In the beginning, there was the 2nd Kos image [birth certificategate]

Townhall ^ | 7/3/08 | Polarik

[freespirited]

 

In the beginning, there was the 2nd Kos image

Posted by Polarik on Thursday, July 03, 2008 4:22:48 PM

Which came first? Kos's first image or Kos's second image?

Simple, it was the second image that appeared first, and then the first image appeared second.

WTF, you might ask?

Well, here is the Genesis of the faked images in order of their appearance:

1. Kos's first posted image (1024 x 1000 pixels, 300 DPI) is a direct reduction of their second image.The seal is visible.

2. Kos's second posted image (2427 x 2369pixels, 300DPI) was the starting point for all the fakes, and like its smaller twin, has the seal. Others do not.

3. "FightTheSmears" image (585 x 575, 100DPI) is also a reduction from the original "second" Kos image, but the reduction is not proportional to the Kos, nor is its resolution the same. This combo produced a magenta-looking image after edge detection.

4. OpenDNA's two images are direct size (800 x 781) and resolution (96DPI) reductions of the "second" Kos image. The resolution, 96 DPI, was likely chosen because this is the default scanning resolution, and perhaps OpenDNA wanted it to make it seem as if he originally scanned it. However, the scanner info is missing from the Exif. Also the reasons why OpenDNA's images followed the "Smears" image in time is because the pattern of the background resembles the "Smears" image and does not resemble the original Kos image when reduced to the same parameters as OpenDNA's.

As someone correectly pointed out, in the process of changing the parameters of the original Kos image, the seal that was there could have been hidden from view either by the naked eye, edge detection, resizing method used, and/or more lossy compression.

But, the seal needs to be visible to the naked eye for it to have any credibility.

Again, I did not change anything in any image that I posted (and was not analyzed by GIMP). What is on my TownHall post is the original Kos image, but someone at the Kos proportionately reduced the image from 2427 x 2369 to 1024 x 1000.

The reduced Kos image at 1024 x 1000, is what I found over two week ago and subsequently posted to my first blog entry.

Here’s the Exif info from the 1st Kos image:

File: - c:\Documents and Settings\rpolland\My Documents\BO_Birth_Certificate0.jpg

Orientation - Top left
XResolution - 300
YResolution - 300
ResolutionUnit - Inch
Software - Adobe Photoshop CS3 Macintosh
DateTime - 2008:06:12 08:42:36
ExifOffset - 164
ColorSpace - Uncalibrated
ExifImageWidth - 2427
ExifImageHeight - 2369

DO YOU ALL SEE THE ORIGINAL IMAGE DIMENSIONS ABOVE?

The original Kos image was 2427 x 2369, and not 1024 x 1000 — it was, however, subsequently reduced to 1024 x 1000, keeping both the original aspect ratio, the resolution of 300dpi, and the same Exif into:

File: - c:\Documents and Settings\rpolland\My Documents\BO_Birth_Certificate0.jpg

Orientation - Top left
XResolution - 300
YResolution - 300
ResolutionUnit - Inch
Software - Adobe Photoshop CS3 Macintosh
DateTime - 2008:06:12 08:42:36
ExifOffset - 164
ColorSpace - Uncalibrated
ExifImageWidth - 2427
ExifImageHeight - 2369

Same date, same time, same software, same resolution, same hardware and software.

Are we clear now?

What we should talk about now is the vast difference between the Kos image and the “Smears” image.

As long as we’re talking about image size, why is the “Smears” image 585 x 575 or 5.8? x 5.8?, and 100dpi x 100dpi resolution, when the Kos image’s resolution is 300dpi x 300 dpi, and the size is 2427 x 2369, or 8.1 x 7.9?

Note that a proportionate reduction in the Kos image keeping the height the same, results in the width being off four pixels.

More importantly, the edge detection rendering of both images also show very different patterns.

Why did Kos change the image from 1024 x 1000 to 2427 x 2369?

Because the Kos wanted to present the image at its original size, so there is nothing sinister about changing its size.

However, if the Kos thought that what I saw were JPG artifacts in the smaller image, and that by submitting the larger image, I would not find them, WRONG-O. The forged letters are now clearer to see.

So, what have we learned, good people?

1. There is not one scintilla of evidence to show that any one of the many images posted online are an unretouched, genuine copy of Obama’s “Certification of Live Birth.”

2.Conversely, there is a ton of evidence proving, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that ALL of the images posted online are forgeries.

3. Furthermore, no one in the OBama family, especially BHO himself, has ever submitted a duly certified COLB for making a faithful copy of it.

4. There is no evidence showing that a certified COLB for Obama even exists — it certainly does not exist in the public domain.

5. If one did exist, then it contains information that Obama is unwilling to release. He’s had plenty of time to get one made,if he lacks a copy, but despite a large contingent of people asking for it, no Obama’s COLB or copy of same has ever been produced. Until a real, certified COLB is shown, Obama will be seen as failing to verify his true citizenship status.

6. There is no logical reason for anyone to break state and federal laws by forging a document and passing it off as the real thing, unless he or she was confident of getting away with it.

Some people might say exactly that: that “Getting away with lies” and “Fooling the American public,” are the modus operandi of Obama’s campaign, and forging a birth certificate fits their MO.

No amount of apologetics will dispel the discovery that any and all of the images that folks like you insist are genuine, are, in reality, unabashed forgeries whose sole purpose is to dupe the American public and the International community.

By the way, the stamp on the reverse side of genuine COLB's bears the name and title of Alvin T. Onaka, the State Registrar and Chief of the Office of Health Status Monitoring of the Hawaii Department of Health.

[freespirited]

Fraud and the Obamorons in the same sentence. Who would have thunk it.

[Perdogg]

ping

[FreedomCalls]

Thanks for the post.

[arthurus]

The real one is in the same drawer as Kerry’s original discharge and probably for similar reasons.

[KoRn]

You just have to love the internet! BS no longer survives the scrutiny of the vast amount of people out there who have knowledge and a voice.

[devane617]

not again.

[Enchante]

Fascinating. With Obama’s very own “Fight the Smears” website propagating a forged “Certificate of Live Birth” along with the Obamacoms’ DailyKos site, the question arises more forcefully than ever......

WHAT IS OBAMA HIDING?

Virtually any American adult citizen can produce a REAL birth certificate within minutes or hours from a safe deposit box or secure family storage location..... or if they do not possess one for some reason, they can order (a REAL one) produced by their state of birth and have it within ten days.

WHY IS OBAMA UNABLE OR UNWILLING TO PRODUCE A VALID, VERIFIABLE BIRTH CERTIFICATE FROM A US STATE????

Either he wasn’t really born in Hawaii or/and there is embarrassing info on the real certificate.

Enough of the stalling — it’s time for the media to DEMAND that Obama come clean with the public.

[SERKIT]

Illigitimi possumus.

[pabianice]

Enough of the stalling — it’s time for the media to DEMAND that Obama come clean with the public.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! (wipes eyes) Thanks! I needed a good laugh!

[AmericaUnited]

Either he wasn’t really born in Hawaii or/and there is embarrassing info on the real certificate.

Obama's says "Date Filed by Registrar". All other known valid certificates say "Date ACCEPTED by STATE Registrar". Let's just say for a moment that the Obama certificate is real. Why is the info just "filed" and not also "accepted"??? I believe the answer to that is because when you are born at a legitimate known entity, and they file the birth info, the state automatically "accepts" the info as genuine. But if a private person/unknown entity submits birth info to the state, they just "file" it. SO... where was Obama born, that his info was not automatically "ACEPPTED"??!!

[RightFighter]

There’s a guy who keeps coming into these discussions and claiming that Obama doesn’t need the birth certificate since he’s the son of an American citizen. That’s the whole point, though - how do we KNOW that he’s that woman’s son in the absence of a birth certificate?

[Jet Jaguar]

ping.

[woofie]

What Did Obama Know, And When Did He Know It?

[PghBaldy]

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://opendna.com/ OpenDNA has a website, though I was warned it’s certificate is not by a trusted authority, I kid you not...I went to Internet Wayback Machine... There are many things there. He sounds like an anarchist

[woofie]

Its a good thing this is out in the open now so that there will be time at the convention to correct their mistake and elect Hillary

[raybbr]

What Did Obama Know, And When Did He Know It?

Mighty presumptuous of you to assume Obama knows anything!

[airborne]

“It’s not just about the crime. It’s the seriousness of the charges!” - said by every Dem leader at one time or another

[PghBaldy]

POSSIBLY new info I found:

OpenDNA appears to not like Hillary: “At least the President isn’t Hillary Clinton, and that’s about as nice a thing as they’re going to say.” http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:rQCxpnWKG2wJ:opendna.com/politicks/2005/67+opendna+hillary&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=us

ALSO, he’s a former INS person:

opendna says:
October 27, 2006 09:10

Thanks for the shout-out, Alex.

... As a former immigration officer, Jim Brandt’s proposals almost made me stand up and cheer...

http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/politics/rohrabacher-cuts-and-runs/

[Enchante]

Thanks, I’m always happy to provide some entertainment and comedy for FReepers!! :^)

[barb-tex]

Didn't Dan Rather say the documents may be forged, but that doesn't mean they are inaccurate.
barbra ann