Interesting that what Willytex quotes isn't from either of the Web pages he gives URLs for.
The second one, in fact, is from National Review Online, a right-wing publication; it's a post that *debunks* the notion that the certificate is a forgery. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "WillyTex" <willytex@...> wrote: > > > > Vaj: > > Who wants to guess what the replacing conspiracy > > theory will be? > > > That this document has been cropped and altered by > an idiot who thought he knew how to scan a > birth certificate using Adobe Acrobat? > > At the least this was a scanned document produced > by a moron who thought he knew PhotoShop. > > You've GOT To Be Kidding Me! > http://market-ticker.org/post=185094 > > "I've scanned a lot of images. What you scan is > what you see. What I haven't seen when I've scanned > something is where they show letters cut off such > as what looks like a "5" on the left hand side > where it bends down. > > Also, the dashed green lines on the background go > straight across, and the black lines of the form > curve down. It they scanned the black lines only, > then why transpose onto green lined paper, why not > just show the scanned document on whatever was the > original paper as I always do when I scan a document. > This doesn't pass the smell test. > > Either this is a forgery on green paper, or they > are hiding something on that left side that was > cropped off. Why can't we just get a scanned copy > of the original birth certificate, showing every > notation on margins, every smudge, everything? > > Frankly, until today I was thinking this birther > thing was much ado about nothing, but after seeing > this document I now have many suspicions about > Obama's birth..." > > http://tinyurl.com/3kz7clp >
