EXCLUSIVE! OBAMA'S FAKE BIRTH CERTIFICATE: How the forgery was made.

The Greater Evil ^ | 07/23/08 | Polarik

[Polarik]

There are three facts about Internet blog stories that you need to know:

1. Plagiarism is rampant on the Internet.
   
2. You cannot always believe what you see and read.
3. When you see the word, "EXCLUSIVE," in the title, it does not mean that the story was the first one or even the only one.

You can imagine my chagrin when I read the following headline in the Atlasshruggs blog:

ATLAS EXCLUSIVE: FINAL REPORT ON OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE FORGERY CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE IN

What this headline, and the story it trumpets, confirm is that all three of the "facts" listed above are validated by this story.

Actually, my first reaction to it was, "Yawn." Here is an article proclaiming to have the exclusive findings that Obama's Birth Certificate image is a forgery -- or, using the acronym that I alone coined, Obama's "COLB ("Certificate of Live Birth") is a forgery.

The only problems with that statement are as follows:

• More than a month before this "EXCLUSIVE," was posted, I posted my own exclusive findings that the Obama COLB images were "poor forgeries" made from a genuine COLB.
• This so-called, "FINAL REPORT" is far from being final, and
  
• This so-called, "EXCLUSIVE" report is far from being the first to claim a forgery occurred.
  
• More than a few original findings and ideas of mine were "borrowed" without attribution.

In light of the above, my second reaction to it was, "What chutzpah!" (Which is the Yiddish word for "WTF.")

How can an article, posted on July 20, or a full month after my original proclamation that Obama's COLB image was graphically altered, be labeled as exclusive? I will admit that the techniques used by the author, TechDude, were not the ones I used to discover the forgery, and that he was the only one, to my knowledge, to have used them.

For that, I'd like to offer a pat on the back to TechDude for the work that he did, but also a slap on the wrist, to both Techdude and Pam Geller for misleading the public by implying that they were the first ones to present evidence of a graphic forgery.

Now, that they've basked in the glory of their nonexclusive, "Exclusive," it's time to set the record straight.

On June 19, I wrote the following on my TownHall blog, The Greater Evil:

"The Daily Kos blog has posted a JPG that allegedly is Barack Obama's "Certificate of Birth." From a detailed analysis of the image and the text, it looks like it was created by a graphics program, and is not a true copy of an original, certified document."

So, which part of that statement did they miss? It also appeared on The Free Republic about the same time, and afterwards, on TexasDarlin's blog.

So, which part of these blog stories did they miss?

In my first post, I did make some wrong assumptions, for which I replied, Mea Culpa, and made the necessary changes.

For example, I also made mention of the odd-looking border back then, but that finding turned out to be irrelevant to my research.

However, my essential thesis was then, and has always been, that the Kos image, and all of its relatives, including the FactCheck image, were graphic forgeries, even though I focused on different aspects of it than TechDude did. For him, the border was a crucial part of the puzzle.

For me, that border could have been red hearts and purple flowers for all that it mattered.

I focused on the anomalies of the text, which were many and not explained away by the reasons cited by my critics.

Now, this is not to take away any of the work that TechDude has done, which is notable in its own right, and if you read my blog, you will see proper attributions made to him and his work.

HOWEVER, I do take exception to the lack of any attribution to my work, and is a very egregious oversight, at best.

At worst, it smacks of plagiarism, and there are more than one instance of that, such as the upper left-hand border comparison which was originally mine and emailed to him.

Also egregious is the fact that TechDude, myself, and TexasDarlin had agreed to publish a joint document, and, as you have now seen, one of us renegged on that agreement and stole the spotlight.

I don't mean to rain on anyone's parade here, but I would like to point out that there never was an "uncropped Kos image" posted online. A scan of the entire COLB was never posted to the Kos or the Smears. It was always a cropped image, and I was the one who confirmed the true "birth order" of the images -- especially those of OpenDNA (who was initially "charged" with making the Kos image forgery.

Now, the FactCheck image was, indeed, posted as an uncropped version of the Kos image, although one cannot escape the likelihood that the extra border was added, post-hoc.

What I did confirm is that all of the online images came from one source file.


I also confirmed that my critics and detractors, coincidentally, are also the same to TechDude and his research. It is safe to say that there will always be people who are antagonistic to others who reveal unpleasant truths.

But, now is the time to separate the men from the boys, so to speak. The critics and detractors who claim that the Kos image is NOT a forgery, demand to see someone actually create one from scratch.

I couldn't agree more. it is one thing to postulate that a forgery has been created, but it is entirely a different matter to actually create one that is a clone of the Kos image.

What may surprise these critics and detractors to learn is that beginning about two to three weeks ago, a clone of the Kos I created was posted to my latest blog post.

You see, the image that I referenced as the original Kos imageis actually the clone I created more from Michele's 2008 COLB image.

Here's the Daily Kos image from their website:



Here's my clone of the Kos image:



Keep in mind that this is not a point-for-point clone of the Kos image, since I did not proceed from an original, scanned image (a bitmap that has never been seen by the public), but it's darn close, and nobody was the wiser.

How do you tell my clone from Kos?

The "Time of Birth" on my clone is 7:25 AM; on the Kos it's 7:24 PM.

I replaced everything, EXCEPT the funky border. Like I said, the "security" border is not very secure when it can be reproduced by a scanner.

Making an exact "forgery" in terms of the Kos image dimensions, file size, JPG compression and resolution was not an easy job, although I spent less about an hour to make it. I'm still feeling the effects of a flu bug.

In the next few days, when I feel a little better, I will post a real "exclusive" --  a step by step guide showing exactly how I produced this clone, as well as posting a sampling of all of the dead ends I reached using the explanations professed by the nonbelievers.

I have about 320 images in all, but I'll post a sufficient number of them to satisfy anyone's doubts.

Like I've said in previous posts and in comments made on other blogs, if someone can make a Kos clone just by scanning, reducing the size, changing the compression, or any combination of these ways, they are more than encouraged to try.

Until then, I stand by my conclusion that I made over a month ago: that the Kos image looks the way it does because the original text on a previous image was graphically altered or replaced.

"Why" it was done is still open for debate, but the discovery that I made over a month ago still holds true. The image is not a "horrible" forgery, IMHO, because it fooled a lot of people...and that's the sole purpose for making a forgery.

Hopefully, the critics and detractors will come up with their own clones made in the ways that they claimed. In the meantime, the evidence provided in my posts and in TechDude's posts far outweigh any evidence that the images are are genuine, accurate reproductions of a paper COLB document.


It may look like a duck, but it walks, talks, and flies like a Dodo bird.


PREVIEW:

When I received a true copy of a recent COLB from a person named, Michele, I promised my readers that I would manufacture a clone of the Kos image to demonstrate how it was created. In doing so, I would validate my theory that someone's actual COLB, or a scanned copy of it, was used as the basis or template for creating a forgery.

I had theorized that the pixel patterns between the letters on the Kos image I was viewing were not JPG artifacts, or scanner artifacts, as the critics claimed they were.

These pixel patterns were characteristic of text added to an existing image while the image was an 8-bit, 256-color bitmapped image, and not while it was a 24-bit, 16.7 million color JPG.

Before I reached that conclusion, I had tried every other way possible to duplicate the Kos image.

People may say that OpenDNA, aka Jay McKinnon, already tried to do that -- that he produced two images that were also graphically altered.

However, both of these images were 800 x 781 pixels  @ 96 DPI, which is a far cry from the larger, 2427 x 2369 pixels @ 300 DPI Kos image. Basically, OpenDNA's "forgeries" were easy to do given how small was the area that needed to be modified.

"Cloning" the Kos took a little, more work than that.


I ask that all of you to be patient as I recover, and that you will soon be rewarded with the recipe for forgery.

[devolve]

.

Linus keeps us sane and grounded!

[devolve]

.

Ah!

So you started this!

[potlatch]

Not me, lol. I look at him and think, “sick, sick!!”.

[BohDaThone]

States (and states rights’ers) (and usuall;y folks on this site) would be pretty appalled at the idea that “the federal DOJ” has jurisdiction over everything about state elections, especially in the absence of Federeal legislation even purporting to give them some authority to do something about who appears on state ballots.

[potlatch]

[So you started this!]
That probably is a very true statement going by time and date- that I was the first to post it here.

But others were then finding and posting too.
You are aware of this, just making a joke.

Who else was posting the USMC T-Shirt?? I have not seen another one.

[devolve]

.

Are you inferring there are lots of Sleeper-FReepers all over these threads?

FReepers cannot chew gun and walk at the same time!

Let’s “win on the issues” against Obama!

Ethics, honesty, fraud, corruption do not matter!

[potlatch]

True facts always matter and must be investigated.

Have you noticed the abundance of brand new Freepers? May get even worse before the election.

[devolve]

.

You’re #1

-

You found the USMC pix too

Obama tried to scrub them all

It’s a pretty stupid and arrogant thing to do - wear a USMC T-Shirt

Now he’s in the Iraq telling Generals where to put their troops

Obama is a-a-a-a-a moron!

Some of the audiotapes of him without a script or a teleprompter are incredible!

He stalls - stutters - tries to thing of an answer - stalls - stutters - some more

[potlatch]

Lol, yeah I’m #1.
I have always thought Obama was a poor speaker from the time the debates started.

He starts a sentence, pauses, goes ‘ahh’ then starts into a whole new idea, lol.

Truthfully I do not hear or watch what you do so I only see it here or on Drudge.

There may be people who think that USMC T-Shirt picture is fake, but we know it’s not and now Google is letting it out more.

[Polarik]

Yes, and we thank you for being on top of it. Thanks to devoted Freepers like yourself, the FreeRepublic has stayed ahead of the curve all the way.

BTW, would you believe that when I first joined FR, and cited my research on my blog, I was accused of joining only to pimp my blog.

I think that I answered that charge fairly well, don't you think?

[devolve]

.

There are lots of contrarians, sleepers, armchair egos on FR:

“We are better than that - We need to win on the issues!”

Like Obama claims he is: “consistent”

[potlatch]

People are always too quick to jump on new Freepers, and we do have many of them now.

You have done a lot of work on all of this and stated you case well. Don’t give up.

[Polarik]

But this whining about what others should give as due that's a jake's lament. Be the man you can be and put it away.

I'm not whining about it. The fact that I posted a link to his work in the first paragraph of my post without any editorializing is a testament to that.

I'm over it, but if I don't point out how it all went down, who is going to do it for me?

People have a right to know the truth, which is why we have blogs like FR.

Recall when I told people the true chain of custody path regarding all of the images?

to me, its the same-same.

[potlatch]

Bump, Obama’s a mish mash of contradictions.

[MindBender26]

>>>> Are you for real? Why debate issues or anything with someone who may well be not qualified to run for Office? You stalling time for Obama?

If I beleived any of this paranoid idiocy that Obama was not a natural citizen, I would shut up until after the convention, to ensure it was not discovered now so the nomination would go to Hillary.

[Polarik]

Very true.

There is more than a distinct possibility that Obama Sr. is an Arab and not an African. I've seen a story that says he's 50% white and 6.25% black -- not enough to be classified as a "black man" by the Census Bureau.

How much of his campaign is fueled by claiming that he is the "first black nominee" for President?

How much support would he have if he were Arab-American?

Now, that wouyld be a good reason to post a forgery.

[David]

My question as well. Doesn't the FEC require a certified copy of your birth certificate when you file your candidacy for President?

No.

The point this would bind first is where the candidate applies for federal funding--he goes to FEC and applies; FEC in turn says to Treasury, give this guy the money--accompanied by a certificate by FEC that the guy is eligible for the office for which he seeks federal funding.

So FEC then turns to this candidate and says, well we have to certify; we have heard some questions; can you convince us that you were really born in Hawaii?

Now Obama has made a big deal out of his determination to support the campaign funding legislation--of course he is going to take the federal money. Or is he?

Well we all know the answer to that question--he didn't.

But it leaves us back where we started because he is not forced to step up and tell us or anybody else where he was born by any legal process that is easy to access.

[David]

Even if he was born in Kenya, Senator Obama is, by every definition I can find for it, a "neutralizing" American citizen as long as he had at least one properly qualified American citizen birth parent. No one has suggested that his mother wasn't a US citizen at the time of his birth, so the question is not one of eligibly for the office of President. He is. The question is why the reluctance to provide a certified physical copy of his Hawaii COLB for examination by the press and public?

Your post is another one of those that leads me to want to question your reading skills.

No. If he was born in Kenya, he is neither a US Citizen nor eligible to hold the office of president.

A person born outside the US to two parents who are married to each other (in any kind of legally cognizable relationship) where one of the parents is a US Citizen, the other an alien, is a US Citizen under 8 USCA Sec. 1401(g) only if the the citizen parent was a US resident for ten years prior to the birth of which five were after the age of 16. Since the citizen parent was the mother who was 18, she failed by definitiion.

Which word is a problem?

[PhilDragoo]

There is more than a distinct possibility that Obama Sr. is an Arab and not an African. I've seen a story that says he's 50% white and 6.25% black -- not enough to be classified as a "black man" by the Census Bureau.

How much of his campaign is fueled by claiming that he is the "first black nominee" for President?

How much support would he have if he were Arab-American?

Now, that would be a good reason to post a forgery.

CLICK KENYAN ISLAMO-COMMIE, OBI FROM NAIROBI

[m4629]

If I beleived any of this paranoid idiocy that Obama was not a natural citizen, I would shut up until after the convention, to ensure it was not discovered now so the nomination would go to Hillary.

I don't know what you believe but I do know what is fundamentally relevant wrt a person's eligibility regarding high office. Your summary disregard in this matter is surely suspect.

"paranoid idiocy"? That's funny, considering the Dems are putting in great efforts trying to dismiss this "paranoia" if there was nothing to it don't you think?

Btw, you have not made any convincing argument for people to back away from this, just the opposite.

I'll make this prediction ... this COLB issue will NEVER go away as long as there are people like yourself appearing to try to get it buried.

The best thing for Obama to do is clear up this matter to the satisfaction of everyone then move on. If he is unwilling, that surely points to he is not qualified, literally and fundamentally. Only a fool would trust his words.