Oblivious to the Obvious

American Thinker ^ | April 10, 2012 | Nick Chase

[Flotsam_Jetsome]

But the problem with most of this research is that it's "geeky," requiring at least some computer knowledge ("layers," "fonts," "anti-aliased," "chromatic aberration," and the like) to understand that the technical arguments for the "birth certificate" being fake are valid. Thus, it's very difficult to prove to the general public, which typically doesn't know much about documents except how to read them, that the Obama "birth certificate" really is a forgery.

So last summer, I wondered if there would be some way to demonstrate that this "birth certificate" is indeed a fake, just by looking at the document itself and without resorting to computer software or to any knowledge about how computers produce documents. And, after studying it for a while, I realized that the forgery fails the "pitch test."

This is a check you can perform yourself, without fancy software of any kind -- or even a computer -- once you have printed out the forgery onto a piece of paper. Even a six-year-old with scissors and the paper image can perform, and understand, this test. (In other words, the test is simple enough that even a dumbass journalist can understand it.)

[DiogenesLamp]

Actually, DL has an intriguing theory on that. Said theory aside, who are these forgers of the highest quality that he can call up and demand spring into action to produce this masterpiece of a fugazzi? These charlatans have been bluffing, bullying and race-carding their way through this entire diabolical saga from the beginning and didn't count on Donald Trump "going 'birther'". They rushed this thing, because they never expected to be called on it in the national media by a well known, charismatic personality who's very hard to ignore.

I don't think they rushed it. I think this is the normal standard of quality for replacement birth certificates from The DOH in Hawaii.

*IF* it was created by the Department of Health in Hawaii as a replacement birth certificate per a Judge's order, it was only intended to pass a cursory inspection, not the detailed Anal-probe it received from we "birthers." :)

I have been thinking about how to better convey my theory to others who seem resistant to it, and I think I've figured out a way to make the idea more clear. Here it goes:

Significant event number 1: (1965)
There are six pieces of circumstantial evidence of which I am aware that Indicates Lolo Soetoro legally adopted Barack Obama in 1965. *IF* Barack Obama was legally adopted by Lolo Soetoro, then he WOULD have been issued a NEW BIRTH CERTIFICATE showing Lolo Soetoro as his Father on his birth certificate, and his original birth document would have been sealed by the Adoption court.

Once again, *IF* Barry was adopted by Lolo Soetoro, then he is GUARANTEED to have a "replacement birth certificate" i.e. a legal but "fake" document.

Once again, I will mention that I am aware of six pieces of circumstantial evidence which indicate Lolo Soetoro did indeed adopt Barack Obama.

Significant Event number 2: (1971)
From 1971 onward, Barack Obama lived with his Grandparents while his mother went back to Indonesia. During Christmas of 1971, both Barack Obama Sr. AND Stanley Ann Dunham happened to be in Hawaii at exactly the same time. Barack Sr. was said to have been there for some "family business". A review of Hawaiian Adoption law indicates that the Birth Father has absolute rights regarding a subsequent adoption of his child. His permission MUST be sought, and his acquiescence MUST be obtained.

From various bits and pieces of circumstantial evidence it is a virtual certainty that Barack Obama Sr was in Hawaii to grant his permission for the Adoption of Barack Obama II by his grandparents.

If either or both of the above two significant events occurred as suggested, then Barack Obama is guaranteed to have a "replacement birth certificate" and not an original. His current document is guaranteed to be a fabrication by the Department of Health in Hawaii per a Judge's order.

[DiogenesLamp]

This is something that puzzles me. Back in the day, Rush used to reference articles from American Thinker almost everyday. One might assume it was one of his favorite places to visit. Now...nary a peep.

I have noticed that American Thinker is carrying a lot of eligibility articles/birth certificate articles lately. I am thrilled! What's more, they are generally well written! I have hopes that if this keeps up we may finally get some traction on this issue.

[PA-RIVER]

I don’t understand why our Government can’t remove this fraudulent document from government web sites. Isn’t this a crime?

This is like the twilight zone. A Federal web site is distributing fraudulent documents on a web site paid for by the citizens. Right?

Can we report fraud to a federal office and get the document removed?

Maybe we can try this avenue and report it:

http://www.usa.gov/Citizen/Topics/Internet-Fraud.shtml

Is there a lawyer out there that can sue to get this crap off a federal web site???

[PA-RIVER]

Select internet crime complaint center, and it links to FBI crime reporting portal for internet crimes:

http://www.ic3.gov/default.aspx

It will ask for details about how you were defrauded.

[butterdezillion]

I want him hauled away in handcuffs. And all his accomplices with him.

[butterdezillion]

But any document that they created would be a PAPER document, and the posse has shown that the scan Obama produced was never taken from a paper document.

Thus what Obama produced CANNOT be from the HDOH, period.

That digital image was not a scan of any birth certificate at all - not an original, not a supplemental. The adoption theory may well be what happened, but it does not explain why Obama presented a criminal forgery.

[PA-RIVER]

What I don’t understand is why this fraudulent document is still sitting on a Government website?

Honestly, this is incredible, the fact that they have the stones to leave it posted up there. It’s in your face fraud.

How do people in the FBI go to work everyday, knowing that the biggest fraud is their own boss?

There has to be a way to get some FBI agent to look at the document.... unless the FBI is rotten to the core.

[butterdezillion]

The guy at the local FBI office told me repeatedly and angrily that they don’t investigate document/identity fraud.

The FBI is either totally corrupt or a sad joke.

[PA-RIVER]

Maybe if we report through the web site as Internet fraud, maybe they will be required to respond.

I have reported the SSR to SS through my congressman, and they did respond. They defend his registration. So I have the record. That way, if it's proved to be fraud in court, I can demand answers as to why they ignored my concerns.

Maybe the FBI needs a “Ticket” before they can investigate. If they choose to drop it, they may need to explain why at a later date.

[butterdezillion]

Right after I got off the phone with my angry local FBI guy who told me the FBI doesn’t investigate document/identity fraud, I went online to report document fraud. I filled out the form and submitted it. The page said it would be sent to the FBI...

Shortly after that I contacted my state US Attorney’s office. I was told they don’t take leads from individuals but from the FBI, so I should contact the FBI...

In this whole country, we’ve got ONE GUY in law enforcement who is willing and able to do his job: a county sheriff in Maricopa County, Arizona.

Next thing we’ll find out the future of the entire world falls onto the shoulders of a mall cop.

This foreign enemy combatant in the White House has put this nation in SUCH a vulnerable place. We can’t count on ANYTHING working like it’s supposed to.

[Meet the New Boss]

It is obvious the Pres has access to forgers of the highest quality.

Your logic fails here.

Going around trying to recruit a top expert in forging documents greatly increases the people in on the scam and the chances of the operation being blown.

Especially risky is hiring someone on the basis of money or trying to order someone in an intelligence agency to do it.

This would have been done by a small circle of hard-core Obama insiders and ideologues who are politically committed to him come hell or high water.

Beyond the small circle, they would only have had to turn a couple of bureaucrats in Hawaii. In fact, that is probably the weakest link in the scam and where a professional law enforcement agency would have the most success in getting someone to turn state's evidence.

[Flotsam_Jetsome]

"Next thing we’ll find out the future of the entire world falls onto the shoulders of a mall cop."

That'd be a funny line if this situation wasn't so deadly serious.

PA-R: The only conclusions that I'm able to come to regarding the universal silence/acquiescence (if not complicity) of the very top people in the highest reaches of the government is that either they are completely corrupt and compromised and have sold us out to our enemies, or they are absolutely terrified of the national security fallout should the fraud be exposed for all to see.

I've racked my brain hour after hour, trying to understand why people who should, no, must know that the "Obama" life narrative is a complete fraud would allow this charade to continue for this long, and other answers just don't seem to make any logical sense. For awhile, I thought that perhaps the NSA/CIA/FBI etc allowed things to play out as they have in order to "out" communist infiltrators before springing the trap and making mass arrests, but if that's the case then they've had three years for the bad guys to "out" themselves and no arrests seem to be in the offing.

You're right, butter. At this point we can't count on ANYTHING working like it's supposed to. More's the pity.

[butterdezillion]

Especially after what the producer of “We Will Not Be Silenced” said about top dems saying Soros met with both Hillary and Obama to see if they were on board with his plans to destroy the US economy, I really do believe that Soros has united the communists and Islamists to destroy this country - making the run on the bank in Sept of 2008 and threatening to do it again whenever anybody with singular power (like a judge, Pres Bush, etc) acts like they will stand in their way. For the smaller people I think they may have used more general threats like FCC/FTC annihilation or race riots.

I was thinking about that. Hillary and Bill would both be on board the communist half of that alliance but probably balked at the Islamist alliance because she couldn’t agree to sharia; too much a feminist. And Bill probably balked at it because as a Baptist he believes he will go to Hell if he abandons Israel. I sort of wonder if Hillary negotiated for the SOS position thinking when the critical time comes she might be able to thwart Obama’s plans to destroy Israel and so save Bill’s soul.

In any event, Soros didn’t have enough money to control in order to make an effective run on the bank without the Islamists so he had to make the alliance. And Obama was totally fine with it.

When law enforcement was under Bush’s control, Bush (in this theory) was brought around to thinking that Soros had a gun against America’s head and that if Bush did anything to stop Soros America would be shot dead. Remember Bush talking about Armageddon and the end of the world economy as we know it if we didn’t pass TARP. That man had the fear of God put in him by somebody, and I believe it was Soros.

Anyway, you’ve probably seen me talk about this theory. I know it sounds far-fetched, but the more I see, the more I think about it, and the less other explanations make sense, the more I think this is what actually happened.

Once law enforcement was under Holder it became a sick joke. His job is to keep anybody from prosecuting “his people” (and by that I mean the whole communist-Islamist cabal and their accessories - which is why at one point there was an order to not investigate Black Muslim converts, why our southern border is wide open, partially why they armed the drug cartels who are allies with Hezbollah as is the New Black Panther Party...)

Gotta scoot. The main part of the theory that applies to what you were talking about is that the people who love this country and seemingly betrayed us may have done so because they didn’t want Soros to shoot - to spark a world economic collapse.

[visually_augmented]

DL, based on your timelines, when do you hypothesize the COLB was constructed that Obama presented last April? If the HDOH made this (which I agree could be possible since they are so incompetent on a number of levels), did they construct it in 1971? Or maybe it was recently done?

And there appears to be a number of difficulties that don’t jibe with your theory (as others have already mentioned previously). Such as:

1. Why didn’t the HDOH just use a real seal instead of constructing a seal out of PDF layers since the seal and date stamp are contemporary (dated April 25, 2011)?

2. If the intent of the constructed, fake COLB is to fool the subject and other governing bodies, whey wouldn’t they be better at constructing the forgery? You would think that they had done this on numerous occasions since adoption is a pretty regular occurrence. Since it is a government entity, you would even think there would be some sort of form or guideline defined on how to generate a fake COLB instead of every single one just an arbitrary mish-mash.

3. Wouldn’t the manufactured COLB be kept on file in Obama’s records as an “original” instead of a manufactured PDF? Surely they don’t generate these things only on-demand?

4. And isn’t copying someone’s signature (such as the attending Physician) illegal no matter who does it? Even if it is intended to satisfy an adopted child? Unless, of course, you believe that the doctor on the COLB was actually his attending physician...

And there are many other questions that just don’t seeem to coordinate your theory. Seems you may be attempting to give the Hawaiian DOH some credibility where it doesn’t have merit?

But I think we can both agree that Hawaii must be somehow complicit with the generation of the document no matter how it was fabricated because they have failed to dismiss its legitimacy

[DiogenesLamp]

But any document that they created would be a PAPER document, and the posse has shown that the scan Obama produced was never taken from a paper document.

You've said that before, and I don't understand why you think it's significant. In order to create a new paper document, you must first create a digital file. (nowadays, not yesteryear.)

Thus what Obama produced CANNOT be from the HDOH, period.

That does not follow. Your reason above does not support your subsequent conclusion. DOH MUST create a digital file (nowadays) before they can create a paper document. (In the case of Adopted Children.)

That digital image was not a scan of any birth certificate at all - not an original, not a supplemental.

I know. It was a digital image file. So?

The adoption theory may well be what happened, but it does not explain why Obama presented a criminal forgery.

If it is the product of DOH Hawaii, it is not criminal, and it is not considered by law to be a forgery.

From my perspective, it is a virtual certainty that Obama was adopted not once, but twice. (1965 by Lolo Soetoro and again in 1971 by his grandparents.)

It is likewise axiomatic (from my perspective) that if he was adopted, he MUST have a replacement birth certificate.

If the initial premise is true, (he was adopted) then the subsequent conclusions must also be true. (He has an official fake replacement birth certificate.)

[DiogenesLamp]

DL, based on your timelines, when do you hypothesize the COLB was constructed that Obama presented last April? If the HDOH made this (which I agree could be possible since they are so incompetent on a number of levels), did they construct it in 1971? Or maybe it was recently done?

I believe it was recently done. Certainly after Obama took office, and possibly as recently as just before he released it. Prior to the time he started running for President, there was no need for him to do anything whatsoever with his birth certificate. He certainly had no need to petition a court in Hawaii for any changes to it. It is only as a result of his running for President that he had any reason to bother with it at all. I would guess it was the publicity created by Trump that caused him to get a long form from Hawaii.

And there appears to be a number of difficulties that don’t jibe with your theory (as others have already mentioned previously). Such as:

1. Why didn’t the HDOH just use a real seal instead of constructing a seal out of PDF layers since the seal and date stamp are contemporary (dated April 25, 2011)?

My answer is only speculation, but I have suggested that the attorney was given a "proof" copy to approve so as to insure that it complied with what he requested from the Hawaiian Judge.

I will also point out that my own "official" birth certificate (Obtained in 2000) is completely printed. It has no separate "stamped" seal. This may be the way States are handling birth certificates nowadays. They may not be using "stamped" seals any more. I asked Danae for comment (She has a Hawaiian birth certificate obtained last year or so.) regarding whether her birth certificate is completely printed like mine, or if it had a separate stamped seal. I have so far heard no response. If her's is completely printed, then that will bolster my theory, if it has a separate "stamped" seal, then it will weaken my theory.

2. If the intent of the constructed, fake COLB is to fool the subject and other governing bodies, whey wouldn’t they be better at constructing the forgery? You would think that they had done this on numerous occasions since adoption is a pretty regular occurrence. Since it is a government entity, you would even think there would be some sort of form or guideline defined on how to generate a fake COLB instead of every single one just an arbitrary mish-mash.

The creation of a replacement birth certificate for an adopted child is only intended to pass a cursory inspection. The original intent of such a document (other than to identify the child under the new name) is to conceal the fact of adoption to the child. The process used to accomplish this concealment is straightforward and consistent. They simply erase the original parents and their information from the original document, and paste in text with the new information on it. In this case, it looks like they had to actually create certain words and names by combining pieces of text which were stored in different file formats in their large data base. That is why you get different pixel resolutions and bit depths, as in this example.

The fact that they had to paste together different pieces of text to get the words they wanted indicates that they had no original source document from which to copy these words in their database. It is a cobbled together Frankenstein monster document because they couldn't produce one in any other way.

If you keep this in mind, you can see why Hawaii would prefer to just issue "COLBs" which are simply saved as data in a computer file. It can be changed with absolutely no way of telling what was in the file originally. Unfortunately for Obama, no one was going to accept anything which did not resemble a 1961 document, so Hawaii DOH had to go back and use the "Old" system. Cut and paste.

3. Wouldn’t the manufactured COLB be kept on file in Obama’s records as an “original” instead of a manufactured PDF?

Yes, after it is created, but I am postulating that it was only created at the request of Obama's lawyer, most likely some time last year. (After Trump made it a public issue.) If Obama went to court to get his adoption annulled or amended, they would have to create a new document "on demand" and it would have to follow the court order detailing what is to be in it.

Surely they don’t generate these things only on-demand?

They create NEW ones on Demand. (Normally by order of a court.) Nowadays, they are trying to make the process much simpler. Hawaii, having been deluged with requests for long form birth certificates and other inquirys into their birth certificate records, decided to only issue COLBs. (Printed out computer records.) Most of the time, people are satisfied with these. It is only the occasional request for a "long form" that would have them going back to their files to make a copy, and it is ONLY when they are told by a court to create a new document for an old birth certificate will they go to the trouble of actually searching through their database for images they need to paste together. Under the new system, they only have to type in some new text and print it. You can see why they would like the COLBs better. Much less work/trouble.

4. And isn’t copying someone’s signature (such as the attending Physician) illegal no matter who does it? Even if it is intended to satisfy an adopted child? Unless, of course, you believe that the doctor on the COLB was actually his attending physician...

Apparently not. On my birth certificate is a copy of the signature of the Attending Physician, though my replacement birth certificate was created six years after I was born. Here is an excerpt from *MY* official birth certificate. I will repeat, this document was created six years after I was born.

Now I don't know if they got him to sign the new document six years later, or if they simply pasted his name on it from the original. I would suggest that if a physician died or was otherwise unavailable, they would have no choice but to copy his name from the original.

And there are many other questions that just don’t seeem to coordinate your theory. Seems you may be attempting to give the Hawaiian DOH some credibility where it doesn’t have merit?

In what manner am I giving them more credibility than they merit? They are being cagey, and they continue to be cagey. As a matter of fact, they are required by law to be cagey.

But I think we can both agree that Hawaii must be somehow complicit with the generation of the document no matter how it was fabricated because they have failed to dismiss its legitimacy

Oh absolutely. Where I differ from most people is I do not believe that Hawaiian officials are involved in a provable criminal conspiracy. I think they value their own skins too much to take such a risk, especially with the possibility of their complicity being discovered in the near future.

No, I think they bent every rule and gave Obama every consideration that they possibly could, but I think they kept within the boundaries of what can be proved as legal.

[butterdezillion]

If he was adopted in 1965 and/or 1971 he had a paper supplemental BC made then. Why, then, would the HDOH create a C&P’ed digital file in 2011 rather than copyihg the original that’s in their files and certifying it, like they said they had done in the cover letter?

The only way your theory works to explain the PDF Obama posted is if Obama was adopted by Barack Obama Sr in April of 2011 (an impossible event since Sr is dead) and the HDOH was still working on creating the supplemental BC when they received the April 2011 request from Obama so they sent him a working electronic file instead of a copy of an actual paper document. And even at that Fuddy would have had to lie in her cover letter by claiming she had personally observed Onaka make the copy from the original.

No matter how you slice it, that PDF cannot be a scan of what the HDOH sent Obama. And the HDOH knows it full well.

[butterdezillion]

Wouldn’t the parents involved have to sign off on either an amendment or annulment of an adoption? Stanley Ann, Barack Sr, and Lolo Soetoro are all dead.

HI law says that when an adoption is set aside the original birth certificate replaces the supplemental (adoptive) BC in the file. If somebody adopted Obama as an adult and then in April 2011 that adoption was set aside, the BC Obama would use would be the original paper document that was created in 1961 (or, if he was adopted at other points in his life, whichever BC immediately preceded the adoption that is now being set aside).

So if Obama was adopted by Lolo in the mid-sixties and that adoption was set aside in 1971, the original BC would be in effect after that. If Obama was then adopted as an adult (for instance, by that Native American couple), a new BC would be created showing that couple as his parents. If that adoption was set aside the original BC would once again be in effect.

I just can’t think of any way that what you’re saying could work out.

[DiogenesLamp]

If he was adopted in 1965 and/or 1971 he had a paper supplemental BC made then. Why, then, would the HDOH create a C&P’ed digital file in 2011 rather than copyihg the original that’s in their files and certifying it, like they said they had done in the cover letter?

Because the Original will reveal things he does not want revealed. I keep saying that I think the original is not an ordinary birth certificate, it is a "born at home" affidavit written by his Grandmother. It contains the same information as would a birth certificate, but it is clearly not a "normal" birth certificate.

By getting his adoption set aside, he can get the court to create him a new document which contains the information from his original (half written, half typed) document, but one that resembles an ordinary 1961 original.

The only way your theory works to explain the PDF Obama posted is if Obama was adopted by Barack Obama Sr in April of 2011 (an impossible event since Sr is dead) and the HDOH was still working on creating the supplemental BC when they received the April 2011 request from Obama so they sent him a working electronic file instead of a copy of an actual paper document. And even at that Fuddy would have had to lie in her cover letter by claiming she had personally observed Onaka make the copy from the original.

No, Barack Obama Sr doesn't have to adopt him. All that has to be done is for him to petition the court to have his previous adoptions set aside, or nullified. He can then ask the court to order the creation of a new document based on the INFORMATION contained in the original, but designed to look like a "NORMAL" birth certificate from 1961. He doesn't have to ask that the original be unsealed.

No matter how you slice it, that PDF cannot be a scan of what the HDOH sent Obama. And the HDOH knows it full well.

I think that PDF is the files which was used to create the paper document that he has now. The PDF came first.

[DiogenesLamp]

Wouldn’t the parents involved have to sign off on either an amendment or annulment of an adoption? Stanley Ann, Barack Sr, and Lolo Soetoro are all dead.

No. An adult can have any of their previous adoptions set aside.

HI law says that when an adoption is set aside the original birth certificate replaces the supplemental (adoptive) BC in the file. If somebody adopted Obama as an adult and then in April 2011 that adoption was set aside, the BC Obama would use would be the original paper document that was created in 1961 (or, if he was adopted at other points in his life, whichever BC immediately preceded the adoption that is now being set aside).

This is how things would ordinarily work, but Judges have great leeway in interpreting and applying the law. If the Original document is an affidavit of "at home birth" then Obama's attorney can argue that revealing it will infringe the privacy of his client who does not wish such information to be made public. The attorney can further argue that releasing such a document will be very injurious to his client because we neanderthals won't understand that a "born at home" affidavit is just as good as a real birth certificate because Hawaii accepts it under Hawaiian law. I believe that with these arguments the attorney can ask the court to create a new replacement document designed to resemble a "normal" 1961 Hawaiian birth certificate.

All he has to do is get the judge to agree, and DOH will print him up anything the judge orders it to print.

So if Obama was adopted by Lolo in the mid-sixties and that adoption was set aside in 1971, the original BC would be in effect after that. If Obama was then adopted as an adult (for instance, by that Native American couple), a new BC would be created showing that couple as his parents. If that adoption was set aside the original BC would once again be in effect.

Again, that is how things would NORMALLY work. Has there been anything about this guy that works according to a "normal" process?

I just can’t think of any way that what you’re saying could work out.

Will you agree that if they (Obama and attorneys) can get a judge to order it, DOH will produce whatever the Judge says?