3 votes

Obama new "Birth Document" a Forgery? Looks Like it.

Trust me.....I don't like to continue down the birther path because it is a distraction....and I know how some of you hate Alex Jones, but this article has caused me to raise my eyebrow more than a little. If this evidence is true...then I have to take the side that this document has been forged or altered.
http://www.infowars.com/does-obama-birth-certificate-number-...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Here's the real certificate

Okay, I was never a birther, I thought they were crazies, racists, or something else.

Then I saw all the evidence and became a convert for a few hours.

But then I found this. If what this guy is saying is true (in the first part of the video... not the second part), then the certificate might actually be real all along:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c93cm17_2C8&feature=related

This is plausible:

They took the actual certificate and photocopied it onto the patterned paper. On the photocopy, the Alvin dude then stamped a few things on the bottom of the photocopy and signed it - that's why these look lighter than the rest of the photocopy. This also explains why the background of the actual certificate is blurrier than the rest of the document.

Then, Alvin took the photocopy and scanned it - but not as an image - he scanned it using OCR. This would get rid of the aliasing and the colour problems as the computer is correcting the words.

So in a way, the above video is actually proves the case that the certificate is REAL and not a fake.

Now, you could argue, why did this Alvin idiot put birth certificate on the patterned paper for? Good question. I don't know. The original birth certificate obviously didn't have this patterned background.

Also, if OCR was used, why are there many parts of the document that SHOULD have also been transcribed but weren't? The "1" in "10641" should have been transcribed. There are also several marks, x's, and numbers that were never transcribed either, but probably should have been. There is a clear separation, and this *is* suspicious.

I think the best way to answer these questions is to take the Associated Press scan of certificate and apply OCR (using all sorts of programs) to the AP scan to see what comes out - let's see if we can find a match. If we can, it's legit. If we can't - well, you decide.

I am only interested in the truth. If this is legit, then it's legit - end of discussion. Let's move on.

Why did you post this same response in two topics?

A simple link to your other comment in the other thread would suffice. Otherwise, this looks like a minor spam attempt.

Alex is over the top

It's ok that he asks why the numbers are out of order, but it is not ok to jump to the conclusion that the document is fake.

I'll bet the explanation is something as simple as:
The day's births are compiled and sent over to the Dept of Health in one packet, not necessarily in time-order. The clerk who typed up the document simply started with the paper on top and worked her way down.

I promise you you're wrong. Download adobe illustrator and try

it for yourself. You'll see it's fake as fake can be. Why so obvious is my question. It's not a matter of zooming and looking, it's a layered composition that the artist neglected to flatten into a single layer when he finished his composition. Even the fake kenyan one was better than this one. Something is very strange about it for sure.

I just saw the video

I just saw the video by the young man who ran the document through Illustrator. I'm pretty convinced the file that appears on the government site is faked.

I would like to see this verified by others.

Come On

I have to call BS on a lot of these arguments.

1. This is clearly a transparency photocopied onto green paper which accounts for the white ring. There was no attempt to hide this.

2. They may have filled out the form when she was leaving the hospital, after they had decided on a name or when the doc was available hence the number order. Not necessarily a smoking gun.

3. From Wikipedia: "The The Colony and Protectorate of Kenya was part of the British Empire in Africa. It was established when the former East Africa Protectorate was transformed into a British crown colony in 1920." Hence Kenya, East Africa makes sense.

4. Ever read the book Hawaii. Hawaii in 1961 was one of the most diverse place in the world with many people all kind of mixes. Makes sense they would allow you to choose your own term for race as African instead of Negro.

Plus, his mom was an American which makes him a natural born citizen in my view. Maybe you don't feel the same way but what if our first libertarian president is being born on an army base in another country right now (hope it doesn't take that long). Do you really want him or her to be discounted?

Yes there are some absurd objections to this document.

The ones that can't be answered easily deal with some up close variances that aren't normal in your average scan. There is also a glaring lack of color artifacting around the lettering. (this happens with color scanners, you can't avoid it) There is serious image compression degredation of adjacent numerals and letters to others that are crisp without even color artifacts.

As for the definition of "natural born" you can't change it absent a constitutional amendment. Sorry if you don't like that.

From Vattel at best only the Father would have to be a citizen, but it does also indicate both would have to be. A court would need to settle the issue.

But since BHO Sr. was NOT a citizen, then there is no case to even try.

Also, if it can't be proven he was born in one of the several States (military bases and territories do not count) then it's a done deal there too.

That's reality. If you don't like it, petition for a constitutional amendment redefining the term specifically.

Vattel clearly says that both

Vattel clearly says that both parents need to be citizens and the child needs to be born on native soil. It would be up to the courts to decide if they wanted one 18 century international treatise to be the deciding factor in modern American law.

The constitution does not need to be ratified in order to be interpreted by the Supreme Court. The term "natural born" is open to debate. Based on court decisions, this has been decided in Obama's case. If you wanted to discount McCain or Obama or some future president because he didn't meet Vattel's definition, it would be your job to ratify the constitution and replace "natural born" with a more specific definition.

So you HAD to make a new thread

just join the other 100 threads about the same thing.

Do you ever have anything

positive to say.....Ooops, forgot....it is Sandra...the Downer.