It’s part of a header which would be constant. If someone forged the birth certificate by using a real one and replacing the personal data, why erase the header just to put it back?
Why did Polarik pick this one word to build the forgery case, out of all the words on the birth certificate?
There are plenty of other words with plenty of green between the letters. What about them? Aren’t they forged too?
And, what proof is there that a shortage of green pixels between letters is a certain indicator of forgery?
But for now, let’s just focus on whether the observation of missing green pixels is true. Because, if it isn’t true, none of those other questions matter very much. Is there a green pixel shortage between these letters?
The green colored pixels come from the background pattern on the birth certificate stock. It is a hatched pattern of green strokes on white (Or a very light green. Calling it white is good enough for our purposes.) The strokes are alternately aligned vertically and horizontally, in pairs.
The black letters are printed on top of this pattern. Whether a pixel between two letters is white or green depends upon the position of that pixel within the hatch pattern.
Note the relative position of the word “BIRTH” with respect to the background.
Simple visual examination reveals that the base of the word is over one horizontal green mark. This mark is the top mark of a pair. The left edge of the first letter, “B”, and the right edge of the last letter, “H”, are just touching a vertical green mark. In each case the second mark of the pair is further out from the word. Finally, the top of “BIRTH” just touches the bottom of a vertical pair of marks just above.
This means that upper two thirds or more of the word “BIRTH” are printed on white space, not on top of any green marks. The only place you would normally expect to see green pixels between the letters is at the base of the word where it overlaps the horizontal green mark. And we do see it there, just as expected.
There is no anomaly here. It looks just as it should look. All that’s happened is that Polarik has picked one of the words that was mostly printed on white, where he could attempt to make this argument.
Let’s look at some of the other ones he ignores.
If someone forged this certificate they definitely had to change the name to “BARACK”. But there’s plenty of green between letters here. Why? Well, because the letters obscure both members of the pairs of horizontal marks it overlaps, and there are vertical pairs that overlap the word too. It’s printed on plenty of green space, it isn’t printed on mostly white space.
And the word right above, “FATHER’S”. Plenty of green there too. Again, because it is printed on green, not mostly white space.
All Polarik has done is pick out a word that is mostly printed on white space, and tried to make people think something is wrong with it because the background is mostly…white.
Need more?
The allegedly improper “BIRTH” image can be recreated by simply superimposing the black letters along with the white “ringing” artifact over a part of the background without any printing. This should not be possible, according to Polarik, because if we don't erase the underlying image first we aren't removing any green pixels, and our replication should have more green between the letters.
First, using Photoshop use the selection tools to select the letters in the word “BIRTH” and then expand that selection around each letter. This is to capture the white “ringing” around the letters.
That gives this image. This is pasted onto a red background so you can see where it is transparent.
Now take that image and paste onto an unprinted area of the certificate. There’s plenty of unused space. Right under the source “BIRTH” will work fine.
Position the pasted in letters so that they line up with the green hash marks just the same as the original “BIRTH” does. Left edge of “B” just touching the vertical mark, right edge of the “H” just touching the vertical mark, base of the word over the horizontal mark. Aligned just like the original. The original is on top, the copy on the bottom.
Now if Polarik’s is correct, there should be some extra green in between these letters. Because to make this, we didn’t go erase any old lettering and replace it. That’s what is supposed to account for the missing green. Does that happen? Is there more green in our newly printed “BIRTH” than in the original “BIRTH”? Let’s bring up the color for a good look.
No, there is no missing green in the original (top) “BIRTH”. Just like the bottom version, the white comes from being printed on a white part of the paper, and the pixelization from the “ringing” artifact.
We should emphasize that Polarik has never demonstrated that “missing green” is proof of forgery. He just says so. But that question needn’t concern us now because the observation of “missing green” is false in any case.