FactCheck's photos of Obama's birth certificate just proved that their posted image of it was forged

From the high-res photos that FactCheck provided, I was able to confirm a number of my findings that exposed the FactCheck COLB image as a manufactured forgery. To get everyone up to speed, there has been one, and only one forged image. From this one source image, several copies were generated. One was kept by the Obama campaign while one copy went to the Daily Kos, and the other went to FactCheck. Both the Daily Kos and the Obama campaign cropped their images before posting them on June 12. The Obama Campaign posted a very small, low-res copy to their "Fight the Smears" website, while the Daily Kos image was cropped close to the borders but left in its original size. FactCheck posted their uncropped image to their website four days later on June 16.

Here's what FactCheck said in their "Expose" about Obama's long sought-after birth certificate:

The truth about Obama's [bogus] birth certificate.

In June, the Obama campaign released a digitally scanned image of his birth certificate to quell speculative charges that he might not be a natural-born citizen. But the image prompted more blog-based skepticism about the document's authenticity. And recently, author Jerome Corsi, whose book attacks Obama, said in a TV interview that the birth certificate the campaign has is "fake."

We beg to differ. FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship. Claims that the document lacks a raised seal or a signature are false. We have posted high-resolution photographs of the document as "supporting documents" to this article. Our conclusion: Obama was born in the U.S.A. just as he has always said.

Well, speaking for the huge population of skeptics, I beg to differ. Other than showing that Obama took a trip to Hawaii just to get this thing printed, and bring it out for a show-and-tell to FactCheck's affiliates, the "supporting documents" prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the image posted on FactCheck;'s website was NOT an accurate copy of a real "birth certificate," but was instead, a stone-cold, dyed-in-the-wool forgery.

There are a lot of things that do not match up between the image FactCheck posted and these new photos of Obama's "Certification of Live Birth." In fact, there are a whole host of things wrong with the image FactCheck posted when compared to genuine scans of real 2007 COLB's.

FactCheck went on to make derisive comments about the claims that others made, including me, about the suspicious image they posted: Since we first wrote about Obama's birth certificate on June 16, speculation on his citizenship has continued apace. Some claim that Obama posted a fake birth certificate to his Web page. That charge leaped from the blogosphere to the mainstream media earlier this week when Jerome Corsi, author of a book attacking Obama, repeated the claim in an Aug. 15 interview with Steve Doocy on Fox News. Corsi said in that interview that "there's been good analysis of it on the Internet, and it's been shown to have watermarks from Photoshop. It's a fake document that's on the Web site right now, and the original birth certificate the campaign refuses to produce."

Never have truer words been spoken. Not so for the hard-headed hoohahs at FactCheck who still insist that the image they posted on June 16 was genuine:

Among the most frequent objections we saw on forums, blogs and e-mails are:

* The birth certificate doesn't have a raised seal.

* It isn't signed.

* No creases from folding are evident in the scanned version.

* In the zoomed-in view, there's a strange halo around the letters.

* The certificate number is blacked out.

* The date bleeding through from the back seems to say "2007," but the document wasn't released until 2008.

* The document is a "certification of birth," not a "certificate of birth."

I must say that FactCheck is not known as a place that gets its facts straight. The only ones I care about are those that pertain to my research. No, FactChump (sic), I complained about there being only one "crease from folding evident" in your full-length image, when all others had two folds evident.

No, FuktCheck (sic), I did not talk about "strange halos" around the letters, but well-known and well-defined white and gray pixel halos BETWEEN the letters, when there should also have been greenish-colored pixels. Leave it to FlakCheck (sic) to come up with the reason why their image was fake, and not why this fast-food COLB has no pixel halos:

The scan released by the campaign shows halos around the black text, making it look (to some) as though the text might have been pasted on top of an image of security paper. But the document itself has no such halos, nor do the close-up photos we took of it. We conclude that the halo seen in the image produced by the campaign is a digital artifact from the scanning process.

No, FaxedChek (sic), not to "some" people, but to "one person" who spotted the telltale signs of an image that had been graphically altered only three days after you posted it. Plus, I am going to post all of my test images that failed to create ANY pixel anomalies or "digital artifacts."

By golly. You know, every one of my detractors have said stuff like this, as if there are thousands of the same "pixel halos" fully documented as being artifacts. In fact, FactCheck, I have never even seen one that matches the hack job you posted.

We also note that so far none of those questioning the authenticity of the document have produced a shred of evidence that the information on it is incorrect.

Very clever, just like your Messiah. I, and others like ne, never doubted the content of your COLB image. What we sincerely doubted was the "authenticity" of the document image you posted on your website. It was a fraud, and you, FactCheck were complicit in promulgating it as the real deal.

The folks at FastChick (sic) quoted another one of the fraud perpetrators, PolitiFact.com, who "also dug into some of these loopy theories."

Now, them's fighting words. there is nothing "loony" about felony fraud. There's nothing "loony" about constantly deceiving the American public as Obama and his band of rogues have done. Here's Politfact's two cents:

Anything’s possible. But step back and look at the overwhelming evidence to the contrary and your sense of what's reasonable has to take over.

No way, Polident! (sic) The "overwhelming evidence to the contrary" was just posted by your buddies at FeltChunks. They confirmed what I've known all along: that the image purported to be a true copy of Obama's original birth certificate was, absolutely, a well-conceived forgery of what his "birth certificate" might look like -- but, one that had too many flaws to fool this expert.

I had always said that they were added last to the image, and were the least compelling evidence that a forged image had been "manufactured." Now that I've had a chance to compare them to the genuine borders of real 2007 COLB images, I can now say, with 100% certainty, that these wacky borders were poorly drawn replicas of what real borders are supposed to look like.

The degree of smearing on them and the lack of any "real artifacts" were incongruous, given that this image was a high-resolution one. Basically everything inside the borders were far superior in quality to the borders themselves. Proof-positive that they were added post-hoc to a forged image.

Furthermore, the two vertical borders on each side of the FactCheck COLB image were not drawn as long, parallel rectangles, but as divergent ones! When comparing them to real 2007 borders, the border on the left side went from being narrow at the base to being wider at the top. Conversely, the border on the left side went from being wider at the base to being narrower at the top. These disparities show up when the FactCheck COLB is made semi-transparent and laid on top of a genuine 2007 COLB image (as shown below).

To demonstrate the disparities, I created a semi-transparent New 2007 COLB image and placed it on top of the FactCheck COLB image, so that we can see the underlying FactCheck COLB image through the partially transparent 2007 COLB image. I lined both of them up at the top border corners.

For comparison purposes, I also created a semi-transparent PD COLB image to place on top of the FactCheck COLB image. Recall in my previous post that I found a very close correspondence between the 2002 PD COLB and the "2007" FactCheck COLB.

When the top borders of the FactCheck COLB were aligned with the genuine 2007 COLB, the alignment of all the printed information common to both COLBs, grew worse as you progress downwards to the bottom of both COLBs.

Here's a visual comparison of the FactCheck COLB image placed on top of a New 2007 COLB:

The next step was to compare the 2002 PD COLB to the FactCheck COLB . I measured the width of the FactCheck COLB image (2369 pixels) and divided it by the width of the PD COLB image (900 pixels). The result came out to be approximately 2.632, which was then used as a multiplier. I multiplied 2.632 times the height of the PD COLB (921 pixels). This is how one can make the size of the PD COLB image comparable to the size of the FactCheck COLB image.

From there, it's just a matter of making the PD COLB image semi-transparent and then placing it on top of the FactCheck COLB image and aligning its top border corners.

Here's the overlay of the FactCheck COLB image placed on top of the PD COLB image.

The fit of the PD COLB image is so much closer to the FactCheck image than a real COLB from the same time period, there can only be one conclusion: The Obama/Kos/FactCheck image was created from other COLB images, including the one from 2002, the PD COLB.

What else is wrong with this picture?

Good grief. After debunking the borders, what's left? Well, after studying the photos provided by FactChecka, I found lots of features on the photographed COLB that was not in the FactCheck image (and vice versa).

Here's what I've found on FactCheck's original SCAN that do not match their counterparts on their "newly photographed" COLB, and their counterparts on my 2007 COLB photos and images:

There will be more to come, along with "supporting documentation" (aka images), illustrating the mismatch between FactCheck's original forgery and the "original" photos their stringer took of something that does bear a slight resemblance to Obama's "year-old" paper COLB. So, please keep checking back for updates.

PLEASE, tell the faithful that the COLB issue is not dead, but given new life. The COLB forgery really does have a life of its own, and it is up to you to let these lowlifes know that we are not going to let them get away with perfidy.

Oh please. Dispense with the melodrama.

Lying, hiding facts, deceiving the public is melodrama?

Your favorite candidate Obama has a problem with the virtue of truthfulness. Oh lets see now. Obama has not release his medical records. Hides his Illionis state records. What, didn't even have a State Senate appointment book? So where's Obama's college thesis? Refuses to releases his College transcripts. Who were Obama's law practice clients?

Obama has lied about the Selma March that brought his parents together to procreate little Jr Obama. Caught and then admitted to lying about voting against the "Born-Alive Infants Protection Act" in the Illionis State Senate. Obama lied about his great uncle liberating the Jews in Auschwitz concentration camp. Obama lied that the Kennedy Administration or the Kennedy family provided funding that airlifted Obama Sr. to the United States so he could attend college. Here is the truth: Obama displays a systematic pattern of lying.

And what unbiased reporter(s) have shown up at Obama's Chicago campaign headquarters (where the certificate is supposedly kept) and asked to inspect the document(s) in question but have been refused or otherwise turned away?

Are you aware of any? I'm not.

As I recall, reporter(s) have asked Obama to physically inspect his COLB where Obama has refused them.

Annenberg.org "FactCheck" and the DailyKos are Democrat partisans that are in Obama camp. These guys do not practice unbiased objectivity. Instead of having reporters physically inspect Obama's COLB, which is good, he should sign a release to open all his Hawaiian birth records to professional media outlets... but Obama just loves to hide his past.

And what's this "your side" stuff? It has absolutely nothing to do with any "sides." It's called "politics."

You are voting for Obama - aren't you?

Obama better not be caught lying about his birth because it has the potential to take all the Dems down a notch or two running in elections, for your Dem party's sake.

Polarik,

You work has proven no less than one undeniable fact: The Obama campaign published a forged COLB on their “Fight the Smears” site. (and for the hundredth time - why and what is he hiding???)

Koyaan - whatever Factcheck is trying to undo with the latest “real” Obama COLB just cannot be treated with any credibility whatsoever. If they faked it once, there is no doubt that they are capable of trying to do a better job of covering their hind ends with a better “fake”.

Phil Berg may be a loony Clinton supporter, but he certainly makes one, very powerful point in one of his latest interviews. To quote his exact words:

“Sen. Obama really owes it to everyone to confront this. He should threaten me. “Berg,” he should say, “here are the documents and, if you do not withdraw the suit, I will sue you.” Right now, he has no basis to sue me. If he does have the documents, he should show them, and I’ll walk away. I’ll withdraw the case. But, again, he must show me a certified vault copy of his birth certificate and must show me a certified copy of the oath of allegiance taken between the time he was 19 to 21 at a Consulate, U.S. Embassy or the like. If those documents can be presented, again, I’m out of here. But I don’t think he can, I don’t think he will, and I think it is a total disgrace on his part.”

For the love of God, Allah, or who or whatever the hell Obama may worship, JUST RELEASE A GENUINE, CERTIFIED VAULT COPY OF THE REAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE(s) AND STOP PLAYING STUPID GAMES WITH THESE COLB'S AND GET THIS CRAP OVER WITH! Because it ain't going away until this happens.

As I recall, reporter(s) have asked Obama to physically inspect his COLB where Obama has refused them.

Ok. Who? What reporter(s)?

You are voting for Obama - aren't you?

No. Why would you make such an assumption?

Obama better not be caught lying about his birth because it has the potential to take all the Dems down a notch or two running in elections, for your Dem party's sake.

My party's sake? Um, no. I have no party affiliation. I think political parties (at least the Democratic and Republican parties) are rather like labor unions. They once served a useful purpose, but anymore, they only serve themselves to the detriment of those they're claiming to represent.

So that's two erroneous assumptions on your part so far.

Care to try for three? ;)

I've yet to see any credible evidence that it was faked the first time.

I will say however that in spite of my being critical of the so-called "analysis" showing it to be fake, I have had one lingering question about the Obama COLB. And that was the border pattern. It was unlike any of the two other border patterns that were known to exist.

And I must thank Polarik for finally putting that one nagging question I had to rest. He did so by way of the first image he shows in his post. In that image, he shows another COLB which has the same border pattern as the Obama COLB.

And speaking of that image, I would like to address what Polarik claims it reveals.

To wit:

I assume he meant left side and right side instead of left side and left side. However in any case, this is absolutely incorrect. The two vertical sides of the border in the FactCheck image are not divergent.

They only appear at first glance to be divergent due to the underlying border of the "new 2007 COLB" being skewed counterclockwise. The width of the border in the FactCheck image is the same at the bottom as it is at the top. There is no divergence.

So now the question is whether this image was produced due to laziness or incompetence, or was it done in order to intentionally mislead readers into believing something about the FactCheck border which simply wasn't true?

Given what Polarik had said on my blog back around mid-August regarding deskewing borders before comparing them, the latter would seem to be the case here.

Please remember to deskew them counter-clockwise...

You didn’t deskew the borders.

So why didn't Polarik deskew the borders in this instance? It seems rather obvious that he didn't do this because it would have shown a much better match between the FactCheck image and the "new 2007 COLB" than he wanted to portray to readers here.

And finally I'll note once again that Polarik still hasn't offered an explanation as to why he claimed that the date stamp is never placed above the signature stamp on any existing COLBs when he knew this wasn't true.

Do any of you reading this actually care whether or not what Polarik claims is true? Or do you unquestioningly accept that it is true because it's something you want to be true?

As I said previously, I'm neither a Democrat nor will I be voting for Obama. But if you're going to make a case against Obama, or anyone else for that matter, it should be based on fact, and not lies, misrepresentations or fabrications. Otherwise, you'll find yourself showing up at a gunfight without so much as a pea shooter.

*Breaking News* FactCheck posts update to its "Born in the U.S.A." story on Aug 26th

Posted on Sunday, August 31, 2008 2:30:50 PM by Polarik

I revisited the "Born in the U.S.A." story that FactCheck produced which shows digital photos of OBama's alleged genuine paper birth certificate, or COLB, taken in a number of angles.

I found something new: A note that the story had been "updated August 26."

Update, August 26: We received responses to some of our questions from the Hawaii Department of Health. They couldn't tell us anything about their security paper, 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." It's certainly not the slam dunk some readers have made it out to be.

According to the Director of Vital Records, with whom I spoke about 10 weeks ago, said that they replaced "NEGRO" with "BLACK," even if NEGRO was on the original birth certificate and the person requesting the COLB put down NEGRO on the application form. So, either this Kurt guy doesn't know what Vital Records do, or doesn't want to disclose this information, or FactCheck is misrepresenting what he said.

OHSM does not simply "accept what the parents self identify themselves to be."If the father (or the mother) said that the father's race was NEGRO, Vital Statistics would not list it as NEGRO, but BLACK. They report a person's current birth record in the context of the today's laws and practices.

Unfortunately, he declined to answer my specific question about "AFRICAN," because then he knew I was searching for answers to Obama's COLB, and said that he cannot give out personal information on someone's birth record.

Dozens of people were calling them daily and asking the same question, and maybe, Kurt was simply following departmental directives regarding BHO's COLB.

Now, it's the second part of Kurt's statement, as reported by FactCheck, that raised my eyebrows:

When we asked about the security borders, which look different from some other examples of Hawaii certifications of live birth, Kurt said "The borders are generated each time a certified copy is printed. A citation located on the bottom left hand corner of the certificate indicates which date the form was revised.

Was this OHSM's version of "Name, Rank, and Serial Number?" or FactCheck's imagination talking? Yes, we all know that the borders are generated each time a NOT-YET-CERTIFIED copy is printed along with everything else printed inside the borders. We also know that there has been only one form in use for almost seven years.

Now, why didn't Kurt simply say that the security borders were periodically changed since November 2001 until now? Why not confirm what FactCheck already knows (or should know?)

Kurt continues:

" He also confirmed that the information in the short form birth certificate is sufficient to prove citizenship for "all reasonable purposes."

Trust me. "Reasonable" is not part of the vocabulary for the most screwed-up federal agency in America, namely USCIS, or United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. USCIS demands a whole list of documents to determine citizenship, of which proof of birth is but one of them.

Why is it that, when someone like you or me, applies for work in a federal agency who work with sensitive data, are required to have extensive and thorough background checks performed even before being considered to be qualified to work there. Do how is it that someone, like Obama, whose background has not subjected to the same and even more extensive levels of investigation, can become an applicant for the highest federal position in the Country?

It boogles the mind.

One final note:

Now,"What's up with FactCheck's comment that they did not learn anything about the paper the COLB is printed on?"

That strikes me as odd, seeing as how they allegedly had the same paper in their hot, little hands?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

The truth about Obama's [bogus] birth certificate.

What else is wrong with this picture?

Fraud in the U.S.A.: FactCheck swaps high-res photos with crappy low-res ones!