There have been 2 different electronic images of Obama's "Certification
Of Live Birth"
(COLB) posted on the Internet at four different websites. The first image, "Version
1.0," appears to have originated from inside the Obama campaign
and FAXed to PolitiFact and the Daily Kos.
Version 1.0 -- On June 12, 2008, the Obama
sent an e-mail to
a copy of the senator's "birth certificate" as an
Version 1.0 -- On the same day, the
Kos received a copy.
Kos states on the Daily Kos web page that introduced Obama's
COLB that the electronic image came from the Obama campaign.
Version 1.0 -- On June 16th,
copy ( ).
also posted on the Obama website,
FightTheSmears.com. They were proud of
their Photoshop skills, after all.
This was a coordinated marketing campaign conducted
by a small group of players. They were all on board.
They were a team.
It was their job to sell a "native
born" citizen as a "natural born" citizen, who didn't have a
normal birth certificate, to the American People, and they used
the COLB to do it.
Immediately, the electronic document came under
heavy fire as a forgery or counterfeit. A Google search of
-- Obama COLB Photoshop
-- returns 244,000 hits. The list
of obvious flaws is quite extraordinary:
Certification Number -- Redacted
Issue Date -- June 6, 2007
Father's Name -- misspelled
Father's Race --
African (not a race)
Filed -- not Accepted
No state seal
No signature block
No folds from the mailing
And the document
counterfeit upon close examination. Just do a visual
COLB to a "Certificate of Live Birth" -- the formal,
long-form document that everybody in America is familiar with.
Version 2.0 --
When sharp-eyed cynics said, "Hey! Where's the state
seal?" Where's the signature block?" The Obama
campaign responded. They're tenacious.
They hung in there, and finally got it right. They folded
the document (like it was mailed). The made the black
stuff over the certification number go away. They added
the state seal, and signature block. Mirabile visu!!
A wonder to behold! Obama's bogus COLB
Around August 21,
2008, FactCheck.org staffers
had a meeting
at Obama campaign
headquarters. FactCheck.org describes that event:
FactCheck.org staffers have now seen,
touched, examined and photographed the original birth
certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the
requirements from the State Department for proving U.S.
citizenship. Claims that the document lacks a raised
seal or a signature are false. We have posted
high-resolution photographs of the document as "supporting
documents" to this article. Our conclusion: Obama was
born in the U.S.A. just as he has always said.
Also, if you missed it, meet
the only 2 people
examine the Factcheck.org COLB(s), and one of them wasn't Bill
O'Reilly or Anderson Cooper, and they have absolutely no
credentials as forensic document examiners.
That's the thing with Obama. Someone uncovers
a falsehood, and the story changes, and changes, and changes.
Sooner or later they get it right, and it's no big deal.
And, you're the one that's crazy!
And remember the wisdom of Hawaii Health Department Communications
Officer, Janice Okubo, who
, "I don't know that it's possible for us to even say
beyond a doubt what the image on the site represents."
According to the FactCheck.org article,
Jess Henig and Joe Miller
were given access to Obama's COLB in August, 2008. However
the date/time stamp
digitally recorded when the photo of the COLB was taken
indicates the photo was taken March 12, 2008, and the time is
recorded as 22:41:37 or 10:41 p.m. Other data available from
the EXIF data indicates the camera used was a Canon PowerShot A570IS. It was in Auto mode with
red-eye reduction mode on, the flash did not fire during the photo, the
exposure time was 1/60th (relatively slow), and the F-stop (aperture)
While these values are shown in the EXIF data, we know
they were automatically selected by the camera and not the photographer
because we can also see the camera was set to full auto mode -- simply
point and shoot. The result was a slightly blurred, overexposed photo of
printed, greenish-tint document.
In the photo, a document is
being held up to a light source. The light source is behind the
photographer since the shadow of his arm is over the document. The light
source is also the predominant lighting since the background is dark and
the overhead office lights are off in the background. Analysis of the
background finds: a) the overhead office lights off, and b) no natural
light coming in from the large windows that can be seen. The conclusion
is that that photo was taken at night. Was it at 10:41 p.m.? There is
nothing in the photo to contradict that digitally-captured time.
So if Henig and
Miller, according to FactCheck.org, took those photos in August,
2008, how come the EXIF data documents the photos were taken in
I'll tell you how. The entire
FactCheck.org story is a crock!