[Fred Nerks]

What might have been helpful is if someone who obviously understood the process, and went to the trouble of showing the various layers the document comprises of, had shown, one by one, each of the layers...

...of which I could only find the above two. Which appear to show that the name of the mother was shown on one layer as Ann D....to which it seems unham Obama was added, and Stanley) was added with one bracket, the other having appeared on another layer...which indicates to me that there might have been an original in the system, which acted as the template for the end product.

The name on a public index for 1960-1964 doesn't provide a date of birth. This child might have been born in January 1961, and the mother's name was Ann Obama, but she wasn't Stanley Ann Dunham.

[4Zoltan]

Here are all the layers;

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2726467/posts

[bluecat6]

Notice the name above Obama’s in the index.

‘Duplicate’

Interesting name, eh?

[bluecat6]

These images are image exports from standard Adobe. ANYONE can do this simple action with Adobe reader. It takes the more advanced software to break down the document further.

What anyone is able to see is that the exported green cross-hatch image shows edges not visible in the image show when viewing normally in Adobe Reader. The dots on the right side of the exported image are not there in the normal view. Because they have been ‘clipped’ by the ‘clipping mask’ function. Clipping mask is like cropping - without cropping. It just hides the ‘cropped/clipped’ area - until someone un-hides it. That alone shows the document is digitally manufactured.

We all how scanners work. This was not a ‘scanned document’ at all. If you export the images of a basic scanned image you get - the same image. There is only 1 in an actual scanned image with no human-induced post manipulation. The fact that even the most basic Adobe product can break this image apart shows it to be fraud.

[bgill]

You know this but others might not.

The printed index is not the original handwritten index. If one were to rate these records, you have the original bc, then the handwritten filing index which is considered a secondary source and the typed index is further down the list as a third source. IOW, the further you get from the original source lots can be added/deleted/misplaced/mispelled/or be another in a long list of hussein’s happenstance oopsy coinky dinks.