Today, the White House released an image of what they claim is the original, long-form version of Obama's Certificate of Live Birth:
The date of birth is August 4, 1961, and the certificate # is 61 10641. That suggests to me that perhaps his birth was the 10,641st birth in Hawaii that year.
Regardless of how many births there were in Hawaii up until that point, wouldn't you expect that Hawaii would number certificates in sequence, chronologically? Sounds reasonable, right?
And wouldn't you especially assume this to be the case during an era of no (or few) computers? No computers would mean you'd want documents to have markers that would make them easier to locate among thousands of similar documents? Right? And what marker would be easiest to locate and notice other than the certificate # printed in large type in the top right corner of the document. Right?
So, it would seem reasonable to expect that Hawaii likely assigned birth certificate numbers in chronological sequence, right?
What I mean is this...if there is a birth on August 4, 1961 at 7:24pm, and the certificate # is 61 10641 (Obama's), wouldn't you expect the very next birth at, say, 7:25 pm, to be certificate # 61 10642?
Keep that in mind while you view this pic claiming to be the Certificate of Live Birth of Susan Nordyke:
This Hawaii Certificate of Live Birth, which I found here, is dated the day after Obama's (August 5 vs August 4), but doesn't have a certificate # after Obama's!
Its certificate # is before Obama's! (61 10637 vs 61 10641).
Isn't that strange?
Is it possible that this is proof that Obama's release is a forgery?
Is it possible that Obama was aware of the sequencing issue but was unable to forge a birth certificate with a certificate # previous to 61 10641?
Is it possible that Obama was unable to forge such a document because the sequence of numbers in reasonable relation prior to his own 61 10641 were unavailable for forgery?
Is it possible that the sequences of number you might've expected Obama's certificate to display (numbers such as 61 10610 to 61 10640) refer to birth certificates of people who are still alive? (Therefore, if Obama was to forge a document using one of those certificate numbers, he risked one of those people coming forward with their own certificate and exposing his forgery)!
Is it possible that Obama chose to forge a certificate # from a certificate of someone who is now dead, someone with no spouses? (61 10637?).
This issue NEEDS to be investigated further!
UPDATE: AS OF 9:31 PM EST APRIL 27, 2011:
"61 10641"
FANTASTIC!
Me thinks your tin-foil had is on a wee bit too tight.
ReplyDeleteMe thinks your tin-foil hat is on a wee bit too tight.
ReplyDeleteOkay. Lets see if I can make this simple for you.
ReplyDeleteObama was born Aug 4th, the other person, Aug 5th
Those were a Friday and Saturday respectively.
In those days there were no computers and women stayed in the hospital for up to a week.
The maternity ward has all the birth information hand written in each baby's chart. Come the end of the week this charts are sent down to the document office. A secretary takes the copies of the charts, arranges them in alphabetical order and starts typing out the information which will be then sent to the registry of vital statistics.
The order she typed them were the order the numbers were given out.
Sometimes people think too much.
President Obama had travelled on an international level much before he was even a senator. In order for a US passport to be issued a person must submit a certified copy of live birth. My birth certificate from a Midwest state closely resembles Obamas.
Don't get me wrong. I can't stand the man, but this crap is beyond stupid.
vist this site look at the bottom of the twins and then Obama
Deletehttp://www.sonorannews.com/archives/2011/110504/frontpage-ObamaBirth.html
The document released to the public by the white house in PDF format has been altered significantly. By opening the document in Adobe Illustrator, major portions of the document show as being setup with clipping masks. Once the clipping masks are unmasked, a user can toggle on and off the various layers that were added to the document. When the layers are turned off most of the text, all of the watermark weave features from the supposed paper and the last 2 digits of the certificate # are clipping masks layered over a blank template document. By toggling the layers on and off, almost all of the relevant information on this "Document" disappears, leaving an empty template.
ReplyDeleteSomeone recorded a video of doing this found at:
http://www.mu-un.com/ObamaFakeFinal.mov
It's plausible that they could've typed things in alphabetically from among a group of collective birth records. However, this is pure speculation, unless you know otherwise.
ReplyDeleteAs I said, it needs to be investigated.
Here are two articles I haven't had the chance to read yet:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=292457
http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/04/27/obama-supporter-unknowingly-confirms-bc-forgery/
Anonymous, it appears your thesis about how the records are typed in is false:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=292457
" * Note, Obama was given certificate No. 151 – 1961 – 10641, even though he was born Aug. 4, 1961, the day before the Nordyke twins, and his birth was registered with the Hawaii Department of Health registrar three days earlier, Aug. 8, 1961.
In 1961, the birth certificate numbers were not assigned by the hospitals.
Instead, the numbers were stamped to the birth record by the Hawaii Department of Health at the main office in Honolulu.
This is the only place birth certificate numbers were assigned.
At the last step of the process, the documents were accepted by the registrar general, with the date of registration inserted in box No. 22 on the lower right hand corner of the long-form birth certificate.
The date the birth document was accepted by the registrar general was the date the birth certificate number was stamped on the birth record.
The birth certificate number was stamped on the form by a rubber stamp that automatically increased by one each time a birth certificate was stamped.
The question, therefore, is how was it possible that the Nordyke twins had their birth certificates accepted by the registrar general in Hawaii three days later than the registrar general accepted Obama's birth certificate, when the twins' numbers are lower than Obama's number?"
And we trust your source's description of the process in Hawaii in 1961 is correct - why?
ReplyDeleteI posted last night about the clipping masks and layering. It appears there could be a very simple reason for at least some of the layers and masks identified by the video I linked to. A simple post scan document processing feature in Adobe Acrobat seems to create clipping masks and layers while running and OCR process on a scanned document.
ReplyDeleteHere is the video link of someone walking through how this might have happened with an example of the process. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcWQw2AAIho
One thing this new video may not explain adequately is the signatures that do not show the discoloration pattern that ink would leave and did leave in other hand written portions of the document.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeletethanks for the update. I'll review the link you provide.
At this point, it's shocking to see that it appears to be a forgery that is easily unmasked.
It makes one appear that Obama is toying with the public.
Why? Perhaps he wants it to be an obvious forgery so that he has an excuse to resign and not face the humiliation of having to provide a legitimate birth certificate prior to the 2012 election.
Perhaps he is planning on using the coverage to help disguise other moves he plans to make policy wise. (However, I don't think media coverage of the potential forgery would be louder than other news, b/c the mainstream media probably isn't pointing out the details of the potential forgery)
Perhaps Obama is simply just acting as I've suspected all along: He's simply an arrogant fool playing a joke on everyone b/c he has no regard for laws and doesn't feel that a president should be foreign born. His contempt for the rule of law is consistent with some other actions of his, eg. Libya war without congressional approval, his heavy use of executive orders to avoid votes on appointment of czars, etc.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteI watched the optimization video. That could account for some of the layers, for sure, if that video is accurate.
If that's the case, it would simply mean that one document was scanned into Adobe and was unaltered, versus several other documents being scanned and/or manipulated into Adobe.
So, we would then know that a document was scanned into Adobe.
Of course, that document could easily have been forged PRIOR to scanning it in. In fact, that's what you'd expect, would you not?
There are several disturbing aspects of the information on the document:
Of course, there's the birth sequence that I identified, and I provided a very plausible reason to explain why they might've used a forged certificate number that didn't run in sequence: b/c it may have been the closest one available that referred to a deceased person.
Next, I wonder why there's a white outline around the typed letters. If you type black on a green background, why would white be showing?
And then there's the curious case of "caucasian" and "African" being used on the document instead of "White" and "Negro", as this text claims was the standard in 1961:
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/04/time-to-move-on-to-obamas-natural-born.html
"VITAL STATISTICS OF THE UNITED STATES 1961 - VOLUME I - NATALITY
Race and color "Births in the United States in 1961 are classified for vital statistics into white, Negro, American Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Aleut, Eskimo, Hawaiian and Pa...rt-Hawaiian (combined), and "other nonwhite." The category "white" includes, in addition to persons reported as "white," those reported as Mexican or Puerto Rican. With one exception, a reported mixture of Negro with any other race is included in the Negro group; other mixed parentage is classified according to the race of the nonwhite parent and mixtures of nonwhite races to the race of the father. The exception refers to a mixture of Hawaiian and any other race, which is classified as Part-Hawaiian. In most tables a less detailed classification of "white" and "nonwhite" is used."
And there are other concerns I've read about, including a comment that Kenya was not a country in 1961 so the father couldn't have been Kenyan (I suppose he would've been British).
I would agree with you that it was abnormal to have listed on the birth certificate "African" and also abnormal for the father's country to be labeled "Kenya" in a regular everyday situation.
ReplyDeleteBut lets play devils advocate for a minute and bring into consideration the ideology and demeanor of Obama's father. Obama Senior was an anti-colonialist native of Kenya who had strong ideological beliefs against anything he considered imperialistic. Hawaii is an island on the other side of the world, and US doctors in the 60's were probably not well educated on world geography and the significance of the commonwealth colonies of Britain. Given these circumstances, I would find it reasonable to consider the possibility that Obama Senior might have caused some fuss regarding his race being 'African' rather than 'Negro'. Additionally, it is likely that when asked he said 'Kenyan' instead of listing the official colony name assignment by the British crown (especially since he hated what he considered colonial encroachment on his homeland country).
Obviously my speculation is unprovable, just as any speculation that these abnormalities from the norm of that time mean it is a forgery.
Regarding again the videos, it is likely the text was run through an Adobe's OCR (recognizes the text typed on a page so it can be copied/pasted into other docs if wanted). Regarding the papers background weave pattern. It is unclear if that existed at all, but the background weave was definitely extended beyond the original scan area (you can tell where it extends beyond the actual scan from the part where the page curves away). The most significant and consequently difficult thing to explain away about the electronic document is the parts of the signature that were undeniably generated or "enhanced" post scan. The color is too consistent to actually be part of the birth certificate ink, and would only be that way through editing the electronic document (whether that would mean enhancing areas that were too light to scan properly, or if that means outright fabrication of those parts of the document).
If you were to ask me to guess how this all took place (while assuming legitimacy of the document), I would speculate the original scan was only the Birth Certificate from the record binder. The scanned Birth Certificate was printed again, signed by the registrar, scanned a 2nd time, OCR run on the document, the background weave coloring was continued throughout or created altogether for the entire document. And the signatures were "enhanced" so they would be visible and legible.
Personally, I would not argue that this document is legitimate. At the same time I am not certain we have enough information to argue it is completely illegitimate. I would rank the strongest argument for illegitimacy to be the undeniable alterations to the signature areas for the birth mother and father.
--the guy who posted the video links for the layers and masking found on the document.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeletedo you not think that the sequence of birth certificate #s is not a strong indication of possible forgery?
The sequence is the reverse of what would be expected if the births were numbered according to either the date of BIRTH or the date of REGISTER.
In fact, it may be provable that the policy at the time was NOT consistent with the document released.
Also, if they would release the birth certificate #s from documents just before and after Obama's, analysis could further bolster or prove my argument (that there may not have been a birth certificate # just prior to the Nordyke twins' in which the person has deceased)
The numerical inconsistency is a good argument to make, but that argument has been present even with the short form (or whatever it is called) which people have had access to for a year or more. Basically, it is a good argument with many points of its own, but it is not specific to this newly released document. Since that argument has already been around, but has not gained widespread traction in the past, it may be better to approach the issue by examining the weakest points regarding this specific document (which will consequently provide new fresh arguments for questioning the authenticity of the document and which may gain more traction and then be dove-tailed with the numerical inconsistency after people have begun to question the documents authenticity).
ReplyDeleteSpecifically regarding the long form document, it is very significant from my perspective that the signatures are likely electronically forged. Ink coloration is never consistently only one color when scanning documents. The colors of the ink are picked up by the scanner and when the image is blown up, it can be clearly seen that coloration has many grays on the edges and darker blacks in the middle of the inked areas on the page. Substantial portions of the signatures have a consistent color without the discoloration and shading on the edges. This indicates those portions of the signatures were electronically edited after the initial scan. Any scanned information underneath the edited portions of the signatures is lost and cannot be viewed, but the edited portion is absolutely guaranteed to not be original or a part of the scan. Thus this is the stronger argument for debasing the authenticity of this long form document. The numerical speculation about the inconsistent numbering based on other available information would likely be better received once the public is willing to question this documents authenticity.
From my perspective, it is simply a matter of getting people to recognize this document cannot be legitimate or authentic given the substantial electronic alterations and editing that took place. After someone recognizes this, they will realize they have been lied to once already, and the numerical issue will appear more significant (I think many people (if they have even heard about it) now simply look at the numbering and say something like "Well that's government for you, have a simple numbering process and even then they figure out a way to screw it all up").
Regarding the release of further birth certificates, I do not think anyone who is researching Obama's certificate would have standing in Hawaii to go looking through records of private citizens who were born before and after him. If it could be done, that would be great, but the likelihood of this being allowed is approaching zero. I do not necessarily agree with Hawaii's laws, but realistically, anyone investigating this would have to deal with them as they are now written. Looking for a certificate number for a child who died or is now dead, is really only circumstantial to the whole issue, and if found would only prove that said person was born, and is now dead or is still alive. Speculatively it might mean something to some, but realistically it only proves one of those two things as there will be no footnotes on those documents to the effect of "document identified as not a good option for forging a Birth Certificate number."
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate the time you've taken.
I agree that it would be difficult to force disclosure of the sequences of birth certificates. However, if the White House wanted to reduce the strength of the argument I made, they could attempt to perhaps get approval for release (or partial release) of the documents. I highly doubt they will do this without intense pressure.
I agree that the sequencing issue had been made previously. However, I was unaware of it. Hopefully more people are aware of it now.
The interesting thing is to see how this document will impact the existing and potential future lawsuits against Obama. Now that they don't need to force discovery of the documents, they can now actually introduce witnesses who are willing to testify that the document is a forgery! THis could be quite exciting!
However, I'm not sure that the existence of the document would eliminate the ability of a judge to cut the lawsuit short by claiming that plaintiffs don't have standing.
We'll see!
just for fun, If, a woman from mexico and a man from Canada have a child in a plane over USA Air Space, and the plane lands in LAX. Does that mean that kid can become President of the USA ¿
ReplyDeletelol,
ReplyDeletejust the type of problem America needs! With America's luck it'll happen one day! Oops, then again maybe not...b/c the person would have to be a scumbag to hide their history, like Obama!
So what you're saying is that Obama was born before this other person, but has a birth certificate number which is after hers sequentially.
ReplyDeleteHowever, as you say, birth certificate numbers aren't given by the hospital, but rather by the state registrar. Therefore, the hospital would have to send notification of the birth to the registrar for them to allocate a number (as well as any other role they perform).
Why is it unreasonable to suppose that the registrar simply waited until they had a stack of documents to stamp and then did them all at once?
The simple fact of the matter is that you don't like Obama. That's fine. However, this is ridiculous. You've presented no evidence that Obama's birth certificate is false. There are 1000s of reasons why the number could be higher. Too many to list. You are choosing to ignore the rational answer.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeletewho are you referring to?
I never said that birth certificate numbers aren't given by the hospital. I referred to another source:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=292457
You ask:
"Why is it unreasonable to suppose that the registrar simply waited until they had a stack of documents to stamp and then did them all at once?"
I never claimed that was unreasonable. But if the source I refer to is correct, it IS unreasonable. How could waiting for a stack to build result in the discrepancy in sequence?
"The date the birth document was accepted by the registrar general was the date the birth certificate number was stamped on the birth record.
The birth certificate number was stamped on the form by a rubber stamp that automatically increased by one each time a birth certificate was stamped.
"The question, therefore, is how was it possible that the Nordyke twins had their birth certificates accepted by the registrar general in Hawaii three days later than the registrar general accepted Obama's birth certificate, when the twins' numbers are lower than Obama's number?"
Can you answer that?
And I never said I've provided definitive proof that a forgery has occurred.
I simply said I've provided enough information to warrant an investigation. Are you claiming you don't think it's odd that the certificate number doesn't list in sequence according to either date of birth or date of registration?
And by the way, if the source I referred to was incorrect about the procedures at that time, there may be other reasons why the number could be higher, but similarly there may be other reasons why it could be forged!
Therefore, the default scenario that warrants whether investigation is warranted is whether something seems liks it may be out of place.
Obama put himself in this position. If he hadn't have hidden the document for 2.5 years, not as many people would've felt suspicious enough to scrutinize it when it WAS released.
I don't think it's at all odd that the numbers aren't sequential.
ReplyDeleteRegistrar receives a few notices of birth. He waits until he has more. He takes the two piles, puts them together, but puts the ones he's received most recently on the bottom. He therefore stamps some that are a few days older with a lower number.
You haven't provided enough information to warrant an investigation. Simply a mass of 'what ifs'.
Obama hasn't put himself in this position. It's conspiracy theorists who have put him in this position. If he'd released his birth certificate two and a half years ago the conspiracy theorists would simply have moved onto something else. More troublesome, it would have set a bad precedent. It would have said that whenever someone throws mud at him, he must defend himself instantly, or else have it thrown at him that he couldn't do so. He'd be diverting his energies away from his responsibilities.
Incidentally, Obama is president of the USA. If he'd wanted to forge a birth certificate he wouldn't have waited two and a half years to do it. He could have done so instantly. As you say, this wouldn't have raised people's suspicions.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteyour post is bizarre.
You don't think they'd want to list the certificates in a predictable manner according to birth date or register date? That's not very reasonable.
Second, the link I provided claims that that method HAwaii used was the exact one I described, meaning there is even more evidence against your position. Yous position is simply a theory and nothing has been provided to back it up, whereas my theory has been backed up by simple logic, common sense, and another source.
Second, Obama HAS put himself in the position, by refusing to provide the certificate and instead paying millions in legal defenses.
it started way back when Obama refused to provide a legal form, he instead provided a short form that was short on details and was not considered a legal form at that time.
It would have been a bad precendent to provide a birth certificate? lol. You are a complete fool. The law requires that one be a natural born citizen. That's a bad precedent, to qualify for that? Is it a bad precedent to provide your birth certificate for little league?
He's diverting his energy to grab his birth certificate?
If he wanted to forge a birth certificate, he certainly may have waited, b/c it's now that other states are filing legislation that would ban Obama if he didn't have a long form. He had no choice but to be banned from a 2nd term.
For someone who claims to be so intelligent, you sure are dim
ReplyDeleteI would like to point out that the sequence number has no relation to the date of birth. I would speculate that the sequence number is stamped at the time the mother signs the certificate and since everyone is using the Nordyke cert for comparison, they were both signed by the mothers on the same day 8/7/61.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to the myth about the mothers date of signature being similar. A perfect explanation would be that the person who typed the cert probably filled in the date for the mothers.
In regards to the Race of the Father. Negro was a term used in the U.S. and I suspect that Ann stated African and that is what the clerk put on the form.
There is nothing really that is out of the ordinary that says this is fake. I believe this is a true birth certificate.
The only true way to compare FAKE or FRAUD is to compare Ann's signature to something she signed back in 1961.
Its not just the number that is different if you look close on the twins on the bottom middle the seal of Hawaii is visible if you look on Obama's same spot there is no seal http://www.sonorannews.com/archives/2011/110504/frontpage-ObamaBirth.html on this site I found all 3 birth certificates
ReplyDelete