[MindBender26]

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.

[pissant]

Here is a link, gumflaps. Learn something.

http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/birthcertificate/index?tab=articles

[bvw]

It wasn't a whole document scanned into the computer. Maybe parts were scanned in. It's a paste-up. The form-background doesn't show through the spaces withing the letters. On a real document the background pattern shows as a obvious-under-magnification "interference pattern" in the the small intra-letter spaces. In the eye of the "e", for example.

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.

[Political Junkie Too]

I have some with an embossed seal, some without. Many from that era had no embossed deal. That’s proof?

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

[bvw]

The issue for me is not Obama's birth. His mother was born and has remained a US citizen, as I understand that makes Obama a natural born citizen, no matter where she might have birthed him.

The issue is that he, through his own website established to clear up rumors, presented a forgery of an official document as if it were a real document. That is a lie, even if the facts of his birth printed on the document are true. It is a lie, and such forgeries of official documents are often a criminal action.