Posted on 06/24/2008 1:01:41 PM PDT by pissant
t is now a virtual certainty that the "birth certificate" claimed by the Barack Obama campaign as authentic is a photoshopped fake.
The image, purporting to come from the Hawaii Department of Health, has been the subject of intense skepticism in the blogosphere in the past two weeks.
It has become even more suspect with the revelation that variations of the certificate image were posted on the Photobucket image aggregation website -- including one listing the location of Obama's birth as Antarctica, one with the certificate supposedly issued by the government of North Korea, and another including a purported photo of baby Barack -- one of which has a "photo taken" time-stamp just two minutes before the article and accompanying image was posted on the left-wing Daily Kos blog.
That strongly suggests that Daily Kos obtained the image from Photobucket, not the State of Hawaii, the Obama family, or the Obama campaign. Photobucket is not known as a credible supplier of official vital records for any of the fifty states, and the liberties that other Photoshoppers took with the certificates confirms this.
(Excerpt) Read more at web.israelinsider.com ...
I’m officially interested now- read the long article at the link. There’re some very legitimate questions unanswered by the Obama campaign.
I guess what arouses my suspicion most is the whole timeline described in the article when it was posted on Kos. The point (to me) isn’t whether or not his parents were married etc. but what is he hiding from- why would he allow an obvious fake on his official website?
The longer they let this go- the worse it will be when he tries to explain.
I’m bad at html as well, so someone who can resize them to match would be better equipped to do that.
So on both real docs, the number is 151 YYYY - NNNNNN.
I’m betting the NNNN is just a sequential number for that year. First birth recorded by the dept in 1967 has a BC number of: 151 1967-000001
BINGO !!
Absolutely.
Any good investigative reported worth their salt would've already been on this.
Hey, Bounty Hunter - you could start there.
Bounty Hunter lives in Hawaii - and he's an avowed Christian - he may take umbrage at the convoluted interpretations of the Bible that the obamama has been spewing - maybe we could enlist him to the cause
It would be helpful to have a close-up of the corners of the real certificate (pref. 600dpi or better). If the edge/corner pattern of the real one does not have the blue 'checking' behind it, that should raise some significant suspicions. I would expect the revision number would be for the paper stock, not for the printed content; if the border design is part of the paper stock, then it should match perfectly.
As for the questions about how some fields are specified, I'm not sure those mean much. I would not be at all surprised if the certified copy is supposed to use the exact same wording as the original form. If whoever wrote the original form listed someone's parents as "White" and "Caucasian", or even "White" and "Wht", I would expect that the certified copy would list them similarly. Even if it would have been highly unusual for someone to have listed "African" as a race, that doesn't prove that the person filling out the original certificate didn't happen to do precisely that.
No need. We can make out part of the seal.
Your photo looks like a typical scanned document when I downloaded it and opened it up on my computer. The one on the KOS site looks like a computer document that was made into a jpeg via software, meaning someone had this on their computer, and it was not a ‘hard copy’ scan. This stinks to high heaven.
The wild part is the Canadian speculation. Doesn't make any sense at all.
Could this have been what those State Dept. contractors were scrutinizing last winter when they were fired for looking at candidates’ passports?
The first indication is - there is NO embossed seal from the city of record. That's a glaring omission...
NO copy of a vital record is official if not embossed and also, additionally, I've never seen one without information also rubber stamped by the city clerk.
(I've done genealogy for decades and have obtained vital record copies from all over - they ALWAYS are embossed and stamped.
His has neither...)
But if he was a U.S. citizen, he would have used a birth certificate to get it. Otherwise, proof of naturalization.
Your posts seem to be adding up to a obamamamian
No, it adds up to ridiculing dimwitted conspiracy theories. Go back and check and you'll find I was just as dismissive of those who tried to cast doubt on McCain's citizenship.
He is. Obama has shown the same proof of qualifications that Clinton or Bush showed.
The rules don't read: "I say I was born a US citizen and unless you can prove otherwise, I don't need to show evidence."
The rules don't require him to prove anything.
Perhaps the original certificates used different languages, and the certified copies duplicate whatever was on the originals?
Obama's doc seems fishy, but certain things don't make sense. No normal type of JPEG artifacting would explain the fade-out of the background near the text, but if someone were altering a real printed cert I can't figure why it wouldn't have the proper signatures, folds, and other such markings. Curious.
Mom don’t chase shadows....if there were something to this Team Clinton would have nailed him with it.
Was one of McCain’s parents a non-citizen?
Hold on, I have another goodie to share:
[IMG]http://i29.tinypic.com/1464y0.jpg[/IMG]
Beat this, Obama-boy! Surely you have one of these in your memory box!
What Canadian speculation?
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.
