Posted on 08/22/2008 7:51:31 PM PDT by Polarik
What's This, FactCheck??
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:
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.
FactCheck pulls a fast one when it makes the following claim:
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.
"How do I loathe thee. Let me count the ways."
For starters, there are those wacky borders.
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.
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.
Most importantly, as Frank Sinatra would sing, Start spreading the news.
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.
There's really no such thing as an "original birth certificate". Even way back in the early 1960s the State of Indiana had computer generated certificates (attesting to birth, etc., on such and such a date at such and such a place) which were required to be "signed by computer" in multi-colored ink.
I have one.
Works fine too.
Virtually all birth records are maintained in electronic data bases (or on CDs), and as needed documents are created based on the information contained in them. That's a worldwide phenomenon too.
“Fact Check” is linked to the Obama campaign and thus has NO credibility.
Um...why are we wracking our brains for insight into the factcheck photos of the purported BC? How about the fact that it’s a photo, shot at a distance at an angle, and not a high res scan? Not even a close up photo of the doc is shown. The photos of the signature and seal shot in separate photos and not shown on the doc. They could be from anything. Where’s a scan?
By using photos, they are preventing analysis by doc examiners. The left is always doing whatever they can for plausible deniability...even if it’s implausible. If Obama had a certified copy of his BC, he would be shoving it down out rightwing throats with a B-52. But he’s not. The absence of a high res scan of the complete doc precludes the need for any further analysis..
Thanks, Polarik and Rushmore Rocks.
Ping.
Please FRmail to be added or removed.
Mr Berg will be on Coast to Coast with George Noory tonight . www.coasttocoastam.com
Is that you, Donnie???
Nope.
Donnie is too busy giving the tongue to this guy
that will begin to get the word out.
Good to see that you’re still on the job. :-)
So is everyone elses head spinning? The audacity is past humorous, it is approaching scary with the reality of how many people must be owned by the Weathermen/SDS crowd to be pulling all of this off at this level.
I have one.
So is everyone elses head spinning?<
Thanks, Cal. Yes. It’s tough keeping up.
I just added this link to the long thread.
Issued by which government?
But but but the Obama apologists say that Obama is using this as subterfuge and he will spring his "real birth certificate" at the right moment to discredit all his distracters. LoL!
Issued by California.
I have an original certificate. It is not unreasonable to expect to see one from BO - especially since he refers, in his book, to one in his possesion.
What computer generated certificates are you refering to in the early 60’s??? The only recording back then was microfiche. Are you thinking about present day computer scanned copies of microfiche? Surely!
OK, splitting hairs. I went to my file... my BC title says “Certified Copy of Birth Record” and “Certificates of Birth”
With Floyd A. Hicks the certifying official signed by his deputy Pat Hogan. And the embossed seal is very visible.
I have one Obama where’s yours?
If I did not have a pair of 2007 COLBs, I'd be asking for them, too. But, you read the list of things that I found on it which were not on the image. in reality, the downloadable photos are large enough AND show plenty of detail for me.
Try downloading them from the list they posted in the aidebar.
The certificates were provided in just a few minutes, all nice and neat, and run off by a chain printer on snap apart 20 lb paper.
They were "signed by computer" ~ and yes, there were devices in 1962 called "computers" and they did stuff.
What we didn't have at that time were "chips" ~ they showed up in widespread commercial use a little later. The IBM 360 still used "core" technology in 1969, but that line as it was further developed switched to chips as fast as they could be provided. I think the IBM chip factory in Manassas VA was built by the early 1970s.
Obama was born during an era when the US government had taken the lead in tasking then nascent computer systems with performing large scale administrative tasks, e.g. Social Security, Income Tax, federal personnel system, DOD logistics, ICBM targeting systems, atom bomb tests, etc.
The State of Hawaii had only recently been formed out of the Territory of Hawaii. No doubt they were one of the earliest states to sign on to using computers. Indiana was too.
Civil registration laws, however, were in place for 50+ years at the time and a line in a church baptismal book was no longer sufficient. The governments maintained the files, then the data bases, and they still do that function.
If enough people join other blogs to spread the news, it will. As iot turns out TownHall was not the best place to post mu blog;. But, ya gotta dance with what brought ya.
I'm sending out a few feelers of my own.
"Ronnie" would be closer. My first name is Ron.
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.