Do-It-Yourself Proof of the Obama Birth Certificate Fraud

I think the work of Nick Chase, simplifying "for the masses" the analysis of the forged copy of the Obama long-form birth certificate circulated a year ago by the White House, is absolutely brilliant. I suggest that you read his articles in the American Thinker.

In his first article, "Oblivious to the Obvious," Nick explains pitch in typewriters.

In his second article, "How I Learned to Love Savannah Guthrie," Nick explains how he obtained an original picture and how he used "cut and paste" to move things around.

I do not mind "getting my hands dirty," and so I decided to try it out myself.

Proving that there is a serious problem of authenticity with this document was easier than I expected.

You can do the same, using the same source picture, but using an even a simpler procedure than what Nick Chase described. You can do it on a PC, without having to rotate or touch the images at all. Here is how:

First, I went to the original site showing the copy from Savannah Guthrie: http://lockerz.com/s/96540721.

The following is the original picture of the paper certificate that Savannah Guthrie took on April 27, 2011, as you can find in the above-mentioned site:

I right-clicked on the picture and chose "Copy Image."

Then I opened Microsoft Image Composer and pasted the picture in a new file:

Then I used the "cut out" function to select and cut out the word "Highway".

Then I placed the word "Highway," as cut, above the word "Hospital," precisely aligning vertically the two as. The aim here is to look for differences in alignment, as Nick Chase says:

Hopefully soon he will have to quell another firestorm...

FROM THE BLOGOSPHERE...

An intensive investigation has revealed the identity of the man whose Social Security Number (SSN) is being used by President Obama: Jean Paul Ludwig, who was born in France in 1890, immigrated to the United States in 1924, and was assigned SSN 042-68-4425 (Obama’s current SSN) rec’d on or about March 1977. Mr. Ludwig lived most of his adult life in Connecticut. Because of that, his SSN begins with the digits 042, which are among only a select few reserved for Connecticut residents. Barack Obama never lived or worked in that state!

Therefore, there is no reason on earth for his SSN to start with the digits 042. Now comes the best part - J.P. Ludwig spent the final months of his life in Hawaii, where he died. Conveniently, Obama’s grandmother, Madelyn Payne Dunham, worked part-time in the Probate Office in the Honolulu Hawaii Courthouse, and therefore had access to the SSNs of deceased individuals. The Social Security Administration was never informed of Ludwig’s death, and because he never received Social Security benefits there were no benefits to stop and therefore, no questions were ever raised. The suspicion, of course, is that Dunham, knowing her grandson was not a U.S. Citizen, either because he was born in Kenya or became a citizen of Indonesia upon his adoption by Lolo Soetoro, simply scoured the probate records until she found someone who died who was not receiving Social Security benefits, and selected Mr. Ludwig’s Connecticut SSN for Obama.

Just wait until US CITIZENS get past the birth certificate and onto the issue of Barry O’s use of a stolen SSN. You will see leftist heads exploding, because they will have no way of defending Obama. Although many Americans do not understand the meaning of the term “natural born” there are few who do not understand that if you are using someone else’s SSN it is a clear indication of fraud.

Posted by giveusliberty1776 at 12:02 PM

http://giveusliberty1776.blogspot.com/2012/04/from-blogosphere_12.html

The demonstration by Chase is very powerful, but it could be more so.

Any scientific experiment is only strengthened by controls: it would help if he could pick (at random) three or four Hawaii birth certificates from the same year, and apply the same procedure.

If those others have analogous entries that line up (as they presumably should), that really, really makes BO’s document look even more fishy.

The demonstration by Chase is very powerful, but it could be more so.

Any scientific experiment is only strengthened by controls: it would help if he could pick (at random) three or four Hawaii birth certificates from the same year, and apply the same procedure.

If those others have analogous entries that line up (as they presumably should), that really, really makes BO’s document look even more fishy.

*******

Nordyke twins? Could someone try the experiment on the Nordyke twins' birth certificates, because as we know, the Nordyke twins were born one day after Obama at the same hospital way back in Aug. 1961, and their certificates are accepted by most people as being authentic?

I'm not a skilled computer person, so I would appreciate it if someone here who has good computer skills could try the experiment on the Nordyke twins' birth certificates. Copies of the certificates can be found on the internet. Thanks.

Whoever produced the document, pobably Bork Obunga himself or some family member for reasons I'll get to shortly, is a computer illiterate.

The very last thing I'd do were I charged with putting out some birth certificate document for Bork on the internet and have it look halfway believable, would be to put out some six or seven layer pdf file. That's just stupid, I'd anticipate my own mother and grandma calling me a lying SOB were I to do that. The ONLY thing I WOULD put out would be an absolutely raw bitmap file, either in tif or bmp format.

I strongly suspect that the reason the fraudulent doc shows no signs of contact with computer-literate hands is that nobody would take the job for the same reason you wouldn't want any part of Genghis Khan's or Attila the Hun's burial detail (everybody slaughtered so all knowledge of details dies), hence whoever did this **** likely was somebody close enough to Bork not to need fear for his life afterwards.

Nick Chase’s analysis is flawed. There is no reason to think that a photo of a printed copy of the file released by the Whitehouse is going to be a good target for his analysis.

Try is for yourself. Follow the link below, scroll down to just above the green image, and download your own PDF. Then use whatever image software you have to highlight the same test Chase did, and then copy and paste it in the same locations. You will not get the varying pitches as he did.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/BLOG/2011/04/27/PRESIDENT-OBAMAS-LONG-FORM-BIRTH-CERTIFICATE

Both visually_augmented and I did his same analysis on the original and found NO variations in pitch (although my first test indicated some. That was wrong.) Here’s an image of his experiment that I tried on the original.

http://i1193.photobucket.com/albums/aa356/pics1230/bhocertifcrop.jpg

Notice the excellent alignment of the letters that were NOT aligned in his version.

Why? A photograph of a copy produced on paper by a printer is just several more steps that can introduce distortions. Tilting of the camera is at least part of the problem but even that isn’t consistent.

We don’t need such weak analysis by a guy who seems to claim he is an expert but who doesn’t even try his analysis on the primary source put out by the Whitehouse.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/BLOG/2011/04/27/PRESIDENT-OBAMAS-LONG-FORM-BIRTH-CERTIFICATE

******

I'm no computer or document expert.

That being said, I'm wondering why the green background BEHIND the birth certificate is much LIGHTER than the green background in the areas surrounding the birth certificate area. I hope you understand what I'm trying to say.

Shouldn't the green backgrounds inside the area of the birth certificate and in the area surrounding the birth certificate be the same color strength, if the birth certificate was set in a scanner and copied on green security paper just one time?

Thanks for your help.

Travis McGee posted a link to the first story about typewriter "pitch" on Facebook. I responded to that:

It's not only print "pitch" (horizontal spacing) but lines-per-inch (LPI) for vertical spacing. Typical LPI for a typewriter or impact printer would be 6 or 8 lpi. Any document created by such an instrument could be checked for compliance to both standards.

I also noted in a later post:

...If you look at the background of the document, that's check paper stock. That cross-hatch image is applied during the paper-making process by the mill. It's not a background image applied during printing.

It's purpose is to prevent the fraudulent altering of checks. Any physical erasing or alteration would also affect the background, providing a visible sign of alteration. One would have to see and manipulate the actual document to see if it is, in fact, an original certificate on check stock.

A form reproduced by computer, saved as a PDF file, then re-printed, would not have the characteristics of the original paper stock. The "background" per se would now be common printing ink instead of imbedded in the paper itself. Also, for it to "appear" legitimate, the background would "bleed" all for edges of the sheet.

Since check paper is made in the paper-making process in extended rolls, once that paper is cut the image bleeds but it's not noticeable when looking at the edges under magnification. If the background were printed with ink on already cut paper, there may be some evidence of the ink "bleeding" into the edges, when looked at them under magnification.

I spent 25 years in the business forms industry. Whether a document is created by a typewriter or impact printer, the same 'pitch & LPI' rules apply. Also, the documents paper can be tested and compared with other documents issued at that time.

See my post #11. That green background represents a security feature of check paper stock. It's created at the paper mill and not a printed background. If one looks at check paper stock, one can see some variation, thought slight. The purpose of the background is to show when attempts are made to alter a document. It's a very basic type of check security.

I see what you mean. I never noticed that. On the far right side (outside the bc area), there is a strong contrast between light and dark green. On the left it is less. On the bc itself, it is even less.

My understanding is that the original was not on the green background, but obama’s people decided they wanted to print it on the green. Probably to make it look more “official.” Then they scanned it to post online. Somewhere in these steps the green graphics were affected. Why, I don’t know.

The b&w original may have not been true white but has a light grey haze. When that way overlayed on the green pattern, it may have dulled the contrast.

*******

This is mirse. I'm no computer or document expert, so if you don't mind answering a few questions, I would appreciate it.

1. FADED GREEN BACKGROUND: Are you saying that the faded green background that I see in the birth certificate area is NORMAL?

2. HAWAII FILES: When Hawaii officials handed a copy of Obama's long form certificate to Obama's lawyer, did it have that green faded background in the birth certificate area, or was the green background put there at the White House when it made its PDF copy?

3. MY OWN CERTIFICATE: If my own birth certificate was put through the same steps as Obama's certificate when Obama's certificate was copied in Hawaii from a book in the Hawaii archives, would the green background look as faded as the green faded background on Obama's certificate?

4. If you don't mind, could you, or anyone else here, take me through the following steps: From the time that Hawaii officials took down Obama's certificate from the archives to the time Hawaii officials handed the two copies to Obama's lawyer, who had flown specifically to Hawaii from Washington,D.C. to retrieve Obama's certificates.

5. For instance, what type of scanner do you think that Hawaii used, because I don't think that Hawaii used an inexpensive type that is found in your average home? How did Hawaii transfer the scanned certificate to the printer? Did the scanned document go to a computer first and then to a printer? What type of printer do you think that Hawaii used?

6. Thanks for your help, because as I said, I'm just your average home computer user.

Nor am I a document expert. I’m only relaying what I know about check paper (which the pattern in this document is evident of).

I can’t answer your first question because I haven’t seen the area you refer to. All I’m saying is, the pattern when applied to the paper at the mill may come out with some small variations in density. The operable word is “small”. It doesn’t stand out, but can be seen by paying attention to the overall sheet.

Nor can I answer your second question. The images I’ve seen have been online and they contain the green safety feature. But viewing it online tells me nothing except that (supposedly) being a state document, it should be what’s classified as “Safety Paper” meaning the pattern came from the mill that way. IOW, the state prints their birth certificates on safety paper as a precaution against alteration. IF this patter were added digitally, it isn’t part of the paper stock and is an ink background (from the printing process). That makes it fraudulent.

3rd question: The fact that the mill process creates the pattern means there will always be some variation in the pattern. Especially from one mill run to another. There’s no way I can answer this.

For your last questions, I really have no knowledge except that the birth certificate at that time would either be created on a typewriter on an impact printer. The paper used, judging by the pattern, is safety paper stock that contains a mill-created background pattern. If a scanned copy were given to the administration, that then would not have the safety features. All my remarks about safety features pertain to the original document and not duplicates made from it. A copy of the original may show the safety pattern, but it would no longer be a safety feature because it wouldn’t be on safety paper, per se.

You’re really asking questions way beyond my ability to answer intelligently. My comments are meant to address the safety aspect of the background in the original paper. Nothing more.

Looking at the above pictures, you can then see that the pitch of the two words is different, as the H of "Highway" is well to the right of the o of "Hospital."

Is it really, though? I mean to a significant degree. And is this something that would be unexpected in a manual typewriter in which the letters may not all be of exactly uniform width (I'm just asking -- that's not the real problem here)?

Is it even really the case that the letters aren't properly centered? When I type the words on a computer, the "H" looks further to the right, but isn't.

And looking at the cut and paste, the "a" that's supposed to be aligned looks a little further to the right in "Highway" than in "Hospital."

I don't know if it actually is or if it's an optical illusion, but if you don't paste exactly in the right position you're bound to get a result that looks wrong.

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.