[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 Other than the 1995 form says in the bottom left corner next to the form number "previous addition is obsolete" This means to me the form that was issued to you in 93 is obsolete.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.

[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.

[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.