View Full Version : Joel Skousen's analysis on release of new birth certificate

04-30-2011, 03:00 PM
Very interesting arguments.

via Shinbone Star (http://ralstonstar.blogspot.com/2011/04/at-last-skousen-exposes-birth.html):

World Affairs Brief, April 29, 2011 Commentary and Insights on a Troubled World. Copyright Joel Skousen. Partial quotations with attribution permitted. Cite source as Joel Skousen's World Affairs Brief (http://www.worldaffairsbrief.com)


President Barack Obama went before the country in a nationally televised press conference to announce proof that he was born in Hawaii, supposedly putting to rest two and a half years of controversy over conspiracy claims that he was born in Kenya, and not eligible to be president. As Obama proudly displayed a photographic image of his Hawaiian Birth Certificate, the ear to ear smirk on his face should have tipped off the viewers that they were observing a not-so-carefully-crafted hoax. In fact, even a cursory analysis by amateur Photoshop users shows that this was a computer generated image with several alterations. Worse, the various layers of the document were still visible when downloaded and opened in Photoshop or Adobe Illustrator. The forgers at the White House had forgotten to flatten (merge) all the layers of the creation into a single layer before publishing it, allowing the fraud to be easily viewed and dissected.

The White House has got to be scrambling now that even professional Photoshop experts agree the document was Photoshopped. The mainstream captive press is absolutely in lock step in presenting the view that the "controversy is over." This huge wave of propaganda in favor of this forged certificate almost guarantees that only the savviest birthers will stay on board.

Naturally, the intellectually challenged billionaire and would-be-president Donald Trump was snookered by the fraud--or, more probably, he was part of it. He loudly crowed on one national interview after another how "proud he was of himself" for having forced the President to finally show his birth certificate.

Trump must know by now about the forgery evidence, but he won't return to the birther challenge. Some have even wondered if Trump was part of the set up to get this issue before the public and then get it "resolved." Let's review the evidence that this document was computer generated:

1) The electronic image displayed by the White House still has 8 separate layers present, and most of those layers when clicked on and off reveal an alteration in a portion of the document. A simple unaltered scan of a true document would not have more than one layer.

2) The green safety paper imprint is more distinct outside the text area than inside. That is because of all the separate overlying layers of text which when turned on make the underlying layer of safety paper color slightly less distinct.

3) There are no chromatic color aberrations around the edges of typed letters as there are with a scanned document, which this document claims to be. When you zoom in electronically on any scanned document, you get slight color separations on opposite edges of any letter--a bluish hue on one side and a pinkish hue on another, that is visible under high magnification. This was not present on the Obama certificate, indicating that it was not scanned but computer generated.

4) The White House document shows the document in a binder, which explains the increase shading on one edge as the bound volume is opened and pressed against the scanner plate. The alteration obviously started with a scan of some birth certificate in a binder but the text was changed during computer manipulation. Copies of real birth certificates are never made while in the binder. They are always removed and scanned flat.

5) The final letter on the registration number and the year of birth (1961) is clearly different than the others, and is found on a separate electronic layer from the rest of the numbers--indicating that they made a copy of some birth certificate and changed the numbers. The reason for this may be that the White House forgers found a nameless stillborn in the registry with that number, and decided to use it. It was probably the only one they could steal without conflicting with a known person. That is why two twins born after the supposed Obama birth ended up with a lower birth registration, even though they were born after the Obama claimed birth.

6) Half of the parent's signature was altered and added on a different software layer--also proof of electronic forgery.

7) The use of the word "African" instead of Negro or Black was never used during that time.

You have to watch the video of experts clicking the layers on and off to see how each layer relates to a particular detail of the forger, and why debunkers can't explain these away:

A. http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/1089.html

B. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNJfdKClbH4

C. Infowars.com http://www.infowars.com/video-proof-obama-birth-certificate-a-fraud/

There is already a quick movement byanti-conspiracy shills to debunk, as noted by infowars.com, but the attempts are very feeble: "'The original birth certificate was probably in a 'negative' form [meaning Photostatic copying], and someone at the White House took it upon themselves to doctor it up so the form can be readable,' writes Joe Brooks for Wireupdate."

This is bogus. It is true that Hawaii used to put out photostat copies for certificates, but they are negative prints that can be photographed and turned back into positive prints (but only in B & W)--no need to recreate them in Photoshop unless you want it in color or want to alter it. Besides the photostat format doesn't match this certificate, and registry clerks never made photostats while in a bound book, so this purported certificate cannot have originated from an old photostat copy--which Hawaii doesn't do anymore.

Even the supposedly conservative National Review (created by globalist Skull and Bones member William F. Buckley) is working to create false excuses for the alternations: "Nathan Goulding, writing for the National Review, tells us anybody can open the White House released PDF in Illustrator and it will break out into layers. 'I've confirmed that scanning an image, converting it to a PDF, optimizing that PDF, and then opening it up in Illustrator, does in fact create layers similar to what is seen in the birth certificate PDF. You can try it yourself at home,' he writes."

He's wrong. The software does NOT create layers in the conversion process (at least not that have any content to them). It merely reveals layers that someone else created. And when you look at them, it is clear the layers have everything to do with changing certain digits or signatures that are specific to those layers. Any debunker who doesn't actually analyze what is on each layer is a shill for government.

THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE: The following analysis is unique to the World Affairs Brief. Everyone else has missed this or been led astray by not understanding it. In order to make this fraud work, the media had to alter the description of the two types of birth certificates produced in Hawaii and indicate falsely that one is a short form of another longer form.

Even Jerome Corsi of World Net Daily, who has led the charge against Obama's origin in Hawaii, fell for this false idea and kept repeating it column after column--that the Certification of Live Birth which the Obama campaign had previously showed and claimed was his birth certificate was a "short form" of the longer Certificate of Live Birth. The Certificate of Live Birth is longer because it is created by a hospital and signed by the attending doctor. Hence, he and other birthers mistakenly kept demanding to see the "long form," which knowingly or unknowingly set up conservatives to receive the "long form" fraud we are dealing with this week.

However, the Certification form has never been a short form of anything. It is an entirely different type of birth certificate altogether--used exclusively for births outside of a hospital where no doctor or witnesses are present. In fact, no person who has a Certification of Live Birth can possible have the hospital generated type as well--because if they were born in a hospital, they never would have had the Certification of Live Birth form in the first place. The fact that Obama is now claiming to have both is an indication of fraud. These are either/or types of certification--mutually exclusive! No one can have both. The Certification is not a certification of a long-form birth certificate, but a certification of a birth outside the hospital system.

The Certification of Live Birth is what Obama's mother got because no witnesses were necessary. Only the parent need certify that a birth occurred. That is precisely what Obama's mother did to fraudulently claim that Obama was born in Hawaii. Many others have used Hawaii as a path to citizenship for just the same reason.

Ignorance of this single issue that I just addressed is causing many conservatives to walk away and say, "I guess I was wrong." Virtually every legal complaint made to the courts about forcing Obama to produce his "long form" Birth Certificate is now moot--legally dead because they didn't understand that there is no relationship at all between the two forms of birth certificates in Hawaii. I repeat: They are mutually exclusive and used for two different types of birth.

Now, what about that pesky notice in the newspaper announcing his birth several days later? TV commentator Anderson Cooper has been at the forefront attacking those who challenge Obama's birth in Hawaii and he uses the fact that a birth announcement appeared in two Honolulu newspapers as proof. Anderson repeatedly made the claim that only hospitals or the Office of Birth Registrations can generate those notices in the newspaper. That is absolutely false even though he kept repeating it over and over. There were hundreds of babies born to Hawaiian midwives and Hawaii is very sensitive about making sure the native Hawaiians have every right to legal birth registration as those in a hospital setting. It is inconceivable that newspapers would be able to reject a private party announcement and not get a firestorm of legal action from the state of Hawaii.

Conveniently for the forgers, Dr. David Sinclair, the supposed attending physician is dead. I'm sure that is why they chose his name for the certificate. It wasn't hard for the media to get his wife to agree that the signature was her husband's. It would be hard for any lay person to detect an electronic copy of an original signature--because it is a copy of something real. The family was so ecstatic about the notoriety of their husband and father supposedly delivering a president, they failed to conceive they were being used.

Of course none of this newfound transparency by Obama answers why he spent over $2 million in legal fees to keep from revealing a hospital generated birth certificate, if it existed during this long dispute.

Now that the birth certificate has been forged, the White House team may have to invent hospital records for Stanley Ann Dunham who never was a patient at Kapi'olani hospital in 1961. Now that Obama has appeared to be open about his birth, he should have no problem with allowing the hospital to release his records, if they exist. Don't hold your breath.
Neither is it likely that Obama will authorize the opening of his school records. There is a lot to keep hidden and any number of records would reveal not only his long-time foreign status as a student, but questions about grades and advancement to Harvard's Law Review without so much as a published article on law. This whole exercise in forgery was done so as to ridicule anyone who wishes to demand further proof.

Meanwhile the Kenyan birth claims won't go away, despite it being authenticated under much more scrutiny than the media offer on the Hawaii certificate. The owner, Lucas Smith, claims he traveled to Kenya in February and paid off a military officer in order to obtain a copy of the birth record from Coast General Hospital in Mombasa. His declaration is signed under penalty of perjury in a court case with lawyer Orly Taiz and certifies that the hospital administrator signed and sealed the copy, and indicates Obama's birth in Africa on Aug. 4, 1961, at 7:24 p.m.

There are many other important people in Kenya, including the former Ambassador to the US who have knowledge of his birth there, but their testimony has been powerfully suppressed under pressure from the US government. You can review all of the Kenyan documents that are not believed to be forgeries here: http://www.teapartyofmississippi.com/index.php/component/content/article/156-obamas-kenyan-birth-records.html

Quite interesting.