Posted on 05/02/2011 5:57:08 PM PDT by Hillary'sMoralVoid
Barack Obama, meet Dan Rather........
It's amazing how Democrats never learn! They hire computer geeks to forge 1960s-era documents who have no clue how a manual typewriter works!
Remember the infamous "superscript" in the letter that Dan Rather used in his attempt to bring George W. Bush down? The letter was damning indeed, unfortuately, it could not have been prepared on its publication date, because superscript capability simply did not exist in that era, with the exception of an expensive IBM Selectric model, that Bush's unit never possessed.
Fast forwarding to 2011, President Obama presents what is purported to be a copy of his "original" birth certificate. The "kerning" of letters in the Obama documents is precisely analogous to the "superscript" on the Rather forgery.
Kerning is a computer process that allows certain letter combinations to "invade" each other's space for the purpose of readability and economy of space. This could not be done on a manual typewriter, because a manual typewriter cannot anticipate what the next letter might be. This process appears in Obama's "original" birth certificate, both in the PDF version and in the AP copy.
Karl Denninger's excellent post listed in the source URL above shows this persuasively. Add this to the list of multiple document layers and pixel differences in handwritten entries, not to mention the rather odd "African" race assigned to Obama Sr, and you have evidence of a forgery.
Either Hawaiian officials time-traveled to the 1980s or beyond and back to prepare this document, or our Commander in Chief has perpetrated a forgery of a official document, a felony in most states.
This is in no way an original document. The more you look, the less you really know....
Since the original statement is probably a rubber stamp I think it's positively amazing that even a modern OCR was able to read any of the letters at all, or that the print field was even enough that you could get a separation that clear.
You'll have to 'splain first where you got that particular image, what it is purported to be (rubber stamp, line printing, itaglio, typed), has it been xeroxed earlier, was it derived from a phtographic method (that may have been used for a photostat system, or maybe a microfiche).
Then we can talk.
The Diversion Continues.
Even if Barry Soetoro aka Barack Hussein Obama had been birthed in the Lincoln Bedroom of the White House he is NOT a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
Look, each and every USPS Headquarters employee was once issued a set of rubber stamps. They were pretty much identical to the sets used by USPS window clerks and registry cages nationwide, PLUS there were some items in there that had only to do with Headquarters type paper pushing.
They were those self-inking stamps ~ latest and greatest thing on earth I'll tell you. No more nasty ink pads!
That was about 1974 or 1975 when we moved into L'Enfant Plaza.
If you'd like to check on the history of EARLIER types of rubber stamps there are numerous articles about that on the internet, and most of them start back in the early 1800s with the discovery that South American Indians invented rubber!
So, if you have a RUBBER STAMP, it has an uneven surface. Those letters wear a different rates, they wiggle around and are easily clogged. You can get all sorts of things if you hit a piece of paper just right.
What I think you have here is a document prepared from a data base digital image of another document that's been rubberstamped and signed, and in this case i think the signature (that Onaka person) has also been placed on the rubberstamp.
Is that what you are looking at? Then this would be one of those pre-1970s self-inking stamps ~ and it'd possibly be clogged here and there with debris from an old nasty ink pad that was long past the time for replacement.
Frankly, at this late date I doubt we can check the rubber stamp to see what's doing that but that's what I'd have done "back then" ~ look at the stamp, clean it with a brush, and maybe added ink to the pad.
If this were earlier in the mid 1800s somebody might have made up a steel stamp ~ and encountered all the bizarre things that can happen with that class of device ~ (which is why rubber stamps were invented ~ they were an improvement over steel stamps).
Considering that the date stamped on the so-called BC waa April 25, 2011, and cconsidering that no other letters on this hand stamp were skewed this way, and considering that I can find NO other handstamp like it on any of he images with this paricular, (or any other for that matter,) anomaly, you betcha I am curious as to why this. Why now? Why the ONLY?
Your explanation MIGHT fit if any other anomaly even remotely resembling this had shown up, even if it had been a different letter. I use handstamps. I have never seen one letter turn into a CLEARLY different letter regardless of how it was used. Wear it out. Wiggle it. Squiggle it. Whatever. This is an X. WHY?
So you’ve never worn out a rubber stamp ~ hmm.
So you’ve never worn out a rubber stamp ~ hmm.
Wasn’t Zer0 dispensed in 1961, with a BC to follow in a few days?
In this case we have a line of print that appears also to be "curved" ~ which, in fact, it ought to appear to be if the original document was still BOUND into the file folder and simply flared out for photographing 40 to 50 years ago for the purpose of creating a "fiche file". What you have is an artifact of photography created by a combination of parallax and the curvature of the camera.
The original document had three dimensional values to consider (the curve) and later processing steps through the years have not accommodated that fact before the image was "flattened" for subsequent printing.
If you but assume that the counterfeiters sought to reproduce EXACTLY the history of the creation of a real document, then you'd have to have that curve in there, and you'd get effects like shown ~ so it's simply not something that proves or disproves the legitimacy of the document.
Yes, I have worn out a rubber stamp. What I have never seen is a letter miraculously appear as CLEARLY another letter.
These forms originally floated around in an area where pregnant women were giving birth. There's baby oil and talcum powder ~ expectations of perfect performance every time would remain unfulfilled.
As you wander about attempting to find every error ~ what are you trying to prove? Remember, to the degree every one of those errors can be proved to be legitimate (given the environment of production) seems to me all you do is help out the Obamistas in demonstrating the legitimacy of the document.
BTW, there's a "9" on there with a broken middle bar that can only be accounted for as a drop of baby oil. It has a twin fully printed out in the mightiest of perfection.
An old timey print shoppe would have better luck at making an “authentic” birth cert.
Oh for the love of pete! This thing was nowhere near a hospital or a hospital birthing area. I was asking a serious question and you have come up with every unserious answer in the book of unseriusness. The thing was a MACHINE COPY HAND STAMPED ON APRIL 25, 2011.
GAH!
So, what are you referring to SPECIFICALLY.
Hmmmm...Some of those letters intrude so deeply into the space of other letters that it is difficult for me to buy into that explanation. Especially in light of the fact that it does it on some letters but not on others, in just the right positions to at least mimic kerning, in different parts of the document, laterally. And it seems to do so on particularly key words. Very strange.
Also, I still have questions about whether this came directly from a bound book in the past month, or from film taken years ago and transferred to microfiche. Where has this alleged document resided all these years? Here’s where one has to have access to convincing proof of the reliability of the chain of evidence.
The short form COLB was never claimed to be an original document from 1961. It was purported to be the standard computer printout offered by the State of Hawaii in response to a request for a birth certificate based on their database. The stamped date indicates that it was generated in 2007.
The Vince Foster suicide note was a rather bad forgery. The game was over all right — but the bad guys had won.
Just my opinions of course.
I wonder if the CIA or someone has had enough of BHOzo and let this “birth certificate” out to add fuel to the fire...
Kinda like getting Bin Ladin while Obama said no, they went ahead anyway..imagine if Obama thought he had a good forgery and went with it and bang, it backfired....would that not be another clear sign to him (warning shot over the bow)that he was no longer in control and on dangerouse ice?
At first and for a long time, I thought it was more likely than not BHOzo was born in Hawaii, but the governments (collectively) have done just about everything possible to muddy the water and fail miserably in resolving the issue.
Some court somewhere has to have the Obama vital records forensically examined, and witnesses, employees of HDOH testify under oath and cross examined...the sooner the better. Same applies to his Draft registration and SS number. School records and financing of his education. Adoption question and passport issues are still out there, why?
Instead of show me the money, its show us the records time, and answer some questions time.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2713091/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2713091/posts
You’d need to know where they kept the records way back when, then find out when they first set up their basic fiche files. Gotta’ be decades back!
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.