And he is correct, you don't get a different typeface unless you change the ball everytime. Tedious business. And no one would have done that in a govt office typing out bc's. Nobody. And yet, that's what had to be done if you believe the LFBC is genuine.
In any case, yet ANOTHER expert weighing in on proof of forgery now going beyond layering and OCR, or kerning. You'd have to be an idiot to believe this thing is genuine. JMO.
Great thread, supporters both sides on why or why not this should continue to be pursued...
To me, it boils down to this, SCOTUS would never roll this man’s election back and rule it illegal, simply they fear the back lash from the masses of entitlement minded obamanut’s, and the fact that many, such as those of us who frequent this forum (and millions more) already don’t believe the man holds the office legally and are just waiting for this to be in-validated in a ruling so the like’s of Obamacare would be rolled back.
It’s that or simply waiting if the half of the people in this country who do care march on Washington DC in protest.
LucyT, you probably for sure don’t want yet another one, but I just saw it, so pinging you just in case.
Of all the articles out there about Obama’s BC forgery, this one, to me, is the most striking.
Birth certificates in 1961 in Hawaii were undoubtedly typed on manual typewriters with an inked, reusable ribbon. The government offices probably used the same models but each typewriter would have its own specific footprint.
There is no way on a manual typewriter anyone would be able to partially type a word and then take the paper out and put it back in and line it up perfectly to continue on typing the word without it being noticeable on the page. It just doesn’t happen on a typewriter, no matter how excellent the typist is.
Thanks for posting!
Assuming the form was completed on one typewriter in one sitting, then the vertical and horizontal alignment of the characters should be consistent throughout.
You can slide a vertical line (of the Object Data Tool) across the page to check the horizontal positioning, and slide a horizontal line up and down the page to check the vertical positioning.
We can give some leeway to the vertical positioning of characters because they are more easily disturbed by a typist unlocking the platen and smooth scrolling the vertical positioning of the paper and re-locking. This operation could have been done to position the "X" marks in the small check boxes, seeing that the check-boxes themselves are off-center.
Most of the typewritten characters on the LFBC line up ok. However, there are some anomalies I wish to point out with respect to character alignment:
1. The word "Male" in Box-2 does not line up with all words below it. The whole word "Male" is horizontally shifted by half a character.
2. The word "August" in Box-5a is horizontally shifted by half a character...(Going up the page: the characters in the words None, Dunham, Student, Obama, and Oahu---all line up, but not "August".
3. In Box-5a, the characters are different sizes in the Birth Date and Hour entries compared to the word "August", and their vertical alignment is oddly half shifted.
4. The "X"'s in the check boxes are randomly positioned in all cases, but they can be ignored, since typists can unlock the platen, play with the backspace key, and thus more accurately center a single character in a situation like that. The result is that the "x"s are legitimately out of alignment with the rest of the characters.
5. The offset "O" in "Oahu" (Box-6b) and the offset "K" in Kansas (Box-16), are typically achieved by only partially depressing the Shift key on a manual machine when making a Capital letter. This, coupled with the perfect alignment of the "All Caps" displayed in Boxes-1a, 8, and 13, (a result of using Caps/Lock)is pretty conclusive that it was either typed on a manual machine, or was purposely done to imitate a manual. I don't believe this particular effect can happen with an electric typewriter, like an IBM Selectric, but I may be wrong.
In a nutshell, from the very narrow perspective of character alignment, I believe there is something wrong with the "Birth Date", "Hour" and "Sex" entries shown on the document. To achieve the displayed effect, the typist would have had to have removed the form and re-inserted the paper misaligned.... Highly unlikely with only two isolated boxes out of alignment.
Of course, the other conclusion, that it was misaligned by a sloppy computer forger, is also a legitimate conclusion.
Finally all those years of watching Mad Men are paying off!
The IBM Selectric was introduced on July 31, 1961 (Mad Men fudged the date on this because the noise of so many manual typewriters in 1960 would have been so loud that the dialogue would have been hard to hear), so it's very unlikely that the Selectric would have been in widespread use a few days later.
The odds are very strong that if the document is real it was typed on a manual typewriter and the irregularities reflect the degree of force with which the typist hit a key, how long they held it, and how much ink was in the ribbon and then on the type that hit the paper. Smudges and distortions were par for the course.
As for "kerning" the question is not whether you can find different-sized spaces between different letters. It's more whether you can find different-sized spaces between the same letters. What I mean is a letter like "l" was put on a particular part of the type (closer to the right, say), so in relation to other letter the "l" would always look to be unevenly spaced. But this would be consistent. It would be a function of how a manual typewriter worked, not some computer age development.
I dunno about all these "experts" -- people who claim expertise with modern technology but don't know about fountain pens or manual typewriters and other earlier technologies.
I haven’t read every post in this topic, but I’m wondering: are we now supposed to believe that someone forged the birth certificate by copying and pasting individual letters and punctuation marks from other birth certificates (rather than copying entire words like “student,” which couldn’t have been hard to find); using different versions of the same letter all over the place; but using the same version of the little boxes and other letters in some places?
Just trying to keep up, you understand.
This is an interesting analysis.
Very reminiscent of the Dan Rather scandal.
Maybe I am wrong but didn’t those typewriters that used the “ball” come out in the late 70’s or 80’s?
IBM Selectric typewriters DID NOT EXIST in 1961.