6 Reasons To Think The “Birth Certificate” Is A Forgery

printer

[credit provider=”MShades via Flickr” url=”http://www.flickr.com/photos/mshades/2419822505/”]

Some birthers are already barking down brand new avenues that don’t have anything to do with Obama’s place of birth.Others, no doubt, will insist that the birth certificate is a forgery.

We find that to be implausible — actually, it was always implausible — but for those who think this might be a replay of Rathergate, The Smoking Gun identifies some questions about the legitimacy of the document.

If the original document was in a bound volume (as reflected by the curvature of the left hand side of the certificate), how can the green patterned background of the document’s safety paper be so seamless?

• Why, if Obama was born on August 4, 1961, was the “Date Accepted by Local Reg.” four days later on August 8, 1961?

• What is the significance of the smudges in the box containing the name of the reported attendant?

• In the “This Birth” box there are two mysterious Xs above “Twin” and “Triplet.” Is there a sibling or two unaccounted for?

• What is the significance of the mysterious numbers, seen vertically, on the document’s right side?

• 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.”

We’re sure sceptics will come up with a lot more.