Prisonplanet said (April 28, 2011):

Number is wrong

http://www.prisonplanet.com/obama-birth-certificate-number-proves-forgery.html

Brasscheck TV said (April 28, 2011):

Where Obama was actually born is the least of our
problems.

That being said, the document on the White House
web site is NOT a scan of a print document as the
White House claims it is.

It's a digital creation.

Which means - and why am I not surprised? - it's
a fraud.

Here's the analysis.

Video:

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/1089.html

Maria said (April 28, 2011):

The signature of Obama's mom on the birth certificate he released yesterday is totally dissimilar from her signature on her Social Security card. Please go to: "Obama Mom's Signature on that Birth Certificate," http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2011/04/27/obamas-moms-signature-on-that-birth-certificate/

Charles said (April 28, 2011):

When I first saw your reference to the background-line anomaly on the new birth certificate this morning I recall no little black "triangle" in the upper left corner. Now all of the images I can find on the internet seem to have this triangle, which should have no place on an actual photocopy. Have all the images, including yours, been "edited" since this morning????

I really appreciate your good work. Yours is the only site on the web I check daily.

Ken said (April 28, 2011):

Here's the deal with the latest release of Obama's long form BC...

First of all, it's not. It's not a long form birth certificate. This is a short form "Certificate of Live Birth." This is merely a recent copy of what he's already released in the past. He is trying to pass this off - AGAIN - as a long form BC when it is not. A long form birth certificate is longer, with more information, and a footstamp.

Second... it's not an original document. It even says so in the lower right hand corner. It says quite clearly that it is a COPY or an Abstracted COPY of what is on file there in Hawaii.

So a COPY OF A COLB proves nothing. I'm a graphic designer myself and can spit these things out all day.

Here is the REAL issue that Obama is attempting to distract people from... he is NOT a natural born citizen.

There is a difference between a common citizen and a natural born citizen. POTUS requires a natural born citizen only. Under the 14th amendment there are two stipulations for being a citizen, 1. Be born here in the US, and 2. You have to be under US jurisdiction.

For example, you can be born here in the US and still not be a US citizen. In the famous ELK case, Elk was ruled NOT a US citizen even though he was born in America. At the time of his birth, his parents were members of an Indian tribe, and thus NOT under US jurisdiction. This stipulation in the 14th amendment also applies to people temporarily in the US and foreign diplomats.

Obama Sr. was a British Subject. He maintained a DOMICILE in Kenya, where he his children lived. DOMICILE is a legal term. You can have only one under the law. If you are domiciled in Kenya, then you can only be in the USA temporarily and Obama Sr. was here in the US temporarily on a scholarship. At no time did he go through naturalization or renounce his status as a British Subject. He married Ann. Under both American and British laws at the time, any baby so born would have been born a BRITISH SUBJECT regardless of where the baby was born. The nationality of the baby is derived from the father in a marriage and Obama Sr. gave Obama Jr. the gift of being a British Subject from the moment of birth.

Think of it this way, If YOU went to France, and knocked up a woman, married her, and then had a baby... that baby wouldn't be a French citizen, it would be an American citizen born abroad. It would inherit your gift of American citizenship, but would not be a natural born American citizen under any stretch of the law.

The US government, as stated in court cases, does NOT recognize dual citizenship in matters of "natural born citizens." You either are a natural born citizen or you are not. So all this business about birth certificates is deception to hide the fact that Obama is NOT eligible to be POTUS. This is quite clear in the law, the US Constitution, Vattel's Law of Nations, the 14th amendment, and the British and American laws on naturalization at the time.

There is also the matter of when he left America and went to Indonesia where he would have been forced to renounce his citizenship. To re enter this nation he would've had to have gone through NATURALIZATION, which by itself would have meant he would be ineligible as POTUS.

What is taking place now is that Obama, Barry Soetoro, a CIA manchurian candidate and crony of the Bush Crime family, is purposely lying and deceiving every caring American. This man is NOT your president, mine, or anyone's. He is an illegal criminal usurper. Hope this information clears things up.

Armed with this knowledge you now can see TRUMP revealed. IF Trump does not publicly denounce this latest lie then that is his "tell," the mark of a phony. If however, he does come out and say basically, "WTF - I demand to see a REAL long form BC and proof that you are a NBC" then at least on this issue, he'd have more credibility than the average phony Federal Reserve owned Republican or Democrat.

Dick said (April 28, 2011):

I saw the post on your site about the birth certificate and thought I'd weigh in. I'm a graphic designer and have been working in
photoshop and related programs for about 15 years.

The argument by your "imaging expert" makes no sense. The green "safety" background should be completely parallel, as it is. I don't think there's any pretense that this pattern is part of the original birth certificate (documents of that era are always on thin, off-white carbon-copy paper). It's (ostensibly) 2011 paper onto which a photocopy of the birth certificate is printed.

I opened the original pdf in Adobe Illustrator to see what kinds of layers and objects it was composed of. There is one layer made of the green background, white halos (aliasing) around the text, signatures, and the form fields of the birth certificate. On top of that are a number of distinct objects like the stamps, groups of
typewritten text, etc.

In my professional opinion, it's impossible to tell whether this certificate is a fake or not because of its purposeful low resolution and the way it was exported.

Assuming this is a forgery, from what I can figure out, the document was probably created by:

1) Scanning a mimeograph or photocopy of an actual birth certificate to get the curvature on the left side, and the proper fields, etc.

2) Compiling the typewriting, stamps and signatures from found objects (including text written with an old typewriter, maybe
Stanley's / BHO's school signatures), scanning them, and creating this central "birth certificate" image.

3) Printing that image on actual green safety paper.

4) Either stamping and signing it at the bottom, or again just printing a compiled photoshop version.

5) Scanning or faxing this physical document, with export settings for a VERY low-resolution, screen-optimized pdf. I think this
accounts for the text separating from the background, as the export settings turn them into high-contrast objects, trying to make them
readable text.

If I had a cheap photocopy of a 1961 birth certificate, I could make it look like Obama was born on the moon, with much more convincing file quality than this.

Unfortunately, this will shut everybody up, precisely because the scan and pdf are of such poor quality that there's no way to prove
it's a fake (unless you can provide evidence that the signatures are carbon copies, that these individuals or this file number don't
add up, etc.)

--

Reply from Imaging Expert:

What was written says this in part; namely, that it isn't a part of
the background.

This comment implies an alternative to photoshopping the texture in;
namely, that the birth certificate was:

A. Photocopied from its original book onto green safety paper,
identical to the safety paper of the live birth certificate.

B. The green safety paper is now scanned into a PDF.

This is certainly possible, but the ambiguity arises because of the
lack of seams at the edges which would indicate a photocopy and the
extreme precision of the square cut-out.

It evidences cropping, and photoshop editing.

"I don't think there's any pretense that this pattern is part of the
original birth certificate"

There is an important point here. To most members of the general
public, green safety paper is enough to engender the feeling that the
document is "official". Safety paper is specially treated bond paper
that reveals attempts to alter it through erasures or printing. Why
would one make a photocopy out on safety paper when the purpose was to
scan it back in again ? Why not just scan it in ?

Whether it was copied onto safety paper, or the safety paper texture
was added in photoshop, the argument stays the same. Namely, its made
to "look" official and bonded and its not a part of the original
document.

Tom said (April 28, 2011):

I too work professionally with Photoshop and I agree that there is an absolutely matching relationship between the green security paper in the gulley, and the reference patch on the Left. In addition, I would like to bring your readers attention to these additional document attributes:

WORDS typed in all CAPS are perfectly height-aligned. ALL characters within each word match.
HOWEVER, when the same capital letters appear individually, they jump up and down a lot. (Not good.)

Notice the absolute vertical character-match on the address line. See how it differs from the word Kansas, with the risen K?
That first [ a ] climbs by just by a single pixel, why?

TYPED LINE SPACING: Distance between DATE LINE (Top) and word Honolulu (Line 2) = N

....................................(Line3) "Maternity & Gynecol... " is about 1/16th of an inch above the natural space, some characters have been lowered to appear natural. (Normally, lighter typing-pressure gives a risen letter, not lower!)

...................................(Line4) "Honolulu" -Exactly matches spacing variant from 1st line, likely indicating that a computer was used to space these three elements, yet Lines 3 & 4 were subsequently lifted, by around 2 picas. (Very unusual for a manual roller-reset, although not impossible.)

..................................(Line 5) "Kalani..Highway" Is is again, about 1/16th of an inch above the natural space, really weird progression. Plus, all of these letters are uncharacteristically dead level to each other.

*These 'adjustments' are not consistent with a typist who is simply re-setting the roller to match each line, which would result in a distinctly different spacing variable.

ANOTHER clearly distinguishing feature is that this replicates a FIXED-LENS, OPTICAL-SCAN, (or an antique MICROFICHE image.) The second line form the bottom is rendered with the perspective of a single, fixed lens. > Furthermore, the operator was attempting to give this an imperfect look by placing the book well above the center of the lens. That might fool some folks, in theory, except for those TWO resulting problems. The background layer clearly stands out as an unacceptable artifact.

ALSO NOTE; perfectly mono-spaced letters did not commonly exist back in 1961, when the main printing method for 'form-documents' was letterpress. This involved setting physical type and doing a very short print-run. This was followed by a SUBSEQUENT photo-reduction stage, via a process camera. The resulting effect is a document that looked about 100% sharper and more accurate than any other means. This makes it very hard to check any potential disparity between letters, especially by way of kerning.

I cannot understand the lack of mottling or fill-in on the a, e, or r-characters, but typically most good office secretaries kept a brush and an eraser or a bottle of alcohol near at hand, requiring us to forgive any excessive character 'clarity.'