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 worked in companies with graphic arts. What doing? Sales?
The layers are part of how entire words were ‘added’ as layers to a lower layer, and in the case of the word ‘MALE’ and KAPIOLANI, etc’ the added words are obviously not on the lower layer image since the curvature of the lower image is not present in the letters layered onto the lower image layers. That some want to call that foolishness and ridicule people who have clearly seen this layering effects ought to tell us that there is serious fraud which someone is trying to ‘alinsky’ have the scrutiny go away.
That could mean anything.
Thanks for letting us know you're no more qualified than the people you are criticizing.
You don’t seem to be more qualified than the author of that affidavit to me.
You just play an imaging expert on the internet, in spite of any real experience?
Somebody has to clean the toilets....
It's obvious it is a forgery. Reams of experts have weighed in about Obama's forgery. You just don't want to believe it.
But it's not the number of the arguments that proves a point. It's the quality. A thousand invalid arguments aren't going to prove the point, except to the gullible who believe that if there are a lot of arguments for something, then it must necessarily be so.
You stating that it is real doesn't make it a valid argument. And we're gullible? LoL. Anyone who takes Obama's word on anything is gullible. We're still awaiting for the Fraud-In-Chief to show that crap of his to court of law. Everyone else in the world would do so if it was a genuine document that backs up their claims, except for Creeps, Cons, and Obama.
His main credential is that his arguments make more sense than the conspiracy buffs'.
This is something that has, IMO, not been discussed enough. We are seeing a comedy/tragedy of errors and incompetence played out on a very large stage.
The creation of a 'back-up' or false history is something that has been darn near perfected in the intel and criminal world. Not just fake IDs with holograms and correct stock; but complete histories done down to minute details. his is a well-known skill that really is SOP for some groups today.
Here we have a pretender to the POTUS who keeps stalling and coughing and then when pressed, puts out paper that is worse than what illegal farm workers can get for US$250.00. Its shoddy and insulting to see shit like this attempting to be passed as the real deal.
This shows the utter arrogance of Soetero/Obama and the incompetence of his handlers in having him pass this tripe off as sufficient to satisfy the investigations into this matter.
One thing it has done, rather successfully, is to divide his enemies and create infighting and disunity. Look at the condescending insults tossed out by those who want to belittle this matter. Soros is no doubt proud to have these 'useful fools' doing his bidding in this manner.
Red Steel - good job. I very much hope your works get greater attention and motivates action to keep this more and more in the publics eye.
Can either of you read and comprehend, or to really get the points that show the elements of forgery in the WH PDF should someone direct you to the Karl Denninger youtube videos?
Since when is pointing out anomalies in a document “conspiracy” land?
Or would you prefer that everyone just accept the latest version of proof of Hawaiian birth as truth without any verification?
Please explain.
I want the scrutiny kept up. I just want to cover all the bases. Is it possible that they may have typed up a number of certificates in advance, then went back to fill in the ‘blanks’ so to speak?
I’m thinking sock accounts....just a feeling.
I don’t want to be more specific than that, because I value my privacy. The only additional detail I will go into is this: full-time, computer professional, well versed in both the intricate details of computer systems, and in computer software, and yes, personally well versed and skilled in the ins and outs of computer graphics and how they are done.
He owned a company. That may or may not mean any in-the-trenches expertise.
But the important thing is NOT ultimately his credentials or mine. The important thing is the quality of the arguments.
I realize I haven’t gone into the most intricate detail on some of these things. In other words, I haven’t fully told and explained all that I know about the issue. But there are multiple arguments above that anybody who really wants to know the truth for themselves can investigate.
Take the first and last arguments alone.
Blow the document up to a really high resolution. You can do this just in your web browser. Get the smallest pixels BIG.
Then look, and you will see that the leftmost portions of the typewritten letters dip downward.
That will prove my first point.
For the last one, look up “National Review Online obama birth certificate layers” in google. That will lead you to the article on National Review in which their reporter investigated the layers and found that he could easily duplicate the same thing.
Do you know what National Review is?
Also, look up and examine for yourself the high-resolution birth certificate of Edith Pauline Coats. See if you can see ANY difference between the typing in that document and the Obama one. Are there any examples in the Coats document of letters that intrude on each others’ space? You bet there are.
Do a search on the web for the birth date and certificate number for Stig Waidelich.
The other points are ones in which the layman may have to rely a bit more on the expertise of an “expert” - although you should be able to grasp even those if you really look hard at them.
But if the 4 specific points I just mentioned check out (and you and anybody else CAN check and verify all of them), then it just might be that I know what the hell I’m talking about.
I bet it is just a heck of a lot easier to just accept what Obama produces on faith - no verification or analysis required.
Enjoy it while you can.
For his point 2, white haloing, there is white haloing around the lines on the form, and white haloing above the black shading in the top left (where the form curved into the book and scanned in black). So white haloing does not mean text was cut and pasted unless all lines, shading etc was cut/pasted.
Point 3, binary black/white and grayscale, the two Guthrie snaps of the image do not have binary/grayscale mixtures. Here is the wide view http://lockerz.com/s/96540937 and narrower view http://lockerz.com/s/96540721 which is better to blow up and compare the S in Stanley (box 13) in the narrow view to the WH PDF. In the WH PDF the S is grayscale. In the Guthrie snap, it is B/W like all other text.
One explanation is that the WH printed out a B/W version (an older version of their PDF), embossed it with a seal and showed it to useful idiot Guthrie who didn't bother to read the seal and took a crappy low res snap. Afterwards, the WH diddled the PDF into the current mixed gray/binary version.
Here's a bit more evidence to back up the Guthrie image. The AP scanned in the press handout http://media.syracuse.com/news/photo/obamajpg-50fc3c0a4c33e67b.jpg and, although crappy resolution it shows no binary/grayscale dichotomy Obviously that could be a B/W copier issue since the press version was made on a B/W copier.
For fig. 13, look at the AP image and see that "Date" and 'A' from Accepted are not grayscale like fig 13, but just as black as "ccepted". That is strong evidence that the WH press release B/W paper handout was made from a source different to (perhaps an earlier version) of the currently available WH PDF.,
On that point and my previous ones, it certainly does not rule out forgery, just that there were intermediate products during the forgery, one handout and a piece of paper held and photographed by Guthrie. But that means that the author cannot use gray scale and layers as "evidence of forgery" merely evidence of manipulation with intent to deceive (e.g. cover up the forgery by releasing an unanalyzable digital version and count on dolts like Guthrie to not look too closely at the paper artifact that she was handed).
” it just might be that I know what the hell I’m talking about.”
Could be, but I doubt it noob.
We know that the microfiche exists ,, we also know that it would be impossible to fake a full sheet of 96 or so b.c. images on a single 4” * 6” sheet... anything created 50 years after the fact from disjointed bits of info will be suspect ,, that is why the originals are always retained.. show me the fiche. You want the truth ? Show me the REAL document... Don’t expect anyone to believe this “document” when all parties with access to the data needed to create a pretty good forgery were tap dancing around disclosing anything for almost 3 years...
The original document would’ve been done on paper, and entered into a physical book.
Before they released the copies to Obama's lawyer, Chiyome Fukino claimed to have twice examined the original, which is indeed kept bound in a book.
If you've ever visited a physical deeds registry, you know what I mean. You begin the paper chase at the grantor / grantee index. That will give you the book number and page number of a starting document. Then you go find the physical book and page, and often the document you find will refer to other, earlier documents by book and page. So, you follow the chain and construct the property's ownership history, etc.
I don’t know for sure, but I strongly suspect that the microfiche records were subsequently digitized, and all of the “original” information is now stored in digital form, in an image database.
Probably not. Or else they wouldn't be so reluctant to give out long forms. What they did do at some point was to create a database of key facts taken off each document. That's what they used to generate Obama's 2007 short form. If they had saved scanned images in that database as well, then it would be just as easy to create long form certificates as it is short form, namely a few mouse clicks, take it off the printer, stamp it, impress it with the seal, and mail it. No need to search out dusty old books and press them to the copier glass.
“look up “National Review Online obama birth certificate layers” in google.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcxcviRXs4E
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.
