Replies

Thx, Red, but I’m looking for older images. These are the images posted NOW. First, I assume you’ve seen the polarik analyses on townhall.com; if not, check them out, specifically the one about the seal. As he points out, there are different versions of this out there. And while the left has most assuredly gotten rid of the original versions (which do not contain a seal), I’m hopeful that someone out there has a copy of the original images first posted on KOS/Smears. Also note that on the AtlasShrugged page, the one that makes the case that this is all a diversion manufactured by Obamabots, there is reference to a much higher-resolution version of one or more of these images. I’m trying to gather all the versions I can, because there is a type of analysis that NO ONE has yet done that I can do very quickly.

I’m slammed with work this week and just don’t have time to comb the web in search of these images, but if anyone can find them, I will indeed make time for the analysis.

I don't think that really counts for a legal seal until you can see what it is attesting too. Same for the bleed through rubber date stamp.

If you could get a good enough image off the template form on the photobucket site for the I. B. Aphorgerie form, you might well be able to see the seal where it is here.

I have in my drawer, probably fifty squeeze seals that will print a seal ring without the certificate data if you squeeze properly. I don't think any of that proves anything.

The certificate issue works like this. It is in form and substance a certified representation by a public official that the data on the certificate is representative of the data on the public record.

If this certificate had a number, an observable signed or initialed publication and data reference, and a seal, it would have some credibility even though this information was not clearly readable. None of those things is present on this certificate where they are found on other Hawaii Birth Certificates.

This certificate is defective in that it is not a real certificate and we know it is not a true copy of a certificate also because we can tell that the number is blanked out by digital process rather than redacted by cover; and because Photoedit discloses other deficiencies on the form itself. The purported certificate is a forgery.

When we talk and speculate what a true certificate might show, we are just speculating. Obama is developing near cult status among his supporters. He might be able to get someone in the Hawaii office of Public Records to certify something the records do not reflect. At this point, if a better certificate shows up, in any litigation setting, counsel will seek to obtain access to the real data in the records to which the certificate references.

I tend to doubt they will produce a better fake. They have a problem with the number, even if they know what the proper sequence is because a number in the proper sequence might be someone else's number. Further, there are real civil and criminal penalties for this kind of conduct and even civil servants in Hawaii are likely to be aware of them.

In reflecting on the invasion of the Passport records. There are several possibilities. Obama did it to remove a Birth Certificate that was clearly fake on its face; or was inconsistent with the fake he has now produced; or certified to data other than what appears here. The Clinton's did it to find out what it said. Someone else did it to obtain evidence on the subject.

After thinking about it, Obama's pain when he was complaining about the invasion was evident and real--he would not have needed to acknowledge the invasion at all if he was the instigator. Someone else is now aware what Obama did to produce a passport birth certificate.

Thanks for posting this. What intrigues me is that with your filtering, the crease at the top that was barely visible now is much clearer. But there’s also no evidence of any other creases. Someone had claimed there was a much fainter crease that ran either above or below Father’s Name: I sure don’t see any evidence of that.

As well,your filtered version certainly seems to show a seal, but according to the folks in Hawaii, they never issue these certifications without a signature. Even though it’s on the back, such signature is clearly visible on all the other Hawaiian BC’s that have been posted. Yet on Obama’s there’s nothing of that sort visible.

Notice that there are no equivalent puzzles that arise when one looks at the other BC’s posted and compares them to one another. It’s only Obama’s that seems to differ in various details that sort of makes you go “Hmmmmmmmm.”