Replies

Atlas Shrugged and Techdude tell why even the Obama's own website copy is most likely a forgery:

Atlas Tech Expert Declares Obama Birth Certificate Forgery

The first analysis is presented July 4th. Follow the comments. In the morning of July 5th AJStrata posts to them the following complaint and threat:

I did the same analysis and found the same things - came to completely opposite conclusion. For one thing, you are comparing two different certificate patterns.
The seal and signature block area are there, as you and I and others have detected. And the date the certificate was produced (Jun 2007) as well.
Clearly the person who stamped and signed the back did not use the same pressure as the date stamp, but they are all there. What you need is another original certificate of the same format, as this guy does with the same uneven corners.
At least someone confirmed my find that the Opendna documents are modifications to the Obama certificate because of two tell tale laser printer dots (see here). Sadly, this only proves Opendna printed out the document and rescanned it at a higher resolution so that photoshop could do its work better.
It does not prove the certificate is a fake. If you want to prove it is a fake ask the state of Hawaii! Ask Obama to show the certificate he has to Hawaii! This is so much wasted energy - and it makes the conservatives look foolish.
You better have more than this to make a claim of forgery.
Regards, AJStrata.

To which TechDude replies, in the evening of July 5th [here extracted, condensed, highlighted, and annotated by me, bvw]:

A response to [AJStrata] who said “For one thing, you are comparing two different certificate patterns.”
Well of course, that was the point of my analysis which seems to have been lost on a few individuals. Both certificates are printed with the OHSM 1.1 (Rev. 11/01) LASER identifier with the revision dates being identical [11/01]. If there was a new or modified certificate security pattern introduced there would also be a different revision date indicating that it had been revised after November 2001. Some people are apparently under the mistaken impression that the security border printing will just change once and a while or perhaps some folks may just never really understand the issue.
[Now some very technical stuff about image analysis as follows] then I performed an error level analysis on the KOS Obama and Decosta certificate images. Doing the error level analysis using several known error rates revealed some immediate disparities in the KOS image such as the border floating as a “layer” on top of the background. Further the border appears to consist of several distinct parts and individual sections which were pasted together. The compression and error ratio of the security border simply does not match the rest of the certificate. The same can be seen with the text. However the same analysis of the Decosta image using the same exact methodology instead verified the compression and error levels are consistent with equal distribution throughout the document.
The bottom line is that if the document was simply scanned into a computer and was not created on, or substantially modified by, a computer there would not be as many variations in the compression and error rates as can be seen in the KOS certificate. Taking the error level analysis into account along with my other findings (such as the obvious cut and paste marks, the glaring errors in the size and count of the security diamonds, and the lack of consistent header and footer start and end point) is how I arrived at my conclusion. None of this can simply be explained away or ignored by people claiming that this is a different un-recorded revision since no one has been able to produce another real certificate that matches the security engravings of the KOS version but there have been numerous reports and sightings of real certificates matching Decosta’s.
Occam's razor then forces this issue to a point – the simplest answer generally being the correct one – if there are multiple documents that appear to contain similar security engravings of the Decosta version but no others that resemble the KOS image - the KOS document is a forgery. It is with a high degree of scientific certainty that I must conclude that the KOS Obama image is a pretty bad counterfeit.

Some people! That phrase, I suspect, is used by techdude to refer to AJStrata. But not just AJ, say I. It includes all those masters of the conservative blogs who signed onto the finality of AJStrata's cranky analysis.

What is it? Like AJ since the 5th are they shamed into silence? Where is their alacrity now? Quick to join to his and strike down and ridicule the rest of us who looked at the issue and thought otherwise -- where is found one apology for such foolishness and unfounded ridicule? For just being, on the facts, wrong?

Is it that they are grown too big in their pants to fit modestly in them anymore?