Posted on 07/14/2009 4:03:41 PM PDT by Polarik
The big problem for Gibbs here, and for Obama, is that what was posted on the Internet and on Obama's website, (which has now been scrubbed) is a fabricated and forged "scan image." Furthermore, the document object shown in photos taken by Factcheck staffer, Jess Henig, and alleged to be the same document shown in the "scan image," is also a fabricated forgery. I documented it all in my final report, Obama's Born Conspiracy, and in my recent post, "Why Obama will never show his birth certificate."
But, the real killer of this birth certificate scam is that Hawaii never made a 2007 Certification of Live Birth for Obama, never issued a 2007 COLB for Obama, and never confirmed anything about this bogus 2007 COLB that Obama, his staff, and Factcheck have insisted is a real document.
Last year, while working on my final report, Obama's Born Conspiracy, I called Hawaii's DOH and asked to speak directly to Dr. Alvin Onaka, the Hawaii State Registrar and Head of the Office of Health Status Monitoring (OSHM), of which Vital Records is a part. I posed as a writer doing geneology research, knowing that if I portrayed myself as yet another investigator seeking information on Obama's birth records, that I would be immediately shot down. Strictly speaking, I was collecting vital record information on Obama's heritage, after all.
I proceeded to ask Dr. Onaka questions about the COLB that only he, or a manager in Vital Records, would know. These are questions that Communications Officer, Janice Okubo does not know or anyone else not connected with Vital Records. I did this as a way to corroborate my conversation with him.
(BTW, I noted this conversation in an earlier comment, on FreeRepublic.com).
I asked Dr. Onaka if the COLBs are stamped using a machine or by hand. He said, "Both." Hawaii uses a machine that applies the Seal and stamps electronically and simultaneously. That's why they appear to be placed in the same position, from year to year - except in years where the large Seal design is used. He said that they use a desktop Seal embosser, similar to what notaries use, but much longer, so as to place the Seal higher up on the paper.
I asked him, "Why is the border on 2007 COLB different from the 2008 COLB, why is the Seal larger, and why is your signature stamp located off to the side instead of directly under the Seal? He told me that they alternate the Seal design and border design, and when the Seal (the larger one) doesn't leave enough room to place the signature stamp below it, it's put off to the side. Evidentally, this larger Seal is what is applied by hand, as in every case where it has been used, the Seal impression appears in a different spot on the paper.
Then, I slipped in the the following question. I asked him if Janice Okubo had confirmed that his office produced a 2007 Certification of Live Birth, date-stamped June 6, 2007, with Obama's birth information on it, and he quickly replied:
"Absolutely not. No one in our office confirmed it."
That promptly ended the conversation as Dr. Onaka was not going to respond to any more questions from me. Since then, Hawaii has not answered anymore questions about Obama's birth record from anyone.
To me, it's rather ironic, or maybe a matter of my experience, that everyone and his brother was calling and quoting Janice Okubo, who is a knowledgeable Communications Officer, but who does not know anything about the technical details of the COLB, such as why do the borders change. I also suspect that some of the sources quoting her - especially Factcheck and their sister site, Politifact - put words in her mouth. For instance, I believe that she said, in response to viewing the "scan image" posted online, that "It looks like my birth certificate." I also believe that these two overzealous sources, Factcheck and Politifact, added the word, "exactly" to her statement so as to make it, "It looks exactly like my birth certificate" - a more definative statement, but false, nontheless.
Politifact reporter, Amy Hollyfield, also made a number of other questionable entries in her article, "Obama's birth certificate: final chapter." At the midpoint of her article she said that "When the birth certificate arrived from the Obama campaign it confirmed his name as the other documents already showed it. Still, we took an extra step: We e-mailed it to the Hawaii Department of Health, which maintains such records, to ask if it was real."
"'It’s a valid Hawaii state birth certificate, ' spokesman Janice Okubo told us."
Yeah, get real. She never asked Okubo if it was "real," and an electronic image is not a valid anything. Only a real certified, stamped paper certificate is valid. There's no way that she could have said, by looking at just a front-side image, that it was a "valid Hawaii state birth certificate." She might have said that "It looked like a "Hawaii state birth certificate," or it that "It looked like my birth certificate,: but there is no way for her to know anything about the validity of an image. She even indicated that Hawaii does not send birth certificates electronically. So, was Politfact exaggerating, or intentiionally misleading? Probably both.
As forensic document examiner, Sandra Lines, noted, the only way to tell if a document is authentic is to examine the actual paper document, and not an image of it. However, much to the chagrin of my critics, you can tell when an image or photo has been altered, irrespective of its subject. You can make an authentic image of a forged document just as you can make a forged image look like an authentic document (although Obama's COLB forgery was hardly authentic-looking).
If the image is bogus, and this "scan image" was, then the document depicted in is also bogus: either it was fabricated or it does not exist. As it turned out, both of these are true: Obama's COLB does not exist and the images that people claim were made of a real COLB, are also, totally bogus.
To that, Janice Okubo might agree, as the last statement she made was to say that "I don’t know that it’s possible for us to even say beyond a doubt what the image on the site represents."
On the other hand, how can she say that the DOH would not know what that image represents? The DOH is the one who could have said, "Yes, it's a copy of a real COLB we produced for Obama," or they could have said what Onaka indicated to me, that "We didn't produce this document."
In her conversation with Factcheck, on two separate occassions, Okubo said that “Someone had requested it [Obama’s COLB] in June 2008,” which would be impossible if it were a real COLB since it has a production date of June 6, 2007, stamped onto it. Since this document, in reality, does not exist, then the only evidence that a document image provides is that the image is a self-evident forgery. Likewise, anything purporting to be a reproduction or representation of this nonexistent document, is itself a forgery.
When DOH Director Chiyome Fukino announced to the press, on October 31, 2008, that “Hawaii has Obama’s original birth certificate on record,” this ahould have been the time for Hawaii to also confirm the exisence of the COLB posted online, since that is what prompted hundreds of phone calls to Ukubo and company in the first place. The fact that she didn't only reinforces the fact that his COLB does not exist.
If the birth information on that COLB matched the birth information in his birth record, then why not say so? It would have stopped them from being bombarded with phone calls, and may have ended the quest for his long-form birth certificate.
Conversely, if the birth information on that COLB did not match the info on his birth record, then they would be dancing around the issue and dodging all questions about it - which is exactly what they did.
Study this image carefully:
The left half of this image is the upper right corner of Factcheck's copy of the "scan image." The right half of this image contain the upper right corner of a real 2007 COLB. The short, vertical border piece is also from the same COLB. What I tried to do here was to duplicate the pattern and color of the "scan image" border through the use of color controls and sharpening techniques found in most advanced image editors. Of the two borders on the right side, I feel that the short, vertical border most closely matches the vertical part of the Factcheck border (although it is a little bit wider than the Factcheck border).
If you agree with me, then you will be surprised to learn that this vertical border piece came from a digital photograph of the 2007 COLB border, while the upper right corner came from a digital scan of the 2007 COLB border. I firmly believe that the forger used a photo of a 2007 COLB to manufacture the border as shown on this bogus "scan image."
From the first time I saw it (when the Daily Kos posted it on June 12, 2008), I thought it looked "really wierd." For months, I was unable to figure out how it was made although I knew how to duplicate the color. Then, I went back to my folder of images and found the one photo I had of the same 2007 COLB scan.
I thought, "What if the forger used a photo like this?" Sure enough, the theory fit.
Since November of last year, I learned something else that was very important, something about a group of photos that I initially pegged as being Photoshopped. I debated as to whether or not to admit my mistake. However, to be true to my research, and to be honest to myself, I need to admit my mistakes, and change my theories accordingly as to how something was made.
Since November of last year, I have conducted a number of sophisticated image analyses using new software that was not available to me last year. One is called, JPEGSnoop, which analyses the digital signatures and compression algorithms in an image and compares them to a database of values for a particular digital camera, scanner, or image editing software like Photoshop. This software allows the user to see if original images have been altered in any way. So, as a result of doing these analyses on Factcheck's photos, which were taken by Jess Henig, I concluded these photo images were not altered in any way.
This is not to say that these photos were not edited in any way, because the Exif data had been changed. The Exif data is the information found inside a photo that describes the camera used and all of the camera's settings used to take the photo.
I proved this to myself by buying the same make and model camera as Jess Henig used and I took my own photos in an effort to replicate hers. I also re-examined the photos with a software program called JMicrovision, which allowed me to make measurements of the objects shown in the photos with respect to size, angle, color, intensity, saturation, pixel point counts, and so forth. Basically, I used this program to compare the document object as shown in the "scan image" with the photos of what Factcheck claims is the same document object. Guess what? They do differ.
All techniques aside, even a child can see that there is no way that the heavily embossed Seal and pronounced second fold line in the document object shown in the photos would NOT show up in a scan of it. As you know, the "scan image" -- the one and only image to which all people refer -- had a barely visible Seal impression, and absolutely and unequivocally, NO 2nd FOLD LINE. The Seal impression on the real 2008 COLB, that I have used to scan and photograph, is much flatter than in Factcheck's document object - yet my scans clearly show it every time.
Given that the "scan image" is unquestionably bogus, and that the Obama COLB does not exist, then by extension, whatever was photographed by Factcheck, has to be bogus, too.
It also means that we have another forgery! It means that, although the photos are not bogus, the document object shown in them surely is, as I had noted in my final report. The difference now is that the document object - what is shown in the front side photos - is a constructed document object, using thicker paper than regular security paper, and having printed on it the original forged image that was posted online.
The timing for this scenario is just right. Obama was in Hawaii during the week of August 9, and then twelve days later, Factcheck produces these suspicious-looking photos.
There is one more "fly in the ointment" regarding Factcheck's photos. Remember to keep in mind that they were taken to "validate the scan image," and not to directly verify the existence of a real COLB. This pesky fly is that the Seal impression on the reverse side, or rather 2/3 of a Seal impression on the reverse side, that appears in two photos (#7 and #8), does NOT match the Seal impression as shown from the front. I mentioned this in my final report, that this Seal was not the same one used for the front-side photos. I also mentioned that this is the reason why the top 1/3 of the Seal was deliberately cropped ou of the photo.
Taken as a whole, what all of these findings mean are the following:
The next questions that Les Kinsolving needs to ask Press Secretary Gibbs is why did the Obama Administration create a forged birth certificate image and post it online? Why are there two hospitals listed as Obama's place of birth? Why has the Obama Administration gone about scrubbing all this incriminating evidence from the Internet?
Ya mean the SRM. Hey, I wouldn't diss a Ferrari no matter how it's pimped.
Does it say something like “My Term Expires” above the fold?
Mine or Onaka’s? LOL Nope neither. The Dept of Health can not explain why I have a COLB that was ordered in Feb of 2000, which is confirmed by THEIR records, and yet a date on the thing of Mar 6 2007.
VERY helpful lady on the phone, she looked at all the stampers for me too, there are three of them.
That’s not even an authentic signature, that’s a handstamp.
TANKS,ya’ll,,,
Watchin’ close...
Oh its real, I assure you, the lady confirmed it with me on the phone. That is the back side of the form, and matches the Stamper that is in the Mail Order room in the office she told me.
Was your COLB a mail order copy? I was under the impression there was no such thing as an internet copy.
Something very fishy about the way dates are applied to a COLB in Hawaii.
Catching up. Obviously I posted my previous question before I read all of the posts. I just hate it when posters do that :-)
I've been following all your reports, but I have to ask this question regarding the folds. Pardon my own made-up terminology.
How would an "inside fold" differ from an "outside fold" when scanned? The COLB in the fold had an accordian-fold, the top fold being an "outside fold" and the bottom fold being an "inside fold." The top fold's crease would be raised towards the scanner, while the bottom fold's crease would be on the back side of the document, showing the concave side towards the scanner.
I'm not a detractor, you know, but I wonder how the different folds would show up (or not) on scans.
-PJ
Well, that’s “proof” enough for me. ;-)
How does it feel living on borrowed time? About 2 years worth, LOL!
The internet copy is something they would use for orders coming through an internet source. The Mail is for one being processed through a snail mail order. Then there is the front counter. Thats what I was told, I have no reason to believe this kind helpful lady was miss-representing anything.
hehe that NEVER happens to me! LOL (wink)
LOL I wish it meant I was two years younger LOL But then I would be feeling two years older than my age... oh never mind the space time continuum with break. Or what ever it does... lol
I suppose it would all depend on how it was folded, by the persons handling it. Mine has lots of folds LOL
-PJ
ok, I'm a long way from the US, in Australia, so let me make a fool of myself and ask this question - (far away enough that flaming won't hurt)
Let's assume you had applied for an 'internet copy' and wanted to use that to obtain a licence or a passport, what would you do? Photocopy it? Do you receive both sides or front only? And then you take the photo copy or copies to make your application. Would you expect the copies to be accepted? (Or, would you need to take your computer to the desk and plug it in to show them? )
I'm totally confused now. What possible use could an internet copy be to anyone?
You say she was nice to you...I think I can imagine why.
Thanks for another excellent report. Very well done.
Now my question is, why doesn’t someone sue Factcheck et. al. for producing a false identification document, charge them with the felony that it is?
Go after the small fish before snagging the big one.
http://www.health.state.ny.us/vital_records/vitalchek.htm
Internet and Telephone Orders
If you choose, you may use your credit card to order a certified copy of your certificate over the Internet (online) or by telephone. You may also choose to have the copy returned to you by UPS. These services are made possible through a contract with VitalChek Network, Inc.
Fees:
VitalChek Processing Charge - $7.25 per transaction and includes all certificate copies requested.
UPS Return Delivery Charge (optional) - $12.00 per transaction to destinations within the continental United States; call VitalChek at 1-877-854-4481 for rates to other destinations.
Certified Copy Fee (Priority Handling) - Internet and telephone requests receive priority handling. The $45.00 fee for each certified copy of a birth, marriage, death or divorce certificate requested includes a $15.00 (per copy) priority handling fee.
Note:
The total cost of the New York State copy fee, priority handling fee, VitalChek processing charge and UPS charge (if applicable), will be posted to your credit card account.
You must use your own major credit card.
How long will it take?
Internet or telephone requests receive priority handling...
Yep, there it be.
Well as far as I know you can order it through the internet, but it’s not like they scan you a copy, they send it through snail mail or overnight I think, you get a real hard copy at any rate, with a raised seal.
Its just an internet order. Apparently there are three different areas where stamping of these documents can occur.
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.