It's Official! Hawaii never issued Obama's 2007 Certification of Live Birth

The Greater Evil ^ | 07/14/2009 | Polarik

[Polarik]

Today is July 14, and in the space of less than two months, Obama's Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs, has acknowledged, for a second time, that Obama had posted a copy of his Certification of Live Birth (COLB) on the Internet and one that Gibbs alleges is a real certificate sent by Hawaii.

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.

As you now know, and hopefully everyone else will begin to know, there never was a 2007 Obama COLB to copy or to photograph. It was a BIG FAT LIE! It was nothing more than a fabricated image made to look like a COLB image -- an image unlike any other. The fact that this COLB does not exist effectively silences all of Obama supporters, apologists, and members of his Administration who, despite this harsh reality, continue to insist that this COLB is a real document, and with an avowed distain for those who question it. 

Although the bulk of my COLB research and report writing was finished in November of last year, I continued to investigate the COLB to cover all possible bases of criticism that anyone could ever make about the image and photos. From the very beginning, more than a year ago, the crux of my empirical research was always to determine if it was even possible to naturally produce a "scan image" that looked like the one Obama posted on the Internet. What I learned from a year's worth of investigations, is that, not only is it impossible to create this "scan image" naturally from a real paper COLB, it is also impossible to create a "scan image" at all as the image shown on the Internet was fabricated from two different sources and two different media!

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.

As for the "green thatched" background (which looks more bluish than green), I know that it came from a scan of someone else's COLB - whose COLB doesn't matter - because the border pattern (the actual "security" paper used for all COLBS), remains the same from year to year. In fact, it is the one thing that remains constant for all COLBs and what allows me to take accurate measurements of the COLB's features, like the width for the borders, the size of the embossed Seal, location of the folds, and so on.

As for how the forger produced the black text, that was the easy part. Simply take a full color COLB, reduce the number of color channels to two, that is, simply make it a black and white image. The black text and the black masthead remain, while the background goes white. Select the white background, click CUT, and presto, it's like printing the black parts on a sheet of clear plastic, except that the forger is using a graphics program to create individual layers. The text is put on one layer, just the green thatched background on another layer, and then a layer containing the made-to-order border. 

 

Then, by merging these individual layers into one composite image, and doing some touch-ups to the image to hide the signs of layering, you have a finished product that looks like an image made directly from, let's say, a digital scanner. 

 
Then, when all was done, the next step would be to merge all of the layers together into one composite image, adjust the colors of the image, alternate between smoothing and sharpening to hide the signs of alteration, and then save the original image and send copies of it by email to the Daily Kos, Factcheck, Politifact, et al.

 

As they say, "The rest is history." A very sordid history, in my opinion.

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.

With the assistance of a few FReepers looking at the Factcheck photos under magnification, what we have seen are letters that appear to "float" above the paper as opposed to being "burned in" by a laser printer. If you have ever used what's called "dry transfer lettering," then you would know what I mean. Except that, for this forgery, instead of applying letters individually, the entire forged image was printed onto a special type of self-adhesive, clear film that was peeled off its backing and attached to the front of either a sheet of photo paper imprinted with the green background, or a sheet of blank security paper, and then stamped with a Seal similar to what is used in Hawaii's DOH.

Look at this photo comparison between the first seven letters of the word, "CERTIFICATION NO." in a real 2007 COLB (top)  versus the bogus 2007 COLB in Factcheck's photo #5 (bottom). The arrows on the bottom photo are pointing to the shadows cast by the letters:

 

 

Normal laser print is "burned" into the paper, and you can see the crinkly-edges along the outside of each letter in the top photo. The letters in the bottom photo have shadows under them and they look like they were printed on a sheet of clear plastic and laid on top of a patterned piece of paper.

 

It also looks like that someone within Hawai's DOH may also be involved in constructing this forged document object by either smuggling out a few sheets of pre-stamped security paper to an Obama aide when he was in Hawaii on August 9, or who took the constructed document object from an aide, stamped it and embossed it, and gave it back to him or her.

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:

1. There is not, nor has there ever been, a real paper 2007 COLB produced for Obama that contains his actual birth information on record.
   
2. Hawaii has never produced a copy of Obama's original Birth Certificate or a Certification of Live Birth that was allegedly scanned and posted online, as claimed by the Obama Administration, Factcheck, Politifact, and others.
   
3. Obama, members of his administration, and cohorts at Factcheck, are responsible for producing, not one, but two falsified government documents, thus committing document fraud in violation of Federal laws.
   
4. Obama, members of his campaign organization, Obama for America, ,and cohorts at Factcheck, are responsible for producing, not one, but two falsified government documents used for the purposes of soliciting funds via the Internet, thus committing Internet fraud in violation of Federal laws.
   
5. Obama, members of his campaign organization, Obama for America, and cohorts at Factcheck, are responsible for producing, not one, but two falsified government documents used for purposes of soliciting votes for Obama as President, thus committing voter fraud in violation of Federal laws.
   
6. Obama, members of his campaign organization, Obama for America, and his cohorts at Factcheck, are responsible for producing, not one, but two falsified government documents for the purposes of deceiving Americans, members of Congress, and members of the justice system, that Obama was born in Hawaii and is a US citizen, and for obstructing justice by using it as an excuse to prevent the release of his real long-form birth certificate.
   

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?

[Danae]

PS don’t be fooled by the size difference, I had cut off the top of mine when I scanned it originally.

[Danae]

PS don’t be fooled by the size difference, I had cut off the top of mine when I scanned it originally. Not cut the document, I just didn’t have the top portion over the scanner plate I think.

[MHGinTN]

How is this done via Internet? ... And how would HI verify requests then send a secure copy over the INternet. I’m quite confused on this!

[cynwoody]

I ordered it - actually my mom did because I had no ID with which to get a copy of it, all of mine was stolen in 2000. Not something one can forget. I have no idea why its stamped 2007, and I wondered that at the time.

Right. Good thing you aren't running. LOL!

[Danae]

Part of the ordering process can be done through the internet I guess, email. Here is the site link with the instructions: http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/vital_records.html

[Danae]

LMAO... well apparently it doesn’t mater! Obama did it right? (rolls eyes)

[MHGinTN]

How could an Internet copy be a valid CoLB? What would require such an unsecure copy?

[Cicero]

Thanks for the ping to the new information in this post.

It certainly seems as if Obama is making efforts to expunge the COLB and throw the whole business down the Memory Hole.

But that ain’t gonna happen. Too many Obamabots have been citing the COLB as proof that anyone who raises the issue must be a nutcase.

Well, where do we stand now, then, with their chief piece of “evidence” pulled right out from under their feet?

[Danae]

Internet ORDERED copy. It gets mailed out in hard copy format. I think we are just miss understanding the difference here.

They don’t provide internet copies. They may in limited instances take an order from the internet. It says that on the site anyway.

A copy with out the physical raised seal would not be valid. Can’t get that off the internet! LOL

[MHGinTN]

I think it was this post of yours which confused me:

[[ 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. ]]

[Danae]

Sorry about that! Does it make sense now? I can hax cumuncation skiltz.

[warsaw44]

Bob, saw your latest youtube vid. Thought you'd appreciate this latest bit of info.

[Polarik]

Well, where do we stand now, then, with their chief piece of “evidence” pulled right out from under their feet?

As long as we're standing, I suggest that we gather near the front doors of your local NBC, ABC, and CBS news aflliliates, and protest

"Obama may be a citizen of the world, but he's an illegal alien here."

Our Fraudulent President proffered fraudulent evidence.

not in the USA.

[gonzo]

Bump for later read .............. FRegards

[annieokie]

Your good, will read more of it later. Very interesting stuff and hope it leads to more on O.

[El Gato]

I read here a few weeks ago that the State of Hawaii stopped issuing paper COLB long before 2007.

I think it was the Certificate of Live Birth, that is the original birth certificate, that some claim they stopped issuing in something like 2001. Not the Certification of Live Birth.

The problem with even that notion is that the Hawaii Home Lands program's website says that they require, or at least prefer the Certificate, and gives instructions on how to obtain a copy of it. OR IT DID. I just checked the link above, and it now says that they no longer issue Certificates of Live Birth.

Basically, in the past, it took longer, but cost the same. It took longer because they have to physically pull the original, or a microfilm copy of it and make a copy of that.

These days they could, and may, scan the original into an image file, store that, and call it up as needed, as easily as generating the Certification. The difference would be that the image would take a lot more storage to store an image, rather than the information contained on the Certification. But either way, all you'd have to do would be to print the image, or the information and the form it goes on, on demand, then stamping it with the seal, date and signature bloc.

The Home Lands Program site linked above, now says:

The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands accepts both Certificates of Live Birth (original birth certificate) and Certifications of Live Birth because they are official government records documenting an individual’s birth. The Certificate of Live Birth generally has more information which is useful for genealogical purposes as compared to the Certification of Live Birth which is a computer-generated printout that provides specific details of a person’s birth. Although original birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth) are preferred for their greater detail, the State Department of Health (DOH) no longer issues Certificates of Live Birth. When a request is made for a copy of a birth certificate, the DOH issues a Certification of Live Birth.

As I say that is recent change, sometime this year, well after the Birth Certificate controversy became widespread.

It used to say. "In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green," the qualifications state. "This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL."

Sounds like the fix is in in Hawaii. However the original, long form, certificate, does still exist in their files, or so they say.

[unspun]

Good stuff, good doctor.

I’ve made sure to add you to the “usurper” blogroll in the I.O. Sidebar at http://investigatingobama.blogspot.com

I’m concerned that something big is afoot — some sort of switch may have been pulled — by good guys or bad. I’ll probably comment there.

[PhilDragoo]

[Steve Van Doorn]

Thank you very much.

[melsec]

The question in this case would not relate to how many servicemen asked but rather - do they have standing. One may argue that a serviceman may have standing due to the fact that he is directly affected by the O’s orders and must place his life on the line. As those powers that be have already ruled that your average Joe does not have standing then I think they will rule against this Major -nice try and under a fairminded system I think it would be a winner but not with the Democrats leanign over SCOTUS’ shoulders.

Mel