Replies

I had a hard time reading further when they claimed that two originals were made - one for the parents and one for the state. That is bunk. The BC’s made for parents are not the same ones given to the state. Starting out with that inaccuracy did not help this guy’s case at all.

Referencing “Techdude” didn’t help his case either.

His failure to mention any of the experts who HAVE used their names and said that the BC is a fake didn’t help either. Seems like this guy cherry-picked his examples to address what may have been Obot-planted disinformation, as if that was the whole case being made, when in reality there is much, much more credible stuff out there that he fails to address. I hadn’t even heard of the stuff that he references, so how did he know and concentrate on that but fail to notice the Photoshop author/expert who said it was a 100% forgery? That cherry-picking makes this “report” seem like an Obot defense of the BC rather than anything credible.

And when he said that the HDOH had already confirmed the genuineness I wondered what he’s been smoking. The HDOH claims they sent 2 certified copies of a long-form BC. They refuse to say whether what they sent is what Obama posted.

His failure to address the points actually made regarding what is on the BC makes this a ho-hum article. The whole summary is: just because the document COULD HAVE BEEN manipulated doesn’t prove that it was. Well.... the content that he refused to address is what show that it was manipulated. Stuff like the type that doesn’t bend with the page it was supposedly on. Or the BC# ending in 41 that was changed to 61. Or the seal looking like it does, in comparison with photos I took of the seal on my daughter’s death certificate.

As far as I can tell, no reporter was allowed to see the document close enough to know whether there was or wasn’t a seal on it. Savannah Guthrie says she felt the seal but what was said in the gaggle does not support that claim - since a reporter specifically asked about whether the paper certificate would be made available to reporters and was laughed at and basically told no.

I haven’t looked into it in detail, but I remember somebody saying that the exif data for the photos copyrighted to J Scott Applewhite shows they were supposedly taken before the PDF was even created - which, if true, would mean the White House allowed a secret showing to one person and neither the White House nor that person is willing to say anything more about when, how, or why that happened. When a reporter at the gaggle asked if it wouldn’t do more to respond to skeptics if he actually made the document itself available.... he/she was laughed at and told that some people will never believe so they don’t need to worry about what will convince skeptics.

This author doesn’t address any of that - which strongly suggests that the White House is keeping the original PAPER certificate well-concealed, which is what everybody had been asking for all along.

Savannah Guthrie and J Scott Applewhite should be grilled, to find out when they even claim to have taken those photos, and how they alone were supposedly given access - and why they have not given those details publicly. And why a seal that Guthrie supposedly felt only shows up as a few squiggles on her photo - especially when compared with the great detail that shows up when I photographed my daughter’s seal.

There is way, way more here than meets the eye, but the people who hold the secrets will never give us anything substantial until they are under oath, if then.

WND claims its sources at the HDOH told them when the forged BC was placed in the HDOH files - which was exactly what I was saying the clues we were given publicly suggested as well.

On my blog I have documented that the 1960-64 birth index includes listings for legally-nonvalid records, including the birth names of adopted children, which are sealed by the court and by law. I have documented that the HDOH sent out 2 different documents that they said were copies of a single page from the 1960-64 birth index book in their office.

There is NO DOUBT but that the HDOH has manipulated their records to cover for Obama. Given that documented criminality on their part, Obama’s “privacy” is totally outweighed by the public need to hold the HDOH accountable for their criminal violations. At this point we MUST have all paper and computer records involved in this cover-up released and audited. This is not about Obama. It is about a government agency’s criminal behavior.