Posted on 11/03/2008 9:37:46 AM PST by Polarik
Way back in mid-June, when I first discovered that the Obama COLB image was forged, I also made the observation that the border on the Obama COLB also looked like it had been manufactured. I correctly stated that this border was created separately and added to the final forged image.
Oh, and did that get a howl from my detractors and critics! Yeah, but I knoew that I was right all along.
Well, I'm here to tell you that, through deliberate trial-and-error, I've finally produced a near-clone of the original border, by getting as close as humanly possible to duplicating the color, resolution, and patterns in the 2007 Obama COLB border.
This is HUGE! -- a smoking gun if ever there was one -- that the entire Obama COLB image was forged by patching together pieces from at least two COLB images. It also shows that this border took a lot of extra work to get it to look the way it does. There is no way on Earth that this border could have been produced as a natural consequence of its printing and its scanning.
Notice, also, that the black background of the top title, CERTIFICATION OF LIVE BIRTH," on the original border became faded in the process of duplicating the Obama COLB border. What this means is that both the top title box and the bottom title box were also constructed (or modified) separately.
I correctly said at the beginning that it did not matter to my essential research hypothesis, that the text on the COLB had been graphically altered, because I demonstrated how no other process could have done it naturally; i.e., produce the white & gray pixel patterns that I saw between the letters.
Now, with indisputable confirmation that the border on the Obama COLB image was manufactured, I can make this final claim:
That anyone who still thinks that this COLB image, from which copies were posted to the Daily Kos, Fight the Smears, Factcheck, and Politifact, is a true scan of Obama's original birth certificate (or "Certification of Live Birth"), is either blind, has a distorted view of reality, or is deliberately lying.
Given what we know about the lies and deceptions of Obama, his campaign, and his apologists in the media, I firmly believe it is the latter.
Therefore, I'm calling out the Daily Kos, "Fight the Smears," Factcheck, and Politifact to quit lying to the American public, and to immediately come clean on their fraudulent claims.
It took half a day to work out the right combination of colors, transparencies, sharpness, and saturation, but I got it right. In the image below, you will see the original border along with the one I created. My border can be seen lying immediately down and to the left of the original border:
Now, here is an orginal scan image made from a real 2007 COLB. Look how differently its borders are from the Obama COLB borders:
If that does not convince you, then nothing will.
The problem with these is that a parent (or someone pretending to be the parent) could call them in after the fact, so there's no guarantee that what the parent says is true.
Please ping me when you finish. I answered your questions in my previous post and I expect an answer to mine. Specifically, how did a forger create the embossed seal on the photo (e.g. http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg and if they photographed the paper before photoshopping the seal, I would like an example showing a photoshopped seal over a photographed crease in paper. If instead they obtained a seal and used it, I would like to know where they obtained it or what equipment they purchased if they made their own.
Please understand that I am not doing this to undercut your work. Your original conclusions about the other COLB scans (those not on factcheck) may well be supportable. But they do not apply to the factcheck photos unless you have a plausible explanation (i.e. repeatable process) for the two stamps (the notary rubber stamp and the embossing) as well as the hashed paper since that was probably preprinted.
It all has to do with what kind, and how much, lighting Factcheck used for each photo. I had the same problem with my photos.
Factcheck used a 5300K floodlight to illuminate photos #2 through #6, natural sunlight for #1, #7, & #8. Photo #9, the one you mentioned, however, was shot in low light, or ambient room light. The 5300K floodlight and indirect sunlight will give you more accurate colors than shooting them with incandescent light (reddish tinge) or ambient room light (which washes out the color).
One last note about the floodlight: as I mentioned in a previous post, there are a couple of shots that were imported into a graphics editor to create different lighting effects (in particular photo #1, $5, and #6).
The top part of the Seal (above the fold) in photo #5 shows all of the ridges and letters of the Seal to illuminated. Yet, in photo #6, only the oter ring appears to be illuminated.
There's no way to do that naturally. I tried every possible positioning and attenuating of a light source, and could not duplicate it.
The photographer did not use flash in any photos, and kept the camera set on macro mode the entire time -- which explains why photo #3 is out of focus. Using macro mode, they had photos as close as 10mm out to 3m.
However, where are the photographers out there? Why has no one raised the issue of how many photographs were taken ( test photos )that we did not see? discarded. We're talking about a digital camera that can rattle off about four times as many, if the allotted time in the Exif info is correct.
Was the cameraman so stupid as to NOT take another photo to replace #3?
Hardly, as they had every intention of shooting it out-of-focus.
This book is addressing what you described:
The Manual of Photography
http://books.google.com/books?id=HHX4xB94vcMC&pg=PA247&lpg=PA247&dq=photography+light+makes+green+look+yellow&source=web&ots=7Hk3txU-vo&sig=4jxSFdL9DeMMMSiTaYPZt-AcZXs&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=8&ct=result#PPA257,M1
Messing with the light exposure and blocking blue and red would make the document look yellow. Which is probably why the pictures of the yellow COLBs have darkened backgrounds instead of the arms and tables you see with the green COLBs.
That link only shows excerpts of the book. I will go to the library now and see if I can find more.
Birth announcements in the local paper come from hospital records. This is standard procedure.
The paper is at a different angle to the light. I'm still waiting for my answer on #5: was the embossing photoshopped or was the paper embossed and then photographed? The latter is the only plausible answer.
A forgery including an embossing tool is entirely possible but you would need to update your analysis to include that fact.
Rather than just give you specific answers, I will be finishing Part Two tomorrow. It will answer all your questions.
The paper is at a different angle to the light.
That's what you told me before. It's not It cannot be reproduced at all. The info is in PII.
They used the exact same "Seal" fpor both sides.
Thanks for the answer (finally!). A regular engraver would be the only plausible scenario, there's no way somebody is going to get all the lines in the correct places and of the same depth by hand. But looking at your two pictures in the other thread, the engravers used were clearly different.
That brings up a new question which is whether the dept always used the same engraver or not. If it was always the same, then your case is solid.
ping
That’s funny. WHy would they lie and tell the paper that the mother was Mrs. Barack Hussein Obama. They were not married.
At least you admitted that you were wrong in post 42 about the seal being photoshopped on, by post 68. You are more than welcome to postulate a scenario with a forgery that uses a stolen or manufactured seal. You will be correct to point out that the seal on your 2002 certificate (DeCosta or similar) does not match the seal on Obama's 2007 certificate. Once you admit that the factcheck documents have to be created in this manner:
1. A computer generated border and text (forged or not)
2. A color printout onto the cross-hatched paper (which could be forged separately)
3. A seal pressed into the paper, a rubber notary stamp applied to the paper
4. The paper then folded and unfolded and then photographed
then I am frankly not surprised you would leave because your work is done. There is no more issue about photoshopping except for step 1 which is rather easy to perform. The other steps require implements other than photoshop, which as I have stated all along, could be obtained by a forger. But the question then remains, where and how were the implements obtained / manufactured?
I'm not leaving, either. I'll be on FR forever. I will, however, be completely finished with my COLB analysis, as well as answering endless questions from the same person.
There's really only one question to be answered about the COLB forgery:
For how long does a fish have to sit out in the sun before it stinks enough to where people get wind of it?
Basically, when Factcheck posted a forged COLB image to their website on June 16, it was GAME OVER. Once someone promulgates a forged image as real, AND CONTINUES TO CLAIM THAT IT IS REAL, then everything else else from that point onwards has to be subterfuge and cover-up.
Everything you need to know about Factcheck's photos are in Part Two, but I'll touch on some highlights here:
* There was more than one "COLB" photographed by Factcheck.
* One of the COLB's photographed is a new forged image that Factcheck made which takes into account my findings.
* There were three methods used to display the "Seals" (Photoshopping, embossing, and a real one).
* The "Seal," date stamp, and signature stamp look like ripoffs from a 2008 COLB.
* The "Seal," date stamp, and signature stamp are not aligned as they are supposed to be, and
mark
I have a Certified Hawaiian BC from 1985. I have scanned it, using a Lexmark 5200 and lexmark software, at 150 dpi as a colored document.
On either side, the raised seal is apparent. what I have noticed on most if not all of the HA COLB is the Seal.
do the following:
On http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cdd_1224547565&c=1, save the pic in the 4th row, 3rd column, #241109.
If you don't have a copy of the decosta BC, save it from here, http://www.valeehill.net/genealogy/documents/doc_decosta_pat_birth.jpg.
save the last BC at the beginning of this blog, file0016.
open these files separately in a photo editor and flip the images so they are read backwards. forme, i had decostas zoomed at 200% and file0016 zoomed to 295%.
You can see that decostas was certified in 2002, the file0016 image from Polarik is from mar 2007. i have a long form HA BC certified from 1985. comparing these two seals in reverse with a scanned copy of the back of my BC, they are very similar, very similar.
now applying the same technique to the pic from liveleak, i noticed dramatic differences in the two outer rings of the seal, as compared to the other BC’s.
The inner ring appears too wide, it does not have the same spacing of the dots as the other BC’s do.
The characters are much more diffused that with the other BC’s as well.
Using the weave pattern to determine size, all of the seals appeared to be the same diameter with the exception of the Obama BC, it was a double weave thread smaller.
if you need a copy of my 1985 cert BC, from 1962, tell me where and how to post it and i will.
I feel that either:
1. the HA dept of health changed their seals between mar and jun of 2007
2. the clerk that handled Obamas BC lost his seal and got a newer and different one.
3. someone did a bad job on trying to reproduce the seal on obamas posted COLB.
I recommend that you read it. It will get ytou up-to-speed of where we are: had everything you mentioned:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2084512/posts
Hawaii changed their Seal in 2005, making it smaller. what I really would like to see is a 2006 COLB. I've got 2007 & 2008 COLBs.
Just curious as to why your 2007 seal is identical to the previous seals, not the 2005 seal. Can’t believe that they would use both seals interchangably.
Hawaii changed their seal after 2005 to the current, smaller variety found on 2006-2008 COLBs. Do you have a 2005 COLB?
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.