EXCLUSIVE! OBAMA'S FAKE BIRTH CERTIFICATE: How the forgery was made.

The Greater Evil ^ | 07/23/08 | Polarik

[Polarik]

There are three facts about Internet blog stories that you need to know:

1. Plagiarism is rampant on the Internet.
   
2. You cannot always believe what you see and read.
3. When you see the word, "EXCLUSIVE," in the title, it does not mean that the story was the first one or even the only one.

You can imagine my chagrin when I read the following headline in the Atlasshruggs blog:

ATLAS EXCLUSIVE: FINAL REPORT ON OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE FORGERY CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE IN

What this headline, and the story it trumpets, confirm is that all three of the "facts" listed above are validated by this story.

Actually, my first reaction to it was, "Yawn." Here is an article proclaiming to have the exclusive findings that Obama's Birth Certificate image is a forgery -- or, using the acronym that I alone coined, Obama's "COLB ("Certificate of Live Birth") is a forgery.

The only problems with that statement are as follows:

• More than a month before this "EXCLUSIVE," was posted, I posted my own exclusive findings that the Obama COLB images were "poor forgeries" made from a genuine COLB.
• This so-called, "FINAL REPORT" is far from being final, and
  
• This so-called, "EXCLUSIVE" report is far from being the first to claim a forgery occurred.
  
• More than a few original findings and ideas of mine were "borrowed" without attribution.

In light of the above, my second reaction to it was, "What chutzpah!" (Which is the Yiddish word for "WTF.")

How can an article, posted on July 20, or a full month after my original proclamation that Obama's COLB image was graphically altered, be labeled as exclusive? I will admit that the techniques used by the author, TechDude, were not the ones I used to discover the forgery, and that he was the only one, to my knowledge, to have used them.

For that, I'd like to offer a pat on the back to TechDude for the work that he did, but also a slap on the wrist, to both Techdude and Pam Geller for misleading the public by implying that they were the first ones to present evidence of a graphic forgery.

Now, that they've basked in the glory of their nonexclusive, "Exclusive," it's time to set the record straight.

On June 19, I wrote the following on my TownHall blog, The Greater Evil:

"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."

So, which part of that statement did they miss? It also appeared on The Free Republic about the same time, and afterwards, on TexasDarlin's blog.

So, which part of these blog stories did they miss?

In my first post, I did make some wrong assumptions, for which I replied, Mea Culpa, and made the necessary changes.

For example, I also made mention of the odd-looking border back then, but that finding turned out to be irrelevant to my research.

However, my essential thesis was then, and has always been, that the Kos image, and all of its relatives, including the FactCheck image, were graphic forgeries, even though I focused on different aspects of it than TechDude did. For him, the border was a crucial part of the puzzle.

For me, that border could have been red hearts and purple flowers for all that it mattered.

I focused on the anomalies of the text, which were many and not explained away by the reasons cited by my critics.

Now, this is not to take away any of the work that TechDude has done, which is notable in its own right, and if you read my blog, you will see proper attributions made to him and his work.

HOWEVER, I do take exception to the lack of any attribution to my work, and is a very egregious oversight, at best.

At worst, it smacks of plagiarism, and there are more than one instance of that, such as the upper left-hand border comparison which was originally mine and emailed to him.

Also egregious is the fact that TechDude, myself, and TexasDarlin had agreed to publish a joint document, and, as you have now seen, one of us renegged on that agreement and stole the spotlight.

I don't mean to rain on anyone's parade here, but I would like to point out that there never was an "uncropped Kos image" posted online. A scan of the entire COLB was never posted to the Kos or the Smears. It was always a cropped image, and I was the one who confirmed the true "birth order" of the images -- especially those of OpenDNA (who was initially "charged" with making the Kos image forgery.

Now, the FactCheck image was, indeed, posted as an uncropped version of the Kos image, although one cannot escape the likelihood that the extra border was added, post-hoc.

What I did confirm is that all of the online images came from one source file.


I also confirmed that my critics and detractors, coincidentally, are also the same to TechDude and his research. It is safe to say that there will always be people who are antagonistic to others who reveal unpleasant truths.

But, now is the time to separate the men from the boys, so to speak. The critics and detractors who claim that the Kos image is NOT a forgery, demand to see someone actually create one from scratch.

I couldn't agree more. it is one thing to postulate that a forgery has been created, but it is entirely a different matter to actually create one that is a clone of the Kos image.

What may surprise these critics and detractors to learn is that beginning about two to three weeks ago, a clone of the Kos I created was posted to my latest blog post.

You see, the image that I referenced as the original Kos imageis actually the clone I created more from Michele's 2008 COLB image.

Here's the Daily Kos image from their website:



Here's my clone of the Kos image:



Keep in mind that this is not a point-for-point clone of the Kos image, since I did not proceed from an original, scanned image (a bitmap that has never been seen by the public), but it's darn close, and nobody was the wiser.

How do you tell my clone from Kos?

The "Time of Birth" on my clone is 7:25 AM; on the Kos it's 7:24 PM.

I replaced everything, EXCEPT the funky border. Like I said, the "security" border is not very secure when it can be reproduced by a scanner.

Making an exact "forgery" in terms of the Kos image dimensions, file size, JPG compression and resolution was not an easy job, although I spent less about an hour to make it. I'm still feeling the effects of a flu bug.

In the next few days, when I feel a little better, I will post a real "exclusive" --  a step by step guide showing exactly how I produced this clone, as well as posting a sampling of all of the dead ends I reached using the explanations professed by the nonbelievers.

I have about 320 images in all, but I'll post a sufficient number of them to satisfy anyone's doubts.

Like I've said in previous posts and in comments made on other blogs, if someone can make a Kos clone just by scanning, reducing the size, changing the compression, or any combination of these ways, they are more than encouraged to try.

Until then, I stand by my conclusion that I made over a month ago: that the Kos image looks the way it does because the original text on a previous image was graphically altered or replaced.

"Why" it was done is still open for debate, but the discovery that I made over a month ago still holds true. The image is not a "horrible" forgery, IMHO, because it fooled a lot of people...and that's the sole purpose for making a forgery.

Hopefully, the critics and detractors will come up with their own clones made in the ways that they claimed. In the meantime, the evidence provided in my posts and in TechDude's posts far outweigh any evidence that the images are are genuine, accurate reproductions of a paper COLB document.


It may look like a duck, but it walks, talks, and flies like a Dodo bird.


PREVIEW:

When I received a true copy of a recent COLB from a person named, Michele, I promised my readers that I would manufacture a clone of the Kos image to demonstrate how it was created. In doing so, I would validate my theory that someone's actual COLB, or a scanned copy of it, was used as the basis or template for creating a forgery.

I had theorized that the pixel patterns between the letters on the Kos image I was viewing were not JPG artifacts, or scanner artifacts, as the critics claimed they were.

These pixel patterns were characteristic of text added to an existing image while the image was an 8-bit, 256-color bitmapped image, and not while it was a 24-bit, 16.7 million color JPG.

Before I reached that conclusion, I had tried every other way possible to duplicate the Kos image.

People may say that OpenDNA, aka Jay McKinnon, already tried to do that -- that he produced two images that were also graphically altered.

However, both of these images were 800 x 781 pixels  @ 96 DPI, which is a far cry from the larger, 2427 x 2369 pixels @ 300 DPI Kos image. Basically, OpenDNA's "forgeries" were easy to do given how small was the area that needed to be modified.

"Cloning" the Kos took a little, more work than that.


I ask that all of you to be patient as I recover, and that you will soon be rewarded with the recipe for forgery.

[Calpernia]

bttt

[Calpernia]

bttt

[Calpernia]

It is even worse than that Phil. I don't think he is just hiding that he is Arabic. I think he is trying to insinuate he is the Mahdi. Hussein is also spelled Ḥusayn. That is the lineage of the Prophet Muhammad. East Africa is occupied from Arabs of the Omani migration. UBL announced the Mahdi would appear and there are events being tracked that say the Mahdi is here: http://www.hyahya.org/new_releases/news/070806_interview_aljazeera.php Adnan Oktar: The Mahdi should already have appeared according to the writings of Said Nursi, and according to the accounts in reliable hadith and signs have already taken place. For example, we are told that Afghanistan will be occupied at the time of the appearance of the Mahdi. That has happened. There is also the fact that Iraq will be occupied, which has also taken place. An attack on the Kaaba was predicted, and that has happened as well. The waters of the Euphrates would be cut off. And the dam has done so. We are told that during the month of Ramadhan in the year of his appearance both the Sun and Moon will be eclipsed in a space of 15 days, and that has happened as well. Approximately a hundred portents like this have already taken place. For that reason, I am convinced that the Mahdi has appeared.

[Calpernia]

bump

[Calpernia]

bump!

And don’t forget the recent brothel bust. Lou Posner funneled the monies from the porn events to an ACORN affiliate!

[Calpernia]

On the state levels, ACORN groups usually have different names. You have to really read up on the groups to see if they are ACORN affiliates.

They thrive off of using low income housing, which Obama just happens to have a PAC for (Hopefund).

[Calpernia]

One drop may be a tradition; but it is not a federally qualifying standard.

[Roccus]

I prolly didn't word that properly. What I was getting at is that since the qualifications are in the US Constitution, the DoJ would be responsible for determining who could be President. The states could have Mickey Mouse on the ballots if they so desired....that doesn't mean he would be seated if he won. Like everyone else here, I'm just trying to figure out whose responsible for seeing that the Constitution is followed.

[Calpernia]

>>>Are you saying that the announcement is a forgery as well?

I know it doesn’t look right to me. But since I’m not a graphics expert, I don’t want to use the word forgery.

I do know Obama is an activist organizer (ACORN). And access to newspaper clipping creations is a standard activist tool. Just like the flashmobs.

[usmcobra]

It is probably easier to fake the birth certificate then the newspaper announcement, but if one supports the other it would be curious to see if it can be independently verified.

With Obama’s past record we shouldn’t be so quick to accept anything no matter what the source.

[Roccus]

Got a question for you. With all this flap about the legitimacy of Obama’s citizenship, who in government is responsible to ensure that the Constitutional criteria for assuming the office of POTUS are met?

[Calpernia]

That clipping says Stanley Ann was married. This brings us back to the Barry Toot theory.

Stanley Ann was under 18 and would have needed written permission by her parents to marry. Unless, she had fake ID. Maybe that is why she was known in Kenya as Anna Toot. She had a relative in her family named Anna Toot.

[Roccus]

whose s/b who’s

Need more coffee :)

[BohDaThone]

The answer to “who’s responsible” is, it seems to me:

1) The voters

2) The members of the electoral college

3) The House and Senate, in receiving the votes of the electoral college

4) The courts, first by way of challenges to placement on the ballot, and conceivably by challenge to the outcome of the count of the electoral college.

I would rank them in about that order of desireability as a matter of constitutional principle, but your mileage could easily vary on that question.

[usmcobra]

marriage license, divorce decree, and COLB all tie into the original fraud that Obama must hide.

His mother was underage and single when he was conceived.

His Muslim Father had no legal right to marry his mother in this country.

They forged documents to get married with her name being Anna Toot.

That name is on his original Birth Certificate.

It was changed after the divorce and his birth certificate changed again when she married in Indonesia to put Lolo Soetoto as his father (perfectly legal in the case of a Bastard child adopted by a new husband)

Changed again to change the name to Barack Obama after he returned to the States, by his grand parents to feed his “african ancestry” ego (very cool in the early seventys).

What he is hiding is a trail of forged and legal documents that would make the most ardent believer wonder who the hell this guy really is if they were ever released in Masse.

[Roccus]

Well, I’ve posed the question to my “go to guy” re the Constitution, CongressmanBillyBob, in post #111. Let’s see what he has to say.

[Calpernia]

Now trail lends an interesting thought. Because, if Obama is trying to portray himself as the Mahdi, that paper trail would show him inserting Muhammad to his name. That would show he is naming himself the Mahdi and would probably be killed for it by the true believers of the Mahdi’s return.

[Grampa Dave]

Excellent response:

<[>"Are you for real? Why debate issues or anything with someone who may well be not qualified to run for Office? You stalling time for Obama?"

Law School 101 ..... when you have a weak case ... 1, first try to stall time ... 2, argue jurisdiction (read: tell your opponent it's none of his business)"

Or we can just roll over say, "We are sorry President Osama/Bama!

Just stop this stupid and outdated technicalities of who isn't qualified to run as president. In fact just cancel the Election. Osama/bama is now our FUERHER, er president for 8-10 years of what is left of our miserable lives under his rule.

The graphic below shows, the only difference between o-B-ama and o-S-ama is just a bit of B.S.

[MeekOneGOP]

Not sure, PL.

Blacks vote approximately 90% Democrat.

The Obamassiah will likely get over 95% of the Black vote.

A statistical near-zero difference ???

I am NOT voting for McRINO because his opponent is black.

I would GLEEFULLY vote for a J.C. Watts type candidate
and in a heartbeat.

It AIN’T being black or NOT being black that makes any
difference to me. It is what is in the candidate’s HEAD
that drives my vote.

The thing that drives ME crazy is that my choice is between
some fool like McRINO and The Obamassiah. Now THAT’S crazy!

Bottom line in this election for me is do I want a Socialist
like Obama or a lousy RINO for Prez? I’ll take the RINO
this time around.

And hopefully the GOP get to choose our candidate next time
instead of the Democraps!

(I hope I said all that okay now). :)

[MEG33]

McCAIN- BECAUSE THE ALTERNATIVE IS UNTHINKABLE