• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Something has been bugging me about the COLB

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
I have taken a look at the COLB that Obama posted on his website many times.

Here it is from Fight the Smears, this would be the "original document, that was scanned and sent out to DailyKOS, Factchek etc.

Obama's FTS COLB
http://www.fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate.html

shortform.jpg


Now Factchek actually went to the campaign office and posted pictures of the "original" on their website. Here's one of 8 or 9 pictures.

Campaign Office COLB #1
http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg

birth_certificate_5.jpg


You can clearly see the the raised seal in the picture, but there is no visible seal on the scanned image.

So I thought I'd take a look at the pictures that were taken at the Campaign office again. Here's another picture

Campaign Office COLB #2
http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_3.jpg

birth_certificate_3resized3.jpg


Same COLB supposedly, but again, no visible raised seal. Save the picture for yourself, and blow it up on an editor and this is what you will see, in the location where the seal is in the first photographed COLB (COLB #1)

colb2closeup22.jpg


I dare say, there is a COLB with a seal and one without, and if we believe factchek, then they were both present at the office on the same day.

That answer the question of how the scanned image that was distributed to DailyKOS, Factchek etc orginally did not have a seal.

But it does not answer the question of why the campaign office would have 2 COLB, one with a seal and one without and post the one without on the Fight the Smears website, before the pictures of the one with the seal showed up. and why would the State of Hawaii issue a COLB without a seal?

There's something weird with the date stamp too

I don't think there is enough room for it on the page. If you take the picture of the stamp from factchek and line it up with where the date stamp bleeds through the front of the document, there would not be enough room on the page for the space that is showing under it. Notice the green bars under the stamp, they are "bleeding" through from the front.
http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_9.jpg

birth_certificate_9.jpg


But on the front in that location, there are no green bars, only the black border.

Here's what it would look like if you superimposed the stamp onto the front of the document. (the "s"'s are just to illustrate space needed under the stamp.)

122.jpg


there are not enough green bars showing under the stamp, to bleed through.

So the picture of the stamp cannot be on either of the 2 COLB's, meaning that there is a 3rd COLB that was present when Factchek took the pictures at the campaign office.

COLB #1 – The COLB posted on ‘Fight the Smears’ – No Stamp, No Seal (not enough space under date bleed),

COLB#2 – FactCheck – COLB pictured, seal, but no stamp (not enough space under date)

COLB #3 – FactCheck – back of COLB, showing stamp, in different location than it would be on #1, and #2


Now am I saying that all this means that the Obama campaign forged documents, no.

It could be that DailyKOS did, seeing as they were one of the first with the scanned image, Fight the Smears then posted it, and then to cover up FactChek went to the campaign office to photograph the one on file and also threw in some pictures of the forgery that they had.

The picture of the stamp could have come from an authentic COLB that had to be in a different location.

I think DailyKOS and Factchek printed up one forgery, posted it, forgot the seal, created another one with a seal, and then went and took photos at the campaign office, to cover their butts.

But Fight the Smears would have also had to be involved, because they posted an unstamped, no seal document also.

What does everybody think? Take a look at the evidence. Evidence that is provided by Fight the Smears and FactChek.
 

Yanuck

Well-known member
Funnily enough there are creases on one and not the other, amazing I know :wink:
I asked on here about the raised seal or lack thereof and was told that it depended on how hard it was pressed. I don't see it at all on the first one, so I guess I'm a racist because I question it!
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
and even more funny Yanuck is when you add in "digital signature" and use a Hex editor you will see that the same person was involved with the first COLB and many of the other pictures that were used by the campaign.

http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=368630&highlight=photoshop#368630

He/she used the name "Ducky"
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
I'm sure Badaxe can explain everything. He's so smart and clever.

I'm not really looking for an explanation, but an unbiased opinion based on the evidence, instead of a political bias.

We have 2 retired law enforcement officers on here that I know of, that have surely investigated simple things like this before, and are more than capable of taking a look at it, and giving an objective opinion
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Shoot, ah'm jist looking for a lil 'ol explaination on this here deal. I jes cain't figger it out, me bein a simple tin-foil hat wearin man. Thar's jist gotta be sumthin simple that a simple good 'ol boy lak me jist ain't seein.

I know Badaxe is a real smart feller. Heck, he even talks about North Korear, so you know he's a perfesser or somethin powerful lak that. He even uses words that I have ta look up!

An heck, Reader has 42 college degrees an know's everbody aroun Washington town. She's seen Obamer's burth certifercate, so ah'm sure she can figger this deal out.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Unless you're looking for a smart-aleck crack, you'll get nothing from our resident Obamazombies. They can sure put people down, but give them an opportunity to actually offer some explainations on the topic, and they turn into grade-school idiots.
 

badaxemoo

Well-known member
Not to change the subject, but something has been bugging me too.

mars_2409_narrowweb__300x337,0.jpg


How can anyone deny that an advanced civilization lived on Mars?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
That's fine if you want to start another thread, Diversionmoo, but this thread already has a topic. Care to sit at the adult's table?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Looks like the one with the folds might be the one that had been around for awhile. Looks like it has been opened and closed several times. It might be the one that President Obama had in his possession all along. Could be that a new one was ordered from Hawaii and is one of the later ones. If the folded one had been released and not the other then it would had been more acceptable. I am not taking sides on this at all so do not jump my Ass on this. I am only offering an explanation as to why there or different ones.
Could be that everyone on every side is screwing us around.
 

Yanuck

Well-known member
hurleyjd said:
Looks like the one with the folds might be the one that had been around for awhile. Looks like it has been opened and closed several times. It might be the one that President Obama had in his possession all along. Could be that a new one was ordered from Hawaii and is one of the later ones. If the folded one had been released and not the other then it would had been more acceptable. I am not taking sides on this at all so do not jump my Ass on this. I am only offering an explanation as to why there or different ones.
Could be that everyone on every side is screwing us around.

thanks for your answer Hurley....
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
yes, for an objective answer at that.

the so called intelligent people on PB can not bring them selves to do what you have done.

I will point out that the COLB that is held up (3rd pic, I beleive) does have creases, but not as evident. But still no seal.

It is obvious that someone committed fraud here. I haven'
t looked at the dates of when each one was released, but that will be a factor also.

When was the fraud committed, and who committed it?

Whether Obama knew, probably will never be known, did his campaign, well, it looks like they did.
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Wasn't the top one a copy that was scanned? And the bottom one an original?

If it is a copy that was scanned and then sent out it would be possible that the stamp would not show through on the copy made from the scan since it has no ink to pick up.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
yes, it is possible that the stamp ink did not "bleed" through on the first document. But the date did bleed through. Giving a reference point for the where the stamp should have been, and there is not enough room for it on the page.

The date wold have to be higher for the stamp to fit.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Hypo do you know anyone personally that was born in Hawii that could send and get a birth certificate and see what they recieve. That would be interesting. I do not know any one.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Personally no. There are many on the web.

There is a forensic scientist that has done extensive work on comparing what was presented on the web to genuine COLB's that were submitted to him.

Work on color, font, border pattern comparisons, etc.

But with this I wanted to take a look at what was presented as evidence, by the Obama campaign and what is referenced by DailKOS, etc as being Obama's COLB.

Comparing them to other COLB's in this case would not do any good. the date and signature stamp could potentially be placed anywhere on the back of the COLB, but it was not.

The date clearly is in one spot, not giving enough room for what they present as the signature stamp.
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
hypo-
here's something interesting, read the fine print at the bottom,
looks like it says:
"This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact in any court proceedings."

googling prima facie brought up this:


PRIMA-FACIE, EVIDENCE, CASE - Latin for "at first view."

Evidence that is sufficient to raise a presumption of fact or to establish the fact in question unless rebutted.
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p078.htm

Prima facie (pronounced /ˈpraɪmə ˈfeɪʃiː/, from Latin prīmā faciē) is a Latin expression meaning on its first appearance, or by first instance; at first sight. The literal translation would be "from first face", prima first, facie face, both in the ablative case. It is used in modern legal English to signify that on first examination, a matter appears to be self-evident from the facts. In common law jurisdictions, prima facie denotes evidence which — unless rebutted — would be sufficient to prove a particular proposition or fact.

Most legal proceedings require a prima facie case to exist, following which proceedings may then commence to test it, and create a ruling. This may be called facile princeps, first principles.
In most legal proceedings, one party has a burden of proof, which requires them to present prima facie evidence for all the essential facts in its case. If they cannot, their claim may be dismissed without any need for a response by other parties. A prima facie case might not stand or fall on its own; if an opposing party introduces other evidence or asserts an affirmative defense it can only be reconciled with a full trial.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prima_facie


at first view obama's COLB looked legit-- but now that people are taking a second look- hmmmmmm!
This COLB will not stand up in court if it ever gets there.
 
Top