I believe the folks at FactCheck say that they have seen the actual, that is, physical in three dimensions, birth certificate.

Alex, I generally like your stuff, but this time you left one significant question unanswered: WHO CARES??

Only one post about poor Pat's belief that his ZIP code is his PIN number?

I was born in Jacksonville, FL in 1970. A couple of years ago when applying for a passport, I had to get the state to send me my birth certificate because I lost the one my parents were given a very long time ago, like most people who have, you know...moved at least once. They sent me what Hawaii sent Obama, a certified copy. It's like when you lose your drivers license. The state sends you another one. It's not a copy of the first. It's as original as the first one because there is no such thing as "original" when everything is 0s and 1s - in other words, it's all on computer.

The birther thing relies upon a lack of understanding of the way the world works. People who have stayed in the same small town their whole lives may actually still know where the pretty picture version of the birth certificate given to their momma at the hospital is, and may actually think that's their real birth certificate (it's not). People who have had no need to use their birth certificate within the past decade or so may not know the way birth certificates, like other records, are stored and disseminated in the 21st century.

Frankly, I don't care what old people think. Show me one sincere "Birther" who is under the age of 40. "Sincere" is the stumper. There are plenty of people who *claim* to be this ignorant who are under 40, but they know better, they're just posing because it's to their advantage. Nobody under 40 who has access to the internet could possibly be that stupid and that backwards and analog in their understanding of the world.

That is not a Birth Certificate, it is a Certificate of Live Birth. Factcheck.org sounds legit, but they are a democratic party front. They neglect to mention that it is a laser printout from 2007 and that the document has a creation date and rev number in the lower left corner indicating that it was generated in 11/01. Even though this is a laser printed document, two of the lines have misaligned text which is clearly visible if you load the document into PhotoShop. The time of birth and location just happens to be the same as a template which is available on the web at a higher resolution than the one shown at factcheck. The blank areas of the online template are the areas that are not aligned with the existing text.

But you go ahead and trust a political front group calling itself "factcheck.org" rather than download the images and look at them.

Have they finally admitted that it was a laser print out?

Not likely because they didn't have laser printers in 1961.

On the other hand, The documents that got Dan Rather fired, were made with an IBM Selectric 2 that was commonly available at the time period when the documents were made. It took 8 minutes on the web to determine that, yet all of the news media failed to do what i did because getting rid of Dan Rather was more important than the truth. They used interchangeable font balls which is how they did fancy stuff that most people thought was only capable of being done with a computer.

Genuine documents are labeled as forgeries by the MSM. Forgeries are labeled as genuine by the MSM. That's the MSM for you.

You still believe in WMD?

I know most of you are not forgers or Photoshop wizards. IF you are going to doctor and document, text alignment is where you can easily mess up. When you add text to preexisting text, it generally is at best off by one pixel unless you up the resolution, do the alignment and then bump the resolution back down.

On one line a word is one pixel too high and anther word one pixel too low.

On the other line the misalignments are about a half a pixel and that shows up with gray pixels as in antialiasing. I am not explaining that.

If the person who added these words to the document were proficient this would not have been detectable.

One glaring error is the use of the word "African" for race. No such thing. In the real thing the father would have been listed as "Negro" or "Colored" in 1961. "African" is not a racial designation but a geographical one. Why use "African"? Probably because the other two terms are not politically correct and are somewhat uncomfortable to whoever made the document.

Next time you have a child, try using a continent as their racial designation.

I see that factcheck has admitted that it was a 2007 effort, but they have removed the scanned image of the birth certificate because the misaligned text is too easy to detect by even amateurs.

How about that?

i think you may be suffering from dementia. have you had yourself checked out?

Craigslist?

What a weak troll you are.

No stinks, a troll is someone that posts deliberatively provactive messages to newsgroups in order to inflame. a troll also puts claims to be something they are not--like an intelligence specialist.

you are a quinessential troll.

Jane's Intelligence Review reported on the coalition to invade Afghanistan in March of 2001.

Go to the LOC and look it up.

The U.S. was negotiation a natural gas pipeline to go through Afghanistan. Your claim was that the U.S. invaded to grow poppy.

Here's the article of which you likely speak. Where is the mention of poppy?

http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jir/jir010315_1_n.shtml

Had you gone with the pipeline theory, you would have at least had some tangible evidence to support your claims. However, even those theories are somewhat flawed:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1626889.stm

Indian, Russia, and the U.S. were all against the Taliban and the reasons probably largely stem from extraction and transportation of natural resources

I am an intelligence specialist.

no you are not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Honduras

You will note that the military works with our CIA and they are the ones who removed the President from office.

Again, this is hardly evidence of the U.S. role in the current coup. The U.S. has been involved in Central America for well over a century. The U.S., including the CIA, often work with governments in these countries, including the military. The link you provide though is well over a decade old (the last activity it reports is 1995).

Again, provide concrete evidence, not speculation, of the CIA role in THIS coup.

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/06/29/18604644.php

But why trust these dangerous radicals?

I like indy media--but like many websites, like this one, anyone can post messages. It hardly is evidence to a coup. The individual that has posted this is essentially writing what you have--the U.S. has done it in the past, therefore it must be behind this coup.

http://military.einnews.com/news/cia/honduras

Betcha can't log in, but you can read the article titles, can't you? You know that SOA is the School of the Americas where we taught them how to torture and stuff, the leader of the coup was a product of the SOA.

Yes, many Latin American military leaders are products of the SOA. I have been an advocate for closing SOA for a long-time. Nonetheless, your ignorance utterly mind-boggling. Bernie Madoff attended Brooklyn Law School. However, that doesn't implicate the school in his crimes. This is not an exoneration of SOA. The U.S. also funded the muhjahadeen in Afghanistan in the 1980s. That doesn't mean they are responsible for 9/11. It's called blowback. Since you are (NOT) an intelligence specialist, you should know the term.

I am an intelligence specialist.

no you are not.

Ewige Blumenkraft!

FNORD.

I speak German, I have read the Illumanit Trilogy and numerous other works of Robert Anton Wilson and I am quite familar with the Principia Discordia. Fnord yourself, jackass. KALLISTI.

I will ask one last time--do you have any concrete evidence of U.S. involvement in the recent Honduran coup? You don't--only speculation. Just as I thought.