Some days better than others. :)

[null and void]

Different type faces, spacing, line breaks and kerning.

Two extra unlabled blocks in the bottom right corner.

In substance on the reverse the second column form the left is:

Code 5 Or B/C Points vs
Code 5 Or B Points

I guess C points were 'disappeared'

In any real company I've ever worked for, Document Control would crucify an engineer who even tried to issue different documents with the same number and rev letter.

[bvw]

It would take the ability to call sworn witnesses and cross them, and the theoretical witness list is already very international. It is Obama himself who, if I has some love for this country, should back out until he proves himself, not just imagines himself. If so, he might have a chance at a comeback years from now. Right now he seems to be headed down the path charted by bold captains Kerry, Edwards, McGovern, Humphrey. Bold captains tend to tack full speed ahead into unseen shoals, to the wreck of all.