AI Finds Find Obama Birth Certificate, Selective Service Form Fraudulent

It was right there on the dust jacket of one of the half dozen autobiographies he released...he was born in Kenya.

Has anybody wondered why Obama’s people put a so-called birth certificate that was easily demonstrated to have multiple flaws? They were not that incompetent, they had to know it would be outed in short order.

My opinion then and now is that it was deliberately done to rub our noses in it and demonstrate how impotent we were. To demoralize us. To frustrate us. Do basically show that they could do and say anything they wanted and we were powerless against it.

DEMOCRATS are LAWLESS because REPUBLICANS are BALLLESS!

As the proposed evidence wold be ruled inadmissible as such, there cannot be a preponderance of no evidence. Among the great record of futility is the case of Kerchner v. Obama.

That’s what a Special Council is appointed for.
Dig deep, and dig thorough ✖️

The document was gone over and over on this site back in 2008 when it first came out. All the discussion about photoshop layers, stamp evenness, and raised seals were talked about back then. This was just a test of the AI to see if it would replicate what people said in 2008.

This was just to add "AI" to the claims of birther make-believe experts.

The make-believe birther experts were crushed by real experts such as Dr. Neal Krawetz.

A special counsel is not appointed to overrule the Constitution or statute law. Neither is he the judge of official state documents.

Obama also uses Islam’s teachings and culture of deception called Taqiyya and Kitman. For more on that see: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/?s=taqiyya

Analysis of Obama’s draft registration card copy obtained via a FOIA to the SSS by a retired ICE agent in 2008 revealed it was forged and back dated. See: https://www.debbieschlussel.com/4428/exclusive-did-next-commander-in-chief-falsify-selective-service-registration-never-actually-register-obamas-draft-registration-raises-serious-questions/

Thank you for the mention of my early efforts to expose the life narrative fraud and usurper in chief, Obama. One can read about those efforts here: https://www.scribd.com/user/52640192/protectourliberty/lists ... and ... here: https://www.kerchner.com/books/kerchner-v-obama&congress.htm

Most of us knew about Clinton and obammy before their elections..Noone seem to care..I am certain some freepers voted for them... for “change”...

“”””How many times did Obama actually say in speeches before he ran for president that he was born in Kenya?”””

Back in the day the Chicago Sun Times called him a Kenyan born success story.

(by real experts such as Dr. Neal Krawetz.)

Krawetz is no expert. He’s bogus. He was humiliated on the global stage after he caused a stink due to his limited knowledge of computer imagery and photography.

https://theweek.com/world-news/53032/world-press-photo-year-was-not-fake

https://petapixel.com/2013/05/14/forensics-expert-claims-world-press-photo-winner-a-fake-photographer-responds/

(Obama presented a state document with the state seal and the sigature of the state official.)

No, tell the truth. He presented a fraudulently created state document.

Krawetz is no expert. He’s bogus. He was humiliated on the global stage after he caused a stink due to his limited knowledge of computer imagery and photography.

While you have pivoted away from the inanity of Ron Polarik and TechDude, and moved to an unrelated photo, your linked source begins with a false claim and moves on from there. Dr. Krawetz did not claim the photo was a fake or a forgery.

https://theweek.com/world-news/53032/world-press-photo-year-was-not-fake

World Press Photo of the Year was not a fake
Experts pored over stunning image of Gaza burial after claims surfaced it was 'stitched together'
By The Week Staff
published May 15, 2013
THE old adage that 'the camera doesn't lie', has been severely tested once again, after the winner of the prestigious 2013 World Press Photo of the Year was accused of being a "fraudulent forgery".

Find a better source. Stevie Wonder can observe that the originally published photo and the version submitted for a competition are substantially different.

The question is how the lighting effects were achieved. The article includes no expert analysis whatever.

https://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/549-Unbelievable.html#c2346

#53.1 Dr. Neal Krawetz (Homepage) on 2013-05-17 16:24 (Reply)
Hi stock blog,
First, I never called it "fake". Read what I wrote. I have called it enhanced. I have called it altered. I have called it a composite. But I never called it fake. The "fake" attribution came from the media (and I don't give interviews to media).
[...]

https://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/552-Deep-Dive.html

Deep Dive
Thursday, 23 May 2013
I learned yesterday that, after writing my rebuttal, Dr. Hany Farid began to go on tour. He gave an interview with Wired in which he repeated his claim that I do not understand XMP metadata.
[...]
Beginning the Evaluation
All XMP records begin the same way: . The ".." is some binary data used for determining endian for multi-byte text, but there's no multi-byte text in this file. The "W5M0MpCehiHzreSzNTczkc9d" is a unique key used by every XMP file as a "magic signature"; it identifies this record as an XMP record. After this header comes the data.
In the raw XMP, all data is stored in an XMP "rdf:Description" block. It describes where the file came from and the sources that led to it. Some of this XMP data is inherited from other metadata fields in the file, including the original EXIF data. This record contains things like the type of lens (aux:Lens="EF16-35mm f/2.8L II USM") and information about the flash ('aux:FlashCompensation="0/1"' means that no flash was used). The full intro looks like:
xmlns:photomechanic="http://ns.camerabits.com/photomechanic/1.0/"
xmlns:photoshop="http://ns.adobe.com/photoshop/1.0/"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:xmp="http://ns.adobe.com/xap/1.0/"
xmlns:aux="http://ns.adobe.com/exif/1.0/aux/"
xmlns:xmpMM="http://ns.adobe.com/xap/1.0/mm/"
xmlns:stEvt="http://ns.adobe.com/xap/1.0/sType/ResourceEvent#"
xmlns:stRef="http://ns.adobe.com/xap/1.0/sType/ResourceRef#"
xmlns:xmpRights="http://ns.adobe.com/xap/1.0/rights/" rdf:about=""
photomechanic:HasCrop="False"
photomechanic:Prefs="1:0:0:005403"
photomechanic:PMVersion="PM4"
photoshop:LegacyIPTCDigest="435D74FBC12C4007083CF8F390DA6
484" photoshop:Country="Palestinian Territories"
photoshop:DateCreated="2012-11-20T09:39:38+01:00"
dc:format="image/jpeg" xmp:ModifyDate="2013-02-15T11:55:30+
01:00" xmp:CreateDate="2012-11-20T09:39:38"
xmp:MetadataDate="2013-02-15T11:55:30+01:00"
xmp:CreatorTool="Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh)"
xmp:Rating="0" aux:SerialNumber="013021001346"
aux:LensInfo="16/1 35/1 0/0 0/0" aux:Lens="EF16-35mm f/2.8L II
USM" aux:LensID="246" aux:LensSerialNumber="0000400fe1"
aux:ImageNumber="0" aux:ApproximateFocusDistance="163/100"
aux:FlashCompensation="0/1" aux:Firmware="1.1.3"
xmpMM:DocumentID="xmp.did:81D9BBB16F1211E2B21DD3F6B94651E8"
xmpMM:OriginalDocumentID="11CD104525F505861ED0EC6DAC391558"
xmpMM:InstanceID="xmp.iid:81D9BBB06F1211E2B21DD3F6B94651E8" xmpRights:Marked="False">
(For XML users, you'll notice that this is just the opening tag. The close is at the end of the file.)
The header identifies the creator tool as "Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh)". Since we have the basic assumption that the file has not been tampered in an effort to throw off a forensic investigation, we can assume that all artifacts in the XMP record are specific to XMP libraries found on this platform.
The most important records in this header are the IDs:
xmpMM:DocumentID="xmp.did:81D9BBB16F1211E2B21DD3F6B94651E8"
xmpMM:OriginalDocumentID="11CD104525F505861ED0EC6DAC391558"
xmpMM:InstanceID="xmp.iid:81D9BBB06F1211E2B21DD3F6B94651E8"
Adobe's XMP format maintains two types of IDs: Document ID (DID) and Instance ID (IID). The DID is created once per file. Each time you use "Save As", a new DID is assigned. But simply hitting save (after the first save) does not alter the DID.
In contrast, the IID is updated each time you hit "Save" -- indicating another instance of the file. If you save a picture, open it, and continue editing, then the IID will be updated but the DID will not. The DID only changes when you hit "Save As" (or Save For Web or Export... anything that creates a new file). Every file should have a DID that identifies the direct base and an IID that reflects the saved instance. The XMP typically records the IID history as a series of timestamped events. (Notice that I say "typically" -- since XMP libraries differ, some don't timestamp.)
The other thing to notice is right-half of the long random hexadecimal value. CS6 for the Mac (Intel architecture) first generates the value when the program is started. Other than that, CS6 increments one byte. Usually this is the first byte, but sometimes this the 4th byte. (It depends on which XMP library is called.)
With Photoshop CS6 for the Mac, opening a new file will partially randomize the left-half, but not the entire sequence. Typically the initial IID and DID values differ by an incremental value, but sometimes they are the same (it just depends on which XMP library created them). In this case, the DID and IID are incremental at the 4th byte: DID=81D9BBB16F1211E2B21DD3F6B94651E8 and IID=81D9BBB06F1211E2B21DD3F6B94651E8. Since they are incremental, we know that they were created at the same time, during the first save of this file. In effect, we know the user did a "Save As" and not just a "Save". (Well, a "Save" for the first time may bring up the "Save As" dialogue window. But subsequent saves will just overwrite the file, retaining the DID and updating the IID.)
The other field is the "Original Document ID" (ODID). When you open a file that has an XMP record, it inherits the DID. Doing a "Save As" generates a new DID. The ODID holds the value of the previous DID. This is very explicit: it tell us that the user had edited the file, saved it, opened it, and then did a "Save As". (We'll see this same sequence in the History block in a moment.)
Ancestors
The next section in the XMP record is the Document Ancestor block:

xmp.did:068011740720681180A9CEE8487CF300
xmp.did:0A8011740720681180A9CEE8487CF300
xmp.did:8F19CA801520681180A9CEE8487CF300
xmp.did:9119CA801520681180A9CEE8487CF300

According to the XMP specifications (search Google for "XMP Specifications Part" -- there are three parts), the Document Ancestors denote "copy-and-paste or place" operations. These do not identify what was incorporated into the file -- it could be an entire picture or a portion of a picture. We only know that these four separate files were incorporated into an existing file. These records identify other documents (DID) that were added to this document. This is explicitly the definition of a composition: a picture made from other pictures.
I think it is safe to assume that the four documents are different -- either in coloring or content. This is a pretty safe assumption since it is unlikely that the artist would save four copies of the same document and then incorporate all four identical files.
Since the right-side of these hex sequences are identical, it implies that they were all from the same instantiation of the Adobe program. We don't know what program created these, but we do have a strong reason to believe that the sequence of events was as follows:
An Adobe program was started and opened an image. This initialized the common DID bytes.
The Adobe program did a "Save As" operation. This generated the "0680117..." DID file. Since CS6 increments -- and we have no reason to suspect anything other than CS6 -- we even know that the IID for that file is likely "0780117...". (Could be "05...", depending on the library, but in this case, it is likely "07".)
The next DID begins with "0A80117...". So what happened to "08" and "09"? The user may have hit "Save" twice, or may have done a "Save As" (consuming two IDs) to a file that was not used as an ancestor to this file. (Foreshadowing: We'll actually see "09" in the next block; it's from a "Save As".)
The user did not close the program. He just did another "Save As", generating DID "0A8117..." and we can assume that it had IID "0B8117...". Keep in mind, we have no idea how much time has passed or what else the user did to the picture. We only know that there was another "Save As".
Then the left-hand sequence changed. As already mentioned, this means that the user opened a document. We don't know if the document represents the same picture. We don't even know if it was related. Seriously, just opening a document will randomize the left side. So we don't know what happened between 0A80117 and 8F19CA. We just know that the user did a "Save As", generating DID "8F19CA8..." and we know the IID would likely be "9019CA8...".
The user did one more "Save As", generating the next sequential IDs: DID "9119CA8..." with IID likely "9219CA8...".
(Technical note: The Document Ancestors is supposed to be an unsorted array. However, I've only seen it as sorted in the order of events. Assuming that it is unsorted, we still know that "0680117..." came before "0A80117..." and "8F19CA8..." came before "9119CA8..." due to incremental sequencing.)
The one thing the XMP record does not tell us is what was in these files. Each could be the entire original image. Each could be colorized differently. Each could be a selection of parts from the file. In fact, the user could have opened a completely different file and pasted from it.
The only thing we do know is that (1) there are four independent documents (as defined by Adobe), and (2) they were combined into a picture to form the final image.

As you claim the Krawitz analysis to be bogus, please identify what you find bogus.

You claim Dr. Krawetz is not an expert. Make your case.

I recall for “race” the purported form didn’t list “Negro”, they used “African-American, a neologism that didn’t come into use until the 1990s. I don’t know if they are stupid, or maybe they think everyone else is.

They didn't use "African-American." They listed the father's race as "African". That's most likely what the family told them to use. The hospital or the state would have reported this to the US health statistics authorities as "Negro," but there was much leeway on what the birth certificate actually said, especially in Hawaii where Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Filipino and Puerto Rican were all given as races on birth certificates.

Honolulu and Danbury CT have similar zipcodes. If Obama really was using CT SSN, it was likely to have been a clerical error. SNN applications, it’s said were routed to different desks based on the zip code on the application.

Yes, and many other examples of that occurred: https://www.scribd.com/lists/3248475/Kenyan-Gov-Officials-African-Newspapers-Obama-1991-Bio-Barry-Obama-Obama-Family-Mbrs-and-other-Accounts-Reporting-Obama-is-Kenyan-Born