Obot Lawyer misrepresents the facts – what else is new

A lawyer claiming to know ‘something’ about images is pawning himself as a legitimate authority on the Obama COLB forgery. 

In my previous posts I have indicated that FactCheck #2 the one with out the SEAL is forged. Here is an image that he has posted upon his site.  Here is his claim ‘Seriously, to illustrate just how much Steve shrunk the image to suit his purposes, and how ridiculously small his image is compared to FactCheck’s original photo, here’s a side-by-side comparison of how Steve’s image compares to the size of the original FactCheck image it’s derived from:”

In reality, I resized the image for posting only a reference image only and allowed the readers to judge for themselves by downloading the FactCheck image off FactCheck’s own web-site. So there would no confusion and accusation of altering their image. This way the people could judge for themselves, unlike a Lawyer manipulating  and twisting facts. This blog host only allows for a maximun size of 575 x 478 within the posts. The origional size as mentioned is 2304 x 3072, so his claim of 3% is again showing his lies and ignorance, and stupidity.

Update: An Obot lawyer, who is too stupid and arrogant to realize that the image above, has been resized, by this blog hosting. Has decided to post a comparison image. The image below demonstrates that the FactCheck people used to verify the COLB were not only inexperienced, but were deceptive as well. They were not qualified to even photograph the document and took every effort to decieve anyone looking at it, just like the questionable lawyer. Regardless of the level of focus that the deranged lawyer is pawning, there are no defects from the embossing that are visible in other images. Since he can’t explain that away, he’s throwing a temper tantrum, besides it’s great watching him take the bait. 

However just to prove the lawyer wrong again and show his lies.

Again proving my point that the FactCheck images are large in size and would indicate any defects of embossing as they show clearly all the other defects, lettering, ect.

Only one question needs to be asked; why is every other item and defect detected in this image with the exception of the SEAL. Why is ALL the lettering, including the date indicated, but no evidence of the SEAL.

Or under various filters the same, every letter and defect is dected, with the exception of ANY evidence of an embossed seal, and that is a fact.

Once again, Obot lawyer caught in lies, fraud, and deciet.  But just as important as his attempting to lie about the facts. The fact remains that the embossed seal on the FactCheck forgery does not contain what the State of Hawaii declared what a state issued document contains. There is no way around that. 

Here are some other Birth certificates, in every instance you can detect evidence of the embossing.

So why is the embossing defects clealy visible in other peoples COLB, but not Obama’s and more importantly nowhere on FactCheck #2?

Even the  Nordyke twins’s seal is apparent. On both of them.

Or this on from the back, where not only the seal is visible, but both date and signature stamps also. Contrast increased in seal area.

Here is the same area off the FTS COLB, note that there is no breakage or defects where the FactCheck #3 is.

Every defect, all the lettering, the fake date stamp is visible, but no where is there an indication, breakage, defect of any embossed seal.

See for yourself;





Liar Lawyer who misrepresents the facts posted the following

“He also repeats his previous claim (which he pontificated on at length in his original ‘analysis’) that the COLB as posted on Kos should be considered a forgery because you can’t see any bleedthrough from the signature inkstamp. Of course, in another post he treated another COLB that similarly had no signature bleedthrough as unquestionably legitimate, which just serves to remind readers that Steve and other Birther ‘analysts’ pick and choose their evidentiary standards as they go along, without regard for consistency.”

Here is the facts and liar lawyer is smacked down again.

Here is the link to that other post: another post

The COLB that he is referring to is the following

Here are some additional images that prove that liar lawyer not only doesn’t know anything about analysis or documents and that the signature stamp that he claims is not there is not only there, but detectable, unlike the Obama ‘FORGED’ COLB that appeared on the DailyKOS and Fight the Smears that has no signature stamp and the FactCheck ‘FORGERY’ that has no embossed SEAL or signature stamp.


The image below with the Embossed SEAL, the Date Stamp, and the signature Stamps clearly visibe. The image was inverted to create a negitive of the original above.

The next image is the same COLB with the same inverted image [negitive] with the exposure increased to highlight the details. Note that the embossed SEAL, the Date stamp, and the signature stamp are even more detailed and pronounced.

in the third image we increase the Zero Point and even more details of the embossed SEAL, Date stamp, and signature stamp are evident.

In the forth image we ‘flip’ the image horizontally to be able to read the correct orientation. The date stamped is FEB 19 2003, the birth was on October 4, 1977, the embossed SEAL is evident and correct per the ‘State of Hawaii – Department of Health’ and the signatures stamp is evident.

Again, unlike Obama’s ‘FORGED’ COLB that has no signature stamp that was posted on the DailyKOS and Fight the Smears, and one version posted on FactCheck. This lawyer misrepresents the facts, and is again proven to be the liar that he is.

2 Responses

  1. The other thing, that I won’t get into too much detail about, is the paper thickness. The paper used by the State of Hawaii is very thin. You can see it in your comparison of the other real COLB’s. Every little crease and fold is clearly visible. This also increases the effect of the embossing. In the Factcheck image it is clear that that piece of paper is much thicker. You can see the folds have a large radius as compared to the thinner paper. There also other more subtle indications but it is clear it is standard office copy paper. Which is why the seal had to be photo shopped onto the only picture that shows the seal.

  2. Hey here’s another one with stamp 1962. Great job.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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

%d bloggers like this: