The New Live Birth Long-Form

Posted Here on April 30,2011

First: The green matte watermark was applied on to the original certificate. Its presence is meant to prevent alteration without disturbance. The result is that the watermark becomes a part of the image. And, as in the case of the short-form birth certificate, it is plain that all alterations to this page were made after the application of the watermark. For that reason I did not remove the watermark, but chose instead to leave it intact. The removal of the watermark would have degraded the results I wanted to show. None of the contents presented here have been altered in any way. The PDF file (if still available) from the White House can be downloaded and those who doubt what I present here can test the certificate for themselves.

If the birthers thought the first certificate was fishy, then the newest is much worse than the first. Photo 1 - a pristine copy of the latest and greatest Live Birth Certificate of the long form variety

Photo #1

Long Form as Presented April 2011

Two Layers: I was in utter disbelief when I started looking around this image. In the .pdf format, the format that was used to present the document to the public, I discovered that the image was layered. It is the base layer or original document that bears the watermark you see so prevalent on the certificate. I have several photos of the separated layers, which are interesting, and leave the door wide-open for suspicions that this is an altered document. The visual evidence shows that some of the original lettering, the doctors signature, and the partial signature of Stanley Ann D---- were present when the watermark was applied.

Photo #2

The Base Layer or
The 'Scrubbed' Original Document

The finished certificate adds the missing letters, some of the selection boxes, and the second half of the signature that is missing on the base layer. It is also plain that where the new lettering and second half of the signature are added, that the areas were scrubbed first and then typed over. The watermark is not incorporated into the new lettering.

Photo #3

The Base Layer Showing
Where Data was Scrubbed in Title Section

Scrubbing: As you look at the base layer, you can see the white rectangular strips where underlying data would have been. Please note, that this is not any contrivance of mine and any competent observer will be able to take note of these 'scrubbing's' independently from the original .PDF file issued by the White House.

Photo #4

Portion of Finished Document
Showing Extraneous Letters

Letter Artifacts: Circled in this Photo are some of the artifact letters that indicate this document had another life. Visible are an 'X' and an 'E', there are more but not clearly discernible as to what they are. Note that they do not overwrite the watermark.

Photo #5

A Comparison of Base Document and
Finished Document with very Visible Differences

The Signatures: More than anything on the page, the signatures speak volumes about this document. The original document shows that a woman by the name of Stanley Ann D--- signed it. Additionally the doctor's signature is a part of the original document. Notice how the watermark incorporates into the signatures. The addition of 'unham Obama' not only is a type-over of the watermark, its resolution is different from the resolution shown on the original. Next to the graceful 'D' of the original, the additional letters look garish and vulgar when magnified. By resolution, I mean the ink-dots per inch.

There is another thought about the signature. I believe that the same person wrote 'unham' also originally wrote 'Stanley Ann'. But the authors of this piece needed to tie this document back to President Obama and apparently lifted 'unham' from the space so that 'Obama' could be added to 'unham'. It would give 'Dunham Obama' continuum instead of appearing so different. But the equipment used to rewrite 'unham Obama' changed the resolution and we get what we see.

It was very important to add 'Obama' for another reason. After a people search using YP (Yellow Pages) people finder, there is another Stanley Ann Dunham living in Honolulu. She is 68 years old and would have been in prime birthing age in 1961. The original signature of Stanley Ann Dunham, in all probability belonged to her. Mind you that this conclusion is only mine and is a speculation.

Photo #6

A Comparison of Original Letters and
Their Typed over Counterparts

Water Marking and Resolution: It is important to have an understanding of watermarks. Watermarks protect the integrity of a document from just such Tomfoolery that went on with this document. These two letters do a good job demonstrating both watermarking and resolution. The first 'R' was lifted from the BARACK at the top where the Child's name is found. The second 'R' was lifted from BARACK where the Father's name is found. It is clear that the first 'R' was in the original document because of its incorporation of the watermark. The second is clearly a type-over and does not incorporate the watermark.

The first 'S' comes from the name 'Stanley' - a letter that survived the scrubbing process, and the second 'S' was lifted from the name 'HUSSEIN' from the father's name. Again, you will see the incorporation of the watermark into the first 'S'. The second 'S' demonstrates a different resolution plus the second 'S' does not incorporate the watermark and is therefore a type over.

Conclusion: This document is fraudulent. It is only my belief, but the document was probably produced by political hacks. The hacks might have convinced Obama that they had found his long form and convinced him of it. An unsuspecting Obama bought the idea because such a document, if legitimate, would both hush up Trump and ease the pressure for him to prove his legality. The perpetrators of this scheme are probably trusted assistants.

I refuse to believe that the president would have publicly announced such an amateurish document as authentic had he known the truth.

I am also convinced that Obama believes he was born in Hawaii, he just can't prove it. The short form, even with its problems, was a much more convincing document. One last thing, there are many more details about this document that scream fraudulent, but I will leave them unsaid for now. But Obama should immediately fire the hacks who sold him this bill of goods and go before the American people and explain what happened. He doesn't need such incompetence around him.

Cheers,
-Robert-

-Privacy Policy-

Robfg.Com does not share any personal information about its readers. Email addresses, or other personal information is strictly confidential.

Unique Visitors