Replies

Uh, my comment was tongue in cheek. I was referring to the definition of “anomaly” meaning “abnormal.”

You can analyze computer copies of the image all day long and depending on the software/hardware used to store them, read them, copy them, convert from one storage format to another, manipulate them, break them into layers, zoom in on them, etc, you’re going to see all kinds of anomalies.

There is no way to know how many times the images in these exhibits have been copied, stored, converted from one storage format to another, different resolutions, even different versions of the same software product on different machines.

The very best you can do is analyze the only source document available using the tool that is available where it’s stored. Even there it can be distorted by your own hardware/software that you’re using to view it. The moment you download it, you’re no longer analyzing the true document.

You cannot do accurate forensic analysis at this level on a computer generated document (copied, digitized, stored, printed, scanned, rescanned, converted, downloaded, etc) that has been digitized and stored on a computer. This analysis can only be done on the original hard copy. When analyzing copies, the best you’re going to get is someone’s opinion. And the people doing this particular analysis are not unbiased by a long shot.

Now if it’s OBVIOUS that there are different fonts on the document, you’d probably see that on all copies. But these are not obviously different fonts. We have people analyzing COPIES of re-digitized documents jumping to conclusions about slight anomalies that were introduced during one or more generations of copying, scanning, digitizing converting from one storage format to another, etc.

An example is the exhibit posted on reply number 21 on this thread that makes a big deal out of the letter “e” in the word “male.”

Well, check the only source document available (and there’s no telling what generation it is from the actual hard copy source), but it does not show the curious exaggerated distortion of the letter “e” in “male.” It is definitely not an “obviously” different font or typeface as claimed.

Look for yourself:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/04/27/president-obamas-long-form-birth-certificate

Your points are well taken, sorry I didn't catch the tongue-in-cheek. I agree that x generation copies can't be totally analyzed, technology used, and depends on a lot of factors we aren't privy to.

No I may be dense, but I checked your link. The E on the short form COLB is capitalized (more on that later), and the e on the LF is lower case and closed like the Greek letter theta, maybe slightly smudged, a little thicker. I think that's the right letter, but not sure that's what I was supposed to notice. The LF at the link won't zoom for me but I checked my dl'ed copy. That doesn't matter to me. I'm not the one making too big a deal about the fonts except stated that it makes no sense to mix 'n match within words; I don't necessarily buy in to all of that; however, even what was released can offer some clues as to its authenticity or starting points for further verification by some other means, preferably actual source documents we're never going to see.

The first short form that appeared was flat, no seal evident, no creases evident, cert # blacked out. The one on factcheck was folded, looked longer (could be an optical illusion), cert # not blacked out, seal visible, obviously to me two different copies which is neither here nor there.

But some went on and on about the border, the word African, etc., etc., and I was never convinced one way or the other and am not to this day on either.

So I take it you assume it's genuine? Do you think it looney tunes that some of us question and attempt to analyze it and that we should cease and desist? I don't know with reasonable certainty either way. I still think some aspects about the LF are odd, that is all. I don't have him born in Kenya, but neither can I prove he wasn't.

All I know for certain is that somebody occupying the White House was born (and a few other obvious things). And it would be nice if we can put forth a viable candidate who can defeat him in 2012.