Posted on 04/13/2009 9:04:32 PM PDT by Polarik
|
Q: What do these four things have in common?
|
||||
|
Aliens from |
Abominable |
Boogeyman |
Barack Obama's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| A: All of them are imaginary! | ||||
People say that Obama released a genuine copy of his actual Certification of Live Birth. He never did, and they are mistaken, misinformed, or misleading others if they do.
People say that Hawaii confirmed this copy to be Obama's actual Certification of Live Birth.
Hawaii never confirmed a request for, nor the printing of, this Certification of Live Birth.
People say that Factcheck verified this image as Obama's actual Certification of Live Birth.
Factcheck was complicit in falsifying this image and passing it off as a genuine scan.
Obama also knows that this image is fake and doesn't contain his actual birth information.
That's why Obama and his staff refuse to answer any questions about his birth certificate.
It's been more than two years since Obama announced his candidacy for President, and five months since he was elected President, yet Obama has repeatedly refused to provide any proof that he is Constitutionally qualified to be President. Despite what you may have heard, Obama's eligibility issue has never been settled. If you are looking for reasons why, there is only one reason that you should know:
In March 2008, a lawsuit was filed to remove John McCain, the GOP candidate, from the ballot because his natural-born status was also in doubt. John McCain immediately responded by showing his actual, original birth certificate to Congress.
On June 12, 2008, about three months after John McCain settled his eligibility issue, the pressure on Obama to do the same led to the release of what was called his "original birth certificate" -- an image copy, not a paper copy, by his campaign, not by himself, to the Daily Kos blog, not to Congress, or to anyone even remotely responsible for vetting him.
Moreover, what Obama submitted for "release," was not an image copy of his original birth certificate as claimed. It was an abbreviated transcript of a birth record called a "Certification of Live Birth." HOWEVER, the image itself was a fabricated forgery intended to mimic this transcript. Since a forged birth document cannot represent a true birth record, it means that someone committed forgery just to keep Obama's actual birth record from ever being known. What makes it a forgery?
Many people who also saw this image (see Appendix A) had said that it was a "fake," and that the document pictured in the image could not possibly be genuine. The image anomalies that they pointed out as proof of a forgery included those that I had found and reported, working independently. Here is an annotated list of them:
The consensus among all of us was that this Certification of Live Birth document image (COLB) had been heavily doctored. What we didn't know were the lengths to which the Obama Campaign and his enablers in the media went to rebuff any claims of forgery by personally attacking anyone for even suggesting it. They called us "tin-foil hat wearing, right-wing conspiracy nuts," or "birthers" for short, but these titles are tame in comparison to the vicious and virulent slurs hurled our way. Rather than respond with some confirmatory evidence to support the claim that the scan image was genuine, they offered all kinds of logical excuses as to why it wouldn't be fake, coupled with comments from individuals and fact-checking groups claiming to be non-partisan but clearly shilling for Obama. The common denominator here is that all of them failed to provide a single shred of valid evidence that Obama's actual COLB document was even printed in June 2007 by Hawaii's DOH, let alone scanned a year later.
One thing that no one could deny was that a black, graphic rectangle was added to the image to redact the COLB's certificate number, and then resaved, permanently altering the COLB shown in the image, and in effect, changing the image itself. The following caveat appears on the COLB document:
In other words,"Which part of this caveat did the "birther" critics NOT understand?
There were enough alterations in this one image to fill a book on "How to falsify an image and hide the signs of forgery.". Nothing about this image was genuine, yet, five weeks later, Factcheck posted a set of nine digital photos of what they claim was the same, alleged birth certificate used to make the scan image.
What's wrong with this picture? (or should I say, "pictures?")
If what's shown in the scan image is bogus, then what's shown in Factcheck's photos must also be bogus. We already knew that Factcheck was a shill for Obama along with being an accomplice to his document fraud. So, we were not surprised when Factcheck launched an all-out assault on the "birthers" and their "right-wing conspiracy theories" along with the photos they posted on their website. Factcheck's COLB photos allegedly show the front side of the embossed Seal that was not shown in the scan image (except while under image enhancements). These COLB photos also show the second fold-line that never was seen in the scan image under any conditions.
Factcheck intended their photos to verify the existence of a real COLB document that the claim was used to make the scan image. Unfortunately for Factcheck, their photos actually verify that their scan image was bogus. For if this document object, with its pronounced second fold-line and heavily embossed Seal, was used to make the original scan image, then the scanner would never have missed copying these prominent features. Added to that revelation is the suspicious failure of Factcheck to photograph the most important part of the document, the entire embossed Seal as seen from both sides. Factcheck's photos taken from the back side of the Seal show that the top third of the Seal was deliberately cropped from the picture. Even in the full shot of the Seal, the top one-third of it was also cut off -- well below the second fold line.
Rather than lend credibility to the original scan image, these photos supported my conclusions that the scan image was not made from a genuine document, but was fabricated from other images. A top, forensic document examiner also agrees with my conclusions. The fact that Obama's original birth certificate is not the only document being withheld from view, only underscores the immense effort taken to keep Obama's real identity from ever being known.
If the Obama narrative is real, and Obama really is who he says he is, then why are there no real documents to verify it, such as his Punahou School records, Selective Service Registration, Occidental College records, Passport (used to visit Pakistan), Columbia College records, Columbia thesis, Harvard College records, Baptism certificate, Medical records, Illinois State Senate records, Law License application, Law practice client list, and University of Chicago scholarly articles?
Does anyone see a pattern here?
From the first day he ran for President, Barack Obama, a constitutional lawyer, knew that he was not a natural-born citizen and not constitutionally qualified to become President. But, he ran anyway. Obama may also have known that he was not born in Hawaii, that he came to Hawaii as an illegal immigrant, and that he was never naturalized as a US citizen.
Does that sound like a viable MOTIVE for not showing his original birth certificate?
If all of the information shown on the scan image were true, then there would not be any reason to hide the original. If all of the information shown on Factcheck's photos were true, then there would not be any reason to hide the original. If all of the information we've seen is actually true, then why fabricate bogus birth certificates when a real one can be made for $12? What is worth committing felony document fraud just to keep it hidden?
Well, it's a lot more than that. This bogus birth certificate was used to deceive over 300 million Americans in regards to Obama's true identity and birth origins. This bogus birth certificate was used to deceive members of our Government, our Judiciary, our Armed Forces, and Law Enforcement into believing that Obama was born in Hawaii, and that he is a natural-born US citizen who is Constitutionally qualified to become President.
Obtaining a real birth certificate copy is the very last thing that Obama would ever do, then or now, because it would absolutely confirm that the images and photos posted on the Internet are forgeries and would expose anyone involved in this fraud to criminal prosecution. Does that sound like a viable MOTIVE for not showing it?
There is no question that Obama fails to meet the Constitutional qualifications for being a natural-born citizen because his father passed his British citizenship onto Obama as a child and made him a dual citizen. But, what about the question of document fraud? Has a crime been committed? Who's responsible? What if a President was complicit in committing this document fraud and intentionally covering it up by all legal means possible?
Conspiracies in Presidential elections do happen. Does "Watergate" ring a bell?
Recently, another Illinois politician was impeached for selling Obama's Senate seat. It that act really worse than committing felony document fraud, as defined by Chapter 18 of the United States Code, Section 1028, Fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents, authentication features, and information?.
As people are wont to say at times like this, "Where is the outrage?" Where, indeed.
At the same time that I saw Obama's alleged COLB, a discussion of that image was taking place among the registered readers of a popular blog (HotAir.com) that is a repository of top stories from other blogs and websites. I had not seen these comments until now, ten months after they were published. Although the Hot Air community is mostly pro-Obama, a number of members had identified the very same anomalies as I had while working independently. The significance of this discovery cannot be overstated as it serves to validate the work that I've done in proving this image, and ones to follow, to be false, forged, and fabricated. Here, in their own words, is what they said on June 12:
From JM Hanes:
it really bothers me when something like this simply makes no sense. I couldn't begin to guess who would have fiddled with the document — or the when & why either — but I also can't think of a single logical reason (including filters, sharpening, or conversions) that a scan of an original document could result in the kind of selective pixelization/artifacting in evidence here. Pasting from one image into another, however, would produce precisely that effect.
"The pixilation around the text is...completely inconsistent with the background, which is discontinuous behind the text. Zoom in on the faint image of the reverse “JUN 6 2007? in the lower middle of the doc for comparison and you’ll see that the regular jpeg pixel blocking is uninterrupted. That’s part of whatever this original document was before someone Photoshopped it. The SEAL was probably scanned from another actual document and pasted up along with the necessary text. Nice try with the “Photoshop filter” theory though! In any case, if someone were trying to make a real document look as fake as this one does, that would still be a hoax.
From Spolitics:
The document looks fake, like the text was layered over the background, not typed onto it. So I downloaded the picture and checked the properties. According to the file’s details, this document was originated in Adobe Photoshop CS3 Macintosh. That’s not proof of forgery, but there’s no “date acquired” listed which would have indicated this was scanned.
From LimeyGeek:
Zoom in on the lettering and check out the artefacts surrounding them. I suspect this is a modern document, scanned, original data scrubbed, and overlaid with digital text. Problem is, then not all the text would match stylistically, so they had to go over every bit of text with new lettering. Contrast the artifacts surrounding the text on this document with the text in the top and bottom bars - that’s original text. The text in the body of the document has been doctored. Obama is not claiming it as a legitimate copy. I suspect it is somebody’s legitimate copy, scanned, scrubbed and doctored to look like Obama’s.
As somebody that works with the math and code in such software, I can tell you that these artifacts are nothing of the sort. This is not a case of lossy artefacts due to image encoding (jpeg). Such artifacts would be consistent, these are not. In fact, if you look close enough, you can see that the original lettering was slightly larger than the superimposed fonts.
The point is that an original document would have consistent artifacts due to scanning, and additional consistent artifacts due to further encoding (in this case, jpeg encoding/compression) Whatever the origin of this document, it has been doctored.
From RightWired:
It’s a 100% forgery. There are numerous reasons, but the #1 reason: Laser printers don’t add anti-aliasing to fonts. Zoom in to 600% or greater in Photoshop or Corel. Look at an “A”. Notice how it’s smoothed a bit? You can see that the characters have been laid on top of the green gov’t background. There’s a hazy white area in between the strokes of each line of the character. When a laser printer prints on the paper, it basically burns it on with a super high precision. It doesn’t turn the area behind the actually copy white.
I work in advertising. I have studied this..as well as our department’s graphic artist—it’s fraudulent. Also file properties say Adobe CS3, black copy is much darker than the rest. The official seal is blurry and pixilated.
From Just A Grunt:
Blending high contrast type into a lower contrast background is particularly fussy work; it looks to me like the original text and original background started out at different resolutions as well. While text that bleeds through from the other side of a document would look different from the crisp text printed on the front, it wouldn’t change how the pixels in the image itself are grouped. The integrity of the typcial 8 x 8 pixel squares which you can see in the 6 shot aren’t busted up by artifacts the way they are in the A shot. I may not be using the right techno terms here — alas, it’s easier to zero in on the anomolies when you’re used to dealing with recalcitrant pixels than it is to explain.
From WoosterOh:
I find it odd that every word is pixilated around it, yet the black box is not. Those words are not on the document. To me, it looks like it is from some HA HA funny site that you can do your own certificates. Select a background image, select text to put on the background image. I guess that {the Certification of Live Birth is a computer-generated printout) could account for the pixels, but I am not even sure that accounts for it. You would have to assume that the generation means taking a scan of an actual certification, using it as an image, then generating text over that scan, then converting the text to an image, then laying that image down over the scanned certificate. Take the layers and flatten the image, then print the image. FAKE
From G Charles:
A word of caution. I use photoshop a fair amount and I just zoomed in on the text. I agree that this is not a scan of an original document “AS IS”. Nevertheless, it could well be a scan of an original document that has been run through a photoshop filter once or twice. And the original may well look pretty much the same to those who can’t zoom in on the photo. And as support for my “photoshop filter” theory, the seal carries the same pixelation artifacts. Therefore it is NOT simply text that has been superimposed–whatever explanation there is has to account for the seal and text having the same unnatural pixelation.
From Sue:
I was able to see what you are explaining. If this is obviously doctored, and I am going with you on this one, why would they do it?
From iurockhead:
Enlarge and the text looks like it has been added on top of the green and white background. I call fake. I don’t doubt his citenzenship and birthright, but that document is a fake.
From wise_man:
And the black text on this wide open field of the background, is awfully sharp and crisp for being a copy.
From SilverStar830:
Looks ‘chopped. It looks like an exceptionally EASY document to fake.
From Buford:
When blown up it is clearly a fake. At 2000% it is clear that the pixilation of the text is much finer than the pixilation of the background. It is an extremly low quality fake. If this served any purpose but to drive traffic to the KoS site I would be surprised.
From infidel65:
After repeated requests for Obama’s birth certificate, a copy shows up on the Daily Kos. This stinks to high heaven. The Obama campaign may have thought they’d put this issue to bed, but they have only succeeded in fuelling the suspicions.
To date, the suspicions have not subsided, yet people are talking about Obama's Certification of Live Birth (COLB) as if it really exists. Why? Because they know that foreign-born children are also issued a COLB by Hawaii, and therefore, the COLB cannot confirm one's natural-born status. Only the actual, "vault" original birth certificate can, and Obama knows that better than anyone. What other reason could there be for a sitting President to refuse such a simple request?
I like the “Pixils”
Just another mistake in the dokyoumeant.
His sister was born in Indonesia. If Obama doesn't have one how could she?
I think birth certificate here means specifically "Certification of Live Birth" and not the long-form "Certificate of Birth" i.e. "birth certificate."
By the way, that photo in Post 37, shows Obama wearing the garb of a SOMALI elder.
Those pirates might have been buds of Obama.
You said — What I find particularly interesting is there are no schoolmates, teachers, Prinicpals, ministers, professors, boy scout leaders or anyone else that have flooded the airwaves to talk about what Obama was like as a lad.
—
Ummm..., wouldn’t news reporters have to be interviewing people in Malaysia, for that?
Besides, who paid attention to black babies and kids back then? Except if he was your shoe-shine boy...
===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== =====
And then you said — We may have a first in many ways he may be the first African to be elected President.
Another fact is didn’t someone take credit for the forgery? Didn’t they use his sister’s birth certificate?
—
Well, certainly — he’s America’s own boy....
===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== =====
And lastly you said — Why isn’t his sister being fawned over, chased after, or even mentioned?
—
Ummm..., isn’t she a “mutt” too?
Actually, spreading the truth via word-of-mouth, or pointing them in the direction of it, is something that we can do every day.
If anyone is getting their news via the MSM, then they are literally being held hostage where they are not allowed to see the outside world.
It’s like visiting DisneyWorld but being forced to stay in Fantasyland. I mean, people will keep going around on Dumbo’s Ride, aka “Obama’s Change,” until they get nauseous enough to want off.
That’s our job: making them nauseous with what is being shoved down their throats.
Why Obama will never show his vault birth certificate.
Other than that, is there a point of comparison here?
You’ll note that the post is in response to a fact stated that this has never happened before. And as such, it has happened before.
Nothing more is needed than that fact be told...
Thanks for the update, LucyT
Great work, Polarik!
Ping.
You have settle this issue with finality. Now, can we get any elected federal oligarchs to do the right thing and go after the original documents of this man’s life? ... The complicit criminality of even the subpreme court tells me no.
That's a consequence of posting on FR and not my fault. If you display the actual HTML file on any browser you can think of, the fonts are consistent in size and type. The only font that I did not want to use was the default Times-Roman.
I got it anyway.
Being a fraud yourself, I can see why you are ridiculing.
Well.., being the resident expert in fraud, that must mean you have a lot of experience in it... :-)
I can't remember the link, but at some point in the past it was posted things to look out for in Obama trolls. In the list it was mentioned that a troll will bring up the Chester Arthur case in an attempt to deflect away from Obama's lack of qualifications. That seems to me to be the case here. We need to keep the discussion on POINT which is OBAMA, not Chester Arthur.
Chester Arthur is DEAD, he is not the current President. Whatever he may have done over 100 years ago is now moot. What are we going to do? Resurrect the man, then try him, and remove him from office?? He's already removed - HE'S DEAD. As to any laws he signed, put in force etc. etc. again was over a hundred years ago, none of which, subverted our constitution in any way shape or form in contrast to what Obama has done in just 3 months.
I suggest not replying to posters who keep bringing up Chester Arthur as a means to drive the discussion away from Obama. Stay on point, which is OBAMA. Thanks.
You said — I suggest not replying to posters who keep bringing up Chester Arthur as a means to drive the discussion away from Obama. Stay on point, which is OBAMA. Thanks.
—
Take note of a fact stated earlier in the thread. It doesn’t pay for people to operate and spread facts that don’t happen to be true.
The response was directly in response to that statement. And, as you and others well-know..., if you’re in the middle of a discussion with (let’s say) an opponent of the opposite political persuasion — and if you bring up a fact that is *not true* — that will derail your entire argument.
It does not pay to have inaccurate information being spread, if you’re going to “make a case”...
It’s as simple as that...
To: MHGinTN; mylife; Admin Moderator
…
{MHGinTN}And then — “You were caught in your deceit when you tried to use the story of the Good Samaritan as if ‘you knew your Bible’, yet you weren’t even familiar enough with the story to know the Good Samaritan’s role in the story. You’re a deceiver.”
{Star Traveler}So you say, but I don’t. …
213 posted on Wednesday, December 31, 2008 11:43:04 AM by Star Traveler
So, let’s take a look, to see if you were deceiving readers with your faux Bible lesson!
[Star Traveler: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2154244/posts?q=1&;page=305] You said — “He didn’t say anything about being nice to His enemies.” I think he did, in regards to the question of “Who is my neighbor” and who helped the injured Samaritan along the road (Samaritans were the enemies of Israel...).... I think Jesus made the point very well…
Was this merely a typo? Well, you repeated the error, so we can’t call the initial error a typo; you just aren’t what you pretend to be. But, in typical liars bluff not knowing when to keep quiet in your initial deceit, you tried to dismiss my calling you out:
To: Star Traveler
When you actually learn whom the Samaritans were and their relationship to the ‘in tribe’ of Jerusalem, perhaps you’ll have matured sufficiently to not make large religious claims based on flawed references.
326 posted on Thursday, December 25, 2008 8:55:48 PM by MHGinTN
To: MHGinTN
Suffice it to say, if you studied the Bible and knew your facts …
It appears you have no knowledge of the Bible or knowledge of Jesus, and that’s a major problem in even understanding what Jesus said…
341 posted on Thursday, December 25, 2008 9:11:52 PM by Star Traveler
To: MHGinTN
… And Jesus made that an express example of the question of “Who is my neighbor” in giving the example of helping the Samaritan who was passed by on the road, by everyone else. …
You obviously are like the Pharisees and the Sadducees who were always against Jesus and what He said, time and time again. I see we have them here on this forum, too — in spite of what the Bible tells Christians to do…
357 posted on Thursday, December 25, 2008 9:32:15 PM by Star Traveler
To: Star Traveler From your #305 post, you did't even know that the Good Smaritan was the one who stopped to help the injured traveler! You're a fraud, a typical poseur trying to quote the Bible to manipulate readers. Here is your exact sentence from #305:
Star Traveler: I think he did, in regards to the question of “Who is my neighbor” and who helped the injured Samaritan along the road (Samaritans were the enemies of Israel...)
361 posted on Thursday, December 25, 2008 9:41:15 PM by MHGinTN
To: MHGinTN
You said — “You’re a fraud, a typical poseur trying to quote the Bible to manipulate readers.”
It’s the exact same thing I’ve been posting, from the Bible, since the beginning on Free Republic. You’ll find no difference from Clinton, to Bush to Obama... You just don’t like the content of what is being posted, and that’s your problem. But, I won’t be changing my posting.
—
The Samaritan was the person who helped. I’ll quote the section for you... Luke 10:25-37
…
369 posted on Thursday, December 25, 2008 9:54:35 PM by Star Traveler
Yes, I’d say you’re a fraud. You’ve tried to scam readers by quoting Bible verses you don’t even have enough familiarity with to know the role of the story participants, and you tried to twist your lie into stating something opposite of what you stated.
Well, I hope that's not the case, but what concerns me is that others are still missing the entire point of this article. Maybe I can illustrate it with a "parable."
Remember Al Capone, the greatest American gangster in history? Was he ever charged for all the murders he committed or ordered, or the $billions he illegally obtained, or the police officers and politicians he bribed or threatened? None. Capone was also well-known for making paper trails disappear. He literally invented the term, "plausible deniability."
In 1931, Capone was charged with contempt for his failure to appear in court in Chicago for questioning about the St. Valentine's Day Massacre.
Because a federal court issued the contempt citation, the FBI became involved in investigating Capone's activities. This led to an intense, years-long inquiry into his business practices. The FBI worked with the Treasury Department and the IRS to dig up enough evidence to convict him of tax evasion. The check he endorsed, along with testimony from a few, brave witnesses, provided enough evidence to send Capone to jail.
The point of the story is that one, seemingly insignificant document, the contempt of court citation, brought down an entire criminal enterprise that ruled Chicago in the 20's and 30's. (POSTSCRIPT: organized crime in Chicago continued to flourish long after Capone was dead and buried. What's up with Chicago?)
If any one of the lawyers (take your pick) who were, or are currently, suing Obama, the DNC, Election Supervisors, Secretaries of State, filing Quo Warrranto requests, whatever, to secure the release of BO's "vault" birth certificate, had done one very simple thing before the election, they could have saved themselves, and everyone else, from having this charade continue:
Do a FOIA to Dr. Alvin Onaka, Hawaii's State Registrar, and to Dr. Chiome Fukino, Hawaii's Direcotr of Health, asking thme to verify whether or not the COLB document shown online was printed and certified by the DOH, on June 6, 2007, by submitting for review, a notarized copy of the receipts and print logs for all COLB's produced on June 6, 2007. They can redact every entry that does not match the one for Obama's COLB. If they are all redacted, then Obama's COLB does not exist, and this becomes prima facie evidence of document fraud that's not "plausibly deniable."
I spoke directly with Onaka on or about June 23 of last year, and I asked him if his office had printed the COLB shown on Obama's website. He said that he wasn't aware of anyone requesting it. That was quickly followed with, "We really cannot confirm or deny that. It's protected information." It's hard to believe that I'm the only one who spoke with him. Everyone else was content to talk to non-managerial staff like Janice Okubo, the Communications Officer. But, I digress.
If a case of document fraud has been committed, and it has, and there are relevant statutes that have been violated, and there are, at both the State and Federal levels, then it should have been a no-brainer to, at least, have it investigated where it began.
Not with President Obama. Not with the State of Hawaii. Not with anyone in government. Auythories need to question the people who are both culpable and accessible, namely his Campaign staff (like Tommy Vietor, Shaun Daly) and the friendly, forgery folk at Factcheck. There's more here than meets the eye.
Thanks for your post #77 - wow - what an eyeopener.
There is absolutely no way a real Christian would not know the story of the Good Samaritan. I.e, that it is THE SAMARITAN (hence the title of the good Samaritan) that helped the traveler on the road and not the other way around!! That story is taught over and over again throughout Sunday School for pete’s sake!!!
Troll definitely xposed - Thanks MHG.
An excellent summary of the evidence, which is overwhelming.
The question is, what to do about it. Certainly one thing is to continue spreading the truth to as many people as possible.
But once Hitler (incidentally another foreigner) has been elected to office, it’s pretty hard to get him out again and find a happy outcome.
Our courts have been extremely disappointing. The Democrats just love it. Most Republican politicians are like deer in the headlights. Rush is clearly afraid to touch this issue. Evidently, SCOTUS could not even find a fourth vote to put it on the docket and hold a public discussion.
But you have done as much as anyone to make the facts clear. Keep up the good work.
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.
