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.

[Polarik]

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

Did Hawaii have newspapers back in 1961? I was wondering why this was found in a Penny Saver.

Also, the wide page view is illegible. What's up with that?

[Calpernia]

The whole thing doesn't look right to me.

[null and void]

The Honolulu Advertiser was the paper of record, as near as I can figure.

Also, the wide page view is illegible. What's up with that?

I think that is a rhetorical question. I think you already know that it would be impossible to do any meaningful analysis of such a badly degraded image.

[Polarik]

"Someone found a listing of his birth in a Hawaii newspaper"

It's a bit of a stretch to call a Penny Saver a "Newspaper," given that it's raison d'etre is being a classified section alternative.

Regular newspapers usually have birth, death, and marriage announcements. and they would be on microfiche in the public and university libraries. It would we worthwhile checking them.

[null and void]

If Obama was indeed born in Kenya and came back to the States with Ann shortly, what travel document did he use?

At that time, in the bad old days before children were regarded as hardened terrorists, children typically travelled on their parents' passports.

Although several FReepers recounted doing exactly that on the Big Thread, there are still knuckleheads who insist that such a thing never happened.

Or did Ann register Obama’s foreign birth at the closest American Consulate to get his own passport?

Why? A baby in arms didn't need a passport. That would be absurd!

Was it possible for baby Obama to travel on Ann’s passport alone without any documentation? Mind you they had to travel through a few countries.

Yes. Common practice in those days.

[bvw]

One of the latest comments there mentioned that the Glen Beck site had a link to the forgery CoLB discussions. Yes, but it’s a bit buried in a list of things from the 22nd.

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/12701/

[m4629]

I do believe it’s customery for the Mayor of a city to send Congrats letter to parents of new borns.

Perhaps it could be discovered that was also the case back in 1961 Hawaii? And perhaps Mayor’s office have a record of this?

[null and void]

You do not need a birth certificate to get a passport.

State department rules are VERY VERY clear on this point.

But hey, don't trust me! That thing you're sitting in front of right now? It has internet access. Go to the state department's own web site and see for your self.

A "Statement of No Record" and a DS10A signed by an older blood relative suffices.

That's now. Post 9/11. In the age of ID theft. With everyone worried about international child kidnapping and the sex slave trade. With our borders fully secured against saboteurs (OK, I made that last part up!)

It was quite a bit more lax when Barry Toot Barack Hussein Obama got his first passport decades ago...

[m4629]

Ok, thanks.

Now my question is, did Ann play it safe and conscientious by registering baby Obama’s birth at a US Consulate somewhere to guarantee his citizenship or did she tried to pull a fast one by rushing back to Hawaii and registered him as home grown?

[Calpernia]

I’ve never heard that before and I’ve birthed my share, different towns and different states too.

I also don’t have a copy of any such letter in any of our family history boxes. And trust me, our families saved everything for our memory boxes.

[Calpernia]

Buried on the 3 page navigation. At least the info is ‘squeaking’ out.

[Calpernia]

Agreed.

Bump

[potlatch]

[if Bush said that, just imagine the hoopla. ]

President Bush made unbelievable blunders, there are pages of them on Google. Dem sites laughed and bashed him all the time. We, supporters, tried to go easy on it.

That is the natural way of politics.

If you will look at my post #200 you will see a good article concerning voters and black candidates;

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2050103/posts?page=200#200

[null and void]

Now my question is, did Ann play it safe and conscientious by registering baby Obama’s birth at a US Consulate somewhere to guarantee his citizenship or did she tried to pull a fast one by rushing back to Hawaii and registered him as home grown?

At this point, no one seems to know.

I believe/know a very few things:

The CoLB that his campaign released is a forgery.

Someone risked jail time to forge this document.

It takes all of half an hour on the 'net, and about $25-$40 to have a legitimate certified copy of your own BC delivered within a week. (I know this because I just did that very thing last month)

Therefore, I conclude that there must be some compelling reason to falsify his BC.

The compelling reason that comes to mind is that the real document would kick him out of the running for being the most powerful man on earth.

From this I conclude that his true documentation shows one or more of the following truths:

• He was not born in the United States, and is therefore constitutionally unqualified for the job. This is a show stopper. There is no way to "fix" this or inoculate himself against this, or win over voters on this issue. It is the premier campaign killer issue.

Therefore, I regard this as the most probable explanation for the deceit.

All the other possible reasons are much lower grade:

• His BC shows that he's a bastard. Although this might be personally embarrassing, nobody cares, a goodly fraction of the electorate is in the same boat, or closely related to someone who is.
• His birth name isn't Barak Hussein Obama. So what? We already know his his name changed when he was adopted in Indonesia. People can and do change their names, it isn't a crime, or even particularly shady.
The only question it really raises is why did he chose a muslim name? That's rather easy to explain away - he took his genetic father's name. Who can argue with that? Especially when muslim names had some popularity among blacks who didn't know just how deeply involved muslims were in the slave trade.
• His real birth certificate lists his race as something other than "African". This would be more of a problem. His whole campaign is founded on his being "the first black president" come January. Still not lethal to the campaign, but it would be awkward to 'splain away.

• There is something else embarrassing on his official BC.

Like what?
There could be nothing conceivably embarrassing about:

His time of birth
His birthday
His city of birth
His county of birth
His island of birth
His religion (It's not even listed)
His mother's race
The date it was filed

A few things could be a slightly embarrassing:

The serial number? Maybe? Suppose it's really 151-1961-000666?

His father's name wasn't listed. Not terribly unlikely if he and Stanley Ann split up before he was born. No one cares.

His mother's maiden name. Suppose she really did use her Anna Toot drinkin' ID to get married? Would that really suffice as a reason for someone to risk jail time by falsifying his documents? More to the point, would it disqualify Barak? I don't think so. If anything it could be played for the sympathy vote, young naïve Stanley Ann trying to do her best in covering up the mistakes of her youth. Mother's maiden name listed as Anna Toot? Yawn.

That leaves the big enchilada:
His birth name. Was it really the noble and exotic Barak Hussein Obama II?

Or was it Mortimer Snerdly Toot, hmmmm?

Live that one down!

[potlatch]

The days of honesty and fairness are long gone. Google obviously supports Obama so only shows him in the best light.

Google has just recently let out the photos of Obama in the USMC T-Shirt, had to because it was ‘out and exposed’ on the websites.

[bvw]

Here’s a thread for the opposing chorus.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2051269/posts

[potlatch]

Essentially 100% of the black vote, plus essentially 100% of the oh-so-liberal vote, plus the white guilt vote.....

From my searches I have read that 90% of blacks will vote for Obama. The blacks comprise only 13% of the population.

June 4, 2007 population;

One-third of the people living in the U.S. belong to a minority group.

300 million people living in the U.S.,

200 million are Whites;
40 million are Blacks
44 million are Hispanics
14 million are Asians
1 million are Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islanders
4 million are American Indian and Alaska Natives

If you will read my post #200, you will find an interesting article on 'The Bradley Effect';

POST #200

Election cheating and dead voters = unknown quantities

We keep hearing of the large increase in dem registration. Are they taking into account the large numbers of pubs who followed Rush's advice to cross lines and vote for Hillary?

[m4629]

Thanks for your take.

Now onto the other scenario. Suppose Obama was born in Hawaii, in a hospital. Then it shouldn’t be hard to track down certain records right? Like billing records for doctors fees, admission record, nursing attendant record.

Surely chances are some of the nurses that worked that 7:24 pm shift may well be alive today to reveal what type of paperwork was required to fill out by hand and stored somewhere.

Indeed, someone who goes through this much trouble to conceal basic info has a lot to hide, which is more of a reason we need to dig deeper.

On a side note, I’m pretty sure by now the Homeland Security and Secret Service are quite aware of Obama’s background but they won’t do anything since they are only concerned with security and not eligibility. Then again, some of the best leaks do come from insiders sometimes.

Hmmmm, Watergate, Irangate, Birth CertifiGATE.

[null and void]

Under HIPPA rules releasing his medical data without permission would be a felony, wouldn't it?

"WRONGFUL DISCLOSURE OF INDIVIDUALLY IDENTIFIABLE HEALTH INFORMATION

"SEC. 1177. (a) OFFENSE.--A person who knowingly and in violation of this part--

"(1) uses or causes to be used a unique health identifier;

"(2) obtains individually identifiable health information relating to an individual; or

"(3) discloses individually identifiable health information to another person,

shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).

"(b) PENALTIES.--A person described in subsection (a) shall--

"(1) be fined not more than $50,000, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both;

"(2) if the offense is committed under false pretenses, be fined not more than $100,000, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both; and

"(3) if the offense is committed with intent to sell, transfer, or use individually identifiable health information for commercial advantage, personal gain, or malicious harm, be fined not more than $250,000, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both."

I'd go with it falling under subsection (b) paragraph (3)...

[m4629]

Of course you are right and I agree.

I am just suggesting the paper trail exists and somehow it only takes a court order or extraordinary pressure to come to surface.