Posted on 06/07/2012 11:11:57 AM PDT by Red Steel
Network misrepresents microfilm birth record as Obama's
On the heels of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse’s investigative trip to Hawaii, CNN pulled out old material – including microfilm misrepresented as Barack Obama’s birth certificate – to run a report called “Busting the Birther Conspiracy Theory.”
In the segment, broadcast May 30, reporter Gary Tuchman declared his intention to refute conclusively the contention Obama’s birth certificate is fraudulent.
Some careful observers, however, objected that the Tuchman report was a rebroadcast of material that CNN originally broadcast last year and possibly even earlier.
Moreover, CNN showed a microfilm copy of a birth certificate as if it were Obama’s original 1961 record. But it turned out to be someone else’s birth certificate.
At approximately the 1:22 mark of the segment, CNN displayed a microfilm copy of what viewers were led to believe was Obama’s birth certificate.
Close examination of a screen capture as seen in Exhibit 1 makes clear that the document is not Obama’s.
As seen in Exhibit 2, when the microfilm birth certificate is enlarged, the number appears to end with the digits “000,” while the computer-generated long-form birth certificate displayed on the White House website on April 27, 2011, bears the number “10641.”
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
I looked at every seal I can find, to double-check my theory and it’s more complicated than just left orientation or right orientation. They’ve got an embossed seal applied from the left on the front of the BC. They’ve got debossed seals applied from the left on the back of the BC. They’ve got a debossed seal applied from the right on the front of the BC.
It seems that what’s consistent is that the wording is read from whatever side Onaka’s certifying statement is on, and the raised part is on the side where the actual content is. So if Onaka signs the back, then it’s a debossed seal applied to the back. If Onaka signs the front, then it’s an embossed seal applied from the front.
They all appear to be created from extended-reach embossers, which (according to the suppliers I’ve looked at) can extend all the way to the middle of an 8.5x 11” paper if oriented from the left or right. Onaka’s seal appears to always be 1 5/8” diameter.
The dashes are used to make it so that the paper doesn’t crinkle when embossed. The official DOH seal does not use dashes, and you can see the crinkling of the paper.
So it’s complicated. If the BC’s we have images of are genuine, Hawaii has not been following the HDOH Administrative Rules for their certification of long-form BC’s because they’ve not been including one of the following - either the State of Hawaii seal or the official 2 1/4” diameter DOH seal - on the certificate as required by the rules. Instead they’ve been using the registrar’s certifying statement and 1 5/8” seal on the front of the BC (which is also required, if the state registrar has been deputized to be the issuing office), but that doesn’t get rid of the requirement for the official DOH seal, which is defined in Title 11-1-1 as being 2 1/4” in diameter.
When I spoke with the state registrar here in Nebraska about how to prove that my own birth certificate didn’t use a forged seal, he said all I could do was tell him I was coming in so he’d be prepared, bring him the certified copy I’ve got, and he could tell me whether that debossed seal was consistent with their requirements. He would not say flat-out that they use debossed seals or that they don’t. The implication was that they change things all the time and they have no idea which particular way they did things at any given time. Unlike Hawaii, I was not able to get access to the rules for Nebraska’s Health and Human Services so I don’t know whether the protocols they used on my birth certificate comply with their rules - and Cooper wasn’t going to tell me whether they did or didn’t.
Hawaii’s DOH Administrative Rules are required to be posted on their website at all times, though, and what HI has been doing - if the BC images we have are genuine - does not comply with their rules.
What remains clear about the “seal” on Obama’s long-form BC is that it is vague to the point that the only thing that can be known about it is that it is round and 1 5/8” in diameter, and it is vague beyond what Onaka’s seal is on other BC images scanned and posted online or photographed in person. And that is one of the tell-tale signs of a forged seal, according to the inspector general for HHS.
What remains clear about the “seal” on Obama’s COLB is that it doesn’t distort with the fold of the page and was thus C&P’ed onto the photo. It’s also clear that the “seal” did not appear on the first online scans of what Obama claimed was that same document - unlike other COLB scans.
Something I hadn’t realized but found somebody else noting it when I looked around was that in the press conference Obama said, “People signed affidavits saying they had seen this birth certificate.” I know of nobody who signed an affidavit that they had seen ANY birth certificate of Obama’s. Who was he referring to there, or was it a Freudian slip, referring to the affidavits that were used by the HDOH to CREATE the abstract he was posting a forgery of that day?
Nope. "All" doesn't work.
Nor can he remember which hospital he was supposed to be born in when Kapi’olani was right next to the Dunham's apartment and he walked past it every day to school. Everyone is entitled to the occasional brain fart here and there but this clown has far too many. Either his brain is so addled from drugs and/or he's not who he claims to be but either way he's not POTUS material. Putin knew on day one and laughed at America for electing him.
Well, there you are. Another incident of carelessness. Alvin's not the great record keeper he thinks he is. There's a reason for his department to pass the new vexatious requestor law.
Take a look at all the typical security features that are available.
http://www.printerm.com/check_security.htm
Most states use at least 2 or more security features.
- Pantograph - The VOID background that comes out during coping. This works well with standard photocopies. Scanners do not pick up the pattern so well.
- Watermark - very common. And it does not pick up with copying or scanning easily or at all. And it is designed to force review in 3 dimensional real world since you have to hold the paper to the light a certain way.
- Subtle, custom, registered embossing. Subtle dies that barely bend the paper are the standard. Not the easily counterfeited pin die that apparently Hawaii uses. Also, the custom shallow dies do not copy easily and do not scan easily. The whole idea of a embossed seal is to NOT copy or scan. Hawaii’s - as we see does copy easily and is actually a de-embossed pin logo. Most states use EMBOSSED non-pin logos.
- Very detailed border. Like the Peterboy COLB. Not the rinky-dink border in the new COLBs.
- Black light security fibers. Visible using only black light.
Here is an example of actual ‘official document’ stock is. This has some of the features above.
http://www.highsecuritypaper.com/4officialdocument.html
I believe you can buy the paper used by Hawaii from Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/Blue-2x11-24lb-Basketweave-Security-Paper/dp/B004FOEQWA/ref=pd_sbs_op_5
The bottom line is that if you wanted the most forgable docment standard in the world - Hawaii is the template. No other state comes close to the complete lack of security features as Hawaii. And Hawaii used to use some of these - all the way back in 1991.
I accept this an authentic ‘official’ document from Hawaii.
But they are so lacking in accepted security features - that they used to have.
“What is your reason for believing that is what “Date filed” indicates?”
The only option available to the registrar is to file Court ordered documents. A registrar does not have the option to accept a Court order.
A registrar does have the option to accept or not accept witness attestations (signatures of the mother, delivery doc and hospital administrator). Consequently, witness attestations accepted by the registrar are noted on the birth record.
Adoptions are private matters, so the a post adoption Court order instructs the registrar to backdate the date filed. For example, the Soetoro adoption was finalized in 1966 in Hawaii. The Court ordered the Original Long Form BC with a date accepted August 8, 1961 to be sealed and archived. Further, the Court ordered the registrar to create a new COLB listing Lolo Soetoro as the father with a date filed August 4, 1961. The backdate is to ensure the adoption remains private.
In 1971, BHO Sr. returned to Hawaii to complain his parental rights were terminated without his knowledge or consent. Most likely, Stanley testified BHO Sr. was not the father and the Soetoro adoption should remain intact.
We infer Stanley Ann disputed paternity because the Court could have restored BHO’s Sr. paternal rights by ordering Lolo Soetoro’s paternity dissolved and restoring the Original Long Form BC. The Court did not restore the Original Long Form BC because it contains a witness attestation by Stanley Ann that BHO Sr. is the father.
Stanley Ann swore BHO Sr. was the father in 1961 and then swore BHO Sr. was not the father in 1971. Consequently, the Court ruled BHO Sr. was the father and ordered the registrar to file a COLB without the witness attestations found on the 1961 record and backdated to August 1961.
Title 11-1 says that “date filed” is the date a document is received at their office. The HDOH Administrative Rules (Chapter 8b) refers to “acceptance” of a vital record interchangeably with it being given a number. Janice Okubo reversed the meaning of the terms in her statement but said that there was no real distinction except for the outlying islands, where the BC would be received by a local registrar for some time before sending it to the state registrar to be given a number.
I don’t understand why you’re thinking a court has to be involved whenever the word “filed” is used - particularly since “filed” is used on Virginia Sunahara’s birth record and we know she had no court action taken. And also since the HI legislature has already said that “date filed” refers to the date a document is received within an office - with no reference made to court action.
What about numbering the exact pieces of paper? I’ve seen that this is another security feature. The COLB that Stig Waidelich got had a number in the bottom right corner (right after the ANY ALTERATIONS INVALIDATE THIS CERTIFICATE). I’ve seen another COLB in person and it similarly had a number there. The numbers were out of sequence with each other - the later copy having a lower number. So that just seems strange. But I thought it was probably supposed to be some kind of security feature. But most of the posted COLB’s don’t have a number like that.
HDOH procedures just seem so hopelessly mixed-up that there’s no way to make sense out of them. But then, the signs of forgery on both Obama’s “birth certificates” are clear enough that we don’t even need to know the procedures in order to know there are big problems with Obama’s documentation.
If you can obtain Virginia Sunahara’s BC with her mother’s signature attesting to the event of Virginia’s birth, then it will have a date accepted by the registrar. Otherwise, it’s a date filed after a Court order instructing the registrar to file the birth record.
Witness attestations = date accepted.
Court order = date filed backdated to the date the registrar would have accepted if witness attestations had been accepted.
Think about the big picture. How does someone get into the Courthouse records and have one page removed from the divorce record and everyone working in the courthouse stands firm to assert nothing is wrong? If you’re Orly Taitz, then you think it’s a conspiracy and everyone is in on it.
Or, you realize Obama’s Original Long Form BC was sealed and archived by Court order after the Soetoro adoption was finalized. A sealed and archived document becomes legally invalid in all courts in all jurisdictions. It is likely the Court ordered the Original Long Form BC removed from the Dunham-Obama divorce record after the Court ordered the Soetoro adoption finalized.
While Obama did choom a lot, this doesn't acct for his memory issues. I have a friend who's done a massive amount of drugs, w heavy emphasis on The Herb. His short term memory is appalling. You can be talking to him, and literally in the space of 5 minutes he can forget something crucial you just said. It's sad.
Yet there's one thing this guy has never forgotten or had any confusion over. His B-date. He can tell you any time, any day, the date of his birth.
What's more, this friend knows where he was born, as in the city, the hospital, and the larger region. He doesn't, for example, imagine he was born in Asia when in fact he was born in N. America.
Obama’s ‘memory’ issues have to do w the mountain of mendacity atop which his persona and political career sit. He's not sharp enough to keep his lies straight—and in this regard the chooming didn't help. But the bottomline problem is the lies themselves.
Fortunately cracks are emerging in his MSM-supported stonewall. Did he appear medicated in his presser the other day? You betcha. The strain of falling popularity and both Zullo and Breitbart digging into his past is taking a toll. And didn't Axelrod come off sounding calm and chipper in his appearance today? Well, actually he came off sounding like a man who realizes that if his ship hasn't struck the iceberg yet, it's just a matter of time.
Nasty as Axelrod is, you still almost feel sorry for him. He has about the worst job in the US right now—and it's only going to get worse as Nov approaches.
Eventually B, you’ll figure out that Sven is just making this stuff up as he goes.
Hope you’ve been well.
That could be how they do stuff with adoptions but there would be no way to tell if “date filed” was because of an adoption or if it was just the date that the document made it into a DOH office, like Virginia Sunahara’s.
The whole “date filed” is a computer label for a field. On the actual birth certificates it has either date received or date accepted, and either by the local registrar or the state registrar. Those terms make much more sense. What Okubo seems to have said was that they went (sometime in the mid-2000’s was what was being claimed by others, I think) from having separate computer fields for “date received” and “date accepted”, to having one field called “Date filed” - because they started filing all their BC’s electronically so that everything was instantaneous. The software wouldn’t let you submit something until you had everything necessary and within the parameters they were supposed to be, IIRC from the data entry manual for the CDC’s new software specs. So basically as soon as you were able to send it in it was accepted, if I understand correctly.
They re-ran this story to try to pre-empt what everybody needs to realize: that Alvin Onaka just indirectly confirmed to AZ SOS Ken Bennett - and the whole world - that the record they have for Obama is not legally valid.
That means that both the COLB and the long-form are AGAIN indirectly confirmed as forgeries, to deceive the whole world about the validity of his record.
The reason they had to talk to Fukino in this clip and not to Onaka, for instance - who also saw the birth certificate even though he had no “tangible interest” (which Fukino claimed she had because she had been asked by Lingle’s press secretary to make an announcement about the eligibility controversy) - is because Onaka would be criminally liable for perjury if he stated that he was absolutely sure that Obama was born in Hawaii, since he still holds an official position with the HI government. The only way that scummy Fukino is going to stay out of jail for perjuring herself in this clip is by pleading that she was not speaking as the Health Director but as a normal citizen who can lie out the wazoo with impunity.
I see stuff like this and it makes me so angry that these people have a big megaphone as if anything about them was credible.
This guy totally blew off that Abercrombie didn’t release a BC because he couldn’t FIND ONE - according to what he told Mike Evans. He also told Evans that the first time he ever saw Barry was at t-ball age. He told a Star-Advertiser columnist that there was something “actually written down” but that it wouldn’t convince skeptics, which is why this was going to be a serious issue for the 2012 election.
And why didn’t the “reporter” (cough) ask Fukino why she had said that Obama’s BC was half-written and half-typed, why she referred to plural “vital records”, or why her own office had indirectly confirmed that Obama’s BC was amended in late 2006 or early January of 2007?
Why didn’t they talk to former OIP Director, Paul Tsukiyama - who indirectly confirmed that there are affidavits submitted in support of the claims on Obama’s birth certificate?
Why didn’t CNN mention that they flew in Stig Waidelich to do this segment, and that they were required to either present a reason that they neeeded an emergency BC released, or else wait a week before getting a COLB for him? Which did they do - claim an emergency, or wait a week? Or had CNN pre-arranged what the HDOH was going to do, since the BC# they gave Stig on that COLB is hopelessly out of sequence with the Nordyke BC#’s and Obama’s?
Geez, it makes me angry to see the ignorance out there and the way that the Soros people are trying to silence those of us who have the facts that prove them wrong.
This is why I don’t watch TV or take a newspaper. Just makes me too angry and disgusted.
What is that in the picture? Traouble reading all of the writing....What does it say?
It's showing you that the records of arrivals for the period...appear to have been DESTROYED.
You are assuming publishers are intelligent individuals who vet their authors thoroughly. In my experience they are not. They’re salesmen. They could care less where Obama was born as long as the author has a good story and everyone believes it. They’re certainly not going to demand a birth certificate or send someone to Kenya to verify it.
Re the foreign arrivals - travelers from Canada would be foreign arrivals. Pregnant girls usually went to visit an ‘aunt’ when they had their baby. Canada was closer than Kenya and auntie lived right near the Canadian border.
I believe that when Fukino gave that interview, she no longer worked for the Dept. of Health, so anything she said was as a private citizen, giving her opinion, which she’s entitled to do and even be completely wrong with no danger of perjury.
It’s specious how she claimed, considering all the stonewalling they did with AZ Secretary of State Bennett, that she could simply decide that she herself had the authority to examine Obama’s birth records and then make a statement about what they contain, after they’ve gone on and on about how nobody can see them or even comment about them without Obama’s express permission. They also other times claimed that even Obama can’t see them or have them released. (But then he did exactly that!)
Tuchmann didn’t ask any of those pertinent questions because he was acting as a tool instead of as a reporter. He was doing a job but not the one he pretends to do. Why didn’t he question current employees of the Dept. of Health instead of someone who no longer could act or speak in any official capacity? We know, but the average viewer wouldn’t.
Stig Waidelich (and his mother) is just another person aiding and abetting the fantasy.
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.