Posted on 06/07/2011 6:45:09 PM PDT by conservativegramma
Typeface analysis shows images come from different machines
The online image of a Hawaiian "Certificate of Live Birth" was trumpeted by the White House when it was released on April 27 as "proof positive" that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii.
Now an expert in typefaces and typography says it sure was "proof," but not of what the White House would have wanted.
Paul Irey, a retired professional typographer with 50 years experience in his business, has says an analysis of the typefaces used in the Barack Obama's long-form birth certificate that the White House released on April 27 reveals it absolutely to be a forgery.
"My analysis proves beyond a doubt that it would be impossible for the different letters that appear in the Obama birth certificate to have been typed by one typewriter," Irey told WND.
"Typewriters in 1961 could not change the size and shape of a letter on the fly like that," he said. "This document is definitely a forgery."
Irey acknowledges that an IBM Selectric typewriter could have produced different typefaces in a given document, but only if the Selectric ball was changed every time a different typeface letter was struck which would be unlikely to have been done to produce the word "Student," for example, that had two different styles of the lower case "t."
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
First they would of had to decide a case regarding
an elected president not being an NBC.
Since NBC only applies to becoming president and not
citizenship (your child are still citizens) when did
that happen?
Is that authentic frontier gibberish you’re speaking? ROTFLMAO
Old bat eh? LOL, must be getting to you. Thanks, a job well done I suppose.
If you had bothered to read from Post #1 instead of blathering your own importance and self-worth you’d know I already stated this proves to me its forged.
P.S. Nurses do NOT get up and start half-typing words, ripping out the paper, run to another typewriter, roll the paper back in, half-type more words, rip the paper out, run to yet another machine, roll the paper up, more half-typed words, and ring around the rosey we go!! LOL, LOL, L O L !!!! NOT POSSIBLE.
Come up with the theoretical admittance form you believe to have been in use.
Did you ever stop and think that a lot of these documents we use today are designed primarily to support our computer systems. Back before the computer they did it differently ~ and to a degree much more economically from the standpoint of creating paper.
In 1961 you'd find your typical operation ~ an office, hospital, factory, whatever ~ would design their processes so they could economize on the amount of paper used (because there was little in the way of computer tracking anywhere), as well as security. You didn't want one form mixed up with another, and that with another ~ so you'd have one document follow the process all the way through. Multipart form sets were in common use ~ that's where you had copy A, copy B, copy C, and so on, and there might be instructions to send each copy to a different address/agency at the end of the process.
The modern "worksheet" with final document to follow method was rarely used.
I asked those in the know out there in Hawaii and they couldn't come up with information about some kind of worksheet used with this process. It was all one document from beginning to end and the beginning is in the BOH office itself where typing and rubber stamping was done.
It is obvious you don't understand the difference between citizen and natural born citizen.
Room temperature IQ (Celsius)?
What is really funny is that you gave the same answer back to both “Hell no” and “Hell yes” so apparently you confused yourself too. Now you have the gall to laugh at someone else who can’t keep understand your gibberish. LOL
“I drift between being amazed, astounded, appalled, dismayed, and sickened by the amount of FREEPERS (let alone anyone else in la la land) who are contorting themselves into pretzels trying to protect and defend this quisling’s obviously forged LFBC!”
Me too!
She lost the argument ~ some corporate headquarters type of fingernail painting secretary having babies for a sugardaddy of some kind and she wants to tell me she's studied how paperflow operations work in hospitals she visited for half a day or less.
Yeah, right.
>>The SCOTUS has never made a ruling on the subject directly. More intentional obfuscation on your part.<<
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZS.html
TUAN ANH NGUYEN V. INS (99-2071) 533 U.S. 53 (2001)
208 F.3d 528, affirmed. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-2071.ZS.html
And that was 2 minutes of Google Fu.
Would you like to make any other definitive statements?
First I use a word and you misinterpret it and that is obfuscation on my part. Then I cite factual information (although broadly) and that is obfuscation on my part.
I wish I lived in your world. Or maybe not.
Is the possibility of having Obama shamed in the least and/or removed from office before the election of no political value? I wish you well on your approach but as an independent type with my own options I prefer to track this imposter with every bit of info available.
>>What is really funny is that you gave the same answer back to both “Hell no” and “Hell yes” so apparently you confused yourself too. Now you have the gall to laugh at someone else who can’t keep understand your gibberish. LOL<<
That’s all you got? Both answers were within a context.
>>It is obvious you don’t understand the difference between citizen and natural born citizen.<<
OK, now you are just joking, right?
United States v. Wong Kim Ark,
NEVER, and I said NEVER uses the term
natural born citizen.
ANYONE can look at the document and see that two typewriters were used at different times AND the form got dirty along the way.
That is exactly what should be expected with a normal operation of the time.
We all know that United States v. Wong Kim Ark was not about the issue of eligibility for POTUS and therefore not about the definition of ‘natural born citizen.’ You’re a joke to even try that lame argument.
Oh please - LOL. I lost no argument whatsoever, you’re the one who’s drifting into la la land with your dancing secretaries and magician typewriter repairmen.
All I ever stated was I know how OFFICE environments work - and I should - I’ve been in them for almost 40 years.
NOTHING in your fantasy land scenario of hopping secretaries running around with half-typed forms dancing around from typewriter to typewriter is NORMAL. It JUST DOESN’T HAPPEN capiche?
But hey if you want to live in bizaarro world defending your ineligible fraudulent bambam knock yourself out. I’m still going to call you on it.
P.S. I don’t have to badmouth you.....you do a fine job all by yourself.
You couldn't live in my world. Liars don't survive here.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark,
NEVER, and I said NEVER uses the term
natural born citizen.
The only way that makes sense is if 'yes' and 'no' have the same meaning. Is your world Planet Schizophrenia?
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.