Dr. Jerome Corsi, author of Where’s the Birth Certificate?, which is about to be released by the publisher, noted the discrepancy right away. He said: "The long-form birth certificates issued by [the hospital] to the Nordyke twins have certificate numbers lower than the number given Obama, even though the president purportedly was born at the same hospital a day earlier than the Nordykes." [Emphasis added.]
Susan Nordyke, the first twin, was born at 2:12 p.m. (Hawaii time) on August 5, 1961 and her certificate number is 151-61-10637. Her twin, Gretchen, was born at 2:17 p.m., and her certificate number is 151-61-10638. But Barack Hussein Obama allegedly was born at 7:24 p.m. August 4, the day before the Nordykes, but his certificate number is 151-61-10641.
Bob Unruh, writing for WorldNetDaily, reviewed an analysis of the new White House birth certificate done for WND by Ivan Zatkovich of eComp Consultants of Tampa, Florida, which concluded that “there were anomalies inconsistent with a simple scanning process, and there is evidence that [the document] has been manipulated.” According to Zatkovich,
When a paper document is scanned on a scanner and saved as a PDF file it normally contains only a single layer of graphical information. The PDF that appears on the White House website contains multiple layers of graphic information. Multiple layers usually appear in a document like this when it is being edited or modified in some fashion.
The various items that were “modified” included the main text, the mother’s occupation, the dates accepted, the stamp and signature of the state registrar, and the time stamp of the state registrar. Zatkovich concluded his report as follows:
There is no specific evidence of how or why that content would have been changed, but the evidence clearly indicates that the document was changed. This was done through an explicit operation to edit and/or enhance the printing in the document. There is no ambiguity here. There was an explicit action by a person to modify the document.... The content clearly indicates that the document was knowingly and explicitly edited and modified before it was placed on the web.
This was confirmed by Albert Renshaw in a YouTube video he prepared here that confirmed and expanded upon Zatkovich’s report. With close-ups of the PDF, Renshaw shows the several layers of graphics that exposed the various modifications made in the original document before it was put up on the White House website. One needn’t view the video — one need only print out the White House PDF file and look carefully at the mother’s occupation, and the mother’s signature block. The date in the lower right hand corner has also obviously been manipulated with careless use of different colored inks when the changes were made.
With the White House’s statement that this is the genuine, original, long-form birth certificate of the President, it has now bought itself a peck of trouble. As Corsi put it on April 27, “The inescapable reality [is] that the White House must [now] defend this newly released birth certificate as authentic.” Corsi continued:
Before today, Obama may have attempted to explain away problems with the short-form Certification of Live Birth as the work of his supporters.
Before today, the president largely remained above the fray. Now, he has fully engaged in the presentation and defense of his birth records and his status as a “natural born citizen” under Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution.
Obama’s presidency now depends upon the White House being able to support the veracity of all the information contained in the birth document.
According to the Random House Dictionary of the English Language, “genuine” is defined as “possessing the purported character, quality, or origin; not counterfeit; authentic; real.” The moment a person modified the original document, however slightly, it was no longer genuine. If the claims made by these experts are to be believed, then the White House, and the President himself, have much more explaining to do.