[x]

"To get his letters, the forger must have understood that he needed to copy the old typewriter styles," he continued. "So the forger probably scanned a bunch of old birth certificates, without realizing that the letters in the old files were from different typewriter styles. That's why the letters in the forged document do not match each other."

So the forger was an idiot? Given a document that might have had a half-dozen or a dozen "A's" in it he or she goes out of the way to get one from another document that doesn't match up? Given two "n's" or "e's" right next to each other in one document, the forger goes to a wholly different document produced on a wholly different typewriter to get the two letters?

I'm looking at the father's first name on the jpeg and I don't see any significant difference between the first and second "A's" in the graphic at the size of a typed document. If you want to magnify it to twice the size, you may notice differences, but they aren't visible to the naked eye.

Understand too that the document would have been bound in a book and that may account for a slight deformity in the letter. Take a look at the small case "a's" in ""male" and "Kapiolani": they are in about the same position on the document as the first "A" in father's name "Barack" and may be a little different from the other "a's" in other positions, because the bend in the document due to the binding affects the two dimensional computer graphic produced from a three dimensional book. If you've ever compared a flat map to a globe, you'll understand.

There's something incredibly stupid here, and I don't think it's the forger. Cursi magnifies manually typed letters something like ten times and notes the differences. Of course there are differences -- it's not a computer printed document and pressure and the amount of ink on the type gives the letters slightly different appearances. Magnify the letters a dozen times and those differences are bound to look enormous.

What's more likely: that a forger couldn't get two "A's" or two "n's" typed by the same typewriter on the same document or that Corsi is simply magnifying ordinary typed letters to the point where they begin to look wildly different?

[wintertime]

Excuse after excuse after excuse. Yada yada yada!

FACT: IT IS A SIMPLE MATTER TO PROVE ONE”S NATURAL BORN CITIZENSHIP IN A PROMPT AND STRAIGHT FORWARD MANNER USING THE VERY BEST, CERTIFIABLE, and CERTIFIED EVIDENCE! ( Yeah! I am shouting!)

Fact: Obama posted crap! (and I believe you know that).

[PA-RIVER]

the R in one of them also has a different pixel construct. I wanted to believe it was legit, but it is a cut and paste pile of crap. There is no way around it.

[PA-RIVER]

hold your hands two feet from your face. The finger prints are the same ....

[DiogenesLamp]

Try your hand at explaining the difference in pixel size (and bit depth) between the "A" and the "R" of the word "BARACK".

The "R" uses 4 pixels of the destination surface for ever pixel on the source surface. The "A" uses one to one.

[Mr. K]

you completely ignore (while referring to it) the problem with the curved portion of the scan.

the lines of the boxes curve with the paper- but the letters do not

FRAUD