Posted on 04/29/2011 5:52:16 PM PDT by Nachum
It didn’t take long for some of President Obama’s doubters to claim the long-awaited birth certificate posted online by the White House on Wednesday had been altered or might be a fake.
But a leading software expert says there’s no doubt about its authenticity, and he dismisses claims of fraud as flat-out wrong.
The doubters have latched onto the idea that Adobe Illustrator — the premier program for computer graphic artists — “reveals” evidence of document manipulation in the Obama birth certificate. They note Illustrator reveals nine separate layers of the document, and claim it’s “proof” the file has been altered.
But that’s not so, says Jean-Claude Tremblay, a leading software trainer and Adobe-certified expert, who has years of experience working with and teaching Adobe Illustrator.
“You should not be so suspicious about this,” Tremblay told FoxNews.com, dismissing the allegations.
Related Links Obama Birth Certificate Moved to More Secure Location Months Ago
He said the layers cited by doubters are evidence of the use of common, off-the-shelf scanning software — not evidence of a forgery. “I have seen a lot of illustrator documents that come from photos and contain those kind of clippings—and it looks exactly like this,” he said.
Tremblay explained that the scanner optical character recognition (OCR) software attempts to translate characters or words in a photograph into text. He said the layers cited by the doubters shows that software at work – and nothing more.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
I suspect the change of dob was that financial backing had an age limit. When he reached the limit, poof!, he changed his age. The apple didn't fall far from the tree.
If a typist who was in the middle of typing up some documents whose tab stops were different from those used on birth certificates, was asked to type up a single birth certificate, would that typist be more likely to change the tab stops to match the certificate and then change them all back, or to simply eyeball the spacing for the certificate?
I doubt that in 1960 any of the people typing up birth certificates cared much about alignment and spacing, provided that nothing was so badly misaligned as to be unreadable. If an examination of all the certificates produced by that hospital that year showed that BHO's was the only one where the spacing wasn't consistent, that would seem a very odd coincidence that might stretch credulity. I strongly suspect, though, that there were other certificates with similar anomalies.
They were hoping they wouldn’t have to produce any more “documents” but Trump trumped ‘em. So it was a rush job.
People often think that Evil people are geniuses, but many of them are incredibly stupid and make terrible mistakes.
This is very interesting.
I have been following this thread since day one. Most of the time I just lurk, but I have made an interesting discovery of some type...
I realize that the current discussion has moved on to daddy O and his life of mendacity, but I have been stuck on the new OB II COLB. Since you guys were hot on this a few days, I thought maybe what I have learned could be valuable.
The defenders of the COLB say that the layers have to do with scanners and OCR software arbitrarily separating things into layers. The newsies seem to be happy with that explanation. But, I have been looking for a reason this happens with this COLB. Here is what I have discovered.
Irrefutable proof of cut and paste assembly.
There are three types of text, pre-printed, typewritten, and ink stamped. And, then there are the pre-printed graphics. One would expect that the pre-printed graphics would be the same color as the preprinted text. One would expect the typewritten text somewhat different. And one would expect the ink stamps to be different again, and different from each other.
I have found that most of the pre-printed text matches the typewritten text, instead of the pre-printed graphics. OOPS! Also, The record number that is inkstamped, matches exactly to the typewritten and pre-printed text, EXCEPT for the last “1” which is a different color. So, we are supposed to believe that an ink stamp, or ink pad would make two different colors in one motion? The date accepted stamps are even stranger. The stamp in box 22 has two colors also, the 19 and the 1 at the end are different from the rest of it. The stamp in box 20 has identical digits to the stamp in box 22, but it has two colors also. But, not the same two as in box 22. So, here we are supposed to believe that one ink stamp can print two colors on a single motion, and two different set of two on the next motion.
Some other findings... Stanley’s signature is half one color and half another color. Part of the K in U K L Lee is the wrong color. The check boxes down to 6d are one color and the ones belox are another color. There are at least three different colors of ink in the Doctors check box.
None of the inconstancy is random, not one letter, number or line is partially one color and partially another. Only whole characters are the wrong color.
If you would like to verify what I see, try this. Open the COLB with Photoshop. Select Enhance, Adjust color, replace color. Click on one of the triangles next to the signatures and replace that color with something bright and distinctive. Take a look at what portions of the doc are still black. Repeat this procedure to replace the colors of various parts of the COLB with an assortment of distinctive colors. When you get to a point where there are no more black caricatures, you are ready to analyze the results. What this process does is emphasize the subtle differences in the printed colors.
You will notice that there are numerous. You will see that I have not begun to cover them all here.
1,977 posted on Sunday, May 01, 2011 8:05:16 AM by California VWRC Member
This idea that his lack of eligibility and the crimes committed to cover up this fact is a losing issue is proven wrong by what Trump has done and the enthusiasm his attack has generated. It's that simple.
Ha. We agree.
Now ask yourself why, with hard copy in hand, and the ability to create a flawless reproduction, they release something so clearly suspicious.....
Thank you for your response. I agree with your methods and conclusions to the best of my understanding.
I have questioned the anomalous “X” as completely as I know how to question. As an honest summary, I would have to say this is the only way the “X” could be intentional as it appears before us now:
If a person first hand stamped a piece of paper with the certifying statement, then scanned that into a graphic arts program, then enlarged the portion of text we are speaking of to something like 600% in order to erase some pixels and add in other pixels so as to change the “H” in the word “the” to an “X”.
They would have had to work carefully, because it would need to be a clear “X” for legal purposes, should the validity of the document be brought into question, but at the same time it would need to appear somewhat random, on the off-chance the document passed muster.
Once the letter was manipulated, it could be assembled with the other assembled info. and compiled into a complete document.
I believe this is an assembled document. I believe the “X” is telling us that. It is saying these records are TXE records, ie. data files. I am also speculating that the hand written faint numbers that appear on the green layer once the majority of the text is removed, are reference numbers that tell where the additional records are in the data base. I am also guessing that the anomalous “1” that appears differently at the end of the birth certificate number is indeed the last number in the original birth cert. number on the original file. Whatever else can be seen on the green layer is also original information and holds clues to the original record, I think.
Anyway, I’m not any kind of professional with any advanced knowledge about anything, so all my thinking is deductive reasoning based on what my eyes can see and what little computer knowledge I have.
Please, feel free, if you think I am on to something, to share my ideas with as many people as you think helpful, if you think it could result in proving this document to be what we all sense it to be, a fake.
Anyway, if you search my user name you can see other posts I’ve made on the subject, if you’re interested. I probably won’t pursue it much more because I have reached the end of my skill set and cannot contribute further. Thanks for taking time to respond to my question. :) Hope you have a good day! :)
Most of the complaints I have seen about the document show nothing but the ignorance of the people making them (e.g. the “layers” thing merely shows that the PDF was released in a format which does not permit meaningful forensic examination, but saves considerably on file size versus formats which would; perhaps the goal was to prevent forensic examination, but minimizing the size of what is apt to be a widely-downloaded file is an equally plausible explanation). Some of the complaints would be reasonable grounds for suspicion, and might justify some further investigation, but are hardly dispositive.
As for the “two versions” thing, I don’t think Obama or anyone associated with him is presenting copies of two or more source documents; rather, one of the items produced is an image of the original document (which would most likely have been typed onto a white paper form), printed on a sheet of green security paper, while the other item produced is an image of that same document, printed onto white paper.
At this point, I do not believe the Lucas Smith paper is genuine, for the simple reason that it doesn't look anything even remotely like the only example we have a known genuine birth certificate from Kenya in the early to mid 1960s. (This was published on the web by World Net Daily).
Is it possible that they changed forms? Yes, but a) government agencies don't often change forms, b) if they do the normal practice, simply because it's much easier, would be to go with a form very similar to the old form, only with minor revisions, and c) we have no evidence at all that they did change forms. In fact, the only certificate we have seen that looks like the Lucas Smith document is the Lucas Smith document itself.
If other documents emerge that verify the validity of the Lucas Smith document, I'm very open to changing my mind. But at this point, it seems completely in conflict with the one known example of a birth certificate from Kenya in the 1960s.
Again, the source for this is World Net Daily, the very organization that has carried the torch for the entire birther/ Obama eligibility skeptic movement.
At intervals, there has popped up a story of how the kid was born in Kenya because of the parents travel being held up by weather, so the birth and the birthing doctor was there, but there was a new examination and registration as soon as they got to Hawaii. The would match exactly with the analysis by “The Daily Pen”, and explain why a whole load of vital data (mandatory in most locations) are missing from the colb.
The scenario is plausible. But plausibility does not equal reality. Where's the evidence?
It's plausible that Sean Hannity's real father was John F. Kennedy. Kennedy would've been the right age, and he was a known serial womanizer. Kennedy slept with a lot of women. But where's the evidence? The little bit of evidence that we do have (Hannity does not look like Kennedy) suggests that he wasn't.
As far as vital data being missing from the Obama long form, there isn't. The long form is exactly the same format and contains the same data as the "known good" certificates of the Nordyke twins, and of other birth certificates from Hawaii from that era.
You have to think in terms of evidence, and of the quality of the evidence. Obama is on trial in the court of public opinion, and rightly so. His actions have been very suspicious. But is there enough evidence to "convict" him on the matter of being born elsewhere? At this point, I don't see that there is. I'm open to being proven wrong, but if the evidence isn't sufficient to convince the friendly skeptics (I personally am in this category, being skeptical of everything I hear, good or bad), then it's unlikely to be sufficient to convince the nation at large.
As I've stated a number of times now, I think this is true of the layers phenomenon: It justifies further investigation, bearing in mind our likely limited ability (without knowledge of exact hardware and software and settings used) to exactly reconstruct it, and also having in mind that we still likely have to "get past" the letter of authenticity from Loretta J. Fuddy.
The issue has been not the custody of Zanzibar, but the custody of Mombasa, which seems to have been kind of "shared" between Kenya and Zanzibar.
Zanzibar at some point joined up with Tanganyika to become Tan-zani-a. Presumably after 1963.
Just duke it out with tech guys, not me.
Why should I believe someone supporting a criminal rather the other experts taking it apart?
There are experts who have said it’s clearly a forgery. Debate with them and prove them wrong.
The tab stops is a red herring. I am an accountant and recall that 30 years ago when forms needed to be typed it was very common for the typist to loosen the carriage return and simply move the form to the location they wanted to type in.
Especially when a box needed to be x’d, they would expertly move the form to the location needed. The typists would get very good at placing the documents where the type would be centered or left justified just by using their eyes.
Buckeye: “The HDoH prints its own seal, borders, and any lines. In other words, they start with a blank sheet of green security paper. Everything you see printed was laser printed by a software application programmed by the IT department at the HDoH.”
I agree with you that the green security paper and border are modern additions that are most likely features of the paper on which the raw birth certificate was printed upon.
So I assume that the orignal (before it was copied to the green security paper) was a clean white, pre-printed form similar to what my birth certificate shows (coincidentally, I was born 4 days after Obama in a different state). In the early sixties, there were obviously not nearly as many security measures to protect documents and about the only thing that existed were the embossed seal of a notary or registrar. Regretfully, we don’t have either of these on the Obama document so we have just the assurance of the stamp from the Hawaiian DOH to guarantee authenticity.
I think we can safely assume that Obama knew exactly what was on this “COLB” long form before he “requested” a copy from Hawaiian officials. And if there is some sort of evidence that proves he is not born in the U.S., he will not voluntarily offer up that information. So unless there is some sort of legal requirement (legislation passed by individual states) or a bona fide investigation of the documents held in Hawaii, we can rest assured we will not be provided that information by Obama.
There are still many holes that have not been filled in the Obama story and I suspect these will be revealed over time. And it doesn’t help matters that many deceptions have been perpetrated by the MSM and the Obama 2008 campaign. Conveniently, Obama never seens to contradict these people who lie on his behalf even though he know the truth. This speaks volumes about the man and his character. This is the real story of the Obama history.
Either of you have an explanation for the left settings?
Specifically, fields 2, 6c and 8, because I don’t know of any typewriters back then which would allow you type with half character spacing.
To my knowledge, the Governor of Hawaii has issued no public statement to that effect.
Yes, I'm aware that somebody alleged he said that. And he may have. That's another "data point" that has to be taken into consideration.
And if anybody could get to the bottom of that, and demonstrate that he did in fact go on record that no birth certificate existed, the we have a pretty significant discrepancy that begs for an explanation.
However, without being able to demonstrate that HE PERSONALLY actually DID say that (anybody have a tape recording?) then what we have is really pretty much in the category of hearsay.
So I think it's worth more investigation, but it's hard for me at the moment to imagine anybody really being able to prove that Abercrombie actually said that.
You could be right. But if you are, it’s a cryin’ shame and shows us how degraded our society has become with an utter lack of curiosity and even disrespect for the US Constitution.
I certainly agree that we suffer from both a lack of curiosity and also disrespect for the Constitution.
Obama's eligibility is a damn important issue. The media has treated eligibility skeptics from the very beginning as if we were absolute kooks. They've treated us with ridicule.
The problem is that a lot of people recognize that you normally ridicule your opponent when you can't answer their questions. So their ridicule to some degree has fanned the flames of suspicion.
In this regard, both Obama and the media have acted suspiciously. I think the latter is partly because many in the media have secretly doubted Obama's eligibility themselves and felt they needed to cover for him. To that degree, we have a cover-up - regardless of whether or not there was actually anything of substance to cover up in the first place.
It depends (as you imply) on whether they tried to type "all the fields about 5 inches from the left margin" at once, or went in strictly numerical order.
And of course, truly certified, known-to-be-genuine, original, long-form certificates from that era would help.
No wonder they're not forthcoming from the Hawaii Dept. of Red Tape.
Cheers!
L.J. : “There are three types of text, pre-printed, typewritten, and ink stamped. And, then there are the pre-printed graphics. One would expect that the pre-printed graphics would be the same color as the preprinted text. One would expect the typewritten text somewhat different. And one would expect the ink stamps to be different again, and different from each other.”
Of course the poster of this finding is assuming that Hawaii copied their image from an original document. We have no way of assuring this is true - it could be very possible that they made a copy of a copy and hence ink color or any other distinction would be lost.
And the other more probable explanation is that the PDF image was created when the White House staff copied/scanned the original document from Hawaii for distribution to the public. What they received from Hawaii would undoubtedly be a copy with all the same ink (except for maybe the stamped image at the bottom of the document).
So any inconsistencies found in the “layer” or “ink colors” is a side effect of the scanner used, the scanner software algorithms used, and the compression techniques used to generate the PDF. The other big unknown you have is the accuracy of the tool you are using to evaluate the digital image.
We would all be much better informed if we could get our hands on the actual document that Obama supposedly recieved from the HDOH. If that could be photographed with a high resolution JPEG camera from multiple angles, you could evaluate this with much better scrutiny.
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.