Was The Death of the Obama Birth Certificate Verifier Caught on Video?

Since the day it was announced that Loretta Fuddy, the Director of the Hawaii Department of Health who verified Obama’s birth certificate died mysteriously in a plane crash, there was some question of whether is was really  an “accident”. The authorities seem to be saying, yes. But, because of her close ties to the fraudulent Obama Birth Certificate,  many people fear that she was the most recent  in Obama’s “dead pool” and haven’t stopped looking for real answers. It seems  that amateur bloggers and Youtubers are the new Investigative Journalists in this new media society of “give the President a pass, or be a racist”.

I recently came across a video and still photos that were meticulously retrieved by a fellow blogger, from the Ferdinand Puentes GoCam videos that he took of the plane crash on December 11, 2013 in which  Loretta Fuddy  died. The photos can be found here:  http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2014/02/13/extras/ . She has more  shots there than I am showing, so check it out. Many thanks – great work!

The Puentes video originally aired on ABC in January 2014 and can be seen here. http://abcnews.go.com/US/harrowing-video-hawaiian-plane-crash-inside-cabin/story?id=21484715  The segment depicted below is at about 3:33 minutes in the video and lasts about 3 seconds.  There has been a lot of speculation about this “accident”, as so many things just don’t add up. The story of a tragic death was reported before rescuers had even gotten to the plane. First reports indicated someone remained in the plane, when in fact, all got out. And the only death was the one person who really might know the truth about Obama’s birth certificate. It took a month for vague autopsy results. The local police and the NTSB couldn’t decide who was in charge of the investigation into her death.

Dr. Fuddys death was declared to be from a problem with her heart – natural causes, and we’re all supposed to believe that it was all just a tragic accident, but after  seeing these photos, all doubt is gone. As I looked through the still shots taken from the video, my blood froze, because I knew what I was seeing. I am seeing a diver do something to Loretta Fuddy, which I assume was murder, and it chills me to the bone. I hope that law enforcement can be made aware of what seems to be shown in these pictures, so they can investigate it. Just look, please. Form your own opinion.

The first photos are reference photos  of what I think you’ll be able to see in the actual photos.  (they are NOT actual photos of the divers in the video- the shoe is really Dr. Fuddy’s)



The photos below are in sequence. The ones on the left are the originals – to the right I have highlighted what  I see. Beyond frightening. This whole video sequence takes about 3 seconds in real time.The series of photos shown below are the actual stills of the events that are shown on Ferdinand Puentes video. http://abcnews.go.com/US/harrowing-video-hawaiian-plane-crash-inside-cabin/story?id=21484715   These photos have been zoomed and cropped by Butterdezillion. In the GoPro video, the action is actually quite a distance away. You can click on any set to enlarge them to see better.

Start with Picture #1, and follow the sequence like a movie. I have labeled people and things on the right hand picture. This is Loretta Fuddy on the right and Keith Yamamoto on the left. He is looking at her. She is laying back into her flotation device. Her head is just visible and one shoe is visible. The shoe is important – and remember, all of this takes 3 seconds in real time.

Loretta Fuddy MurderLoretta Fuddy murderLoretta Fuddy MurderLoretta Fuddy Murder 4Loretta Fuddy Murder6 copy7 - Fuddy Murder8 Fuddy Murder9 Fuddy Murder10 Fuddy Murder

So, there you have it. Loretta Fuddy is floating in her life jacket holding hands with her Assistant, Keith Yamamoto. A diver completely dressed in black surfaces momentarily for about 3 seconds and seems to be doing something to her foot or leg. My theory is that he administered some  type of injection that ultimately caused Dr. Fuddy’s death. The he lets go and vanishes. The plan was not to be seen, but she may have felt something and pulled her foot away, and he had no choice but to surface to get to the foot. I have no idea why that would be so important, unless they felt that a medical examiner is less likely to see an injection site on a foot or ankle.

Others seem to think that what I see as a foot is a second diver, because Loretta Fuddy was wearing “Black shoes”. As we see from the top reference pictures, the shoes had a tan or beige sole, which with the lighting could easily brighten to light yellow. Look at the head of the man in the foreground – he’s yellow, too. Also, the  GoPro cameras have a slight fish-eye effect, due to the wide angle lense. It gives a convex appearance – where objects in the middle appear closer than objects on the sides, and distances are different, too – depending on where they are in the lense.  As we know the plane sank within 25 minutes, and it is still visible in the video, there are NOT rescue divers. The two hands holding the foot in picture #5 are what makes me sure of what I’m seeing. 

Picture # 5 shows two hands holding the yellow shoe, # 6 shows both hands releasing the shoe.


Even if I’m wrong about the shoe – this IS A DIVER who shouldn’t be there and is clearly up to no good. Whatever this is – it is frightening. I hope that the right people are made aware of this and that it can be followed up on appropriately.

FYI -this pictures terrifies me. What kind of world do we live in? The further implication to this photo is that this was a STAGED accident. It is no coincidence that a plane lost it’s engine within swimming distance of two divers/assassins. We also then have to wonder if the pilot was in on it, unless the divers were ON THE PLANE and the engine was sabotaged. Either way, someone planned this, and Dr. Fuddy is dead.

 Obama vacationed in Hawaii 10 days later. Had Dr. Fuddy indicated to the wrong people that she would like to “talk” to him about “things” i.e the fraudulent birth certificate she personally signed off on? Step up law enforcement and main stream media, before it’s too late for all of us, too.

More Evidence of Computer Generated Fraud on Obama’s Birth Certificate Date Stamp


One of the first odd things I noticed on the birth certificate months ago, is what I call the “Frankenfive” It appears in the registrars date stamp that supposedly “certifies” the document. This can’t be a real rubber stamp. That little side “wing” is a dead giveaway. That is not something that would be found on a rubber office stamp. Like Frankenstein, it appears to be made of parts of other things – not what one wants to see on an official document, is it?

Here are the date stamps on the higher resolution Press photo/scan, and the form on http://www.whitehouse.gov. The stamp on the bottom shows a “5” from the same Hawaii date stamp from 6 weeks earlier. It is a regular “5” with NO WINGS.  That stamp could not have made the stamp on the 25th. No stamp could have. (FYI – take note that the MAR 15 is what a stamp on security paper and scanned to a computer SHOULD LOOK LIKE. The one on whitehouse.gov really shouldn’t be fooling anyone.)


There is also a problem with positioning and sizing that can’t be explained by a rubber stamp. The vertical difference is okay for a stamp, the SIZE of the “5” and the horizontal positioning can’t be explained by a stamp.

Click to enlarge - see the many differences in the "fives" - that should be the same as they came from the same stamp!

Click to enlarge – see the many differences in the “fives” – that should be the same as they came from the same stamp!

I also want to address a common objection that “it’s just a smeared stamp.” or “It’s a dirty stamp.”  A dirty stamp will be blurry, no sharp edges as are shown here. If the stamp were smudged, all the numbers would be smudged. Here are some samples of smudged and dirty stamps that I did myself.  I can’t make just one or two numbers smudgy. The whole bar is affected by motion or double stamps. I can’t  stamp anything close to what we are seeing on the birth certificate.


The Franken Five and its fellow “2” are not from a stamp – they are computer generated. How they were made interested me. Recreating them became a challenge, and if I could prove the birth certificate to be a fraud… well then, extra points for me. At the time, I made an intuitive guess that the forgers had altered a “6” to make a “5”, in order to CHANGE the date from 26 to 25, as you can see a faint rounded top on the higher resolution “5” that shouldn’t be there.  I assumed that the forgers had made a “mistake”, and I looked at the “5” from that perspective. However, since I completed my analysis of the “X” (click to read) I have come to the conclusion that what is being done graphically on this certificate, is being done intentionally, either as a “signature” or “catch me if you can type of thing”, rather than on a “need to” basis. In other words, they didn’t need to change the “5”, but they did anyway. My theory is that, like the “X”, it was done with the intention of “hiding something in plain sight.” On the “X” they left 4 random scratches as a “clue”. On the FrankenFive, they added “wings”.

With that new perspective, I decided to take another look at the FrankenFive to see if I could see anything differently than I did initially . With my understanding  of how creatively the “X” was done, I expanded my thoughts on what was used to make the ‘5”. My “six” recreation was close, but I wasn’t happy with it. It also now seemed too simple and mundane for whoever did this. The forger did something very interesting and creative with the “X”, so I looked harder at the “5”. In a classic example of deus ex machina, a reader mentioned to me that the “X” looked like a Greek “ Chi”. That was true, and just on a whim, I Googled “Greek numbers”, and this is what came up.


This is a Sigma. In some versions the call it  a Stigma. I gather that they are archaic, rarely used symbols. Please don’t lecture me about my lack of knowledge of Greek – I’m trusting Google. Anyway, what an interesting set of items we have here! I downloaded these examples, and was fascinated to find out how well the Sigmas worked for my little FrankenFive recreation.

This is two different Sigmas overlaid. The “wings” are the end tabs from the modern “Z like” Sigma. Then I added one vertical line and one horizontal line to connect them. So if the “X” is a pile of “2”, then the “5” is a pile of “sigmas” or Greek “6”s. Again, these are just rotated and resized, with slight erasures. I wasn’t trying to get an exact match, but …WOW!

afinal 5 copy

But wait, there’s MORE!

If you look at this date stamp, the “2” to its left is pretty funky. Again, it’s been assumed that it was made with a dirty stamp. Even I largely ignored it. But there it sat, next to the Five as I was doing the drag and drop with the Sigmas.  It actually has A LOT wrong with it – different width, front arch doesn’t match the 2011 “2”, and the width is bizarre. At some point, I took notice of the fat “2”, and out of curiosity, I dragged and dropped a sigma onto the “2” in 2011, and LOOK WHAT HAPPENED. If there was any doubt in my mind that I was heading the right direction with the Franken Five and the Sigmas, the fact that the “2” is also made with  overlaid Sigmas put that to rest. I’m not a gambler, and I hate math, but I bet the odds of this being a coincidence is pretty high.


To conclude, I believe that the Sigmas are what are being hidden in plain sight. Do I know why? I have an idea, but it will need its own post. I know the objections I will get to this recreation. So, I will answer them all in one sentence. No, I don’t KNOW if this is HOW it was done, or WHY it was done, or even WHO did it. At this point, I’m just the investigator following the clues and putting them together the best I can.  What I do know at this point is that this stamp is a fraud. This 25 could not have been made with a date stamp. This number was made on a computer.



Three Hawaii Stamps – You Decide Which One Is the From the Obama FAKE Birth Certificate

I recently had a little back and forth comment with someone who felt that my analysis of the FrankenFive (click here to see the analysis) was ridiculous, and he proposed that there were many other “better” ways of explaining the anomaly. I responded that I was fully prepared to admit that I DO NOT KNOW exactly what happened to make the FrankenFive, but that it was obvious that something was wrong with it, and that I would be glad to hear his “better “ways.

I got back a cut and paste description of what a Xerox Work Flow scanner does with regard to compressing and using algorithms and interpolating and rasterizing bitmaps and BLAH  BLAH  BLAH. I said, “So sorry, but that random bunch of technical words doesn’t make any more sense than my idea.”

To which he sent back the top two scans seen below, showing a JUN 6, 2007 stamp and a MAR 15, 2011 stamp from the Hawaii Department of Health. He said to take note how “substantially similar” they were to the White House scan and that it was probably nothing but a stamping error on the Obama Fake Birth Certificate, and why would anybody bother to fake a stamp when they could just buy their own blah, blah, blah. He basically admitted that the scanner didn’t do it – so obviously  it must be a bad stamp. First of all a “bad stamp” didn’t do this, and to me, “substantially similar” means DIFFERENT!!!

But what I mostly got from this interaction were two very nice scans of date stamps from Hawaii. I think, in reality, all we have to do to decide if the Obama Birth Certificate (downloaded from www.whitehouse.gov) is Fake is to look at these three scans as shown below. Click on the picture below, then zoom in on them – you decide which one isn’t real.

Three Hawaii stamps - you decide which one is the Obama Fake Scanned Certificate

Three Hawaii stamps – you decide which one is the Obama Fake Scanned Certificate

Talk about “Low Tech” – all we need are our eyeballs and brains to figure this one out. The top two definitely look like stamps. If you zoom in, look at the clarity of the letter and the clear definition of the green lines on the paper. That’s because actual paper was being scanned.

The bottom one – oh my goodness…. this is a 100% fail as a “scan”. Not only is there a “FrankenFive” and an “X” in the word “THE”, but the white halo around all the lettering WOULD NOT be present in a scan. If there was not white halo on the real “paper” there would NOT BE a white halo on the scan. A white Halo is an artifact of a graphics “cut and paste” process. Even the green “paper” is all wrong. Compare it to the one right above it that came from the same department in March. Note that the colors are evenly distributed as a range of greens. The Fake Certificate again shows something akin to the white haloing again – some green bars on a mostly white background. NOT REAL PAPER.

This really just couldn’t be any more clear – this is a fake certificate – or maybe the fact that it is SO UNCLEAR it what makes it so clear. And the whole idea of “substantially the same” as an excuse doesn’t cut it. If someone gives you a scanned copy of your paycheck and the numbers aren’t clear, do you think the bank will take it because it’s “substantially the same”?   NO! And we shouldn’t take this certificate at face value either.

What Makes Me a Low Tech Smarty Pants on Document Analysis

I have followed the Obama long form birth certificate fraud case since the beginning, as it was quite obvious that there WAS fraud – for many reasons, all of which have been well documented by the “experts”. I must admit, when the press and the public chose to ignore the facts, and Obama “won” the 2012 elections – I dropped it, like almost everyone else as a “lost cause”.

Then Dr. Loretta Fuddy died under mysterious circumstances a week or so ago, which concerned me by it’s sheer coincidence – and I started looking again at the documents. I hadn’t previously read the analysis by Mara Zebest, or seen the  High Resolution AP version of the certificate. One of her findings had to do with being to see elements of the Short Form Birth Certificate that bleed through on the Long Form copy and are visible at high zoom by  enhancing the contrast/color etc.

I did this and was astonished to see that this was so – something that shouldn’t be there was. So with the high zoom and high contrast, I started looking at other elements that look “odd” at normal size and found several things  – the most egregious being the problem with the date stamp. It is computer generated – not a rubber stamp as I’ve clearly documented on Page Link to the left – Computer Generated Registrars Stamp  –  Birth Certificate Fraud. There are others, and I will document them shortly.

So, what exactly makes me so particularly qualified to understand and see the fraudulent elements in this document? Well, to start with, my brain loves a good puzzle, I see patterns easily, and I believe nothing until I see it with my own eyes or ears. I’m very tactile, I take things apart to see how they work. I take nothing at face value. Most people who know me find me a little annoying because of these attributes. Wait a minute till I stop crying. Boo hoo.

Secondarily, and maybe more importantly, my age and career path allowed and/or forced me to have an extensive knowledge and understanding of just about every piece of office  equipment used since 1982. I learned to type (with all my fingers) on a manual typewriter with the return bar and the keys on the metal bars. Most people have never seen them. I had an IBM Selectric with the ball in college – boy was I cool. I remember white out and eraseable paper. Changes on real paper were NOT fun or easy, like nowadays. I remember having to retype entire pages if I needed to add information. I KNOW what an uneditable paper document is. I know what it would have taken to type this birth certificate in 1961.

My first job brought me into contact with the first fax machines, and the first Hewlett Packard computers with modems for data entry and transmissions. I also did all the clerical stuff – typing forms, running calculator tapes, rubber stamping deposits.  In those days “cut and paste” really meant you sat at your desk with a pair of scissors and cut up documents and scotch taped them back together in some new configuration, then copied it to make a new document. So I know “cut and paste” from way back. All the crooked lines and the shadows from the tape were hard to hide. If you bumped up the contrast on the copier, it helped but – you couldn’t  do them what you can do now with computers. Oddly, cut and paste on a computer can be nearly flawless. I am actually a little baffled by the crudity and ineptness on this document. I wonder if someone was TRYING to flag this as fraud. Hmmm. If so, we’re letting them down by ignoring it.

So back to office equipment. Computers came in next with Lotus123 database. At that time I was stuck in a deadly dull desk job, and I mastered Lotus123. There was nothing I couldn’t do with that program. I learned fonts and pixels and WYSIWYG. My next job brought me WordPerfect – the original where you had to have markers stuck all over the keyboard to remember the formatting shortcuts. Again, the logic of it appealed to me and I aced it.  Internet came in about that time – and AskJeeves (pre Google). I got a modem and dial up and was surfing when there wasn’t anything to surf.

Then technology exploded. My first digital camera was 1 megapixel. I got a color inkjet printer that came with Photoshop. I’ve had about 5 printers and 3 cameras since then, but I still use my original Photoshop, though I have 8 and 9 and Illustrator, because I know how to use it really well after a decade and half. I got a $1300 flatbed scanner 12 years ago and still use it, though the new $99 OCR document scanner gets more use these days. I now run a small office where I do everything, and as technology moves on, I keep up. And I keep learning.

So there you go. No high tech analysis from me. But I do KNOW what a copy looks like versus a scan. I know what a copier can and can’t do. I know a scanner can be used as a copier to print, but it can also be used to digitize and edit. I know how to edit. I understand pixels and layers and imports and masks. And unlike the old days of “cut and Paste” with tape and scissors, I know what the Adobe products can do. It’s a little scary actually. So, if I see a REAL photocopy, I know what I’m seeing. A copier is full of mirrors. It can only print what it actually sees. If I see scanned copy – all bets are off. I just don’t know where that document has been or what it’s been up to.

I KNOW this Birth Certificate was NEVER copied on a photocopier. This certificate was in a binder with 500 other forms according to the Hawaii Dept. of Health. You can see the way the pages are supposedly folded back on the left. But if this were a photocopy, there would NOT  be the neat little box around the form, and you’d see the edges of the other forms in the book, and shadows because the lid wouldn’t close tightly over a book. NOT a PHOTOCOPY.  The nice neat cropped rectangle around the form indicates that at best it was scan copied and printed. At worst it never even existed in real life and only exists in a digital form, so any print made of it is just a physical representation of the digital document, and that could change day to day. A real paper document can only be changed with white out, scissors and tape – hard to hide. Digital document – easy to hide changes.

That’s why the rubber stamp matters. If it was a Scanned copy of a REAL document, that’s okay – if someone certifies with a REAL hand stamp that nothing has digitally changed between the scanner and the printer. This Birth certificate does NOT HAVE A RUBBER STAMP. It is computer generated – what we are seeing never existed on paper before it was created. And Dr. Fuddy, who certified it,  isn’t here anymore to help us understand what happened. That’s scary, too.

Keep the faith. This is fraud and is a federal crime. There are criminals in the White House.