Comments on: A Chronology of Forgery & Deceit

By: Hawaii Attorney General’s Office Refuses to Corroborate Obama’s Birth Certificate « Reboot The Republic

Wed, 03 Feb 2010 16:25:34 +0000

[...] Post & Email recently published a report explaining why the electronic image promoted by the Obama campaign of a Hawaiian Certification of [...]

By: HI Attorney General’s office refuses to corroborate Obama’s HI Birth « Socialism is not the Answer

Wed, 03 Feb 2010 11:08:13 +0000

[...] Post & Email recently published a report explaining why the electronic image promoted by the Obama campaign of a Hawaiian Certification of [...]

By: | NwoDaily.com

| NwoDaily.com — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 00:00:41 +0000

[...] the courts and Obama’s hidden and sealed early life original paper records unsealed and revealed. Photoshop’d digital images on the internet are legal proof of nothing. And then there is the issue for the 1961 newspaper ads [...]

By: Obamanomics – Natural Born Citizen – Gov. Jindal – Glenn Beck Hypocrisy – Commander Kerchner – Iran – Israel – Anti-Missile Systems – The BOPAC Report « “The BOPAC Report” & Larry Sincl

Mon, 01 Feb 2010 14:36:20 +0000

[...] courts and Obama’s hidden and sealed early life original paper records unsealed and revealed. Photoshop’d digital images on the internet are legal proof of nothing. And then there is the issue for the 1961 newspaper ads [...]

By: Mike

Mike — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 16:07:19 +0000

Another formal, legal declaration:

http://www.therightsideoflife.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/executedsandralinesdeclaration_1.pdf

“After my review and based on my years of experience, I can state with certainty that the COLB presented on the internet by the various groups, which include the “Daily Kos,” the Obama Campaign, “Factcheck.org” and others cannot be relied upon as genuine. ”

I apologize for the seperate posts. Please combine or summerize if appropriate.

By: Mike

Mike — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 15:58:52 +0000

Additional, formal analysis in legal form:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/17324284/Anonymous-Digitable-Expert-Declaration-Signed

By: Mike

Mike — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 15:09:17 +0000

Absolutely great work.

Here is a source for what appears to the original photo prior to the removal of EXIF data and recompression from 1,286,932 bytes to 214,276 bytes.

http://24ahead.com/images/birth_certificate_3.jpg

This may help blunt any rebuttal that the recompression done by Factcheck blurred or hid the seal. The only material difference I can find is that the larger photo shows 99,708 unique colors and the recompressed photo shows 79,924 unique colors so some fine color difference was lost during the recompression. This is as measured by IrfanView freeware.

By: ksdb

ksdb — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 14:46:52 +0000

I can see someone making a 12 hour mistake setting the time on their camera, but not a five month mistake on the date. Notice that none of these pictures shows the entire backside of the document in question so that you can see that it is from the same document (since the lettering on the front would show through a little bit). Second, it’s not the same document that was originally scanned and e-mailed about by Tommy Vietor. The document paper in the photos has a wider margin outside the certificate border than the original scan, which clearly shows the edge of the paper. Somehow the paper grew in the Fact Check photos. One or both were forged. BTW, the location of the photo shoot is thought to be in Obama’s campaign headquarters in Chicago.

On a side note: check out the butterdezilliion blog where the adminstrative rules are posted from the DOH. In it is a very clear rule that says the DOH can issue non-certified copies of birth certificates to anyone who requests one. IOW, the state has all along been able to legally issue a copy of the original certificate. Second, the rules suggest that the certificate numbers are issued by the state at the point when a birth is accepted by the registrar. If so, then there’s no way that Obama could have a higher certificate number than the Nordyke Twins, whose certificates were accepted by the registrar three days after his.

By: ksdb

ksdb — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 14:31:32 +0000

This is standard language that was adopted around 2003 … all states are supposed to have started using that language on their birth records.

By: John Charlton

John Charlton — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 11:26:24 +0000

I would ad, that when dealing with the question of the authentication of a document, in itself, or via an image, when internal evidence damns the authenticity of a document, the examination of external evidence is not necessary, and importantly not always useful, because that too can be contrived, whether it be background setting or exif data.