[Shermy]

The “embossed seal” in question is, she said, probably on the back of the document provided to Daily Kos, but not visible (as in another certificate posted on Israel Insider for contrast). She thinks the difference in visibility can be attributed to the pressure used when applying the seal. “

OK..but,

“And, she added, “In the State of Hawaii all certified copies of certificates of live birth have the embossed seal and registrar signature on the back of the document.””

The writer fails to pick up on the registrar signature issue. In both documents the ink from the date on the back of the documents is plainly visible. So is the signature block on the Decosta document. However, the ink from a signature block on the Obama document is not visible. Therefore, most likely not present. If it is present, the Obama camp should be pressured to show it.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Unfortunately there is no way to guarantee that copies of the front and back are from the same document. He could present the back ANY copied Hawaii birth certificate and claim it was his.

[cj2a]

Here is an animation I created of the two certificates overlaid and faded:

http://www.members.cox.net/gmay2/birth_cert_fade2.gif

WARNING: It’s a 3.2 meg file but I wanted to keep it large enough to examine details. Let it load fully and it will cycle between the two images.

I simply overlaid the two images and scaled one to fit the outside border of the other as closely as possible, then faded one into another.

[Wil H]

The “embossed seal” in question is, she said, probably on the back of the document provided to Daily Kos, but not visible (as in another certificate posted on Israel Insider for contrast). She thinks the difference in visibility can be attributed to the pressure used when applying the seal. “

OK.

No, it's not OK.

Embossing raises parts of the the paper. Whatever is visible on one side is seen in reverse on the other.

The premise of not being able to see the seal on one side of the document is false.