Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: Apollo5600
The problem with this theory is that the document has evidence of never actually being a physical document. Printing the document, and then actually getting it photocopied, would have eliminated all of the various problems within it. Instead, we have a document that can literally be modified piece by piece the way i twas assembled.

The White House never claimed it was only ever a digital copy. It claimed to have the physical document.

This question has come up before. I think they have both. I think the "physical document" is a print out of that PDF file from the DOH in Hawaii. I would point out that very few people have actually SEEN the physical version of the document, and when it was shown that one time, Obama's attorney guarded it like it was the Crown Jewels of England.

165 posted on 03/02/2012 7:13:08 AM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies ]


To: DiogenesLamp
This question has come up before. I think they have both. I think the "physical document" is a print out of that PDF file from the DOH in Hawaii. I would point out that very few people have actually SEEN the physical version of the document, and when it was shown that one time, Obama's attorney guarded it like it was the Crown Jewels of England.

FWIW, at 6:48 PM - 27 Apr 11, Savannah Guthrie, of NBC, tweeted, I saw the certified copy of long-form POTUS birth certificate today, felt the raised seal, snapped this pic .

Then, of course, there is that correspondence the White House revealed in which Judith Corley gets the HDoH to make and release the two certified copies, which she allegedly flew to Honolulu to pick up and hand-carry back to the WH. That could all be fake, of course, and, if so, it would be a sadistic pleasure to see Judy Corley's law license yanked for abetting a fraud. But, again, don't hold your breath!

180 posted on 03/02/2012 10:05:07 AM PST by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies ]

To: DiogenesLamp

[quote]This question has come up before. I think they have both. I think the “physical document” is a print out of that PDF file from the DOH in Hawaii. I would point out that very few people have actually SEEN the physical version of the document, and when it was shown that one time, Obama’s attorney guarded it like it was the Crown Jewels of England.[/quote]

Whatever the case, this does not fit with what the White House claimed they were releasing at the time. They claimed it was a scan of a document they received from Hawaii. In reality, the copy released over the internet was a purely digital creation. It could not have been a print that was scanned. The “evidence” that was provided to the American people, and was represented as proof and a valid copy of a physical birth certificate, was, in fact, nothing of the sort.


196 posted on 03/02/2012 1:21:48 PM PST by Apollo5600
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson