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.

[MeekOneGOP]

I still get the error with your link.

Could be an issue with my computer, I think ???

Anyway, gotta head to work now.

Have a SUPER day! :)

[devolve]

.

Gum - I do mistype - but most can decode my goofs

And no - I have not shot anyone this week

But it’s only Thursday

[PhilDragoo]

[MindBender26]

The reality is, no one with any real expersite, experience, knoweledge or credentials has ever said certificate is phony!

There are 10,000 internet rumors, all from unnamed people or people with no credentials claiming certificate is phony. Each one builds on another. It’s all the sort of thing that normally starts with “My girlfriend’s mother’s brother’s hairdresser’s cousin’s friend heard on Oprah that.....”

For example, there was a posting that Obama had to have been born somewhere in North America, but not Hawaii, because:

1. A friend of his mother’s said in TV interview that Obama’s mother brought him to her house in Washington State three weeks after he was born.

2. There were no direct Seattle-Honolulu flights at that time (1961)

3. Airlines wouldn’t let infant on aircraft.

Everyone started screamning IT’S PROOF, IT’S PROOF, IT’S PROOF!

Reality is:

1. Interviewee said “a few weeks,” not “three weeks.” That could have been three weeks or 20 weeks.

2. Northwest Orient Airlines (now Northwest Airlines) had been flying Seattle-Honolulu nonstop since 1948!

3. Babies have been flying since the 1930s.

Remember, No one with any credentials at all has said any Obama certificate in forgery. It’s all internet gurus with NO expeirence in forensic documents. Researchers have now even found birth announcement in local newspaper.

This is all BS to keep us away from focusisng on real issue, Obamsa’s extreme liberalsim.

[BykrBayb]

Researchers have now even found birth announcement in local newspaper.

That I gotta see. Have a link?

[PhilDragoo]

Is it 1922 or 1933. There is a change in the air.

It smells like. . .

. . .burning flesh. . .a wind from the future. . .

McCain is not heaven, but an innoculation against hell.

One candidate is endorsed by Iran, Syria, Libya, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, Hamas, Weathermen Alumni Association, Charles Manson Society (FreeMansonry), Truthers, MoveOn, Acorn, Media Matters, New York Times, and the drooling Poppin Fresh Chris Matthews. . . .

Do we by our inaction put the Little Corporal on that triumphant march as Chancellor, Satan in a suit, wanting just a little liebensraum. . . .

When we coulda settled for strong defense and domestic heartburn, shall we then burn the books, the Bibles, the shining city on the hill. . . .

For without a military (oh, and that's first to go), without our guns (he's mocked them and criticized the DC ruling), without God (and he's a Christian???--no, he's a false-flag Muslim), how do we fight evil. . . .

With spitballs?

[Calpernia]

I don’t think devolve mistypes at all.

I know I can’t chew guns and walk at the same time.

But, maybe that is just me ^-^

[Calpernia]

[devolve]

He blew his first 5 shots! MSM broadcast #6 16.6% results 100% BS

[Calpernia]

>>>With spitballs?

That will be registration only. That is what the DNA database is for :)

[null and void]

Aye! The week is young...

[null and void]

1. Interviewee said “a few weeks,” not “three weeks.” That could have been three weeks or 20 weeks.

She also said that she showed Stanley Ann how to change a diaper.

Just how many weeks do you suppose it would take Stanley Ann to figure out how to change a diaper?

Do you seriously expect us to believe she'd still need to be shown after having the kid floating around the house for 20 weeks???

[gonzo]

"...Another question, since every citizen has an interest in making sure that the potential president of the United States if fully eligible for the office, can we pool our money and hire a lawyer to sue Obama for a certified copy of his birth certificate shipped directly from Hawaii? I would be willing to throw in $100..."

OK - I'm in for $100 too!! ........... FRegards

[Captain Rhino]

The laws was never passed. Whether McCain is eligible is still an open question.

It doesn't appear to be such an open issue to the United States Senate (which, according to the GPO, is the government reference point for the current meaning of the Constitution). (My emphasis added)

Here's what they have to say about it:

Clause 5. No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been Fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

QUALIFICATIONS

All Presidents since and including Martin Van Buren were born in the United States subsequent to the Declaration of Independence. The principal issue with regard to the qualifications set out in this clause is whether a child born abroad of American parents is ‘‘a natural born citizen’’ in the sense of the clause. Such a child is a citizen as a consequence of statute.
100 Whatever the term ‘‘natural born’’ means, it no doubt does not include a person who is ‘‘naturalized.’’ Thus, the answer to the question might be seen to turn on the interpretation of the first sentence of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, providing that ‘‘[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States’’ are citizens. 101 Significantly, however, Congress, in which a number of Framers sat, provided in the Naturalization act of 1790 that ‘‘the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, . . . shall be considered as natural born citizens . . . .’’
102 This phrasing followed the literal terms of British statutes, beginning in 1350, under which persons born abroad, whose parents were both British subjects, would enjoy the same rights of inheritance as those born in England; beginning with laws in 1709 and 1731, these statutes expressly provided that such persons were natural-born subjects of the crown.
103 There is reason to believe, therefore, that the phrase includes persons who become citizens at birth by statute because of their status in being born abroad of American citizens.
104 Whether the Supreme Court would decide the issue should it ever arise in a ‘‘case or controversy’’—as well as how it might decide it—can only be speculated about.

I have left out all the legal cases they cite. You can find them at the entry (starting on page 27) at the link: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/pdf2002/012.pdf

(You’ll note that there can be no dispute about what the original framers of the Constitution intended. Quite a number of them were still alive and in Congress when they wrote the 1790 statute, some three years after adoption of the Constitution. So how the Supreme Court would decide the case seems heavily canted to one side.)

Um, no. IF your parents are married, AND one of them is a foreign national, AND you are born in that foreign national's country, you are a citizen of that country, not an American by birth.

Not quite. The correct formulation is IF you are born outside the United States AND one of your parents is a United States citizen AND your parents are married AND your United States citizen parent meets the physical presence and residence requirements, you are a citizen of the United States by statute.

Here’s the link: http://travel.state.gov/passport/get/first/first_828.html

But that is the November 14, 1986 version of the rules. Wikipedia notes that different rules apply for persons born abroad to one U.S. citizen before that date. It goes on to note United States law on this subject changed multiple times throughout the twentieth century, and the law as it existed at the time of the individual's birth controls.

Link: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_nationality_law#Through_birth_abroad_to_one_United_States_citizen)

So, do you have links to the specific law in effect when Senator Obama was born?

(Not that it is any more than academic exercise since another poster to this thread has supplied a link to the Obama birth notice in the local Hawaiian newspaper, thereby giving further weight to the claim he was born in Hawaii.)

[Polarik]

Ggod grief!

Its polarik.blogtownhall.com!

Thanks for noting it.

[null and void]

So, do you have links to the specific law in effect when Senator Obama was born?

I don't have one handy. David does.

(Not that it is any more than academic exercise since another poster to this thread has supplied a link to the Obama birth notice in the local Hawaiian newspaper, thereby giving further weight to the claim he was born in Hawaii.)

Yeah, no one who'd commit a felony by forging a birth certificate would have the motivation, or the access to a print shop to fake a piece of newsprint.

It's not like anything important, such as staying out of prison, or control of the world's richest country or being the commander-in-chief of the most powerful military in history or anything important like that hangs in the balance...

[Polarik]

So, do you have links to the specific law in effect when Senator Obama was born?

(Not that it is any more than academic exercise since another poster to this thread has supplied a link to the Obama birth notice in the local Hawaiian newspaper, thereby giving further weight to the claim he was born in Hawaii.)

Mr & Mrs. Barack Obama? NOT! If they lied about their marital status, can they be trusted to tell the truth about their son born out-of-wedlock?

Speaking of which, there are separate, more stringent rules about children born out-of-wedlock. This following is not a quote from statute, but from FindLaw.Com: For children born abroad since 14 November 1986 to a married couple consisting of one US citizen and one non-citizen, the American parent must have been "physically present" in the US for a total of at least five years prior to the birth of the child. Further, at least two years out of this five-year period must have been after the parent reached age 14 (e.g., no good if you lived in the US from birth till age five, then left the country never to return).

From 24 December 1952 to 14 November 1986, the minimum requirement was ten years (five years of which had to have been after the parent's 14th birthday).

If Baby Barack was indeed a bastard, then his mother is disqualified as an American citizen.

[Kevmo]

The waters of the Euphrates would be cut off.
***I don’t know much about islamic prophecies, but this one you point out is VERY familiar. From the Bible, Revelation 16:12-15

12 The sixth angel poured out his bowl on the great river, the Euphrates; and its water was dried up, so that the way would be prepared for the kings from the east. 13 And I saw coming out of the mouth of the dragon and out of the mouth of the beast and out of the mouth of the false prophet, three unclean spirits like frogs; 14 for they are spirits of demons, performing signs, which go out to the kings of the whole world, to gather them together for the war of the great day of God, the Almighty. 15 (“Behold, I am coming like a thief. Blessed is the one who stays awake and keeps his clothes, so that he will not walk about naked and men will not see his shame.”) 16 And they gathered them together to the place which in Hebrew is called Har-Magedon.

[Kevmo]

Ok, I’m actually laughing out loud, so I’m generating a LOL. I usually don’t bother with that overused cliche unless I really do Laugh Out Loud.

[null and void]

*The birth announcement was tracked down by Lori Starfelt, the producer of a documentary that PUMA is working on. "

Source here

That a Hildabeast operative found the newspaper birth announcement paradoxically adds more credence in my mind.