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.

[null and void]

Here’s one:

http://www.baltimoresun.com/chi-0703270151mar27,0,1423829.story?page=2

[m4629]

McCAIN- BECAUSE THE ALTERNATIVE IS UNTHINKABLE

Not at all. That's what most people are programed to think. Too bad.

Everyone has the choice of a write-in candidate.

This is a good reason we should get away from the virtual 2 party captive audience system.

If the GOP does not like Obama get in, then they better put forth another worthy candidate other than McRino, or suffer the consequence. If anything, people are mad enough about Bush to vote against McRino.

[m4629]

Hi, a quick question for you, or anyone who knows.

What was the age limit for Statutory Rape in Hawaii back in 1960? under 18? under 16? under 14?

If it was under 18, then Obama Sr would have been quilty and Obama Jr would be a product of Statutory Rape, not exactly to good thing to fling around and enough reason to hide the truth about his birth.

[null and void]

Even if he did commit statutory rape, he had the decency to marry Stanley Ann.

I'll cut him some slack there.

BTW, a better question might be if she was under age how did she get married without parental permission?

Simplest way would be to assert that she had reached majority. All she'd need to show the justice of the peace would be her drinkin' ID, not exactly an unknown item for a college student to carry then or now.

Her Kenyan in-laws called her Anna Toot. Speculation has it that Stanley Ann used the name of one of he much admired g-g-g-grandmothers - Anna Toot - as an alias.

If Stanley Ann and Barrack, Sr. split the blanket before he was born, she might be forced to use the same ID she used to get married when she whelped "Barrak, Jr."

Now, keep in mind that her baby daddy split and left her in the lurch, under those circumstances would she name the kid after him?

I think not.

The kid was named Barry Toot.

Ain't that a hoot?

[Captain Rhino]

My focus has always been on whether or not simply being born a US citizen overseas disqualified you to be elected President of the United States.

However, if you or others are alleging falsifying documents either by his mother, his grandmother, or his father, that is another matter altogether. That is, of course, criminal activity.

One of my children was born overseas and both traveled with us abroad as children. Other than telling them they were travelling again, I told my children very little about why they were having their photographs and fingerprints taken again, or getting shots, and I made especially sure that they never had physical custody of any critical paperwork for any longer than absolutely necessary for fear it would be lost. And no one, including me, ever explained the nuances of citizenship law to them. It wasn't necessary: they had been told they were US citizens, end of discussion.

Consequently, assuming these supposed illegal acts occurred, I'm not sure how much blame I'd attach to him personally for them up to the point of majority.

Subsequent to that, of course, he owns the acts and any falsehoods told to cover them up.

I read through the opinion you provided at the link and have no problems with it except this part:

The Constitutional eligibility question is separate from the citizenship question. Absent an amendment of the Constitution, Congress does not have the power to tell the Supreme Court what the Constitution means. It is doubtful that a birth in Panama, in the United States only under the Congressional fiction of the sovereign territory doctrine, would pass--and it appears (although again we have not confirmed) that McCain was not born in the sovereign territory in any event and thus does not qualify. Our own view, based on the facts as I understand them, is that it is likely that if the Supreme Court is faced with this issue, it would hold McCain is not eligible to act as President.

I disagree. Congress does have the power to tell the Supreme Court what the Constitution means by passing laws specific to its responsibilities under the Constitution.

In the Cornell University Annotated Constitution, there is this note in the discussion of Marbury v Madison:

"Finally, the Chief Justice noticed the supremacy clause, which gave the Constitution precedence over laws and treaties and provided that only laws “which shall be made in pursuance of the constitution” are to be the supreme laws of the land."

(http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art3frag29_user.html)

The Supreme Court is not going to say that Congress is not constitutionally authorized to pass laws touching on citizenship and naturalization.

The Supreme Court is not going to say that Congress is not constitutionally authorized to pass laws touching on the operation of the Executive Branch.

The Supreme Court is not going to say the 1790 Congress, one consisting of many of the original drafters of the U.S. Constitution, somehow had forgotten their original intentions when the language in Section II,Article I, Clause 5 of the Constitution was drafted.

The Supreme Court is not going to say that, in the naturalization law passed by the Congress in 1790, the one ascribing "natural-born" citizen status to children of US citizens born overseas, that the Congress had somehow forgotten what it meant by "natural-born" just three years earlier.

And finally, the Supreme Court is not going to effectively bar forever, in defiance of the 14th Amendment, millions of present and future otherwise "natural-born" United States citizens from election the highest office in the land just because of where their United States citizen parent(s) were when the labor contractions came.

[aNYCguy]

What a wit you are!

Listen, if you really think that a brave internet citizen armed with Photoshop is going to prove that Obama forged documents in order to falsify natural citizenship, then there's probably nothing I could say to convince you otherwise.

But since I've obviously hurt your feelings, I apologize. By all means, join in with Blood of Tyrants and bring a civil suit against Obama "for a certified copy of his birth certificate."

My personal opinion is that it would be more productive to focus on the issues.

[null and void]

Your faith in the intellectual honesty and apolitical purity of our "Betters in Black Robes" is Supreme-ly charming.

[null and void]

Seriously, and it really is a serious question: Do you have a job?

I don’t care what kind of job, I’d just like to know if you draw a paycheck (or write them)

I’m going somewhere with this, somewhere actually on point and with laser sharp focus on the key relevant issue.

[null and void]

And FWIW, at this point, I don’t have a job.

[Captain Rhino]

Let’s just say I’m an optimist.

[m4629]

Thank you for your response.

Your theory makes a good case for sure.

Certainly Ann had no use putting daddy Obama on the BC if he had already split.

I think all this hiding the info would come soon to haunt Barack Jr. Reminds me of “where the tapes?” “what tapes? there is nothing on those tapes”

[null and void]

*shrug* I’m reduced to creative writing exercises.

The real truth is probably weirder than I can imagine, or dishwater dull.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Yeah, and a lot of us would have backed Alan Keyes if he had started an internet campaign early enough. Heck, Keyes could have crushed McCain if he had gotten in a year sooner. Is some nut job saying you’re voting based on race or something?

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

“McCaskill wasn't able to get her bill passed.”

The post-FDR batch of lawyers really sickens me [with some shining exceptions of course]. I'm glad you have a handle on this mess. For crying out loud— the Senate refused to validate that the child of a US soldier/marine is not a natural born citizen? That should INCREASE one's status of ‘natural birth’ if anything— born naturally from a US citizen.

[potlatch]

Thank you.

[null and void]

No argument here!

I’m beginning to think Heinlein was right.

[FARS]

Have a smile

http://noiri.blogspot.com/2008/07/obama-introspect.html

[Miss Didi]

I'm in the south, hate to even write this out but there are many who will still not vote for a Black person. I know that and I am not prejudiced myself.

I'm in the Northeast, potlatch, and I know people who will not vote for a black person. I know people who are upset that we have a black governor in NY State. I think the reason the Dems and Drive-Bys (same deal) push the "first black candidate" line is due to white liberal hate-America guilt. Rush explains it much better.

[David]

I read through the opinion you provided at the link and have no problems with it except this part:

The Constitutional eligibility question is separate from the citizenship question. Absent an amendment of the Constitution, Congress does not have the power to tell the Supreme Court what the Constitution means. It is doubtful that a birth in Panama, in the United States only under the Congressional fiction of the sovereign territory doctrine, would pass--and it appears (although again we have not confirmed) that McCain was not born in the sovereign territory in any event and thus does not qualify. Our own view, based on the facts as I understand them, is that it is likely that if the Supreme Court is faced with this issue, it would hold McCain is not eligible to act as President.

I disagree. Congress does have the power to tell the Supreme Court what the Constitution means by passing laws specific to its responsibilities under the Constitution.

Your opinion is wonderful. But here is the real world--I am a federal tax lawyer--I have argued Supreme Court cases but that isn't what I do. But I deal with DC lawyers a great deal and this issue, and the related issue with respect to McCain is a hot gossip issue among professionals who make a living arguing cases to the Supreme Court.

The overwhelming view is that if the issue ever gets to the Supreme Court, assuming Obama was in fact born in Kenya, neither McCain nor Obama is eligible to serve as President of the United States under Article II, Sec. 1, Par. 4.

I have tried as best I can to lay out in layman's language why it is likely that is how the Court comes down--lots of people here can't get over the view that McCain ought not lose a Constitutional privilege because his father was serving his country outside the US when he was born (it would be more difficult if it was his mother--she could have returned to the US to preserve his position). The Court's usual response to those kinds of arguments is that is why the Amendment process is in the Constitution--if you think it is unfair, amend the Constitution.

Like all arguments, there are two sides; and there is a political context. Although at the moment, it looks to me as though the political context probably also cuts in favor of the usually accepted Constitutional lawyer's view.

But knowing that you don't want to hear it from me, the real bottom line is that (if Obama was born in Kenya) neither McCain nor Obama pass the test. And if it gets to the Supreme Court, expect that result.

[potlatch]

Thank you for your informative post Miss Didi. I find so few that agree with me that I usually hesitate to even post remarks. I do usually find that the 'thought process' in the northeast is different than way down here in Texas, lol.

Thank you for showing me the exception, you are one of the few who speak up.

I had something I was going to post to ALL on this thread, I hope you won't mind that I include it in my post to you.

---

Salon.com

After Hillary Clinton's surprise victory in New Hampshire's primary, which seemed to contradict polls taken just days earlier, many pundits and pollsters reached for race as an explanation. They referred to the "Bradley Effect," the possibility that polls -- even those restricted to Democratic voters in a Northeastern state -- could be skewed simply by the presence of an African-American candidate in the race and whites' reluctance to appear racist by telling pollsters they would not vote for him.

The Bradley Effect;

The Bradley effect is named for Tom Bradley, the former mayor of Los Angeles. In 1982, Bradley, an African-American, ran for governor of California; pre-election polls gave him a clear lead, but when it came to Election Day, Bradley lost a close race. A similar phenomenon was observed the next year in Chicago, where Harold Washington, also an African-American, eked out a victory in a mayoral election despite pre-election polling that had Washington walking away with the race. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, five other biracial elections featured similar disparities between polls and the actual vote.

Social scientists and pollsters theorized that this might have to do with something called "social desirability bias." When called by pollsters, especially African-American pollsters, this hypothesis goes, whites who do not want to vote for an African-American candidate will feel embarrassed about being perceived as racist if they express that sentiment, and they will lie. Then, when they head to the voting booth, their real preferences are exposed.

In an Op-Ed piece for the New York Times, Andrew Kohut, the president of the Pew Research Center, wrote, "Poorer, less well-educated white people refuse surveys more often than affluent, better-educated whites. Polls generally adjust their samples for this tendency. But here's the problem: these whites who do not respond to surveys tend to have more unfavorable views of blacks than respondents who do the interviews."

Poor people were supporting Obama, and Hillary less, at much higher rates in the pre-election poll than in the exit poll. That's where the big gap is."

Total African American population

39,151,870

13.1% of the total U.S. population

Cheating and dead voters = 'unknown numbers'

Hillary supporters - many say they will not vote for Obama