Why the Obama Birth Certificate is a Bust

4/27/11 | HMV

[Hillary'sMoralVoid]

The Obama Birth Certificate presents far more questions than answers:

First of all, it is not a source document or even a direct copy of a source document. It is an electronic document (PDF) seemingly derived from an OCR process that treats some portions of the document as images and some as characters. At best, it is a second generation document that emulates the original but is not an exact copy. Because of this, one cannot ascertain whether the variations between the original and the OCR-derived document distort the data, either intentionally or unintentionally. At worst, it is a forgery.

Secondly, it is incomprehensible why anyone would take a source document and convert it into an electronic document through a process that creates a hybrid of characters and images, unless there was a desire to tamper with those images and characters. To allow such a document to be published in this manner just begs for deeper scrutiny.

Third, to publish the document with the layers of the images and characters still intact further compromises the credibility of the document. This publishing job has been described as "amateurish", not a term anyone would want to use to describe what should be incontrovertable proof of one's birth. In the format it was presented, it offers present-day sleuths to peel back the layers and perform forensic analysis.

Finally, to present this image of an original 1961 document over a present-day computer-generated background is perplexing, and certainly detracts from the fidelity with the original that the document should possess.

A simple image file can certainly be photo-shopped, but a certified image would present a more accurate and professional means of communicating the content of what is supposedly in the files in Honolulu.

This document reminds me of an old Buick in Cuba that still sorta looks like a Buick, but doesn't have many original parts, but is loaded down with excessive paraphenalia that only detracts from it's original appearance.

The question that lingers in the case of the Obama Birth Certificate is "Why?".

[cruise_missile]

These links are not all layering:

To people that use Adobe this is a forgery.
Obama’s new Birth Certificate - Proven to be altered and changed, Now Just More Questions?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9CSvGrT0uM

President Obama’s Birth Certificate PDF has Layers - FAKE! (mirror)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-gDH5z0PKI
Obama’s Long Form Certificate of Birth Certificate is a Forgery ~ 04-27-11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQkulIT7iL
This guy tried to get multiple layers from a scanned in document. Couldn’t.

White House Birth Certificate is Forgery? 2 of 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPX33ZNdmlo

Obama’s Birth Certificate Is 100% Fake? Professional Graphics Designer Agrees It’s A Fake 1 of 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCMxVbPCPBY

Why does President Obama’s Birth Certificate PDF Have Layers? 3 of 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLTtengEvwk

Obama’s Birth Certificate Exposed Debunked as a Layered, Photoshopped, Fraud Hoax? 4 of 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeSzXcv3nXk

Obama Birth Certificate Scam? 2011-04-27 Obama.mp4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eOfYwYyS_c

[WOSG]

“One of them is the “Green Background” certificate. I believe that has been shown to have been assembled (by someone unknown) from various components. “

It was not ‘assembled’. There are no manipulations.
It was scanned on a Mac using and OCR enabled scanner from the legit physical long form Certificate of Live Birth that was gotten from state of Hawaii. Those artifacts are simply due to that process. And a real, and legit Birth Certificate was at the start of that process.

Why different ones? Simple. Physical copies were given to reporters, like AP, who then apparently scanned them in black and white.

Sigh, if you cant see that this is case closed, it’s really hopeless.

More birther stupidity will follow from taking false conclusions and running with them.

[TigerClaws]

He addresses the white document as well.

It seems to me the white doc was the original Xerox. Then that was copied onto the green paper.

But they may have put in aberrations just to keep the argument going. They want to marginalize it. Having it too perfect would stop all the noise. They aren’t going to introduce it into any court.

[Sprite518]

DO you understand layering??? That’s how you build a web page. There are over 50 of them on the White House Document. The AP version has no layers as it should.

Looks like someone in the White House screwed up by putting up the wrong document. Why do you not understand that?

[Jack Black]

Check the link. It's in the AP Photo Archives as image #110427018673. It has a white background. It is called "handout of image given at press conference".

Here is a picture of it on the web:

Here is the full AP article that includes the image from the Syracuse Times, identifying it as an AP Image:

AP Story w/ AP Image of "Handout" from Syracuse.com.

Here is an important piece of information: the image was taken by J.P. Applewhite. So, in this case we know the source of the image - it was taken by Mr. Applewhite, a professional photographer, of a piece of paper that was handed out at the White House presser.

Denninger's excellent video analyzes this and shows it is a picture of a piece of paper, not a multi-layer photoshop creation.

What is definiately is NOT howeer this is a photocopy of the Green Background version posted on the web site, as the official version - because the green background would reproduce on a photocopy (and perhaps render the image unreadable, which I believe is one of the reasons for having the green anti-forgery background to start with).

So I ask again: how did the White House get two different versions of the same document? Did Hawaii give Obama both the Green and White background versions? Really?? If not which was used to create the other. (It seems obvious that the Green was created, so perhaps the White is the "original copy"?

Link to largest version of "White Background" "AP" or "White House Hand Out" version of the BC.

[Jack Black]

The video debunks the Green Version, but not the White Version. Denninger says tha they White Version is a straight one-layer photograph. The AP says they took the picture, and have thoughtfully provided the name of the photographer. It appears to have been taken of a handout that reporters received. The handout could not have been made from the “Green Version” without some of the green safety background showing up.

So there are TWO completely different facsimilies of the supposed Obama birth certificate that were released today, not one. Even the Denninger video makes this obvious.

We’ve already figured out the Green is a composite. It appears it was made from the White. The White, therefore, is the more interesting, difficult document that requires investigation.

[butterdezillion]

Because Obama thinks it’s just hilarious to play “chicken” with a decorated military surgeon who took his oath to defend the Constitution seriously and would be in Afghanistan healing our wounded heroes if he wasn’t sitting in jail for 6 months and having their family bankrupted by Obama’s absolutely hilarious “circus”.

I’m absolutely splitting a gut laughing over the wounded men in Afghanistan who will die or suffer lifelong consequences because a good surgeon couldn’t get an honest answer from his supposed Commander-in-Chief and his conscience wouldn’t allow him to ignore his oath to defnd the Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic.

Just rolling on the floor thinking of wounded and potentially untreated arms, legs, eyes, and brain damage that Obama’s little “joke” is enabling.

What a charmer that Obama is. What an absolute charmer.

Gag.

This manipulated abstract that Obama posted STILL says the number it was supposedly given on Aug 8th is higher/later than the number given to the Nordyke girls on Aug 11th. How do you explain that?

[BobP]

This BC released today is not an image of the original.

Notice that at the bottom it says its a certified copy or an abstract. Mr. Obama is a theoretical American.

A document presented with OCR is already digitally altered. If you have already altered one thing, you can easily alter something else with the click of a mouse. A document with 1961 writing and a 21st Century safety paper background is obviously not the original.

To determine authenticity you need a real, actual document.

So did the president act stupidly by releasing a faked document? Maybe not.

If the State of Hawaii put an official seal on it then that ends the discussion of the authenticity as far as any court is concerned. Every state and court must give full faith and credit to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every State. And federal courts are also required to give full faith and credit to the public records of every state.

Hawaii says they have certified this copy. So legally, that ends the issue. It's entitled to full faith and credit.

At least maybe now the piss-stream media will stop insisting that the COLB is the birth certificate. And another distraction to keep from reporting on Obama's incompetence is also removed. /sarc

But if Obama became an Indonesian citizen (Barry Soetoro) when he was growing up there, when did he apply to become an American again?

On April 27, 2011 at a news conference Obama denounced the ''silliness,'' the ''sideshows and carnival barkers'' that forced him to release the document after years of speculation.

''We do not have time for this kind of silliness. We've got better stuff to do. I've got better stuff to do. We've got big problems to solve.'' the president said before flying off to Chicago. The press conference was held a few minutes after 9:45 a.m. At 10:05 a.m. he was in the air, according to a White House pool report, which noted ''Oprah awaits.''

The only carnival-barker sideshow that's been going on for 3 years has been the Obama Snake Oil Show.

Arrest me, for what? I'm late for Oprah!
I've got lies to tell and a nation to destroy.

[goodnesswins]

I kinda think the issue is....HE’s A FRAUD!

[Jack Black]

It was scanned on a Mac using and OCR enabled scanner from the legit physical long form Certificate of Live Birth that was gotten from state of Hawaii. Those artifacts are simply due to that process. And a real, and legit Birth Certificate was at the start of that process.

Where did the Green Background come from? The original obviously doesn't have a Green Background - they didn't exist in 1960. We know that becaues we've seen many other birth certificate copies and none have that. So the "scan" that you claim wsa done on a MAC using an OCR enabled scanner (even though there is no reason to use OCR to create a facsimile of an document) resulted in a white background document.

How did that scan come to have a green safety background on the official White House web site? What process was used?

Why different ones? Simple. Physical copies were given to reporters, like AP, who then apparently scanned them in black and white. (of what? They are certainly NOT physical copies of the Green Background document. Go try to photocopy a something with that background and see what you get.

The AP did not "scan" anything in black and white. Denninger has shown that the AP photo was taken with a color scanner or camera. The AP has a photo credit given. It is a picture of a handout, taken with a color camera, probably a high end Nikon or Cannon like the White House accredited AP guy no doubt uses every day.

The White House gave out handouts. What was the source for them?

[Jack Black]

Aug 8th is higher/later than the number given to the Nordyke girls on Aug 11th. How do you explain that?

In the time before computers sequentially numbered forms would have probably been created in batches. The blank forms would have been stamped with the rotating counter to generate the serial numbers. If you stamped 20 of them and stacked them up the lowest numbers would be on the bottom. So it's not that unusual for numbers to be in reverse order in batch sizes.

Stamp 1. Stamp 2. put on top of pile. Stamp 3. put on top. Stamp 4. put on top. Stamp 5 put on top.

Hand pile to nurse. First baby gets top of pile, #5, second baby gets second one in pile #4.

I've seen this sort of thing in working in document archives previously.

[butterdezillion]

It still shows a BC# given on Aug 8th that is higher than BC#’s given to the Nordyke twins on Aug 11th.

It still lacks note of the amendment the HDOH has indirectly confirmed was made in 2006.

And in spite of having all the information that would have been on a long-form, it claims to be an abstract from a larger record - a claim not made in past years for long-forms. We thus know there is more to his birth record - perhaps the “half written” part that Fukino mentioned, or the “actually written down” part that Abercrombie mentioned.

The only way we will ever know what this document is will have to be through disclosure of the embedded transaction logs that show the PROVENANCE and HISTORY of this record. Has that BC# always belonged to somebody named Barack Obama, or might it have belonged to somebody else until about 2008 when the name was changed to Obama’s? The transaction logs would tell us that.

[Jack Black]

It seems to me the white doc was the original Xerox. Then that was copied onto the green paper.

Yes, I agree. So focusing on the bad job copying white onto green doesn't say much. It would be intersting to know who did the copying of white on to green, but it's ultimatley a moot point.

It's the white document that should be gone over with a fine tooth comb for inconsistencies.

[WOSG]

Do you understand what you are talking about?
Read this and understand:

Scanning does create layers, it happens:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2711500/posts?page=33#33
PDF software will create layers:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2711500/posts?page=30#30

At #11 on the same thread:
“It happens when you clean up a scan with Adobe CS. I’ve had the same thing occur.
It’s just surprising that whoever did it didn’t flatten the image.”

There is no ‘wrong document’. Just a quick and sloppy scan of a physical document was made then sent to PDF. THAT’S ALL.

“The AP version has no layers as it should.” Because it was a picture of a different physical copy, using a completely different process.

If you see that sloppy scan-work and think “forgery”, well, gosh, it’s hopeless. As Nathan Goulding put it:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/265767/pdf-layers-obamas-birth-certificate-nathan-goulding
“What’s plausible is that somewhere along the way — from the scanning device to the PDF-creation software, both of which can perform OCR (optical character recognition) — these partial/pseudo-text images were created and saved. What’s not plausible is that the government spent all this time manufacturing Obama’s birth certificate only to commit the laughably rookie mistake of exporting the layers from Photoshop, or whatever photo editing software they are meant to have used. It’s likely that whoever scanned the birth certificate in Hawaii forgot to turn off the OCR setting on the scanner. Let’s leave it at that. “

As #21 says:
“People are really obsessed with proving Obama doesn’t have a birth certificate. Is that really healthy?”

[Jack Black]

You are avoiding answering the question of where the green background came from.

[butterdezillion]

I see no signs of a seal on the white document. Exactly where did that document come from? What are the 2 copies that Obama’s lawyer requested?

What Obama released raises more questions than it answers.

[WOSG]

Where did the Green Background come from? The original obviously doesn’t have a Green Background - they didn’t exist in 1960.”

That is simple - it was printed on ... MONDAY.

Here’s what happened:

The Hawaii DOH has on file the digital version of the original birth certificate. That digital version was made by scanning in the original physical document they have on file, and since they didnt bother taking it out of the binder the left edge faded back.

Upon request, they made a certified copy of the original Certificate of Live Birth, printed that certified copy of the Certificate of Live Birth on the green hatch security paper, signed/stamped it, 4-25-2011 and gave it to the Obama lawyer. The information is in black on the green hatch background. Obama team has 2 copies and they both look like that.

Then that physical document was scanned (with OCR) and turned into a PDF. black and white copies were also made.

“So the “scan” that you claim wsa done on a MAC using an OCR enabled scanner (even though there is no reason to use OCR to create a facsimile of an document) resulted in a white background document. “

NOPE. It was a color scanner and maintained the green background. OTOH, there were the artifacts and layers, etc. Not a sign of anything other than sloppy scanning.

“How did that scan come to have a green safety background on the official White House web site? What process was used? “

That was the printing done by the Hawaii DOH, that’s their security paper. They printed this certified copy on 4.25.2011 ... this Monday.

“The AP has a photo credit given. It is a picture of a handout, taken with a color camera, probably a high end Nikon or Cannon like the White House accredited AP guy no doubt uses every day. “

Correct! You got that one right.

Those black and white copies were passed out to journalists and AP put a jpeg of one by taking a picture of one of those copies on their website.

What you got wrong was thinking the plain version came first. Nope. The green hatch is the original. Copies were made from it in B&W. The green hatch got washed out in the B&W copy version.

This proves 2 things:
1. Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii
2. He can be beaten in 2012, if we focus. If we have the kind of focus we put on his BC, and laser-like focus on the *REAL* issues. They were reactive, sloppy, not well focussed, and a chump like Trump got them to do this. C’mon, phew, he’s going DOWN.

[WOSG]

#37 has the chain of how the record was created.

[Jack Black]

Your “Green First” seems plausible. So scan the Green one and take out the Green to make something that photocopies better.

[aquila48]

Mr Denninger did a superb piece of forensic work.

I worked a lot on scanners myself (QC for a scanner manufacturer) and there’s no question in my mind that the last “1” in the birth certificate number was added digitally. It is amazing how much evidence that little number contains.

Beside the points already made my Denninger, if you take a close look you will notice two more things:

1. the pixel size is different from the other digits (look at the staircase effect along diagonals)
2. the pixels of that “1” have different gradations of gray, in other words it hasn’t been thresholded like the other digits (whose pixels are solid black or solid white, something that happens when you do a black and white scan.

Trump should hire the best image processing guy and he’ll blow this thing wide open as a fraud!