Posted on 04/13/2009 9:04:32 PM PDT by Polarik
|
Q: What do these four things have in common?
|
||||
|
Aliens from |
Abominable |
Boogeyman |
Barack Obama's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| A: All of them are imaginary! | ||||
People say that Obama released a genuine copy of his actual Certification of Live Birth. He never did, and they are mistaken, misinformed, or misleading others if they do.
People say that Hawaii confirmed this copy to be Obama's actual Certification of Live Birth.
Hawaii never confirmed a request for, nor the printing of, this Certification of Live Birth.
People say that Factcheck verified this image as Obama's actual Certification of Live Birth.
Factcheck was complicit in falsifying this image and passing it off as a genuine scan.
Obama also knows that this image is fake and doesn't contain his actual birth information.
That's why Obama and his staff refuse to answer any questions about his birth certificate.
It's been more than two years since Obama announced his candidacy for President, and five months since he was elected President, yet Obama has repeatedly refused to provide any proof that he is Constitutionally qualified to be President. Despite what you may have heard, Obama's eligibility issue has never been settled. If you are looking for reasons why, there is only one reason that you should know:
In March 2008, a lawsuit was filed to remove John McCain, the GOP candidate, from the ballot because his natural-born status was also in doubt. John McCain immediately responded by showing his actual, original birth certificate to Congress.
On June 12, 2008, about three months after John McCain settled his eligibility issue, the pressure on Obama to do the same led to the release of what was called his "original birth certificate" -- an image copy, not a paper copy, by his campaign, not by himself, to the Daily Kos blog, not to Congress, or to anyone even remotely responsible for vetting him.
Moreover, what Obama submitted for "release," was not an image copy of his original birth certificate as claimed. It was an abbreviated transcript of a birth record called a "Certification of Live Birth." HOWEVER, the image itself was a fabricated forgery intended to mimic this transcript. Since a forged birth document cannot represent a true birth record, it means that someone committed forgery just to keep Obama's actual birth record from ever being known. What makes it a forgery?
Many people who also saw this image (see Appendix A) had said that it was a "fake," and that the document pictured in the image could not possibly be genuine. The image anomalies that they pointed out as proof of a forgery included those that I had found and reported, working independently. Here is an annotated list of them:
The consensus among all of us was that this Certification of Live Birth document image (COLB) had been heavily doctored. What we didn't know were the lengths to which the Obama Campaign and his enablers in the media went to rebuff any claims of forgery by personally attacking anyone for even suggesting it. They called us "tin-foil hat wearing, right-wing conspiracy nuts," or "birthers" for short, but these titles are tame in comparison to the vicious and virulent slurs hurled our way. Rather than respond with some confirmatory evidence to support the claim that the scan image was genuine, they offered all kinds of logical excuses as to why it wouldn't be fake, coupled with comments from individuals and fact-checking groups claiming to be non-partisan but clearly shilling for Obama. The common denominator here is that all of them failed to provide a single shred of valid evidence that Obama's actual COLB document was even printed in June 2007 by Hawaii's DOH, let alone scanned a year later.
One thing that no one could deny was that a black, graphic rectangle was added to the image to redact the COLB's certificate number, and then resaved, permanently altering the COLB shown in the image, and in effect, changing the image itself. The following caveat appears on the COLB document:
In other words,"Which part of this caveat did the "birther" critics NOT understand?
There were enough alterations in this one image to fill a book on "How to falsify an image and hide the signs of forgery.". Nothing about this image was genuine, yet, five weeks later, Factcheck posted a set of nine digital photos of what they claim was the same, alleged birth certificate used to make the scan image.
What's wrong with this picture? (or should I say, "pictures?")
If what's shown in the scan image is bogus, then what's shown in Factcheck's photos must also be bogus. We already knew that Factcheck was a shill for Obama along with being an accomplice to his document fraud. So, we were not surprised when Factcheck launched an all-out assault on the "birthers" and their "right-wing conspiracy theories" along with the photos they posted on their website. Factcheck's COLB photos allegedly show the front side of the embossed Seal that was not shown in the scan image (except while under image enhancements). These COLB photos also show the second fold-line that never was seen in the scan image under any conditions.
Factcheck intended their photos to verify the existence of a real COLB document that the claim was used to make the scan image. Unfortunately for Factcheck, their photos actually verify that their scan image was bogus. For if this document object, with its pronounced second fold-line and heavily embossed Seal, was used to make the original scan image, then the scanner would never have missed copying these prominent features. Added to that revelation is the suspicious failure of Factcheck to photograph the most important part of the document, the entire embossed Seal as seen from both sides. Factcheck's photos taken from the back side of the Seal show that the top third of the Seal was deliberately cropped from the picture. Even in the full shot of the Seal, the top one-third of it was also cut off -- well below the second fold line.
Rather than lend credibility to the original scan image, these photos supported my conclusions that the scan image was not made from a genuine document, but was fabricated from other images. A top, forensic document examiner also agrees with my conclusions. The fact that Obama's original birth certificate is not the only document being withheld from view, only underscores the immense effort taken to keep Obama's real identity from ever being known.
If the Obama narrative is real, and Obama really is who he says he is, then why are there no real documents to verify it, such as his Punahou School records, Selective Service Registration, Occidental College records, Passport (used to visit Pakistan), Columbia College records, Columbia thesis, Harvard College records, Baptism certificate, Medical records, Illinois State Senate records, Law License application, Law practice client list, and University of Chicago scholarly articles?
Does anyone see a pattern here?
From the first day he ran for President, Barack Obama, a constitutional lawyer, knew that he was not a natural-born citizen and not constitutionally qualified to become President. But, he ran anyway. Obama may also have known that he was not born in Hawaii, that he came to Hawaii as an illegal immigrant, and that he was never naturalized as a US citizen.
Does that sound like a viable MOTIVE for not showing his original birth certificate?
If all of the information shown on the scan image were true, then there would not be any reason to hide the original. If all of the information shown on Factcheck's photos were true, then there would not be any reason to hide the original. If all of the information we've seen is actually true, then why fabricate bogus birth certificates when a real one can be made for $12? What is worth committing felony document fraud just to keep it hidden?
Well, it's a lot more than that. This bogus birth certificate was used to deceive over 300 million Americans in regards to Obama's true identity and birth origins. This bogus birth certificate was used to deceive members of our Government, our Judiciary, our Armed Forces, and Law Enforcement into believing that Obama was born in Hawaii, and that he is a natural-born US citizen who is Constitutionally qualified to become President.
Obtaining a real birth certificate copy is the very last thing that Obama would ever do, then or now, because it would absolutely confirm that the images and photos posted on the Internet are forgeries and would expose anyone involved in this fraud to criminal prosecution. Does that sound like a viable MOTIVE for not showing it?
There is no question that Obama fails to meet the Constitutional qualifications for being a natural-born citizen because his father passed his British citizenship onto Obama as a child and made him a dual citizen. But, what about the question of document fraud? Has a crime been committed? Who's responsible? What if a President was complicit in committing this document fraud and intentionally covering it up by all legal means possible?
Conspiracies in Presidential elections do happen. Does "Watergate" ring a bell?
Recently, another Illinois politician was impeached for selling Obama's Senate seat. It that act really worse than committing felony document fraud, as defined by Chapter 18 of the United States Code, Section 1028, Fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents, authentication features, and information?.
As people are wont to say at times like this, "Where is the outrage?" Where, indeed.
At the same time that I saw Obama's alleged COLB, a discussion of that image was taking place among the registered readers of a popular blog (HotAir.com) that is a repository of top stories from other blogs and websites. I had not seen these comments until now, ten months after they were published. Although the Hot Air community is mostly pro-Obama, a number of members had identified the very same anomalies as I had while working independently. The significance of this discovery cannot be overstated as it serves to validate the work that I've done in proving this image, and ones to follow, to be false, forged, and fabricated. Here, in their own words, is what they said on June 12:
From JM Hanes:
it really bothers me when something like this simply makes no sense. I couldn't begin to guess who would have fiddled with the document — or the when & why either — but I also can't think of a single logical reason (including filters, sharpening, or conversions) that a scan of an original document could result in the kind of selective pixelization/artifacting in evidence here. Pasting from one image into another, however, would produce precisely that effect.
"The pixilation around the text is...completely inconsistent with the background, which is discontinuous behind the text. Zoom in on the faint image of the reverse “JUN 6 2007? in the lower middle of the doc for comparison and you’ll see that the regular jpeg pixel blocking is uninterrupted. That’s part of whatever this original document was before someone Photoshopped it. The SEAL was probably scanned from another actual document and pasted up along with the necessary text. Nice try with the “Photoshop filter” theory though! In any case, if someone were trying to make a real document look as fake as this one does, that would still be a hoax.
From Spolitics:
The document looks fake, like the text was layered over the background, not typed onto it. So I downloaded the picture and checked the properties. According to the file’s details, this document was originated in Adobe Photoshop CS3 Macintosh. That’s not proof of forgery, but there’s no “date acquired” listed which would have indicated this was scanned.
From LimeyGeek:
Zoom in on the lettering and check out the artefacts surrounding them. I suspect this is a modern document, scanned, original data scrubbed, and overlaid with digital text. Problem is, then not all the text would match stylistically, so they had to go over every bit of text with new lettering. Contrast the artifacts surrounding the text on this document with the text in the top and bottom bars - that’s original text. The text in the body of the document has been doctored. Obama is not claiming it as a legitimate copy. I suspect it is somebody’s legitimate copy, scanned, scrubbed and doctored to look like Obama’s.
As somebody that works with the math and code in such software, I can tell you that these artifacts are nothing of the sort. This is not a case of lossy artefacts due to image encoding (jpeg). Such artifacts would be consistent, these are not. In fact, if you look close enough, you can see that the original lettering was slightly larger than the superimposed fonts.
The point is that an original document would have consistent artifacts due to scanning, and additional consistent artifacts due to further encoding (in this case, jpeg encoding/compression) Whatever the origin of this document, it has been doctored.
From RightWired:
It’s a 100% forgery. There are numerous reasons, but the #1 reason: Laser printers don’t add anti-aliasing to fonts. Zoom in to 600% or greater in Photoshop or Corel. Look at an “A”. Notice how it’s smoothed a bit? You can see that the characters have been laid on top of the green gov’t background. There’s a hazy white area in between the strokes of each line of the character. When a laser printer prints on the paper, it basically burns it on with a super high precision. It doesn’t turn the area behind the actually copy white.
I work in advertising. I have studied this..as well as our department’s graphic artist—it’s fraudulent. Also file properties say Adobe CS3, black copy is much darker than the rest. The official seal is blurry and pixilated.
From Just A Grunt:
Blending high contrast type into a lower contrast background is particularly fussy work; it looks to me like the original text and original background started out at different resolutions as well. While text that bleeds through from the other side of a document would look different from the crisp text printed on the front, it wouldn’t change how the pixels in the image itself are grouped. The integrity of the typcial 8 x 8 pixel squares which you can see in the 6 shot aren’t busted up by artifacts the way they are in the A shot. I may not be using the right techno terms here — alas, it’s easier to zero in on the anomolies when you’re used to dealing with recalcitrant pixels than it is to explain.
From WoosterOh:
I find it odd that every word is pixilated around it, yet the black box is not. Those words are not on the document. To me, it looks like it is from some HA HA funny site that you can do your own certificates. Select a background image, select text to put on the background image. I guess that {the Certification of Live Birth is a computer-generated printout) could account for the pixels, but I am not even sure that accounts for it. You would have to assume that the generation means taking a scan of an actual certification, using it as an image, then generating text over that scan, then converting the text to an image, then laying that image down over the scanned certificate. Take the layers and flatten the image, then print the image. FAKE
From G Charles:
A word of caution. I use photoshop a fair amount and I just zoomed in on the text. I agree that this is not a scan of an original document “AS IS”. Nevertheless, it could well be a scan of an original document that has been run through a photoshop filter once or twice. And the original may well look pretty much the same to those who can’t zoom in on the photo. And as support for my “photoshop filter” theory, the seal carries the same pixelation artifacts. Therefore it is NOT simply text that has been superimposed–whatever explanation there is has to account for the seal and text having the same unnatural pixelation.
From Sue:
I was able to see what you are explaining. If this is obviously doctored, and I am going with you on this one, why would they do it?
From iurockhead:
Enlarge and the text looks like it has been added on top of the green and white background. I call fake. I don’t doubt his citenzenship and birthright, but that document is a fake.
From wise_man:
And the black text on this wide open field of the background, is awfully sharp and crisp for being a copy.
From SilverStar830:
Looks ‘chopped. It looks like an exceptionally EASY document to fake.
From Buford:
When blown up it is clearly a fake. At 2000% it is clear that the pixilation of the text is much finer than the pixilation of the background. It is an extremly low quality fake. If this served any purpose but to drive traffic to the KoS site I would be surprised.
From infidel65:
After repeated requests for Obama’s birth certificate, a copy shows up on the Daily Kos. This stinks to high heaven. The Obama campaign may have thought they’d put this issue to bed, but they have only succeeded in fuelling the suspicions.
To date, the suspicions have not subsided, yet people are talking about Obama's Certification of Live Birth (COLB) as if it really exists. Why? Because they know that foreign-born children are also issued a COLB by Hawaii, and therefore, the COLB cannot confirm one's natural-born status. Only the actual, "vault" original birth certificate can, and Obama knows that better than anyone. What other reason could there be for a sitting President to refuse such a simple request?
“I think the appeal is still being prepared.”
Thanks E.V.
STE=Q
Great job. Thanks.
Are we even a country anymore? Our borders aren’t defended, there’s a good chance the President doesn’t meet the constitutional qualifications to be President, the government takes the citizen’s money and gives it to their buddies to keep themselves in power, to our enemies, to whomever will benefit themselves one way or another, and when they’ve run out of the citizens money they borrow the money and obligate generations to come for their own short term benefit.
If I weren’t living through this I would never have believed it. And here we are still relatively quiet. I bet those in power just see the tea parties as us letting off steam and not a serious reason for them to change their ways.
Obama refuses to produce his BC, and; why? I will provide anything anyone wants to know for the job I am seeking. Only those with something to hide refuse to play by the rules/law.
Thanks, Polarik!
read this
ping
Thank you, I’m glad you brought him up, as Techdude should be remembered. Please see my post at #36. I misspelled his name above as Textdude when it should have been Techdude.
Bookmark.
What I find particularly interesting is there are no schoolmates, teachers, Prinicpals, ministers, professors, boy scout leaders or anyone else that have flooded the airwaves to talk about what Obama was like as a lad.
We may have a first in many ways he may be the first African to be elected President.
Another fact is didn’t someone take credit for the forgery? Didn’t they use his sister’s birth certificate?
Why isn’t his sister being fawned over, chased after, or even mentioned?
BTTT
Concerning the incredible ruling by the Superior Court in Sacramento in Keyes v. Bowen:
“The judge’s ruling in the case that only Congress and only on Jan. 6 of each year following a presidential election can object as to whether the nominee is eligible to serve as president of the United States is, in our opinion, completely wrong and eviscerates the [Constitutional] requirements for serving as president in the United States Constitution,”
- Gary Kreep
His sister was born in Indonesia. If Obama doesn't have one how could she?
Outstanding presentation!!
When someone hides something, they have something to hide. I firmly believe that this case will grow legs. Obama will be removed from office.
So the judge rules against him and he disagrees. Surprise, surprise.
We’re not surprised. Not in the least. This ruling was completely expected. However, to those who have actually read the ruling and know the facts and the history of ballot issues similar to this one in California, the decision is laughable.
Bumping the reality not the bs of turning our heads.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
