New Obama Birth Certificate proved Fake with Photoshop (Short Version)

youtube.com ^ | 04/28/2011 | ObamaNewCertIsFake

[steadcom]

I took the exact pdf from the White House website and opened it in Photoshop. I then took a copy of the "Obama" name on one line and put it over the "Obama" in another line. The "B"s match exactly !! This is a statistical impossibility unless the document is a fake. No typewritter from 1961 will produce the exact letter on the pixel level.... The person who made the fake document forgot to make a different "B" on the pixel level. If you don't believe it, try it yourself in Photoshop.

[Kleon]

Look at the video and someone good at figuring out the math of probability please tell me what is the probability that the both "b"s would match EXACTLY...right down to the pixel? 50 to 1, 500 to 1? What could someone really say to refute this? It seems like a smoking gun to me (that the document was manipulated) but what do I know.

It's actually highly probable depending on what scanning software is used, because that's what it's supposed to do. To make text more readable, the scanner will sharpen the text by overlaying a high-resolution character that matches the original as best as possible. Every time it does this, it creates a new custom font, which it will repeat when it recognizes another character that's nearly identical.

You can see this same effect in other scanned documents. For example, open this PDF file and observe the L's in the words "Intelligence Bulletin" (among many other cloned letters).

[steadcom]

Thank you, I was not aware of that.

[faucetman]

ref #16

“Sandra Lines said it best in her analysis of the work done by Pollard on the COLB. Paraphrasing - to determine the authenticity of a document you need - THE ACTUAL DOCUMENT”

Obfuscation anyone?

No one is saying his “original” is a fake. No one has seen it (if it exists).

The COPY, SCAN, of the purported original is a FAKE.

That we do have. The white house released it on the white house web site and Obama himself has claimed ownership of it.

SHEESH!

[faucetman]

Looks like you may have a valid point here. Not sure if its apples & apples, but seems convincing. Especially since it was TOP SECRET, it must be right.

Do you have an explanation for the straight text where it should be curved at the edge of the document caused by the fold of the book it was in?

[Herbster]

That would be with OCR trace to import a document and correct the spelling with the option to change the letters.

There is no reason at all to run this type of program on a scan, unless the reason was to manipulatr the scan.

Got that?

[so_real]

WHY doesn't Obama release the original printed document now? The cat's out of the bag, right? Why is it the only document available for review today is *still* just a presumably "scanned-to-PDF" document, that in reality appears to be a "manufactured-to-PDF" document? Once again, Obama *could* quit the game playing and release the document as received from Hawaii, or the one found in the belongings kept from his youth. But no ... he's not honest ... he's not a leader ... he's not forthcoming. He is pathetic --- and the only reason he is still in office is that he is successfully playing against the notion of "innocent until proven guilty". The notion is a good one ... but we are remiss if we fail to understand how our enemies can use it against us (ie with respect to Islam, immigration, and Communism).

[Kleon]

There is no reason at all to run this type of program on a scan, unless the reason was to manipulatr the scan.

It makes the text crisper and easier to read. I don't need to explain why that would be preferred when scanning older documents.

[Herbster]

The text would be “crisper to read” if the jerk administration didn’t need a white halo and many different documents to make the ‘original’...that Obama can’t find anymore.

The option to release an actual scan, like Bobby Jidal, was not beyond Barry’s reach.

BS and excuses...

[jh4freedom]

If it’s a fake then a prosecuting attorney somewhere in America should be willing to initiate a grand jury investigation for criminal fraud, document tampering and forgery. If the evidence is credible, indictments can be issued.
The American Board of Forensic Document Examiners has certified experts who determine the authenticity of documents in legal proceedings.
Under the Federal Rules of Evidence (rule 902, it can be googled) a birth certificate is a self-authenticating document as long as it carries the state Seal and the signature of the state official authorized to attest to its authenticity. In the case of Hawaii, that would be the signature stamp of Registrar of Vital Statistics Alvin T. Onaka, Ph.D.

[muawiyah]

Your particular "discovery" was covered in some depth earlier this month, and also back about a week after Obama "revealed" things.

What you really need to do if you want to pursue this "new" discovery is look up all the threads from earlier this Spring on this topic "birth" here at FR and read your way through them.

[muawiyah]

Yes, I do know what it means. I've read ALL the FR threads on the topic and all the information they refer to, and at some point in time it occurred to me that the weight of the explanations tended toward the understanding that pixel to pixel correlation was a perfectly reasonable thing to see ~ that, in fact, if we didn't see that we would know that someone actually did a physical C&P.

I suggest you do some research here at FR and review them. See what real experts say.

BTW, I spent most of my life in several aspects of the printing industry so dont' get too uppity around me or I'll think you are a Leftwingtard disruptor.

[muawiyah]

Lightweight portable machines ~ not the sort of thing you'd use in an office. I know WE didn't buy any manuals in the 1960s and we were a pretty big customer ~ with 31,000 business locations and 600,000 employees.

I did enough travel and worked in enough areas that I probably would have noticed if anyone had bought a manual typewriter ~

[muawiyah]

I'm figuring the typing actually was done in 1961 in Hawaii ~ on two different typewriters set to identical tabs. The quality of the letters suggests they were manuals ~ one maybe a bit newer than the other.

Now, about the ribbon ~ I sure don't recall carbon ribbons at the the time but I do remember using old, faded, stretched and well beaten down cloth ribbons that'd be re-inked.

All things are possible. I suppose all sorts of woven materials were used for ribbons at that time.

None of the typing is at carbon ribbon levels but there are pre-printed items on the page. Thankfully we are past that point in time where folks were taking a look at the rubber stamp images and telling us it was fake since those characters didn't match that of the typing.

[Cicero]

Thanks. I’ve read all the earlier discussions. And it’s not my discovery, it’s simply a comment by the author of this latest piece.

No, this isn’t new. But it needs to be discussed until it gets through the thick heads of the Lamestream media.

[muawiyah]

Cicero, yeah, I show up on these threads simply because SOMEBODY might well come up with something that cannot be readily refuted.

Then we'll have something to prove the LFBC provided by Obama is a forgery.

We even had this way back with the forgeries Dan Rather tripped up on. Virtually everything could be demonstrated to be able to be done ~ even the format for the "letters" (simply following a Department of Air Force style book that was current up into the early 60s but was no longer used in the 70s. We found that in the military mail cancellation situation down in the Florida in the 2000 election that Department of Navy had NOT replaced their copies of the Domestic Mail Manual on ships at sea or foreign military basis for probably 10 years. So it is possible for military people to forget to play with the paper in the correct order.)

The one final absolute certainty was that the typographer who'd produced the forgeries used a font not available in the early 1970s AND he'd left "kerning on".

That wasn't available at that time either on typewriters of the kind ordinarily found on Air Force field facilities. Conseuently when our guy produced IDENTICAL COPIES with WORD that proved the forgeries to be forgeries. In short, the PROOF was the ease of making an identical duplicate elsewhere.

What we are finding with the Obama materials is that there's no magic bullet. On the other hand he claims to have been born in 1961 in Hawaii, and at that time (2 years after statehood) folks would have been lucky to have any idea of who was in charge, where to get it, how to use it and a million other problems attendant to regularlization of administrative due process by the NOW state of Hawaii.

No doubt "mistakes were made". If they weren't we'd need to be very suspicious given the conditions.

About 95% of the items people draw attention to would have logically been created in 1961 when the original document was prepared. About 2% involve artifacts in the "image" introduced at the time everything was photographed for transfer into what was probably a microfiche system (then popular with government offices who had large file storage and retrieval problems ~ they really cut the cost).

The rest of the problems ~ 3% ~ relate to final "production", and there you need to know a little bit about scanning, pixelation, xerographic process (essentially the same as laser printing), paper quality, and dirt.

People like Mr. K don't want you to know that. His ambition is to GET RID OF OBAMA.

That's my ambition too, but I don't see that we advance things very much by trying to gloss over "strange" elements that can be readily explained, or which should, in fact, be expected.

I can see him walking into court with the pixelation querries ~ the judge's eyes will roll up in his head.

Much better to walk in with PROOF that this is a forgery ~ and one way we can find that proof is to look for the IMPOSSIBLE, not just the apparently statistically IMPROBABLE.

Imagine a professional forger with decades of experience behind him and the best equipment in the world at hand to produce whatever he needs. Do you really think that person is going to give you cheap clues? Is he going to hide the truth in plain sight? Or, is he going to make sure that everything you see is perfectly consistent with equipment capabilities at the time various "changes" could have been expected with any original documentation. Fur Shur he's not going to put his signature in ink dots at microscopic levels.

[bvw]

Real business typewriters. Royal, Olivetti, Olympia, Remington, others.

• Underwood Touchmaster
  Tilman Elster collection

  Advertised with the common theme of "Golden Touch" as were so many 1950's Underwood machines, both standard and portable. This model replaced the Underwood 150 in 1957, and was built until part-way through 1960. In most essential features, the following Underwood standards are quite similar through to the end of production in the mid-1960's, following merger with Olivetti in 1963.. This machine is serial J13-8072733 and was built in 1958.

  Source Underwood Typewriter Gallery

• Vintage 1960s Remington Monarch Manual Typewriter

  This 1960s Remington Monarch typewriter is so very Mad Men! Joan Holloway, eat your heart out! The Remington Monarch was manufactured beginning in 1962, through the decade.

  The typewriter’s body is metal, with lovely, clean lines, and a predominantly two-tone color scheme in dove gray and soft-white. They top of the keys mirror the body's white tones, with the undersides of the keys being a fabulous, funky, dark brown. The machine measures roughly 11"w by 12"d by 4 1/2"h.

  Source = http://www.etsy.com/listing/54608028/vintage-1960s-remington-monarch-manual?image_id=168739506

The Remington is sort-of-portable. The Underwood is most definitely not. Manual typewriters are still being made.

[muawiyah]

Elunder, when you cite “experts” tell us which ones. Just saying “CIA Agent” might well mean someone like Valerie Plame ~ and what would that be worth?

[bvw]

Not a fact: "While typewriters did produce very good letters, in the 1960's, they did not yet have carbon ribbons."

The FIRST typewriter ribbons were strips of carbon paper! Carbon paper was invented in 1808. Practical typewriters came around sixty years or so later and they used carbon paper ribbons.

See http://www.kevinlaurence.net/essays/cc.php

[Herbster]

Why does there need to be names and addresses of these ‘ex-CIA’ for you? Do you need their family status and age as well? How about a state and middle name?

This is sick!

Where is the REAL birth certificate?

Hawaii has no reason at all to seal the certificate now, fool.

[bvw]

Geesh, I remember that my Dad’s offices purchased new heavy office manuals in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s. I also remember thinking I had made the big time when I blew a wad on a portable electric Olivetti for personal use that was the same year the Apple II came out. Before that I used cheap portables and old hand-me-down Underwoods or Royals.