Pant’s On The Ground

obama long form birth certificate

edith_pauline_coats 1962 cert with same local registrar as Obama's fake cert

Danae's long form birth certificate issued in Sept. 2010

Danae Sept. 2010 long form birth certificate

obama "FactCheck" COLB

Hawaiian long form birth certificate issued on March 15 2011

You can see the imprinted seal.  This is Susan Nordykes, issued 5-5-1966


Now look at obama’s again:

Why no raised seal? Alvin too busy?

The Booth’s son’s long form birth certificate.  The same doctor “delivered” obama. 
HOLD UP !!!!!    LOOK AT THE HANDWRITING IN THE “DATE FIELD” WHERE THE MOTHERS SIGNED (in the two images below-I placed the pink mark).  – NEARLY IDENTICAL.  Also compare the Dr. signature in this crop below, it is the same Dr. as in the Booth BC above.

Stan Ann DATE signature & close-up of Dr. signature

Nordyke DATE signature

U k L Lee signature on 1962 Hawaiian long form BC


U K L Lee signature on New obama Hawaiian long form BC


Come on, who’s fricken buying the “Africa” thing?   Still, with no raised seal…………….just an auto-stamp  for Alvin O. on there ……….(Found what looks like some sort of a raised seal – or something, it’s added at the bottom of this post)

Now, for what it’s worth, we have this released thingy.  A few questions. 

How could obama ever have legitimately used the name “Barry Soetoro?”  To do so he would have had to be adopted.  If he were adopted, how could he release this?  I’m sure he could have the adoption set aside as it was not the traditional type of adoption, but an adoption because of marriage.  The marriage dissolved, go get the adoption set aside.  Thing is that his original birth record should have  an indication/notation/something showing that history.  This is supposed to be a copy from the original.  Why is the certification number on his COLB different?

The image shown on drudge looks weird – the edge of the page – I have no idea why it would have that appearance.

Anyway, the best thing about this whole reactive action taken by obama is that he has officially proclaimed that obama Sr. is indeed his Daddy.  Now, I know, a lot of you are saying-hey-he already did that, he’s done it all along.  But no, no he has not – for that COLB has issues, and even this long form that was “released” has no raised seal.

This takes the hurdle of the birth certificate away, and proclaims obama once and for all times a Brit by birth.  A dual citizen.  (If a person who is born a man has a gender change operation, it doesn’t change the fact he was born a man, baby!)  Whether this birth certificate is the real deal, or if it’s a concoction, it matters not.  He’s finally gone on record.

He thinks that he has pulled the teeth of the millions of people that question his birth.  He has not.  No one will love him the better for producing this thing. Most of those millions are well aware of his ineligibility to meet the requirements set forth in Article II of our United States Constitution.  

A birth certificate can’t help obama.  It is not a magic shield.  It is too late for this.

Now the real battle begins. 

At 400% mag. "seal" edge is marked by black dots I applied


~ by ladysforest on April 27, 2011.

69 Responses to “Pant’s On The Ground”

  1. Surprise, surprise, it’s a forgery.

    Go here and read the comments about Adobe.

  2. I don’t have this, but this is interesting. It’s from

    “Submitted by holugu on Wed, 2011-04-27 11:41.
    “Try the following: Save off a copy of the exact PDF file the White House has released as Obama’s birth certificate this morning. Find yourself a copy of Adobe Illustrator (not Photoshop), and load up the PDF file in Illustrator. Then click on the center of the image of the birth certificate, then right-click on the center of the image, and click Release Clipping Mask. Have fun…” ……………………………………… Boy! Atta fake! I could make a better forgery.”

  3. Also, look at the letters on the copy from Drudge. You know that paper has green lines in it, but look closely at the lettering. It’s white underneath it. Should be green like the rest of the paper. There is tons of stuff wrong with BO’s long-form. Look at it magnified in Adobe.

  4. So Obama just “released” a purported copy of his long form Hawaiian BC.

    The document posted here is a pathetically obvious forgery:

    This appears to be an official government website so that by approving the release of this clearly digitally forged PDF Obama has inescapably painted himself into a prison cell corner.

    One can see that most of the print was layered on top of the scanned document by panning or zooming the view in or out slightly while viewing the document at a high zoom level. The bottom layer (background, most of the witness signatures and some of the form text that is still original) clearly pops up and is displayed as a complete layer in its entirety before any of the forged upper layer(s?) begin to display. Check this out for yourself by viewing the document linked above (and be sure to save a copy before it gets fixed). Also, note that all the original document text, original signatures and other document features exhibit multiple levels of intensity and hue when viewed under high zoom. All of the forged upper layer text appears as an even, single dark intensity level. This clean digital characteristic of the upper layer is completely unnatural, even to my untrained eye.

    Others on the web with advanced graphics editors report that the forger of this document left in layered format and did not bother to flatten it, thereby eliminating the most damning and amateurish sign of digital forgery. Could they be that stupid or arrogant?

    Why would Obama release such an obvious forgery? The evidence is so undeniably incriminating. Why is he not worried about going to prison? Is he laughing our faces? Is he that secure in his usurpation?

    • One thing I think is certain – this will piss off a bunch of obots. They were thrilled that obama was so arrogant. They love that about him, and this will be a punch in the gut to them.

      This appears to be an official government website so that by approving the release of this clearly digitally forged PDF Obama has inescapably painted himself into a prison cell corner.

      He had no choice BUT to release something. And he knows for a fact that everyone from Rush Limbaugh to Chrissy Matthews will be using this to gouge the “birthers”. You should have heard the contempt in Rush’s voice today–he couldn’t say “birther KOOKS” enough times. Guess he was being left off of too many cocktail party guest lists lately.

      No, the white house isn’t concerned about this being fake. They can point to this and insist it’s fine and that the ongoing questions prove that the “birthers” will never accept anything.

      HEY! Didn’t HI JUST come out lately and state emphatically that not even the president could get a copy of his own long form birth certificate?

  5. Sorry, Ladysforest, someone said on the smoking gun that they have the document dissected at their website, and it’s Bryan Keith Nixon dot-com, but I can’t get into it now. Probably lots of people trying to.

    Another thing, I found this, and those letters really stick out with the white when you notice it:

    “Submitted by sdrobert on Wed, 2011-04-27 12:26.
    The white halo around the black lines and and letters show that everything was extracted with Photoshop from another document and put over a green patterned background. A close up shows the letters to be very jagged which tells us that this is not an original typed form but very doctored. Why? The letters should be smooth around the edges. Look at a closeup of any real document.”

  6. That copy from the gov website is the exact copy that I got from Drudge. It’s phony. I can’t believe that they didn’t make it a better forgery than what they did. The MSM will eat this up, though. It could be written on toilet paper and the MSM would buy it.

  7. There’s this on Drudge, and I can’t get it: Composed of layers?

    It’s that link. I bet everyone is trying to see what he found out.

  8. I’m getting a weird message when I try to click on that link from Drudge, Composed of layers? Now I get the link that it’s forbidden for me to access that page.

  9. I finally got into it. It wasn’t that Bryan Keith thing. It just shows that it’s down in layers. Also, I got into that Bryan Keith website, and he just shows Adobe Illustrator and how it’s done in layers. Maybe that other place is him too, I don’t know.

  10. Remember the race on that is African? It’s a joke. I found this posted at the P&E:

    “definition from:
    1961 Vital Statistics of the United States;
    U. S. Dept. of Health Education, and Welfare;
    Public Health Service;
    National Center for Health Statistics;
    National Vital Statistics Division;

    Race and color

    Births in the United States in 1961 are classified for
    vital statistics into white, Negro, American Indian, Chinese,
    Japanese, Aleut, Eskimo, Hawaiian and Part-Hawaiian
    (combined), and “other nonwhite.”

    The category “white” includes, in addition to persons
    reported as “white,” those reported as Mexican or Puerto
    Rican. With one exception, a reported mixture of Negro with
    any other race is included in the Negro group; other mixed
    parentage is classified according to the race of the nonwhite
    parent and mixtures of nonwhite races to the race of the
    father. The exception refers to a mixture of Hawaiian and
    any other race, which is classified as Part-Hawaiian.
    In most tables a less detailed classification of “white” and
    “nonwhite” is used.”

  11. I got the same thing when I clicked on that “composed of layers” link

  12. It’s working on loading it now. Here’s the link it’s giving me as it loads.

  13. WHich leads to this

  14. On the Smoking Gun it says this:

    • 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.”

    See that name, Ukulele, on the document it looks like it might be Ukllee, if I’m reading that right. I wonder how they found that name, Ukulele?

    • I was thinking they were joking around.

      Did you go back on this post and look at the two crops I added near the bottom? The date field in the obama and the Nordyke bc’s look like they were written by the same person. They are close to identical.

    • The biggest problem with the Local Registrar signature is that it it’s not the same Local Registrar as was signed in the Nordyke certificates. These were three days apart, supposedly born in the same hospital. They should both be handled by the same registrar for that county.

      • One would think. But we don’t know how many held that title.

      • Most county health departments have a registrar and maybe a deputy registrar. Hawaii’s health offices look to be pretty small. Seems unlikely they would need a deputy. Regardless, this is an inconsistency that needs to be formally explained, IF there is an explanation.

        • No explanations for you and your ilk. BWAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA

          I must say-that’s the goofiest looking example of the HI long form bc that I’ve seen yet.

          Hey, I just read something Corsi put out-I don’t think Corsi has any “proof” of anything. I think it’s just a bunch of speculation sprinkled with stuff bloggers have uncovered.

      • I think this is a huge thing myself. We need to find out if they had more than one registrar in that area.

        One thing is this, BO was supposedly born on a Friday and the Nordyke twins on a Sat., August the 5th, so the documents would have probably not be have anything done to them until Monday, perhaps. Wouldn’t they go to the same place, and if so, probably the same registrar?

        • It is probable that they could have gone to the same registrar – but not certain. I am pretty sure there was a Registrar General – like Alivin O. is now, and a Depute Registrar. There may have also been a “local” in the same office. If a auto-advance stamper was used, well that does seem important.

    • The “Signature of Local Registrar” is actually: “U K L Lee”.

      This same signature (extremely similar in style) also appears on a 1962 Long-form Birth Certificate for Edith Coates:

      Someone recently wrote about this, saying “initials only” are not allowed, and the first and last names (at least) need to be fully spelled-out as part of a valid signature on a legal document.

      Is this true?

      • That is a good question, but one that I do not have an answer for. Whenever anyone attempts to get a straight answer fro HI on any 1961 procedures…..they get the cold shoulder.

  15. Pant’s On The Ground

  16. No real document, no mas.

    This computer image stuff is not going to cut it this time.

    No doc, no mas.

    • Mike-are you a doubter? LOL. I wonder what kind of horrible names they will cook up to call us after this?

  17. This fake is so bad that about the only conclusion you can draw is that they want the public to know it’s a fake to perpetuate the controversy.

    The “Signature of Local Registrar” reads “U K L Lee”…ukelele!

    I mean come on, Uklelele?! That’s a Hawaiian guitar!

    Who ever did this WANTS Obama busted or their just trying to rub your noses in it!

  18. What’s the FR link, please? I have to see this.

  19. Recent comment from Bryan Nixon:

    “Keep in mind that DRUDGE used the term “layers” and not me. I simply attempted to point out that this was not a pristine document with absolutely no room for interpretation. The possibility that it was legitimately scanned and some OCR features came into play to create the separate elements is quite possible. For those who keep bringing up the green paper background, etc… it was never in question that what we were provided was a recently made COPY or SCAN of the original, the printed and date-stamped on a fresh piece of security paper. Somebody was going to figure it out sooner or later!”

  20. Using Adobe 9 Standard for Windows.

    Go to Advanced
    Go to Document Processing
    Go to Export All Images

    You get the 3 jpg images.

    The digital image released DIRECTLY by the White House today (April 27, 2011) in Adobe format was mechanically composed of the 3 digital images and is not, repeat not, a scan or photo of a single digital image that has been converted to Adobe. If it were, you would only get one jpg file when you export the images

    BTW, you can see this happen while just viewing the document full size on a computer screen. Just quickly, very quickly, move the document up and down using the slide bar on the right. The images separate and recompose and you can see the white spaces in the document for fraction of second or so.

  21. Never mind, Ladysforest, I found the link up there. I just didn’t go up for enough. Sorry!

  22. I am not sure what I am looking at? Why is the left side folded back but on top of a green colored paper? Am I missing something? Why isn’t it a stand alone document? There is more typing off the page to the left? But the right side the page ends?

  23. Here is my take on this….

    1. The OCR stuff floating around on the web is @#$@#$.

    No way. No how. OCR will find and convert images INTO characters. OCR does not chop things up and then look for them. It looks at things as rectangular blocks one character or possible character at a time and tries to create a character.

    Here is what you get (actual OCR subset from WH document released today):

    /f’) /l P ….. t
    18b. O .. e o( Sipature
    19b. Date o( Signature
    T. O~I “?h . .D.

    Characters is what you get no some layering BS.

    2. The Nordykes are the template.


    a) The bent page on the left side of the image. Look at Nordykes…same thing. Why? Its a PHOTO. It is not a scan or a copy off a copier or laser printer. The twins BCs were printed or created in 1965, not 2011. It looks like the book was left bound, set on top of a premade template for the bottom part with the DOH and Registrar signatures, and ….snap…they took a picture – a real photo picture. For security they put an EMBOSSED (actual raised seal vs. DEEMBOSSED we see on docs now) on the photo and made sure it wen over the certificate info from the book and the signature template on the bottom.

    b) The Obama image has varying shades of text.

    This should not happen with a modern printed version from an electronic stored image. It WILL happen with the photo method from 1965 since the photo merely pics up the actual document with the stamps and typewritten letters in varying forms of shades. In 2011 the IMAGE of the original certificate will PRINT onto security paper and will not vary in shading. And there are methods to pull out only the text if its printed on security paper.

    c) Compare to known recently printed long forms. They are flat (no bends on left side) and they are very uniform in their printed material color. And the printed image is bonded to the security paper and covers the security pattern completely.

    3. No sign of a real scan. If this was a scan they cropped off the edge of the paper that would show up in the scan. These are perfect crisp edges that show no sign of a paper edge. There are no shadows, no end of the paper with some white behind…this is another cyber image vs. a real scan.

    4. There are 3 images in the pdf. If you do an Export All Images….you get 3….so yes, there are layers, multiple images, etc. No way this should happen with a scan or photo. You get 1 jpg image…not 3 magic images. Where they really this dumb?

    5. Sandra Lines said it. To determine authenticity you need a real, actual document. That was never truer.

  24. I have a few links up on my blog:

    Yes, I really do think it is a very poor forgery.

  25. Hi Ladysforest,

    Excellent work. I’ve seen you cited by commenters at WZ today. It looks like the fake aspect is going viral.

    It’s at Atlas Shrugs and Conservative Monster as well. Here’s an interesting computer analysis by someone who starteed out thinking it was authentic, and pretty much came to think it’s a fake:
    (h/t Agent 99 at WZ)

    Claims there’s an erased seal.

    I’m more hopeful still in Corsi than you. I thought his statement today was minimal but strong, and very consistent with the strategy that Lame Cherrry last week thought that WND was following. I do not think Zero would have released whatever it is he released today unless he was in part very worried about what Corsi has. Corsi’s right, Zero blinked:

    • I think there was more than one thing that set him off. I think HI DOH claiming that no one could get a copy of their own long form bc – when it’s in their rules that they can, Sam Slom went on record about that. I think the pressure from Trump, Corsi’s book, I think the nbC issue becoming a bigger focus – and he and the ole’ handlers figure; “Those bastards want my “long form bc” we’ll give it to them”. “This will actually make them look crazy fringe is they don’t accept what I put out there”.

      But it won’t. The thing is garbage. Even a moron can glance at it and with one eye shut, and see that it does not look like the legit long form bc’s that have been on the net for quite a while. Like every single piece of birth “documentation” for this guy – it’s full of anomalies.

      I believe polls played quite a bit in this as well. He is really poll driven.

      I hope Corsi has something solid, but I’m not bettin the farm on it.

  26. I just thought I’d add that I love your title!

    • Thank you-the link to the “Pant’s on the ground” YouTube video is up in the comment thread. If you haven’t heard the song in awhile, you should check it out.


  27. They left the layers in their photoshop creation, still laughing!
    Good one, Hillary!

    btw. is it a big deal, that the certification says 1961 and the certificate says 61?

    • Well, I checked with Danae, because she recently got a copy of her long form, and had a COLB already. She said that hers is the same way. I asked about the extra 0 in obama’s COLB, and she just said that it didn’t worry her. So, I have no idea if the extra 0 is common and usual, or what. That seems weird to me though.

    • I can’t say this for certain, but I do think that all “Certifications” use the full year format e.g. 1961 and the originals certificates use just the last two digits.
      I have a copy of a DOH certification of marriage that has the full 1997 on it.
      Now that they’ve “merged” certificates and certifications I’m not sure what their procedure is going forward, but in the past it seems consistent.

  28. Does anyone know where to find a picture of the COLB that they showed on CNN the other night, when they had the guy go in and get one on camera? I jotted down the number as 151 1961 010920;
    So, it also has that extra 0, if I wrote it down right.

    • Nope. I didn’t see it. If anyone out there knows, please pop up a link. TY

    • I have one that a person is holding it up in a side view. It appears that the numbers are thus: 151 1961 010641

  29. I noticed the date thing yesterday betweenthe three documents, but none of the signatures on Obamas match any of those on Nordykes, so who put the date on these.

    Can anyone help me check another mistake:
    The dates in fields 20 and 22 are made by a stamper like the number at the top. I never seen a dash in any date stamper. The Nordykes don’t have one. Wouldn’t they be using the same stamper? The April 25 2011 is also a date stamper, no dash. I think they thought it was typed field so they typed a dash.

    Has anyone ever seen a date stamper with a dash?

    • Obama’s BC is signed by the local registrar, while the Nordykes’ BCs are signed by the deputy local registrar. You can see the faint “Deputy” stamp in front of the signature.

      The dash is used to fill in the space of the high digit in a one digit number. Instead of 08, it’s -8. I’ve seen a long-form Hawaiian BC for Peter J. Kema Jr. stamped SEP -5 1991.

      • Thank you for the info about the dash. We were thinking that was the case, but had not seen any single digit BC dates for Honolulu.

      • It doesn’t affect my point, but the the Peter J. Kema document was actually a short-form “Certification of Live Birth,” not a long-form BC, as I incorrectly said.


    Look at post 1566, I think it is. You can’t miss it. Someone found a baby that was born on August 4, 1961, died on the 5th. Does make you wonder if they used that certificate number for BO. Maybe not, though.

    • Yes I’ve seen it. Too bad – I hope like hell those people don’t start a witch hunt.

  31. Here is a good one….

    The White House apparently has to use SNOPES as the source for its image of the 2008 COLB.

    Then the link to their version of the 2008 COLB:

    Go to the bottom of that image….

    It is nothing more than print (likely from MS Explorer web browser based on the headers and footers) of the image at the URL in the footer – at SNOPES.

    Do they not have their own copy of the magical 2008 COLB? Guess not….

  32. Does anyone know anything about this document? How can this have been out there and never produced previously? I trust Steve and his readers so I am a bit biased but can it be true?

    This was SIGNED by Obama’s GRANDMOTHER. She reported Obama’s birth that took place in a Kenyan Hospital. NOTICE it says Hospital – Unknown Kenya, Africa

    • It’s a fake. Put out by obots. I see it’s been out over a year, and I’m guessing everyone treated it as a fake until now, and with the latest obama document – well someone got carried away.

  33. The biggest problem with the newly released doc is that there is no visible EMBOSSED SEAL anywhere on it. WHY NOT?

    • I read a comment somewhere that there is one – nearly invisible – so I magnified the one I saved to desktop, and something is visible. One edge is just slightly to the left and below “U K L Lee”. I’ll pop up an image with “markers”.

      It doesn’t look right, but some disturbance to the “document” ummmm, “paper” is visible.

    • There is a seal shadow in the lower left area of the certificate image.

      Here is a close up.

      The text and lines of the form just lay right over it. But here is the real problem.

      The letters from Hawaii posted at the White say – the provided a ‘computer generated certified copy’. WTF? What is a ‘computer-generated certified copy’?

      See the last entry here from Fuddy:

      So basically – the letter says – it is computer generated. A ‘computer-generated certified copy’. To my knowledge this is a new entity never before seen in the world of certified birth certificates. So we can quite looking for normal paper security features, etc. They have now changed the rules of the game…again. Of course it has all these things…they ADMIT its a computer generated image. Now….why does the letter say the created 2 copies of this ‘computer generated certified copy’ is strange. You could do 1 or 100…if it is a digital file…what difference does it make…why specify that you made exactly 2? Also, if its a ‘computer-generated (digital) certificated copy’ why would anyone need to fly to Hawaii to retrieve it? Just email it. See this link:

      We have been set up people. With the fact that they openly claim it is a ‘computer generated certified copy’ anything found or not found is explained. We have been chasing our tails for 4 days looking for real document elements. We can quit….Hawaii issued a ‘computer generated certified copy’. Lets see an ordinary citizen get one of those!

      • I believe they have used that term in the DHHL website for quite awhile:

        The Certificate of Live Birth generally has more information which is useful for genealogical purposes as compared to the Certification of Live Birth which is a computer-generated printout that provides specific details of a person’s birth. Although original birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth) are preferred for their greater detail, the State Department of Health (DOH) no longer issues Certificates of Live Birth.

        So, that is how the covered for the short form. Thing is, they did say that the lawyers went to get a “printed” copy. A printed copy, even of a computer generated print, scanned into PDF, should not behave the way this one did.

      • Yes, clearly the DHHL is referring the COLB / Abstract. And it is purely simple computer text.

        But here…Ms. Fuddy directly says – I am making new rules just for the POTUS. Its in the letter. And so she takes responsibility for the unique ‘computer-generated certified copy’.

        Well, Abercrombie made up for his boo-boo and dumped and smeared Palafox (who probably would not do this) and got Ms. Fuddy to do the dirty work.

        • Oh, yes. She is the meat to be devoured in the future. She’s the sacrifice. But as she is doing it willingly and with complete knowledge of her actions, she’ll have no defense. At least Fukino tried to skirt around the edges and keep it as close to “legal” as she could. It’s probably why she was dumped. We know why Palafox was dumped.

          Nice that she “makes new rules” and that these new rules apply only to obama. It doesn’t mean the document is valid – in fact, if a “new rule” had to be created JUST to produce this ONE “document”, I should think it clearly indicates that the document must be invalid. It does not, and can not, fit the same parameters of all of the other officially certified copies, because she did not follow those same procedures. It makes either the bc’s issued in the past invalid or this one is invalid. She has broad powers, but to imply that she can make the rules up as she goes along, she opens a can of worms-a giant one.

      • Anyway Mike, it’s like a “souvenir” birth certificate or an “honorary” document. If a special procedure and indeed a special “rule” were invented just to produce this thing…………..
        Then it can not be said to be the same as those that have been legitimately released to the Hawaiian born citizens in the past.

        Ҥ338-18 Disclosure of records. (a) To protect the integrity of vital statistics records, to ensure their proper use, and to ensure the efficient and proper administration of the vital statistics system, it shall be unlawful for any person to permit inspection of, or to disclose information contained in vital statistics records, or to copy or issue a copy of all or part of any such record, except as authorized by this part or by rules adopted by the department of health.

        (b) The department shall not permit inspection of public health statistics records, or issue a certified copy of any such record or part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant has a direct and tangible interest in the record. The following persons shall be considered to have a direct and tangible interest in a public health statistics record:

        (1) The registrant;

        (2) The spouse of the registrant;”

        Etc., etc. see full list at link.

  34. GREAT REVIEW! I agree with pretty much all you said in your article, especially at the beginning of your article. Thank you, this info is very useful as always. Keep up the good work! You’ve got +1 more reader of your web blog:) Isabella S.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: