Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: bigbob
Yes. They appear to be completely different documents.

The Green Background BC is on the White House web site. Supposedly it's a scan of a document that Hawaii provided.

The AP / White Background BC was handed to reporters at the press confernce and an AP photographer took a picture of it. (His name is on the photo credit). Denninger's analysis agrees that it's a straight photo.

Now here is what is weird. The handout can't be a copy of what's on the web (because the green background would still show up a bit on even a black&white photocopy). And obviously what's on the web can't be a copy of the white background handout.

So Team Obama actually released TWO different but very similar documents.

The simplist easiest explanation is that they AP/Handout is a true copy of what they got from the State of Hawaii (and it looks like the other copies we've seen of Hawaiian BC's like the twins).

The "Green Background" seems like it was "improved" by Team Obama to make it look more official or something.

52 posted on 04/27/2011 11:04:52 PM PDT by Jack Black ( Whatever is left of American patriotism is now identical with counter-revolution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]


To: Jack Black
Yes. They appear to be completely different documents. The Green Background BC is on the White House web site. Supposedly it's a scan of a document that Hawaii provided. The AP / White Background BC was handed to reporters at the press confernce and an AP photographer took a picture of it. (His name is on the photo credit). Denninger's analysis agrees that it's a straight photo.

Now here is what is weird. The handout can't be a copy of what's on the web (because the green background would still show up a bit on even a black&white photocopy). And obviously what's on the web can't be a copy of the white background handout.

So Team Obama actually released TWO different but very similar documents.

I don't think so. I have the original copy of my 1956 (Wisconsin) birth certificate which was given to my parents in 1956. It is on a White Paper From. It is a typed form and it clearly a carbon copy. It has no raised Seal. I have used this copy for over 50 years for legal purposes and it has never been questioned.

In 1990 I requested a certified copy of my birth certificate from the court house. It was provided to me on blue safety paper and it was certified with the use of the raised seal.

Other than that it is IDENTICAL in every way to my old original white typed carbon copy from 1956. Clearly the original had been stored and was Xeroxed onto the blue safety paper which was loaded into the photocopier and which is/was used for everyone requesting certified copies of birth, marriage, death certificates.

So...I do not think that Barry's new white copy could be an actual certified copy that was generated in a court house just days ago. Nor do I think it is the original copy that was given to his parents (whoever they are) in 1961 because although we were allegedly born 5 years apart Barry's white copy doesn't have the aged look that mine has nor does it look like it was a typed carbon copy as mine was...which was the leading Technology of That Time.

Having said that...I do not think the green safety paper copy is a certified copy from any legal system anywhere in the US either because it does not sport the raised seal to certify it which all such copies must have in the US to be a legal document. IOW, both are fakes.

83 posted on 04/28/2011 12:59:20 PM PDT by An American In Dairyland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


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