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.
It took the Obama camp over 2 months two come up with this new COLB. Why so long? In that time, I could’ve come up with a more credible forgery. If the Obama camp had this same COLB in the beginning then they would have taken new images of it within hours when all the controversy started and published it online.
Thank you, Polarik. There should be enough ammo here to continue the battle. This information should be filed in an amicus brief on the Berg case.
Are there any freeper lawyers live in Philadelphia? 2 hours of your time and you get to make history.
Signed and sealed by the City of Boston.
They don't look anything like that bogus document the Obama Campaign is pushing.
Appreciate your efforts here....bL
That being said, I'm going to contact a laywer friend of mine who handles corporate law and ask him if there's the making of a civil suit here.
It's a really gray area, and I have not found any precidents where a Plaintiff is suing a Defendant for for posting a doctored image. Like, how are we damaged by it, and what would it take to make us whole?
BTW, odds are good that all official documents issued in City of Boston look different than anywhere else on Earth.
Truly amazing. Makes me think California is as backwards a place as it’s always seemed to be. Like those Chinese restaurants where all the food is on the turntable and you just come and sit down and start eating. Talk about sanitary!
I’m sorry. The style of the article reminded me of the series “You suck at Photoshop” on YouTube in that FactCheck was spelled incorrectly every time. Either that or I just really needed sleep. lol
The guy who does the photoshop vids does that. One is “you suck at photoshack” another is “you such at photoshock” and so on. I find them quite funny.
Thank you for all the info Ron..... Keep up the fantastic work.
great work bump!
Big Bump. The “fact check” clowns are Obama’s tools.
A handful of people on a handful of blogs didn't make it a controversy for the Obama campaign. No need to draw attention to something that no one else to speak of knew anything about.
The only reason they did this now is because of Corsi's having made mention of it in an interview on Fox News, which made it mainstream. If it hadn't been for that, it would have continued to not be any sort of controversy for the Obama campaign.
And just for the record, the document in the scan is the very same document shown in the photos. Right down to the creases in the top fold.
k
Koyaan and a bunch of his libelous lowlifes have gone on a "Polarik love fest" with such delightful accolades like:
Polarik claimed to have reproduced the entire document, but Ray and I independently found Polarik’s claim to be utter bullsh*t.
Ray showed his work and I showed mine. They showed Polarik to be a LIAR.
Here’s my work, after Ray’s, showing the false Polarik date different from the other text.
I see Polarik as utter bullsh*t. He is a liar. Polarik claimed to have faked the whole document. He only faked hour of birth, and it was easily detectable.Polarik is a liar.
Never mind what I said about it in my blog, and on FR -- that the only thing I did not recreate from the Kos image was the TIME OF BIRTH. I changed it so that folks could tell the clone from the Kos. So, the fact that they are calling me a liar, means that I must have done a stellar job in creating my clone!!
Koyaan and his cohorts bitched about FR not printing their comments.The stuff they said about me on Koyaan's blog would never see the light of day on a respected pub like Free Republic.
Like,uh...Which part of No personal attacks did they NOT understand?
But, personal attacks are their stock in trade. For instance, here's some hugs and kisses from someone named Elliewyatt:
I may need to offer some more apologies- Did I forget to say that Polarik is full of horse sh*t? If so, please forgive me. Polarik is full of horse sh*t.
She really has a way with words, doesn't she?
And Polarik has a new home. At Free Republic. And his “research” is just as shoddy…..
Just how long have I called this place, home? ;-)
More of Ellies Christmas cheer:
He’s now using blowups of the photos from FactCheck superimposed over the Kos COLB. Gods what an idiot.
I guess that she's dyslexic as well as derisive. "Gods what an idiot?" Must be a pagan talking here.
FYI, I started a new thread on FR to counter Polarik’s claims. They soon pulled the plug on it.
Which part of No personal attacks did he NOT understand?
Koyaan continues
What I see (in addition to the fraudulent Kos/PD overlay) is that he has an overlay of a 2007 COLB which has the EXACT SAME borders as the Kos COLB.
What exactly is fraudulent about my overlays? Which part of the Kos COLB borders actually "match" the new 2007 COLB borders?
Patgund takes a parting shot at FR:
Not surprising. Free Republic squashes dissent and “wrong thinking” as well as most PUMA sites do. For that matter, Free Republic is more than likely where they learned to do that.
Gee. Do we really "squash" dissent here? Nah....
Koyaan chimes in:
By the way, FR isn’t allowing any replies to Polarik’s post that disagree with him.
Which part of No personal attacks did he NOT understand?
Well, that's about enough for one day. This just goes to show that the more my research is VALID, the more RABID is the dissenting rabble.
Looks like you have some ignorant Obama kneepadders for enemies. A badge of honor, franky.
Get some restful sleep my friend, then look back at all those (sic) notations that follow my intentional typos.
They are what I call, "Variations on a theme."
Until I do, I need to scratch my comments on the absence of the SIGNATURE BLOCK.
I will. ;-) I’ve slept 10 hours this week after several marathon design sessions.
ugh
What's fraudulent about the Kos/PD overlay is that it does not reflect the reality. In order to get the borders and text of the Kos and PD images to perfectly overlay each other as you have shown, the aspect ratio of one or the other image needs to be altered, i.e. the height and width need to be changed by a disproportionate amount (squeezed or stretched) in order to "force" the two to overlay perfectly.
The reality is that when one or the other image is simply scaled, i.e. maintaining the aspect ratio and not resorting to any squeezing or stretching, and the widths of the borders are matched at the tops of each border, the border of the PD image is taller than the border of the Kos image, and the horizontal alignment of the text gets progressively worse as you go down below "CHILD'S NAME."
That's the reality. The only way reproduce what Polarik misrepresents as the reality is to either squeeze the PD image or stretch the Kos image vertically to force them to perfectly overlay.
Also, the laundry list of differences between the scanned image and the FactCheck photos are is full of factual errors. I'll address some of those in subsequent posts if this post is allowed.
k
Why would you comment on the absence of a signature block when just yesterday you said this over on TexasDarlin :
Remember the signature stamp that was barely visible, even under heavy image enhancement? Remember how this amorphous blob was located way off to the left side of the COLB?
First, the "amorphous blob" wasn't "located way off to the left side of the COLB." It was located in the middle, just as is shown in the photos. It was located way off to the left side in the PD COLB. But again, it was located in the middle in the Kos COLB.
Second, you also said this:
Well, now it’s clear as day, right smack dab in the middle with the date stamp riding directly above it. Not only are date stamps never placed right above the signature block on any existing COLBs was on the forged COLB.
I want those reading this to pay particular attention here. Polarik is saying that date stamps are never placed right above the signature block on any existing COLBs.
Now take a look at this:
This is a scan of the back side of the "Michele COLB" which was issued in June 2008. And as you can see, the date stamp is clearly placed above the signature stamp.
What's the significance of this? It's that Polarik had previously posted this image on his blog. And in fact it's still there in his PhotoBucket album:
So I ask those of you reading this. Why would Polarik claim that the date stamps are never placed right above the signature block on any existing COLB when he knows that this is not true?
k
So wait until it becomes an issue in the main stream press. Huh? No need to end a controversy before it starts. That's Back@ss thinking. It's just toooooooo much extra work for an Obama lackey to fix a shoddy jpg image of Obama's COLB that could re-imaged in 15 minutes. So no pride in doing a good job - huh?
Welcome to FR.
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.
