Posted on 08/25/2008 2:27:45 PM PDT by Koyaan
Starting with pissant's Inconsistencies abound in FactCheck report on Obama "birth certificate".
Comparing the high resolution Daily Kos scan (as opposed to the scan originally published) with the FactCheck photos, there are obvious and dramatic differences. The scan shows only the thinnest of fold marks at the top and none below, no seal and no signature block.
Actually the seal and some of the bleed through of the signature block can be seen in the scan even without any sort of enhancement.
Oddly, only the June 6, 2007 date stamp is visible.
Incorrect. See above.
Only after extreme manipulations of the Daily Kos image did some graphic specialists managed to squeeze out the blurred and color enhance image of something that just might be a seal or a signature block. But even then, not in the correct size or expected location.
Again, incorrect.
The seal issue had been resolved quite some time ago. It is of the correct size and not in any unusual location.
Here is an animated GIF of the 2008 "Michele COLB" overlaid on the Kos COLB with the two images centered on the seal.
And here's a zoom of just the seal area.
It's worth noting that in the original scan of the Michele COLB, the seal was not visible at all.
In order to make it visible, the raised seal was highlighted by going over it with the broad side of a pencil and the COLB re-scanned, producing this version of the Michele COLB.
Both the Obama COLB and the Michele COLB were printed on newer, thicker paper than the older COLBS such as the DeCosta COLB and the embossed seal being barely visible or not visible at all as in the original Michele COLB scan is not unusual at all.
The signature stamp being in the wrong place is also incorrect. This myth seems to have been started by Polarik in a recent thread here where in his laundry list of supposed inconsistencies between the scanned image and the FactCheck photos he says:
WRONG LOCATION OF SIGNATURE STAMP ON SCAN
And over on TexasDarlin, he'd also said this:
Remember the signature stamp that was barely visible, even under heavy image enhancement? Remember how this amorphous blob was located way off to the left side of the COLB?
Well, now it’s clear as day, right smack dab in the middle with the date stamp riding directly above it. Not only are date stamps never placed right above the signature block on any existing COLBs was on the forged COLB.
Note that he says that date stamps are never placed right above the signature block on any existing COLBs.
Not only is this incorrect, but Polarik knew it was incorrect when he said it.
Here is a scan of the back side of the Michele COLB, clearly showing the date stamp right above the signature stamp.
Polarik knew this to be the case because he's had the same image in his PhotoBucket album for over a month and had previously posted it on his blog. You can see it here.
And instead of being "way off to the left side of the COLB" the signature stamp in the scanned image is exactly where it's located in the photographs, "smack dab in the middle" where Polarik falsely claims it shouldn't be.
Here is an enhanced image of the area of the scan where the signature stamp is located. It's not any sort of high tech enhancement. It's just a simple change in color balance to bring out the blue ink of the date and signature stamps.
And here is the same image with some notations I've added to it.
Within the rectangle A is a concentration of rather indistinct bits of bleed through.
B shows a vertical element.
C shows a rounded element.
D shows another vertical element.
E shows a blotchy rounded element with an open center, followed by another vertical element, and finally a more squarish blob.
And here is an animated GIF which is an overlay fade made using a crop of the date and signature stamp portion of the Michele COLB overlaid on the enhanced section of the Obama COLB.
As you can see, the rectangle of A is where the "I CERTIFY..." block of text is located.
B corresponds to the upper portion of the "l" in Alvin, C to the upper portion of the "O" in Onaka, D to the upper part of the "k" in Onaka, and E to the upper parts of "Ph.D."
Further, there was enough bleed through on the "D" in Ph.D that it's evident even in the FactCheck photos. Look at both image 2 and image 6, just above the "ma" in "prima."
So, to finish up with pissant...
Those stark differences clearly validate the skepticism with which the scan was regarded by Israel Insider and others from the start.
Except for the fact that there are no differences, stark or otherwise. The seal and the signature stamp are both there, they are both the right size, and they are both in expected locations.
Ok, on to Kevmo and his FactCheck.Org's Obama Birth Certificate is dated March 2008
The word certificate may be pre-printed. The certificate number is variable information like Honolulu below. Honolulu is level with the background. But the certificate number doesn’t appear to be.
"Honolulu" isn't quite a fair comparison since it spans less than half the distance that the certificate number does.
But even so, to my eye, the H appears to be a bit closer to the horizontal element just below it than the last U is to the one below it.
In the 151, the 151 are close to the lower horizontal bar in the background. But by the end of the certificate number, the end 41 is far above the horizontal bar. The initial 1’s top seems to be slightly below the horizontal bar above the number. The final 1 seems to go into and overlap the horizontal bar above the number.
Yes.
And if you back away from the tree just a little bit and take a look at the forest, you'll find that that is perfectly consistent with the printing of the document, which is skewed slightly counterclockwise with respect to the background pattern.
Take a look at photo 6.
Bring it up full size and then scroll to the inside, bottom left corner of the image where the "OHSM" text is. There are a pair of horizontal "bars" there. The top one goes through the top of OHSM, the bottom one is just below it, and there's a space between it and the bottom inside edge of the border.
Now follow the matching pairs of horizontal bars as you scroll to the right, over to the inside, bottom right corner of the image.
Not only is the space between the bottom bar and the inside edge of the border gone, but the bottom bar by this point is actually located beneath the border.
And if you look at the original scan of the certificate, you'll find the exact same thing.
And this is not unique to the Obama COLB. If you look at the 2008 Michele COLB in the same fashion, you'll find that the printing on it too has a slight counterclockwise skew with respect to the background pattern.
So there's nothing unusual here at all.
And last but not least, Polarik and his FactCheck's photos of Obama's birth certificate just proved that their posted image of it was forged
Furthermore, the two vertical borders on each side of the FactCheck COLB image were not drawn as long, parallel rectangles, but as divergent ones! When comparing them to real 2007 borders, the border on the left side went from being narrow at the base to being wider at the top. Conversely, the border on the left side went from being wider at the base to being narrower at the top. These disparities show up when the FactCheck COLB is made semi-transparent and laid on top of a genuine 2007 COLB image (as shown below).
This is incorrect. There is no divergence. It only appears as such because the "2007 COLB" image is skewed counterclockwise relative to the FactCheck COLB. You can't do a fair comparison between two images if one of them is skewed.
Since Polarik hasn't made available the original image of the 2007 COLB, I had to use his overlay image.
I rotated it so that the left outside edge of the 2007 COLB's border was as perfectly vertical as I could make it.
Then I pulled in the Kos COLB and did the same thing.
I then overlaid it on the 2007 COLB portion of Poarik's overlay image.
What a difference doing things right makes.
Since I was overlaying an image on an image that already had two images overlaid, I turned the Kos COLB red for better differentiation.
The dark red text is the text of the Obama COLB and shows just how out of whack Polarik had it with respect to the 2007 COLB. The lighter red text is the text of the 2007 COLB. The text matches up perfectly except for fields where there was different text, such as "MALE" versus "FEMALE" for example.
I'm not going to bother with the PD COLB overlay. I've wasted more than enough time on that already and the PD COLB is wholly irrelevant.
So on to the laundry list.
WRONG PATTERN AND DEFINITION OF BORDERS ON SCAN
This is incorrect.
Not only is the pattern identical, but even the little blips within the pattern are identical, as indicated by the arrows in the image above.
As for "definition," I don't know exactly what that's intended to mean. Certainly the scan isn't a very good one. It looks as if the brightness/contrast was jacked around a good bit, and maybe the color balance as well, but there's absolutely nothing to indicate that the scan is not of the document shown in the photos.
WRONG SHAPE AND CONSISTENCY OF BORDERS ON SCAN
Wrong shape? I don't know what this is intended to mean either. The shape of the borders in both the scan and the photos is um... square. As for consistency, again, this is much too vague.
WRONG LOCATION OF SIGNATURE STAMP ON SCAN
This is incorrect. It's in the same location on the scan as it is in the photographs, as I'd already pointed out above.
NEARLY INVISIBLE SIGNATURE STAMP ON SCAN
And it's nearly invisible (in fact a bit more invisible) in the photos compared to the scan. But it's there in both the scan and the photos.
WRONG IMPRESSION OF SIGNATURE STAMP ON SCAN
Don't know what's meant by wrong impression. It's the same signature stamp as seen in the photos as well as on the back of the Michele COLB.
WRONG LOCATION OF DATE STAMP ON PHOTO
Once again, absolutely incorrect. The date stamp is in the exact same location in the photos as it is in the scan.
In the scan, the "J" of "JUN" lays right on the left bar of the vertical pair of bars which are the third pair of vertical bars directly above the word "COURT."
As you can see, the "J" is in the exact same location in the photo.
DATE STAMP TOO FAR FROM BOTTOM OF SEAL ON PHOTO
Yet again incorrect.
It's already been established that the date stamp is in the correct location. And if you go back and look at the seal size animated GIF, you'll see that the bottom of the seal aligns vertically with the very top of "DATE FILED BY REGISTRAR." Which is where it also aligns in the photos (see photo 6).
EMBOSSED SEAL IS MUCH LARGER ON PHOTO
Still incorrect.
In the scan, the top of the seal aligns vertically with the bottom of "MOTHER'S RACE." This is also where it aligns in the photos (again, see photo 6).
EMBOSSED SEAL IS CLEARLY DEFINED ON PHOTO
Yes. Because there was incident lighting on the seal in the photos which cast shadows to more clearly define the embossing. With a scanner, a very bright light source (and the imaging element) is directed straight at the document, virtually eliminating any shadows which would make the embossing more distinct.
And again I remind you that the original scan of the Michele COLB had no discernable embossing in it and it had to be enhanced with some pencil lead. So there's nothing unusual about this.
ONE BARELY VISIBLE FOLD ON SCAN
Yes. But because of the issues mentioned above, that one of the folds wasn't visible in no way means it was never in the original document.
WRONG LOCATION OF LOWER FOLD ON PHOTO
Er, wrong location with respect to what? It was just said that the lower fold wasn't visible in the scan. So how does that make the location of the lower fold in the photos the wrong location?
If we use the Michele COLB as a guide, we see that the lower fold cuts across the top half of the embossed seal, which is also where the lower fold in the photos is located.
"ANY ALTERATIONS..." TOO WIDE ON SCAN
And last but not least, yet another incorrect.
Referring once again to trusty photo 6, we see that the "A" in "ANY" begins right at the left bar in a vertical pair of bars and the "E" in "CERTIFICATE" ends just to the left of the left bar of the twelfth pair of bars later.
And lo and behold, this is just as it is in the scanned image.
I really find this laundry list truly incredible as even a cursory comparison shows so many of them to be flat out incorrect. It seems as though most of them were just made up out of thin air with the expectation that most of those reading them would never bother to question them and just accept them as fact.
k
Explain the that the
What happens if an ineligible person is elected to the presidency? Anybody know?
I’m all for leaving it up. Koyaan may or may not be associated with Obama or an Obama fan, but he put some effort into this, so let’s see where it goes.
It is good to be challenged on this stuff
Basically everything inside the borders were far superior in quality to the borders themselves. Proof-positive that they were added post-hoc to a forged image.
So finding "well-known and well-defined white and gray pixel halos BETWEEN the letters" is a tell-tale sign of forgery? Correct?
I like toys. I get the greatest pics for my profile page from these threads...
You answered a post. You passed the first test!
They only appear at first glance to be divergent due to the underlying border of the "new 2007 COLB" being skewed counterclockwise. The width of the border in the FactCheck image is the same at the bottom as it is at the top. There is no divergence.
If Polarik properly overlaid the two COLBs, which I believe he did, than there is a divergence of the border lines.
I yield to the Honorable Pissant. He’s done the work. If he wants to let this play out, I’m in favor of that approach as well. Have at it Koyaan.
You beat me to it! Got to be fast here!
At the end of the day, forged or not, this COLB was created in 2007.
His mother should have been given a Hawaii State Birth Certificate in 1961. I’m sure Barack Hussein Obama has had to produce it more than once in his life. This should be another instance.
Since I have not heard nothing but crickets about the statements above, I'll give them my plausible answer.
The "Date Accepted By State Registrar" says that the Hawaiian Health Department has received birth information from local doctors and hospitals that the baby was born in Hawaii.
The "Date Filed by Registrar" acknowledges a newborn but the information about the baby came outside of normal channels. Meaning that the Hawaiian Department of Health does not know about the baby's origin.
Be back later to see any comments....
What is required to lay this whole issue to rest is the presentation of a REAL foldable, crinkleable 3-D Certificate of Birth--and not some ambiguous green, blacked-out, laser-generated, endlessly examined abomination of a virtual document.
Why can't the Obama people come up with an actual legit certificate that can be handed around and slapped down on the table?
Like these plain ordinary people can:
Maybe you can tell us why the top fold in the photo is slanted while the top fold in the image is horizontal and parallel to the border?
OR tell us why the the seal on the photo shows up about 3000% better than the scan?
Maybe you'd like to show us an image of these "scanner artifacts," which you will not find anywhere on the Internet
Perhaps you will show us how these mysterious "scanner artifacts" appeared on the Kos COLB by recreating one?
Or, that second fold. Where did it go?
Or, put your money where your mouth is, and bet me that the Kos image is a real scan. Go ahead, make my day.
Thank you for expounding on our objections here Koyaan.
As is often the case, the loudest more annoying jackasses end up setting the tone of debate on online forums, and though I’m certain a large majority of Freepers with a particular interest in this will agree with you, they have, just as you will do soon, given up on this nutcase conspiracy and abandon the debate floor and let the lunatics take over the rotunda.
This COLB bullshit has been one of the lowest points in FR’s history. FR’s owners have in the past banned Bauer, Keyes, Guiliani, Steve Forbes, and Ron Paul supporters, but this crew of gutter trash conspiracy theorists roam free on this forum to this day.
And quite frankly, there is no reason for you to stay, because the interested parties whom you have exposed are a vindictive bunch, and will hound you here. If you stay, more power to you.
So, thank you, and I hope you find another conservative online forum to participate in, and best of luck with your audio venture.
Regards,
JH
150% correct. They are well-known and well-defined at the pixel level to me, and if you made a million scans of a real 2007 COLB, you would never find them.
You could have saved yourself all this work because I no longer have them listed as possible direct comparisons.
I kept only the things that I could demonstrate, such as no second fold (said that, what..two months ago), diagonal top fold, prominent embossed seal on photo, not on scan etc.
Is that all you got?All rhetorical questions since he was banned before you asked them.Maybe you can tell us why the top fold in the photo is slanted while the top fold in the image is horizontal and parallel to the border?
OR tell us why the the seal on the photo shows up about 3000% better than the scan?
Maybe you'd like to show us an image of these "scanner artifacts," which you will not find anywhere on the Internet
Perhaps you will show us how these mysterious "scanner artifacts" appeared on the Kos COLB by recreating one?
Or, that second fold. Where did it go?
Or, put your money where your mouth is, and bet me that the Kos image is a real scan. Go ahead, make my day.
I'd like to hear his answers. Can he be unbanned?
That may be true of the Michelle COLB. But look at photo #1 at FactCheck. That seal shows up distinctly on the front side. It's heavily embossed and very detailed. If KOS and the first FactCheck image was a scan of this same paper document, shouldn't that seal have been clearly visible?
I also think the folds would have shown up better in a scan. The heavier paper is cracked at the top fold, yet on the scan it's barely visible.
I don't think the scan that has been online since June was a scan of this document at all.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
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.
