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.

[Nipfan]

What about the fraud element? Surely its illegal to pass off a forgery as the real thing, especially in these circumstances.

[AppyPappy]

It’s not really a forgery unless it is used for the intended purpose. They can claim it was for entertainment purposes.

[longtermmemmory]

If you are refering to the original fake, it is there as a dissembler. Plausable deniability but as proof for those who want the believe in the change that obamas change can change to bring in a changing way.

I think the kos fake is just a means to create a disposable fake that can be dumped if checked to closely. The question is who made it and who distributed the fake.

[potlatch]

Thanks for the ping Dave.
There is one interesting new article that I read last night;

http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/07/23/obama-was-born-in-hawaii-wrong-can-of-worms/

[DBrow]

If he got, say, his passport with a faked COLB, then fraud would come into play. Or a loan, or something that required a certified birth certificate.

Who's the victim of the fraud if a staffer posts the cert from Kos onto Obama’s website?

Maybe it's a chargable fraud, but I've yet to see what gain Obama gets from this, aside from keeping us busy with this and not hunting down what he means by a “domestic security force bigger than and better funded than the military”.

[Nipfan]

Not on the Fight The Smears site which is dedicated to debunking untruths and is a part of Obama’s official web site.

[autumnraine]

I think the states are just assuming that the DNC wouldn’t put someone forward who didn’t qualify. I think that he will sneak his way in and no one verify it.

[AppyPappy]

Trust me. It will go under the bus like a possum on I-40.

[TheRobb7]

One thing that no one is taling about is that when a child is born to parents of different races, the child is usually ascribed the race of the birth mother.

That would mean that Obama is not black.

So, I guess he is a fraud in more ways than 47.

[MindBender26]

This is all such BS.

There is no attempt to account for different scanners, different, suppliers (printers) of the certificates, different ages, different ink suppliers, and a dozen other things.

The concept they are trying to advocate here is, “I can forge a certificate, so therefore they did.”

This is all mental masturbation.

[Bommer]

The only one that jerking off is Obama. This whole thing can be easily debunked with a real birth certificate. But he refuses to let anyone see it. Why? Whats to hide if the copy is exactly like the original? You can blast it all you want, but until he releases his original copy, this will dog him!

[MindBender26]

Don't you see what is happening. While everyone is pissing upwind over this phony issue, they are not concentrating on the real issues of the campaign.

It's like when CBS called the WH to ask for a comment on the now-infamous Rathergate allegation before they aired. Rove issued a mild general denial, then waited for CBS to pee all over self, then landed on Rather hard.

In case you missed it, a newspaper announcement of the birth has now been found.

[pissant]

Obama may be as phony as a Clinton 3 dollar bill, but the COLB is also a forgery.

[LucyT]

Thank you, Grampa Dave.

Pinging.

[Roccus]

Since the requirements for the Presidency are listed in the Constitution, I would assume that it the Federal DoJ, not the states, that has jurisdiction.

[cynwoody]

Your 7:25 image is of noticeably lower quality than Kos's. The text is less crisp. The JPEG artifacts are more prominent. There is a green fringe above some of the text. The crease near the top is harder to pick out.

Kos's image is 2427px × 2369px, 519,907 bytes. Yours is 2426px × 2369px, 478,223 bytes.

It is important to minimize the number of JPEG generations. Each successive decompress / recompress cycle further degrades image quality. Graphic artists generally keep store their images in lossless form (TIFF) until they are done working on them.

[devistate one four]

I’m good for $50.00

[Born In America]

The big question is why do the Obama people feel a need to lie about his birth, what do they need to cover up?

Because this is the first real black candidate with a remote chance of being elected. Much like there are no women in wait to follow Hillary in an attempt at POTUS, there are no blacks in the Democrat party to follow in Husseins footsteps. This is their one chance and the msm is emphatic that he will be elected. If he fails, the msm fails.

Iraq has turned into a success and the democrats who vilified bush are now eating crow pie. When Hussein fails, the msm will never be able to put themselves out as far as they have for any one candidate ever again.

[Captain Rhino]

Yeah, there WAS another Hussein who would still be alive and running Iraq if he would have just let the UN inspection teams really verify he had no WMD and no ongoing WMD programs. He didn't and we all know the events that followed (including the fact that the WMD evidence that was found was not quite what had been expected).

Even if he was born in Kenya, Senator Obama is, by every definition I can find for it, a "neutralizing" American citizen as long as he had at least one properly qualified American citizen birth parent. No one has suggested that his mother wasn't a US citizen at the time of his birth, so the question is not one of eligibly for the office of President. He is. The question is why the reluctance to provide a certified physical copy of his Hawaii COLB for examination by the press and public?

My personal feeling is that there is a whole mythology that has been built up by Senator Obama over the years about his parentage and background. (After all, he has already been discovered to be exaggerating in other areas of his past.) These myths will unravel if the real facts about his birth and early years become public. If they do become known, he will still remain technically eligible for the office (after all, being a known truth bender/outright liar has never disqualified any other politician for office before) but his credibility will be shredded with the public. So, like the other Hussein, he may have no choice but to evade, dissimulate, ignore, counter, and rebuff to the bitter end because preserving the myth is so central to the appeal/power he has.

The situation will only come to a head if forced by a strategic series of law suits filed in key battle ground states. They would need to allege that Senator Obama is unqualified under Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of the United States Constitution for the office of President of the United States because he is NOT a "natural-born" citizen of the United States. To defend successfully, he would not only have to provide his own birth certificate but the birth certificate of his mother as well.

This would be a lawsuit he cannot ignore because losing it would cause his name to be removed from the ballot in each of those states.

Winning the lawsuit (proving he is not a natural-born citizen) would have tremendous consequences no matter when it was decided. If decided before the election, he would be denied the electoral ballots needed to win the election. If afterwards... well, if the Democrats thought 2000 was bad, let them imagine the effect of electing someone subsequently found to be constitutionally unqualified for the office.

In losing the lawsuit (he proves he is a natural-born citizen but perhaps undoes some or all of his mythology), it would be best if that occurred before the election for the effect it would have on his credibility. Now the critical period in losing the case would be from before the Democratic Convention to the election. Ideally, it would be sometime AFTER the convention when it was too late for the other Democratic candidate (Senator Clinton) to mount an effective campaign as a substitute candidate.

If it turned out that he was a natural-born citizen and he was telling the truth about his birth and early past, it would at least raise questions about his character and the advice he was getting on political matters. (Why are you acting like you have something to hide?) And that could raise enough doubt in voters' minds to be the critical difference.

The selection of the courts to file the suits in would have to be done carefully. After the case is decided (win or lose), we don't want the case file and supporting evidence to be sealed by the presiding judge (a la Kennedy and Chappaquiddick).

However, if the COLB issue is really problematic for Senator Obama, I suspect that the real Obama COLB will show up prior to the Democratic Convention and that it will be supplied by the Clinton camp.

[Captain Rhino]

Fraking spell checker!

Second paragraph “neutralizing” should be “natural-born.”