[Brilliant]

I read the analysis. How can you tell that it’s fraudulent? The supposition is that the State of Hawaii would not use such a method of producing the certificate, but there is nothing that demonstrates that the State of Hawaii does not use such a method. It’s purely supposition.

What they should have done is obtained a copy of another Hawaii birth certificate of the same era, and compared it.

[pissant]

The creation of the border alone shows its a fraud. But here’s a dirty secret. I looked at the one on Obama’s site and the one on Kos’, and someone re-aligned the border intersections on one, I can’t remember which. But I called it out the other day.

[Always Right]

I read the analysis. How can you tell that it’s fraudulent? The supposition is that the State of Hawaii would not use such a method of producing the certificate, but there is nothing that demonstrates that the State of Hawaii does not use such a method. It’s purely supposition.

There was no such supposition. States print out new birth certificates and certifications of live birth all the time. This is obviously a new document that was supposedly printed recently, June 2007 to be exact. All that is OK. What is not OK is that it appears to be a photoshopped image, not an image of a laser printout of a form document.

[Political Junkie Too]

What they should have done is obtained a copy of another Hawaii birth certificate of the same era, and compared it.

If I understand this document issue properly, it is datestamped in 2007 to say that it was generated no earlier than 2007 to certify that a birth certificate is on file in Hawaii.

The question is:

1. Is this supposed to be a scanned image of physical certificate?

2. Is this a computer-generated JPG that never made it to paper, but posted on the web instead?

3. If it is a scanned image, a) was the certificate generated using computer graphics and printed to plain paper stock, or b) was the paper stock a form with all the graphics pre-printed and only the data fields added from the computer?

4. If it is a scanned image and was generated using computer graphics and printed to plain paper stock, why would it need the word "laser" on it? Doesn't "laser" on a form indicate that the form stock is intended for laser printers? If the form is blank and all the graphics are computer-generated, what purpose is served by indicating "laser" after the fact?

5. If it is a scanned image and the form was pre-printed with a border and nothing else but the bottom text (including "laser"), why don't the border grapics line up cleanly in the corners, as one would expect from a professional printer, instead of the overlapping slightly off border boxes on this document?

-PJ