Several articles about the copy of the Birth Certificate....sorry...the images did not copy.....I just hope this pans out and there is NO real one!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://polarik.blogtownhall.com/

Obama's Birth Certificate: the true "birth order" of the faked images!
Posted by Polarik on Thursday, July 03, 2008 4:22:48 PM

What was the first image posted on the Net? Kos's second image.

What was the second image posted on the Net? Kos's first image.

What came before the Kos images?

The "missing link," namely, a shadowy figure called, Dr. X, who produced the very first, scanned image that was later forwarded to the Kos.

Was this a scan of Obama's genuine Certification of Live Birth?

OH, HECK, NO!!

The Genesis of the faked images in order of their creation, but not in order of their appearance will be, once and for all, revealed after you read the preliminary work that led to these conclusions.



Sorry to disagree with other theorists on this matter, but my analyses prove that OpenDNA’s images -- both of them -- came directly from the Kos image. Absolutely, 100%, no doubt. The "little dot" as one person has called it is actually an anomaly -- a piece of junk on the scanner glass or on the COLB itself.

Regardless, it is a BIG Boo-Boo on the Kos image that appears smaller on the OpenDNA image -- a definite sign of being copied.
What is throwing people off are the differences in the resolution of the images and not the size or quality.

Nearly all monitors are scaled at 96 DPI, which is why web images are scaled to 96 DPI -- to look best when seen by a monitor. The OPLNY reason, then, why OpenDNA's image appears of "higher quality" is there difference in resolution.

Making an image of higher resolution -- like what the Kos image happens to be, namely, 300 DPI, is COUNTERPRODUCTIVE with web graphics; i.e., they look WORSE WHEN ENLARGED.

OpenDNA's images are 800 x 781 - exact scale reductions from 2427 x 2369, and by changing the resolution to 96 DPI from 300 DPI was not done just to make them look better -- but also to make one think that, "Hey maybe this was the original image derived from a scanner, since the default resolution of scanners is 96 DPI."

But, when you look at the Kos image and the OpenDNA's images under edge detection, and at the same size, the "dot," the anomaly you mentioned looks huge compared to the tiny dot of OpenDNA's.

Because, when you try to enlarge OpenDNA's image up to the original size of the Kos, that "well-defined, and large boulder" on the Kos looks positively smeared on OpenDNA's.

To compare apples to apples instead of apples to guacamole, I'm going to slice off the upper right-hand corner of each image after setting the images to the same size and resolution, namely 2427 x 2369, 96 DPI.

All images will be saved at 100% JPG quality. The resulting slice dimensions will be around 786 x 268px. I'm also going to dispense with any image enhancement because the differences are plainly visible to the naked eye.

I'm also going to leave the images unmarked because, by now, you should know that the "dot" in question lies right below the E in "CERTIFICATION" and directly to the right of "STATE OF HAWAII." Now, drum roll please....


Here is the Kos' larger image at 2427 x 2369 with the resolution now set @ 96 DPI





Here is the OpenDNA image, originally scaled down to 800 x 781 @ 96 DPI, restored to the original Kos size of 2427 x 2369:





Which of these looks a lot clearer, the Kos or the OpenDNA? Unless you left your contacts on the night table, the "big dot" on the Kos is much clearer, as are all of the letters. Now, let's take the first Smears image, which was 1024 x 1000 @ 300 DPI -- exactly the same as the very first Kos image posted (which was, also, a proportionate reduction in size alone).




Again, not as clear as the Kos image, BUT clearer than the OpenDNA images. Check out the differences between STATE OF HAWAII on the Smears versus OpenDNA. Notice anything? First off, there are more artifacts on OpenDNA's slice than on Smears slice.

More importantly -- the fonts closely resemble each other, but no OpenDNA's are not the same as either the Kos or the Smears when looked at under the same magnification. The difference is not an artifact. You can also see that the absolute positions of the type differ from both the Kos and the Smears, leading to one conclusion.

Open DNA, like "Dr X," literally started with an almost blank canvas, wiping out all of the type, both field names and data. "Dr. X," is the unknown person to whom I refer as the one producing the original scanned image that wound up in the hands of the Kos.

That the fonts are slightly different in shape and position should ring a few bells, don't you think?

The last image I'll show you is the reduced image that the Smears used to replace the first one they had (which, as we've seen was a direct copy of the Kos).

Instead of the dimensions of the new image being proportionate, they are 585 x 575 @ 100 DPI which is off by 4 pixels, but is off 200 DPI in resolution.

A significant difference designed to obscure the detail in the image -- as many of you astute observers have noted. BTW, ONLY the Kos images show the seal under edge detection. The ALLEGED higher quality OpenDNA brought back up to 2427 x 2369 @ 96 DPI shows squat!




(NOTE: this is obviously not the entire image -- it is just the area where the seal should be. The entire image is nearly 6MB -- too long to post, but it is also on my Photobucket album._ THE MISSING "MAGIC SEAL."

That's the penalty for reducing the original Kos image down in size and resolution. Remember, in my blog, The Greater Evil, I noted that one could reproduce the edge-detected, smaller Smears image by first reducing the original, larger Kos image down to the same size and resolution of the Smears image, and then apply edge detection.

The process of edge detection, not only changed the pattern of the background, it made the entire image magenta!



Despite the yucky color, notice how the background has changed from a series of lines to a crosshatched one. Guess what? OpenDNA's images have the same pattern:




Now, rather than cut-and-paste the entire post I placed on my blog, and make this comment way too long to read in one sitting, you may visit my blog for the entire analysis.

To conclude: In the beginning, there was Dr X. Dr X. took a certified COLB, that DID NOT BELONG TO OBAMA, scanned it, and then proceeded to Photoshop out two of the three folds, and all of the field headers and data, using pieces of the background and the HEALING tool to blend them in -- that is why the Kos seal is so faint.

Then, with a blank canvas on which to paint his "masterpiece of fakery," freshly typed in the filed names and the MODIFIED data fields to make it look like a COLB from BHO.

Dr X then gave it up to the Kos, who then proceeded to proudly display it on its web page. Meanwhile, back at the Obama ranch, news of the posted image hit the Obamanites like a bombshell, and they proceeded to copy the newly-minted image, while making plans to post it on their "Fight the Smears" site.

BEFORE they could do that, the authenticity of the Kos image was challenged by OpenDNA, and in a move they have regretted, challenged OpenDNA to produce a faked COLB. He doubled their dismay by producing two from their original image: one totally blank, except for the field and date for the island of birth and time of birth -- both simply left there by OpenDNA as he proceeded to blot out the rest of the fields and data.

In his second rendition, he entered that weird name for the child field. The "Smears shmucks" were caught, flatfooted. They quickly slammed down their direct copy of the Kos image, and claimed, "Here is his birth certificate," after weakly countering the argument that BHO was not born in the USA.

Realizing the dumb move of posting a really good copy of the fake that was open to inspection, the Smears shmucks pulled it down and replaced it with one almost half its size. They also removed the "Here is his birth certificate," claim!

So, instead of seeing an image tied to a counterargument verified by the COLB, we just have a totally different argument, followed by an orphaned image.

The proverbial ball got rolling on June 10, when Jim Geraghty, reporting on the Campaign Spot, a National Review blog, cited the "unlikely" but still circulating rumor that Obama was born not within the United States, but elsewhere, possibly Kenya. Geraghty said the Obama campaign could "debunk" the rumors about his birth simply by releasing a copy of his birth certificate, but the campaign has so far chosen not to do that.

So, who comes to the rescue? Dr X. Dr. X makes the original COLB scan and passes it along to the Daily Kos who post it on their website on June 12. OpenDNA says, "Hey, that's looks like a fake." The Kos said, "Oh, yeah? Make one." And darned if he didn't -- two of them, Meanwhile, the Obama camp has gotten wind of the Kos image and becomes alarmed. Then, after a lengthy time to figure out how to RIGHT-CLICK & SAVE a web image to disk, they copy the Kos image and post it on their "Fight The Smears" website (which has a tendency to make itself over if it smells trouble).

And, then the Shmears hit the fan as myself and a cadre of other bloggers proceeded to cut it up like a Xmas Goose.

But give the Obama camp credit for putting up, then taking down, then putting back up a sentence to the effect that Obama has made his birth certificate public, and here it is:

To which, I end with, HERE IT'S NOT. Never was. Never will be.

Either BHO has got the COLB or he doesn't.

I say, "Put up or shut up!"



OK, now. Who's da' Man?
Tags: texasdarlin obama. birth certificate noquarter free republic Fake fraud
Email It | Print It | Comments (3) | Trackbacks (0) | Flag as Offensive The Great Obama "birth certificate" debate: Who has the EDGE?
Posted by Polarik on Monday, June 30, 2008 2:03:05 PM
Many thanks to Texas Darlin and Greg Gelembiuk, but props to the GIMP development team (http://www.gimp.org/) for providing the software used to examine these images. The GIMP program was used to apply an edge detection algorithm, known as Sobel, to the various versions of the COLB image. Greg provided the settings for the Sobel detection. With it, we can examine the underlying impressions made on whatever was the basis for these images. The following question has been raised by the blogsphere:


QUESTION: Are there seals hidden from view on the "Certificate of Live Birth" images posted to (a) the Daily Kos. (b) BarackObama.com (aka "Fight the Smears") and/or (c) the two images posted on OPENDNA's PhotoBucket account?


ANSWER: YES to (a), but a big, fat NO to (b) and (c)
(a) The Daily Kos COLB:






(b) The "Fight the Smears" COLB:





(c-1) OpenDNA's 1st COLB:





(c-2) OpenDNA's 2nd COLB:




For comparison sake, Pat DeCosta's COLB:





For comparison sake, Jason Tomoyasu's COLB:




And, last but not least, Jeremy Smith's COLB:





So, what have we learned from all this?

There's more than meets the naked eye, for one.

You can do a lot of devious things with graphics program, for another.

Mostly, however, we STILL do not have any GENUINE certified copies of Barack Obama's birth certificate or Certificate of Live Birth.

Memo to Sen. Obama and anyone else trying to pass off images as being a copy of your birth record:

"Either show us the real deal, or don't show up at all"

Tags: kos birth certificate obama Fake smears fraud
Email It | Print It | Comments (23) | Trackbacks (0) | Flag as Offensive Proof positive that Photoshop was used on the BC image posted in the Daily Kos
Posted by Polarik on Sunday, June 29, 2008 2:28:38 PM
Sharp-eyed Buckhead spotted this gem for us.

JPG files can contain a lot of information about the nature of the image -- and even information not related at all to the image. Beginning with the 24th byte in a JPG file, one can embed information hidden from view...except, of course, when you look at it with a hex editor.

For example, I have a JPG of an old map. Looking inside the file, I found the author or copyright owner of the image, "Lead Technologies, Inc."

I opened both the image posted on the Daily Kos and the image on the "Smears" websites in a hex editor. Inside, I saw information indicating that both had taken a trip through Photoshop land.

As per Buckhead's revelation, inside the Kos image, one can see that the image was produced by Adobe Photoshop CS3, on a Mac running OS 2.0, and saved at 8:43am on June 12th -- around the same date it was posted online.

When I took a look inside the JPG posted on Obama's "Smears" website, I saw, beginning with byte #24, the word, "Ducky," who I assume is the author of this altered file. And, yes, I also saw the word, "Adobe," beginning at byte#43, but I did not see which Adobe product was used.

HOWEVER...

If you look inside the Kos image, beginning at byte #24, you can see the word, "Exif," the image format supported by almost all digital cameras.

What typically follows, "Exif," is the information about the shutter speed, flash condition, focal length, and other characteristics about the photo image.

WTF? Was the Daily Kos image originally taken from a digital camera file, modified in Photoshop CS3 running under Mac OS 2.0, and subsequently saved on June 12, 2008 at 8:42am?

Or, does Photoshop add Exif information? I could not find any Photoshop information or Exif information in the nonphoto image files I've saved with Photoshop.

I analyzed the Kos image using an EXIF Reader. Here is what it found:

Filename : BO_Birth_Certificate.jpg
JFIF_APP1 : Exif
Main Information
Orientation : left-hand side
XResolution : 300/1
YResolution : 300/1
ResolutionUnit : Inch
Software : Adobe Photoshop CS3 Macintosh
DateTime : 2008:06:12 08:42:36
ExifInfoOffset : 164
Sub Information
ColorSpace : Uncalibrated
ExifImageWidth : 2427
ExifImageHeight : 2369

At a bare minimum, we know that the infamous black rectangle obscuring the Certificate Number was made by a graphics program. With the Exif information, we can say, with a great degree of confidence, that \Adobe Photoshop was used to alter this image..

NOW...what else was done to the image while it was in Photoshop?

For that, I refer you to all of my prior posts.

Knowing that the image definitely took a trip through Photoshop land serves to reinforce my assertions about the other parts of the image -- namelt, that they, too, represent graphical alterations.

Covering up the Certificate Number DOES NOT REQUIRE THE USE OF PHOTOSHOP. If I was scanning the same document, all I would need to do is to cut out a small piece of black paper and hold it in place with non-permanent Scotch tape.

But, there is no way that the black rectangle we see on these images was produced by covering the number up with black paper. It could only have been done by a graphics program -- which turned out to be Adobe Photoshop CS3.

And, since that little bit of skullduggery -- modifying the document image with Photoshop -- counts as an "alteration," big-time.

In other words, the Kos and Obama's website have tried to portray an "invalid certificate" as being valid. According to our legal system, that is tantamount to "fraud," and no amount of logical reasoning can account for it.

Some skeptics argue that if this was truly a fraud, that the Clinton camp would have picked up on it. Maybe, if it had been released while Hillary was still running. But, the fact remains that Obama and his campaign organizers posted this image only AFTER June 10th, or long after Hillary conceded.

We've all noticed the date stamp in the image that either was produced by the ink bleeding through the paper, or was produced by being illuminated from behind by the scanner/copier. Some skeptics claim that the embossed seal and signature stamps on the reverse side somehow avoided being seen from the front side. No way. At a very least, that part of the paper where an embossed seal would be made, would be seen as distorted in some way under magnification. No such distortion was seen.

Ergo, the most that can be said of this image is that it is not a full copy of a certified document -- that 3/4 of it is missing by virtue of no folds shown in that part or any evidence that an embossed seal had been applied.

If it walks like a duck, swins like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it must be a Photochopped chicken.

Tags: certificatge kos birth obama Fake fraud
Email It | Print It | Comments (7) | Trackbacks (0) | Flag as Offensive Why the "Certificate No." on Obama's bogus BC is blacked out.
Posted by Polarik on Saturday, June 28, 2008 2:07:51 PM
A great many eyes have seen the alleged copy of Obama's "birth certificate," heretofore known as the "Certificate of Live Birth" or COLB, and wondered, "Why is there a perfectly-shaped black rectangle covering the Certificate No. of this COLB? Why is that nuymber hidden from view?"

One reason why the Certificate No. on Obama's COLB is blacked out can be found by checking the number on Pat DeCosta's COLB:

CERTIFICATE NO. 151 1930-010259

See any part of this number that looks meaningful?

DeCosta was born in 1930, and "1930" appear in the certificate number.

Therefore, the odds are pretty high that the actual birth year is part of the certificate number. The odds are also high that the rest of the certificate number also contains meaningful information -- other than the obvious one of being able to find it in the birth record database.

For example, the last six numbers could be a batch number indicating when it was printed, or a filing number indicating in which database the record could be found.

A phone call to Vital Records about the certificate number would clarify its meaning.

Assuming for the moment that the certificate number does contain the BIRTH YEAR, then either Obama's actual COLB or someone else's actual COLB served as the starting point for the forgery.

In both of these possibilities, either all or part of the Certificate Number had to be altered or blacked out because (a) the BIRTH DATE part of the Number was not "1961," and/or (b) the whole Number could be used to validate the existence of a corresponding birth record on file, and if that birth record does exist, then one could ask, "Is this the birth record of Barack Hussein Obama II?"

If any part of Obama's name is different, for example, if the name on the birth record is BHO Jr. instead of BHO II, then Vital Records will not be able to answer the question.

The way that Hawaii's Vital Records office responds to requests for copies of certificates of birth, or even letters of verification, is to provide only the information that is correctly requested of them. So, you need to know, in verbatim, what is written on the birth record in order to have it verified.

One may ask the question as to why the forger did not also modify the Certificate Number instead of redacting all of it.

One reason might be that the forger could not reproduce the font used for the certificate number.

HOWEVER, the most plausible reason is that the existence of a certification no. in the Vital Records database could be confirmed or denied without the need for Vital Records to release any protected information from the certificate itself.

Here's the kicker when it comes to finding out what is real and what is not.

In order for an authorized person to receive a Certificate of Live Birth, that person needs to know exactly how the information appears on the original record.

So, let's say that Patricia DeCosta wants to get a copy of her COLB. If she puts her name down as "Pat DeCosta" on the order form, what would Vital Records put on the COLB below the "Child's Name" heading?

My guess is nothing. She'd get back a blank space where her name would have appeared. It is also possible that it might be a "N/A," "Unavailable," or something similar to that. Again, a call to Vital Records would clarify what appears in a field that was incorrectly specified.

If Vital Records does, in fact, leave the space blank, then entering a forged response would be a piece of cake for even an amateur Photochopper.

Whether the altered COLB began its life as Obama's COLB (highly unlikely) or as someone else's COLB (more likely), the fact remains that most, if not all, of the response fields on the COLB appear to have been altered by overlaying them with bitmapped text from a graphics program.

Whatever tack was taken to alter Obama's COLB, it would have been absolutely essential to obliterate the entire certificate number if that number could be used to validate if a birth record bearing that same number even exists on file, let alone if this image was an exact copy of Obama's original COLB.

Logic dictates that if this image was a true copy of Obama's original COLB, then what harm would there be in releasing the certificate number? Even if one knew the certificate number, it alone cannot be used to obtain a certified COLB, or even a verification letter.

However, if, in fact, a person's birth year is a part of the certificate number, then that certificate number would be said to contain individually identifiable information and, therefore, be protected by the Privacy Act.

In addition, if that certificate number can be used to match a record on file containing individually identifiable information, then that would be another reason for considering it protected by the Privacy Act.

Yet, if Obama has really released his personal information to the public, then that information would become public record and not subject to the Privacy Act.

You cannot have it both ways: either the information is public or protected.

What we have not heard are any statements made by the individual himself, namely, Obama, as to whether he personally authorized the release of his private information.

Somebody has to pin him down on this question, once and for all:

Senator Obama, "Is the image posted online a valid and accurate copy of your Certification of Birth, duly certified by the State of Hawaii, and did you personally request and obtain this copy and authorize others to post this image of it?"

Tags: birth certificate obama Fake
Email It | Print It | Comments (2) | Trackbacks (0) | Flag as Offensive UPDATE: Here's what data officials in Hawaii have said
Posted by Polarik on Monday, June 23, 2008 2:56:02 PM
OK, here's the 411 on Hawaii's "Certification of Live Birth.


I just got off the phone after talking with their Vital Records office and the Office that issues these certifications.


HAWAII NO LONGER ISSUES COPIES OF ACTUAL BIRTH CERTIFICATES. WHAT THEY ISSUE IS THIS COMPUTER-GENERATED CERTIFICATION OF LIVE BIRTH THAT IS PRINTED ON GREEN PAPER USING A LASER PRINTER.


In other words, folks, we are not going to get any other kind of certificate from the Vital Records division of the Hawaiian government, except this certification.


OHSM 1.1 is the number of the Certification of Live Birth form, and the most current version of it is Rev 11/01 -- or, what we have seen in both images.


So, a person (such as a family member) who is authorized to obtain one of these for an individual born in Hawaii, would receive this Certification regardless of when the birth occurred.


HOWEVER, they absolutely referred to African-Americans born in Hawaiio as "BLACK" and not African, and no updates to the race classifications were ever made. If your birth certificate said "BLACK" in 1961, it would still say, "BLACK" on a Certification printed today.


BUT they also told me that, for it to be a "certified" copy, it HAS to be stamped with the seal of Hawaii and the signature block, and then signed by the Dispersement office and not Vital Records.




According to our Census Bureau, all statistical reports produced by the Bureau use the terms White, Black, Hispanic origin, and White, not of Hispanic origin, were used for all census years for consistency of presentation, even though, there have been changes in terminology in census reports, including from Negro to Black between 1970 and 1980 and from Spanish origin to Hispanic origin between 1980 and 1990.




The conclusion?
Calling the image of Obama's "Certification," that we have seen, a "birth certificate," is a valid statement insofar as the State of Hawaii distributes these as legitimate records of birth, providing that they have been properly certified as mentioned above.

However, all of the evidence I've examined to date points to what is a deliberate graphical modification of a copy of an original, or even a copy of a copy, given its degree of degradation.


The image of Decosta's Certificate shows that it HAS ALL OF THE CERTIFICATIONS that the Hawaiian Health Department issues, whereas the image of Obama's Certificate shows ZERO EVIDENCE OF EVER BEING CERTIFIED.



According to the caveat at the bottom of this certification, ANY ALTERATIONS RENDER IT INVALID.

Or, in other words, this image -- or the source of this image -- cannot be used as "prima facie evidence" in defense of any legal challenge to Obama's date, place, and time of birth, since it has not been certified by the issuing party as being a true and accurate representation of the facts on file.

All Obama would need to do to make this issue go away, is to request that Hawaii's office of Vital Records send him a properly CERTIFIED "Certificate," laser printed on the original green paper, that has no evidence of tampering or alteration.


Email It | Print It | Comments (5) | Trackbacks (0) | Flag as Offensive NOW let's compare "apples to apples"
Posted by Polarik on Sunday, June 22, 2008 2:35:43 PM
Or, since this involves Hawaii, "pineapples to pineapples:"

With many thanks to Bloggers TexasDarlin, Freeper, and Shainzona, I am posting a copy of Hawaiian-born, Patricia Decosta's certified "Certification of Live Birth," which is what this Certification should look like. If you go back to the points I raised in my original post, specifically about the differences in typeface, letter artifacts, and the border, these points are further reinforced from comparing Decosta's certified document with Obama's uncertified one.

Once again, here is Obama's uncertified (and suspect) "Certification of Live Birth":




And, now, Ms. Decosta's certified (and not suspect) "Certification of Live Birth:"





For comparison purposes, I created a cropped image of each that are approximately the same dimensions in terms of image height and text height. Additionally, each image -- one for Obama's and one for Decosta's -- has approximately the same amount of JPG compression.

Before comparing these and deconstructing them, I draw your attention to the previous images showing the entire certificates. Both have the same "tag line" indicating the form number and revision, OHSM 1.1 (Rev. 11/01) LASER, and the "prima facie evidence" statement.

Given that both have that same tag line, one can assume, for the moment, that this tag line does appear on valid COB's produced by the Office of Health Status Monitoring during the time that Rev. 11/01 was being used.

However, the thing that should jump out at you, besides the visual differences in the typefaces, are the obvious, visual differences in the borders.

But, first, let me reiterate what is my main contention about the images posted on the Daily Kos and Fight The Smears websites.

I maintain that a copy of a real, Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth was graphically modified to resemble what Obama's "Certification of Live Birth" might look like, IF, and only IF, it were a genuine reproduction of a genuine document.

Thus, the crux of my argument is as follows:

Because the image of Obama's copy has so many distinct, visual differences from the image of a copy certified as accurate, like Ms. Decosta's, and that these visual differences represent what could only result from a deliberate, graphical modification of an existing image, that the image itself, and the paper copy it purports to represent, casts doubt on the validity of the claims made for them.

These claims are that Barack Obama's "Certification of Live Birth" does exists somewhere, and that the JPG images posted on the Daily Kos and Fight The Smears websites are genuine reproductions of it.

As I highlighted in my first post, the evidence says otherwise. Here are close-up views of both the Obama and Decosta images:






The typeface on the Decosta image is much darker and thicker, and has less kerning (spacing between the letters), than the Obama image. Moreover, the color of the green paper comes through almost all of the letters regardless of magnification or image compression.

By comparison, you will not see the grey and white pixels found between the letters on the Obama image.

When you enlarge the letters in the Decosta image, they all tend to remain solid, especially letters like "I, L, B, E, H," that continue to look the same no matter how large you make them. Conversely, when you enlarge the letters in the Obama image, they start to fall apart -- that is, they start losing pixels. This is exactly what happens to bitmapped text created by a graphics program.

OK, now let's compare the borders of both images.

In the Obama image -- or, should I say, "images," because the edges of the vertical borders in the Kos image overlap the horizontal ones, whereas the Smears image has them lining up -- the pattern is different from the Decosta image.







The borders in the Obama image might be extremely faint versions of the Decosta image, but then why is so much image information missing, if not because it was a bad reproduction to begin with.

Other bloggers have already noted the reversed, embossed seals and signature imprints that appear on the Decosta image but which are totally absent on the Obama image. The conclusion from this would be that the Obama image never had them, for if they did, wouldn't they be prominently shown as verification?

We still have more questions than answers
Email It | Print It | Comments (10) | Trackbacks (0) | Flag as Offensive Was Obama's "Certificate of Birth" manufactured?
Posted by Polarik on Friday, June 20, 2008 12:00:00 AM
The Daily Kos blog has posted a JPG that allegedly is Barack Obama's "Certificate of Birth." From a detailed analysis of the image and the text, it looks like it was created by a graphics program, and is not a true copy of an original, certified document.

I've been working with computers, printers, and typewriters for over 20 years, and given a set of printed letters, I can discern what kind of device made them. Printer output is quite different from the text created by a graphics program, and even if a document looks "official," it may not be.

The "Certificate of Birth," which I will call "COB," is posted on the Kos website as a color JPG. The reason for making it a color JPG, IMHO, is to induce the viewer to believe that this is a genuine copy of an original document -- something that a black & white, or even greyscale, reproduction would not convey as well.

Basically, anyone could have produced this document on his or her own computer, and I'll tell you why.

As represented by the JPG, the "original" COB seems to be a sheet of paper measuring 8.09" x 7.90" with a green "Rattan" pattern embedded in, or printed on, the paper and a "Bamboo mat" pattern for its border:



At the bottom of the JPG image, reading right from left, one can see following text:

OHSM 1.1 (Rev. 11/01) Laser This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding. [HRS 338-13(b), 338-19]

There are a lot of problems with this statement, foremost of which is that the text in this document were produced by a graphics program and not a laser print, or any other printer, for that matter.

If the letters were made by a laser printer, you would be able to see the background, the pattern, through the spaces of the letters.

Here's a copy of a certified Certification of Birth from New York:



When text is entered via a graphics program, the pattern cannot be seen without noticeable distortion. However, when text is entered with a computer printer or typewriter, you can clearly see the pattern below the letters.

Here is a segment of the COB showing the letters, "Certificat" (from the "Certification" field) enlarged about: 500%:



Now, let's enlarge it some more:




The fuzzy outline is a dead giveaway that these letters were made by a graphics program. Also a dead giveaway is that the letters still retain a sharp outline. With printed or typed text, there is a clearly definable characteristic of a symmetrical shadow when the image is saved at a lower resolution, that is, a more compressed JPG file.

Here is the word, "Certification," from my certificate of birth enlarged :



As you can see, there is virtually no distortion and no pixelation around the letters, and no dropouts from the background. The most noticeable pixelation and dropouts from the background can be seen in the Barack's father's name "HUSSEIN" on the COB:



Take a look at the area between the "S's in "HUSSEIN." No hint of any background color. Plenty of grey and white pixels -- exactly what would result from enlarging text entered with a graphics program.

WAIT, there is an even bigger red herring here. All of the type on this document was produced by the same program.

Whatever made the text for all of the headings also made the text for all of the entries.

What's wrong with that?

Well, only that real certificates are created ahead of time by a commercial printer, or, at least, a different printer than the one used to create the data entries. This is why the headings on my certificate of birth look entirely different than the entries.

That is questionable by itself. But it is the way the text looks that gives it away.

Any text made by a typewriter, laser printer, or even inkjet printer, would NOT have the smeared, black & white pixels underneath it -- there would be several pixels bearing the same color as the paper, nor would the left side of the letters be clear and free of any artifacts or shadows. Scalable type produced by a graphics program will look about the same regardless of the magnification with a minimal or uneven staircase pattern of pixels on its sides, whereas printed text -- even laser text -- will show a clear, uniform staircase pattern of pixels on both sides of each letter that proportionately increase in size with magnification.

Here are some examples:

Here is the "Certificate" heading from Barack's COB enlarged 5 times:



Virtually all of the letters lack any shadows, and only the "A" and the "R" show only a slight, uneven staircase effect. Basically, the letters would look essentially the same -- especially letters made from straight lines like "I," "E," and "T," regardless of the magnification used to view them, and this is a key feature of scalable type produced by a graphics program.

Now, here is the "Certification," heading from my genuine certificate enlarged 5 times:



The double shadow appears on all letters, and this shadow grows proportionately in size as the letters are enlarged. Also, there is pronounced staircase effect on the "C," "A," and "R." Notice, too, that the "steps" are uniform in size, in contrast to the uneven staircase effect on the Barack headings.

Again, the most glaring anomaly in Obama's COB is the following:

All of the letters that appear on Barack's Certificate of Birth were made, at the same time, and by the same method -- which was the use of a graphics program and not the use of any printer.

You can also tell that this is an obvious Photochop by looking at the border patterns.

Looking at the corners of the darker green border, you can see that the border is discontinuous. In other words, the vertical border bars were made by drawing a long rectangle, copying that rectangle, and then overlaying each of them on either side:

UPPER LEFT CORNER OF BORDER




LOWER RIGHT CORNER OF BORDER




What is readily apparent is that the top and bottom horizontal border bars are overlapped by the top and bottom edges of two vertical rectangles.

If this certificate was a professionally-made, there would not be any overlaps, or any outlines of the side rectangles -- the border would appear to be one, continuous whole. Note, too, that both the left and right side rectangles are equal in length. It appears that they were made that way (or cloned) to make the patterns line up.

OK...so where is the certification by the department, which consists of both an embossed seal and signature block on the reverse side?

If there is a department certification, then why not show it? Did it get lost in the scanning process? Doubtful. The background where the seal should be looks the same to the naked eye.

A certified document must have a signature (or signatures) from individuals within the State's Department of Health who are authorized to reproduce the document, and an embossed seal to certify that the document is genuine.

Nothing like that appears anywhere in this JPG.


In short, there is nothing in this copy to indicate that it is, in fact, a "certified copy." As I have shown above, there is a whole lot of evidence that it is a manufactured copy. There certainly is a very strong motive for creating one.

Unless the voting public is given a real birth certificate to examine, the question of Barack's birth is still up in the air.

[Please read the updates to this article that are also listed in my blog]

Tags: kos obama noquarter fightthesmears birth certificate Fake fraud
Email It | Print It | Comments (36) | Trackbacks (0) | Flag as Offensive My bad: "OHSM" stands for "Office of Health Status Monitoring" not "Statistics Monitoring"
Posted by Polarik on Wednesday, June 18, 2008 1:09:16 PM
Mea culpa

Who would have known that Hawaii is the only state in the union that has an "Office of Health Status Monitoring."

I've done work for health statistics agencies in other states, and that's why I naturally assumed the "S" was for "Statistics," not "Status."

Plus, since it is not a "Statistical Monitoring" office, you can order copies through that office.

Email It | Print It | Comments (2) | Trackbacks (0) | Flag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »