Questions raised about Obama birth certificate’s authenticity

Some things that make you go hmmmmmm

SMOKING GUN: Here are some points of peculiarity sure to be noted by birth certificate sceptics:

• If the original document was in a bound volume (as reflected by the curvature of the left hand side of the certificate), how can the green patterned background of the document’s safety paper be so seamless?

• Why, if Obama was born on August 4, 1961, why was the “Date Accepted by Local Reg.” four days later on August 8, 1961?

• What is the significance of the smudges in the box containing the name of the reported attendant?

• David A. Sinclair, the M.D. who purportedly signed the document, died nearly eight years ago at age 81. So he is conveniently unavailable to answer questions about Obama’s reported birth.

• In the “This Birth” box there are two mysterious Xs above “Twin” and “Triplet.” Is there a sibling or two unaccounted for?

• What is the significance of the mysterious numbers, seen vertically, on the document’s right side?

• Finally, the “Signature of Local Registrar” in box 21 may be a desperate attempt at establishing the document’s Hawaiian authenticity. Note to forgers: it is spelled “Ukulele.”

Read more here >>>

Facebook comments:

3 Responses to “Questions raised about Obama birth certificate’s authenticity”

  • avatar SilverHairedSaint:

    I agree that Obama was entirely at fault for this 3 years of bullship over his birthplace. Rather than spend all of that money and put a man in prison for questioning Obama’s legal right to be President he should have taken the steps necessary to release the document. Obama is the cause of all of this “silliness”. He should now release his transcripts to public scrutiny. While I do not like Obama and I disapprove of many of his policies, I think the comments I have seen so far, both here and at GOPUSA Eagle are bullship.
    The curvature and background pattern (when viewed with the entire document shown) look normal, the “x”s and the “mysterious” numbers look like someone may have been filling out some other form and had the original certificate under it when writing. The reason for the use of “African” was because he was an “African” not negro or colored or African-American. The smudge mark where the “M.D.” block is marked looks like that is what it is, a smudge mark from someone’s hand ( the doctor’s hand) resting on the “X” while writing the date “8-8-61″. Having reviewed many old, bound documents over the years, I don’t see anything that appears out of the ordinary.
    The issue that one should make now, if so inclined to continue with the birth certificate issue, would be the fact that Obama allowed so much controversy and the stealing of one man’s right to freedom when he could have simply provided the document at the first clamor of the question of his citizenship. He mocked the citizens he was elected to represent and serve and that is a SHAME on him.

  • avatar Morgan:

    I would be very happy if the “birther” controversy were to go away, although it obviously got under Obama’s skin and Trump clearly got into Obama’s head. The reality is, it’s a non-starter. Obama is President and he will run for re-election. Birth certificate issues will not defeat him (although broader perceptions of his lack of candor and transparency will help).

    As a trial lawyer, were this document submitted into evidence I could challenge authenticity (is the document what it purports to be) in several ways. It is obviously not the copy of record because it was produced on April 25 on paper currently used but certainly not in use in 1961, so it is at best a copy of a copy. I would be entitled to the actual copy.

    Adding to the “provenance” issue is the fact that just about a week ago the State of Hawaii announced that nobody, even including Mr Obama, could get the copy on file. Yet somebody obviously did, because this “copy” contains handwriting purporting to be signatures which were not on the COLB of 2008. So somebody got the copy of record and transported at least pieces of it into this document. I would be entitled to cross-examine that person, presumptively the person who signed this most recent attestation.

    This is not a bound document; the portion to the left shows no signs of binding. Most likely it is part of a roll of identical blank documents. This one is filled out; the one following from the left is in blank. All that means though is that this is not the “original” copy, which we already know.

    So unfortunately, even though I am not really interested in this whole business, from a lawyer’s point of view the document raises more questions than it answers. I am however also certain that this is all we are likely to get, so isn’t it time that we move along?

  • avatar otbricki:

    Even Fox news is n0w coming out and saying that the certificate is legit.

    The fact is that Republicans have lost so much credibility over this Obama is guaranteed another term.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Login to Join Discussion!