Obama Literary Agent Website Bio said “Born in Kenya” for 16 Years

I have been accused, as have many “birthers” have, of being racist because we dared to ask for Mr. Obama’s Hawaii birth certificate. The claim is that no on ever asked any other candidate to prove where they were born – so clearly the need to see the actual certificate was based on racism. I pointed out that no other candidate had indicated that they were born in a foreign country for over 16 years. I was accused of “making up” this fact. I did the following screen shots to prove that I was stating a FACT.

Obama had a bio published by his literary agent Acton & Dystel in 1991 that clearly states he was born in Kenya. I know we have heard the following disclaimer from Miriam Goderich in 2012:

Miriam Goderich edited the text of the bio; she is now a partner at the Dystel & Goderich agency, which lists Obama as one of its current clients.

“This was nothing more than a fact checking error by me–an agency assistant at the time,” Goderich wrote in an emailed statement to Yahoo News. “There was never any information given to us by Obama in any of his correspondence or other communications suggesting in any way that he was born in Kenya and not Hawaii. I hope you can communicate to your readers that this was a simple mistake and nothing more.”

It is clear that she is referring to the  1991 brochure published by her company. See full text here:


There are two problems here. First, it is industry standard procedure for an author to provide their own bio. After all, they are the writer, and who knows them better than themselves. And even Miriam herself says that she “edited the text of the bio”  and “fact checked it”. Semantics – she never says she wrote it. In fact, on the Dystel & Goderich website, part of the “non fiction submission guidelines” is a “formal narrative bio of the author”http://www.dystel.com/nonfiction-proposal-guidelines/  It seems logical that requirement would have been in place in 1991.

The second problem is that it is not just a brochure published in 1991. The same bio was present on the Acton & Dystel and later Dystel & Goderich website starting in 1998. And it stayed there, and was edited during that time. It added that he was was the Junior Democratic Senator from Illinois, and that he was also the Keynote speaker at the 2004 Democratic Convention. It said “born in Kenya” until April of 2007, even though someone was obviously very diligent about updating it to add important new details.

Does anyone believe that Miriam Goderich was just updating all her clients bios for years, without once asking for an approval or asking for  permission to make the changes? I for one DO NOT think that she did that. Nor do I think that Mr. Obama never ONCE looked at his bio in 16 years. I believe that he was aware of it and was concerned with keeping is up to date and accurate. I believe he wrote it and maintained the “born in Kenya” until such time as it became important to have NOT been born in Kenya. From April 2007 on, he was “born in Hawaii”.

Just look at the screen shots. Does it make sense for anyone to leave inaccurate information on the internet for 16 years? These are from a very interesting site called archive.org – The Wayback Machine. Snapshots of web pages over the years have been preserved there. These are just some of hundreds of dates I could have used from the Dytsel & Goderich website over the last 15 years.

June  27,1998 – Born in Kenya

Dystel Obama Bio1998 - born in Kenya

September 1, 2005 – Junior Democratic Senator and Keynote speaker are added – still born in Kenya

Dystel Obama Bio 2005 Born in Kenya

March 26, 2007 – still “Born in Kenya”

Dystel Obama Bio March 2007 - born in Kenya

July 27, 2007 – A miracle – he was reborn in Hawaii – AND he’s a presidential candidate – how coincidental!  And his poor Dad is no longer a Finance Minister. How sad – just a regular fellow from a small town in Kenya…

Dystel Obama Bio July 2007 - NOW born in Hawaii

So there you have it.  Does anybody out there know anyone else over the age of 6 who has  allowed themselves to be incorrectly represented as having been born in a foreign country for a decade and half? Anyone Googling Barack Obama would have found this bio and would have no reason the doubt he was born in Kenya. This is why so many people are confused about where he was born.

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.



A Tale of Four Fraudulent Obama Birth Certificates

Below are the Four (4) versions of the Obama Long Form Birth Certificate that the White House has provided to the public to prove that the President was born in Hawaii. Please take note that they look quite different! They are all scaled here to an 8.5 x 11 background. As they are all of the same “certificate” and have the same “stamps” – one must be the parent and the rest are its offspring.  But which one started it all? Ah, that is the question.  The candidates are:

Four DIFFERENT versions of Obama's Long Form Birth Certificate - FOUR !!!

Four DIFFERENT versions of Obama’s Long Form Birth Certificate – FOUR !!!

  1. The photo taken by reporter Savannah Guthrie of the “actual paper document.” She reported that she “felt the raised seal”
  2. Ah… here we have a conundrum. This is a SUPER high resolution version released as a PDF to the press so they could “report” on it and tell us all the Birth Certificate problem was solved
  3. The green PDF that in on http://www.whitehouse.gov to show us idjits the “proof”
  4. And here is an even BIGGER conundrum. It is a larger and less clear version of #3 that was actually placed in the press packets on April 27, 2011 when the announcement of the birth certificate was made. (Here’s a hint – this is the Parent) Note the shadowy bleed through of another document.

Let’s tell the White House fairy tale of the Birth Certificate. In the White House story, on April 25, 2011, Hawaii made a copy of the Certificate that they have in the big orange binder. Then they put the black and white copy on a copy machine and ran green security paper through, so the certificate had a nice green background instead of being white. Then Loretta Fuddy, the Director of the Hawaii Department of Health, took the green paper to the Registrar, Alvin Onaka and he stamped it and put a big embossed seal on it to make it all super official. Then Obama’s lawyer flew in and picked it up and flew it to Washington DC for its big debut to America on April 27, 2011. We are supposed to believe that certificate #1, as photographed by Savannah Guthrie is that document, and it’s so new and fresh from Hawaii that it still smells like coconuts.

#1 – Savannah Guthrie’s Photo

Now, I imagine that Ms. Guthrie, though not a legal expert, can identify security paper and a raised seal. What she photographed is a piece of 8.5 x 11 security paper, with a rudimentary (and fake(link) ) raised seal. I’ve show the certificate below to scale, though she only photographed the center section with the pertinent data. The color is not really green,  but let’s assume bad lighting. Ms. Guthrie is now the only EYE WITNESS to the PAPER DOCUMENT.

Photo of Obama LFBC taken by Savannah Guthrie

Photo of Obama LFBC taken by Savannah Guthrie

#3 – The “official” version on http://www.whitehouse.gov

The next part of the story is that someone from the White House scanned that paper document that smelled like coconuts into the www.whitehouse.gov website, and voila… we have the PDF for all the world to see. This is version #2. Notice that it is a little smaller than the” original” #1 – but let’s assume the scanner shrinks it for some reason of its own. Now, if you zoom in, it’s clear that all the green lines match up when documents #1 and #2 are compared. You can overlay the certificates and the stamps and they match.

This is the "official" PDF version on www.whitehouse.gov

This is the “official” PDF version on http://www.whitehouse.gov

I will accept that #2 is a scan of #1. It’s very fuzzy, the resolution isn’t good. There are MANY, MANY scanning anomalies, the worst being the white halos around all the lettering. There is no really good reason for this. I personally believe it was done intentionally to make it all look “old” and “hard to read” and lowering the ability to spot the flaws that are there in this copy of a fraudulent document. (Which makes no sense once we look at the next two versions)  But for now, let’s accept that it is a poor resolution scan of #1. So, if #1 as photographed by Ms. Guthrie is the bona fide coconut smelling Hawaiian document – we’re good with #2 and our President. Not so fast….

# 2 High Resolution version Released to the Press

Next in the public presentation are  versions #2 and  #4. #4 is a white paper copy that was placed in the Press Kits on April 27, 2011. I have MAJOR problems with this document. Let’s talk about #2 and #4 together, because #2 is a cropped version of #4 that was released to the Press as a High Resolution version of the Birth Certificate.  The two biggest questions I have on this version are:

Note the incredibly HIGH RESOLUTION of this document. Why does this exist??

Note the incredibly HIGH RESOLUTION of this document. Why does this exist??

How did the green background disappear? And HOW did they raise the resolution about 1000%? WHY DOES THIS VERSION EXIST?

I know that many people think that the green bars are a background “layer” in the forgery, and they just “removed the layer” to make these two plain paper versions. I don’t think that.

I don’t think  that #3 and #4 CAME FROM #1 the Guthrie paper,  or #3 the Green PDF.  Just look at this thing! Zoom in on it. It is LIGHT YEARS better than the supposed “parent” paper document. That paper document could NOT produce anything of this quality. I  know that it is possible to take backgrounds out in graphics programs – threshold, magic wand and background eraser  all do an “okay” job, but they don’t produce anything of this quality and clarity. And with regards to the resolution, if the data and pixels weren’t there, and from the photo #1 and the green PDF #3, they WEREN’T, they can’t just APPEAR on this document. So if the parents of #2 weren’t #1 or #3 where does that leave us?

The White House fairy tale of the coconut smelling Hawaiian paper document #1 that Savannah Guthrie touched doesn’t hold water. That paper document, though it could be the parent of #3, is more like a brother of #2 and NONE of them is the ORIGINAL STAMPED document from Hawaii. The White House story is a lie – just like most fairy tales. So let’s retell it so it all makes more sense. And I warn you, this is going to get weird and complicated, but hang in there.

 I think that #4 is the black and white copy that was copied on security paper to MAKE paper document #1 and scanned document #3, and High Resolution #2,  and I know it didn’t came from  Hawaii. So here it goes…. Let’s start at the beginning – 5 years ago– with the Short Form Birth Certificate that was shown to us in 2008 before the first election. It’s also on the www. whitehouse.gov website. Interesting article here regarding that certificate:


This jist of the linked article is that the Short Form Certificate that was on the White House web site in April 27, 2011 was a forgery created by Ron Pollard, Phd. I would have dismissed this claim, but for two things – the article is very accurate in its documentation, and SOMEHOW that short form got into the back ground of form #4. There is another green short form on whitehouse.gov now, but the original white one is the one we want to use, as it is the one the White House was using in April 2011.

# 4 – White Version with Short Form Bleed Through in the Press Packet

Plain paper LFBC placed in Press Packets on  4/27/2011 - note bleed through and lack of background

Plain paper LFBC placed in Press Packets on 4/27/2011 – note bleed through and lack of

Now let’s look at Birth Certificate #4. This was a copy that was placed in the press packet for all the reporters to see on April 27, 2011. It  is on 8.5 x 11 white paper with no green background.  Behind it, clear as day is the White copy of the Short Form Certificate that was on the White House Website in April 2011.  What this tells us is that, whether the Certificate was reproduced on a copier, or photographed, as reported by Brendan Smialowski for Getty Images, it was a thin white paper over another white paper that allowed the bleed through. There was no security green background. It was white paper. Why was there no green background?

You can clearly see the overlay that was accidentally included on the LFBC in the Press Packets. I used a green certificate to see the contrast. A white one was released.

You can clearly see the overlay that was accidentally included on the LFBC in the Press Packets. I used a green certificate to see the contrast. A white one was released.

This is an OVERLAY of the two documents. I used a green copy of the LFBC for contrast, but note that the underlying Short Form lines up precisely in the same way as the #4 form that was in the Pres Packet. Why were they copying a WHITE COPY of the Birth Certificate if the GREEN copy was the OFFICIAL DOCUMENT?

If we believe that the copy Savannah Guthrie saw was the actual Hawaiian coconut smelling document, then,  after it was scanned for version #3, the background would have had to be digitally removed to make this white copy. This would have been nearly impossible to do so cleanly. And let’s just think about this for a second. Why would ANYONE take a “real” copy of their birth certificate and use some super technology to REMOVE the background??? Why?

A FAR MORE LIKELY STORY – the white image #4/#3 IS THE PARENT IMAGE. It was the one created on the computer. That’s why it has no background, and why the resolution is so high. Those would be two keys for a successful forgery. The background has to be clear and at high resolution, so it is possible for the forger to see clearly what he was adding or deleting. It is apparent that I am disagreeing with the “layer” people that say that because Version #3 green PDF can be opened in layers, that it is the forgery. The “layers” present don’t make sense for a forger. They make more sense for an OCR scanner.

The forgery was done on a white or transparent background. It was copied to security paper for Savannah Guthrie to see,  and copied in its white form for the press with the bleed through. I think the bleed through copy  was a mistake. The White House pretty quickly released the really High resolution cropped document #2 for the press, I think hoping they wouldn’t examine the other one too closely. Even though #2 is cropped, it is still possible to see the bleed through in the document.

People have asked, why can’t it be the black and white copy be the one from the copier in Hawaii? It can’t be because it has the registrars “stamps” that were supposedly added after it was copied to green paper. The B&W real copy would have no stamps. This raises the question of the “stamps”. If none of these versions came from Hawaii, where did the stamps come from? I have said all along that they are computer generated and/or edited. I think that Hawaii sent something with stamps on it. I think the stamps were digitally lifted from this document and placed on white version #4. I also think something went seriously wrong in the transfer. (See the bad date stamp)  This may be their biggest mistake – or the biggest red flag, as it may have been intentional.

There was interesting exchange of letters in 2012, between the Secretary of State of Arizona and Alvin Onaka, the registrar who was responsible for stamping the Birth Certificate. http://butterdezillion.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/complete-klayman-letter-to-bauer.pdf  The question asked of Registrar Alvin Onaka in writing was, “Additionally, please verify that the attached copy of the Certificate of Live Birth for Mr. Obama is a true and accurate representation of the original record in your files.” The answer was carefully avoidant, “Additionally, I verify that the information in the Copy of the Certification of Live Birth that you attached with your request matches the original record in our files.” Alvin Onaka  is NOT verifying that the whitehouse.gov PDF is what they certified. And Dr. Fuddy who oversaw the copying died mysteriously recently.

So there you have it – The Tale of Four Obama Birth Certificates.

  1. A fraudulent birth certificate (version # 4) was made in a computer on a white or transparent background. The seals were lifted from the real documents. I maintain that they were doctored VERY badly for some reason, possibly to change the date to the 25th. (see how)This white copy was placed in the press packets.
  2. This was then copied to green security paper, (version #1) because I cannot believe that Savannah Guthrie would be fooled by a computer generated green background on white paper. Print it yourself. It wouldn’t fool anyone.
  3. It was then cropped when the “bleed though” was noticed. (version #3)
  4. Paper version #1 was scanned to make the green PDF (version #2)

It absolutely defies logic. No one has two (or more) versions of their birth certificate. They have ONE birth certificate, and if they need to copy it – they do just that. THEY COPY IT. They don’t scan it and remove the background and then reprint it. They don’t have a plain white clean copy that they reprint on security paper. Forget the technology side of it – REAL PEOPLE DON’T DO THAT. Criminals and forgers do.

Where is the Embossed Seal on your Birth Certificate Mr. O?

What I am basically trying to show in my posts is that no “High Tech” is needed to see that the document being presented to us as “proof” of the Presidents Hawaiian birth is NOT A REAL DOCUMENT. We just need our eyes and our brains. One of the most important things that almost all official documents need is the OFFICIAL RAISED SEAL. We all have them – on deeds and licenses and wills and bank checks and birth certificates – you name it.

A raised seal helps show the authenticity of a paper document, and makes it harder to pass off a forgery. The Obama Long Form Birth Certificate has a fraudulent seal on it. It is NOT the official seal from the Hawaii Health Department. I believe that a generic stamped seal was lightly applied to the document so that the reporter, Savannah Guthrie, that was allowed to touch it was able to “feel the raised seal” and report that fact. You can buy these seals at craft stores with the little gold stars to make official certificates for your club or coworkers. They are a lot of fun and do make things look very official.

I think our President has a cute fun little “seal” on his “official birth certificate”. That’s not so fun for us… Check it out below.

Click to enlarge this set of stamped seals. Compare the differences between the top two legitimate stamps and the bottom two off the Obama "certificate"

Click to enlarge this set of stamped seals. Compare the differences between
the top two legitimate stamps and the bottom two off the Obama “certificate”

More on the FrankenFive Stamp that Proves the Obama Birth Certificate to be a Fraud

The FrankenFive and I have gotten very attached in the past few weeks, what with people trying to discredit him and saying  he’s just a “stamping mistake” instead of the incredibly fraudulent little creature he really is. (Read about him and my analysis here.)


But in an effort to discredit him, someone sent me a very clear scan of a date stamp from the Hawaii Department of Health  (which had nothing to do with Obama) to show me how “substantially similar” the “5” in the MAR 15 was to the FrankenFive in the Obama Birth Certificate APR 25. It’s a little like saying that George Clooney is “substantially similar” to George Carlin, but I digress. However,  this new scan was actually very helpful to my cause of proving that the FrankenFive is not only a strange little character, but that he is also NOT part of that stamper.

For those of you not familiar with the tedious chore of date stamping, there are a couple of pictures below of the most common types of date stamps. There are Four rollers that must be changed manually to set the date correctly. The YEAR is rolled into place in January. Each MONTH the roller is advanced to position at the bottom of the stamp. Each DAY there are TWO rollers that are changed to make the new day, both   0 – 9. The goal each day is to have them line up to make a straight line, then they get inked on a stamp pad, and when pressed down – voila – the correct date is stamped.  It’s not uncommon to have the DAY numbers be slightly higher or lower than the month and/or year, if you don’t take time each morning to set the alignment correctly.

rubber stamps

What IS NOT possible is for one number to move to the right or the left. These stamps are tight and sturdy without any “wiggle” room.  So when I lined them up to compare the “substantially similar” Fives, I noticed that they were not only very DISSIMILAR, what with one being a FrankenFive,  but….

  1. They WERE NOT in the same position on the “stamp”

I have place the correct REAL date stamp on the top, with the Obama Birth Certificate “stamp”  on the bottom. The red lines and dots show that they are scaled and aligned correctly. The blue brackets on the “R” shows that the two stamps are the same height. All the other numbers  and letters line up 100%.

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!

Except for the FrankenFive.  Not only does he not look like the REAL five, but he is too close to the 2011, and he is significantly taller than the real five. (note the blue brackets to the left of the fives. The brackets are the same size.)  FrankenFive is a one of a kind. He is not a STAMP. He was computer generated. (see my analysis here) And now, thanks to his detractor, I can show that the FrankenFive could not have been part of the same stamp that stamped the MAR 15  just 6 weeks earlier.

People have asked me “Why would anyone bother to make a fake computer generated stamp?” That’s a very good question, and I don’t know the answer. Two possibilities come to mind.  First, what I have proposed on my analysis – it was a “6” and because the White House said Obama’s lawyers picked up the Birth Certificate in Hawaii on the 25th  it was necessary to change the 6 to a 5, and whoever was responsible for doing it had limited time and minimal resources and/or skills. Second, it’s absolutely possible that whoever did this WANTED it to be spotted to flag this Obama Birth Certificate as a fraud. If so, we are letting them down.

What I DO KNOW is that someone DID make a fraudulent “stamp”. And I am still looking for a “better” answer to how the FrankenFive  came to exist. I’d be glad to hear new ideas. But, as it stands now, without a valid registrars stamp, this entire birth certificate becomes worthless.  It is outrageous that this has been foisted on us by our president. It is even more outrageous that as a country we aren’t standing up for ourselves and demanding to be shown the original certificate. I cannot even imagine the depths of what he must be hiding from us.

As an aside, the person who personally verified that this was a true and valid document was Dr. Loretta Fuddy, the Director of the Hawaii Department of Health. She supposedly died mysteriously following a plane accident in December 2013. She had been subpoenaed several times to provide the actual birth certificate. I think it was getting to the point where she wasn’t going to be able to ignore the subpoenas indefinitely. The circumstances of the “death” are exceedingly odd. So odd in fact, that I’m starting to wonder if this accident was staged. They were all in on it and she is alive and well and retired somewhere else now, but more on that later. The point is, Dr. Loretta  Fuddy KNEW that what is on the whitehouse.gov website as the official  long form birth certificate is either a fraud, to which she was an accomplice, OR – that it is NOT the document that she certified. Either way, she’s 65 and she wanted to get out now. For her sake,  I hope it worked, but I wish she had straightened this whole Birth Certificate fiasco out first.

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.

If it Looks Like a Typewriter, but Quacks like a Word Processor, it’s Probably Obama Birth Certificate Fraud

Click this to enlarge -  Obama Birth Certificate Fraud

Click this to enlarge – Obama Birth Certificate Fraud

I have been quite surprised lately by how many people do NOT remember what a typewriter was, much less know how one worked. A typewriter is sort of an old fashioned word processor. When word processing came into the world in ..hmm.. the late 70s and early 80’s, it actually had a tough row to hoe in replacing the typewriter. I remember the computer lab in college where we could go to use the new “word processors’”. It was generally empty. We were pretty happy with what a typewriter and correction fluid did, and even though the idea of being able to add and delete text was intriguing,  it was very  complicated to learn, and most of us just stuck  with the typewriter.

What we mostly wanted was something that would neatly and accurately transcribe our ideas to paper in organized lines and neat type.  So, a typewriter did basically what this Word program is doing right now as I type. Letters are being neatly arranged in the proper size and spacing to make an easy to read sentence.  When I hit “enter” or start a new sentence, each new line starts just the proper distance from the one above it. We don’t expect our letters and lines to be randomly spaced and erratic in word processing. That is exactly what a typewriter did. The letters were neatly spaced and aligned and when we hit the “return bar”, which was the manual form of the “enter” button, the roller advanced the paper up the correct amount of lines, and the operator  manually pushed the roller back to the left tab of the paper and a little bell rang when you got there. There was no thought involved to the vertical spacing of the line. We had to think through horizontal things like indents, and word spacing on forms, but vertical line spacing took care of itself.  As long as one started correctly on the top line, each successive line would space itself out accurately from top to bottom. Forms were purposely printed to accurately match this line spacing ability.

It’s the line spacing feature, or maybe the lack thereof, that is one of the primary concerns to many on the Obama birth certificate. Letter alignment is as also an issue. I’ll document some of my concerns here. I have compared this document to the birth certificates typed the next day, August 5, 1961 for Susan and Gretchen Nordyke, born in the same hospital. These certificates show NONE of the issues I’ll point out.

LINE 3 –

As you can see by the red line I’ve drawn, the words Male, the “X” in the box and August line up very nicely. Then for some reason, all the numbers drop off and are typed MUCH lower AND on an angle. In fact the two “4”s don’t even line up with themselves. It’s odd that the critical information needed to match the Obama short form birth certificate produced in 2008, which is the date and the time, appear to be added or changed after the fact. A  typist in 1961 would have no reason to stop and realign her page, and do it crookedly.

LINES 6 – 16

This is where the line spacing becomes critical. If we assume that the typist started Line 3 at a good level, and it appears she did from the words Male and August, a typewriter would space each successive line at the same height above the form line. I used a letter “o” to show the spacing of each line. I used Blue letters to show accurate spacing and red letters to show deviant line spacing.

Line 4 – is well spaced below Line 3 GOOD

Line 5 – note there quite a bit more space between the letters and the  line that the previous  two lines. A typewriter would NOT have spaced this here. BAD

Line 6 – These words are TOO CLOSE to the line. Again, a typewriter would not do this. BAD

Line 15 – WAY TOO close to the line  – BAD

As other birth certificates typed in August for this hospital don’t show these discrepancies,  I have to wonder, why this one has such problems.  To me, it looks like a cut and paste job, which can only be done in a graphics program, if text from another source were dropped onto this form. A competent typist would NOT do this, and did NOT do this on other forms.

Misaligned letters

BOX 9 and BOX 11

These boxes concern me for a different reason. Though the line height is good, in these two boxes and ONLY these two boxes, the letters are NOT LINED UP.  I’m not worried about the capitals. If the shift key wasn’t fully depressed, it’s was possible to get a misaligned capital letter on a typewriter. I AM worried however, about the number of lower case letters that are out of line. The letters just seemed to be placed anywhere. Again, a typewriter would not do this, and it doesn’t occur ANYWHERE else on this form. Cut and paste in a graphics program would do this. Bringing letters over on a computer from another source to spell these words would account for this. A TYPEWRITER IS NOT  FLEXIBLE ENOUGH TO DO THIS.

It is particularly important to the fraud idea that it is these two boxes that show the anomaly, as it is the contention of many professionals that there is NO POSSIBILITY that these words could have or would have been used in 1961. The word African is a nationality and not a race, and in 1961 the only option for a person of color would have been Negro. The Registrar who signed these forms in 1961, Verna K E Lee has attested to that. And Kenya did not exist as a country until 1964. I think whoever did this forgery did not do their history research.  As the phrase goes, “The devil is in the details.” My fondest wish is that it IS  the details that will undo this particular devil.

Speaking of details, please look at my page to the left or click here “New Evidence – December 2013 – Computer Generated Registrars Stamp” Very cool anomaly!