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.

[patriot08]

I found these posts on a pro-Hillary board:

Mr. Obama bailed out of FEC federal funding of his campaign in the same week or so that his campaign put up the “Fight The Smears” website, of which it appears the only significant real issue they engaged was his birth legend. They put up the forged low resolution image of a Hawaiian “Certificate of Live Birth”. Was it only a coincidence in timing?

One thing the FEC is required to do — if Obama had accepted the funds — is prove his eligibility. Obama would have had to provide proof of where his was born, and his parent’s citizenship and marriage status. He didn’t accept, they didn’t vette.

Challenging a candidate’s eligibility to be on the ballot is a state by state thing. A citizen has to challenge in the courts. The State officials (at least the ones I am aware of) do not vett. Vett means to research, to challenge, to demand proof, to validate the proof provided. Must be a citizen or party challenge in the courts.”
______________________________________

How to challenge Obama’s eligibility in your state:

Call the secretary of state’s office and ask how you go about challenging a candidate’s eligibility to be on the ballot in your state-specifically citizenship eligibility.

__________________________________________

[Polarik]

(David? Did I miss anything or make any glaring legal errors?)

I think the larger issue is committing fraud by presenting a forgery as an accurate document copy.

[Polarik]

Secondly, the lefties seem to come up with almost-plausible answers.

Well, they now have no answers for the fact that the KOS COLB is a mirror image of the DeCosta COLB, in terms of its printed components, and it could notr have occurred without the intervention of a forger.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Tell me what you really think about her ... uh, on second thought, don’t go there.

[MeekOneGOP]

heheheee!

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

I knew you shouldn’t ‘go there’. [fleeing the thread]

[MeekOneGOP]

hahahahaaaa!

Playin’ Ketchup here.

My ‘puter monitor croaked Wednesday nite.

I couldn’t find another one until this morning on the
way to work.

Wal-Mart doesn’t sell the big hefty mama’s anymore...just
the flat screens now.

I hadda go to a Mom & Pop ‘puter place to get a used one
to replace mine.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

“Playin’ Ketchup here.”

I guess that’s what Obama does at abortion ‘clinics’

[MeekOneGOP]

Ah gess so. :)

[My hearts in London - Everett]

I just came upon this thread this morning. It appears I must apologize. I’m the FReeper who posted the Atlas article here on FR. I hadn’t a clue about it’s origins obviously. I came upon it on Stumble and thought it had merit.

[Jet Jaguar]

“As a heads up to the guilty parties – the names and dates have already been restored – as has the fact the owner is a female born in the 70’s. That is all that will be revealed publicly for now. Besides if I turn up in a ditch someplace the information is already in a few 3rd party hands and they will just release it in my place.

If anyone still believes the KOS COLB is legitimate after reading this article they should seriously think about seeking professional help.”

From txdarlings site.

[Polarik]

If anyone still believes the KOS COLB is legitimate after reading this article they should seriously think about seeking professional help. I think that FReepers here already know that the Kos image is a forgery, and who was the first person to prove it.

[kroy]

“Obama Refuses to Answer Birth Certificate Lawsuit”

http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/obama_birth_certificate/2008/10/24/143882.html

The part about the “African” entry for race instead of Negro may have been answered by factcheck, unless Negro or Colored were the only options allowed at that time.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

ke

[Polarik]

The part about the “African” entry for race instead of Negro may have been answered by factcheck, unless Negro or Colored were the only options allowed at that time.

When the COLB was printed determines what word the Census Bureau used for African-American US Citizens only.

The COLB was allegedly printed in 2007, so BLACK would have been used if Obama Sr. was a US citizen. But, since he was an African national, AFRICAN is what was used.

[kroy]

The COLB was allegedly printed in 2007, so BLACK would have been used if Obama Sr. was a US citizen. But, since he was an African national, AFRICAN is what was used.

That clears up some confusion on that one. Assuming Sr. (and others from Africa) or the state tended to identify their race (as opposed to nationality) on COLBs as "African". White nationals from Africa probably would have identified their race as White or Caucasian. Do/did they go by the continent they were from or by their skin color? And did states allow for "Other" and an applicant's fill-in for race as claimed by the factcheck article? In this case Sr's supposed choice of "African"?

The rest of the evidence for forgery is plenty convincing anyway regardless. But since this is a key argument from other blogger sites/sources for forgery, I believe its crucial that it be proven or eliminated so that what is presented is credible.

[kroy]

From the factcheck article:
...but they did answer another frequently-raised question: why is Obama's father's race listed as "African"? Kurt Tsue at the DOH told us that father's race and mother's race are supplied by the parents, and that "we accept what the parents self identify themselves to be." We consider it reasonable to believe that Barack Obama, Sr., would have thought of and reported himself as "African."

[kroy]

Judge rejects Montco lawyer’s bid to have Obama removed from ballot

...

In a 34-page memorandum and opinion, the judge said Berg’s allegations of harm were “too vague and too attenuated” to confer standing on him or any other voters.

Surrick ruled that Berg’s attempts to use certain laws to gain standing to pursue his claim that Obama was not a natural-born citizen were “frivolous and not worthy of discussion.”

The judge also said the harm Berg alleged did “not constitute an injury in fact” and Berg’s arguments to the contrary “ventured into the unreasonable.”

For example, Berg had claimed that Obama’s nomination deprived citizens of voting for Sen. Hillary Clinton in November. (Berg backed Clinton in the primaries.)

Berg could not be reached for comment last night.

Obama was born in Honolulu on Aug. 4, 1961, and the campaign posted a document issued by Hawaii on its Web site, fight thesmears.com, confirming his birth there.

Berg said in court papers that the image was a forgery.

The nonpartisan Web site FactCheck.org examined the original document and said it was legitimate.

Further, a birth announcement in the Aug. 13, 1961, Honolulu Advertiser listed Obama’s birth there on Aug. 4. *

http://www.philly.com/dailynews/local/20081025_Judge_rejects_Montco_lawyer_s_bid_to_have_Obama_removed_from_ballot.html

[Polarik]

Obama was born in Honolulu on Aug. 4, 1961, and the campaign posted a document issued by Hawaii on its Web site, fight thesmears.com, confirming his birth there.

WRONG. The Fight the Smears website posted a copy of a forged image. There is no proof of Obama's birth in Hawaii.

Berg said in court papers that the image was a forgery.

And Berg is 100% correct: the image IS a forgery.

The nonpartisan Web site FactCheck.org examined the original document and said it was legitimate. FactCheck is pro-Obama and definitely NOT nonpartisan. They are a primary suspect in the Obama birth certificate fraud.

Further, a birth announcement in the Aug. 13, 1961, Honolulu Advertiser listed Obama’s birth there on Aug. 4.

WRONG again. this "birth announcement" was a small, fuzzy, black & white image that not only has inconsistencies in it, but is 100 times easier to forge than the highly-detailed color COLB.

In short, the evidence that Obama's COLB image and the Honolulu Advertiser image are both fakes and forgeries, designed to cover up the fact that Obama has no birth record in Hawaii.

[Cyropaedia]

Help me out here. Can Governor Lingle do something a-la “Executive Order”....with regards to a birth certificate ( or verifying the lack thereof )...?

[Polarik]

Help me out here. Can Governor Lingle do something a-la “Executive Order”....with regards to a birth certificate ( or verifying the lack thereof )...?

She does not need to do that to get a "Letter of Verification."

Now if the OHSM won't even do that, then she can play the "Executive Order" card.

I wish I were an agency head.

I cannot fathom why the GOP has not requested it, or any one of the Supervisors of Election around the country.