Posted on 03/04/2012 11:50:20 AM PST by ethical
To prove that the birth document Obama posted on the White House website on April 27, 2011 is a fraudulent document, all you need to determine is whether or not it is a computer created document or a scanned photocopy.
It is a computer created document. Even the obots can not deny that.
You do not need to ask the Hawaii DOH for a "waiver" in order to get a computer created birth document. Obama asked for special permission from Hawaii DOH to get photocopies of his original birth certificate. Loretta Fuddy granted that request and gave Obama, she says, photocopies of his original birth certificate.
Scanning a photocopy, in order to post it on a website, does not turn it in to a computer created document with multiple layers and movable text. Although interesting, it isn't all the details of the forgery that first reveal that it's a fake; different fonts, the halos, the weird bent page, the strange behavior of the security paper. It is the fact that it IS a computer created document and NOT a scanned photocopy.
But let's look at one of those fun forgery details. I included the web addresses for the quote and images I describe.
Here is what Chiyome Fukino [Former Director of Hawaii Public Health Department] had to say about how the “birthers” would respond to the release of Obama’s birth certificate.
“They’re going to question the ink on which it was written or say it was fabricated.” Said Fukino. “The whole thing is silly.”1
Let’s start with the ink, shall we?
From Hawaii Public Health Regulations Title: Vital Statistics, Registration & Records. Chapter 8, Certificates of Vital Statistics Events, Section 1. Preparation. Certificates of vital statistics events are to be filled in by typewriter or in ink. If ink is used only permanent ink will be acceptable. All signatures are to be made with permanent ink. In all other respects, the certificates shall comply with provisions of Section 57-14, R.L.H. 1955.”
On April 27, 2011 Barack Obama revealed what he said was a photo copy of his original long form ‘Certificate of Live Birth’ from Hawaii (it was posted on the White House website). The signatures on this ‘Certificate of Live Birth’ are required to be made in permanent ink.
Pixels Don’t Lie
Download the BC document off the White House website and open it in Adobe Illustrator. Now zoom in on the signature of Obama’s mother. The pixels reveal that only a portion of the signature is in ink as required by Hawaii Public Health Regulations Chapter 8.
The Ann and the D in Dunham are in ink. The pixels are a variety of gradations in greys and blacks, like ink signature pixels are. But what’s really interesting is that the rest of the signature, ‘unham and Obama’, are not in ink.
The letters are a solid greenish–black color with no gradation in color at all. This lack of gradation reveals that this part of the signature was created in the computer and is not even penmanship.
And what’s it called when you forge a signature on a “Certificate of Live Birth” from Hawaii? FORGERY! Well that would be my top pick but hey they also violated Hawaii Public Health Regulations by not using permanent ink in their forgery! Maybe that’ll tick someone off.
If you ignore the fact that this document was computer created and that fact, in and of itself, makes it a forgery, you can't deny what the pixels are telling us.
The Stanley Ann Dunham Obama signature on this document is a forged signature and that makes the whole document a forgery.
Figure 1. The Dunham part of the signature of Obama’s mother on the alleged long form original ‘Certificate of Live Birth’, posted on the White House website. Here it has been downloaded into Adobe Illustrator.
Figure 2. Zooming in on the top part of the ‘D’ in Dunham. You can see the variation in color pixels—variations of grays to black tones. This is how pixels of a signature will appear when it is applied with ink and scanned.
Figure 3. Focusing now on the start of the ‘u’ next to the D in Dunham. You can see there is no gradation of color at all. A solid dark greenish-black color displays no evidence of the gradation in color for these pixels which implies that this “signature” was created with image editing software and not with ink.
Figure 4. The last image focuses on the O in ‘Obama’ and part of the b. You can see there is no color change in the pixels. The solid pixel color again suggests the signature was not scanned or representative of ink. The ‘Obama’ portion of the signature was computer generated.
1. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42519951/ns/politics-more_politics/t/ex-hawaii-official-denounces-ludicrous-birther-claims/ 2. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf
3. Albert Renshaw Obama BC Fake http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7s9StxsFllY
Let’s assume that you are right. Why would the pdf file have been presented as anything other than a straight scan? Why not a picture of someone in Hawaii holding it? Why not a simple press conference, TOMORROW, in Hawaii? The proper authority figure could hold up the actual piece of paper, shake it, let the press take numerous hi-def photos, which would make Arpaio, me, and all the people on here you consider birthers, look like imbeciles. Do you honestly think that Hawaiian authorities aren’t aware of the cold case posse? I’m sorry that you don’t understand how easy it is for people to locate a troll here.
An expert forger couldn’t be trusted not to be bought or respond to the prospect of gain for “outing” BO.
I guess, though, they could have hired one, then offed him. I’m surprised they didn’t do just that.
It’s nice to see someone in these discussions who actually knows how the software works. First of all, the Illustrator file doesn’t actually have “layers,” it has “groups” on a single layer. If the document was forged the way people claim, it would have actual layers.
Second, nobody would use Illustrator for a job like this. If you’re going to copy and past fragments of other documents to create a forgery, you’d use Photoshop, a program a lot more people have heard of. I wonder how many of the conspiracy theorists even know Adobe made a product named Illustrator before all this.
Third, even the internal details of how the forgery “must” have been created don’t make sense. We’re supposed to believe that they copied one numeral ‘1’ from one source and a different numeral ‘1’ from another—what the heck for? If you’re bad enough at this that you wouldn’t even flatten the image, why wouldn’t you just duplicate the ‘1’?
And fourth, one thing I agree with the birthers on is that an online PDF of a birth certificate isn’t legal proof. But if you can’t verify the veracity of a digital document, you can’t prove it a forgery either.
And I would say to your explanation, why is the font size of the “M” in the P.M time of the “messiah’s” birth so obiously smaller than the rest of the type? I was alive then and I knew about computers - big ass things. I’d never heard of font size, computers that were used for everyday office keeping duties, etc.
Ok lets think that through...
How would the WH find the *one* forger they want, without raising any suspicion?
Then, assuming they find a true expert, how do they keep perfect confidence there is no trace between the forger and the WH. (even after the disappearance) A professional forger has got to have a some experience in staying alive, and not getting caught.
Seems to me that it would be too risky, and worth it *only* if there was not someone adequate that could be controlled/trusted.
That's simply not true. There are multiple places in the document where there are words that are split between multiple layers (e.g., the first half of a word is on one layer, the rest on another). For example, the (pre-printed) line "Name of Hospital or Institution (If not in hospital or institution, give street address)" is split among two layers as follows:
one layer contains "N___ _f H______l __ I__________ (If ___ __ h_______ __ ____________ ____ ______ add____)"
Another layer contains "_ame o_ _ospita_ or _nstitution ___ not in _ospital or institution, give street ___ress_"
If, as you assert, the layering is "not arbitrary," but rather "specific," why would the person working with the layers they split that sentence (or any of the other words/lines that are so split) across different layers?
Indeed, they would opt more for “trust” than for “expertise”.
Anyone that would engage in such a huge fraud would cover their bases. And the more “professional” the forger, the better he would have set up his “insurance policies”.
They wouldn’t be able to keep him “bought”.
The M. was already on the form, since both A.M. and P.M. both end in M. That way, you don’t have to type M. every time. When you fill in a form the old-fashioned way, by hand or typewriter, every letter you don’t have to fill in saves time.
The ‘M’ is on the form. They typed in only the A (for AM) or the P.
That said there are *many* real problems beyond that, such as color aberrations from scanning missing and single color “Unblurred” text and image marks. Read the Mara Zebest report.
From Zebest page 3:
“Scanned images will have a consistent noise. Any inconsistencies in noise would be a strong telltale sign of tampering. When looking at an image at a normal zoom level (100%) colors may appear as one color of any particular area of an image. Zooming in closer to the area, consistent noise is easily apparent in the slight variations of color from neighboring pixels that make up each color (shown in Figure 8). This is the natural noise level for this image. Note that it is consistent throughout the image; variations can be seen for neighboring pixels of each color area in the original image.”
The "M" is the same size font as the pre-printed elements of the form. Considering that both "A.M." and "P.M." end with "M", it looks like the form was constructed so whoever was entering data would only have to type "A." or "P."
Are you a troll? Tremblay’s spin was discredited long ago. Scanning a document does not generate layers of this kind.
Are you a troll? Tremblay’s spin was discredited long ago. Scanning a document does not generate layers of this kind.
It doesn’t have to be Illustrator — there are lots of image processing apps that use layers to edit documents, and the layers stay if you are stupid/lazy enough to forget to flatten it before publishing it.
Why would a person creating a document out of layers split individual words and sentences across multiple layers, seemingly randomly (see my post above for an example)?
The “M” is part of the form - the person filling it in only types the “A” or the “P”. You can clearly see it in the image I posted.
Did you watch Arpaio’s video? Even they acknowledge scanning with OCR will create layers. In fact, their specific criticism is that there should be more layers.
The PDF is a straight scan (with OCR enabled). If they realized that it would introduce artifacts, they may have chosen another format, or they may bot have cared. The controversy helps them at this point - it just diverts a lot of time and energy from real issues.
One reason: if the forger were unhappy with his results for some parts of the text he was forging, and had another go at those parts. In that case, those parts would end up in a separate layer. (I should add that I have significant experience in editing imagery for (legal) use on the web, and have practical familiarity with the vagaries of layer generation during such editing).
Okay. I see it now. Thanks.
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.