Posted on 06/24/2008 9:34:49 PM PDT by Hillary'sMoralVoid
Today I pulled the image of the birth certificate from the Obama website and called the Department of Health in Hawaii and got an email address and sent the birth certificate as an attachment.
I asked them if this image was of a valid, authentic birth certificate. I will let you know their response.
I think we're treating this a bit too lightly, there are many unanswered questions with huge implications, not the least of which is the trustworthiness of the candidate. If DOH says definitively that some fields were manipulated, the logical question would by why? It seems there are many areas of concern, even a question about the marital status of his mother and father.
Again, I will let you know their answers.
One more time.
1. How do you know it is a forgery, since many birth certificates from the same state have different wordings, appearances?
2. Don’t you think Hillary and other have investigated this fully, and obtained confirming evidence that he was born when he says he was?
3. Circumstantial evidence. His picture is all over the 1979 high school yearbook. He was 18 when he graduated. He was born in 1961. All his high school records give the same POB and DOB. Were they lying about his citizenship then?
Either provide proof of your claim, or let’s stop the Chicken Little foolishness.
“How do you know it is a forgery, since many birth certificates from the same state have different wordings, appearances?”
*********************************
Go read all the threads on the subject over the last week and then we can discuss. You jumping in to argue about it without getting familiar with the analyzes that have been done is a waste of my time to respond and walk you through it.
As I suspected, you can’t provide one proof that it’s a forgery.
AMF
As expected, you are too damn lazy to do an FR search. We had a 500 response thread on this just yesterday.
You espouse a point, and can't provide one element of proof of it, other than to say, "Look in that 500 page file cabinet over there. It's somewhere in there.”
You don't win Presidential elections with that logic or tactics.
You are doing your own research, not mine. I participated in the discussion and I posted the threads that shot down the bogus document. Go read them if you are interested in more than flapping your gums.
IRS....when your filing as a married couple your social security numbers will do as id. Most liking you changed your maiden name.
Insurance companies and banks use driver license for ID.
When I had to use my VA educational benefits to go to school I had to show my DD-14 and my BC. Both were raised seals.
The forgery itself — Nixonian denial.
Since you are afraid to even repost your earlier argument because you know it will get shot down, forgetaboutit.
Would you please give one example of the proof that it a forgery.
Just what is your claim? Is the date wrong? Is he really from the planet Uppo? What is the claim here?
Suggest your read 81 and 76 before you offer your “proof!”
One other important thing. How did they know BO was going to be the preidential candidate when he graduated from high school, so they could forge all those year books then?
Apparently the law, as quoted, has been in force since 1958.
Is it possible the school records are incorrect?
Other folks have covered the ground of examining the pixels — which show the document is digital image confection, not a laser print on a stock certificate form. I’ll stick with two things I noted from the first. One — no embossed seal — it’s not not an official certificate then. Two: there is an entry for father’s race as “African”. Circa 1961 that term wasn’t used as a race. The term would have been “Negro”, if any used at all.
Would you at least agree that it is uncertified?
If not, would you at least agree that it is altered, and therefore invalid for any legal purpose?
-PJ
Other folks have covered the ground of examining the pixels — which show the document is digital image confection, not a laser print on a stock certificate form.
So it was scanned into the computer. That’s proof?
I’ll stick with two things I noted from the first. One — no embossed seal — it’s not not an official certificate then.
I have some with an embossed seal, some without. Many from that era had no embossed deal. That’s proof?
Two: there is an entry for father’s race as “African”. Circa 1961 that term wasn’t used as a race. The term would have been “Negro”, if any used at all.
It was whatever the clerk typist chose to type in. That’s proof?
You are not even 5% there.
Here is a link, gumflaps. Learn something.
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/birthcertificate/index?tab=articles
Re: African. "Whatever the clerk-typist scanned in" -- that way of evaluating things is the "Whatever" school. Possibility is not probability. The presence of the term is a red-flag.
Embossed seal: You have some what without an embossed seal? If not, not official. Maybe you WERE adopted? ;-)
The absence is a red flag. Possible some clerk runs off an unofficial copy. But not likely. Risky to the clerk, especially for such a high-visibility man like Obama.
But it is possible, moreso, for some friend of a friend of Obama to one day come home with a sheaf of blank Cert of Birth forms. Still -- even then -- the dang State seal in pixelogical examination looks like a blow up from 120x120 or some low-res digital image, and is not a 600x600 or higher image. Also a red flag.
If I wanted to argue for your point though, I might venture that the forgery is so obvious, so low quality that it must be real, because a forger of a document worth hundreds of millions (possibly) would have taken more care.
But sorry for you, that kind of reasoning from me aged out long ago, when I started reading criminal court transcripts. Big life lesson: Criminals are stupid. Very, amazingly stupid. Yet that utter, complete stupidity and delusionality meshes very well with the childlike innocence of many reporters.
In any case, the document is most reasonably suspect, and Hawaii should clear it up.
Surely you realize that the document in question is circa 2007, right? (June 6, 2007, to be precise) What era are you speaking of?
-PJ
If there was any real doubt, Clintons would have been interviewing early friends, letters to and from grandparents and parents to others complete with dated postmarks. Paper would be from that era. Newspaper announcements of birth. Sequential numbers on many things, hospital records, doctor's records, pictures of him in Hawaii as baby, so much more.
This is just Art Bell BS....... and it is very dangerous, because it deflects our attention away from the real battle, defeating this Ultra-Liberal in his attempt to destroy the US.
That may very well be, but there are hundreds, if not thousands of people on FR dividing their time amongst many different issues, as well as bloggers, talk radio, and columnists. In short, many resources are disposed to many facets of many issues. It's a red herring to suggest that we leave this alone because it's diverting us from the "real" issues. It's not. I see many posts on FR about many things. I can spread my attention across many topics.
Secondly, you still didn't answer my two very simple questions, instead choosing to offer a straw man argument in return.
-PJ
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.