Posted on 06/07/2011 6:45:09 PM PDT by conservativegramma
Typeface analysis shows images come from different machines
The online image of a Hawaiian "Certificate of Live Birth" was trumpeted by the White House when it was released on April 27 as "proof positive" that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii.
Now an expert in typefaces and typography says it sure was "proof," but not of what the White House would have wanted.
Paul Irey, a retired professional typographer with 50 years experience in his business, has says an analysis of the typefaces used in the Barack Obama's long-form birth certificate that the White House released on April 27 reveals it absolutely to be a forgery.
"My analysis proves beyond a doubt that it would be impossible for the different letters that appear in the Obama birth certificate to have been typed by one typewriter," Irey told WND.
"Typewriters in 1961 could not change the size and shape of a letter on the fly like that," he said. "This document is definitely a forgery."
Irey acknowledges that an IBM Selectric typewriter could have produced different typefaces in a given document, but only if the Selectric ball was changed every time a different typeface letter was struck which would be unlikely to have been done to produce the word "Student," for example, that had two different styles of the lower case "t."
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
They have some great contributors and writers, but diminish the credibility of everything they involve themselves in by cynically promoting known conspiratorial falsehoods.
It's a real shame. They could be a much more influential conservative voice without the Art Bell crap.
And birthers will - en mass - decry the nominee - say the nominee hates the Constitution - and then refuse to vote for them.
And yet they wonder why 0bama has kept this issue alive?
Someone isn't thinking things through.
The first part of this page where they say that:
On April 27, 2011 President Barack Obama posted a certified copy of his original Certificate of Live Birth.
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/obama.html
Fair enough.
Just chalk this up to my being all cranky and irritable.
When you "zoom" in the software on your computer decides how it will zoom which could mean it will decide to use anti-aliasing as it blows up the image. And also could be the image "they" provided.
When I go to http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf and zoom in there is no anti-aliasing. The boxes look just like the ones in the picture I just posted.
ML/NJ
One thing that should give everyone pause (but probably wont) is that when the GW Bush air national guard papers were put out.... there there was a general consensus reached in days that they were fraudulent.
While now you have “experts” saying stuff about the BC I dont see the consensus.
Of course the media had inserted itself in the middle of the Bush story and its credibility was on the line.
I guess we will have the battle of expert opinions from here on out
True but if birthers react that way to our nominee predictably rejecting their conspiracy claims and dismissing the issue it will officially mark the end of any last bit of tolerance Republicans/conservatives have for birthers. While difficult to deal with, birthers are not doing us too much harm at the moment and for the most part we know their hearts are in the right place. As is, they are kind of like the crazy uncle in the family - we don't want them to represent us in any way, but they are still family. The minute birthers actually become a serious negative by withdrawing support for our nominee, making us all look like cranks or otherwise making it more difficult to beat Hussein, these people will be completely rejected and outright attacked by what few conservative sites, radio hosts, etc, still give them the time of day.
Basically, as long as they remain mostly harmless, many conservatives will sort of tolerate birthers hanging around. The minute they become a serious liability (by rejecting our nominee en mass or other shenanigans) in the effort to defeat Hussein, they will be entirely marginalized and removed completely from conservative discourse.
Someone threatening legal action?
The question will be asked, a reasonable and electorally viable answer will be given - and the birthers will have a cow and decry the GOP nominee as a betrayer of the Constitution.
They couldn't possibly be much MORE marginalized, so what do they have to lose?
Or a hanging?
Oh yes they can. At the moment sites like this one and others allow birthers to post (though sometimes restrict how many threads they can start), radio hosts like Levin, Beck and Hannity mostly just ignore them, politicians generally just don't comment on their claims, Fox News just doesn't cover them, etc. In short, birther conspiracies are generally ignored and those pushing them are sort of tolerated as long as they don't make a giant nuisance of themselves. The minute they become a serious detriment to the conservative cause by rejecting our nominee or making us all look batty in the middle of a campaign season, conservatives will go from ignoring them to attacking them. Once that happens it will wipe out any remaining sympathy they might have had in some conservative quarters which will decimate their ranks and leave only the truly hard core fringe fanatics - which we can safely ignore as their numbers will be so tiny as to be meaningless. Birthers get mad at hosts like Levin for hanging up on the now, just wait if they actually start threatening to vote against our eventual nominee for rejecting their birther agenda - hosts like Levin will go from ignoring them to outright condemning them.
To me this happened after the great Trump charge into the awaiting LFCOLB ambush.
Anyone who (as I predicted they would) doubles down on “it is a fraud - show us the REAL document” is already a hard core fringe fanatic who will NEVER be satisfied.
If they put out a video of 0bama (or his lawyer) directly picking up his LFCOLB from Hawaii DOH - opening up the sealed envelope and putting the document under the cameras - they would just insist (as many already do) that the Hawaii DOH is “in on it” - while simultaneously insisting that the document is an “obvious” forgery.
To me this is like claiming that 0bama conspired with the Treasury to print “counterfeit” $100 bills - and the resulting bills were “obviously” fake.
It doesn't make sense to anyone with a lick of reason.
They have already been reduced to their hard core fanatic constituency. Anyone still on-board at this point will not be swayed by evidence, logic, reason, or electoral reality.
Yeah, I'm not sure when they went completely crazy. I mean, WND was always covering things that were at the very margins, but there is nothing necessarily wrong with that. Probably a financial decision on Farah's part is my guess. Competition is fierce, and they apparently decided to focus on the conspiratorial right of center niche audience and just got wackier and wackier as they went along. My guess is WND was counting on Obama never releasing his long form. Once he did the whole conspiracy kind of blew up in their faces, wrecked long term books sales and wiped out expected web site traffic. The only thing left for them to do in order to drum up interest in birther conspiracies is to run with more and more wild claims, hysterical headlines and misleading stories.
ML/NJ
Yeah, you make good points and are probably right about this. It just strike me that many conservatives are still fairly tolerant of this stuff. The vast majority don't agree or want anything to do with it themselves, but they don't always outright condemn it yet. My point was only that once birthers become a clear electoral liability, you'd see the last shreds of conservative sympathy fall away.
Example. If say your neighbors are a family of birthers, but mostly agree with you on every other issue and you otherwise expect them to vote for the Republican nominee - you might give them some latitude as long as they don't get too weird. The minute you find out they aren't even going to vote for the nominee because of the birther issue or are actually hurting your cause, then maybe you become more strident in your condemnation of their conspiratorial agenda.
Agreed the ones that don't have logical explanations are. I brought up way back aliasing (in graphics arts called "the jaggies") versus anti-aliasing. Parts are one way and parts another. Most of the large characters including the typewritten ones we have been talking about are aliased (edges are jagged). Some parts are anti-aliased (edges softened or feathered for aesthetics). This indicates to me that portions were pieced together unless someone can offer a reasonable explanation to the contrary.
Notice also by zooming up that the lines of the form itself are anti-aliased whereas the titles for each box are not. I'm unable to offer an explanation for the differences offhand.
IIRC even part of Stanley's signature is aliased and part isn't.
For the anti-aliasing I have to rely on the layers exposed by various Youtube contributers as I don't have software to break down the document into its component layers. Bear in mind that we only know about the layers in the finished product, not ones that may, notice I said may, have been used in creating the document and discarded prior to publishing on the web.
No one has satisfactory explained why the first two of the set of three empty check boxes are identical down to the last pixel as well as the 1's in 151 other than to say I was wrong (I don't believe I'm wrong about this; one freeper pointed it out to me and one says I'm wrong but never posted back after I explained the testing I had done).
Have you really never used a manual typewriter? You've never had the carriage slip a little while you were typing a line? You never filled out a form and came back to finish a line and not quite lined up with what you typed earlier? You never wondered if you were on the right line and jiggled the knob that moved you down the page? You grew up after all that? You must be one lucky person.
What's more likely, that somebody botched their way through the form with a manual typewriter, either 50 years ago or only recently, or that somebody went through pixel by pixel on Illustrator or with a pen and ink and deliberately produced all these unaligned characters and varying forms of letters? Do you really think the latter scenario more likely?
You are correct. See my posts 263 and 301 upthread where I tested it in Photoshop. Tex-Con-Man never refuted my results after that and now continues to argue they aren't identical. Let him test them like I did and explain his results.
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.