Obama BC Seal Contradicts Factcheck

I was wrong. There apparently was a seal on the BC Obama allowed reporters to see. Savannah Guthrie took a photo of it and the circular outline of a seal can be seen.

Unfortunately for Obama, the “seal” is different than the one on the Factcheck forgery.  Serious doo-doo going on, folks.

Obama BC Seal Contradicts Factcheck

About these ads

64 Comments

  1. Jason
    Posted May 13, 2011 at 8:01 pm | Permalink | Reply

    You can’t just call it a faint circle-shape object a seal.

  2. yup
    Posted May 14, 2011 at 7:44 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Its funny watching Birfoons head explode when they yell something over and over, then realize they were wrong all along, and have to change tack midstream unless they look like a fool. Hint: You still look like a fool…first NO SEAL!..then SEAL MEANS FORGERY!!!!….WHAT A JOKE.

    • Posted May 15, 2011 at 12:59 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Which seal is the genuine HDOH seal – the one on the Factcheck photo, or the one on the long-form? Since they have different seals they can’t both be genuine. So which one is the fake? Or are they both fake? How would you know? And why would Obama fake either one and lie about it all this time?

    • HistorianDude
      Posted May 15, 2011 at 1:57 pm | Permalink | Reply

      1. Your attempt to compare seal size is absurd. There is no reference point with which to calibrate the relative sizes of these seals.

      2. Your attempt to compare seal “clarity’ is absurd. That will be a function of the lighting conditions under which the documents were photographed.

      3. Your attempt to compare the seals themselves is absurd. So little detail can be seen in Guthrie’s photo that, other than the most gross of details, almost nothing can be compared. The gross details, however, suggest they are the same. a. they are both embossed seals composed of lateral lines. b. they both possess a double outer ring.

      Thanks otherwise for this classic demonstration of rationalization posing as investigation. We expected nothing less from you.

  3. Posted May 15, 2011 at 12:52 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Don’t forget that Fuddy made two certified copies. Because a stamp is done by hand what you are pointing out is not unusual.

    Of course I will say this again. Why fly a lawyer to HI to “pick up” a PDF file?

    • Posted May 15, 2011 at 1:06 pm | Permalink | Reply

      They sent 2 death certificates for our daughter. They look the same. Each seal is impressed one at a time so it doesn’t make a difference how many copies they make.

      And the primary problem here is that the “seal” on Obama’s long-form is a totally different size than the “seal” on the COLB. I lined up the cross-hatches for the security paper of the 2 certificates so we could have a point of comparison for the seals. What is posted here is exactly how the seals would look side by side if they were both put on the same piece of paper. They are not the same size at all.

      • HistorianDude
        Posted May 15, 2011 at 2:09 pm | Permalink

        Your attempt as using the security paper cross hatching to calibrate relative sizes was a fail. Not only did you not account for foreshortening caused by the FactCheck image being taken at an angle, the cross hatching in your two comparisons do not visually appear to have been adjusted to the same size. Further, since the edges of the hatching are diffuse, you’re relegated to just guessing anyway.

      • Posted May 15, 2011 at 2:11 pm | Permalink

        Well that of course is a good point. The other thing that Ron P and I were looking into way back when was the thickness of the paper. Security paper is much thinner that standard 20 or 25 lb paper found in a common copy machine. This allows the seal to be thoroughly on the raised side. When looking at the pictures of the original COLB where it being held you can clearly see that paper supports itself where a security paper would have been drooping if held in that matter and the creases would not have a big radius where folded. Anyway he and I got off on other things and never pursued it further. But I think it could be easily demonstrated that the paper of even this “new” LFBC is standard copy paper.

        Where is Miki Booth? I have emailed Sharon with no response. She has a LFBC issued this year!

      • kj
        Posted May 17, 2011 at 4:10 pm | Permalink

        Is the size of the official seal specified in Hawaii Law or DOH procedures?

      • Posted May 19, 2011 at 10:02 pm | Permalink

        Not that I know of.

      • gorefan
        Posted May 19, 2011 at 6:11 am | Permalink

        I counted the number of vertical cross hatches in both seals and if they are not the same size they are extremely close, to the point that no conclusion can be drawn.

        Also could Dr. Onaka have his own seal, while the regular seal used by other DOH employees is similar but not quite the same. As I recall different COLB’s available on the internet have different seals. But all of them meet the requirements for the official seal.

      • gorefan
        Posted May 19, 2011 at 11:08 pm | Permalink

        Here is the statute on the Hawaiian Seal

        “§11-1-2 Seal of the department of health.”
        “a) The official seal of the department of health shall be circular in shape, two and one-fourth inches in diameter. At the curve on the top portion there shall be the words “DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH” and at the curve on the bottom portion there shall be the words “STATE OF HAWAII.” At the curve on each side portion shall be a star. In the center of the seal shall be the Caduceus, a winged rod entwined with two serpents, which has long been recognized as a universal symbol of medicine. The Caduceus shall be encircled by an indentation, which shall separate it from the words “DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH” and “STATE OF HAWAII.” For illustrative purposes, a black and white drawing of the official seal is attached at the end of this section as Exhibit “A,” titled “Seal of the Department of Health,” and dated November 1, 1988, and made a part of this section.”

      • Posted May 20, 2011 at 12:04 am | Permalink

        Thank you for the information. I wasn’t aware of that.

      • Posted May 20, 2011 at 1:31 am | Permalink

        “But all of them meet the requirements for the official seal.”

        Actually, they do not all meet the requirements. You are overlooking the vital records regulations concerning the seal and legal “form of certification.” The Patricia DeCosta COLB-type seal meets the regulations requirements but the Obama short-form COLB seal does not.

        The HDOH/OHSM’s Chapter 8, 8a & 8b Public Health Regulations state that the issuing office’s official seal applied to standard and abstract certified copies must be a “RAISED” embossment over the certification statement and signature of the registrar with custody of the original.

        A “RAISED” embossment is the one and only requirement per the seal and certified copies of vital records. (p.19 http://gen.doh.hawaii.gov/sites/har/AdmRules1/8%208A%20B%20VR%20Admin%20Rules.pdf)

        Obama’s short form has an “incised” embossed seal above the certification statement and signature: http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_7.jpg
        (The text and emblem are cut into the paper and pushed down through the other side.)

        But, the Miki Booth Long Form has a raised seal above the certification statement and signature: http://www.wnd.com/images/110512hawaiibirthcertseal.JPG

        Here is another example of the regulation ‘RAISED’ version: http://www.flickr.com/photos/valeehill/5477012596/sizes/l/in/set-72157626010291215/

        Here is a close up of the word “Hawaii” in a side-by-side comparison: http://imageshack.us/m/806/1142/closeupraisedvsnotraise.jpg

        See? One seal’s text and emblem are raised up from the surface of the paper, and the other seal’s text and emblem are pushed down through the paper.

        This is confirmed when we look at the back of the seal, in reverse, on the front of the Decosta COLB…the reverse seal is incised indicating the front of the seal is raised on the other side where it was applied: http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn227/Polarik/doc_decosta_pat_birth.jpg

        But the reverse side of the seal on Obama’s short form is raised on the front of the COLB…indicating that the front of the seal is incised on th eother side: http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg

        How did such a thing just escape all attention?

        Well, Factcheck.org captioned a photo of the reversed seal as it appears on the front of Obama’s short form as “The raised seal.”

        Yes, they captioned the seal in reverse on the front of the COLB: http://factcheck.org/2008/08/born-in-the-usa/

        This was the original photo they cropped and erroneously captioned: http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_1.jpg

        We have never seen an image of any seal on wither Obama “birth certificate” that appears to meet the regulation requirements for a legal certification.

    • HistorianDude
      Posted May 15, 2011 at 2:02 pm | Permalink | Reply

      1) The lawyer did not pick up a PDF file. They picked up two certified paper copies of the document. The PDF was made later for electronic distribution of an image of the birth certificate.

      2) You fly a lawyer over to establish a bullet proof chain of custody between the Hawaii DoH and the press release.

      • Posted May 20, 2011 at 3:05 am | Permalink

        A bullet-proof chain of custody that includes somebody with a motive and opportunity to alter the document. A college wouldn’t accept grade transcripts that had that chain of command, and employers wouldn’t accept job applicant references that first went through the hands of the applicant because that would give the applicant the opportunity to alter the reference.. By having the lawyer pick it up they actually made the chain of custody LESS CREDIBLE.

      • Posted May 20, 2011 at 3:18 am | Permalink

        So…you’re saying that Fuddy and Onaka witnessed the scanning of the certified copy(ies)?

        Where did they attest to the scanning (which is another form of image-copying), the application process that led to the layering and the formatting and output of the pdf file?

        …and anything else done in between?

        How do I know that the scan is authentic? It’s not a ‘certified pdf’ which is actually an available feature in Adobe Acrobat.

        Oh yes, you can certify a pdf as an attestation of it’s authenticity.

        We got an UNCERTIFIED pdf. IOW an uncertified copy.

        http://forums.adobe.com/message/2417390

        More links on certified pdfs here: http://www.google.com/search?q=certified+pdf&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

      • HistorianDude
        Posted May 20, 2011 at 5:01 pm | Permalink

        MissTickley,

        Compare the on-line PDF to the photograph taken by Savanaah Guthrie of the certified copy that was circulated at the president’s press conference.

        Now tell me… what would be the point of a faked scan that is identical to the actual paper document?

      • Posted May 21, 2011 at 2:42 am | Permalink

        “Now tell me… what would be the point of a faked scan that is identical to the actual paper document?”

        Oh, I agree that they appear to be identical!

        In fact, I cannot tell if the seal that appears to be present in the Guthrie photo is raised or not…and I cannot tell if the seal I am pretty certain I see in the pdf is raised or not.

        It must be a raised/embossed seal according to the law and that is most certainly not a detail any of us can discern with any certainty by looking at either the Guthrie photo or the pdf released by the White House.

        That said, Ms. Guthrie DID state she felt a seal that was raised. But unfortunately, Factcheck.org said the same thing about the short-form COLB they photographed and they got it wrong.

        The seal applied to the back of Obama’s short form was not raised and embossed, it was lowered and debossed. So, I cannot take Guthrie’s word for what she saw and felt. I have written her for confirmation and clarity in light of Factcheck.org’s error. It’s been three days and I am pretty sure she doesn’t intend to respond. So, I am going to have to go with Obama’s record on this – and he defrauds the American people.

        Sorry!

        • debossing – Pressing an image into paper so that it will create a lowered area.

        • embossing – Pressing an image into paper so that it creates a raised area.

        (http://www.universalprinting.com/Glossary.aspx)

        Here is Obama’s lowered/debossed seal as photographed by Factcheck.org: http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_7.jpg

        Guthrie’s photos do not provide enough detail to discern with any certainty that Obama’s NEWEST birth certificate is legally certified.

        Obama’s short form was not certified with a raised seal, why should I believe that this latest one is?

        BTW, here is is a view of a raised/embossed HDOH seal: http://www.wnd.com/images/110512hawaiibirthcertseal.JPG

        You really have no argument. If Obama’s latest copy has a raised seal, it just proves the first one was fake.

      • Posted May 21, 2011 at 2:30 pm | Permalink

        Just a side comment. I did not receive notification of any of your posts submitted last night. If I had trusted in notifications I would never have known these messages existed. Either WordPress’s notis are not getting sent out today or my e-mail is being messed with again. Now I know I need to go through the “Manage Comments” page. Hopefully I won’t miss anybody’s comments that way.

      • Posted May 21, 2011 at 3:14 am | Permalink

        HD,

        More visual aids…

        debossed:
        http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_HJL-7FoXyAw/SXTyk1-6LkI/AAAAAAAAAFM/zB6dHtnIlYM/s400/milazzo+barolo+deboss.JPG
        (oh, yes I did.)

        embossed:
        http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_ATCW3aLL82U/SJUVAqvHYJI/AAAAAAAAAFg/UbEUlDhgcVo/s400/DSC_0044.JPG

        Just so you know, I have two written statements from the HDOH that their seal is embossed, and on pg.19 of the vital records regulations you will find the requirement that a raised seal be applied to certified vital records copies. I also have a written statement from the OIP that the HDOH seal is ‘raised.’

        Furthermore, the one thing that the media, birthers, obots and everyone in between can agree on…the seal must be raised to be a legal certification.

        You were tricked, HD. Face it, Obama used you like a tool and you thought you saw a raised seal because the media told you that you did. But you didn’t and don’t see that, at all. The seal’s image and the text are debossed. http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_8.jpg

        The reversed inversion of the seal’s image and text on the front of the COLB proves it’s a debossed seal because clearly that side is raised: http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg

        Meanwhile, this nation has just grown more divided because of this childish idiot when I could be agreeing with you, right now, on meaningful issues as a liberal myself.

        If you can honestly say you see a raised seal on the back of Obama’s short form COLB, you need your head examined. If you can admit that you do not see a raised seal on the back of Obama’s short form COLB, welcome to the Birther Club, we are glad to have you join us.

      • Posted May 21, 2011 at 3:23 am | Permalink

        HD,

        BTW, don’t feel too bad, we all fell for this trick. Birthers and Obots alike fell for it.

        Fools all of us.

        http://www.google.com/search?q=deboss&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi&biw=1202&bih=621

      • Posted May 21, 2011 at 3:32 am | Permalink

        Oooo…the graphic designer in me just thinks these debossed logos are very attactive: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_HJL-7FoXyAw/SnNrItBE_6I/AAAAAAAAAT8/1xjsIcvAZkg/s400/DebossBRANDS_3.jpg

        And how awesome is this embossed business card? http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3211/2989765848_6699f99137.jpg

        As a print graphic designer, I know someone specified the type of impression made on all of these pieces, it wasn’t accidental. Trust.

      • Posted May 21, 2011 at 3:35 pm | Permalink

        “Hopefully I won’t miss anybody’s comments that way.”

        No worries, the world is supposed to end today anyway!

      • Posted May 22, 2011 at 4:35 am | Permalink

        lol. But it didn’t.

        And I didn’t get notified about that message either. So far your messages are the only ones I haven’t been notified about. I don’t kow if the trouble is coming from WordPress or if somebody is intercepting my e-mails again (or still).

        Why don’t you send me some stuff that will at least make it worth Janet Napolitano’s time to nab? lol. Give her all kinds of good juicy gossip for her people to ooh and ahh over. lol.

      • Posted May 28, 2011 at 6:11 pm | Permalink

        “If you can honestly say you see a raised seal on the back of Obama’s short form COLB, you need your head examined. If you can admit that you do not see a raised seal on the back of Obama’s short form COLB, welcome to the Birther Club, we are glad to have you join us.”

        *crickets*

        That’s what I thought you’d say, HD.

        http://obamasgarden.wordpress.com/2011/05/24/the_audacity_of_seal/

      • Posted May 28, 2011 at 6:55 pm | Permalink

        Hey, I actually got a notification about that one! And as far as I know, I have approved all the comments that are awaiting so he hasn’t responded.

      • gorefan
        Posted May 30, 2011 at 4:01 am | Permalink

        Hi Butter,

        Hope your have a goof Memorial Day.

        Here is the thing. If you take the image from Misstickly and rotated it 180 degrees, what looks incised, now looks raised. As Dr. Conspiracy says at the linked site below, it is an optical illusion. Try it yourself.

        http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_1.jpg

        Also back in December, there wqas an exchange between Misstickly and a poster named PS.

        “My sister’s seal, like mine is stamped from the back so when you are looking from the front side with the vitals, image is raised and reversed.”

        She is saying her 1993 Hawaiian BC seal is debossed.

      • gorefan
        Posted May 30, 2011 at 4:25 am | Permalink

        Hi Butter – obviously I meant having a good weekend not a “goof” weekend.

        Here is the link to the wtpotus.com site from December.

        http://wtpotus.wordpress.com/2010/12/04/they-aint-seen-nothin-yet/

        PS posts at Dec 8th @ 12:27 a.m.

        HAve a good Memorial Day.

      • Posted May 30, 2011 at 2:10 pm | Permalink

        Gorefan-

        ‘PS’ also backed out of allowing Hawaii send me her redacted COLB when I told her I was going to take it to a Notary for authentication and I wanted them by certified mail. This was after she made some big deal about allowing them to send me her COLB at the WTPOTUS blog. She didn’t want it authenticated.

        No notary would authenticate a COLB that did not have a raised seal when the regulations state it should have one. Sorry.

        PLUS, for three years Factcheck.org, every media outlet, Obots and this administration have been claiming the COLB HAS a raised seal. Now you are saying it doesn’t BUT doesn’t even need one after all to be legal?

        Uh, no. Too little, too late. You guys said it had a raised seal, it doesn’t.

        AND besides, ‘PS’s’ photos clearly showed a raised seal. I even stated so.

        And you can turn whatever photo you want 90° squint, dim the lights, pray and pretend you see a raised seal on the back of the short form, but the fact is there are five high resolution photos of the seal, front and back, that all say the same thing: The Seal is not raised on the back of the COLB, it’s raised on the front.

        In fact, viewing the seal photographs at 100% allows you to see every single detail in the seal impression, even the paper fibers, and no where are there any raised areas nor any shadows cast by raised areas.

        So just look at the details up close. That’s all you need to do. They tell the story and there are no raised areas in that seal impression on the back of the COLB. There are four other photos confirm that.

      • Posted May 30, 2011 at 2:27 pm | Permalink

        Gorefan –

        Also, I am now through with ‘trusting’ anonymous people online about their COLBs.

        PS didn’t want her redacted COLB sent to me by certified mail and she didn’t want me to take it to a notary to have it authenticated.

        But before I made either of those requests, she was happy to help.

        Seriously, that says it all.

        I am a little surprised you wanted to dredge up that person’s comments.

        WTPOTUS shooed ‘PS’ away for her little trick and yes, I forwarded ‘PS’s’ emails to me on the subject to one of the blog admins.

      • gorefan
        Posted May 30, 2011 at 3:34 pm | Permalink

        Gee, I wonder why someone would change their mind about sending a stranger a copy of their BC?

        The facts remain you have been wrong with every theory you have come up with.

        Remember the DOH indirectly confirmed the COLB is amended?

        How about “Date Filed versus Date Accepted”?

        Have you seen Alan Booth’s COLB? His looks debossed.

        What about Danae’s COLB is her’s debossed?

        What the optical effect shows is that the images of seals you examined as evidence may themselved be debossed.

        What if Hawaii has been using debossed seals for years?

      • Posted May 30, 2011 at 3:43 pm | Permalink

        GoreFan & Dr. C:

        http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_8.jpg

        The light is clearly coming from the top right corner, you can clearly see it reflected on the paper in that upper corner.

        So, I just turned this photo 90° clockwise. For the illusion you are creating for YOURSELF to be reality, the light source would have to be coming from the bottom left corner in the photo as originally oriented.

        That’s why you think you see a raised seal when that photo is turned clockwise 90°, the light source is actually moved to the bottom right in this new orientation, but the highlights on what you are claiming are raised areas, would have to be made from a light source coming from the exact opposite direction to actually be highlights indicating raised areas. Our eyes are most accustomed to viewing light from above so we place it there in our minds. THAT’S the illusion YOU are creating by orienting the real light source at the bottom of the photo.

        …BUT that’s not where the light is actually coming from, – those highlights you see are within the recessed areas of the impression. As these individual areas bend inward, they are reflecting the light OPPOSITE them.

        But I think you already knew this and know that this whole turn the photo 90° and it’s suddenly a raised seal stuff is bull hockey.

        Again, your eyes just make sense of highlights that would indicate the direction of light is above because we are accustomed to seeing light from above…but that doesn’t make it so. You turn the photo so the highlights look like raised areas lit from above but the reality is, the light source turns with the photo as you turn it.

        The illusionary raised highlights you are creating when you turn the photo are not really highlights on ‘raised’ areas or they would be along the same sides of those areas as the direction of the light source. They are on the opposite side.

        Oh, and plus the fact that there are these four photos that confirm the seal is debossed on the back of the COLB, and raised on the reverse side:

        http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_1.jpg
        http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg
        http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_6.jpg
        http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_7.jpg

        Again, I think you guys know full well you’ve been had and are struggling with denial. If I were you, I’d get angry at Obama for using you to help him dupe people. He used everyone. When is enough going to be enough for you guys?

      • gorefan
        Posted May 30, 2011 at 11:51 pm | Permalink

        Misstickly

        I don’t think you understand. I’m not saying there its no debossing stamp.

        But the conversation you had with PS at wtpotus indicates they have been using debossed stamps for along time.

        It’s not that the President fooled us. Like PS, he had no control over the type of stamp that the DOH used.

      • gorefan
        Posted May 31, 2011 at 12:01 am | Permalink

        Butterdezillion and misstickly,

        Over at Dr. C.’s site, a “friend” of yours from the Freerepublic has psoted the following:

        BuckeyeTexan May 30, 2011 at 5:21 pm

        “Well, it’s resolved for me. Danae has answered my questions. Her document is sealed in exactly the same manner as Obama’s: front side of document is raised, back side is impressed.

        MT is correct about how the seal on Obama’s document is actually a debossed seal. Since I am confident that Danae’s BC is authentic, that tells me the HDOH understands “embossed” to mean raised on one side or the other and not necessarily raised on the front of the seal itself.

        FRegards,
        Tex

        http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/05/is-the-seal-bassackwards/

        I know Misstickly does buy the Danae COLB, what about you Butterdezillion?

      • Posted May 31, 2011 at 2:26 pm | Permalink

        Gorefan-

        If all you have are two anonymous obots online that claim to have COLBs like Obamas…great for you! You got nothing!

        That ain’t proof, my dear.

        The regulations..that’s proof.
        The law…that’s proof.
        The statements from the HDOH…that’s proof.
        The statement from the OIP…that’s proof.

        The HDOH did not redefine the word ‘embossed.’

        Now THAT is hilarious.

        Thank you Gorefan, you made my day! No, I have always known that ‘Danae’ exists just to lend credibility to OBama’s COLB.

        And yes, ‘PS’ also got caught trying to push her fake COLB on me until I said I wanted to take it to get authenticated.

        I don’t take anonymous people’s word online.

        Embossed and raised are words that were defined long before Obama came on the scene. And that doesn’t change because of anonymous Obots online.

        Thank you GOREFAN! YOu have admitted that Obama doesn’t have a raised seal but you say it’s ok now…it’s all legal and fine even though you guys were wrong for three years.

        All you have are some Obots online to corroborate your point.

        But I have proof….AND corroboration.

        Yeah, GF. DO not bring up anonymous Obot COLBs online to me again. I don’t care to hear about them. Meaningless. It would take nothing for Obama/Obots to float crap like that.

        Please. Fool.

      • Posted May 31, 2011 at 2:41 pm | Permalink

        It was six minutes after I sent Fukino that email about their raised seal (I bold emphasized the word ‘raised’ to her) that she sent me her not saying she resigned from the HDOH. I knew it them. The seal is inverted on Obama’s COLB.

        And some very stupid birthers are going to fall for Obama’s COLB because of a few Obot plants online. That’s not my problem. I can’t help them. you cannot save those who gladly walk off the edge.

        But, I won’t hold still while they stick it to me. The other side is ruthless and if birthers believe Obama does not have the minimum of snakes supporting him online…well, I just don’t know what to tell them.

        All you have proven, Gorefan, is that there are Obots online pushing fake COLBs to give Obama’s credibility. And this much I already knew.

        Don’t bring up unverifiable COLBs belonging to anonymous people to me again. That garbage is meaningless to real proof.

        You don’t have real proof, I do.

      • Posted May 31, 2011 at 2:58 pm | Permalink

        Gorefan…I left you a note at my blog. Since you believe in the images and words of anonymous yahoos…I figured you’d be interested in seeing Obama’s Kenyan Birth certificate now that you are a birther.

        If you believe in anonymous images online and the word of just anyone….well, surely you believe this is 100% real then!

        http://www.aztlan.net/kenyan_birth_certificate.jpg

        Welcome, new birther!

      • Posted May 31, 2011 at 3:36 pm | Permalink

        BTW, GF…I sent the HDOH photos of the seal on Obama’s COLB and asked that they send me that debossed seal and any other seals they use.

        They sent me the scribble/scrabble seal and said it was an embossed seal….

        ….but said they did not have any records responsive to the rest of that request.

        You see, they don’t have the debossed seal on Obama and Danae’s COLB because the regulations state they HAVE TO USE a RAISED seal.

        So there’s that, too.

      • Posted May 31, 2011 at 4:10 pm | Permalink

        I just saw these questions from Gorefan…here are my answers:

        GF: “Gee, I wonder why someone would change their mind about sending a stranger a copy of their BC?”

        MT: I did not ask this person to send it to me, SHE VOLUNTEERED, and readily. She even agreed to have the HDOH send me her COLB directly. She sought me out at WTPOTUS blog. But when I said I wanted it sent by certified mail and planned to have it authenticated…THEN she had a very sudden change of heart. If you like that story, Gorefan, and think it’s all just hunky dory…have at it…it’s all yours to bank on, baby!

        GF: “The facts remain you have been wrong with every theory you have come up with.”

        MT: Have I been wrong? I am sure I have. It’s been a long road and I have tried every avenue to get information and in the absence of having simple questions answered – I have had to speculate and interpret. I admit that kind of thing is prone to error.

        Does that mean Obama’s COLB has a raised seal? Nope.

        GF: “Remember the DOH indirectly confirmed the COLB is amended?”

        MT: They did. And so I guess we agree here.

        GF: How about “Date Filed versus Date A”ccepted”?”

        MT: How about them? They obviously have two different meanings, look at line 18 on the Late Birth Certificate. http://obamasgarden.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/latebcline18.jpg

        GF: “Have you seen Alan Booth’s COLB? His looks debossed.”

        MT: Yes, I did notice that and made note of it.

        I have been able to find no less than FIVE different versions of an ‘HDOH seal’ supposedly all in current use online…FOUR in Polarik’s ‘Final Report’ alone.

        You expect me to believe that they use five different seals even though they issue certified copies out of ONE office: TWO debossed with two different emblems, THREE embossed with three different emblems.

        Well, I don’t. And Hawaii did not provide me more than the two they stated were embossed seals. I believe them.

        So, smeone has muddied these waters on purpose. What’s the point of having a seal and regulating it be “raised” on certified copies if they used FIVE DIFFERENT SEALS, both debossed and embossed? I hope to put together all the curious images I have run across in it’s own blog entry eventually.

        You are welcome believe in all these images online, Gorefan, but don’t ask me to.

        I have never banked on the ‘Kenyan Birth Certificate’ images and I am not going to bank on any other birth certificate images online. I have provided you with proof. I don’t care what Obama’s lays claim to, Obama is a proven liar about such things as ending TWO WARS.

        I don’t believe him, Gorefan. Go ahead and trust Obama, but do not ask me to. I don’t. I don’t trust any politicians and Obama is a dirty thug from Chicago kind of politician.

        GF: “What about Danae’s COLB is her’s debossed?”

        MT: Danae is an Obot. She is proof that Obama is a toxic, sick man.

        GF: “What the optical effect shows is that the images of seals you examined as evidence may themselved be debossed.”

        MT: I didn’t use images of COLBs as evidence, I was clear. I used them as CORROBORATION to the evidence. The statements from Hawaii and the laws and regulations are evidence.

        GF: “What if Hawaii has been using debossed seals for years?”

        MT: Then you need to prove it, corroborate REAL evidence with your anonymous online debossed seals. Anonymous, unverifiable images online are not proof.

      • Posted May 31, 2011 at 4:17 pm | Permalink

        CORRECTION: There are THREE different seals in Polarik’s Final Report…not four.

      • Posted May 31, 2011 at 4:39 pm | Permalink

        And I feel I need to clarify that correction, too. There are FOUR HDOH seals said to be in current use total…Two debossed, Two embossed.

        Three in Polarik’s Report, one introduced by me from the HDOH on December 4.

        There are a possible five if the scribble scrabble embossed seal were legible. (But I figure that’s most likely the embossed seal on the DeCosta COLB/Chong Death Cert/WND Booth COLB.)

        I was so excited to answer an Obot that didn’t sound like a raving lunatic that I neglected to be clear and accurate in my answer.

      • Davis
        Posted June 1, 2011 at 1:16 pm | Permalink

        Butterdezillion

        MT says that Danae is an Obot. Do you agree with her?

  4. Tommy Thompson
    Posted May 16, 2011 at 2:46 am | Permalink | Reply

    Butter, the faint seal you all are seeing is the remnants of the seal that was on the original long form birth certificate that they used to create Obama’s long form birth certificate. I have the same remnants on mine that I created for him….in fact my fake BC is much better than Obama’s. LOL
    http://i595.photobucket.com/albums/tt35/p5151/finalcertificate.jpg

    • Posted May 19, 2011 at 10:04 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Sunahara’s birth certificate? You may be right. Although the photo is of something that actually broke the plane of the paper so somebody pressed something onto the paper.

      • gorefan
        Posted May 19, 2011 at 10:44 pm | Permalink

        Would the girl’s cert # be lower then the Nordyke’s?

  5. HistorianDude
    Posted May 17, 2011 at 5:19 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Hey Butter,

    I was wondering how you account for the Stig Weidelich COLB that was obtained by CNN as part of the Anderson Cooper investigation from a few weeks ago. Here’s a “screen capture” from about the 4 minute mark on the April 25th segment.

    http://www.thefogbow.com/forum/download/file.php?id=1058

    Name – Date Born – Filed – Cert #

    Barack Obama – Aug 4 – Aug 8 – 151-1961-010641
    Stig Weidelich – Aug 5 – Aug 8 – 151-1961-010920
    Susan Nordyke – Aug 5 – Aug 11 – 151–1961–010637
    Gretchen Nordyke – Aug 5 – Aug 11 – 151–1961–010638

    I have my theories, but I don’t want to prejudice you. What are your thoughts?

    • Posted May 19, 2011 at 10:02 pm | Permalink | Reply

      That site said I didn’t have permission to download that so I couldn’t see it.

      I think the HDOH temporarily altered that number. For it to be otherwise, they would have to assign numbers randomly and that makes no sense at all.

      • HistorianDude
        Posted May 20, 2011 at 2:47 am | Permalink

        Oh come on. You’re not even trying. Maybe if I put them is a slightly different order you’ll see the pattern.

        Nordyke, Susan – Aug 5 – Aug 11 – 151–1961–010637
        Nordyke, Gretchen – Aug 5 – Aug 11 – 151–1961–010638
        Obama, Barack – Aug 4 – Aug 8 – 151-1961-010641
        Weidelich, Stig – Aug 5 – Aug 8 – 151-1961-010920

        Notice anything now?

      • Posted May 20, 2011 at 3:00 am | Permalink

        Well, they’re not in alphabetical order if that’s what you’re asking.

      • HistorianDude
        Posted May 20, 2011 at 12:42 pm | Permalink

        See? That wasn’t how I sorted them I sorted them by numerical order, not alphabetically. Yet even you noticed that doing so also sorted them alphabetically, at least by surname.

        They are alphabetized by surname. In fact it is now absolutely clear how these certificates were numbered.

        They were numbered in batches collected over the course of several weeks. In 1961 Hawaii reported 17,616 births… or 339 a week on average. Given that there were 279 certificates between Obama’s and Waiderlich’s, there were clearly two or three weeks worth of certificates all being numbered at the same time.

        The ad hoc theory that Director Fuddy “temporarily changed” Waidelich’s number is not merely absurd, it would make sense as a deception in only one case; if Waidelich’s number was identical to Obama’s.

        Once again what Birthers insist is an anomaly proves out to be not anomalous at all.

      • Posted May 20, 2011 at 2:20 pm | Permalink

        Read Public Health Regulations, Chapter 8, Section 8. I’d post it here but some bloody bastard (apparently from Microsoft) has messed with my Word program so that I can’t C&P images to transcribe the text from the image. It took exactly one week from the time I wiped my hard drive for these jerks to hit me again.

        What you will find is that the local registrars were required to transmit to the state registrar all the certificates they had in their office each WEEK, except on the outlying islands where they were to be transmitted on the 4th of the month.

        Obama and Waidelich are the only Kapiolani BC’s I have seen that were not submitted on a Friday (except on a Thursday when there were 2 Fridays in a row that were state holidays so offices were closed). They are also the 2 BC’s whose BC#’s are not sequential. Obama’s is proven to be a forgery already, and Waidelich’s was produced by a HDOH under attack because of their coverup of Obama’s forgery.

        Janice Okubo has already said that for Oahu births the “date filed” is the date that the BC was accepted by the state registrar and given a number. “Public Health Regulations” refers to the giving of the number as the DOH’s official acceptance of the record. None of you Fogbow-ers are incorporating that into your statements. You’re also not incorporating the Administrative Rules.

        The “ad hoc theory” is your theory that BC’s were collected for several weeks before being submitted to the state registrar (when the Administrative Rules directly say it was a week) and that the BC’s were alphabetized (but only by surname, because we have proof they were not actually alphabetized since Susan’s number is before Gretchen’s). Yet you are claiming that my theory – which is based on the actual sources – is worse than “absurd”. You declare your theory proven.

        And you didn’t even listen to what I said. I said they gave that number because the only way they could get around the discrepancies with Obama’s “date filed” and BC# was by trying to make it seem like the numbers were assigned randomly.

        Because the “date filed” is the date the BC# was given for Oahu births (according to Janice Okubo) the only thing that factors in is the “date filed”. And that is 3 days apart. If there was any alphabetizing going on it would have been done on a daily basis. What would be the point of that? What good would it do to have one day’s BC’s alphabetized?

        Also, if the Obama and Waidelich BC’s are accurate, then the local registrar serving Kapiolani didn’t save up BC’s for 2 weeks at all; in fact, he sent in 2 different batches in 3 days! If the local registrars sent in batches twice a week that totally blows your theory (along with all the other documentation that I’ve already given refuting it).

        And another thing that doesn’t make sense: Obama was born after business hours on Friday. The Nordykes were born on Saturday. Why was Obama’s BC sent to the local registrar in a different batch than the Nordykes’?

      • gorefan
        Posted May 20, 2011 at 4:01 pm | Permalink

        Mrs Nordyke signed her twins BCs on August 7, the same day as Mrs. Obama. So the BC were typed up and ready to go that Monday. Dr. Sinclair signed the President’s BC on August 8th. So it was ready to go to the DOH. But the Nordyke’s doctor did not sign the Nordyke’s BC until August 11th (ws he unavialable?). So they were not ready to be sent over to the DOH until August 11th.

      • HistorianDude
        Posted May 20, 2011 at 5:38 pm | Permalink

        “What you will find is that the local registrars were required to transmit to the state registrar all the certificates they had in their office each WEEK, except on the outlying islands where they were to be transmitted on the 4th of the month.”

        That tells us when they were transmitted. That doesn’t tell us when they were numbered.

        “Obama and Waidelich are the only Kapiolani BC’s I have seen that were not submitted on a Friday (except on a Thursday when there were 2 Fridays in a row that were state holidays so offices were closed).”

        So it sounds to me that you have at least three BCs that were not submitted on a Friday. How many did you say you had that were sent on Friday?

        “Janice Okubo has already said that for Oahu births the “date filed” is the date that the BC was accepted by the state registrar and given a number. “Public Health Regulations” refers to the giving of the number as the DOH’s official acceptance of the record. None of you Fogbow-ers are incorporating that into your statements. You’re also not incorporating the Administrative Rules.”

        We tend to not incorporate things that are not actually said. Please point to the specific wording of the Public Health Regulation that says “the giving of the number is the DOH’s official acceptance of the record.”

        “The ‘ad hoc theory’ is your theory that BC’s were collected for several weeks before being submitted to the state registrar (when the Administrative Rules directly say it was a week) and that the BC’s were alphabetized (but only by surname, because we have proof they were not actually alphabetized since Susan’s number is before Gretchen’s). Yet you are claiming that my theory – which is based on the actual sources – is worse than “absurd”. You declare your theory proven.”

        No, you are mistaken. That is not our theory at all.

        Our theory is that the BCs were collected by the state registrar for weeks before being assigned numbers.

        In such a batch process, there is really no reason to expect any additional pattern to show up at all. The fact that a surname alphabetization appears to have taken place is simply a fascinating additional feature. When you find it in a vital statistics process, it’s usually for the purpose of making manual assembly of an annual birth index easier at year end. You see it all the time in European records starting in the 19th century. It’s something I only see occasionally with American records.

        “And you didn’t even listen to what I said. I said they gave that number because the only way they could get around the discrepancies with Obama’s “date filed” and BC# was by trying to make it seem like the numbers were assigned randomly.”

        No… I heard you. But to credit that is to concede a conspiracy theory that as you already know I don’t buy. This presumes that the HDOH was even aware there was a controversy among Birthers on that fact or that they would care if there was. I know that as a conspiracy theorist you are convinced that they are all willing participants in a vast fraud, so that might sound reasonable to you.

        But sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

        “Because the “date filed” is the date the BC# was given for Oahu births (according to Janice Okubo) the only thing that factors in is the “date filed”. And that is 3 days apart. If there was any alphabetizing going on it would have been done on a daily basis. What would be the point of that? What good would it do to have one day’s BC’s alphabetized?”

        It is pretty clear by now that if Janice Okubo actually said that, she was wrong. Don’t be shocked… it happens. But why would you imagine alphabetizing was going on a daily basis as opposed to just before the numbers were being assigned?

        “Also, if the Obama and Waidelich BC’s are accurate, then the local registrar serving Kapiolani didn’t save up BC’s for 2 weeks at all; in fact, he sent in 2 different batches in 3 days! If the local registrars sent in batches twice a week that totally blows your theory (along with all the other documentation that I’ve already given refuting it).”

        It doesn’t matter how often the local registrars sent or received batches. It matters only when the state registrar was numbering what they had been sent. As we see, the Nordyke certificates and Obama/Waiderlich certificates were sent in two different batches, but all ended up getting numbered together.

        “And another thing that doesn’t make sense: Obama was born after business hours on Friday. The Nordykes were born on Saturday. Why was Obama’s BC sent to the local registrar in a different batch than the Nordykes’?”

        The Nordyke’s certificates were not signed by the Attending in time for the Aug 8th batch.

      • Posted May 20, 2011 at 9:40 pm | Permalink

        Page 21 of the PDF at http://gen.doh.hawaii.gov/sites/har/AdmRules1/8%208A%20B%20VR%20Admin%20Rules.pdf . It’s Section 3.1 of PHR Chapter 8b. The heading says “Amendments after official acceptance of certificate” and then the text goes on to talk about amendments “after the assignment of a state file number.” The two terms are used interchangeably – “official acceptance of certificate” and “assignment of a state file number”.

        Even Obama’s forged long-form has the date accepted by the local registrar the same as the date accepted by the state registrar – Aug 8th. And the HDOH Rules use “official acceptance of certificate” interchangeably with “assignment of a state file number”.

        I have 4 BC’s from Kapiolani Hospital that were signed by the doctor and sent to the local and state registrars on Friday. And I have another that was not sent on a particular Friday because it was a state holiday on Friday and wasn’t sent the next Friday either because that Friday was a state holiday also, so it was signed and sent on the Thursday before the 2nd state holiday, when they realized there would be 3 weeks’ worth of BC’s sitting around unless they got them in on a day other than Friday. So even though that was not submitted on a Friday the pattern supports the Friday submission theory. I’ve never seen any other BC that sat around longer than a week. The only Kapiolani BC I’ve seen where the doctor signed the BC on a day other than Friday (or the Thursday because 2 Fridays in a row were state holidays) is Obama’s. And I have never seen a Kapiolani BC that was sent to the local registrar on a day other than when the doctor signed it.

        What you have for your claims is

        1.Obama’s BC which has already been proven a forgery in a bunch of different ways – including by Mara Zebest who has impeccable credentials as a Photoshop expert; has written many books and is considered a leading expert. See http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/05/photoshop-expert-and-author-mara-zebest.html and

        2. A COLB issued by the same HDOH that has illegally altered their 1960-64 birth index – a COLB which contradicts their own statements, rules, and other sources that I’ve given you several times now…. shortly after former HDOH Director Fukino made it clear that the numbering is on their minds because she gave an interview to Michael Isikkof where she claimed that Obama’s BC was “properly numbered”.

        Prove that these BC’s were “all numbered together”. I’ve been doing all the research, rebutting your arguments while you ignore the evidence I give you. You prove to me that those BC’s were numbered on the same day.

        And none of this using the theory to prove the theory. I could put a purple raspberry on a $10 bill and use that to “prove” that $10 bills are printed with purple raspberries on them. That doesn’t work. You have to have evidence OUTSIDE OF THE THEORY that supports the theory. You can’t just assume that because Waidelich’s number is genuine it proves that the BC’s were numbered on the same day which proves that Waidelich’s number is genuine. That’s circular reasoning – a logical fallacy. You have to give me evidence OUTSIDE OF THE THEORY that proves that the Nordyke, Obama, and Waidelich BC’s were all numbered on the same day. It has to be better sources than Janice Okubo, the HDOH Administrative Rules, the CDC’s 1961 Natality Report, and all of the Kapiolani BC’s posted on the internet besides Obama’s and Waidelich’s.

        Show me your sources.

  6. HistorianDude
    Posted May 20, 2011 at 5:40 pm | Permalink | Reply

    I’m sorry for the HTML errors. But it’s tough to get completely right without a “preview” function.

  7. Posted May 21, 2011 at 7:15 am | Permalink | Reply

    Butterdezillion, I admire your patience with your opponents.

    • Posted May 21, 2011 at 2:34 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Thank you. Sometimes I slip, when I’m sure they’re just messing with me. Sometimes I’m ashamed of my language. I constantly find myself praying, “Lord, make my blunders wise.”

  8. Posted May 30, 2011 at 1:14 am | Permalink | Reply

    Actually, the seal is correct. It is just an optical illusion that makes the seal appear raised on the front of the certificate. It’s actually raised on the back. Details at:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/05/is-the-seal-bassackwards/

    • Posted May 30, 2011 at 3:30 am | Permalink | Reply

      Hilarious. Uhm, yeah.

      I guess Factcheck.org fell for the ‘illusion,’ too, they captioned an image of the seal on the front of the COLB (a photo taken at practically 90°) as being the raised seal.

      Sure dude. It’s going to take a while for it to sink in. Your dumb crap is not going to ‘convince’ people their eyes and the photos are lying. Dumb. Dumb. Dumb.

      It’s plain as day, doofus.

      So, whatever Obot turd. There are only five other high resolution photos, too, that corroborate the seal is a debossed seal applied to the back of the COLB.

      What a stupid f*cking loser. Sorry to be cruel, but you are.

      I trust my eyes, more than yours, Dr. Pepper.

    • Posted May 30, 2011 at 4:00 am | Permalink | Reply

      OMG. If you actually believe in Obama, the pathological liar, over what is 100% clear to see with your own eyes…I just don’t know what to tell you, dude. Come one Dr. C…you know that seal is not raised on the back. I implore you, for your own sake, to stop propping this man up.

      I actually feel bad for you. Obama really sh*t in his own nest and it got all over you and a lot of liberals I would normally find plenty of common ground with. But you guys are Neo-Cons now – and covering for the worst liar in White House history. I am sorry that award went to a democrat but it did.

      Both parties suck equally though, dude. Recognize that.

      It sounds terrible to tell you that you were used, and I really feel bad, but you were used.

      I am an authentic liberal, and I never ended up voting for someone who lied to me about ending war only to start war. I cannot imagine the amount of self reflection it takes to cope.

      Anyway, I see you are trying to cope, but you aren’t in the ballpark.

      Obama used you, I didn’t.

  9. TruthSeeker
    Posted May 30, 2011 at 5:20 am | Permalink | Reply

    Dr. Conspiracy claimed someone figured out the “truth” before he did. He then posted this link:
    http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1507960/pg1
    He then quickly erased his own comment after he realized he just made a complete fool out of himself.

    • Posted May 30, 2011 at 1:56 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Snortle, chuckle.

      Thank you for making sure he didn’t slink away from his embarrassing faux pas unnoticed!

  10. fathertime
    Posted June 1, 2011 at 3:23 am | Permalink | Reply

    I have looked at these Factcheck COLB’s and I believe that we are looking at 3 differences COLB because of the seals.

    One COLB does not have a seal.

    http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_6.jpg shows a seal where the outer ring is made up of dashes

    http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_1.jpg shows a seal where the outer ring is very clearly made up of two rolls of dots

    Am I seeing something not there or has this been over look?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 98 other followers

%d bloggers like this: