Posted on 05/19/2011 6:28:25 PM PDT by Red Steel
Re: Legal proof that President Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth is a forgery.
Dear Sir/Madam,
I have irrefutably proven that the Certificate of Live Birth that President Obama presented to the world on April 27, 2011 is a fraudulently created document put together using the Adobe Photoshop or Illustrator programs and the creation of this forgery of a public document constitutes a class B felony in Hawaii and multiple violations under U.S. Code section Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 47, Sec.1028, and therefore an impeachable offense. When this comes to the public’s attention, it will be the greatest scandal in the country’s history—nothing comes even close. This will surpass the all previous scandals including the Watergate scandal of the Nixon administration.
My Credentials
I have a unique background for analyzing this document. I owned a typesetting company for 11 years so I know type and form design very well. I currently own Archive Index Systems since 1993, which sells all types of document scanners worldwide and also developed document imaging software (TheRepository). I know how the scanners work. I have also sold other document imaging programs, such as Laser. Fiche, Liberty and Alchemy. I have sold and installed document imaging systems in city and county governments, so I know their procedures with imaging systems and everything about the design of such programs. This will be important in understanding what has happened with Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth.
What President Obama Presented to the Public is an alleged Certificate of Live Birth.
What President Obama presented is not the hospital birth certificate. The birth certificate would have the imprint of the baby’s footprint, weight, length and other information such as the religion. The Birth Certificate would be the source of the same information that would be typed onto the Certificate of Live Birth (the Long Form). What President Obama released is supposedly the Long Form that the County gets from the hospital, which is typed on a blank form given to the hospitals by the county. That copy is then mailed to the county Board of Health and kept as a legal government document. On Obama’s form (Figure 1) the County Clerk supposedly hand stamped the form on the upper right hand corner with a bates stamp. The number is a sequential number that reflects the sequence of Certificates that come into the County Health Department. The reason I know it was stamped by hand is because the number is crooked. The County Clerk also hand stamps the date of acceptance (box 20 and box 22). Obama’s Long Form was supposedly received on August 8, 1961, four days after his birth.
Continued in SCRIBD document below...
News Release: Legal proof that President Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth is a forgery.
"I follow the COLB fraud threads. You have been shot down on every one of them. You do not offer facts, but claims and testaments."
I challenged you to factually refute the claims I made earlier in this thread. You declined to do so.
The third of the four claims I made that I identified as easily testable has to do with Denninger's claim that kerning is present in the Obama document, and that this proves forgery.
Denninger states that two letters intruding upon each other's space in an indication of "kerning," and that this PROVES the document is forged, as such technology was not available in 1961.
He gives as his example the letters "a" and "p" in "Kapiolani," pointing out that they intrude upon each other's space.
I stated that Denninger was incorrect, and that this is evident in Edith Pauline Coats' birth certificate, which is a "known good" certificate from this era.
Below is the visual proof of my statement.
For the things we can clearly examine, that makes it: Douglas Vogt 0, PA Engineer 0, Jeff Winston 3.
I would appreciate an apology for your false personal attack.
I decided NOT to just give up and let the nutjobs run FreeRepublic.
You posted:
I find this statement to be the most revealing element of who you are.
I follow the COLB fraud threads. You have been shot down on every one of them. You do not offer facts, but claims and testaments.
Without a gossamer of evidence you pretend to parade out testimonials. When others point it out, you attack with vicious ad hominem venom. Why are you really here on these threads?
If you do not consider this to be a personal attack, please explain to me why you do not. Would you appreciate it if I posted the same falsehoods about you?
I am waiting for your apology. I am also waiting for you to factually refute even one of the things I've asked you to refute.
Hang in there, Jeff. On another thread I responded regarding the occurrence of characters with unusually identical pixel patterns. I found that such duplications appear in the copy of "Alice in Wonderland" from Google Books. I don't understand the details of how such an optimization would work, but obviously something is going on that might conceivably explain the duplications of character patterns in Obama's PDF.
It's my understanding that Obama's camp claims to have received two copies of his long form birth certificate in hard copy. Evidently the PDF file was created by someone at Obama's request.
I had seen poor copies of a different "high resolution" scan to which you have referred.
Could you tell me briefly how that scan was made, by whom, and of what document? Was this high resolution scan made directly from one of the hard copies held by the White House? In other words, was this high resolution scan made completely independently of the ugly, useless "optimized" PDF?
And finally, can you provide a link to the actual scanned document? I have seen parts of it but not the whole thing. Thanks.
You have no credibility here.
You're the one who continues to engage in ad hominem attacks and refuses to engage the facts. Either engage the facts, or apologize.
"I follow the COLB fraud threads. You have been shot down on every one of them. You do not offer facts, but claims and testaments."
I challenged you to factually refute the claims I made earlier in this thread. You declined to do so.
The fourth of the four claims I made that I identified as easily testable has to do with the claim that the out-of-sequence nature of the Obama and Nordyke twins' certificate numbers proves forgery.
I asked Triple to:
Do a search on the web for the birth date and certificate number for Stig Waidelich.
Actually, I mentioned in post #6 in this thread:
The sequential number: Is out of sequence with the Nordyke twins’ certificate. It’s also out of sequence with the certificate for Stig Waidelich, who was born on August 6, and has a certificate number of 10920. This is almost 200 numbers off of both the Nordyke twins and the Obama certificate number, and indicates the whole theory is fatally flawed.
The information regarding Stig Waidelich's birth certificate number is available from multiple sources on the web, and no one has ever contested that his birth certificate in fact ends in 10920.
The point that I made in post #6 of this thread has never been refuted, and you offer no evidence whatsoever to refute it.
Let me help you: In order to refute the point, you need to produce a valid image, not photoshopped, that disproves the information that Stig Waidelich's birth certicate number is 10920.
If Waidelich was born two days before Obama, and his birth certificate number is nearly 200 numbers after Obama's, then the entire "birth certificate number means Obama's certificate is a fraud" theory collapses entirely.
I also added:
But if the 4 specific points I just mentioned check out (and you and anybody else CAN check and verify all of them), then it just might be that I know what the hell I’m talking about.
For the things we can clearly examine, that makes it: Douglas Vogt 0, PA Engineer 0, Jeff Winston 4.
I would appreciate an apology for your baseless and false personal attacks.
I am also waiting for you to produce evidence that my claims are incorrect.
I was somewhat skeptical of this claim but haven't yet investigated it.
Your approach of showing that "kerning" (or just letter crowding )seems to appear in other known valid documents of the era is one way to proceed.
Another way is to characterize fully the relative positions of all the typed letters on the document. Although the character pair "ap" appears to be kerning, I think I noticed that the lower case "a" seemed to strike closer to the letter following it than the letter preceding it. Perhaps the "p" tends to strike slightly to the left of where intended. The bars on which the letters of a manual typewriter were located were notorious for getting jammed and becoming slightly bent.
An analysis of each letter's apparent spacing relative to each of the other letters might permit one to correct for that letter striking consistently to the left or the right. Once such a correction is made, then one might reasonably assess whether kerning is taking place.
That's a very good theory, and a very good thing to look at.
I can easily dispute it. Your red line on the "M" is very poorly placed and in fact winds up at the bottom of the opening of the center of the "a", making your whole demonstration a distortion!. The same is true of your "Ka" pair... In fact, if you were being honest, your base line on the "Ka" pairing would show NO DROP at all. I will admit the cap line of the "K" does show a one pixel drop, but that is inconclusive when compared with the baseline which shows none at all across the entire word on average. Yet the offset printed Words and stroked lines both have distinctly observable drops. No apology.
If you put an overlay of Nordyke on top of Obamas doc. can you directly compare size/ style spacing of letters ?....That should tell you something.
Its possible to have 2 different typewriters . but within the Obama Doc all spacing ./ style etc should be the same. ( also for the Nordyke doc)
In my post #166 I point out that one needs to take into account the errors in individual character placement horizontally before being able to conclusively determine whether kerning is taking place in the document.
Similarly, since the typist must press the SHIFT key when typing an upper case "K", one would have to consider the possibility that the key was not fully pressed or had perhaps bounced off the mechanical stops. For this reason there may be some uncertainty about where a character should appear vertically. I haven't looked to see whether there are other examples of the "Ka" pair to compare within the document.
He's a White House debunking agent. That's at least a GS-13.
It is dark, you are likely to be eaten by a grue.
Turn on Lamp. Kill troll with sword.
I just checked quite a few examples. The "Ka" in the address field and the "Ke" in "Kenya" show the "K" striking perhaps a pixel above the following lower case letter. The "K" in "Kansas" is very high.
In fact, it appears to be the rule rather than the exception that an upper case letter followed by a lower case letter will strike slightly high. This effect would tend toward straightening out a curve at the edge of the document.
Having done a lot of kerning in the past, It is my opinion that the "ap" pair example given by Denninger is an excellent example of what looks like computerized auto-kerning. They are a normally kerned pair. However, usually, a fixed width typeface like the one being used in this case would not be set to auto-kern as the point of its use would be to have it look like typewriter monospacing. I have not examined the document in detail for more examples of auto-kerning, but it's possible they are there. It's also possible it's just an example of a slipping strike bar of a worn typewriter.
The three you point out in the Coats BC are not. the closest to kerning in the Coats BC would be the "Ma" pair... But neither of these letters would be candidates for what I see as kerning. What I see in the Coats document is normal wear slippage of an old typewriter. The "ld" pair is not even that... It is merely blurring artifacting, and the "us" pairing is just a slight mis strike of the "s" which is shown by the larger kern gap between the "st" pair.
You make an excellent point here, two of them, actually, that a) the red line ends up at the bottom of the opening of the "a," and b) the K, overall, does not appear to be lower than the a. You are very correct in so noting.
First, though, let's go over this.
1) Do you dispute that the topmost point of the a is lower than the topmost point of the e?
2) Do you dispute that the bottommost point of the a is lower than the bottommost point of the e?
3) Do you dispute that the bottommost point of the M is lower than the bottommost point of the e?
4) Do you dispute that the top left of the M is lower than the top right of the M, or that the line I have drawn follows the slope of the top of the M?
5) Do you dispute that the bottom left of the M is lower than the bottom right of the M, or that the line I have drawn follows the slope of the bottom of the M?
6) In "Kapiolani," do you dispute that the top left of the K is lower than the top right of the K, or that the line I have drawn follows its slope?
7) Do you dispute that the bottom left of the K appears lower than the bottom right of the K, or that the line I have drawn on that letter is representative of its slope?
8) Do you dispute that the "a" in Kapiolani appears to be lower than both the p and the i?
It seems pretty clear to me that we have 8 different points that seem to substantially match my description of the facts, and 2 very proper objections by you. Your third objection is weaker, and I will show you why.
You said: "the baseline... shows [no drop] at all across the entire word on average."
This is not true. The drop is small, but can be clearly seen in the following.
Note the bottoms of the letters all the way through the second word. This assures us that we have the correct baseline.
The top line is parallel to this established baseline.
As you can see, there is a one-pixel variation between the position of the second a in Kapiolani, and the a in Maternity. But almost all of the lower-case letters have the exact same baseline from the i in Kapiolani on.
Look how much lower the tops of the a and the p are than the other lower case letters.
Note also that the first K and the first a are the ONLY letters that dip below the line.
With the baseline, then, we can actually see the curve in the word.
So why is the K not visibly lower than the a? Well, one good clue is in the next line, where in the MIDDLE of the document, the K appears to be HIGHER than the first two a's that follow it!
The truth is that there is some variation in letter height. The fact that the K does not appear to be lower than the a is therefore not at all conclusive.
The same goes for the M. Note also that the M in normal type in the word Maternity appears CLEARLY a pixel higher than the a that follows it.
If you want a much more accurate indicator, look at ALL of the capital K's and M's in the document. There are several of each. If you look at those, it becomes abundantly clear that the left side of the letters being lower than the right side is NOT normal, and is a DEFINITE indication that my point is correct.
On the basis of all of the evidence, the point, then, stands. The claim that there is no curve in the typewritten letters is incorrect.
By the way, I compliment you on (unlike PA Engineer) engaging in the actual facts rather than simply persisting in ad hominem attack.
Another example of a personal, ad hominem attack.
It appears that those on your side of the discussion have almost nothing else.
If you’re capable of more than a personal attack, I challenge you to engage in the actual facts and arguments that I’ve presented.
Can you throw me a link to that? thanks.
I took that into consideration and looked at the average drop for the word and the drop of the baseline of the letter itself. Even if the letter bar struck high it should still have struck somewhat parallel to the horizontal line of the platten, not curving down to follow later line of a bend caused by a book binding. Ergo, the typewriter line of print should be consistently horizontal across the page, as is the offset printed ink on the page. Why then is there ANY discrepancy in parallax at the same vertical vector between the printed and typewritten ink on the page?
I understand why the background safety paper pattern continues in a straight line without curving back... It's merely the laser paper the image is supposedly printed on (although in this instance, it too, is just one of the layers)... but both parallel lines of print should follow the same curved surface plane of the perspective the folio page follows back to the binding. They don't quite. Smoking gun.
That could be explained by reversing the order. The forgery, if there was one, was done on white background (unlike many of the theories floating around this place). Then it was reduced, blurred somewhat and copied onto the green hash paper in a final step (similar to the normal process of printing the scanned original onto new green hash paper).
A logical question would then be, why release the high res, plain paper forgery when it could lead people to the process used to make the final forgery?
Perhaps you can explain to me why a human being would work with a bunch of different elements that started out rotated 90 degrees to the left, and then import them into a program that way?
If it makes little sense for a program to structure things that way, it makes no sense at all for a human being.
In any event, it all fails what I mentioned earlier about the higher resolution document. No one has ever explained why on earth a human being would EVER exhibit the behavior described. See my earlier post for details.
The K in Kapiolani is rotated slightly counterclockwise from the curvature of the text. The rotation is the same as the printed form text. Same with M in Male.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.