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.

[Captain Rhino]

Thanks for posting.

[potlatch]

You are welcome, interesting info on that site.

[Polarik]

I know that, which is why I made the first conversion from JPG to an uncompressed BMP and then back to JPG. If I had access to the original scanner bitmap, the original image would have been a bitmap, and not a JPG. Then I could have rendered all of it in one single pass.

I had to start with something, and I chose the highest quality image available to me, which was Michele's COLB, and made a bitmap of it.

I then edited it, and saved it at a JPG comression of 45 percent -- which is what I calculated to be the compression ratio of the KOs image, assuming that the size reduction, cropping, and JPG reduction were all done in one pass.

Like I said, it was not a pixel-by-pixel clone. There's no way to get it to be exactly the same, given that the original was a JPG.

One thing I did not do was to save it as a progressive JPG. Had I done that, the letters would have been crisper, and the artifacts less noticeable.

I might try going that route next time.

[Polarik]

From what I’ve read, he’s only 6.25% Black - not enough to be classified as an African-American.

[Polarik]

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.

Au contraire!

I originally hypothesized that the Kos image fell out of a giraffe's ass, but I had trouble finding a giraffe to test my theory.

[Polarik]

Aw..I liked “neutralizing” better!

[cynwoody]

To defend successfully, he would not only have to provide his own birth certificate but the birth certificate of his mother as well.

Assuming he was indeed born in Hawaii, it would suffice to produce his own birth certificate, because, in that case the citizenship of his parents would be irrelevant.

[devolve]

.

Bump

Back and catching up now

[potlatch]

That’s good.

[pissant]

Yer doin good, sir.

[Nipfan]

The point is, why have a forgery at all unless there is something to hide.

Someone found a listing of his birth in a Hawaii newspapers (there’s a thread for it here), which makes it likely that he was, indeed, born in America. Therefore, what is there to hide? Some people speculate that it could be that his father is shown as “Arab” on the original. That part of the Certificate is obviously phony because “African” was never used and is not a race anyway.

Whatever it is, he obviously thinks keep it hidden is worth committing fraud. Of course, with the way he lies at every turn and has it covered up by the press, it might not even have occurred to him that it might be exposed.

[Captain Rhino]

I was focusing on the “natural-born” requirement. There is no doubt that only his birth certificate would be required if he was born in Hawaii. However, a person can be born outside the United States, say...in Kenya, and still be considered “natural-born” for electability purposes. In that case, you must prove at least one of your parents was a US citizen at the time of your birth. Hence the mention of Obama’s mama(if you'll pardon the pun).

[devolve]

No fake images here; original photos were used to start with - potlatch added the basketball and added William "O'Bomber" Ayers animated 'stomping' on the American flag from a much published photograph and did the animation of Obama (in his USMC T-Shirt from his days fighting the Japanese in the Pacific during WWII) I simply combined the 2 animated .gifs using an online graphics website because my dinky circa 2000 WebTV cannot use graphics software program uploads -

The scrolling text above I also created (quickly) at at online graphics websites from Obama's own writing in his alleged (ghostwritten?) first book (which may be edited by now!) "Dreams Of My Father Who Loved Me So Much That He Deserted Me".

Who is qualified to say if Barack Hussein Obama is legally qualified to run for the Presidency after examining authentic original (paper) documents? I'll pass on everyone on Free Republic and say Mark Levin.

Sometimes a little humor tells the truth much better than countless pages of text and can lighten up things a bit.



The last graphic above is only intended to portray Obama's connections to Big Oil
- Koz never posted it on his website - not that there's anything wrong with that.......

[Jet Jaguar]

“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.”

Everyone is not working this issue. A few are investigating it. Many more are looking into the Muslim angle. Others, are looking into the Kill Whitey tape. Others are inspecting documents that relate to Rezko or White or the bomber from the 70’s.

This does not distract one from the other. There are many issues that Obama is going to have to deal with.

[bvw]

The wise take being copied as the highest of compliments.

With regard to alarming the forgery you lead the way, man. And you have persisted. ... But this whining about what others should give as due that's a jake's lament. Be the man you can be and put it away.

You've done great, techdude's done great. Even AJStrata, acting as the devil himself, has been a great motivator.

Be not jealous of anyone.

[bvw]

LOL! I think mindbender26 was referring to policy issues!

[DBrow]

He may have something to hide, or his staff just took the expedient of dl’ing the image from Kos, since it looks OK at first.

Obama himself may not even know about this online flap, or, likely does not care since he knows it’s inconsequential and what we do can’t hurt him.

Now, putting on my foil hat (I use real tin, not aluminum), he or his staff could be setting us up for a big disappointment when his “real” colb looks almost identical to the Kos one, along with cries from the usual suspects to end web anonymity.

[potlatch]

Good post devolve, that took some time to do!!
Linus looks a little green there!

[potlatch]

Your first three points above are good ones. People are always ready to take credit for the work of others. The endless repeating of things that have been answered over and over can drive you nuts.

Unless something gets spotted and picked up by the ‘big media’ it will only be noticed by we bloggers online.

I have stayed out of the Birth Certificate controversy and leave it to better equipped people, like you, to figure it out.

I will tell you that I most probably was the first to post the KOS Birth Certificate here on Free Republic. I posted it three times on June 12th at 2:00pm when Free Republic came back online after being down for hours.

The rest of that day everybody discovered it and ran with it, thus starting it all. That’s how it works.

So, no, we don’t often get any credit for anything we do.

Thursday, June 12, 2008 - 2:00pm

MY post; of the BC from KOS

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2030042/posts?page=4#4

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2030041/posts?page=3#3

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/20229679/posts?page=28#28

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2040486/posts?page=123#123

[m4629]

“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.”

Are you for real? Why debate issues or anything with someone who may well be not qualified to run for Office? You stalling time for Obama?

Law School 101 ..... when you have a weak case ... 1, first try to stall time ... 2, argue jurisdiction (read: tell your opponent it's none of his business)