Will Release Of Obama's Purported Birth Certificate Give Rise To New "Certer" Movement?

This morning’s White House release of President Barack Obama’s long form birth certificate will, of course, do little to derail the “birther” movement, which will now analyze the document with the kind of verve previously directed toward those Texas Air National Guard memos faxed to CBS from that Kinko’s in Abilene.

So here’s a few nutty points about the birth certificate sure to be seized upon by the nonbelievers:

• If the original document was in a bound volume (as reflected by the curvature of the left hand side of the certificate), how can the green patterned background of the document's safety paper be so seamless?

• Why, if Obama was born on August 4, 1961, was the “Date Accepted by Local Reg.” four days later on August 8, 1961?

• What is the significance of the smudges in the box containing the name of the reported attendant?

• David A. Sinclair, the M.D. who purportedly signed the document, died nearly eight years ago at age 81. So he is conveniently unavailable to answer questions about Obama’s reported birth.

• In the “This Birth” box there are two mysterious Xs above “Twin” and “Triplet.” Is there a sibling or two unaccounted for?

• What is the significance of the mysterious numbers, seen vertically, on the document’s right side?

• Finally, the “Signature of Local Registrar” in box 21 may be a desperate attempt at establishing the document’s Hawaiian authenticity. Note to forgers: It is spelled “Ukulele.”

Comments (1500)

The "Attendant" shows "MD" checked, so that's the doctor. Weight, length? Who knows? Hawaii has consistently publicly maintained there was NO OTHER DOCUMENT than the one Obama already released during the campaign. Why did Hawaii lie, and is Hawaii lying now? Who can tell?
My question is why the number in the top right corner being 10641 dated August 8th is a higher number than the certificate Eleanor Nor*** produced on her daughters with 10637 dated August 11. Did the certificate book go down in numbers as the dates went by? Typically record keeping goes in order as dates pass.
The signatures of the mother and the attendant are too similar. The angle of the slant, the loops in the H, B, and L are the same in both, the stopping point of the end of the words are too similar... the date in both places seems to be written by the same person too. It looks like at least one signature was forged. He may have been born in the US, but that doesn't mean that every form issued should be taken at face value. There are way too many deceitful people in the world, you have to second guess everything- otherwise we would all be rich and have all that money from foreign banks our emails tell us we can have if we help those poor desperate families!
This can't be an actual copy or photo of the original. The pdf shows a photoshop layer effect on the text: zoom in to see the "white glow" around the text and lines. I can only assume this reproduction was produced for "clarity". The document in the pdf is not an exact image of the original. The glow effect is not something the original should have. So assuming it's a faithful representation of the original, which I am, I have to wonder why it it's just a representation. Does the white house want to prolong the silliness of the debate?
I noticed this too... even if this *was* (at some point) a genuine document at, it has clearly been doctored (pun) for digital viewing... thus this is not an original.... (show me a RAW image file scan or digital photo of an original printed paper doc, and things are clearer)
@ LYDK You're good. What took them sooooo long, anyway?
No one has noticed the "M" in P.M. is a small font of a capital M. That would have been impossible on a manual typewriter. The keys could have created only a capital 'M' or small 'm', but not a smaller version of a capital M. Just sayin'.
I think the "m" is standard on the form so they would only have to type an "A" or a "P." (Kind like all our checks used to have the 19____ for the dates.) :)
I don't think the difference between date of birth and acceptance by the registrar to be an issue. Having been born in Hawaii myself at Tripler Army Center, my registrars signature is dated 13 days after my birth.