Rectification of Senator Obama's chart

[Ray Murphy]

Hi All,

Now that we have Senator Obama's certified birth certificate, wouldn't
it be a good idea for astrologers to start gathering Event Dates so we
can collectively start using them to see if we can verify his chart
with various rectification methods?

Personally I've always used just about any event that was important on
the day for rectification, and don't agree at all with the common
belief that we should use only very important events.
The reason behind using minor events is that they enable (in some
cases) a computer program to point convincingly towards only a few
possible birth charts.

Ray

[Terri D.]

There still seems to be some controversy regarding the legitimacy of  the Obama  Certificate of Live Birth as was   offered by an anonymous poster on the Daily Kos.

http://www.today.com/external.php?url=h ... th/id-2251

For one thing the "document" in question is not a certified birth certificate.  It states as much at the top of the form.  Also, there is no embossed seal on it which is absolutely necessary for it to be taken as a legal certified copy in any state of the union including Hawaii. 

What the Daily Kos came up with was a questionable Certificate of Live Birth which is not a birth certificate by any legal definition and is not interchangeable with a valid birth certificate for legal purposes.  For example, a Certificate of Live Birth cannot be used for the purposes of obtaining a passport.  

At any rate I'm not putting any faith in the current submission until it can be legally verified which I doubt it can or will be.  As such I see no point in discussing or rectifying a chart that may well be bogus.  YMMV. 

All of my comments are nonpolitical.  I'm not planning to vote for either candidate or party.  

[Ray Murphy]

On Jul 2, 11:15 am, "Terri D." <perspicacious....@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 9:00 AM, Ray Murphy <ray...@chariot.net.au> wrote:
>
> > Hi All,
>
> > Now that we have Senator Obama's certified birth certificate, wouldn't
> > it be a good idea for astrologers to start gathering Event Dates so we
> > can collectively start using them to see if we can verify his chart
> > with various rectification methods?
>
> > Personally I've always used just about any event that was important on
> > the day for rectification, and don't agree at all with the common
> > belief that we should use only very important events.
> > The reason behind using minor events is that they enable (in some
> > cases) a computer program to point convincingly towards only a few
> > possible birth charts.

> There still seems to be some controversy regarding the legitimacy of the
> Obama Certificate of Live Birth as was offered by an anonymous poster on
> the Daily Kos.
>
> http://www.today.com/external.php?url=h...

> th/id-2251<http://www.today.com/external.php?url=http://conservativepolitics.tod...>

>
> For one thing the "document" in question is not a certified birth
> certificate. It states as much at the top of the form. Also, there is no
> embossed seal on it which is absolutely necessary for it to be taken as a
> legal certified copy in any state of the union including Hawaii.

RM: Yes, I saw that and a few other comments somewhere but I don't
believe any of them. No one is pretending that the certificate is a
"certified birth certificate"-- the document itself states that it is
a COPY (of a certification - not of an actual birth certificate). The
document also makes it quite clear that it was produced on a laser
printer - which customarily precludes the use of an embossed seal
(because embossing is bad for laser printers - not that it would be of
any use anyway because the issuing authority was not trying to copy an
actual certificate at all ). That sort of reproduction is quite normal
in many places and they do what that document does - serves as prima
facie evidence of the facts. Courts and government agencies accept
documents like that all the time for some purposes.

> What the Daily Kos came up with was a questionable Certificate of Live Birth
> which is not a birth certificate by any legal definition and is not
> interchangeable with a valid birth certificate for legal purposes. For
> example, a Certificate of Live Birth cannot be used for the purposes of
> obtaining a passport.

They don't have to be interchangeable with actual birth certificates.
They only have to state the facts -- and because they are normally
presented as being official documents, the bearer would be in very big
trouble if they presented such a document (to gain some advantage or
fulfill some government requirement) if it was forged.

> At any rate I'm not putting any faith in the current submission until it can
> be legally verified which I doubt it can or will be. As such I see no point
> in discussing or rectifying a chart that may well be bogus. YMMV.

The Obama people would have denied its authenticity immediately if the
alleged facts contained in it were not true or if the reproduction of
it was in any way tampered with. I think they were the ones who got it
to end speculation anyway.

Wouldn't you think someone would simply get a copy of such a document
for their own birth and compare it.

> All of my comments are nonpolitical. I'm not planning to vote for either
> candidate or party.

I'm still waiting for Hillary to get up.
She's not my preferred leader because the other good ones have dropped
out. Still it's good to see a woman and a Black American doing so
well.

Several years ago I was talking to an Indian American who was involved
in indigenous rights and activism, and visiting Australia. iI asked
him about their lack of participation in American politics. He said
"It's none of our business!" :-))

Ray

[Terri]

On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 10:17 PM, Ray Murphy <ray...@chariot.net.au> wrote:

On Jul 2, 11:15 am, "Terri D." <perspicacious....@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 9:00 AM, Ray Murphy <ray...@chariot.net.au> wrote:
>
> > Hi All,
>
> > Now that we have Senator Obama's certified birth certificate, wouldn't
> > it be a good idea for astrologers to start gathering Event Dates so we
> > can collectively start using them to see if we can verify his chart
> > with various rectification methods?

 

<snip>

> There still seems to be some controversy regarding the legitimacy of  the
> Obama  Certificate of Live Birth as was   offered by an anonymous poster on
> the Daily Kos.
>
> http://www.today.com/external.php?url=h...

> th/id-2251<http://www.today.com/external.php?url=http://conservativepolitics.tod...>

>
> For one thing the "document" in question is not a certified birth
> certificate.  It states as much at the top of the form.  Also, there is no
> embossed seal on it which is absolutely necessary for it to be taken as a
> legal certified copy in any state of the union including Hawaii.

RM: Yes, I saw that and a few other comments somewhere but I don't
believe any of them. No one is pretending that the certificate is a
"certified birth certificate"--

Apparently you are pretending just that or you are being disingenuous now since you opened this entire thread by stating [as seen above]: 

Quote: "Now that we have Senator Obama's certified birth certificate..."   

If that doesn't imply that you are taking this clearly uncertified and very questionable document to be AA birth data, then what did you mean when you wrote it? 

the document itself states that it is
a COPY (of a certification - not of an actual birth certificate).

Since you are not a US citizen I will give you a brief free education on this topic: 

I can go down to my courthouse today and (for a fee) get a copy of my birth certificate but *unless* it is embossed with the legal seal and an authority has signed off on it, it is NOT considered a valid copy for any legal purpose under the sun.
I won't be able to use it to get a passport, a Social Security number, to join the Army, to get married, etc.  Reason being that such an unvalidated copy could easily be falsified. 

So far we have absolutely NO factual proof the Obama  document is genuine, legal, valid, or real.  I don't know how it works in Australia but I am telling you how it works in every single state in the US including Hawaii.  What you "believe" is immaterial in contrast to the plain facts at hand. 
 

The
document also makes it quite clear that it was produced on a laser
printer - which customarily precludes the use of an embossed seal
(because embossing is bad for laser printers -

The article I linked to clearly states that other legal and valid birth certificate copies issued by the State of Hawaii show both the embossed seal and the signature.  All of your excuses fail on their face.  Perhaps you should have read the link rather than relying on your faith in Obama and his people. 

<snip>

> What the Daily Kos came up with was a questionable Certificate of Live Birth
> which is not a birth certificate by any legal definition and is not
> interchangeable with a valid birth certificate for legal purposes.  For
> example, a Certificate of Live Birth cannot be used for the purposes of
> obtaining a passport.

They don't have to be interchangeable with actual birth certificates.
They only have to state the facts --

Maybe that's how it works in Australia, but I'm in the US where  birth certificates and their copies are an every day thing...including what is required to validate them as true and legal.  The problem with copies is that they can be altered and fairly easily in this day of computers and photoshop.  Faking an embossed seal and a government official's signature is not as easy as faking the rest of a document. 

IF you'd actually bothered to read the link, you'd have been linked again to a Photobucket page showing identical "birth certificates" for Obama naming his place of birth as North Korea and other various places.  THAT shows how easy it is for someone to take an existing document and just change key info on it via a computer and a photoshop program.  THAT is why I don't have any reason to accept the Daily Kos' "creation" as anything real or valid at this point in time. 

 

> At any rate I'm not putting any faith in the current submission until it can
> be legally verified which I doubt it can or will be.  As such I see no point
> in discussing or rectifying a chart that may well be bogus.  YMMV.

The Obama people would have denied its authenticity immediately

Now why would they do that IF they were behind the allegedly phony document in the first place?  Think about that one for awhile. 

<snip>

 

Wouldn't you think someone would simply get a copy of such a document
for their own birth and compare it.

You really should have read the link I supplied before making such a foolish statement.  As I said repeatedly above, that  WAS done and Obama's document came up short of valid in every single comparison.  

> All of my comments are nonpolitical.  I'm not planning to vote for either
> candidate or party.

I'm still waiting for Hillary to get up.

What horse do you have in this race? 

She's not my preferred leader because the other good ones have dropped
out. Still it's good to see a woman and a Black American doing so
well.

What a racist and sexist remark that is!  I'm genuinely offended by bigotry of any stripe. 

Several years ago I was talking to an Indian American

who was involved
in indigenous rights and activism, and visiting Australia. iI asked
him about their lack of participation in American politics. He said
"It's none of our business!" :-))

Indian American as in someone who's family ancestry was from India or perhaps you are referring to a Native American in which case it is insensitive and politically incorrect to refer to them as Indians at all. 

FWIW, I fully agree with the man's response. 

[Ray Murphy]

> On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 10:17 PM, Ray Murphy <ray...@chariot.net.au>
> wrote:
>> On Jul 2, 11:15 am, "Terri D." <perspicacious....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 9:00 AM, Ray Murphy
>> > <ray...@chariot.net.au>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Hi All,
>> >
>> > > Now that we have Senator Obama's certified birth certificate,
>> > > wouldn't it be a good idea for astrologers to start gathering
>> > > Event Dates so we can collectively start using them to see

> > >> if we canverify his chart with various rectification methods?

>> <snip>
>>
>> > There still seems to be some controversy regarding the legitimacy
>> > of the Obama Certificate of Live Birth as was offered by an
>> > anonymous poster on the Daily Kos.
>> >

>> > http://www.today.com/external.php?url=hth/id-2251

>> http://www.today.com/external.php?url=http://conservativepolitics.tod...>
>> >
>> > For one thing the "document" in question is not a certified birth
>> > certificate. It states as much at the top of the form. Also,
>> > there is no embossed seal on it which is absolutely necessary
>> > for it to be taken as a legal certified copy in any state of
>> > the union including Hawaii.
>>
>> RM: Yes, I saw that and a few other comments somewhere but I don't
>> believe any of them. No one is pretending that the certificate is a
>> "certified birth certificate"--
>
> Apparently you are pretending just that or you are being
> disingenuous now since you opened this entire thread by stating
[as seen above]:
>
> Quote: "Now that we have Senator Obama's certified birth
> certificate..."

RM: Someone said:
"IT IS NOT A REAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE"
I said (in error):

"No one is pretending that the certificate is a certified birth
certificate"

I should have said:
"No one is pretending that the certificate is a REAL birth
certificate"

> If that doesn't imply that you are taking this clearly uncertified
> and very questionable document to be AA birth data, then what did
> you mean when you wrote it?

RM: It was a mis-typed word.

> the document itself states that it is
>> a COPY (of a certification - not of an actual birth certificate).
>
>
> Since you are not a US citizen I will give you a brief free
> education on this topic:
>
> I can go down to my courthouse today and (for a fee) get a copy
> of my birth certificate

RM: No, you can only get (what is commonly called) a certified
birth certificate - not an actual copy of the original certificate.

> but *unless* it is embossed with the legal seal and an authority
> has signed off on it, it is NOT considered a valid copy for any
> legal purpose under the sun.

RM: In which case it wouldn't be released into in your possession.

> I won't be able to use it to get a passport, a Social Security
> number, to join the Army, to get married, etc. Reason being that
> such an unvalidated copy could easily be falsified.

RM: So could an embossed and signed one for anyone who can make
letterpress printing blocks.

> So far we have absolutely NO factual proof the Obama document is
> genuine, legal, valid, or real. I don't know how it works in
> Australia but I am telling you how it works in every single state
> in the US including Hawaii. What you "believe" is immaterial in
> contrast to the plain facts at hand.

RM: No one has presented the media with a genuine, legal, valid
or real certified copy - nor has the Obama camp implied that
they have. They have simply supplied a scan of what they say is real.
That is MORE than enough for any authorized person to verify
the purported facts that are on the sscan.

I just spotted this new item on a blog:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/06/obama_birth_certificate_myster.html
"I spoke to Ms. Okubo[ Director of Communications
of the State of Hawaii Department of Health]late Wednesday
afternoon, and she said she had seen the version of Obama's
certificate of live birth posted on the sites. While her office
cannot verify the information on a form without the permission
of the certificate holder (Obama), she said "the form is exactly
the same" and it has "all the components of a birth certificate"
record issued by the state. In other words, she sees no reason
to think the version posted on Obama's web site and Daily
Kos is not genuine."

>> The
>> document also makes it quite clear that it was produced on a laser
>> printer - which customarily precludes the use of an embossed seal
>> (because embossing is bad for laser printers -

> The article I linked to clearly states that other legal and valid
> birth certificate copies issued by the State of Hawaii show both the
> embossed seal and the signature. All of your excuses fail on their
> face. Perhaps you should have read the link rather than relying on
> your faith in Obama and his people.

RM: A seal would be hard to pick up with a low grade desktop scanner
unless it was a very deep impression. That link above tells us that
seals are put on afterwards, so Obama's certificate would have the
seal impression on it.

I cannot see anything on those links abour Obama's birth record..
Where is the signature supposed to be?

> <snip>
>
>>
>> > What the Daily Kos came up with was a questionable Certificate of
>> > Live Birth which is not a birth certificate by any legal
>> > definition and is not interchangeable with a valid birth
>> > certificate for legal purposes. For example, a Certificate of Live
>> > Birth cannot be used for the purposes of obtaining a passport.

>> They don't have to be interchangeable with actual birth
>> certificates. They only have to state the facts --

> Maybe that's how it works in Australia, but I'm in the US where
> birth certificates and their copies are an every day
> thing...including what is required to validate them as true and
> legal.

RM: Sometimes a certified copy is not good enough - which is why
they have both kinds.

> The problem with copies is that they can be altered and fairly
> easily in this day of computers and photoshop. Faking an embossed
> seal and a government official's signature is not as easy as faking
> the rest of a document.

RM: As an expert graphic reproducer - doing what Photoshop does since
before Photoshop was thought of, I'm aware of what can be done, and
after having examined it and manipulated the image, it's easy to see
it's not a forgery.

Seals are not hard to make if you know how. I could make a seal
from start to finish while sitting on the edge of a water fountain in
the centre of a city in broad daylight with materials that I could
carry in a small Cornflakes packet.

> IF you'd actually bothered to read the link, you'd have been linked
> again to a Photobucket page showing identical "birth certificates"
> for Obama naming his place of birth as North Korea and other

> variou places. THAT shows how easy it is for someone to take

> an existing document and just change key info on it via a computer
> and a photoshop program. THAT is why I don't have any reason to
> accept the Daily Kos' "creation" as anything real or valid at this
> point in time.

RM: I could tell easily if a real certificate was altered, and as I've
indicated Obama's certificate hasn't been. I noticed the text is
2/100ths of an inch out of square (dropping on the right) but that
is normal because of the rough way laser printers feed paper in.
I also noticed that the green background is out of suare by 7/100ths
of an inch, which indicates it was not produced on a computer
initially.
It has to be old artwork that was reproduced on a process camera
and then printed on a conventional offset press. The logo is shocking
quality, so it must go back a few decades.

>> > At any rate I'm not putting any faith in the current submission
>> > until it can be legally verified which I doubt it can or will be.
>> > As such I see no point in discussing or rectifying a chart that
>> > may well be bogus. YMMV.
>>
>> The Obama people would have denied its authenticity immediately
>
> Now why would they do that IF they were behind the allegedly phony
> document in the first place? Think about that one for awhile.

RM: To avoid imprisonment for fraud and also for withholding evidence
for an indictable offence (while donations were still being
solicited).

> <snip>

>> Wouldn't you think someone would simply get a copy of such a
>> document for their own birth and compare it.
>
> You really should have read the link I supplied before making such a
> foolish statement. As I said repeatedly above, that WAS done and
> Obama's document came up short of valid in every single comparison.

RM: I didn't see anything there.

>> > All of my comments are nonpolitical. I'm not planning to vote
>> > for either candidate or party.
>>
>> I'm still waiting for Hillary to get up.
>
> What horse do you have in this race?

RM: Hillary.

>> She's not my preferred leader because the other good ones have
>> dropped out. Still it's good to see a woman and a Black American
>>doing so well.

> What a racist and sexist remark that is! I'm genuinely offended by
> bigotry of any stripe.

RM: You're not going all "pc" on me are you?
It would be interesting to see if others think that way.

>> Several years ago I was talking to an Indian American
>
>> who was involved
>> in indigenous rights and activism, and visiting Australia. iI asked

>> im about their lack of participation in American politics. He said
>> "It's none of our business!" :-))
>
> Indian American as in someone who's family ancestry was from India
> or perhaps you are referring to a Native American in which case it
> is insensitive and politically incorrect to refer to them as
> Indians at all.

RM: They often call themselves either by their nation's name or
Indian. or sometimes NDN for short on the net. Social workers
and those on the government nipple tend to say "native" and think
they are being respectful. If they cared a bit more they'd ask in some
situatons.

> FWIW, I fully agree with the man's response.

RM: Yes, it could keep the cultures intact for a lot longer.

Ray

[Todd Carnes]

Copied from another group:

From: Rod Suskin <r...@rodsuskin.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 11:52:42 +0200
Subject: [AM] Obama Birth Certificate Confirmed

Hi All

Sorry to keep floggin' this, and thanks for the earlier replies. The  
birth certificate is confirmed as definitely valid - it has been  
posted on an official Obama website fighthesmears.com (linked from his  
BarackObama.com website and listed separately in Time Magazine as an  
official website.)

So Obama was born at 7.24 pm. Let's lay this one to rest.

Rod

Rod Suskin
visit my website www.rodsuskin.com

[Ray Murphy]

On Jul 3, 7:50 am, Todd Carnes <toddcar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Copied from another group:From: Rod Suskin<r...@rodsuskin.com>Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 11:52:42 +0200 Subject: [AM] Obama Birth Certificate Confirmed Hi All Sorry to keep floggin' this, and thanks for the earlier replies. The birth certificate is confirmed as definitely valid - it has been posted on an official Obama website fighthesmears.com (linked from his BarackObama.com website and listed separately in Time Magazine as an official website.) So Obama was born at 7.24 pm. Let's lay this one to rest. Rod Rod Suskin visit my websitewww.rodsuskin.com

RM: Unfortunately the information of that website mentioned above is a
bit old and is what is in dispute, however I have just now resolved
the question myself after comparing it with another copy of a birth
record.

The certificate of Senator Obama's birth details
that is circulating on the internet is NOT a copy
of an actual certificate. It has no laser printer "ink
scatter" and it has no seal or signature on it and
the image has not been scanned.

It is actually an electronic image of the certificate
BEFORE it came into physical existence, i.e
before it was to be printed at the records office
in Hawaii on a laser printer

This image was transmitted to Senator Obama
via email as an attachment and then circulated
on the internet to end the argument about his
birth details.

It is not a forgery and it is NOT a certified record
of his birth details because only a paper document
constitutes a certified copy. It is however an accurate
facsimile of his certificate, sans the seal and signature.

Ray

[Terri]

The website link below is run by pro-Obama factions.  There is nothing...absolutely nothing there that validates the Certificate of Live Birth is a valid or legal birth certificate.  Nothing.  Time Magazine is hardly unbiased in its political leanings so using them to back up a desired conclusion is absurd.  Also, to suggest astrologers put this "to rest" based on such flimsy and biased thinking is absurd.  There is nothing more important in astrology than having good and *real* birth data to base charts on.  Settling for anything less without question only serves to help demean astrology in general. 

Until Obama personally releases a *real* birth certificate or  asks the State of Hawaii to verify a legal copy of his actual birth certificate (they will only do so upon his request) I will not and do not consider this self-serving "document" created by the Daily Kos (a distinctly pro-Obama forum) to be a valid birth certificate.  The time of 7:24 a.m. and the location of Hawaii remain dirty data IMO. 

I realize I will stand alone in this mostly because I don't have a dog in this political race while most astrologers...even those foreign born do have a personal dog in this race.  Objectivity seems to be the real issue in this discussion. 

[Terri]

On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 12:46 AM, Ray Murphy <ray...@chariot.net.au> wrote:

On Jul 3, 7:50 am, Todd Carnes <toddcar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Copied from another group:From: Rod Suskin<r...@rodsuskin.com>Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 11:52:42 +0200 Subject: [AM] Obama Birth Certificate Confirmed Hi All Sorry to keep floggin' this, and thanks for the earlier replies. The birth certificate is confirmed as definitely valid - it has been posted on an official Obama website fighthesmears.com (linked from his BarackObama.com website and listed separately in Time Magazine as an official website.) So Obama was born at 7.24 pm. Let's lay this one to rest. Rod Rod Suskin visit my websitewww.rodsuskin.com

RM: Unfortunately the information of that website mentioned above is a
bit old and is what is in dispute, however I have just now resolved
the question myself after comparing it with another copy of a birth
record.

Well, now that you've "resolved it" and  decided it is "valid" all questioning can cease, right?  To hell with all of the experts (real experts, that is) who examined it and found it suspicious on several levels, eh?  Who are all of them to disagree with your personal conclusions?  Yes, let's all just ignore those pesky experts and blindly follow Ray. 

Hahahaha!  Apparently your balloon never lands.  

<snip>

[Ray Murphy]

On Jul 3, 11:18 pm, Terri <perspicacious....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 12:46 AM, Ray Murphy <ray...@chariot.net.au> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 3, 7:50 am, Todd Carnes <toddcar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Copied from another group:From: Rod Suskin<r...@rodsuskin.com>Date: Wed,
> > 2 Jul 2008 11:52:42 +0200 Subject: [AM] Obama Birth Certificate Confirmed Hi
> > All Sorry to keep floggin' this, and thanks for the earlier replies. The
> > birth certificate is confirmed as definitely valid - it has been posted on
> > an official Obama website fighthesmears.com (linked from his
> > BarackObama.com website and listed separately in Time Magazine as an
> > official website.) So Obama was born at 7.24 pm. Let's lay this one to rest.
> > Rod Rod Suskin visit my websitewww.rodsuskin.com
>
> > RM: Unfortunately the information of that website mentioned above is a
> > bit old and is what is in dispute, however I have just now resolved
> > the question myself after comparing it with another copy of a birth
> > record.

> Well, now that you've "resolved it" and decided it is "valid" all
> questioning can cease, right?

RM: As I indicated earlier, the image of Senator Obama's birth record
is only a bunch of pixels and not a document at all, so you're right -
it could not be used to get a passport, even if a laterally reversed
image of seal was visible and if a laterally reversed image of written
certification by the Registrar for the state of Hawaii was also
visible - together with the rubber stamp above his/her signature. So
I'm not suggesting that the image is "valid" (as a document) because
it is clearly NOT a document.

What I know IS "valid" is the above-mentioned facsimile
representation. That IS what Senator Obama's birth record looks like
each time it is printed on paper with the current technology in use in
the Hawaii birth records office, and it is what Senator Obama's
recently obtained copy of his birth record looks like.

Questioning of the above facts shouldn't be restricted if some people
want to see or hear more evidence.

> To hell with all of the experts (real
> experts, that is) who examined it and found it suspicious on several levels,
> eh? Who are all of them to disagree with your personal conclusions? Yes,
> let's all just ignore those pesky experts and blindly follow Ray.

RM: The experts you are referring to, were not informed enough or
expert enough to see that they were not even examining a scan of a
real (paper) document.

I noticed that a few of the experts got their knickers in a knot about
the apparent evidence of copy/pasting of the text on top of the green
background, because they could see the text sitting in rectangles full
of distorted pixels. In reality they were merely looking at a natural
phenomena which exists when JPEG's (bastardized images) are compressed
excessively. This phenomena can be easy tested by conducting an
experiment with a graphics program like Photoshop.

This distortion never occurs with TIFF's or real GIF's - which is why
I always use GIF's on the net where possible so it won't happen
(TIFF's cannot be used on the net because they are far too big because
of their high quality, so they are excluded from all internet
systems).
Note: GIF's come in 2 types - the real Compuserve (licensed) GIF's and
also the fake unlicensed lower grade ones which are made by others.

Ray

[Ray Murphy]

On Jul 3, 11:10 pm, Terri <perspicacious....@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 5:50 PM, Todd Carnes <toddcar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Copied from another group:
>

> > From: Rod Suskin <r...@rodsuskin.com> <r...@rodsuskin.com>
> > Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 11:52:42 +0200
> > Subject: [AM] Obama Birth Certificate Confirmed
>
> > Hi All
>
> > Sorry to keep floggin' this, and thanks for the earlier replies. The
> > birth certificate is confirmed as definitely valid - it has been
> > posted on an official Obama website fighthesmears.com (linked from his
> > BarackObama.com website and listed separately in Time Magazine as an
> > official website.)
>
> > So Obama was born at 7.24 pm. Let's lay this one to rest.
>
> > Rod
>
> > Rod Suskin
> > visit my websitewww.rodsuskin.com

----------------------
> The website link below [above] is run by pro-Obama factions. There is

> nothing...absolutely nothing there that validates the Certificate of Live
> Birth is a valid or legal birth certificate. Nothing. Time Magazine is
> hardly unbiased in its political leanings so using them to back up a desired
> conclusion is absurd.

RM: When a REAL birth record is presented to anyone who requires it
is, under the law, prima facie evidence that the details shown in it
are true. Such a REAL birth record (from the state of Hawaii at least)
contains on the back of it, a written statement by the Registrar to
state that it is real and accurate, so THAT is the only document that
can be assessed or challenged. There's no way to fully assess low-
grade internet JPEGS which have the critical certification by the
Registrar on the reverse side, totally missing.

Common sense tells us that Senator Obama would not intentionally
circulate an electronic computer image which was purported to be a
facsimile of his birth record if any significant detail was not true.
To do so at this time when funds were being raised for a political
campaign would be a clear-cut case of grand larceny and it would mean
he would be dropped by his party and probably land in jail and not
even get to VOTE in the upcoming election - unless he was on bail
before being imprisoned.

> Also, to suggest astrologers put this "to rest" based
> on such flimsy and biased thinking is absurd. There is nothing more
> important in astrology than having good and *real* birth data to base charts
> on. Settling for anything less without question only serves to help demean
> astrology in general.

RM: The "thinking" is actually about as logical as we can get. People
in situations like Senator Obama would simply NOT circulate false
evidence of his birth record when so many (authorized) people could
easily prove it was not true.

> Until Obama personally releases a *real* birth certificate or asks the
> State of Hawaii to verify a legal copy of his actual birth certificate (they
> will only do so upon his request) I will not and do not consider this
> self-serving "document" created by the Daily Kos (a distinctly pro-Obama
> forum) to be a valid birth certificate. The time of 7:24 a.m. and the
> location of Hawaii remain dirty data IMO.
>
> I realize I will stand alone in this mostly because I don't have a dog in
> this political race while most astrologers...even those foreign born do have
> a personal dog in this race. Objectivity seems to be the real issue in this
> discussion.

RM: This is not the U.S. Supreme Court - where votes tend to be made
according to which political party a judge sides with, rather than
what is actually fair, just, lawful or legal -- it's a clear cut case
of common sense. Senator Obama would not lie about something that
would lead him straight to jail for financial fraud for his own gain.

Ray

[Terri]

On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 5:57 PM, Ray Murphy

RM: This is not the U.S. Supreme Court - where votes tend to be made
according to which political party a judge sides with, rather than
what is actually fair, just, lawful or legal -- it's a clear cut case
of common sense. Senator Obama would not lie about something that
would lead him straight to jail for financial fraud for his own gain.

Ray

You must be very young.  Remember Richard Nixon?  By your reasoning he must have been completely innocent of any and all charges as well simply because your notion of "common sense" dictates it is so.  I suppose that would hold true if Nixon had a D rather than an R behind his name.  Ditto for GWB. 

Astrologers as a rule are unapologetically liberal in their political leanings and this discussion has certainly underscored that sad point.  IMO astrologers should strive to leave their personal feelings (political or otherwise) outside of their astrological analysis which is why I generally hate discussing politics with astrologers or in astrological groups.  They have little to no objectivity when reading political charts.  LOL. 

At any rate, THIS is not a political discussion about your favored candidate.  It is a discussion as to whether or not the document the Daily Kos came up with is a valid birth certificate.  By all legal standards it is not.  Therefore, using the data may be fine so long as we all recognize it is DD (dirty data) until proven otherwise. 

Terri

[LibraLove]

On Jul 4, 10:54 am, LibraLove <snackypud...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> You are so wrong, IMO. It is a certified copy with the date of the
> copy printed on the back as can be seen through the paper on the
> front. It is not an original with embossing and it has been altered to
> cover the date otherwise anyone can take it, manipulate it and do
> identity fraud. This is the copy Obama put on his own site, never mind
> the Daily Kos.

I mean to say the number of the recorded certificate has been blocked
out, not the date. And the date of the copy from the registrars office
is stamped in the back.

>
> Why lie about the time or change it. Joan Quigly is NOT his astrologer
> (she only works for Reaganites;) and there would be no reason to make
> up a birth time.  That is just so over-the-top ludicrous. Like anyone
> but us silly astrologers even care what time he was born.
>
> Then anyone who would put up a complete, high resolution scan of their
> original BC without blacking the number, is an idiot and not safe to
> run a country. It is a AAA rated birth certificate. Now I guess you
> will say he is NOT an American citizen and was born in Liberia or
> something and put up your own copy of the BC. LOL!
>
> LL

[Todd Carnes]

Why get so upset over this?

[LibraLove]

For some reason, the Conservative astrologers have gone into a
"conspiracy" theory stance over that copy of Obama's BC. It is
amazing. People have the most cockamamie ideas about how that BC on
Obama's site is a hoax. Check out Yahoo's PoliticallyIncorrect group
for some amazing reason's why that BC is a hoax. They offer no
explanation of why Obama would put up a BC with the wrong time of
birth on it. LOL It is about as logical as they all were when they
voted the second time for GWBush and would vote for him again if Bush
could get the Constitution changed for more than 2 terms as per the
22nd amendment before he has to leave.

;) LL

On Jul 4, 11:21 am, "Todd Carnes" <toddcar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Why get so upset over this?
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Terri
>   To: alt-astrolo...@googlegroups.com
>   Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 9:10 AM
>   Subject: Re: Rectification of Senator Obama's chart
>
>   The website link below is run by pro-Obama factions.  There is nothing...absolutely nothing there that validates the Certificate of Live Birth is a valid or legal birth certificate.  Nothing.  Time Magazine is hardly unbiased in its political leanings so using them to back up a desired conclusion is absurd.  Also, to suggest astrologers put this "to rest" based on such flimsy and biased thinking is absurd.  There is nothing more important in astrology than having good and *real* birth data to base charts on.  Settling for anything less without question only serves to help demean astrology in general.  
>
>   Until Obama personally releases a *real* birth certificate or  asks the State of Hawaii to verify a legal copy of his actual birth certificate (they will only do so upon his request) I will not and do not consider this self-serving "document" created by the Daily Kos (a distinctly pro-Obama forum) to be a valid birth certificate.  The time of 7:24 a.m. and the location of Hawaii remain dirty data IMO.  
>
>   I realize I will stand alone in this mostly because I don't have a dog in this political race while most astrologers...even those foreign born do have a personal dog in this race.  Objectivity seems to be the real issue in this discussion.  
>

[Terri]

On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 10:54 AM, LibraLove <snacky...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Why lie about the time or change it. Joan Quigly is NOT his astrologer
(she only works for Reaganites;)

What sort of biased comment is that?  Where's your tolerance?  Anyway, thank you for proving true my prior comment about the political liberal leanings of astrologers as a group.  

As I said several times before in this thread, this discussion is about the validity of the data supplied *for* Obama by an anonymous source on the Daily Kos which Obama then picked up and put on his political website.  A reasonable person would question the order of that transaction. 

More importantly, to any astrologer valid birth data *should* matter a great deal. If that isn't important to astrologers then nothing is.
 

and there would be no reason to make
up a birth time.  That is just so over-the-top ludicrous. Like anyone
but us silly astrologers even care what time he was born.

The other people questioning his "document" have no interest in his birth time.  They question his PLACE of birth and whether or not the claim to the State of Hawaii is valid. 

Perhaps Obama has a very real and important reason to make up his PLACE of birth.  That piece of information should matter to Americans as a whole, whether they care about his time of birth or not. 

Again for the purposes of this discussion I consider Obama's birth data to be Dirty Data.  I will use his Dirty Data to delineate his charts but I will always keep in mind the data may be false and will always mention it when when referring to his chart.  That is, until he provides a certified copy of his birth certificate, embossed seal, authorized signature and all.  Of course, I don't believe Obama can do that or else he'd have already done so.  Logic dictates as much. 

Other than that, I'm not voting for Obama or for McCain so I have no dog in this political race.  I wish more astrologers could say the same.  Then perhaps we could objectively discuss political charts rather than personal politics and wishful thinking. 

Terri

[Terri]

On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 11:21 AM, Todd Carnes <toddc...@gmail.com> wrote:

Why get so upset over this?

Who's upset?  Not me.  I'm using my brains, not my feelings in this discussion.  One of the great benefits of not being in love with either candidate. 

Back to your question.  The reason  why this is so important to me has to do with astrology--not politics.  The basis of nearly all astrology is the chart.  If the data for the chart is wrong or false, then so too will be the information derived from the chart.  It's elementary. 

Terri

[Ray Murphy]

On Jul 5, 12:31 am, Terri <perspicacious....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 5:57 PM, Ray Murphy
>

> > RM: This is not the U.S. Supreme Court - where votes tend to be made
> > according to which political party a judge sides with, rather than
> > what is actually fair, just, lawful or legal -- it's a clear cut case
> > of common sense. Senator Obama would not lie about something that
> > would lead him straight to jail for financial fraud for his own gain.
>
>

> You must be very young. Remember Richard Nixon? By your reasoning he must
> have been completely innocent of any and all charges as well simply because
> your notion of "common sense" dictates it is so. I suppose that would hold
> true if Nixon had a D rather than an R behind his name. Ditto for GWB.

RM: In the case of Nixon, if it was 1972 again, and he knew evidence
could easily be obtained to contradict any story he may present, he
would not have presented it.
Aside from that, it always had me stumped why they didn't push the
national security issue and admit the Watergate break-in after they
saw the writing on the wall, because if national security was at risk
a small-time burglary to "stop the leaks" is a miniscule thing
compared to the other things that are done legally in the name of
national security.
I'm referring to REAL national security issues here - not political
party security.

> Astrologers as a rule are unapologetically liberal in their political
> leanings and this discussion has certainly underscored that sad point.

RM: Political preference (in the U.S. at least) seem to have been that
way during the last 7 or 8 years that I know of, but it may simply be
a case of some astrologers abandoning a political party which is
currently being run by hoodlums with little regard for the law,
however if the U.S. was *really* in trouble (instead of creating it)
then gunslinger-politicians like that would be a great asset to the
nation.

None of that current bias by U.S. and Australian astrologers has got
anything to do with their ability to make common-sense judgements
about the probable authenticity of the *content* of a birth record.
Common sense also tells us that people in high places with clearance
to read any computer file, already know the facts and if Senator Obama
was not born in Hawaii they would expose it in one way or another.

> IMO
> astrologers should strive to leave their personal feelings (political or
> otherwise) outside of their astrological analysis which is why I generally
> hate discussing politics with astrologers or in astrological groups. They
> have little to no objectivity when reading political charts. LOL.

RM: That's a good topic for another thread.

> At any rate, THIS is not a political discussion about your favored
> candidate.

RM: I didn't make it one. I was referring to the U.S. Supreme Court
(under ANY Administration) having a tendency to vote along political
lines instead of doing their job. As a matter of interest, it seems to
be a non-issue in Australia -- judges merely do their job - based on
law, precedent and solid argument.

> It is a discussion as to whether or not the document the Daily
> Kos came up with is a valid birth certificate. By all legal standards it is
> not. Therefore, using the data may be fine so long as we all recognize it
> is DD (dirty data) until proven otherwise.

RM: The birth record that the blogger "came up with" was emailed to
him by the Obama campaign people after he made a request for it. My
own comparison with it and the official copy on the Obama site shows
that it is identical, but at a higher resolution. I found that when
the official version was increased to 300 ppi (from 72 ppi) and one is
laid on top of the other they are a perfect match.

It seems also that the subsequent "forgeries" were simply derivatives
of the higher quality (official) images that Kos used.

> Terri

Ray

[Ray Murphy]

RM: I've started to assemble all the event dates I can find for the
rectification of Senator Obama's chart and noticed that 6th June 2007
was only a few months before he announced his nomination on 2nd
October 2007. I've been wondering if he obtained it to present to his
own political party prior to his nomination to prove that he was
eligible.

Ray

[Ray Murphy]

On Jul 5, 8:57 am, LibraLove <snackypud...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 4, 11:21 am, "Todd Carnes" <toddcar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Why get so upset over this?

> For some reason, the Conservative astrologers have gone into a
> "conspiracy" theory stance over that copy of Obama's BC. It is
> amazing. People have the most cockamamie ideas about how that BC on
> Obama's site is a hoax. Check out Yahoo's PoliticallyIncorrect group
> for some amazing reason's why that BC is a hoax. They offer no
> explanation of why Obama would put up a BC with the wrong time of
> birth on it. LOL It is about as logical as they all were when they
> voted the second time for GWBush and would vote for him again if Bush
> could get the Constitution changed for more than 2 terms as per the
> 22nd amendment before he has to leave.
>
> ;) LL

RM: I can see where this is all going. After Senator Obama's birth
record is proved to be valid, the next argument will be that Hawaii
allows late birth registrations - and therefore he could have been
registered years later, so people will want to see the *original
handwritten certificate" -- even though the Extract shows that his
birth was officially placed in the records 4 days later on 8th August,
1961.

Then of course we have the issue of the validity of Hawaii as a state
-- and is it worth returning Hawaii to it's owners just to get Obama
out of the race?

Ray

[Ray Murphy]

On Jul 5, 10:38 am, Terri <perspicacious....@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 11:21 AM, Todd Carnes <toddcar...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Why get so upset over this?
>
> Who's upset? Not me. I'm using my brains, not my feelings in this
> discussion. One of the great benefits of not being in love with either
> candidate.

RM: Ok, if we rely totally on brain power here - let's get this bit
sorted out so there's no misunderstandings - is your brain telling you
that Senator Obama may not have presented the correct date, place and
time of his birth?

> Back to your question. The reason why this is so important to me has to do
> with astrology--not politics. The basis of nearly all astrology is the
> chart. If the data for the chart is wrong or false, then so too will be the
> information derived from the chart. It's elementary.
>
> Terri

RM: The question seems more important to me than anyone else right
now, because I'm the only one trying to get event dates so we can
rectify (or verify) his chart. As a matter of interest, the Jigsaw
research module for rectification keeps throwing up his birth time +/-
a few mins (amongst a bunch of others) as a possible birth time. That
has been the case as I keep adding more events, The BT is not rating
highly, but at least it's in the running.

I haven't begun to use my own rectification programs yet because
there's too few dates to get a good lead.

Ray

[LibraLove]

On Jul 4, 11:01 pm, Ray Murphy <ray...@chariot.net.au> wrote:
> On Jul 5, 10:38 am, Terri <perspicacious....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 11:21 AM, Todd Carnes <toddcar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>  Why get so upset over this?
>
> > Who's upset?  Not me.  I'm using my brains, not my feelings in this
> > discussion.  One of the great benefits of not being in love with either
> > candidate.

I see. So some people's "feelings" are allowing them to accept a
certified copy of a person's birth certificate with the exact time
included, when it is obviously dirty data (DD) according to your
"feelings"?

The date/time works perfectly for his SR for his marriage and other
important dates I have tried with it like his marriage.

I have never seen astrologers try to rectify a BC with an exact time
on it -- maybe if it was an even hour/00 minutes or half hour, but
7:24 pm? Pulease!

>
> RM: Ok, if we rely totally on brain power here - let's get this bit
> sorted out so there's no misunderstandings - is your brain telling you
> that Senator Obama may not have presented the correct date, place and
> time of his birth?
>
> > Back to your question.  The reason  why this is so important to me has to do
> > with astrology--not politics.  The basis of nearly all astrology is the
> > chart.  If the data for the chart is wrong or false, then so too will be the
> > information derived from the chart.  It's elementary.

Really? You're certain of that.

LOL! LL

[Ray Murphy]

On Jul 5, 1:30 pm, LibraLove <snackypud...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 4, 11:01 pm, Ray Murphy <ray...@chariot.net.au> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 5, 10:38 am, Terri <perspicacious....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 11:21 AM, Todd Carnes <toddcar...@gmail.com> wrote:

[...]

> The date/time works perfectly for his SR for his marriage and other
> important dates I have tried with it like his marriage.
>
> I have never seen astrologers try to rectify a BC with an exact time
> on it -- maybe if it was an even hour/00 minutes or half hour, but
> 7:24 pm? Pulease!

RM: All important charts should be verified if we have time -- and
rectification is not about rectifying the birth TIME but the CHART
which can often be slightly different from the recorded BT chart.

Ray

[Todd Carnes]

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Terri
> To: alt-astrolo...@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Friday, July 04, 2008 8:38 PM
> Subject: Re: Rectification of Senator Obama's chart
>

>> On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 11:21 AM, Todd Carnes <toddc...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Why get so upset over this?

I guess I should have made myself more clear on this. Although I was
replying to your post, what I should have asked is "Why is EVERYONE getting
so upset about this? (Not just you.)

[snip]

> Back to your question. The reason why this is so important to me has to
> do
> with astrology--not politics. The basis of nearly all astrology is the
> chart.
> If the data for the chart is wrong or false, then so too will be the
> information
> derived from the chart. It's elementary.

I agree. The chart's Rodden Rating should be considered DD. There's too much
controversy to give it any other rating.

I don't agree that the Obama camp is necessarily to blame for this
confusion. I do believe, however, that it would be really easy for them to
clear this up if they really wanted to....Apparently, they don't want to.

Todd

[LibraLove]

On Jul 5, 10:28 am, "Todd Carnes" <toddcar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Terri
> > To: alt-astrolo...@googlegroups.com
> > Sent: Friday, July 04, 2008 8:38 PM
> > Subject: Re: Rectification of Senator Obama's chart
>

> >> On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 11:21 AM, Todd Carnes <toddcar...@gmail.com>

> >> wrote:
>
> >> Why get so upset over this?
>
> I guess I should have made myself more clear on this. Although I was
> replying to your post, what I should have asked is "Why is EVERYONE getting
> so upset about this? (Not just you.)
>
> [snip]
>
> > Back to your question.  The reason  why this is so important to me has to
> > do
> > with astrology--not politics.  The basis of nearly all astrology is the
> > chart.
> > If the data for the chart is wrong or false, then so too will be the
> > information
> > derived from the chart.  It's elementary.
>
> I agree. The chart's Rodden Rating should be considered DD. There's too much
> controversy to give it any other rating.
>
> I don't agree that the Obama camp is necessarily to blame for this
> confusion. I do believe, however, that it would be really easy for them to
> clear this up if they really wanted to....Apparently, they don't want to.
>

They already have, Todd. The Obama camp put up a certified copy of
Obama's original BC on his web site with time, date and place.

What do you people want anyway? Lois Rodden's group uses such BC
copies as AA all the time. The only controversy is with a bunch of
numbskulls in the astrological community. They need to come up with
some reason WHY anyone (Obama or not) would bother to put up a BC with
a wrong time on it. I am so sick of the people on every group who
refuse to acknowledge a certified copy supplied by the candidate. What
do they think the motive would be to change anything on that copy?
Obama could care less about astrology or how the time might change his
personality or events. Like most people, he is just humoring us to
supply what we have demanded -- a copy of his BC. Geez...

Do any of these fools ever post any chart data or say why that chart
does not work with his events or marriage. No. they are just whiners
about the certificate being a fake with no reason why; it's just their
"feelings".

LL

> Todd

[Ray Murphy]

RM: The problem didn't stem from astrologers, but from people with
political interests who didn't *want* Obama to have been a citizen, or
if it turned out that he was, then they wanted to create doubt that he
*really* was. They don't care about the birth time but whether he was
born in the U.S. or Kenya.

It seems to have escaped them that Barack Obama's mother and
Kenyan father were both at University in Hawaii to study - NOT
to START studying and then shoot back to Kenya after she turned
18 on 27th Nov 1960 to have baby Barack when she was 18.7 yrs
old on 4th August 1961 and then shoot back to Hawaii to resume
their studies.

Barack Obama Senior won a scholarship to go to Hawaii to help
improve his whole future, so it would make no sense to return to
Kenya for a short time with a pregnant wife.

There are many other supposed anomalies being mentioned on the
blogs, but that's the main issue.

Ray

[Todd Carnes]

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: LibraLove
> To: All Astrology Moderated
> Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2008 5:04 PM
> Subject: Re: Rectification of Senator Obama's chart
>

> On Jul 5, 10:28 am, "Todd Carnes" <toddcar...@gmail.com> wrote:

[snip]

> > I don't agree that the Obama camp is necessarily to blame for this
> > confusion. I do believe, however, that it would be really easy for them
> > to
> > clear this up if they really wanted to....Apparently, they don't want
> > to.
> >
>
> They already have, Todd. The Obama camp put up a certified copy of
> Obama's original BC on his web site with time, date and place.

My mistake. From everything that'd been said, I was under the impression
that this was NOT a certified copy of his BC.

Todd

[LibraLove]

The BC is not the original with the embossed seal. It is a clerk
stamped copy of the BC. The number of the original recorded
certificate has been blanked out for privacy (identity theft)
purposes. No one in their right mind would put up a high resolution
original with certificate number intact -- they had to black out
something or anyone could use it for ID. Blacking out anything else
would make it worthless for the purposes for which it was put up on
the Obama site.

Also most people have lost the original and will only get a copy when
they write to the Bureau of Vital Statistics of the state where they
are born. There are also frequently two BCs recorded -- one has
medical info, number of siblings and exact time of birth and the other
has just the name, birth date and place.

Each state has a bit of a different way of handling this vital
statistic. This is something that is strictly up to the state to
decide how to handle BC's. I know because I used to have a detailed
list of all the addresses of the Bureau's of Vital Stats and costs of
copies for client's who wanted to try to get their birthtime.

Some send what is called a 'certified' copy, some just send a copy
(with clerk stamp on the back) and without the embossed seal. But at
this point, with McCain being born on leased Panamanian soil and not
"native born" if you get right down to it, who cares about Obama's. It
seems real enough for me and it works with all the dates I have tried
against it. I will go with 9:24 pm on the date and place he has always
used since his birth for ID from grammar school and into Harvard.

The conspiracy theorists need to find a better game elsewhere.

LL


> Todd

[Ray Murphy]

RM: See this new blog "The Obama “Forged Birth Certificate” Myth Is
Busted".
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/5626

See the 2 ROUGH samples that I've just uploaded to this group's Files
section. They show where the seal is and where the short certification
by the Registrar is. They correspond in size with a higher grade scan
that is on the net.

http://alt-astrology-moderated.googlegroups.com/web/SEAL%20VISIBLE.gif?hl=en&gda=PMh2mEQAAABpcgcOAOoQ6L-pkt7GztMOF1j8I9UTDVgu6v6Q49TpU-G2sVwGLF-i21hNBTL4y6OejvCOuvgOwpFdZ4j9NAvOvTDdAvlCq3b5inRhRDDNqA&gsc=1vxz8QsAAAAaAY7-fsJxlV1mg1PYI8oc

So it turns out the conspiracy theorists were wrong. Kos used a scan
which had certification on the back.


Ray

[Ray Murphy]

> Busted".http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/5626

>
> See the 2 ROUGH samples that I've just uploaded to this group's Files
> section. They show where the seal is and where the short certification
> by the Registrar is. They correspond in size with a higher grade scan
> that is on the net.
>

> http://alt-astrology-moderated.googlegroups.com/web/SEAL%20VISIBLE.gi...

>
> So it turns out the conspiracy theorists were wrong. Kos used a scan
> which had certification on the back.

[EXTRA]

RM: Admission by Jay McKinnon that he started the "forgery" joke (by
manipulating the JPEG which was sent to Kos's blog by the Obama team):

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/7/5/15947/95667/125/547039
------------------------------------------------------------
Opendna: Where did you get the images?

"Jay McKinnon: I copied the birth certificate
from the front page of DailyKos and edited
them in Microsoft Paint."
------------------------------------------------------------

Ray

[Ray Murphy]

> *really* was. [.......]

RM: Now that the forgery issue has been put to rest, they've moved to
another ridiculous claim -- that Obama's mother wasn't in the U.S.
long enough.

Ray

http://dancingfromgenesis.wordpress.com/2008/07/06/barack-obamas-official-hidden-mysterious-hawaii-birth-certificate-could-prove-show-demonstrate-document-ineligibility-of-obama-candidacy-showing-hes-not-a-natural-born-citizen-of-the-united-states/

Ray

[Ray Murphy]

[UPDATE]

See this article on 'Politifact' website:
http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/

See also the copies of Obama's marriage and drivers license record.

Ray