Posted on 05/03/2011 1:14:33 AM PDT by RobinMasters
The dates at the bottom written by hand and dated one day a part looks to me to be dated by the same person. The 61 are at the same angle and size. The signatures and dates are just to neat. I am certainly no expert in hand writing.
While this whole "assembled" PDF document the White House put out could be a ruse and trap to further embarrass the "birthers" as Mario considered in his new article, I had another thought. What's to say that the copies given to Obama's lawyer sent to Hawaii, and attested to by Hawaiian officials, actually show the same information on those two paper copies that is now being displayed on the internet in this very badly assembled PDF document.
As I recall the former HI director when interviewed in recent weeks, she said when she saw the alleged original Obama birth registration document she said it was half typed and half hand written. What we are being shown on the net is something that is entirely typed except for the signatures. That does not comport with what the former HI Health Dept Director said.
What if the Obama powers sent the lawyer to Hawaii to provide the necessary cover story that they did get two copies of the Obama vital record there ... but the image on the net now is NOT of the paper copies that they picked up ... say because there is something on it that Obama still does not wish to reveal. So he has a version cooked up once again to put online, and someone screwed up and did not flatten the PDF file prior to release to hide the layers. Would Hawaii officials speak up to affirm or deny that what Obama put on the net is not an image of the copy of what they gave to Obama's lawyer. Or would they keep silent in much the same way they did regarding the Certification document, the short form images on the net since Jun 2008. Remember that Hawaii never confirmed that any of those images on the net were copies of something that they issued. Hawaii has been very willing to cooperate with Obama's stonewalling and game playing regarding the vital records in HI for Obama. And, Obama is playing such a cat and mouse game with the American electorate about all his hidden records that one can never tell with him as to what is real or what is memorex. It is a disgrace how this administration is treating the American citizenry. And the main stream media does not call him out on this and instead helps and enables Obama to conduct such offensive disinformation tactics on the American electorate. Journalism no longer exists in this nation. The media should be ashamed.
So what you’re saying is that if a person is more interested in the actual truth than in simply taking your absurd line of “Let’s all get together and tell each other Obama’s birth certificate is fake, who cares about the facts?”, then, according to you, that person is a troll.
When one examines the signatures on the Obama abstract, why is it that instead of the 1961 era black ink business pen in a thin crisp signature, that instead the signatures are velvet smooth and wide like a felt tip pen of a much later date...........as those pens and ink structure gels did not appear until Obama was smoking dope.It is not the same font, but the same pen which is questionable on three different signatures and dates
If Obama changed the documents sent to him from Hawaii, the Hawaii officials would know they were different.
But the HI officials have said that they sent Obama two copies of HIS certificate. So whatever forgery he was doing, it couldn’t be to create a new BC from someone else’s.
Unless the HI officials were part of the conspiracy, in which case they would have been the more likely to do the forgery, so they would have something they could send.
I guess it’s a matter of how many people you are going to claim are part of the grand conspiracy — but it can’t be restricted to Obama’s inner circle.
i don’t know if you have noticed this, but when I was looking around for images of the BC, there were some jpegs, and some pdf files, and they all have differences.
For example, if you compare the Wikipedia jpeg against the Karl Denninger column about the spacing of the date, you’ll see that Karl’s date is crooked and crosses into the pre-printed form, while the jpeg is straight and has “white space” between it and the pre-printed information.
I have no explanation for why images would have these types of differences, but I think it is unreasonable to think that someone is faking jpegs of the document, or generating even MORE documents — so I assume it’s the camera software trying to make sense of the images.
Once I took a picture of a girl on a ladder at a circus, and in the picture her one leg is gone — the camera decided it was an artifact of the ladder.
Can I get paid for doing this? I’ve been doing it for free....
:-)
Just when I think I've pretty well gotten to the bottom of things, some new point crops up.
I think it is unreasonable to think that someone is faking jpegs of the document, or generating even MORE documents — so I assume it’s the camera software trying to make sense of the images.
I think you are probably right on the first point.
As for the second, yes, that, or (more likely) the software that converts the image to PDF.
:-)
I've been asking the same thing. Lord knows I need the money!
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.