[Kevmo]

There is an alignment problem and the date on the document presented by FactCheck.Org is from March 2008 per Atlas Shrugs.

I did a search for this article and didn't find anything, so I'm hoping it's not a duplicate. Free Republic appeared to be down for several minutes this evening when I logged on.

[Kevmo]

Fyi, more fuel for the fire.

[AmericaUnited]

http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_2.jpg

Look at this link and tell me why the date stamp on the back, below the seal, IS NOT blend through, like on the original Obama Smears jpg??!!

[igoramus08]

Dems picked the only candidate that can lose. Even Biden has a better chance of winning. It would only benefit Dems if he was disqualified.

However there are rumours that he travelled to Pakistan on an Indonesian passport. If that is the case, you could hammer him on his allegiance.

[ryan125]

That march 2008 creation date is very flimsy. It all depends on if the date on the camera was correct or not. My camera is personally set to 2003.

[GiovannaNicoletta]

read later

[nw_arizona_granny]

Ping.

[Polarik]

I reported this last Friday.

All it takes is one feature that both the scan and the photo have in common but are represented differently

And that is, "The top fold on the FactCheck photo runs diagonal (left side of fold is 20 pixels further down than the right side of fold) while top fold on the FactCheck image runs perfectly horizontal with the top border."

Bye-bye, FactCheck

[MichaelAsher54]

The actual birth certificate --



Please click for comparison --

Penetrating Insights into the Obvious

[Dajjal]

obumpa

[Polarik]

I have a special request for everyone on behalf of Virgina Travis, daughter of Patricia DeCosta. You may have noticed that I have been referring to that COLbas PD's COLB out of deferrence to Virginia -- who was very upset that her mother's memory was being tarnished by the misuse of her Mom's birth certificate. Therefore, please, from now on, refer to that COLB as PD or PD's COLB. Thank you.

Now, for a little touch of Polarik.

Here's a synopsis of my update here.

Some of the suspicious elements I first noticed about the FactCheck photo last Friday, turned out to be too problematic to use them as points of contention. In particular, the location of the date stamp, the location of the signature stamp, the size of the borders, and the look of the borders were not sufficiently different for me to make a judgment call. So I redacted them from my original post.

However, there are a few, highly significant differences between the COLB photo and the COLB image.

• As you can see by measuring the distances from the fold to the bottom of the "Ts" (STATE & HEALTH) on either side(Figures 1 & 2), the top fold that appears in the photo is diagonal, yet, it is perfectly parallel on the image (Figures 3 & 4).
• The embossed Seal clearly stands out as the most prominent feature in the FactCheck photo (Figure 5 - 6), and I do believe that someone with the grip of a lobster took the seal and almost cut a circle out of the paper.
• As you can see in the FactCheck image (Figure 7), there was only one fold on it (that required edge detection to see clearly) . Putting the FactCheck photo through edge detection makes it shine like a beacon (Figure 8).
• Also, look at the difference in how the seals show up in these same two images. In the FactCheck image, it looks half-eaten. In the FactCheck photo, it's hard not to notice.
• The presence of only one fold cannot be explained away NOR can a second fold be found via the latest image enhancement techniques.
• Something is very odd about only showing bits and pieces in photos of the back of the full-size COLB, as if showing it in one photo would reveal something fishy (Figure 9-10). *F
• Speaking of fishy, FactCheck's' photos of the back present a strange texture to the paper, as if had gotten wet. There are paper fibers sticking out from the back (Figure 11)
• There a better than chance probability that this was a printout made by FactCheck COLB image forgery. For one thing, they did not have to worry about the second fold appearing (and could now fold it anyway they chose). The lack of correspondence between the orientation of the top fold in the photo as compared to the image is an example of the "Close, but no cigar" method of folding. I also see either white pixels or "Liquid Paper"(aka White-Out) behind the Time of Birth (Figure 12). If they were trying to prove that the pixel anomalies I saw were "Scanner artifacts", which I have thoroughly debunked, they sure would not put them in the photo.
• I accounted for the angle at which these photos were taken by graphically "tilting" them.
• Lastly, isn't it curious that the one and only, shot taken perpendicular to the paper COLB, is out-of-focus.(Figure 13) FIGURE 1

  

  FIGURE 2

  

  FIGURE 3

  

  FIGURE 4

  

  FIGURE 5

  

  FIGURE 6

  

  FIGURE 7

  

  FIGURE 8

  

  FIGURE 9

  

  FIGURE 10

  

  FIGURE 11

  

  FIGURE 12

  

  FIGURE 13

  

[MayflowerMadam]

Seeing the “II” after his name on the certificate is very questionable. I believe the rules are: If a child is named after his father, he’s a “Jr.” on the birth certificate. He doesn’t become a “II” until he has a child and gives him the same name, and that child becomes “III” (the third). So this idiot wouldn’t be Barak Hussein Obama II until his son is born and named Barak Hussein Obama III. In any case, a “II” wouldn’t be on a birth certificate.

I could be wrong, but that’s how I learned the system.