Main Menu

John McCain’s fake birth certificate

I’ve written about this before, and I thought I had put it to rest. The “birth certificate” filed by Fred Hollander in the Hollander v. McCain lawsuit is a fake. It is not only a fake, but it is an obvious fake. Anybody can see that is a fake just by looking at it.

Just so everybody, “WTF?” and “Scott Brown” included will see this issue put to rest about there being a John McCain birth certificate, look and see. When you click on the image it will appear larger in your browser but the image is likely bigger than your screen. Use your browser’s magnification tool to make it full size.

McCain fake birth certificate showing obvious flaws. Click to enlarge.

Fake McCain birth certificate highlighting all the additions. Click to enlarge.

,

45 Responses to John McCain’s fake birth certificate

  1. avatar
    John April 24, 2010 at 6:41 pm #

    The BC is very old and has been scanned. The discripecies are most likely caused by age and the scanning process. The BC looks completly valid.

  2. avatar
    John April 24, 2010 at 6:43 pm #

    The BC has been copied and has been scanned. The BC is also very old. The flaws are nothing than artifact.

  3. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 24, 2010 at 6:44 pm #

    You’re an idiot or blind.

    Chose one.

  4. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 24, 2010 at 6:46 pm #

    When you select the image, be sure view it at full size.

    You’re still an idiot or blind.

  5. avatar
    John April 24, 2010 at 6:59 pm #

    You are looking at 2nd generation copy of the BC which is many years old. The text has likley faded over time and copy process and scanning process may have further degraded the text. Nevertheless, the BC appears real and complete.

  6. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 24, 2010 at 7:16 pm #

    Fading doesn’t turn curved lines into straight lines, nor does it add space between characters. How come the fake parts aren’t as faded as the real parts?

    Be sure that after you click on the image that you use your browser’s magnify tool to view it at full size.

    OK, maybe you are blind AND an idiot.

  7. avatar
    Larb Neur April 24, 2010 at 7:28 pm #

    John, I believe that a point is being made here.

  8. avatar
    richcares April 24, 2010 at 7:36 pm #

    as for john, my vote is that he’s an idiot!

  9. avatar
    northland10 April 24, 2010 at 8:50 pm #

    They took “TechDude” at face value while John here does not even look at this document. John obviously does not realize what real document examination involves. As with Dr. C., I see so many glaring inconsistencies.

    1. The erase marks are very noticeable, especially in the second one when less is in the way. In process of erasing, they smugged to black specks (in in a circular pattern).

    2. Though they attempted to match fonts on the first name, it is far to narrow.

    3. It looks like they were attempting to come close to a match by cutting and pasting from a typewritten document. They were not the same, thus, John McCain and Roberta Wright do not match.

    4. They probably had a problem finding the date so they did that one with computer, likely with something similar to Helvetica. This makes the numbers look too clean.

  10. avatar
    PaulG April 24, 2010 at 9:14 pm #

    The numbers are especially bad. Why didn’t they just take a few minutes and cut and paste numbers from somewhere else?

    The first occurrence of the phrase “Colon Hospital” also looks a bit weird as if it had been cut and pasted from below with a bit of clean up.

    Why is the notary’s license expiring in 1945?

    I’d love to see a few more examples of BC’s from the same time and place with better provenance. I wouldn’t be surprised if they were filled in by hand. (Totally irrelevant, I was born a few months after Obama and my BC is filled out in cursive. I guess everything’s up to date in Honolulu?)

  11. avatar
    sarina April 24, 2010 at 9:32 pm #

    Dr. He is an idiot, he is blind and he is a birther.

  12. avatar
    John April 24, 2010 at 10:20 pm #

    The document is very poor in quality. It appears that the items circled might have altered with newer text to make it legible. The items circled are the revelent markers to establish McCain was born where he said he was. It unknown if this was professionally done at the source and the alterations in text (To make it appear legible) were authorized. But, I doubt the BC is a “fake”.

  13. avatar
    John April 24, 2010 at 10:35 pm #

    Even if this BC is a fake, it only means the one filed in Hollander case is a fake. Remember, the Senate passed a resolution that established McCain was born in Panama. I don’t know if they used this BC, but they used some BC. And if that one was a fake as well, it does raise and interesting question and gives credibility to Kerchner’s theory that the Senate basically made a deal with McCain that they would help him solve his problem if he kept quiet about Obama’s citizenship problem.

  14. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 24, 2010 at 10:43 pm #

    Oh, so you are saying that for some reason ALL THE TEXT uniquely identifying John McCain (his name, his date of birth, his father and mother’s name, and the race of his parents) was conveniently messed up in the original and required correction, but that all the generic stuff applicable to any male born in Colon in August was quite plain and needed no correction? Yeah sure.

    And you know that the so-called birth certificate has no provenance except a from a showy figure named Lamb from Panama who is running some other scams down there. It didn’t come from any government. And you know that this certificate is DIRECTLY CONTRADICTED by a contemporary newspaper announcement, and a witness who saw McCain’s certificate from the navy base (Michael Dobbs of the Washington Post).

    OK. You are not blind, but you are definitely and idiot.

  15. avatar
    Rickey April 24, 2010 at 10:56 pm #

    John says:

    Remember, the Senate passed a resolution that established McCain was born in Panama. I don’t know if they used this BC, but they used some BC.

    There is no evidence in the Congressional Record that the Senate ever saw McCain’s birth certificate.

    Besides, McCain wasn’t born in Colon. He was born in the Navy hospital on the Coco Solo Naval Base. Consider:

    1. Two days after McCain was born, the Panamanian American, the English-language newspaper in Panama, published a birth announcement saying that McCain was born in the Navy hospital.

    2. McCain’s grandfather was then the Commanding Officer of the Coco Solo base.

    3. McCain’s father was then the Executive Officer of a submarine which was based at Coco Solo.

    4. McCain’s parents lived in Navy housing on the Coco Solo base.

    5. McCain’s mother was eligible for free medical care at the Navy hospital.

    6. McCain’s mother has always said that her son was born in the Navy hospital at Coco Solo.

    Why would the McCains choose to have their son born at a civilian hospital in Colon, where they would have to pay for treatment and would be under the care of civilian Panamanian doctors? They were entitled to free care by American doctors at the base hospital, where they would have immediate access to air transportation to a stateside hospital in the event of complications.

  16. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 24, 2010 at 11:03 pm #

    PaulG: Why is the notary’s license expiring in 1945?

    Well, you notice that all of the other signatures on the form are blank. This suggests to me that the document we are seeing was typed from an original record (that would have had signatures) around 1945 and then notarized to make it a “certified copy.” This was before the time of photocopy machines and official copies were typed by hand. The falsification happened later of course.

  17. avatar
    PaulG April 24, 2010 at 11:34 pm #

    I noticed the signatures. I tried to google to find a genuine BC from Panama – no luck.

  18. avatar
    Bob Ross April 24, 2010 at 11:47 pm #

    This wouldn’t account for the Font changing

  19. avatar
    Arthur April 24, 2010 at 11:53 pm #

    Dr. C.:

    As I understand it, Sen. McCain did not verify this purported birth certificate as accurate. Is that correct?

    Thanks.

  20. avatar
    misha April 25, 2010 at 5:12 am #

    “When you select the image, be sure view it at full size.

    You’re still an idiot or blind.”

    I enlarged the BC by 1,000%, and if you look at pixel 3264, you can see how it has been manipulated.

    Sorry John. (snark)

  21. avatar
    misha April 25, 2010 at 5:18 am #

    “I tried to google to find a genuine BC from Panama – no luck.”

    You have to go to Orly’s House of Certificates™. Specializing in certificates since 1970. You name it, we carry it.

  22. avatar
    misha April 25, 2010 at 5:21 am #

    “As I understand it, Sen. McCain did not verify this purported birth certificate as accurate.”

    He didn’t have to. Who are you going to believe – a Naval pilot, or some creature from Kenya?

  23. avatar
    Loren April 25, 2010 at 8:07 am #

    On the first image, I think you meant to write “date and YEAR” were added.

  24. avatar
    Scott Brown April 25, 2010 at 11:42 am #

    Of course it’s a fake. I never said it was real. However, I still contend he was NOT born in the Canal Zone, but in Colon, Panama.

    I have seen a copy of the manifest issued by the Naval hospital of births on the day that McCain was born. His name is NOT on that list.

    I guess you think the Naval Hospital omitted his name because one day they knew he would be running for prresident?

  25. avatar
    Scientist April 25, 2010 at 11:54 am #

    And where was “Scott Brown” born?

  26. avatar
    G April 25, 2010 at 12:44 pm #

    Really Scott Brown? And what state were you born in again? Oh that’s right, you won’t answer, because you just make stuff up.

    Considering that you’ve been outed as a lying coward, I don’t believe anything you say. I’m sure you are lying about the naval manifest too, because all you seem to do is make up stories.

    We’re on to your BS here and we’re not going to let you forget it.

  27. avatar
    BatGuano April 25, 2010 at 1:36 pm #

    I have seen a copy of the manifest issued by the Naval hospital of births on the day that McCain was born.

    ” i also have a magical COLB that was not acceptable to obtain a passport.”

  28. avatar
    nBC April 25, 2010 at 1:44 pm #

    I have seen a copy of the manifest issued by the Naval hospital of births on the day that McCain was born. His name is NOT on that list.

    Show us this manifest. I have seen one as well, it was a manifest by the Panama Canal Health Department, not the naval hospital

    here

    It also shows McCain’s birth announcement.

    You’re such a fool (Romans 1:22)… First you had to abandon the birth certificate, then you claim he must be born in Colon because the Panama Canal Health Department’s birth register does not show his name, then you ignore the birth announcement as well as the fact that people who did see the birth certificate stated that it came from the Submarine Base’s ‘hospital’.

    Thanks again Scott for exemplifying that which is so wrong with the birther movement.

  29. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 25, 2010 at 2:21 pm #

    McCain has had nothing to do with this “birth certificate” and as far as I know has never commented on it.

  30. avatar
    Rickey April 25, 2010 at 2:41 pm #

    I have seen a copy of the manifest issued by the Naval hospital of births on the day that McCain was born. His name is NOT on that list.

    Really? There were other babies born at the Navy hospital at Coco Solo on the day McCain was born? Since you have seen the supposed manifest, surely you wouldn’t mind sharing with us the names of the babies who were born there that day.

    And while you’re at it, where were you born?

  31. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 25, 2010 at 2:46 pm #

    It’s not such a hard mistake to make, but on this blog, I expect such things to be caught and corrected, which they have been.

  32. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 25, 2010 at 2:53 pm #

    Right. Date and Year. Month was OK.

  33. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 25, 2010 at 3:08 pm #

    That is correct. McCain had nothing to do with the release of the document, which came late in the Hollander trial just before it was dismissed. It never got much publicity during the campaign, and didn’t warrant a response.

  34. avatar
    Loren April 25, 2010 at 6:12 pm #

    No, the image says “Added date and time”. The time is authentic; it’s the year that was added.

  35. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 25, 2010 at 6:13 pm #

    nBC: Thanks again Scott for exemplifying that which is so wrong with the birther movement.

    I think pretty much all the birthers exemplify what is so wrong with the birther movement. Here is my “birthers’ dozen”.

    1. Birthers are unwilling to accept compelling evidence that contradicts their conspiracies.
    2. Birthers are willing to accept unverifiable assertions from questionable sources as sound when it supports their conspiracies.
    3. They don’t understand the formal fallacy of affirming the antecedent.
    4. They get most of their information second hand and fail to check primary sources. As a result, they work from “facts” that aren’t true.
    5. They confuse support for Obama with belief that Obama is eligible for president, therefore they assume that every one who disagrees with them does so for the purpose of advancing Obama.
    6. They trust advocates that agree with them, treating them as objective sources. The reject non-advocate experts, treating them as biased sources.
    7. They believe just about any rumor that comes by as long as it is critical of Obama.
    8. They claim to be supporting the Constitution, but tend to ignore the Constitution when it doesn’t let them do what they want to. Example is demanding courts hear cases that the Constitution doesn’t give them jurisdiction to hear.
    9. They typically claim to know wildly more than they really do.
    10. They don’t care much about what a citation really means as long as it seems to support their position out of context or on the surface.
    11. They keep repeating discredited theories.
    12. They are immune to rational argument.

  36. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 25, 2010 at 6:28 pm #

    I have removed “and time” from the image. It appears that both the day and year were added. The month is original.

  37. avatar
    PaulG April 25, 2010 at 10:40 pm #

    Tried that, all I got were these stupid pancakes.

  38. avatar
    Epectitus April 25, 2010 at 11:59 pm #

    McCain has in fact explicitly denied he was born at the hospital cited in this birth certificate.

  39. avatar
    Rickey April 26, 2010 at 12:09 am #

    I would add to your list that they never, ever admit to be being wrong about something.

  40. avatar
    Black Lion April 26, 2010 at 10:03 am #

    THe Post and Fail is getting desperate….Their new article claims that they have proof that Obama’s COLB is a fake because the COLB they have received is different that Obama’s….However from reading the article their theory is faulty at best….

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/04/25/original-certificate-of-live-birth-from-hawaii-is-different-from-obamas-colb/

    There differences….

    The document is titled “Certificate of Live Birth” as opposed to Obama’s “Certification of Live Birth.”
    There is more information about the parents on the right side of the document across from the spaces for “Mother’s Race” and “Father’s Race.” Both the mother’s and father’s places of birth are printed there. Obama’s purported “document” does not have that information.
    There is a visible certificate number at the top, while Obama’s is blacked out.
    On the back, there is a stamped date, presumably the date the document was issued from the Department of Health.
    Below the date there is a stamp which reads: “I CERTIFY THIS IS A TRUE COPY OR ABSTRACT OF THE RECORD ON FILE IN THE HAWAII STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.” The signature of Alvin T. Onaka, Ph.D., is also there, followed by the words “STATE REGISTRAR.”
    The document contains a raised seal which is visible from both sides, unlike Obama’s.
    There are no marks where it looks as if something has bled through from the back to the front as in Obama’s “document.”

    However the most interesting thing is even their posters question the article….

    Vexatious Requester says:
    Monday, April 26, 2010 at 5:23 AM

    While we all know that the Obummer on-line COLB is a complete fabrication, but I am not sure I understand what this analysis proves. According to an email exchange I had with Okubo in January, the feedstock for the COLB is completely blank, the border, the DoH seal (not the raised seal) at the top, the document title, the abstract/prima facie statement, the form field labels and actual birth registration data is contained in the Vital Records data base and only printed when the entire COLB is printed. The date stamp/signature on the back and raised seal is then applied after it is printed.

    The differences noted can be attributed to the revision to the data base that occurred on October 2008. This COLB example is printed from the OHSM-1 Rev 10/2008 COLB data base specification. Obummer’s COLB was allegedly printed from the OHSM-1 Rev 11/2001 data base specification. The example above is identical to the “blank” COLB I obtained in January. I was unable to obtain a blank or redacted copy of the OHSM-1 Rev. 11/2001. Apparently the DoH does not maintain a copy of obsolete revisions.

    I noticed that this COLB was identifed as “Date Filed By Registrar”. Under what circumstances did this 1981 birth take place? Was it in a HI hospital, at home attended by a midwife, unattended, or did take place out of state or country? Was it a late registration (after 30 days but less than one year)? I would be very interested in learning which of these circumstances apply.

    If I am missing something relevant here, can someone please point it out?

  41. avatar
    Bovril April 26, 2010 at 10:33 am #

    So…they receive a BC that shows Obama is an NBC and this is a problem in what way….?

  42. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 26, 2010 at 3:41 pm #

    Vexatious Requester:

    …the feedstock for the COLB is completely blank, the border, the DoH seal (not the raised seal) at the top, the document title, the abstract/prima facie statement, the form field labels and actual birth registration data is contained in the Vital Records data base and only printed when the entire COLB is printed. The date stamp/signature on the back and raised seal is then applied after it is printed.

    This statement is pretty much right on target, except that the feedstock is not “completely blank” but has the green basket weave security paper background.

  43. avatar
    Jeff April 26, 2010 at 11:49 pm #

    THe Post and Fail is getting desperate….Their new article claims that they have proof that Obama’s COLB is a fake because the COLB they have received is different that Obama’s….However from reading the article their theory is faulty at best….

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/04/25/original-certificate-of-live-birth-from-hawaii-is-different-from-obamas-colb/

    There differences….

    The document is titled “Certificate of Live Birth” as opposed to Obama’s “Certification of Live Birth.”
    There is more information about the parents on the right side of the document across from the spaces for “Mother’s Race” and “Father’s Race.” Both the mother’s and father’s places of birth are printed there. Obama’s purported “document” does not have that information.
    There is a visible certificate number at the top, while Obama’s is blacked out.
    On the back, there is a stamped date, presumably the date the document was issued from the Department of Health.
    Below the date there is a stamp which reads: “I CERTIFY THIS IS A TRUE COPY OR ABSTRACT OF THE RECORD ON FILE IN THE HAWAII STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.” The signature of Alvin T. Onaka, Ph.D., is also there, followed by the words “STATE REGISTRAR.”
    The document contains a raised seal which is visible from both sides, unlike Obama’s.
    There are no marks where it looks as if something has bled through from the back to the front as in Obama’s “document.”

    However the most interesting thing is even their posters question the article….

    Vexatious Requester says:
    Monday, April 26, 2010 at 5:23 AM

    While we all know that the Obummer on-line COLB is a complete fabrication, but I am not sure I understand what this analysis proves. According to an email exchange I had with Okubo in January, the feedstock for the COLB is completely blank, the border, the DoH seal (not the raised seal) at the top, the document title, the abstract/prima facie statement, the form field labels and actual birth registration data is contained in the Vital Records data base and only printed when the entire COLB is printed. The date stamp/signature on the back and raised seal is then applied after it is printed.

    The differences noted can be attributed to the revision to the data base that occurred on October 2008. This COLB example is printed from the OHSM-1 Rev 10/2008 COLB data base specification. Obummer’s COLB was allegedly printed from the OHSM-1 Rev 11/2001 data base specification. The example above is identical to the “blank” COLB I obtained in January. I was unable to obtain a blank or redacted copy of the OHSM-1 Rev. 11/2001. Apparently the DoH does not maintain a copy of obsolete revisions.

    I noticed that this COLB was identifed as “Date Filed By Registrar”. Under what circumstances did this 1981 birth take place? Was it in a HI hospital, at home attended by a midwife, unattended, or did take place out of state or country? Was it a late registration (after 30 days but less than one year)? I would be very interested in learning which of these circumstances apply.

    If I am missing something relevant here, can someone please point it out?

  44. avatar
    Rick April 27, 2010 at 9:23 am #

    THe Post and Fail is getting desperate….Their new article claims that they have proof that Obama’s COLB is a fake because the COLB they have received is different that Obama’s….However from reading the article their theory is faulty at best….

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/04/25/original-certificate-of-live-birth-from-hawaii-is-different-from-obamas-colb/

    There differences….

    The document is titled “Certificate of Live Birth” as opposed to Obama’s “Certification of Live Birth.”
    There is more information about the parents on the right side of the document across from the spaces for “Mother’s Race” and “Father’s Race.” Both the mother’s and father’s places of birth are printed there. Obama’s purported “document” does not have that information.
    There is a visible certificate number at the top, while Obama’s is blacked out.
    On the back, there is a stamped date, presumably the date the document was issued from the Department of Health.
    Below the date there is a stamp which reads: “I CERTIFY THIS IS A TRUE COPY OR ABSTRACT OF THE RECORD ON FILE IN THE HAWAII STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.” The signature of Alvin T. Onaka, Ph.D., is also there, followed by the words “STATE REGISTRAR.”
    The document contains a raised seal which is visible from both sides, unlike Obama’s.
    There are no marks where it looks as if something has bled through from the back to the front as in Obama’s “document.”

    However the most interesting thing is even their posters question the article….

    Vexatious Requester says:
    Monday, April 26, 2010 at 5:23 AM

    While we all know that the Obummer on-line COLB is a complete fabrication, but I am not sure I understand what this analysis proves. According to an email exchange I had with Okubo in January, the feedstock for the COLB is completely blank, the border, the DoH seal (not the raised seal) at the top, the document title, the abstract/prima facie statement, the form field labels and actual birth registration data is contained in the Vital Records data base and only printed when the entire COLB is printed. The date stamp/signature on the back and raised seal is then applied after it is printed.

    The differences noted can be attributed to the revision to the data base that occurred on October 2008. This COLB example is printed from the OHSM-1 Rev 10/2008 COLB data base specification. Obummer’s COLB was allegedly printed from the OHSM-1 Rev 11/2001 data base specification. The example above is identical to the “blank” COLB I obtained in January. I was unable to obtain a blank or redacted copy of the OHSM-1 Rev. 11/2001. Apparently the DoH does not maintain a copy of obsolete revisions.

    I noticed that this COLB was identifed as “Date Filed By Registrar”. Under what circumstances did this 1981 birth take place? Was it in a HI hospital, at home attended by a midwife, unattended, or did take place out of state or country? Was it a late registration (after 30 days but less than one year)? I would be very interested in learning which of these circumstances apply.

    If I am missing something relevant here, can someone please point it out?

  45. avatar
    John McQueeg May 20, 2010 at 7:50 pm #

    Contrary to what is claimed by both Hollander and the critics of his certificate, the “Colon Hospital” referred to on that document was NOT outside in Panama proper. It was in Colon, but at the time of McCain’s birth it was also in the Canal Zone.

    It was a U.S. Government-built hospital that opened in 1916 on 2nd street in downtown Colon and closed in 1954. At the time, several blocks of downtown Colon were part of the Canal Zone according to the 1914 Treaty that set up its boundaries. These were located along the waterfront around the U.S. military battery Fort DeLesseps and the Hotel Washington. Most of the civilian Canal Zone offices were located in this section of Colon at the time, including the hospital referred to there. The hospital was located a few blocks east of the Hotel Washington, and a block northwest of the Cristobal High School for American students.

    The U.S. relocated all of those offices in 1954-57 to the Coco Solo base and ceded those parts of Colon back to Panama according to a 1955 Treaty. But in 1936, the Colon Hospital was definitely a Canal Zone facility making both Hollander and his critics wrong on that point.