Posted on 06/07/2011 6:45:09 PM PDT by conservativegramma
Typeface analysis shows images come from different machines
The online image of a Hawaiian "Certificate of Live Birth" was trumpeted by the White House when it was released on April 27 as "proof positive" that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii.
Now an expert in typefaces and typography says it sure was "proof," but not of what the White House would have wanted.
Paul Irey, a retired professional typographer with 50 years experience in his business, has says an analysis of the typefaces used in the Barack Obama's long-form birth certificate that the White House released on April 27 reveals it absolutely to be a forgery.
"My analysis proves beyond a doubt that it would be impossible for the different letters that appear in the Obama birth certificate to have been typed by one typewriter," Irey told WND.
"Typewriters in 1961 could not change the size and shape of a letter on the fly like that," he said. "This document is definitely a forgery."
Irey acknowledges that an IBM Selectric typewriter could have produced different typefaces in a given document, but only if the Selectric ball was changed every time a different typeface letter was struck which would be unlikely to have been done to produce the word "Student," for example, that had two different styles of the lower case "t."
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
See right there you could have just apologized for making a ridiculous accusation, but instead you chose to continue being obnoxious.
Obama's Real Birth Certificate . . .scroll down 2/3.
The SSN checks out in the SSDI, but the card could be a fake, looks properly aged. Then I found another signature sample, passport renewal app 1968. It looks to me like the Ann is almost an exact match what is on the LF, but it's stretching it that the rest of it does. The signature on the SS card is totally, totally different. I wonder if there are other legit samples of her signature out there.
That speaks for itself.
And yet the very same Justice Thomas you cited (along with the entire US Supreme Court) DID "meddle" with the election process in the 2000 presidential election - Bush v Gore.
Exactly, that was my response to Arthur Wildfire! March's post which read:
Justice Clarence Thomas: We’re ‘evading’ eligibility Courts don’t like to meddle with the election process. Their reluctance doesn’t mean a blasted thing.
Notice how he used the word "meddle"? That is why I repeated it in quotes. Notice he was saying the courts don't like to "meddle" in the election process? My utterly obvious point was if the courts have a real case they are more than happy to get involved. He called that meddling, which is why I used his words in quotes.
You can still apologize, it's not too late.
I agree with that...fat chance however.
The claim that “birthers” (whatever is meant by that) are in the minority is refuted by the fact that when Trump went after Zero specifically about that, he became very popular precisely because (a) he went after that issue and (b) he had the guts to go after it without namby pambyism.
Disclaimer - I am not saying Trump has any other good qualities or what his motivations were or are.
So no one can accuse me of supporting him for anything.
But the facts are, when he was hammering Zero about the BC and non-eligibility or lack of evidence, his popularity sky rocketed. This puts the lie to the claim that most people don’t care or that it’s a kook fringe issue.
Where was that said?
It was pretty plainly a question. This is why it had a question mark at the end.
BD, that looks more like it matches the LFBC, thanks. I found one reference to that doc but couldn't get at it, can't remember the reason.
When you end your explanation with a false, out of context slam it's pretty clear that the explanation was disingenuous at best and most likely bogus. Dense is thinking you could sell that lame back-pedaling while tossing another gratuitous shot in with it.
here's a collection I picked up yesterday...
Not only the support for Trump but polls that show that as much as 54% of the country doubt Hussein’s status show that it’s not marginal by any stretch of the imagination.
Fact: Obama has **never** proven his natural born citizenship, or even his citizenship, with certifiable and court acceptable evidence.
Fact: Natural born citizens of the United States are able to prove with court acceptable and certifiable evidence within a few days ( if needed).
Fact: Obama has gone to a fair amount of expense ( some of that tax money) to prevent proving his natural born citizenship. (This should make reasonable people at least somewhat suspicious. )
Fact: Rather than prove his natural born citizenship Obama pushed the issue to the point of having a decorated officer going to prison. Then a few months later releases an obvious forgery with information that would in no way justify having a man sit in prison. ( This should again make a reasonable person suspicious.)
Thanks. Those all look close enough to me, vary some but I think that’s normal. More importantly, it doesn’t look like any of them were copied and pasated into the LFBC.
No, I think my statements were all on point, precise and exceedingly accurate. And I'm still not clear on what you think is bogus? Are you still claiming I'm a "hard core liberal who has no respect for the rule of law".
Dense is thinking you could sell that lame back-pedaling while tossing another gratuitous shot in with it.
There's no backpeddling dude. Using what seem to be routine birther tactics, you are falsly accusing your opposition (myself in this case) of being a "hard core liberal who has no respect for the rule of law". You are entirely wrong, none of my statements support such an accusation, and I await your apology.
False, out of context and Alinsky-like garbage.
That collection would hardly be the total sum of all her signatures, would it? There must be many many more...on correspondence and documents we have never seen, and never will see.
Umm, no. Your wrong, and you know it. One was on this thread wanting to hang people before she was banned (and funny enough she was tossing the Alinsky accusations around too). I've watched very reasonable people try to debate these issues with birthers and in return they've been called obots, paid liberal agents, etc. On all too many of these threads birthers are shrill, full of vitriol and downright nasty. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt, but so far you are proving to be no exception. You wrongly claimed I was a "hard core liberal who has no respect for the rule of law" and I continue to await your apology.
Dude, don't talk about me without pinging me. Got it?
You refuse to bite and quietly to be banned.
Very uncooperative of you, I might add.
However, associating me with garbage is defamation and I'll have you banned if you dare do it again.
.
Professor S. Alinsky, baiter extraordinaire
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.