Posted on 07/16/2009 8:39:45 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
After days of sustained silence, the Honolulu hospital that trumpeted – then later concealed – a letter allegedly written by President Obama in which he ostensibly declares his birth at the facility now claims the letter is, in fact, real.
WorldNetDaily has obtained exclusive images of what the Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women and Children says is the original White House correspondence, dated Jan. 24 of this year, just four days after the inauguration of the new commander in chief.
"As a beneficiary of the excellence of Kapi'olani Medical Center – the place of my birth – I am pleased to add my voice to your chorus of supporters," Obama purportedly wrote.
This excerpt from the alleged Obama letter is perhaps the first formal declaration from the president about his exact birthplace. The White House has still not confirmed if the letter or its contents are authentic.
"We treasure the letter, and we're delighted to share it with you," said Keala Peters, director of marketing and communications for Hawaii Pacific Health, which runs the hospital.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
he remembers he was born there? I only know of the hospital I was born in because I was told. My bc said so. My parents said so. My doctor said so. Otherwise, I didn’t “remember” being born there.
Wow, good work on Post 60.
Do you have a contact at WND to forward it on to?
Good work Polarik. It figures you would be on the case.
Traced. LoL!
The FIRST image below is the new letter (released on July 17, 2009) supplied by the hospital by WND, rotated and cropped for comparison.
The SECOND image below is a rotated and cropped copy of the letter that appeared on Page 8 of the Spring 2009 Inspire Magazine (Kapiolani Medical Center) in Hawaii: http://www.kapiolanigift.org/press_room/Publications/Inspire%20Magazine%20Spring%202009.pdf
The THIRD image below is a copy of the letter that appeared on the Kapi'olani Medical Center website in January or February -- deleted a couple of weeks ago. Again, IMO, THIS letter is OBVIOUSLY a web-based recreation of the "original" letter.
The hospital's most recent assertion that "the letter" was "real" was possibly prompted by the White House.
VIDEO - ABERCROMBIE READS ‘THE LETTER’
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Trqfq9FY1Ig
The Abercrombie version of things in general don’t relate to what’s real. He’s the only one remember, who actually saw Obama snr and Stanley Ann together in Hawaii, and this is the same Abercrombie who visited Obama Snr in Kenya...
From your post and the images shown, it looks as if though someone:
1. Took a REAL form letter from some nameless hospital beneficiary (someone who’d actually been born there);
2. copied it on to “White House” stationery; and
3. traced BO’s signature on it.
I disagree. The article has a close-up of those words:
That appears to be blue type, not black, imprinted as the stationery masthead. Others are free to judge for themselves whether that looks like computer type.
"REAL MASTHEADS have a raised Seal and raised type professionally printed, with a Linotronic, for example."
Not necessarily. See this letter from Bill Clinton, which has an imprinted seal like this letter's. It also, for what it's worth, has a dark blue "The White House" masthead, much like Obama's letter.
"No signature line! Should say “Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States,” blah. blah, blah."
No it shouldn't. In fact, it definitely shouldn't. Do a Google image search for White House letters. NONE of the White House letters have signature lines. None of them (or at least none of the results I see) say "President of the United States" under the signature. Not Bush's, not Clinton's, not Reagan's, not Nixon's.
So I'm not sure where you even got the idea that there *should* be a signature line on a White House letter.
"Same thing for the Salutation. Just the hospital’s name?"
Again, that's not unknown or uncommon for White House letters. It's certainly not a universal standard practice. Sometimes they put an address (most often, it seems, for private individuals), sometimes they don't. For instance, see here or here, to cite two examples.
"The formatting is alsowrong. This should have been done in block or semi-block. This is a impersonal, informal style - and not what a government office would do."
White House letters often use block formatting, but not always, so it can hardly be said to be "wrong" or what the government wouldn't do. It comes down to administrative preference. George W. Bush appears to have preferred block, but Bill Clinton was not wedded to it. For instance, see this Clinton letter or this letter, where the paragraphs are fully indented like on this letter. Here is another Obama letter where he does not use block formatting.
"Left formatting should cause breaks in “two,” “birth,” and “one,” instead of keeping them on the previous line."
The word "two" does not even appear in the letter.
Did you do *any* research into what White House letters can look like before making all these claims up? You make a lot of firm statements about what a White House letter "should" look like, when there are plenty of White House letters over the decades that don't. In particular, the claim that there should be a signature line when the overwhelming practice is that White House letters DON'T have a signature line like that is just inexplicable.
Presidents commonly rely on autopens to sign their correspondence. As stated here:
"When Barack Obama takes up residence in the White House, Autopens, and to a lesser degree, secretarial signatures (signatures signed by secretaries or other assistants) will fill the vast majority of autograph requests."
"Since President John F. Kennedy, presidents and politicians have relied on the Autopen. Kennedy himself was reported to have had six different Autopen signatures. The best way to detect one is to compare it against known Autopens. Autopen signatures from the same template will be virtually identical. If you superimpose one image over another, the signatures will align almost precisely."
A polite letter of congratulations is exactly the type that should be expected to be signed by autopen. So the fact that the signatures appear traced is just as easily testimony to their authenticity.
Autopens have no hesitancy in moving from point to point and are incredibly precise. Nothing about this tracing was "automatic," precise, or even pretty. A forgery is easily a testimony to fraud: which is soemthing Obama cannot hide.
Several words missing from the print version[s].
These letters you've displayed are completely visible.
And they don't have Obama's seal:
Is he dyslexic or is this version 4?
The two main autopens that I generally run into have completely different characteristics. They are: a) Too good and b) Too bad signatures. In this article, I am going to go over the type of autopen that produces the “bad” signatures. You can tell this type of autopen by closely examining the signature for specific “stopping” points in the machine. When the machine is programmed, it has to learn the entire signature, so that means that each loop needs to be considered by the machine. Think of it as plotting out the signature on a very fine piece of graph paper. Then, connect the dots.
That's the point I was trying to make. Obama's autopen signs perfect copies of Obama's signature and is one of the "too good" ones he describes. There are several dozen of them on the Internet. But, the second signature, the one that does not follow the loops, the one that makes horrible loops, and the one that is totally made up of individual pixels: THAT was made by man, and not by machine.
I know what an autopen does: it is exactly like a plotter, and if someone cannot tell the difference between raster graphics and a vector graphics is not going to know the difference.
I maintain that what's shown on WND's letter is an added graphic of Obama's signature, irrespective of who or what made the signature. Same-same for the Seal. How exactly does one get an alleged ENLARGEMENT of the Seal on that letter look perfectly formed and raised, with absolutely no distress marks in the paper? How does one take a photo of a letter that looks perfect in every respect, when it's not?
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.
