AFTER BIRTH - LFBC Digital Document Analysis

The Hacker Factor Blog ^ | Thursday, April 28. 2011 | Dr. Neal Krawetz

[Tex-Con-Man]

Preface

Before I begin, I need to point out two critical items for this evaluation. First, digital document analysis can detect manipulation, but it cannot determine whether the original subject is authentic. The authenticity can only be determined by the State of Hawaii, and they already said that it is authentic.

Second, we don't know the history of this PDF document released by the White House. Specifically, we don't know who scanned in the paper document and turned it into a PDF document.

Now, on to the analysis to determine whether there is anything funny with the PDF document released by the White House...

Contents

Let's start with the basics. The document released yesterday contains a signature at the bottom because it is a re-release. As I understand it, most states only issue two "original" birth certificates: one goes to the parents, and one goes to the state. If the parents lose their original, then the state can issue a certificate but not another original. (The states won't give up their original, and the phrase "another original" defeats the purpose of "original".) However, Hawaii made an exception at the President's request and re-issued a new original. Make no mistake: this new document is an original, even if it was not created on the day he was born.

This document itself appears to be a photocopy of a document that was created on his birth. You can see the left edge bending and having an acceptable drift. It appears to have been scanned onto official thatched paper, and then it was rubber-stamped, signed, and dated with the current date. Again: nothing suspicious.

Moreover, this document contains all of the same information found on the previous form, released nearly three years ago. Neither Obama nor Hawaii have changed their story. Everything is consistent. There is nothing suspicious.

PDF Documents

The image itself was released as a PDF document. As image analysis goes, I hate PDF files. There is only one way to create a BMP (ignoring different versions). PNG and JPEG files have a little variability, but are mainly limited by the encoding library. But with PDF files, anything goes. Each image in a PDF is given an object ID. The image IDs can be stored as anything from vector graphics to bitmaps or embedded JPEGs. Moreover, images can be segmented or made in layers.

The concern about potential tampering comes from the fact that the PDF released by the White House uses a segmented image. The PDF itself contains 9 images: one color JPEG and 8 monochrome bitmaps. These images combine when the PDF document is rendered to display the full image.

The people who think that a segmented image equates to tampering clearly do not know how PDF documents work. The simplest segmentation happens when an alpha channel is used for image transparency. While many of the image formats stored in a PDF file support alpha channels, this isn't how they are usually rendered. Instead, the PDF usually contains two images: one is the image without an alpha channel, and the other is a bitmask containing the alpha channel.

Bitmasks can also be segmented in order to reduce space. For example, if most of the active masked pixels are contained in a 1454x1819 rectangle, but a small section is located outside that rectangle, then the data can be packed more efficiently by segmenting the mask. Although a larger mask could be used, it would really result it a bitmask with significantly more inactive pixels being stored.

An image mask can only store two colors. Usually this is "black" and "white". However, PDFs permit any two colors. It is not uncommon to have one mask store everything "black" on the page, and another store everything that is a specific "gray" color. And remember: by moving these specific, uniform colors into individual bitmasks, it reduces the variation seen in the color JPEG. Less variation means better compression, so the result is a more efficiently compressed document -- in theory. (I added "in theory" because sometimes the full color image would actually be a more efficient storage method. But that's what you get with heuristic encoding systems.)

The birth certificate PDF contains one image (a color JPEG) and eight bitmasks. The main image is PDF object ID 7 0 (ID #7, revision 0) and is 1652x1276. This image looks like the fully rendered image, but it is missing everything that is completely black (mostly black text). The largest bitmask is ID 9 0 and is 1454x1819. When the image is rendered, it is rotated 90-degrees (1819x1454) and masks out the text in the JPEG image. (The image definition actually says "/ImageMask true".) This masking adds the black to the image. (With a PDF mask, one color is ignored and the other identifies where the color should be placed. In this case, the color applied to the mask is black. But don't confuse the black in the mask with the black applied by the mask; one is a color and the other denotes the location to put the color.)



All of these bitmaps are combined in object ID 6 0 to form the full image:

6 0 obj
<< /ProcSet [ /PDF /ImageB /ImageC /ImageI ] /ColorSpace << /Cs2 26 0 R /Cs1 11 0 R >> /XObject << /Im7 20 0 R /Im8 22 0 R /Im9 24 0 R /Im2 9 0 R /Im4 14 0 R /Im1 7 0 R /Im6 18 0 R /Im3 12 0 R /Im5 16 0 R >> >>
endobj

This PDF code says that the main image consists of a color space defined by ID 26 0 ("26 0 R" is a reference to "26 0"; this is basically equivalent to a macro inclusion or function call) and ID 11 0. The color space is how the PDF rendering systems knows what color to apply to each mask. The object then includes a bunch of masks with the main image in layers.

Is this uncommon?

The big question is: why use a bitmask to add black to the image, instead of just rendering the image with black? The answer is: I hate PDF documents. There are an infinite number of ways to store an image in a PDF document, and the PDF encoding system used to create the PDF decided to use this method. This isn't even odd or abnormal. It is strictly dependent on the encoding system and encoding parameters. Even choices like "apply color profile", "optimize for printer", "use this paper size", and "export as PDF" vs "Save as PDF" can seriously tweak how the final PDF is generated; it usually isn't as simple as scaling or recoloring.

Another question that I expect to be asked: Why aren't all of the letters in the masks? The masks are only monochrome and act like a stencil. A single color is applied based on the masked regions. The fact that some letters are not in the masks shows that the images were scanned in and not everything dark is actually black. There is a significant amount of black, suggesting color correction or possibly OCR-based letter extraction during the scanning or conversion to PDF. I've seen this in other PDF documents, so this does not strike me as odd.

The PDF released by the White House shows no sign of digital manipulation or alterations. I see nothing that appears to be suspicious.

Update 2011-04-30: Conspiracies

The latest round of conspiracies concerning this PDF file seem to repeat the same misinformation:

• False claim #1: The picture was made in layers so it is fake. As I explained above, the layers are masked elements created by the PDF encoder; it is not an indication of tampering. Moreover, the false claims repeatedly claim that the layers are images. This is incorrect: they are image masks, not images. (The difference is a stencil vs a picture created by using the stencil.) And they are masks that combine to form the image, not independent layers. Finally, if you look at the colored JPEG, you can see a white outline where all of the masks are applied -- so the lettering does exist in both the JPEG and masks. The PDF encoder did not take a blank document and add text to it; it took an existing image and separated it out. As I explained above: this was likely done for OCR processing or to improve the compression rate.
  
  
• False claim #2: The PDf was created with an Adobe tool. Some false claims say Photoshop, while others say Adobe Illustrator or some other Adobe program. The truth is seen in the PDF meta data (object IDs 36 0, 33 0, and 1 0): it was created using Apple Preview on a Mac OS X 10.6.7 system. The PDF encoder was "Mac OS X 10.6.7 Quartz PDFContext" (that's the back-end system library on a Mac). No Adobe front-end application was used to create this document. (You can also see this in the way the objects are ordered in the PDF document. Adobe generally writes the object IDs in numerical order. But whatever created this PDF document used prefix numbering and postfix writing to the file. This was not created by an Adobe product.) Statements by the conspirators about how the White House secretary did a poor job with photoshop are lying to you because this government-wage worker never used photoshop.

Finally, birthers make their boldest claims when they hide behind anonymity. Acclaimed image analysis expert "TechDude" was praised by birthers until he was outed as an anonymous fraud who was impersonating the credentials of a real forensics expert. "Polarik" was a huge anonymous expert until he was publicly exposed and shown to not have the credentials that he claimed. (To Ronald J. Polland aka Polarik: Running a dating web site is not the same as having image analysis experience, and why do you claim to work at a university when the university's faculty list does not include you? Perhaps this dating expert is just lonely... according to Facebook, "Ron has 1 friends".)

Already, anonymous experts are saying that the document is fake. Personally, I wouldn't put much stock in claims from any anonymous source. Some people have already started impersonations in order to give their theories more credibility. For example, Colonel Robert F. Cunningham reportedly sent out a heated email stating that he knows that the document is fake because of the layers in the PDF. The problem is, Colonel Cunningham died nearly 3 months ago. Either someone is impersonating the late Colonel for the credentials, or his ghost has email access. Either way, he does not strike me as an expert in digital document forensics.

Update 2011-05-03
Nathan Goulding has a great write-up for making the Quartz PDFContext library generate a PDF with masks -- just like those seen in this birth certificate. In his example, he is not doing anything fancy or special. He just selects one optimization setting.

[bluecat6]

Ok, so can we get an optimized scan of the college records now?

[Texas Fossil]

Your link is BS!

Dated:

Tuesday, November 25. 2008

This has nothing to do with the “abstract” of the “long form” COLB recently released.

You are blowing smoke.

[Texas Fossil]

I am convinced the document is a fraud, for many reasons not addressed above.

Agreed.

[kjo]

Exactly. Can one other birth certificate be found around that period that has “african” instead of “negro” or “colored”? If such were to show up I’d start to think about dropping this thing.

[Elendur]

i agree. those 2 items alone, i think are definitive proof of fraud in the LFBC.
i’m no techie either. i admit i don’t understand a lot of this. i’m nothing special. i’m just an ordinary old retired military guy. but i’m not stupid. and i’m a skeptic about most things.
the AZ shooting of that Marine... i thought was bogus from the start. even when some Policemen were trying to slander the man. now, evidence is coming out, that not only did they murder him, by letting him bleed to death for 1 hour and 14 minutes, but they also planted the “big gun”. i’m good at evaluating facts.
(this Obama stuff, isn’t even in my top three topics to study. what i’ve read the most about, in the past few years, in the AGW global warming hoax, and about Islam, which i have studied in GREAT depth, compared to this.)

...but i have read hundreds of pages by Butterdezillion and others. and watched vicious attacks by people here, for honest questions. and seen myself, how things have been scrubbed over the years on the internet... and i have NO doubt that there is a great fraud and coverup. the CT SSN alone proves that. ...and just a tiny example:
why would Hawaii give a copy of the birth index, with Virginia Sunahara listed, then write a letter to Butterdezillion, claiming they have no record of V.S.?

it proves nothing by itself, but added to the mountain of other things... that is all consistent with fraud and coverup... Occam’s Razor. so i think it should be investigated.

And FReepers are the best people in the world for this job. Not only are they smart, but they truly care about our country, that Obama is destroying. If Freepers can’t do it, then i have no hope for the future.

[Tex-Con-Man]

WTF are you talking about?

The article I posted is about the LFBC and is dated April 28th, 2011.

The link in the article takes you to an older article (2008) on their blog where they point out the orginal document was authenticated by Hawaiian officials.

No one has made any false or misleading claims.

How am I blowing smoke?

[butterdezillion]

I had a hard time reading further when they claimed that two originals were made - one for the parents and one for the state. That is bunk. The BC’s made for parents are not the same ones given to the state. Starting out with that inaccuracy did not help this guy’s case at all.

Referencing “Techdude” didn’t help his case either.

His failure to mention any of the experts who HAVE used their names and said that the BC is a fake didn’t help either. Seems like this guy cherry-picked his examples to address what may have been Obot-planted disinformation, as if that was the whole case being made, when in reality there is much, much more credible stuff out there that he fails to address. I hadn’t even heard of the stuff that he references, so how did he know and concentrate on that but fail to notice the Photoshop author/expert who said it was a 100% forgery? That cherry-picking makes this “report” seem like an Obot defense of the BC rather than anything credible.

And when he said that the HDOH had already confirmed the genuineness I wondered what he’s been smoking. The HDOH claims they sent 2 certified copies of a long-form BC. They refuse to say whether what they sent is what Obama posted.

His failure to address the points actually made regarding what is on the BC makes this a ho-hum article. The whole summary is: just because the document COULD HAVE BEEN manipulated doesn’t prove that it was. Well.... the content that he refused to address is what show that it was manipulated. Stuff like the type that doesn’t bend with the page it was supposedly on. Or the BC# ending in 41 that was changed to 61. Or the seal looking like it does, in comparison with photos I took of the seal on my daughter’s death certificate.

As far as I can tell, no reporter was allowed to see the document close enough to know whether there was or wasn’t a seal on it. Savannah Guthrie says she felt the seal but what was said in the gaggle does not support that claim - since a reporter specifically asked about whether the paper certificate would be made available to reporters and was laughed at and basically told no.

I haven’t looked into it in detail, but I remember somebody saying that the exif data for the photos copyrighted to J Scott Applewhite shows they were supposedly taken before the PDF was even created - which, if true, would mean the White House allowed a secret showing to one person and neither the White House nor that person is willing to say anything more about when, how, or why that happened. When a reporter at the gaggle asked if it wouldn’t do more to respond to skeptics if he actually made the document itself available.... he/she was laughed at and told that some people will never believe so they don’t need to worry about what will convince skeptics.

This author doesn’t address any of that - which strongly suggests that the White House is keeping the original PAPER certificate well-concealed, which is what everybody had been asking for all along.

Savannah Guthrie and J Scott Applewhite should be grilled, to find out when they even claim to have taken those photos, and how they alone were supposedly given access - and why they have not given those details publicly. And why a seal that Guthrie supposedly felt only shows up as a few squiggles on her photo - especially when compared with the great detail that shows up when I photographed my daughter’s seal.

There is way, way more here than meets the eye, but the people who hold the secrets will never give us anything substantial until they are under oath, if then.

WND claims its sources at the HDOH told them when the forged BC was placed in the HDOH files - which was exactly what I was saying the clues we were given publicly suggested as well.

On my blog I have documented that the 1960-64 birth index includes listings for legally-nonvalid records, including the birth names of adopted children, which are sealed by the court and by law. I have documented that the HDOH sent out 2 different documents that they said were copies of a single page from the 1960-64 birth index book in their office.

There is NO DOUBT but that the HDOH has manipulated their records to cover for Obama. Given that documented criminality on their part, Obama’s “privacy” is totally outweighed by the public need to hold the HDOH accountable for their criminal violations. At this point we MUST have all paper and computer records involved in this cover-up released and audited. This is not about Obama. It is about a government agency’s criminal behavior.

[butterdezillion]

I have scanned many documents as PDF’s and have never had anything like this happen.

Furthermore, I have taken and posted on my blog photos of my daughter’s death certificate and could take any more that anybody required in order to believe that it is a real document with a real seal. I am as unsophisticated and computer-unsavvy as a person can be and even dumb ol’ me was able to do that much. Why are these smart, sophisticated, highly-motivated, highly-paid lawyer-types unable to do that? This is not rocket science.

At any point then or now they could do what I did and the whole problem with a PDF could be eliminated.

They wouldn’t even let anybody at that gaggle examine the paper copy in person. They had it right there; why not even let anybody see it, for heaven’s sake?

Even the supposed “copy” they made of the long-form was not taken from the actual certified paper copy; it was taken from paper that wasn’t security paper, since print on a page below it bled onto the copy during scanning - which introduces a step in the process where manipulation could be done. IOW, EVERYTHING THEY SHOWED was specifically created in a context that allowed manipulation.

[Tex-Con-Man]

I had a hard time reading further when they claimed that two originals were made - one for the parents and one for the state. That is bunk. The BC’s made for parents are not the same ones given to the state. Starting out with that inaccuracy did not help this guy’s case at all.

In the comments section following the article, Dr. Conspiracy corrects him.

His failure to mention any of the experts who HAVE used their names and said that the BC is a fake didn’t help either.

This article is a month old. At the time he wrote it, it may have been true.

For me, the value of this article is in explaining the scan to PDF process. There is a great deal of misinformation about that subject posted here on FR.

[kjo]

No question...this bc stuff smells really, really bad. The immediate problem is...wagging the Osama dog seems to have worked pretty well here. Even Hannity got scared off and canceled Corsi.

You gotta give the criminals in the WH this: They did a heck of a good hit job on Corsi...and btw...anyone now questioning Obama’s LFBC is a “racist”. Who in the national media is going to step into that?

They even have O’Reilly claiming that Obama got his SS# in Connecticut, likely while visiting his father there while dad was a student at Harvard...wait a minute...is Harvard in Connecticut? Thought it was in Taxachusetts?

Wanna bet O’Reilly gets more white house interviews?

Nobody will lead the charge on this.

[butterdezillion]

What original document are you talking about? Where has Hawaii ever told us that a specific document was what they have in their office? They refused to say that regarding the COLB and about the long-form.

Mark Niesse wrote an article saying that the only document the HDOH can reveal regarding Obama’s BC is the 1960-64 birth index. And lo and behold, I have just documented that the HDOH has manipulated their 1960-64 birth index (2 different versions of the exact same page) AND that it includes legally non-valid records (the birth names of adopted children, which are legally required to be SEALED, not available to the public).

IOW, the only documentation the HDOH can provide is something that just so happens to be criminally altered.

And the HDOH says they can’t tell anybody - even law enforcement - if a forgery is used. Seems like that is a direct LIE by Okubo, given that Hawaii participates in EVVE, which is specifically for the purpose of identifying forgeries to employers and law enforcement.

So it is absolutely false to say that the HDOH has verified the genuineness of any particular document.

And even if you look at Fukino’s statement, she does not comment on the genuineness or legal validity of the records they have for Obama. She only says she has seen them and that they claim a Hawaii birth for Obama.

That claim was made in response to Miss Tickly asking whether she can verify that they have Obama’s AMENDED birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures (policies and procedures which Fukino was actually illegally hiding at the time!). Fukino never responded to Miss Tickly’s question, but she responded to Miss Tickly’s request for documents by DENYING ACCESS to the receipts and invoices resulting from Obama amending his BC, which is an admission that those receipts and invoices existed.

[kjo]

They’ve already forged a bc...forging college transcripts is even easier.

These people are professional out-of-Chicago criminals...we are going to have to beat them on the issues.

[butterdezillion]

The only people who can be trusted to preserve this nation at this point are we the people.

We need to lead the charge.

Specifically through ballot initiatives, IMHO.

Maybe by a deluge of open letters to state AG’s calling for a criminal investigation of the HDOH - preferably honest state AG’s who don’t have political aspirations, if such a bird exists.

Maybe by telling the R party we don’t have time, money, or votes for people who refuse to keep their oath to protect and defend the US Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic.

Maybe by writing to Sean Hannity and others and saying that we have no interest in listening to them because they refuse to address the most serious problem this nation faces. Tell them that just as CNN’s credibility was hijacked by Saddam Hussein in return for access/continued existence, Fox’s credibility has been hijacked by Soros et al to actually get “conservatives” to enable treason, and those “conservatives’” credibility is shot.

[butterdezillion]

The computer logs have to be audited. There is no reason for them to NOT be audited, and it’s the only way we’re ever gonna know what really happened on any of this stuff. If we had a functioning law enforcement system this would have been done a long, long time ago.

We need to kick-start our sleeping and/or politicized law enforcement system. At the state level is probably the best chance of success.

[Tex-Con-Man]

What original document are you talking about?

First of all, I never made any claims.

The author claimed Hawaiian officials authenticated the original document. The current article linked to an older article on the same blog where the subject was discussed.

Texas Fossil pointed out that the link in the article I posted didn't work. In a subsequent post, I provided the correct link.

For some reason, TF accused me of “blowing smoke”, even though all I did was correct a bad link.

I personally have no interest in rehashing what Hawaiian officials may or may not have said.

Again...The authors insight into the scan/PDF/OCR software process is what I found interesting.

[Jeff Winston]

...so why is he posting this article about “layers”, that no one cares about now on either side, and making the provable false claim, that there are no experts willing to state their name, when many have done so, including in sworn affidavits under penalty of perjury?

Because at the time that was all the buzz. He posted this one month ago today, on April 28, the day after the birth certificate was released. This analysis was one of the very first out of the gate. We just hadn't heard about it.

[BuckeyeTexan]

The article is pretty old. So his claims about anonymous experts were true at the time. Likewise, his failure to address some of the things you mention can also be attributed to the date of his article. He referenced TechDude as an exposed fraud. The article was intended to address the “layers” claim.

How do we know that the original documents given to parents aren’t the same as what is bound into the volumes on file at the HDoH?

[Herbster]

“I have scanned many documents as PDF’s and have never had anything like this happen.”

---

Of course! This is all just more Obot obfuscation My scans are beautiful, I don’t think I could ever make something that looks as horribly disgusting as the PDF put to the public from the white house. OCR or Optimization would not make the document text look worse. What, did they scan this thing at 15 DPI or something?

It is impossible to base any analysis on such a poor excuse of an ‘original’ that no court in the world would ever accept as evidence of anything but a tampered document.

Also, speaking of Savannah Guthrie, did you see the pictures of comparisons posted about the different anomalies from the stamps?

I posted this to charlene4
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2724841/posts?page=22#22

[little jeremiah]

And a bit more info about Krawetz, he may not be the graphics expert he claims to be. What we need is a battle of the experts and let them duke it out.

http://bogusbirthcertificate.blogspot.com/

[little jeremiah]

Take a look at the link I just posted above. Sort of sheds a different light on Krawetz.