“EXCLUSIVE! OBAMA’S FAKE BIRTH CERTIFICATE: How the forgery was made.”

by

Posted by Polarik on Wednesday, July 23, 2008 3:34:32 PM

http://polarik.blogtownhall.com/2008/07/23/exclusive!_obamas_fake_birth_certificate_how_the_forgery_was_made.thtml

http://polarik.blogtownhall.com/

EXCERPT

“Like I’ve said in previous posts and in comments made on other blogs, if someone can make a Kos clone just by scanning, reducing the size, changing the compression, or any combination of these ways, they are more than encouraged to try.

Until then, I stand by my conclusion that I made over a month ago: that the Kos image looks the way it does because the original text on a previous image was graphically altered or replaced.

“Why” it was done is still open for debate, but the discovery that I made over a month ago still holds true. The image is not a “horrible” forgery, IMHO, because it fooled a lot of people…and that’s the sole purpose for making a forgery.

Hopefully, the critics and detractors will come up with their own clones made in the ways that they claimed. In the meantime, the evidence provided in my posts and in TechDude’s posts far outweigh any evidence that the images are are genuine, accurate reproductions of a paper COLB document.

It may look like a duck, but it walks, talks, and flies like a Dodo bird.”

Friday, July, 25, 2008 5:21 PM

Polarik writes:

Thank you, Rose

Yes, I am. A lot of hours spent on this project.

As far as I’m concerned, I have never seen anything official to substantiate Obama’s birth in Hawaii. The ad that TD showed appears in what looks like one of these “Penny Saver” publications. Plus, it does not seem to line up with the one in the large view (which is mostly illegible). And, what’s with the “Mr. & Mrs Obama” part?

It doesn’t do it for me.

I think that his parents were not married at the time of his birth, making him an out-of-wedlock child and not a citizen by birth, according to the laws in place at that time that primary affect the status of his mother.

Friday, July, 25, 2008 5:27 PM

Polarik writes:

Ellie

As I mentioned above to Rose, Stanley’s marital status at the time of Obama’s birth is the key issue. If she was not married, then that makes Obama an out-of-wedlock child not eligible to become a natural-born citizen.

Certainly, if he was born anywhere outside of the territorial limits of Hawaii, it also invalidates him being a natural-born citizen.

Update: Please see comments for this post for Polarik comments at Free Republic.

10 Responses to ““EXCLUSIVE! OBAMA’S FAKE BIRTH CERTIFICATE: How the forgery was made.””

  1. rosettasister Says:

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2050103/posts

    Wednesday, July 23, 2008 10:05:30 PM • 76 of 351
    Polarik to devolve
    Very true.
    There is more than a distinct possibility that Obama Sr. is an Arab and not an African. I’ve seen a story that says he’s 50% white and 6.25% black — not enough to be classified as a “black man” by the Census Bureau.
    How much of his campaign is fueled by claiming that he is the “first black nominee” for President?
    How much support would he have if he were Arab-American?
    Now, that wouyld be a good reason to post a forgery.

    Thursday, July 24, 2008 8:08:00 AM • 126 of 351
    Polarik to potlatch
    “So I am puzzled about the ‘advantage’ of being Black???”
    Black leaders and spokespeople will not be happy untl everyone in America continues to to feel guilty about slavery and discrimination against blacks.
    Voting for Obama is the liberal’s way of assuaging that guilt, the black population see him as “one of their own,” and the other whites who have bought into this guilt-trip will likewise feel like the liberals.
    Meanwhle, the media cannot find a high enough pedestal on which to place him, and continue to be enamored by the “First Black Man” running as the Democratic Nominee for President.
    There’s a boatload of political capital riding on Obama being black.

    Thursday, July 24, 2008 8:11:10 AM • 84 of 84
    Polarik to supercat
    If the COLB was an original, and a lot of folks beefed about the way it looked, why not make another one, of higher quality? And, for good measure, throw in a copy of the reverse side, and the written request for it.
    Just a thought.

    Thursday, July 24, 2008 12:18:58 PM • 157 of 351
    Polarik to Captain Rhino
    So, do you have links to the specific law in effect when Senator Obama was born?

    (Not that it is any more than academic exercise since another poster to this thread has supplied a link to the Obama birth notice in the local Hawaiian newspaper, thereby giving further weight to the claim he was born in Hawaii.)
    Mr & Mrs. Barack Obama? NOT! If they lied about their marital status, can they be trusted to tell the truth about their son born out-of-wedlock?
    Speaking of which, there are separate, more stringent rules about children born out-of-wedlock. This following is not a quote from statute, but from FindLaw.Com: For children born abroad since 14 November 1986 to a married couple consisting of one US citizen and one non-citizen, the American parent must have been “physically present” in the US for a total of at least five years prior to the birth of the child. Further, at least two years out of this five-year period must have been after the parent reached age 14 (e.g., no good if you lived in the US from birth till age five, then left the country never to return).
    From 24 December 1952 to 14 November 1986, the minimum requirement was ten years (five years of which had to have been after the parent’s 14th birthday).
    If Baby Barack was indeed a bastard, then his mother is disqualified as an American citizen.

    Friday, July 25, 2008 10:18:01 AM • 261 of 351
    Polarik to null and void
    *The birth announcement was tracked down by Lori Starfelt, the producer of a documentary that PUMA is working on. ”
    Did Hawaii have newspapers back in 1961? I was wondering why this was found in a Penny Saver.
    Also, the wide page view is illegible. What’s up with that?

    Friday, July 25, 2008 10:29:36 AM • 264 of 351
    Polarik to Nipfan
    “Someone found a listing of his birth in a Hawaii newspaper”
    It’s a bit of a stretch to call a Penny Saver a “Newspaper,” given that it’s raison d’etre is being a classified section alternative.
    Regular newspapers usually have birth, death, and marriage announcements. and they would be on microfiche in the public and university libraries. It would we worthwhile checking them.

    Friday, July 25, 2008 10:50:37 PM • 67 of 74
    Polarik to Jersey Republican Biker Chick
    I do not know if it is true or not, I suspect if it were true that Hillary would have already done something about it to get the nomination….
    This non sequitur has been repeatred so often that it’s lost its original meaning. The discovery of the fraud took place after Hillary withdrew, and that is the only reason why she’s not using it.

    Saturday, July 26, 2008 9:58:51 AM • 340 of 351
    Polarik to null and void
    • His BC shows that he’s a bastard. Although this might be personally embarrassing, nobody cares, a goodly fraction of the electorate is in the same boat, or closely related to someone who is.
    If he’s a bastard, then his mother fails to fulfill the citizenship requirements that were in effect at the time of his birth.
    If his mom was not a citizen, then neither is he.

    Saturday, July 26, 2008 10:37:18 AM • 345 of 351
    Polarik to Kevmo
    Like AJStrata, everone and their gramdmother have tried to explain away my results as being JPG artifacts, but when I challenged them to show me something concrete evidence, like JpG images that looked like the Kos, and was created by manipulating the scanner output, JPG compression, ans/or image size , they backed off and repeatedly said that “I” needed to create one first.
    I did, and they’re still not providing any concrete evidence to support their alternate explanations

    Saturday, July 26, 2008 5:23:52 PM • 346 of 351
    Polarik to Kevmo
    Here’s a simple recap, but spread over several posts.
    Part One:
    It all started with a June 9 article by Jim Geraghty on the National Review,
    http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTgxZmIwNTg0OWVhMWJkODNmZjI4ZjY4Mjg2OWRmNzI
    that asked “Why doesn’t Obama make his birth certificate public so as to quell the rumor that he is not a US Citizen?”
    Then on June 10, his article was reprinted in the Daily Kos blog. Two days later, an image that Daily Kos claimed was a copy of Obama’s actual birth certificate.”
    The initial problem was that this image did not resemble any birth certificate that anyone had ever seen.
    With good reason, because this was not a “Birth Certificate,” but a “Certification of Live Birth.” If certified, the COLB (the acronym I created) serves to validate a person’s birth date and place, much like a birth certificate would.
    However, the public took exception to the contents, and the lack thereof, of the COLB, especially labeling the RACE of Obama’s father as AFRICAN, and leaving out all of the otrher data that birth certtificates usually have
    I looked at the COLB image on the Kos, and immediately noticed something fishy. The text looked like it had been altered, and so present my findings to the blogsphere, I started The Greater Evil.
    end of Part One

  2. John Q. Says:

    “As I mentioned above to Rose, Stanley’s marital status at the time of Obama’s birth is the key issue. If she was not married, then that makes Obama an out-of-wedlock child not eligible to become a natural-born citizen.”

    Not true. If Barack Obama was born on American soil, his mother’s marriage status is irrelevant to his citizenship status. That law only applies to children born outside the US. That is why children born in the US to parents who are not US citizens (those whoa are here illegally, say from Mexico) are considered American citizens.

  3. rosettasister Says:

    Thank you, John Q.

    Since I am admittedly ignorant about these matters, let me put your comment to someone wiser than myself.

    I’ll get back to you.

  4. Miri Says:

    You’re apparently mistaken about the birth announcement being in a “Penny Saver”. The Honolulu Advertiser is the name of a regular, run-of-the-mill newspaper, such as the New York Times. The name is at the top, on the left side of the page, on the larger image of the notification.

    However, you’re right to ask why the larger image doesn’t seem to exactly line up with the smaller extract.

    If true, a librarian in Hawaii looked up this notice (presumably from microfiche) and sent copies to the person who originally sent the announcement to the blogs. I saw it first on Texas Darlin.

    This isn’t unheard of: Many libraries will look up particular items, such as obituaries, in newspaper archives (provided that they exist on microfilm in the first place) and then will send copies of the pages to the requesting patron. It’s relatively cheap (at least at my library) and it saves time and trouble, not to mention the cost of parking.

    My congratulations to the person who thought to make this simple request from the Hawaiian library.

    But I diverge: The ad could be legit but still contain misinformation, especially if his parents were not married. It was typical back then for people to fib about something like that.

    What is true is that vital records were (in some localities) reported to the newspapers, which then posted the information in a public notice section. This doesn’t happen as often now, at least for all types of public records.

    As an example, our local newspaper used to print notices whenever a person was buried. The city issued a burial permit, and basic information from that permit was printed in the newspaper. (I never see this happen now.)

    This is apparently what happened with BHO, but all it means is that a birth record was created for him at the vital records dept. in Hawaii (that is, if the newspaper notice itself isn’t some kind of bogus mockup).

    But even if he received a birth certificate, it does NOT mean that what you see on the KOS COLB is what is (or was) on that original birth certificate, back in August 1961. (I won’t go into the possibility that someone in his family managed to get a birth certificate filed, without him actually being born in Hawaii. Apparently, it’s possible, according to what I’ve read on blogs, but I don’t know enough about this to talk about it.)

    The fact that the number was blacked out on the KOS image is significant, at least to me. I know that, in some health depts., when a birth certificate was re-issued, the identifying number changed.

    From looking at DeCosta’s (supposedly legit) COLB, her identifying number appears to be a combination of an ordinal date (number of the day plus the year) and a sequential number. (I know–her ordinal date doesn’t exactly correspond, yet it’s close enough to look like it’s the date that the birth record was actually printed–a day or two after the date it was accepted, maybe?)

    I commented at Texas Darlin a few days ago, to the effect that the reason KOS might have blacked out the number is that it may have provided a clue (to someone who knows how Hawaii’s numbering system works) that the COLB is based upon a re-issued birth certificate.

    In at least one city, the ID number changed when, for example, a child was adopted. There was an original, numbered birth certificate for that child, that named the biological parent (or parents). In the “old days”, when a child was adopted, the state would create a new birth certificate, naming the adoptive parents as the parents. The number would be changed on this new certificate in such a way that someone who knew how the coding worked could go back to the original birth certificate to see what it contained. Unless someone knew how the coding of the ID # worked, he or she wouldn’t know, just from the number, that it WAS a re-issued, changed birth record.

    So, if at any time BHO or one of his parents or grandparents asked for and received a COLB (or birth certificate) that contained revised information (such as a changed surname, middle name, race, etc.), then MAYBE the number on the KOS COLB would be a dead giveaway.

    I remember reading legal info on some website about re-issuing birth records in Hawaii. It’s complicated, but it seems to say that the original record is sealed and probably someone would need a subpoena to access it.

    I remember other theories about why the ID number was blacked out. One theory would be that the bogus COLB was based upon someone else’s COLB, which would be immediately apparent to whoever the number really belonged to. Since it looks as if the ID # contains some semblance of the birth date, then if the “forger” used a birth certificate belonging to someone else, like De Costa, then of course the number would have to be modified, because BHO wasn’t born in 1930.

    But isn’t Polarik arguing that the text was changed? If so, then wouldn’t it be just as easy to fake an ID #? But then we’re back at the problem of using somebody else’s actual number.

    I believe it was Mitchell Langbert who asked the state of Hawaii to explain details like this. Whether he got any satisfactory answer is unknown to me, at least at this point.

    But it would be nice to know their procedure when an origianl birth certificate is modified. Is a new certificate number issued and does it in some way point back to the number on the original, such that somebody could go back and find out what exactly has been changed?

  5. Miri Says:

    Sorry about the typo in my previous comment. Another thought: Those other women who gave birth on or around August 4, 1961, may still be living, in Hawaii or elsewhere. Wouldn’t somebody who shared a hospital room or ward with Stanley Ann Dunham (Obama or not) remember her and her black baby? I’d think so. Maybe somebody could find those women and ask them. If they don’t remember her at all, it wouldn’t prove anything but it would add to the circumstantial evidence that just maybe he wasn’t born in one of those hospitals in Hawaii.

  6. rosettasister Says:

    Miri,

    Thank you for your comments.

    I will try and get a reply for you.

  7. Miri Says:

    To Polarik:

    Yeah. That was part of my point (about the birth year being within the ID#). Sorry that I’m so wordy that my point gets lost. (But that year might simply be the year that the birth certificate was created, not exactly corresponding to the BIRTH year. In most cases, it would be the same, but maybe not always. We won’t know until somebody in Hawaii explains the meaning of the numbers.)

    What I was trying to say is that the number, IF we could see it, might tell us that he was issued a revised Hawaiian BC at some point.

    For example, what if in 1971, when he had to register for school in Hawaii, his mom changed his surname? Why, exactly, did his real dad show up in Hawaii around that time, anyway? Apparently, back in school in Indonesia, he used his stepfather’s surname.

    In any case, the number on a revised BC MAY differ from the “code” on DeCosta’s. Maybe the birth year (as coded in the ID#) disappears altogether or is changed to whatever year the revised BC was issued, but retains some way to refer back to the original BC.

    For example, if I remember correctly, and this was a long time ago, when I worked at a health dept., an adopted child’s BC# stayed the same but included a suffix (it may have been a prefix) that indicated that the BC wasn’t the original. This always happened when a new BC was created for an adopted child. The original, which contained the biological parents’ names, was retained in the archives. Nobody was ever supposed to be able to see it again, to protect the identities of the parents who gave the child up and also, sometimes, to preserve the illusion that the adoptive parents were the biological parents.

    Legal technicalities (somewhere on Texas Darlin’s blog) that refer to re-issued BCs in Hawaii and how they’re “sealed” and require a court order to access, probably derive from the secrecy that is (or was) involved when children were adopted. Those legalities also indicate that a revised BC MUST clearly state that it was altered from the original. The “clear” indication might be found somewhere within the number.

    As you say, something’s being hidden. But what?

    Can you, in a nutshell, explain in non-techie terms exactly what your “smoking gun” means? I’m confused.

    I thought that the DeCosta COLB was introduced by someone to compare to what was already on KOS. Are you suggesting that somehow it was used to create the KOS document? (Or another legitimate COLB, not necessarily DeCosta’s?)

    Are you simply arguing that the way that you say the KOS document was created differs from how Tech Dude says it was created? Really. I’m confused and I know that you know what you’re trying to tell us. I want to understand. But sadly I don’t. So can you spell it out in a simple way so that even a dummy like me can understand?

    Thanks.

  8. rosettasister Says:

    For John Q. and Miri:

    From Polarik:

    Tuesday, July, 29, 2008 9:32 AM Polarik writes:
    Obama’s US citizenship
    OBama is a US Ctizen either directly at birth, because of his US citizen Mother, as long as she lived in Hawaii continuously for a year (any year) prior to giving birth to OBama, or he derived it from the his mother’s citizenship by virtue of his mother living in the US after his birth.

    The out-of-wedlock is not an issue nor is being born outside the US, as long as his mother resided in Hawaii after his birth — which she apparently did.

    HOWEVER, if Obama was born out of the US and/or born out of wedlock, then two essential facts stated in Obama’s biography become lies.

    But, there has to be something else that Obama does not want the public to see.

    Tuesday, July, 29, 2008 10:20 AM Polarik writes:
    To Miri, via Rose
    The Certificate Number prominently displays the BIRTH YEAR right before the dash.

    If that BIRTH YEAR does not match 1961, then that is a problem.

  9. rosettasister Says:

    “So can you spell it out in a simple way so that even a dummy like me can understand?”

    Miri, I feel your pain.

    If indeed Polarik has provided the smoking gun (I can’t comment on that as I haven’t sufficient knowledge), then the big question remains. Why the forgery?

    But I will ask Polarik to spell out Forgery For Dummies.

  10. rosettasister Says:

    Miri,

    I hope this answers your question(s).

    If not, let me know.

    One can but try.

    Forgery For Dummies — Polarik Answers Questions at Free Republic Regarding Obama’s Birth Certificate

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2052236/posts

    Tuesday, July 29, 2008 2:43:43 PM • 105 of 165
    Polarik to nikos1121

    I’m not sure what is being said here.

    The DeCosta image came out AFTER many of us here questioned the Birth Certificate to begin with. We asked for someone in Hawaii to provide a COLB for review. The DeCosta BC was provided and you and others used it to show the differences between it and the that posted at Daily Kos and Obama site.

    ARE YOU NOW SAYING, that someone at Kos and Obama site took the DeCosta image and then RE DID the Obama COLB, which in the process now gave us the “seal”?

    If that’s what you’re saying then that truly is a smoking gun.

    In summary then, are you saying that the current Daily Kos and Obama COLB are DIFFERENT from the ones that were originally posted at these sites?

    First of all, there never was an Obama COLB. There was one, and only one, forged COLB image populated with, as-yet undetermined, birth information about OBama. That image was first posted on the Daily Kos, followed by a much smaller copy of it posted on Obama’s official website.

    It is correct to state that every other image purported to be that of OBama’s is a copy of the original Kos image forgery.

    You asked about the history of the Decosta image, and here’s the 411.

    Not only is the DeCosta image the first COLB image ever posted on the Internet, it was the ONLY image of a COLB posted on the Internet prior to the creation of the Kos image.

    If a forger wanted to create another COLB without actually having either a paper COLB in hand, or another image of a COLB, the only source available to him or her, at the beginning of this process, was the DeCosta COLB.

    The DeCosta COLB has been viewable on the Valee Geneology site for about four or five years (according to the site owner).

    However, given how rampant is the copying of images from one site to another, it should come as no surprise that there are many copies of the DeCosta image floating around the Net on various other sites. The Vallee site owner is none too happy about that little bit of piracy.

    As I outlined in my story, and especially in a recent addition which appears above, there is no question that the general layout of the document portrayed in Kos image, including the borders, the masthead, the headers, the text, the seal image, etc, was fully derived from the DeCosta COLB.”How,” you ask?

    Because, when the width of the Kos image is made equal to the width of the DeCosta image, the two heights match, as well as all of the other printed features of the COLB.

    Also, for reasons stated in my blog story and above, there is no way on Earth that these two disparate images can be mirror images of each other, UNLESS one was forged from the other.

    What makes this case even more compelling is that the arguments made by detractors who maintain that the Kos image is genuine, strengthen my forgey claims rather than negate them!

    Even though I go into detail about how the other elements of the forgery were made, I have previously made a clone of the Kos image using the more recent Michele COLB image as a starting point, which sufficiently confirms the Kos image and its derivatives as being artificially “manufactured” rather than being genuine.

    Although many people, besides myself, questioned the veracity of the Kos image from the first moment it was shown to the public on June 12, What is unique about my research is that, from the first posting I made, on June 20, to the last one today, my main focus has always been on the graphical anomalies of the text found in the Kos image.

    As I came to learn, some of what I questioned on Day One turned out to be real components of the COLB, such as the OHSM 1.1 designation, the overlapping of the borders, and the Hawaii statute quoted.

    Yet, I was dead right, from Day One, that the text on the kos image was graphically altered AFTER the image had already been created from an original.

    Even though I’ve put the kabosh on the Kos image, I’m going to push the envelope further by demonstrating, step-by-step, how the Kos image was originally begun from the DeCosta image and then finished with the background taken from a second image.

    So far, I’m the only one who has ever done that — besides the forger, that is

    See also:

    http://polarik.blogtownhall.com/

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: