Jeepers Freepers: Tales of Obama’s SFCOLB

© Miri WTPOTUS 2011



Recently, World Net Daily (WND) ran an article about Barack Hussein Obama’s short-form certification of live birth (SFCOLB), copies of which the White House (WH) released to the media on April 27, 2011.  Besides giving out copies of a document alleged to have been obtained by the Obama campaign in 2007, the WH blog linked to a digital image that they said represented that same SFCOLB. 

In the WND article, Ron Polland, Ph.D., said that he created the digital image from which the WH copies were made.  Dr. P. (as some call him on our blog) claims that he created the image while trying to prove to skeptics that it was possible (i.e., possible to forge an authentic-looking SFCOLB).

He placed the image into his personal photobucket, and apparently linked to it from other sites on the Internet. According to Dr. P., at some point in time,, a myth-busting/fact-checking website, began to link to Dr. P.’s bogus SFCOLB instead of to the (similarly bogus) digital image allegedly provided to partisan blogs by the Obama campaign in 2008.

Since Dr. P. visits our blog and comments occasionally, we’ve discussed this issue several times. Our blog has a long history of analyzing and discussing the SFCOLB digital image that was placed on the Web by the Obama campaign in June 2008.

Since Free Republic commenters (aka Freepers) are weighing in about this issue as discussed on our blog (see comment 115 at the link), I have clarifications to make, especially after reading the thread at Free Republic, re-reading what WND said, and what Dr. P. has said.

We report; you decide.  (Where did we hear that before?)  Just because we present all points of view does not mean that we “just took” anyone’s word as FACT (although sometimes we’re as susceptible to being duped as the next person.  I’m NOT saying that Dr. P. duped anyone, so don’t infer it.)  Please do give us credit for having open minds. We’re ready, willing, and able to change our minds and our conclusions, when new evidence turns up.

What Dr. P. says is that the image that was at Snopes is the image that the WH printed and passed out to the media.  He has screen shots that he says prove that at some point in time, Snopes linked to his photobucket when referencing the SFCOLB.

If you don’t believe his evidence, that’s your prerogative.  Certainly, independent confirmation of what Dr. P. saw would be helpful (which he arguably supplies in the WND story, when he cites commenters on other blogs who noted the mistake Snopes made, although only those blog owners know the identity of those making the observations.)

As one astute freeper pointed out (comment 224), KNOWN obot krewes don’t dispute Dr. P.’s contention; but instead rationalize that it doesn’t matter anyway.  Paraphrasing:  “Just because the WH may have used a printout of a website page doesn’t prove that there is no REAL SFCOLB.”

Of course, everybody knows that you can’t prove a negative.

Whatever, obots! It certainly is CURIOUS, nonetheless.  A jury might take it as convincing CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence because …

If you have the real deal, why not plop that three-dimensional certified puppy onto the copy machine with the rest of the paperwork? 

We’re supposed to believe that the president of the United States (POTUS) had minions hand out a display screen printed from a rumor-debunking website as proof of his eligibility for the presidency?!

Obots want us to believe that perhaps it was easier for said vassals of the Annointed One to print out the displayed image at Snopes than to hunt down the original.

Consider this:   Regarding an issue of such great importance (Obama’s eligibility for the presidency), this POTUS–himself a lawyer and a “constitutional law lecturer”–gave authority to his staff to just cop any image off the Internet, no provenance necessary, instead of giving them the LEGAL document that he contends he’s had since 2007! (Or , variously, 2008–see former WH counsel Robert Bauer’s “mistake”, when he repeated WH communications director Dan Pfeiffer’s mistake that the SFCOLB was requested in 2008.)

Even if Robert Bauer gave the authority, we’re supposed to believe that he, a lawyer, thinks a screen print from a non-governmental website is better LEGAL evidence than the actual document?

If you buy that one, I have a Kenyan birth certificate for sale.

Do note that currently, if you hover your cursor over the link to the SFCOLB at Snopes, the URL (for the linked image) does NOT display in any small window.  I checked other articles at Snopes and this doesn’t happen on them, either, which begs the question:

Why does Dr. P.’s evidence at WND seem to show a popup with a URL to his photobucket, if that isn’t a feature on the Snopes website

Since Snopes is excluded from the Internet Archive (Wayback Machine), there’s no way to know whether they disabled that function when this issue arose, or whether they never had it in the first place. 

In any case,  if the image that the WH distributed was created by Dr. P., only he knows for sure.  It’s up to him to prove it.  Here’s part of what he said, as quoted by a freeper who copied his quote from another site:

Snopes has always used my image, either from their server or from my Photobucket account and the direct to my image on Photobucket has never been changed.

Only the image itself has been changed.

More than 5,900 views to my forged image came from Snopes on April 27, and the people posting that link all thought that it went to a copy of Obama’s “genuine” COLB scan.

I can prove that Snopes continued to use my image and only my image from June 22, 2008 until Aug 1, 2011.

Sometime between Aug 1 and Aug 3, however, they resampled and resaved the image. Although it looks the same, and the luminance values are the same, the chrominance values are higher because of chroma subsampling. Before the change both tables had nearly the same quality values. The file size was also bumped up to 113k and the DPI had not been set.”  (From comment 224 at the link.)

If what Dr. P. said about Snopes is true, they changed the link at the beginning of this month, although he also said that “the direct to my image has never been changed.” Only Dr. P. can explain what he means by that. I’m at a loss. If I copy the URL from the link at Snopes, I get a link to an image on their site.

So what’s known is that Snopes no longer points to Dr. P.’s photobucket and the Wayback Machine does NOT archive Snopes.  The only way that can happen is if Snopes requested to be excluded from the archive. Is this how a transparent myth-debunking website should behave?  But I digress …

To show that we have open minds here at WTPOTUS, I will tell you this. I don’t believe, after further investigation, that the copies that the WH distributed to the media were made FROM the image that Dr. P. created.  Why not?  A little black dot.

WND says in its article,

When posted Polland’s fake document, he took a screen shot of the website, showing that the link to the Obama document was the URL at which Polland had posted his forgery.

Within that sentence, there’s a link to Dr. P.’s photobucket. Go there and click the link. I took a screen shot of what you’ll see (8/12/11);  click to enlarge:

This isn’t the entire SFCOLB, but the part you need to see is there.  According to WND and to Dr. P., via WND, that’s a digital image of the fake SFCOLB that Dr. P. created. 

The screen print from Snopes, which the WH copied and linked to on their blog, was likely used to create the image that was handed out to the media on April 27, 2011.  Note that the screen print was taken on April 25, two days before the press gaggle (roll to the bottom to see the Snopes reference and the date).  At the top right, it reads, “Page 1 of 1”, but it’s a PDF, which seems to indicate that after printing out the page from Snopes, they scanned that page into a PDF (or vice versa–print to file and then print on paper. An awful lot of work, if you have the real document to copy.)

Below is part of the image, from a screen shot taken 8/12/11 (I added the red circle.):

What was given to the media on April 27 was likely derived from the printout of the screen from Snopes, but the copy handed to the media did not have the telltale Snopes URL at the bottom.  It was apparently cropped off.  Here’s the image as it currently exists at Snopes (red circle added):

Photojournalist J. Scott Applewhite of the AP, uploaded a digital image of the SFCOLB on April 27–he copied the paper that he was given at the WH gaggle. Below is his image (red circle added):

Here’s the EXIF data:

This handout image provided by the White House shows a copy of President Barack Obama’s birth certificate from Hawaii. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
By Line: J. Scott Applewhite
Credit: AP
Date: April 27, 2011   8:53:21AM (timezone is GMT)
(3 months, 14 days, 11 hours, 31 minutes, 55 seconds ago)
Location: Washington, DC, USA
File: 512 × 465 JPEG
33,356 bytes (0.032 megabytes)
Image compression: 95%

Now why does it say, “Page 1 of “?  Because the copy handed to the media was probably printed from that black-and-white PDF to which the WH blog links.

The copies of the long form certificate of live birth (LFCOLB) given to the media were also on white paper; they weren’t on green security paper–you can barely see the crosshatching, if at all.

As noted by Dr. P. and butterdezillion, you can see traces of another document showing through the SFCOLB as well as the LFCOLB.  The text artifacts appear to come from letters that allegedly passed between the WH and the Hawaiian Department of Health (HDOH). If these artifacts were on the papers when they were handed to the media, the white paper upon which the documents were copied must have been quite thin.

Why print and then duplicate the documents from PDF’s instead of copying the original certified documents?

Getty images has a slide show which seems to indicate that the artifacts were not created when Applewhite scanned his stack of documents, but existed when the documents were handed out to the media. This image from CBS also shows the artifacts, so it’s apparent that the WH made the error.  The SFCOLB and the LFCOLB were not on GREEN SECURITY PAPER at the time they were copied.  If they were, no text from another document could show through.  

But that’s merely another unexplained anomaly.  Back to why I don’t I believe that the image given to the media came from Dr. P.’s version.  Here’s the version of the SFCOLB as it appeared at the Daily Kos on June 14, 2008 (red circle added):

Look carefully at the top of each version of the SFCOLB.  Right below the “E” in “Certification”, on a horizontal line with “State of Hawaii”, you’ll see a smudgy black dot.  That dot appears on the Snopes version, the WH version, Applewhite’s version, and on the Daily Kos/FactCheck blog/Fight the Smears version from June 2008, but NOT on Dr. P.’s version.  If Dr. P. can explain, we’re open to hearing why that dot is on the other versions but not on his–if, as he says, they used his forgery to pass out to the media on April 27.

Don’t bother looking for that black dot on the photograph that FactCheck blog contends they took of the original document in 2008. It’s not there.

As of today, the WH continues to link to a printout from Snopes so people can see Obama’s purported real SFCOLB.   But before giving out copies of the SFCOLB, the WH staff cropped the bottom of the page.  They left “Page 1 of 1”, which indicates that what they handed out was a copy of a printout from a webpage. Whether that was a page from Snopes, we don’t know for certain, because the image was cropped. 

Some very important questions remain unanswered:

Why didn’t the WH staff scan the original, certified SFCOLB that they said Obama’s campaign posted on the Internet in 2007; that FactCheck blog supposedly photographed in Chicago, in March, 2008; and which Robert Bauer said they obtained from the HDOH in 2008?

Why didn’t they scan the REAL certified SFCOLB, put that scan on the WH website, and link to that image, instead of to an image from a rumor-debunking website?

Why did they print the images of the documents in black and white, instead of in color, with the security paper crosshatching readily apparent?

Why didn’t they copy the back side of the REAL SFCOLB and give that image to the media, since the registrar’s stamp and certification of authenticity is on the back side? Snopes, like everyone else, had a digital image of only the front side of that supposed document. If they wanted to prove that the document was stamped, dated, and certified authentic by the HDOH registrar, then it would have been far more persuasive to make a two-sided copy of the ORIGINAL–you know, that one photographed by FactCheck blog in March 2008.  (To see the significance of that date, see this.  At the press gaggle, WH spokesperson Dan Pfeiffer claimed that they posted both sides of the SFCOLB on the Internet, in 2008. An outright lie.  The entire back side of that supposed document has NEVER been placed on the Internet.  No copy of the back side has EVER been given to the media, or even been seen by the media, so far as we know.)

Why didn’t the WH do the same for the LFCOLB, of which Obama’s personal lawyer had two recently produced copies?  Especially because the waiver that lawyer Judith Corley received was granted on the EXCUSE that the document was TO BE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC!

Why not scan both sides of the actual documents and give copies to the media?  Why instead copy one-sided images, with vague security features, with little evidence of certification, and with artifacts from other documents showing through? 

Why was only Savannah Guthrie allegedly allowed to SEE and FEEL the real LFCOLB in person, and to photograph it (one side only)?

Why was the LFCOLB only flashed at the media from the podium and why was it SPECIFICALLY removed from the room before the POTUS arrived?

Why was no audio allowed and why were cameras and video forbidden at that WH press gaggle?  Was it so nobody could snap a high resolution image of the supposed real document, for further analysis?

Why did Obama never speak about THAT supposed document–the original LFCOLB?  Instead, on Oprah, he talked about the SFCOLB from 2008.

Wheels within wheels. Obfuscation within obfuscation. Plausible deniability within plausible (even implausible) deniability.

Jeepers Creepers, Freeper Peepers!  You sure need some good eyes to see through the smoke and mirrors.

These are links to other articles at WTPOTUS that address these documents: WTPOTUS post from the day of the “reveal” of the “computer generated” LFCOLB. A summary of what’s wrong with the LFCOLB in relation to the “father’s” immigration records.  An analysis of the LFCOLB press gaggle.   An analysis of the LFCOLB itself.   An analysis of the photographs that Savannah Guthrie says she took of the  LFCOLB.

These are only a few.  Search our blog for “birth certificate” and you’ll find many more.

UPDATE:  Dr. P. responds here:

43 responses to “Jeepers Freepers: Tales of Obama’s SFCOLB

  1. This is sort of an old topic,but I see this is the most recent spot to discuss this. I don’t know whether this will lend any support to anyone’s scenerios or not ,but I must add this here.
    Recently I visited an old aquaintence to bring her some very old photo albums from my family that she hoped to find some of her relatives in.She is paralized somewhat and in a wheel chair. She told me how she loved to study history and geneology of her family, the town, and so. Just so happens her son has lived in Hawaii for many,many years now and I had forgotten that,so needless to say Hawaii,her visit to see her son and the beautiful big island,she went on about how I must see it. She brought up this wonderful small very old Pink Hotel, that she said was hard to even find,but if I ever go I should look for it. SHe said it is now dwarfed by the high rise hotels all around it. THis of course is the Pink hotel in the Obama child photos. I didn’t tell her that I had read all about it .
    Of course off and on she helped to give me some tidbits about Hawaii, not at my urging, but the most interesting information was the other day when I brought some more photos for her, we discussed many things again and how a couple old friends had died, and she said, ” I know how they died because I am always in the register of deeds office. I love to look up birth certificates and death certificates. I save them of family members and neighbors and friends. It got very interesting of course. I know I am a little winded in this but it is to help you see where the info came from. And there are just a few details which help but for me they are very telling.
    I said I had not been to the reg. of deeds in a long time, but I was very familiar as I used to frequent the one in my hometown; can you still just go in and search for yourself? You don’t have to ask for records? She said “Oh no,you can help yourself, of course they all know me in there so they are very helpful ,but I know where most everything is because I’ve been there so much.
    I asked her if most birth and death certificates were still on the old heavy leatherbound books or were they on microfilm. SHe said, Oh they’re still on the books.
    I said, “so you can look at anybody’s birth and death records(which I was sure was still the case,but I wanted to get her answer) without any problem, and she said “OH Yeah”
    Then, she proceeded to tell me how she had of course looked up her children’s birth certificates, and that of course only one of her children’s birth certificates was there as the other child had been born in Libya in 1960. That was interesting of course,but her next comments were also very interesting. She said….”OH Yeah, but my other son (the one born in this county) is listed but when you go to it, there’s just a big black line marking out his original last name, only the date he was born. He was adopted by my second husband, so you can’t see his original last name,only his name after the adoption and the date he was born. I said, so the department does this after the adoption,so it’s like he never existed with the name of his real father, right? She said, that’s right.
    I said,” so your son could come in and request to see his original birth certificate and she of course nodded.”So she said, It has him born and the date, with a big black line through it and then my second husband’s last name as his last name, so there’s not ever distinguishing him again on ther records as “NAME So and SO”. THat’s interesting , I say.

    Now the next part, she tells me how this all happened, how she had married, and her husband was in the military and they were stationed in Greece in the fifties and she had her first son in the Army Navy hospital in Libya, and then suddenly they had to leave in 1960. THey (I am assuming she meant the US military ) were told they had to get out. She said, and then they closed that hospital down just a few years later. She said, it took a year before Washington got her her son’s birth certificate from Libya. I thought that was very interesting.
    After she came back to the states she had her second son, then divorced and remarried and of course that is when her children were adopted by the new husband. It is sort of ironic that her son, with the line through his name is the son living in Hawaii. I want to speak to her some more because I have a couple hunches……….There were bases in Tonga , the Philipines, Lybia, and many more(not so many of our military were in Africa at the time,, but were all over Asian countries and S. America. I have sort of thought about Army Navy Hospitals before as a possible birth place for You Know Who. I hope this adds just a hair of enlightenment,Maybe it will.

    • This of course helps lead me to believe that the reason Orly Taitz cannot see O.s birth certificate is because the original from where ever he was born is the property of the state and is not public because he was adopted by someone. THis is the only reason I can imagine would make it not public domain and the reason it isn’t there for anyone to see,not even Orly.

      • Well, if your friend’s son’s bc was available for her to see, with her son’s original surname redacted, then why wouldn’t Barry’s be available in the same condition? Why would the reg. of DEEDS have birth certificates, anyway?

        • No, her son’s birth certificate was not available. That is my point. His name is listed(just like the girl who got the info with Obama’s name and date of birth), but the rest is not available.Of course , she could see his certificate if she wanted, she was telling me that If I were to go in and look at the records, that is all his records would show. I thought I made myself clear.

          The register of deeds is a division of court records. Certified birth certificates are issued there. Deeds ,some land transactions when properties are deeded over(I am simplifying), Death certificates. Some titles to properties are duplicated in the register of deeds. Marriage certificates can be gotten at register of deeds offices.

          This isn’t some strange phenomenon. I assumed most people would know what a register of deeds office is in most states. In some states all public recorded real estate and ownership of property is there or anything of public transactions requiring a title or certification. It can vary from state to state,but this is not something unusual for birth and death certificates to be recorded in a register of deeds office.

          Just because Hawaii uses the office of the department of Health or what ever they want to call their building doesn’t mean they don’t do the same damn thing.

          You may also get your passport through the register of deeds offices in many states, or at least you could till Obama and homeland security is going to make it more complicated soon, so that might have already changed. THe register of deeds is where I got my sons certified copy of his real birth certificate. There is one in every county in my state. Some states break their counties down into different divisions or departments,

          • You didn’t make yourself clear. Your very long comment told us nothing that we didn’t already know. We discussed this very issue three years ago–that his original might be sealed because of an adoption.

            And you don’t have to use snide rhetoric or curse whenever questioned. You said, “I assumed most people would know what a register of deeds office is in most states.” So you can’t assume that I’m among “most people”, ergo WHAT?

            I don’t ASSUME. I know that various states have different setups. There are RECORDERS of deeds. There are REGISTERS of deeds. There are DIVISIONS OR OFFICES OF VITAL RECORDS (AKA STATISTICS).

            In many states, Vital Records exist at the state government level. Some are at the county level. If in some states the COUNTY vital records office falls under the purview of the county clerk, it’s still usually separate from the recorder of DEEDS.

            You said, “Just because Hawaii uses the office of the department of Health or what ever they want to call their building doesn’t mean they don’t do the same damn thing.”

            Our problem is with how they do things IN HAWAII.

  2. Great Analysis as usual Miri! I hope Dr. P drops in to discuss this.

    • Kind of beating a dead horse, but it gets me when people assume that we just take whatever somebody says as fact. I say, show us the money. Or the beef. Or maybe the peas. How about the REAL birth certificate?

      Just because it appears that they’ve used the same bogus image since 2008, doesn’t make that thing real. It’s still a digital image on a blog AND nobody with ANY credibility has ever seen the supposed real document from which that image was supposedly made. The FACT that the WH did NOT scan the original paper SFCOLB indicates that it probably NEVER did exist in 3 dimensions.

      UNLESS the original reads differently from what’s on the Internet, which is TOTALLY what I expect. Whatever was truly on any original, is whatever that “embarrassing” information is that Barry’s been hiding all along, which the passport files had to be “cauterized” of.

      We the People have a right to KNOW what that information is because OUR records, OUR archives, were tampered with and OUR money was used to investigate that breach. Condi Rice knows what that information was. There’s no way in heck that she doesn’t.

      Surely there are original documents somewhere in the bowels of the State Dept. I don’t give a rat’s patoot if SADOS worked for the State Dept. or any connected agency thereof.

      It’s un-American to HIDE this information from the people. Especially BEFORE the election. It’s hardly kosher to now state (perhaps it will come to this) that it’s a matter of national security because AT THIS POINT they allowed an ineligible person to sit in the Oval Office. This issue was brought up prior to the election. Had the investigation been revealed after the breach in March 2008, he may not have been on the ballot in November 2008.

      They made the mess; it’s their DUTY to fix it. Before our country is completely destroyed.

      • Rosemary Woodhouse

        And this is the only plausible reason for maintaining Barry’s “privacy* AFTER he released the supposed original birth certificate. It always puzzled me how they could claim the need for continued privacy of this vital record AFTER he released the form (ahem),

        • The only logical reason for claiming privacy is there isn’t one that shows he was born in Hawaii! They might have one, but I bet it isn’t from Hawaii. If they have one it doesn’t match the one that was waved at reporters and placed on a government website.

          For all we know, this sucker might have come across the Red River. At this point, he is an illegal alien with all of the trademarks of an illegal: fake documents, fake birth certificate, fake selective service card and register, a fake social or multiple fake social security cards or numbers, and a fake family to boot! Very impressive credentials. But only for a con-man! Forgery not of one document but many…I do believe that means he is a criminal alien and should be imprisoned or deported…but to where? OJ might enjoy having someone placed near him in solitary..they can tap out signals with their tin cups.

        • you’re right Rosemary , I feel like he’s shown us the thing , so he claims , so now if it were the real deal, the Hawaii people should be all excited to show it and now it should be there just like most everybody elses in the public domain; and of course legally, also since he supposedly has shown something it should no longer be a private document.

          Even if he were someones illegitimate child, his birth certificate should be on public record, then later a person claims to be the father, that is put into the record but does not make it become a private record. I am trying to think, what else,besides an, adoption would make the birth certificate private. The only other things I can think of right now is that some official or person of high rank passed this child(O.) into the US from somewhere foreign for protection and hid his identity, and only later did he become who he says he is. This, I have tossed around and around, who that could be, but not knowing doesn’t change what we all can see and hear with our very own eyes and ears, that he is of low character, a thug, and a broccoli headed serpent!

          I am not the one beating a dead horse here. I don’t care what he has released, or releases in the future,as he has already proven so far that he is a liar and a thief. What if it’s not just Hawaii that’s covering for Obama, but that Washington is covering for Hawaii….Looks that way.

  3. Because we are talking about the BC, here is an excerpt from an interview with Donald Trump with Good Ole George. Donald talks China, OPEC, Taxes on the Rich, and the BC issue.

    Transcript: My Interview With Donald Trump, Part 2
    August 17, 2011 6:22 AM

    GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: We had a big go-round about President Obama’s birth certificate. Don’t have to revisit that ground except to close one—

    DONALD TRUMP: I’m very proud of it. And by the way, I am very proud of it. I made him do something that nobody else was—

    GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: You believe that?

    DONALD TRUMP: –able to make him do, 100 percent. Excuse me. John McCain couldn’t get it. Hillary Clinton couldn’t get it. I made him produce a birth certificate. I don’t know where he got it. But I made him—

    GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: What does that mean? (LAUGH)

    DONALD TRUMP: —produce a birth certificate. And I’m very proud of it. And I’ll tell you what. You go out in the real world, George, people give me a lot of credit for having whatever it took to get him to—


    GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: But those investigators never found anything.

    DONALD TRUMP: Let me just tell you. He produced a birth certificate. There’s a lot of skepticism about that birth certificate. I’m off the subject. But there’s a lot of skepticism about the—

    GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Of the one he produced?

    DONALD TRUMP: You just go on the Internet and you take a look. Yeah, in my opinion. A lot of skepticism about the—

    GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Do you have that skepticism?

    DONALD TRUMP: No, I’m onto other things like jobs, like China ripping us off, like OPEC.

    But it was sort of strange that all of a sudden, at — for years and years he wouldn’t produce it. Then all of a sudden when I put all that heat on him, he finally, begrudgingly—

    GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: But he did produce it.

    DONALD TRUMP: He produced something. He produced something. I don’t know what he produced. But he produced something.

    GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: I can’t believe you’re raising a question about this.

    DONALD TRUMP: No, George. You’re trying to do a little number and I think that’s fine. But I will tell you two things. Number one, I’m very proud of the job I did and I’ve gotten a lot of credit. Not from you, but from others. And as far as what he produced, that’s for others to determine. But they should look into it.

    Note: Portions of this transcript have been edited for clarity. [I wonder what parts.]

    Part I of the interview

    • Yes, Trump appears to be correct. It was Georgie who brought up the subject. I get tired of his repetition about being proud of himself BUT his point that Barry produced “something” is important, because that’s exactly what the Hawaiin legislature at first wanted to pass a bill to allow the HDOH to do–CREATE “something” with the Hawaiian seal on it to STATE that Barry was born there, even if it wasn’t a copy of the original birth certificate.

      Well, this isn’t a copy of the original, as anyone with eyes to see CAN SEE. It’s a pasted-together conglomerate of pieces of information, including pieces of signatures, and NOBODY can possibly believe that it’s REAL.

      If it is real, then there should be absolutely NO OBJECTION to showing the real item to Orly Taitz and her forensic experts. But guess what? There’s loads of objection.

      The current Attorney General of Hawaii Jill Theresa Nagamine (whose relative–probable husband–Dean T. Nagamine was the lawyer for Maya Soetoro during her divorce from her first husband Gary Forth) met Orly at the HDOH just last week and presented her with a belated response to Orly’s subpoena. Stating that the info is PRIVATE.

      Now, seeing as how (1) Judith Corley got the copies on the EXCUSE that the papers would be made available to the public and (2) Jay Carney, the WH spokesperson, recently said that the WH cooperates (“accommodates”) at every turn in order to ensure that people get the “facts” straight, I see NO LOGICAL REASON why, if the document IS real, that they wouldn’t allow Orly to see the original paper. Do you?

      • Great find! Taking great notice in the information about the Hawaiian AG Jill Nagamine and her purported husband attorney Dean Nagamine who represented Maya Soetoro. What a coincidence Jill being involved in Orly’s case! Will the Nagimines be building a new home soon or purchasing property somewhere? Watch for the money flows. It pays to be involved with Obama, ask Sara and the Kenyans.

        Anyone seen Fuddy Duddy yet?

  4. Rush Limbaugh: Where are Obama’s former girlfriends?
    Radio host says viral email raising valid questions for unvetted president
    August 16, 2011

    “I got one of these email things,” Limbaugh said on his program this afternoon. “And, of course, I’ve only seen it a thousand times, and knew it before I received the first one. And you probably have seen this one going around.

    This one is, ‘Where are all of Obama’s former girlfriends?’ It’s a takeoff on where are all of the students Obama taught who claim to have been inspired by him when he taught law at the University of Chicago. Where are all of the former classmates of Obama who can tell wonderful stories about their experience with Obama on campus or in the classroom?”

    Limbaugh continued, “They are interesting because those people haven’t surfaced. There aren’t any ex-girlfriends that have admitted it. Students that have been inspired by Obama as a professor, they haven’t come forth.

    “Media hasn’t dug ’em up. It is interesting from the standpoint that the guy has not been vetted yet. Look what they’re trying to do to Michele Bachmann, what they’re planning on doing to [Rick] Perry and so forth.”

    He concluded, “I’m just saying it’s very strange that we know so little about a guy who’s written two autobiographies. It really is strange.

    • Yeah. That’s good. We asked that question before, didn’t we? Long ago. The missing mystery girlfriends. Lots of old boyfriends out there. No girlfriends, though.

    • Yes, a male “friend” was found; Larry Sinclair who knew him personally and intimately. His Chicago haunt at the Boy’s Club was found. Yet no students that had him as a lecturer have talked, and FOX could find no students at Columbia who knew him. We only know about the lady, 35 year old Vera Baker, that was sent abroad to disappear for some unknown reason. Sure we’ve had the planted talkers, but no believable ones.

      Interesting that Ruth’s last name was Baker and so was Vera’s. Then there was Baker and McKenzie where Michelle worked. The Enquirer offered $1 million for anyone to disclose their knowledge of the supposed affair between BHO and Vera. It was another story involving a limo. Now I wonder if that was a cover story put out by the democrats to conceal BHO’s male proclivities. Except Vera allegedly worked for his senate campaign, so perhaps she was a real person. I wonder what Vera knows. Somebody has to be paying Vera more than a million to keep her mouth shut.

      • Sounds like a cover story to me. Maybe she was his daughter? She’s young enough to be. But that would mean he swings both ways, which is possible. Yes, very interesting that Ruth’s suddenly revealed last name is Baker. ANOTHER common name. Makes tracing roots that much harder.

        Don’t forget his many roommates in CA and NY. Siddiqi, Chandoo, Phil Boerner. Those guys he sat so close to on the couch or traveled to Pakistan with, to visit their wealthy families and shoot pheasants, supposedly.

  5. Now this is curious. Or not. The most recent patriot from our military who challenged Barry’s eligibility will be given an honorable discharge:

    “This is SSgt Daryn J. Moran. The below email is to a reporter about my response to his attempts to reach me for a couple of questions.

    I am short on time to discuss much other than to say the Lord has allowed me to remain with my family and we are leaving Germany, and I am receiving an Honorable discharge.”

    • Wondering why the AF took such a different stance than the army. Perhaps they just wanted to get rid of the problem quickly, or do they support his thinking? Better to have limited publicity? The guy was already in line to be discharged so they just hastened his removal? Is he setting a precedent that if you don’t think Obama is eligible to be CIC you can get out quickly and easily with no repercussions? How many military men will follow? Did they set him up for a psychiatric test too? The AF said he was on leave and not AWOL.

      Staff sergeant discharged after questioning Obama
      Air Force officials say Daryn Moran on his way out of the ranks

      August 17, 2011

      Government officials explained to the Air Force Times that Moran, who had called for a citizen’s arrest of Obama and challenged authorities to arrest him or Obama, actually was on leave at the time he apparently thought he was AWOL.

      He also wrote on the Blaze that his discharge involved a “personality disorder” conclusion after he told his commander that be believes homosexuality is a sin.

      The Air Force is saying that Staff Sergeant Moran is not AWOL but on approved leave pending discharge.
      Aug. 17

      • Yes, they’re spinning it that he had a psychological problem with gays. The paper today said he was discharged, but omitted “honorably.” They are downplaying the Barry not eligible part, but they did say, as usual, that Moran questioned his “citizenship”. Before Lakin, weren’t there a few others that they discharged so as to keep the issue out of the news?


    The Arizona Tea Party is analyzing Barry’s eligibility for POTUS. Most Tea Parties, previously, shied away from the topic. Not so in AZ, according to WND.

    “The event at the Sun City West Foundation Building in Sun City West at 6:30 p.m. is to focus on the issues of being a dual citizen, what is a “natural born Citizen,” the mystery of the birth location, missing documents in the hunt for evidence, whether Obama’s residency in Indonesia is a factor, the court challenges, the stonewalling of evidence in Hawaii, and ultimately, what does it mean for 2012.”

  7. Cnn politics on “Trending” Sarah Palin talks about vetting
    and learning a lesson for not vetting

    Go Sarah Go we need you

  8. I know it sounds confusing, but that is only because it is confusing – but true.

    The first and most important thing to understand is that I am the only person in the world who created a JPG image of the COLB that is 1024 x 1000 pixels in size, on June 12, 2008. Every other copy of that image was either made by me or was made from mine. Had I known that three years into the future, its origin would be linked to me, I would have watermarked it.

    Well, in a way, I did, because I am also responsible for the file internals.

    On June 12, 2008, on the ultra-liberal Daily Kos blog, owner Markos Moulitsas posts the very first online COLB with the following introduction:

    “In any case, here is Obama’s birth certificate. Click on it for a bigger version. Note, I have trimmed the edges of the scan, so before someone tries to inevitably “debunk” this based on the dimensions of a Hawaiian birth certificate, that should be noted.

    Why would Markos deliberately alter the most sought-after document in political history by trimming it in some capricious manner? Why put its provenance and authenticity at risk? In fact, why was he posting it and not the Obama Campaign? Why did Markos refuse to identify the source of the image? How many people would know what a genuine scan of a genune COLB looked like?

    Red flags, all of them,

    You are encouraged to visit the actual Kos post and read all 648 comments left there. You will see how Markos purposely avoided answering the question posed by his Kossacks. THEY simply assumed he got it from the Obama Campaign.

    He did not and the Obama Campaign sent him nothing.

    On the morning of the 13th, however, FTS had pulled their PDF and replaced it with an entirely different image, one that was 585 x 575 pixels and had a particular mark on it – a “red flag” that I would discover, later on, identified its source.

    (BTW, Markos also had replaced his original image, removing its embedded thumbnail image).

    I, however, had made a snapshot of the image in the PDF file and saved it as a JPG. The image in that PDF released by the Obama Campaign website, Fight The Smears (FTS), literally hours after the very first image of the COLB appeared on the Daily Kos, had not produced their own scan copy.

    The Obama Campaign had directly copied the KOS image and reduced it by about 42%. Remember, this is a copy of an image copy that MARKOS TRIMMED FROM AN UNKNOWN IMAGE.

    Markos REFUSED TO IDENTITY ITS SOURCE or even to say what it looked like.

    This was my first big discovery.

    Why did the Campaign post a PDF of the image Markos trimmed? Why not post an original copy?

    In actuality, that PDF image was a third-generation copy!

    I set about to prove that the Obama Campaign had made a copy of Markos’ trimmed image, and also to prove that Markos had trimmed an image he received (or generated) identical to the “full-page scan” that Factcheck posted on its website on June 16, 2008, in their “Ask Factcheck” segment,

    I took the Factcheck image, trimmed it exactly as Markos had trimmed his, reduced it by 42%, and posted it in my Photobucket album on the 17th where it had sat until after the election when I changed it – one of the many times that file name would have a different image attached to it.

    Quick recap. The 1st image of the series posted on Photobucket was put there on June 13, and that was the JPG snapshot of the PDF file.

    The 2nd image of the series posted with the same name and location was the replica of the original PDF image that I generated from a Kos-sized image which was, in turn, made from a Factcheck-sized image.

    THIS is the reason why the 1024 x 1000 pixel image has the same Exif data as in the Kos image and the Factcheck image – even having the old size of the Kos image, 2427 x 2369, in it.

    That is my equivalent of a watermark.

    This is also the image that went viral because, on June 22, 2008, began posting a direct link to that image on my Photobucket.

    As people often do, this link was also plastered on different sites all over the Internet by people also quoting the Snopes story:

    “A Certification of Live Birth provided by the Obama Campaign is a forgery” FALSE.

    You mentioned something about the little window with the link not being visible when you tried it.

    I use Opera as my default browser. Open the link above in Opera and you’ll see it as i did.

    Anyway, I thought to myself, “Here’s an opportunity to swap my image with another one of my images to see if anyone noticed the swap.”

    I had already done an image swap, so i know that I could do it without a problem. My plan was to create a look-s-like and swap that in place of the image I generated.

    Keep in mind, again, that only my images were displayed on Snopes.

    On or after November 6, 2008, I uploaded my look-a-like using the same name as the existing file – a name that has remained the same since June 12, 2008, BO_Birth_Certificate.jpg, which is the same name as used for the Kos image AND the Factcheck image, except that I replaced spaces with underscores. (BO Birth Certificate.jpg).

    However, to my shock, Photobucket had automatically renamed my file to one made from random letters! They used to accept file names with special characters, but then they changed the policy allowing only alphanumeric names.

    By the time I found the image I had uploaded, changed the name of the previous image, and renamed the nonsense name (something like “4abbj534.jpg”) to “BO_Birth_Certificate” on a slow network, to boot, about 10-20 minutes had passed – an eternity in Internet time.

    I checked the Snopes website immediately afterwards and my new image and the link to my Photobucket site was there. However, sometime around November 16, Snopes had changed the link and the image.

    Whenever you replace an existing image with another image on Photobucket, it breaks the link to it. So, obviously, the break in the link and subsequent downtime to my image was the primary reason for Snopes putting a copy of my image on their own web server where they would never have to worry about it again.

    But, i was still getting 600 hits a day from Snopes to my Photobucket account. how was that possible?

    Because the original Photobucket link was still all over their message boards and has continued to be cited right up to April 27th, 2011 when nearly 6,000 people from there clicked on it.

    They reverted back to my previous image (#2 in the series, my generated replica) which was now posted on their website under the file name, “birth.jpg.”

    Meanwhile, in May 2010, I developed a real, made-from-scratch clone of the COLB and decided to replace my previous clone attempt with that one. This time, however, I uploaded it directly to a subfolder instead of the main public one, so it would not conflict with what was already there. I did a simultaneous rename and move to swap the images, by changing the “t” in the existing “BO_Birth_Certificate” to an “l” making the existing file read as “BO_Birth_Certificale” (which was swapped with the true clone named “BO_Birth_Certificate.”

    There it sat and people kept linking to it, and treating it as Obama’s genuine COLB.

    In February of this year, I wondered, “Why am i making clones that look too good? Let’s see if they can spot one that looks weird.”

    And so, I tilted the disclaimer line at the bottom (the one with the “prima facie” in it) and switched out the basket-weave pattern.

    Then along comes April 27th and nearly 6,000 people go and view that image. But, nobody said anything, so I let it ride. I had no idea that the WH had made a b&w copy of the image on Snopes (my #2 image) and passed it out to the media until I downloaded a PDF from the WH website, opened it up, and saw the Snopes URL in the footer.

    Had there been no break in the link to my image, Snopes would have kept the original link in place and the WH could have, just as easily, made that copy directly from my Photobucket account.

    Now, about that “dot.” I hope you know that i was the firswt person to point out that all of the COLB images had that dot (or “piece of dirt”) embedded in it. Even that was faked, and I sticking one in there is something i can do on demand.

    Want a clone with a “dot?” I’ll put one in by this afternoon, if you like.

    You are missing the whole point.

    Download my clone now and compare it to the previous images. Excluding the “dot,” if you did not know it was any different, you would never “spot” the difference.

    I had to point out to everyone the origin of the WH copy and if i had switched the screwed-up image with the current one (adding the “dot” of course), prior to April 27th, you would be hard-pressed to find any differences.

    Especially since the WH made sure of it by making a b&w outline of it instead of copying the color COLB.

    The bottom line is that the Obama Campaign and the Obama Administration have never, ever made any “digital scans” of Obama’s COLB that they have subsequently posted and sent out to reporters.

    Just the opposite is true: the Obama Campaign got its image from outside sources: first, from the Daily Kos, and second, from Politifact.

    Then who made the scan images? Read my book. They are not scan images at all but are copies of a Photoshop fabrication – a fabricated image that I replicated exactly, proving that this is not a genuine scan, that no scanner on the planet could ever made anything that looked like it, and that no genuine COLB scan could ever look like it.


    • THANK YOU SO MUCH, DR. P. You hit it out of the ballpark because I ACTUALLY understand what you’re saying now. I also understand about the black dot. Can you believe it? Thanks for taking the time to put it together so logically for we who are not as tech savvy as you.

      I will now have to go back and read the Daily Kos article and the comments. Thanks for the assignment. 🙂 That’s quite an assignment, because it’s mind-numbing to read that site. Ladies and gentlemen, suit up! You need fire-resistant armor to endure that place. Hellish.

      Really, Dr. P. Thanks. I appreciate it. You’re a stand up guy.

    • You know, when I was writing about the black dot, I seemed to remember someone talking about it before, but couldn’t for the life of me remember who it was or what it was all about. So it was you all long. 😉

    • It all makes sense now! Thanks Dr. P. for taking the time to explain this to us and all our readers! We truly appreciate it.

      How can they explain this away? They can’t. Caught in a lie and deception of their own making.

    • Dr P, It is all in the names to answer your question. I will cross post your comment here to work across the hall. It may connect exactly to your questions and ours also.

  9. I forgot to post the image link.

    Google “Polarik/BO_Birth_Certificate.jpg” to find the link and to see who all has linked to it.

  10. Postscript:

    Only two websites have ever hosted a full-page copy (2550 x 3300) of the COLB:

    1. Factcheck
    2. TampaBay.Com (the online St. Petersburg Times who also run Politifact)

    However, by January 2009, replaced the full-sized copy with a Politifact-sized copy (800 x 786) and Factcheck had deferred to its phony photo-shoot after August 21, 2008.

    • We remember all this changing of the images. Watched it happening in real time. Ditto with the FactCheck blog BOGUS photos. OMG. What a farce.

      Thanks also for reading my post.

  11. Final word:

    All of the clones are made in the same way that Obama’s was made:

    From a full-size PSD file (x2) to a full-size JPG file to all of the different “Kos-based” and “Politifact-based” permutations.

    Two more liars to add to the list:

    Chicago Tribune and the La Times.

    Both claimed to have gotten image copies from the Obama Campaign and both had also swapped out their images, “Kos-based” to “Politifact-based.”

    It’s all in the book

    • I particularly remember how you spotted that hair between the clear overlay on the security paper, which gave it away how they did it–made a paper copy for FactCheck to photograph. If THEY did the photography, that is. Facts NOT in evidence.

  12. About “if it’s not a feature on the snopes website”, no its not. Its a feature of certain versions of the internet explorer webbrowser.
    There are some muddying of the waters on this issue by various obots, anyone can verify by just digging up a older version of IE and hover over a standard link.
    It’s called a ‘tool-tip’ and is a standard feature of windows, used in ie to display the links, other browsers do this in other ways. In his image it is slightly discolored this often happens with low quality JPEG-images when zooming. Later versions use a slight shadow under the tool-tip.
    In the first place what we have here is Polland’s word, his image of the link is just a small complement, not a proof in any way, if he had wanted to it would have been trivial to spoof the image, but it would have to have been done on top of the snopes page as it was seen when it allegedly pointed to his image. This is circumstantial evidence that it might be possible to dig up from the various web cache archives.

    Anyway what is significant here is that the WH used a image from snopes as proof to the media. There is no way I could see that happening without multiple things being completely rotten.

    • Thanks, jk. I didn’t know if it was a function of the website or of various browsers. You’re correct, though. The most important point is that instead of just copying the document they claim exists, they used an UNPROVENANCED digital image from SNOPES as proof of Obama’s eligibility. If it weren’t SO FREAKING SERIOUS, it would be ridiculous and laughable.

      If you know of another web cache archive, other than the WayBack Machine, do please let us know where it is and how to access it. Snopes is NOT “crawled” by the WayBack Machine archive. By choice, apparently.

      Dr. P. is free to weigh in once again and let us know how to verify that Snopes did link to his photobucket. Or whether that’s a “spoofed” image, which of course we’re aware can be created digitally.

      The article at WND didn’t specify that image as a screenshot, did it? Or is it just an “illustration” for demonstration purposes?

  13. I save all websites I want to archive as MHT files using Opera, which is the b est browser for creating and viewing them. They keep all of the original links intact with their original dates – except in cases where there are dynamic HTML features that display current information such as todays’s date and time, or an advertisement.

    I’d say that my MHT files capture about 98% of the original web site.

    They are far better than screen captures because the entire web site is saved with its functionality, whereas a screen capture is a static graphic.

    Snopes creates image pages of their text so that users cannot copy it. That is helpful to me because nothing set in an image will change over time. The hyperlinks, however, have to be functional, and that allows one to look at the link properties and read the actual URL.

    When you view an HTML file or an MHT file in Opera, it will show the URL when you place your cursor on the hyperlink – which is what I did, and then took a screen shot of what was visible on my display to create a viewable JPG for the article.

    Regardless of what browser you use on a regular basis, it would be worth your while to install and use Opera, if only for its excellent MHT functionality. I use it as my daily browser, although I still find occasional websites that will not accept it – typically ones that require browser validation and certificates.

    Snopes updated their original 2008 report on Barack Obama’s birth certificate, changed the header and question, and placed an image of the the LFBC instead of the COLB (along with a baloney write-up of it). They did make a reference to the short-form and included a link.

    But, the link went directly to the original Photobucket URL which contains my most current forgery clone.

    I notified my friends and groups on Facebook about it and it was still unchanged as January, 2012.

    After checking it now, it appears that Snopes switched it to the image they copied to their server.

    Here’s the URL:

    Since I expected that they would pull it once the word got out, I saved it as an MHT file. I have the posts on Facebook and Friends to confirm it. iicconfirmconfirm that it did link to hy Photobucket account

    • Hi Ron, Long time no read. Good to see you.

      Snopes updated their original 2008 report on Barack Obama’s birth certificate, changed the header and question, and placed an image of the the LFBC instead of the COLB (along with a baloney write-up of it). They did make a reference to the short-form and included a link.

      But, the link went directly to the original Photobucket URL which contains my most current forgery clone.

      I notified my friends and groups on Facebook about it and it was still unchanged as January, 2012.

      After checking it now, it appears that Snopes switched it to the image they copied to their server.

      Damn amazing is it not ? Presto chango…again and again.

  14. FYI: The last sentence looks the way it does because of an issue with editing the response.

  15. Side Bar:

    1. and on one of Stan the Girl’s passports apps her father is scheduled as next of kin with the Bank of Hawaii being his address.

    2. re photo on headline: are these the shelves alphy/alfy alluded to from the video on barky’s life posted by Bridgette a few days ago?

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Connecting to %s