Birth certificate – superimposed panels or not?

Barking Spider points me to Euripedes who has been into the “birth certificate”.  He’s at pains to establish his bona fides that he is not a “birther”.  Presumably that is not being a “truther” either.

Personally, I don’t go in for these sorts of labels, in lieu of evidence and debate.  They obscure the issue.  I once read an article on the end times and all there were were “pretribbers” and “posttribbers”, whoever they were, slagging each other off.  I’d gone there to try to get some raw data.

My position is that there is something very wrong with both the man and the way he is acting.  Obviously I don’t know and couldn’t know if the certificate is tampered with or not although this comment is interesting:

1.  Check the dates on the bottom, Aug-8 and 1961 are from two different typewriters, and where is the official stamp? Every birth certificate has the state’s official raised seal!

Now, I’d like to offer a second:

2.  If you look at the mother’s signature, it fits completely within the space allocated.  If you look at the doctor’s and the registrar’s, they go over the line.  When you sign in a box, does it ever go outside the box?  The mother’s fits within.  The end bracket around Stanley stops at the line.

Just thought I’d mention it.

UPDATE 15:24

Barking Spider says look at the copy [zoomed] below right.  He comments:

There are all sorts of things wrong with it! Did you also notice that the capital “R”s are missing from words like “BA(R)ACK” when the overlaid element has been moved? It’s on the document underneath and you can still see it there in the “Kapiolani” of Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital – it’s also a different colour to the overlaid lettering. Some of the capital “K”s in words like “Kansas” are also on the document underneath – they display an imperfection from the original typewriter where the letter doesn’t print completely, (the top part is very faint/not there), and this is totally unlike the “K” in “BA(R)ACK” which is on the overlay and printed in full. The “S” from (S)TANLEY” is also on the bottom layer – the whole thing is so badly forged it wouldn’t fool anyone!

I can’t add much more.  Why were two parts overlaid, one on top of the other?  Was one damaged and they had to fill in the missing parts and that though innocent, it would look bad?  If so, how come people have been able so easily to spot all these errors?

Were the errors deliberately included to start another wild goose chase before the elections?  Was it bloodymindedness on the part of Obama’s minders?

Or is there something wrong?

15 comments for “Birth certificate – superimposed panels or not?

  1. Bill
    April 28, 2011 at 13:11

    It’s a piece of paper which is allegedly a record of an entry into a register. It proves nothing whatsoever at all.

    Although both you and I were present when our alleged parents made an entry in the state’s birth register in return for a copy of that register entry there is no way on gods earth that we can be considered party to that process and yet we are brought up to believe we are the name entered on the register.

    The Birth Certificate is a copy of the Register Entry and cannot be used for identification purposes. As identification would seem to be the only logical reason to be given a copy certificate and that is the only use the certificate is specifically excluded from what other purpose must this certificate and its register entry serve?

    Clue they are numbered and who are the human beings with a number?

    Slaves of course.

    Anyway that’s my take on these pieces of paper. The truth is ANYTHING written down can be faked and there probably more faked paper around than ‘truthful paper’.

  2. dearieme
    April 28, 2011 at 14:08

    Women write more neatly, Hob. On the other hand:-

  3. April 28, 2011 at 14:39

    The date stamp was not done with a typewriter; it has been rubber-stamped.

  4. dearieme
    April 28, 2011 at 15:05

    If this piece of paper would pass muster in a court, then that’s that. If not, what on earth’s going on?

    Anyway, there’s a pretty sure way to establish whether it would pass muster in a court of law.

  5. April 28, 2011 at 15:11

    Bill – yes.

    Dearieme – I saw your other comment about Market Ticker. I tend to look at Jesse these days.

    Bob – interesting.

    Dearieme again – that’s the crux and yet not the crux. You can easily fool a court of law. Harder though to fool a panel of experts, unless they’ve been paid.

    The bottom line is that it is weird behaviour on his part. It could be that he was told not to let anyone see anything because his enemies will make something of it, whether innocent or guilty.

    He may just be a secretive man.

    It does smell though.

  6. April 28, 2011 at 15:40

    He didn’t release it early because it helped him politically, simple.

    He released the short-form back when Hillary’s people questioned him.

    The picture is a picture of a microfilm(fishe) converted to a .pdf file; there have been various debunkings of the myths of it being a fake; national review has the best I’ve seen (can’t remember url of that particular article, but you can just scroll down their site 🙂

  7. April 28, 2011 at 18:23

    I don’t understand why Barking Spider’s version is thought to be reliable. With Photoshop these days it’s possible to produce something of the sort shown here, by Barking Spider.

    It’d also be possible to produce something of the sort produced by the White House this week.

    This thing keeps going around in a loop – and getting nowhere. If there’s something to be hidden, kept secret then it’ll have been WELL hidden and will certainly stay hidden – for good.

    And what does it matter – really?

    • April 28, 2011 at 19:20

      It matters, Twilight, if he is not eligible to be President. It’s a very big “if”. It also opens a can of worms about what people know goes on but the PTB have not actually been nailed since Ellsberg. Following that, it will be a case of whether they say to the population so what or whether they’ll still try to bluff it out.

      And if they say so what, then that is a direct statement of what we’ve been contending – that there is no democracy whatever and that these people up there really are criminals, rather than supposed criminals. The difference is more to them than to us, as we already know it in our hearts but these people are sticklers for form, for the documents to say they’re OK.

      If the documents do not say they’re OK, it puts them in an untenuous position in their own minds. So it’s all to play for.

  8. April 28, 2011 at 20:18

    Yes I agree with you, generally, on this.

    But “they” are in a position to adjust matters. They have everything in their favour , all of the clout, all of the resources. If they have hidden something – it will never be found. I’m confident of that.

    I say ‘what does it matter?’ because really we’re screwed whichever way you look at it, whether his BC is genuine or not. If Obama was kicked out (highly unlikely for above reasons) they’d simply ensconce another puppet figure.
    We’d be no better off.

  9. April 28, 2011 at 22:04


    It wasn’t photoshopped – Euripides loaded the original PDF into Adobe Illustrator which immediately showed up all the overlaid elements – he then moved the biggest overlay to show how it had been done and there was certainly no photoshopping involved nor did I change anything in Euripides’ original screenshot – follow the link in the first paragraph of the article and see for yourself.

  10. April 28, 2011 at 23:33

    @Barking Spider ~~ Thanks – I hadn’t looked at Euripides’ blog. He seems to be a level-headed sort of guy, and sincere in his belief that the doc. was manipulated.

    As commenters there said – it’s strange that, with all the resources open to the White House, that a better version couldn’t have been produced/forged/finagled in some way (if indeed there’s is something in the original they wish to be kept hidden). If Euipides is right this is an amateurish attempt and they must surely realise as much.

    The plot thickens, and yet I still say “what does it matter” in the greater scheme of things? It’s a fine distraction – that’s for sure.

  11. April 28, 2011 at 23:34

    You’d have thought that with a few years to get this right, they would have done such a good job on the fake certificate that it couldn’t be disproved. Yet its an immediate ‘fake’.

    I would have thought the CIA and all the resources of the united States government could have made a phoney single sheet document ‘foolproof’ wouldn’t you?

    Yet he feels they mistake capital R for small r. The wrong ‘K’. Its almost a wonder it wasn’t Barracks Hussar O’ Barmer on the certificate.

    Does Mr Spider think they wanted to get caught?
    Because what’s another explanation for such sloppy work?

  12. April 29, 2011 at 00:18

    I’ve found someone else who has done exactly the same thing with Adobe Illustrator…….

    Whoever uploaded the PDF was a complete idiot because they left the composite image in an editable form instead of flattening it or merging it down – that’s why all the different layers were immediately visible and he also says the same as I did about the letters allowed to remain on the background layer.

  13. dearieme
    April 29, 2011 at 02:16

    Scroll down to the comment of James Nelson: he believes he can answer the complaints made on Market Ticker.

  14. April 29, 2011 at 07:49

    Yes, I’ve covered this in the latest post, so with respect, people, I’ll close this thread off and the new one will take over:

    Obama and the certificate

Comments are closed.