I believe in scientific principles for analysis. I challenge you to reproduce those precise shapes – top and bottom – and angle of the paper’s edges on a single sheet of paper photographed. If you can do it, let me know.

Ron Polarik’s analysis is much, much more detailed and precise. He digitally cut and pasted the “seal” over an actual circle. The “seal” was just barely more tall than wide when compared with an exact circle – which is the wrong type of distortion. Any real distortion would have made the “seal” flatter.

Ron Polarik was able to reproduce exactly what is seen on the COLB by using well-known forgery techniques. If you are able to reproduce exactly what is there by using a real sheet of paper, let me know.

I placed a transparency over the computer screen, traced around the edges of both circles, measured the diameter so I could find the radius, used a compass to make a perfectly round circle, and overlaid it on each of the two circles. On the top circle it was very clear where the circle bent. It was perfectly circular until it got to that point and from there it was smashed. The bottom circle had no such distortion.

The trouble with all the arguments about the angle and/or image quality being the cause of what I’ve observed is that the page itself serves as a control group. For instance, the top circle was at basically the same angle as the bottom “seal”. The bottom “seal” should have been distorted to the same extent as the top circle. But it wasn’t.

Similarly, the typed lines show up clearly in photo #1 – except where the longest line should be. If the image quality was the issue, why did that line alone not show up clearly?

There are other indications of forgery as well, but the scientific principle of having a control group to compare with works against Obama.

The same problem comes up with the pixels. Factcheck says the missing colored pixels where Obama’s alleged birthplace is printed are because of digital distortion (one reason why computer images are not legally admissible evidence for identification purposes – and why this posting is a farce even if it was authentic). But their argument doesn’t hold water because the pixels are fine everywhere else on that page and on every other similar COLB posted online. The rest of the page acts as a control group. If image quality was going to be an issue it would be everywhere. But it’s not. It’s only in that area.

Why do you think that is?

Many will come using my name. They will say, ‘I am the Messiah,’ and they will deceive many people.
Matthew 24:5

Did you see a perfectly round seal where the page folds on #5?

No I didn’t. I took a perfectly round object and placed it on top of each seal whereupon it was clear that seals are far from being perfectly round.

Both the seals on picture #5 are distorted. Whether they are distorted ‘correctly’ is hard to say because the paper is warped as well as folded.

In any case your argument is easily shown to be invalid.

“Barack Hussein Obama” is the longest line on the bottom part of the COLB. The close-up of the seal (#1) shows where all the other, shorter lines are typed but where the longest line of type is supposed to be, there is nothing.
justincase on June 10, 2009 at 1:21 PM

Yes, I can agree: The text that you claim is missing is certainly not clearly visble. However that part of the picture is (a) completely unfocussed and (b) hugely oversaturated so it is entirely possible that the text is missing only because the technology used was inadequate. Furthermore if you zoom the picture there is actually some very slight discolouration where the text should be. It is a JPG image of unknown quality so in such an unfocussed and oversaturated area it is easy to accept that information would be lost.

So, on balance, I will grant you that image #1 is a poor choice of picture to prove the validity of the certificate but your evidence that the picture is a fake is also very weak because (a) your first claim (about the circularity of the seals) is clearly false and (b) there is an alternative and reasonable explanation for the ‘missing’ text.

Did you see a perfectly round seal where the page folds on #5? How did he get the seal to stay unbent when the paper it was allegedly on bent? The circle intersected by the top fold bent with the page; why didn’t the bottom seal?

“Barack Hussein Obama” is the longest line on the bottom part of the COLB. The close-up of the seal (#1) shows where all the other, shorter lines are typed but where the longest line of type is supposed to be, there is nothing. That can’t be Obama’s COLB. The type doesn’t even match. Why did they show a close-up of somebody else’s seal if they had a real seal on Obama’s COLB?

There should not even be an issue of standing. This is clear evidence of forgery, which is a federal crime. The folks at Factcheck should be in jail now and their depositions should be grounds to look at the original certificate and arrest Obama himself.

To say otherwise is to say that the rule of law doesn’t matter. That’s why I can’t let this go. If the rule of law doesn’t matter then it doesn’t matter who we elect to Congress because their laws aren’t going to be enforced anyway – any more than our forgery laws and Constitution are kept right now.

There’s much, much more to be said – such as the fact that an FBI agent lied to me about who investigates document fraud, the obstruction of justice at SCOTUS, etc, but for right now the clear evidence is in front of us all – Robert Gibbs is telling us to go look at it – and none of our law-abiding conservative leaders care enough to see that a blatant crime by the man who is tearing up our Constitution and history is prosecuted. I have a problem with that.

I’m not asking anybody to prove a negative. I’m asking him to show the proof of where he was born. Everybody has some record of where they are born.

I ask again: In all this vetting, who has seen the proof of where he was born? Why?

Which is he, a radical Muslim or a radical Christian?

Sorry to be late coming in, but it is obvious that Obama is not a radical Christian. He might be a radical muslim, or a radical “Christian” or a just radical fascist, but can’t be a radical Christian.

I’m so tired of people insinuating that a President who bows and scrapes (literally) to Muslim overlords, spent his youth being educated in a Muslim school, and had Muslim parenthood could possibly be a Muslim himself. Good grief! When oh when will we quit believing our lying eyes?

Did you see the perfectly round seal on the fold of the page? Did you see that “Barack Hussein Obama” was missing from the close-up of the “seal”?

I’m not asking a lot – just that you look at the specific evidence I mentioned. Let me know what you saw.

justincase on June 10, 2009 at 9:53 AM

I see the words, “Barack Hussein Obama,” to the left of the seal on:
http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg

I do not see the words, “Barack Hussein Obama,” at all on:

http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg

However, birth_certificate_5.jpg is a cropped close up, so I don’t get your point.

I suggest those promoting the notion that the COLB is fake that you support an appeal of Keyes v. Bowen, which currently has been dismissed, as this is the only case in which the plaintiff has standing.

And until you can get a court ruling in your favor, focus on issues that Americans care about and can win elections. On such issues, I would be more than happy to support you.

There’s no evidence that he’s NOT, though.

See what I did there?

That’s the line of reasoning being used here.

MadisonConservative on June 10, 2009 at 11:03 AM

That’s interesting because I’ve had to produce documents proving my citizenship for all sorts of things and it never occurred to me to turn it around and challenge them to produce documents showing that I’m not a citizen. I guess I could try that next time I’m asked to prove my citizenship, but it’s really not difficult for me to produce my birth certificate.

I’m not so sure that there is really a hard and fast line between those. I’m guessing the distinction gets a little blurry.
Count to 10 on June 10, 2009 at 10:47 AM

No kidding. Black Liberation theology is the common thread of Rev. Wright’s “Christianity” and the Nation of Islam (as “ministered” by such charmers as the New Black Panther Party’s Malik Zulu Shabaaz).

Do you recall what was revealed?

There is no evidence that Obama is a space alien or that space aliens exist, so there would be no basis for claiming that he is a space alien.

Buddahpundit on June 10, 2009 at 10:46 AM

There’s no evidence that he’s NOT, though.

See what I did there?

That’s the line of reasoning being used here.

I thought our big problem with The One was that he spent far too long subscribing to Rev. Wright’s nutbar Black Liberation Theology. Which is he, a radical Muslim or a radical Christian?

I’m not so sure that there is really a hard and fast line between those. I’m guessing the distinction gets a little blurry.

What, except his own word, proves he’s not a space alien?

MadisonConservative on June 10, 2009 at 10:17 AM

When has Obama claimed he’s not a space alien?

There is no evidence that Obama is a space alien or that space aliens exist, so there would be no basis for claiming that he is a space alien.

No Allah it was not a Hitler analogy-it was a Chamberlain analogy-you really need to read these articles more carefully before you blog them.

Dreadnought on June 10, 2009 at 1:15 AM

Exactly.

Also, I see people are still fighting with every fiber of their beings to ignore what Obama said in his speech in favor of bashing those, like Gaffney, who want to analyze it.

In all that time, name me one person who saw his real, certified (non-forged) birth certificate. What, except his own word (and we know how much that can be trusted)actually verifies his eligibility?

justincase on June 10, 2009 at 9:48 AM

What, except his own word, proves he’s not a space alien?

So Muslim law makes a difference, but Christian law doesn’t?

Curious.

MadisonConservative on June 10, 2009 at 9:10 AM

If someone is baptized a Christian and then converts to Islam for the purpose of secretly subverting Islam or an Islamic nation, would that person be a Muslim or a Christian?