Posted on 05/19/2011 6:28:25 PM PDT by Red Steel
Re: Legal proof that President Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth is a forgery.
Dear Sir/Madam,
I have irrefutably proven that the Certificate of Live Birth that President Obama presented to the world on April 27, 2011 is a fraudulently created document put together using the Adobe Photoshop or Illustrator programs and the creation of this forgery of a public document constitutes a class B felony in Hawaii and multiple violations under U.S. Code section Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 47, Sec.1028, and therefore an impeachable offense. When this comes to the public’s attention, it will be the greatest scandal in the country’s history—nothing comes even close. This will surpass the all previous scandals including the Watergate scandal of the Nixon administration.
My Credentials
I have a unique background for analyzing this document. I owned a typesetting company for 11 years so I know type and form design very well. I currently own Archive Index Systems since 1993, which sells all types of document scanners worldwide and also developed document imaging software (TheRepository). I know how the scanners work. I have also sold other document imaging programs, such as Laser. Fiche, Liberty and Alchemy. I have sold and installed document imaging systems in city and county governments, so I know their procedures with imaging systems and everything about the design of such programs. This will be important in understanding what has happened with Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth.
What President Obama Presented to the Public is an alleged Certificate of Live Birth.
What President Obama presented is not the hospital birth certificate. The birth certificate would have the imprint of the baby’s footprint, weight, length and other information such as the religion. The Birth Certificate would be the source of the same information that would be typed onto the Certificate of Live Birth (the Long Form). What President Obama released is supposedly the Long Form that the County gets from the hospital, which is typed on a blank form given to the hospitals by the county. That copy is then mailed to the county Board of Health and kept as a legal government document. On Obama’s form (Figure 1) the County Clerk supposedly hand stamped the form on the upper right hand corner with a bates stamp. The number is a sequential number that reflects the sequence of Certificates that come into the County Health Department. The reason I know it was stamped by hand is because the number is crooked. The County Clerk also hand stamps the date of acceptance (box 20 and box 22). Obama’s Long Form was supposedly received on August 8, 1961, four days after his birth.
Continued in SCRIBD document below...
News Release: Legal proof that President Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth is a forgery.
You want evidence? B$, if you wanted evidence you would be asking Hawaii to produce something believable, in stead they pass laws making it illegal to request long form birth certificates. Does that not strike you as a little odd, since your home page purports your loyalty to the constitution.
You sir are very bright, but you are still a fraud, and most on here except your paid cohorts recognize you for what you are.
Sure, no problem.
This is the book I used, which was the first result when I searched for "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland."
The screenshot I posted came from page 29 of the PDF file. I picked that page because of the proximity of the image to the text, but you can see the same effect on other pages. Just download the PDF and see for yourself. Zooming in, you'll see the same "multiple pixilation" you identified in the scan of Obama's long-form birth certificate.
Moreover, the very first line of the poem shows an example of repeated text pixels, in this case the three O's. This, too, has been called "proof" of forgery. In fact, it's an observable effect of an enhanced PDF scan.
So by ignoring all the other points he summarized in his fairly lengthy post and instead moving on to this new thing, you're accepting his other points, right?
probably both.
Thanks for your reply. I had looked at a different AiW. But my comments stand. You are looking at obviously enhanced text, which is solid black, and drawings which are greyscale. I doubt the original image was printed with different inks. Google has manipulated the original image to make it searchable and more readable, probably with software they developed themselves.
My example of multiple pixelation involves no text. I ask you again to find me an example in one of the drawings or some other place where things which are obviously not text exhibit multiple pixelation.
ML/NJ
Oh, his cohorts recognize him all right.
Maybe this 5x enlargement of the 'a's from my previous example will make it clearer to you"
If you cannot see from this that the "steps" in the WH image (bottom) are smaller than the ones in the AP image, then I cannot help you.
ML/NJ
No, still digesting the ones I have not yet replied on.
Your parallel line doesn’t match the text under kapiolani in 144.
By the way - it only takes one forgery flag to stick, just like you said - right?
Listened to that....holy cow. Can't wait until next week. Supposedly Corsi has proof about 'who' it is who forged the BC. Someone in the media, and white house inner circle.
Hot on the trail he says and will release it early next week. Also claims to have proof from Kenya, official government documents, they prove Kenya's birth records have been criminally manipulated to destroy evidence.
I am still praying for God to expose this criminal dynasty...especially after what the turd did to Israel yesterday!
When did I say these things? You seem confused.
The Peopling of Hawaii By Eleanor C. Nordyke..
matches the mother on the Nordyke birth certificate...?????
That's not true. A computer can perfectly easily anti-alias a scanned black line on white paper.
Anti-aliasing is a font display technology for making text display more clearly on a computer screen.
That's one use. But it can be used to make any rasterized diagonal line or curve look smoother--including one in a scanned image. I just scanned a couple of signatures on white paper--one done with a black Sharpie and one with a black ballpoint--with the scanner set to "black and white document." When I opened the results in a graphics program, presto: anti-aliasing along the edges.
Meaning disregard what I say, because I don't know what I'm talking about.
I guess you've never learned anything by reading. Pity, that.
Thanks for the enlargement, but I really think it makes my point. The unit of measurement—the little squares that make up the image—are the same size on the bottom as on the top. Look at the height of the “stairsteps” on the bottom—they are one unit high. That unit is the same size as the squares in the top image. That unit is one pixel; the resolution is the same on both.
No way.
*******
Waidelich number: I wonder who were given the numbers before and after Waidelich's number?
Nordyke twins' numbers: I wonder who were given the numbers before and after the Nordyke twins' numbers?
I would think that the persons born at Kapiolani Hospital in Aug. 1961 would still be alive today, so maybe there is a way to find out the names of the persons who have the numbers before and after the Waidelich and the Nordyke twins' numbers.
Waidelich: What is his number again? Could someone list the numbers for Obama, the Nordyke twins, and Waidelich for those of us who have forgotten them? Thanks.
NOTE: Is it just me, or does the Hawaii Health Department have one of the whackiest birth certificate numbering systems?
That is, why are the Nordyke twins' numbers and Waidelich's number so far apart, even though they were born one or two days apart in the same Kapiolani Hospital?Strange.
To me, the Hawaii Health Department numbering system is weird and illogical if the numbers on the Nordyke twins and Waidelich's birth certificates are correct.
I got you mixed up with jw, when you inserted yourself in our back and forth on his side.
Point still holds, can you explain away the color aberration problem?
Jw says just one fraud element has to stick...
That's an interesting point. Why would two certificates so close in number be so materially different?
It's impossible. There is such evidence that the COLB 2.0 is a forgery that anyone who argues it is authentic is as Beckwith said:
Anyone that can't see the obvious anomalies in Obama’s latest fraudulent birth certificate has lost all reasoning ability due to their slavish devotion to the most corrupt and evil sonofabitch to ever darken the White House.
Here are the last digits of the cert#’s and “date filed” in order for the 4 numbers:
Susan Nordyke #637 Aug 11
Gretchen Nordyke #638 Aug 11
Barack Obama #641 Aug 8
Stig Waidelich #920 Aug 8
Over on my blog they’re trying to argue that the state registrar “filed” BC’s for weeks without numbering any of them and then alphabetized them (but only by surname) and numbered them. Here’s what I posted regarding that:
Page 21 of the PDF at http://gen.doh.hawaii.gov/sites/har/AdmRules1/8%208A%20B%20VR%20Admin%20Rules.pdf . It’s Section 3.1 of PHR Chapter 8b. The heading says “Amendments after official acceptance of certificate” and then the text goes on to talk about amendments “after the assignment of a state file number.” The two terms are used interchangeably – “official acceptance of certificate” and “assignment of a state file number”.
Even Obama’s forged long-form has the date accepted by the local registrar the same as the date accepted by the state registrar – Aug 8th. And the HDOH Rules use “official acceptance of certificate” interchangeably with “assignment of a state file number”.
I have 4 BC’s from Kapiolani Hospital that were signed by the doctor and sent to the local and state registrars on Friday. And I have another that was not sent on a particular Friday because it was a state holiday on Friday and wasn’t sent the next Friday either because that Friday was a state holiday also, so it was signed and sent on the Thursday before the 2nd state holiday, when they realized there would be 3 weeks’ worth of BC’s sitting around unless they got them in on a day other than Friday. So even though that was not submitted on a Friday the pattern supports the Friday submission theory. I’ve never seen any other BC that sat around longer than a week. The only Kapiolani BC I’ve seen where the doctor signed the BC on a day other than Friday (or the Thursday because 2 Fridays in a row were state holidays) is Obama’s. And I have never seen a Kapiolani BC that was sent to the local registrar on a day other than when the doctor signed it.
What you have for your claims is
1.Obama’s BC which has already been proven a forgery in a bunch of different ways – including by Mara Zebest who has impeccable credentials as a Photoshop expert; has written many books and is considered a leading expert. See http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/05/photoshop-expert-and-author-mara-zebest.html and
2. A COLB issued by the same HDOH that has illegally altered their 1960-64 birth index – a COLB which contradicts their own statements, rules, and other sources that I’ve given you several times now…. shortly after former HDOH Director Fukino made it clear that the numbering is on their minds because she gave an interview to Michael Isikkof where she claimed that Obama’s BC was “properly numbered”.
Prove that these BC’s were “all numbered together”. I’ve been doing all the research, rebutting your arguments while you ignore the evidence I give you. You prove to me that those BC’s were numbered on the same day.
And none of this using the theory to prove the theory. I could put a purple raspberry on a $10 bill and use that to “prove” that $10 bills are printed with purple raspberries on them. That doesn’t work. You have to have evidence OUTSIDE OF THE THEORY that supports the theory. You can’t just assume that because Waidelich’s number is genuine it proves that the BC’s were numbered on the same day which proves that Waidelich’s number is genuine. That’s circular reasoning – a logical fallacy. You have to give me evidence OUTSIDE OF THE THEORY that proves that the Nordyke, Obama, and Waidelich BC’s were all numbered on the same day. It has to be better sources than Janice Okubo, the HDOH Administrative Rules, the CDC’s 1961 Natality Report, and all of the Kapiolani BC’s posted on the internet besides Obama’s and Waidelich’s.
Show me your sources
One clarification. When I say “I have” x number of HI BC’s, I’m talking about that I have seen them on the web, not that I have paper copies in my possession. If the images on the web are false then my theory is correspondingly inaccurate.
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.
