Well, this has been interesting! Very interesting indeed.
Two days ago, WorldNetDaily published an article intended to further bolster Paul Irey’s claim that differences in the fonts prove the Obama birth certificate is a forgery.
The major new information that they brought forth consisted of images of a “new” Hawaii long-form birth certificate, not previously shown in public, from a female child born at Kapiolani Hospital on August 23, 1961 at 12:37 a.m.
A reader who posts under the pseudonym of “Woofer” alerted me this morning (in the comments to “Answering Citizen Wells”) that WorldNetDaily had changed the images of the birth certificate that were there yesterday, and substituted new ones.
In fairness to WorldNetDaily, there’s nothing wrong with editing and improving an already-published article — I just made a few editorial changes to improve the wording of a previous post myself — but this image-swapping seemed a bit odd, since the new image removes almost all of the few typewritten characters that showed on the original one, leaving only — on the entire certificate — the date and a single instance of the words “Honolulu” and “Oahu.”
This seemed odd, because they have now blocked viewers from more original access to more than 110 characters on the birth certificate that were previously shown. The whole point of the article was the typewritten characters of the certificate. And none of these characters, except for possibly the time of birth (12:37 am) have any information that is in any way personally identifying.
They even blocked out the name of the hospital — after telling us in the article that it’s Kapiolani!
The obvious theory as to why, advanced by Woofer, was that they perhaps did not want people to be able to really test Irey’s theory for themselves.
And that may well be. Or it could be simply an overzealous editor. In any event, it seems very strange.
What caught my attention, however, when I fished the original image out of google’s cache (interestingly, I probably would never have done this if they hadn’t swapped the images) was not what was on the front, but what was on… the back.
By the way, at the time of this article the original image is still currently available in google’s cache — if you hurry.
But before I show you what I found on the back of the certificate, let me note that WND also deleted another bit of information from the front images – one that again is in no way personally identifying, unless you have access to the original files of the Hawaii Department of Health, which of course nobody in the public does. And they deleted this bit of information in both cases — original and revised images.
The birth certificate number.
Now why did they delete the birth certificate number from both the original and new images, when it contains no personally identifying information?
Now it turns out that information on the front of a document sometimes bleeds through to the back. If you mirror-image the back of a document and enhance it, you can sometimes read what’s on the front, even if (as in this case) you don’t have the direct front image.
So here’s a mirror-image of the certificate number area, from the original back image of their new birth certificate. It has been enlarged — being very careful to do a straight “pixel resize” so as not to distort any of the information:
Can you read the certificate number? Let’s try enhancing it:
And again, using slightly different parameters:
Busted!! I read 61 09945. Isn’t that what you see? If it isn’t, it’s got to be close.
Now it’s possible to argue about the two 9′s — the first one in particular might be an 8, though I don’t think it is — but the rest of the digits, to me, come through pretty clearly. I don’t think there’s any dispute that the first digit after the 61 is a 0. Do you?
Well.. if you have any doubt about that, the only other digit it could possibly be is a 1. And we have an example of what that looks like in the 61.
No, it’s pretty clear. Compare it for yourself. There’s no doubt. That’s not a 1. It’s a 0.
And yet the birth date of this child is August 23, 1961.
Now we see that whether WorldNetDaily deliberately hid this information or not, there was certainly very, very good reason for them to — as it directly contradicts one of their most important forgery theories.
Dr. Jerome Corsi has widely and adamantly claimed that Mr. Obama’s birth certificate number absolutely proves the birth certificate is a fraud. In my book, I documented this quote by Corsi:
“10641 is impossible to be Barack Obama’s birth certificate number… When he was registered on August 8th, the number was stamped with an old one of the increment-by-number counters, ’10641.’ The Nordyke twins were born a day later in the hospital, August 5th. They were registered 3 days later, August 11th.
And they were given numbers 10637 and 10638. It’s impossible, because that counter does not reverse. And 3-days-earlier registered Obama would’ve had to have a lower number, maybe by 20, from the Nordyke twins.”
In the same chapter of my book, I also documented how Dr. Corsi made a demonstrably false claim in the WorldNetDaily article here (which maintained that the Obama certificate was a fraud for the same reason).
Specifically, Corsi claimed, at least twice, that a linked 1955 article on the birth certificate registration system excluded any possibility of birth certificates being stamped “out of order” — when the article, supplied by Corsi and WorldNetDaily themselves, gave no such information at all.
I also documented in the book how Stig Waidelich’s birth certificate number, shown on CNN, flatly contradicted the fraud-by-number-sequence theory.
But it was still possible to theorize that some kind of fraud on the part of CNN and/ or the Hawaii Department of Health in regard to Stig Waidelich’s number might have been used to cover up an Obama forgery.
That possibility, however small, has now been eliminated for us by none other than WorldNetDaily themselves. The new birth certificate image that they posted on Monday — which they themselves told us was genuine — shows a birth certificate accepted by the Registrar on August 24, 1961, for a child born on August 23, with a birth certificate number of 61 0xx45 (and most likely 61 09945).
This is a birth certificate much lower than Obama’s, the Nordykes, and Stig Waidelich’s — and yet it was filed nearly two weeks after the last of these.
No doubt WorldNetDaily never intended to provide us with this hard evidence that their “impossible” proof of forgery regarding the certificate numbers is absolute and total nonsense.
But they did.