Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Was Obama's "Certificate of Birth" manufactured?
Blogtownhall ^ | 6/20/08 | Polark

Posted on 06/17/2008 6:00:53 PM PDT by freespirited

 

Was Obama's "Certificate of Birth" manufactured?

Posted by Polarik on Friday, June 20, 2008 12:00:00 AM
The Daily Kos blog has posted a JPG that allegedly is Barack Obama's "Certificate of Birth." From a detailed analysis of the image and the text, it looks like it was created by a graphics program, and is not a true copy of an original, certified document.

I've been working with computers, printers, and typewriters for over 20 years, and given a set of printed letters, I can discern what kind of device made them. Printer output is quite different from the text created by a graphics program, and even if a document looks "official," it may not be.

The "Certificate of Birth," which I will call "COB," is posted on the Kos website as a color JPG. The reason for making it a color JPG, IMHO, is to induce the viewer to believe that this is a genuine copy of an original document -- something that a black & white, or even greyscale, reproduction would not convey as well.

Basically, anyone could have produced this document on his or her own computer, and I'll tell you why.

As represented by the JPG, the "original" COB seems to be a sheet of paper measuring 8.09" x 7.90" with a green "Rattan" pattern embedded in, or printed on, the paper and a "Bamboo mat" pattern for its border:

Photobucket

At the bottom of the JPG image, reading right from left, one can see following text:

OHSM 1.1 (Rev. 11/01) Laser     This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding. [HRS 338-13(b), 338-19]

There are a lot of problems with this statement, foremost of which is that the text in this document were produced by a graphics program and not a laser print, or any other printer, for that matter.

If the letters were made by a laser printer, you would be able to see the background, the pattern, through the spaces of the letters.

Here's a genuine copy of a real certificate of birth -- my own:

Photobucket

When text is entered via a graphics program, the pattern cannot be seen without noticeable distortion. However, when text is entered with a computer printer or typewriter, you can clearly see the pattern below the letters.

Here is a segment of the COB showing the letters, "Certificat" (from the "Certification" field) enlarged about: 500%:

Photobucket

Now, let's enlarge it some more:

Photobucket


The fuzzy outline is a dead giveaway that these letters were made by a graphics program. Also a dead giveaway is that the letters still retain a sharp outline. With printed or typed text, there is a clearly definable characteristic of a symmetrical shadow when the image is saved at a lower resolution,  that is, a more compressed JPG file.

Here is the word, "Certification," from my certificate of birth enlarged :

Photobucket

As you can see, there is virtually no distortion and no pixelation around the letters, and no dropouts from the background. The most noticeable pixelation and dropouts from the background can be seen in the Barack's father's name "HUSSEIN" on the COB:

Photobucket

Take a look at the area between the "S's in "HUSSEIN."  No hint of any background color. Plenty of grey and white pixels -- exactly what would result from enlarging text entered with a graphics program.

WAIT, there is an even bigger red herring here. All of the type on this document was produced by the same program.

Whatever made the text for all of the headings also made the text for all of the entries.

What's wrong with that?

Well, only that real certificates are created ahead of time by a commercial printer, or, at least, a different printer than the one used to create the data entries. This is why the headings on my certificate of birth look entirely different than the entries.

That is questionable by itself. But it is the way the text looks that gives it away.

Any text made by a typewriter, laser printer, or even inkjet printer, would NOT have the smeared, black & white pixels underneath it -- there would be several pixels bearing the same color as the paper, nor would the left side of the letters be clear and free of any artifacts or shadows. Scalable type produced by a graphics program will look about the same regardless of the magnification with a minimal or uneven staircase pattern of pixels on its sides, whereas printed text -- even laser text -- will show a clear, uniform staircase pattern of pixels on both sides of each letter that proportionately increase in size with magnification.

Here are some examples:

Here is the "Certificate" heading from Barack's COB enlarged 5 times:

Photobucket

Virtually all of the letters lack any shadows, and only the "A" and the "R" show only a slight, uneven staircase effect. Basically, the letters would look essentially the same -- especially letters made from straight lines like "I," "E," and "T," regardless of the magnification used to view them, and this is a key feature of scalable type produced by a graphics program.

Now, here is the "Certification," heading from my genuine certificate enlarged 5 times:

Photobucket
 
The double shadow appears on all letters, and this shadow grows proportionately in size as the letters are enlarged. Also, there is pronounced staircase effect on the "C," "A," and "R." Notice, too, that the "steps" are uniform in size, in contrast to the uneven staircase effect on the Barack headings.

Again, the most glaring anomaly in Obama's COB is the following:

All of the letters that appear on Barack's Certificate of Birth were made, at the same time, and by the same method -- which was the use of a graphics program and not the use of any printer.

You can also tell that this is an obvious Photochop by looking at the border patterns.

Looking at the corners of the darker green border, you can see that the border is discontinuous. In other words, the vertical border bars were made by drawing a long rectangle, copying that rectangle, and then overlaying each of them on either side:

UPPER LEFT CORNER OF BORDER

Photobucket


LOWER RIGHT CORNER OF BORDER


Photobucket

What is readily apparent is that the top and bottom horizontal border bars are overlapped by the top and bottom edges of two vertical rectangles.

If this certificate was a professionally-made, there would not be any overlaps, or any outlines of the side rectangles -- the border would appear to be one, continuous whole. Note, too, that both the left and right side rectangles are equal in length. It appears that they were made that way ( or cloned) to make the patterns line up.

Now, getting back to statements on the certificate, there is something else clearly wrong with the "OHSM 1.1" statement at the bottom -- besides the fact that it was produced by a graphics program. There should have been that distinctive "double S" mark preceding the Section number of the statute -- , as in §338-13 --  so as to indicate that a reference is being made to a particular section of a statute, which, in this case, is Chapter §338, Section 13.

As for the first part, the acronym, "OHSM," stands for "Office of Health Statistics Management," which is not the responsible office within the Department of Health for issuing a certificate of birth. The "1.1" that follows refers to a non-existent document. If there were a "1.1", it would mean a revision of "Form 1" or "Document 1," and since "Document 1" is the form for a "Marriage Certificate," "OHSM 1" would refer to a Marriage Certificate form, and "OHSM 1.1," would refer to another version of that Marriage Certificate form, rather than a "Certificate of Live Birth" form.

Also, in this line, there is a reference to "HRS Section 338-13, paragraph (b)" which states, "Copies of the contents of any certificate on file in the department, certified by the department shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original, subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18."

OK...so where is the certification by the department?

Not only is there no department certification, there is also the absence of any watermark on the paper. Official state documents are supposed to have a watermark on the paper -- like my certificate of birth -- especially when that document is a very important one, like a certificate of birth.

A certified document must have a signature (or signatures) from individuals within the State's Department of Health who are authorized to reproduce the document, and to certify that the document is genuine.

Nothing like that appears anywhere in this JPG.

Also, the official Seal of Hawaii in this JPG is a 2nd generation, black & white bitmap copy of the original seal -- at best.

Photobucket

You would think that the seal would be in color, like the original
Photobucket
or at least a higher quality reproduction if this was a copy of an original document.

In short, there is nothing in this copy to indicate that it is, in fact, a "certified copy."  As I have shown above, there is a whole lot of evidence that it is a manufactured copy. There certainly is a very strong motive for creating one.

Unless the voting public is given a real birth certificate to examine, the question of Barack's birth is still up in the air.


TOPICS: Politics/Elections; US: Hawaii
KEYWORDS: birthcertificate; certifigate; kos; obama; obamafamily; obamatruthfile
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 321-334 next last
To: eXe; All

If the document and the date stamp on the back are legit then this document was requested from the state a year ago — when Obama’s hopes of the nomination were still extremely slim to none. Shrillary was supposed to be the annointed one. I doubt anyone but Obama’s own campaign would have been thinking about his birth certificate in June 2007..... or maybe the Clintonista opposition research?

OTOH, if the certificate is just a fraudulent mock-up then the date stamp could have been added recently to make it appear to have been issued a year ago?? But could the “date stamp in reverse” have been made to look like it had been machine-stamped on the back of a doc that has been created in Photoshop?? Anyone know?


121 posted on 06/17/2008 8:08:49 PM PDT by Enchante (Barack Chamberlain: My 1930s Appeasement Policy Goes Well With My 1960s Socialist Policies!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: usmcobra

I think only immediate family members could get a copy... unless you’re the Messiah from Hawaiiah.


122 posted on 06/17/2008 8:09:18 PM PDT by txhurl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: eXe
So if I am reading that right... Obama himself would have had to sign off on Kos getting the cert, and if he did not allow them to get it.. they could not have ever gotten it.

The most logically reason to put this out to KOS is when it is discovered to be fake, at least the Obama camp can deny any responsibility for it. If the document was legit, there is no reason for Obama's camp not to officially release to some reliable media source. The release of this was damage control, but it was done in a manner that raises bigger questions.

123 posted on 06/17/2008 8:09:36 PM PDT by Always Right (Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: BIGLOOK

Thanks. Makes sense what you say (and what about BHO’s father’s race listed as “African?”)...I do not think we’ve heard the last of this.


124 posted on 06/17/2008 8:15:21 PM PDT by Pharmboy (Democrats lie because they must.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Always Right

I think the exact document on KOS is on Obama’s site, too.


125 posted on 06/17/2008 8:15:48 PM PDT by txhurl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: freespirited

BUMP!


126 posted on 06/17/2008 8:21:59 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy

In 1961, Obama’s father’s race would have been listed as Negro.


127 posted on 06/17/2008 8:24:24 PM PDT by BIGLOOK (Keelhaul Congress! It's the sensible solution to restore Command to the People.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Enchante
But could the “date stamp in reverse” have been made to look like it had been machine-stamped on the back of a doc that has been created in Photoshop??

I could do that easily. reversing the text just means you create a mirror image and flip it upside down then removing portions to give it that stamped look.

Here is something I did for a Motorcycle site.

Believe it or not it is all in english but I flipped it and reversed it to make it appear to be in Korean or Chinese.

128 posted on 06/17/2008 8:25:26 PM PDT by usmcobra (I sing Karaoke the way it was meant to be sung, drunk, badly and in Japanese)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: freespirited

The people who produced this (apparently) fake document are certainly quite familiar with the Rathergate memo and all the analysis that went into exposing THAT cheap forgery. This forgery is much better, but still an obvious forgery. I suspect that this fake document was MEANT to be uncovered by internet warriors.

Personally, this looks to me like another one of those planted John Kerry/Alexandra Polier scandals. The rats plant fake scandals like seeds in order to innoculate themselves from the real scandals that they know will come up later.


129 posted on 06/17/2008 8:29:37 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freespirited

All the artifacts you show from the BHO certificate look exactly like jpeg artifacts to my eyes.

Clearly (If I may use that expression!) the document was created on a computer printer from a State of HI database, and somebody along the way converted it from whatever original format, maybe a scan of the hard copy, into rather artifacted jpeg.

A photocopy of my own BC, made decades ago, was embossed with a stamp from the County Clerk, but they may not do that any more.


130 posted on 06/17/2008 8:29:46 PM PDT by Erasmus (I invited Benoit Mandelbrot to the Shoreline Grill, but he never quite made it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: txflake

This is what has led me to believe that it is possible Obama is actually OLDER than he claims to be. If he were just three years older he would NOT be eligible to even run for the office of president because Hawaii wasn’t a state at that time.


131 posted on 06/17/2008 8:32:08 PM PDT by RetSignman (DEMSM: "If you tell a big enough lie, frequently enough, it becomes the truth")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: COgamer
I’m hardly an expert, but his analysis seems damning. Especially the border - which he’s right on. They are clearly rectangles drawn in a graphics program and only crudely put together.

Hey, it's a bunch of HI state bureaucrats, OK?

A wonder it would be if it were perfect!

≤}B^)

132 posted on 06/17/2008 8:35:08 PM PDT by Erasmus (I invited Benoit Mandelbrot to the Shoreline Grill, but he never quite made it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard

In the hopes of course on muting the real scandals by a burn out factor as we have seen here with this one already...

These threads are attacked constantly by those that don’t want these things pursued, what are they going to do when a real scandal breaks ignore it as well?

And isn’t a deliberate forgery still a forgery even if it is meant to be exposed as such?


133 posted on 06/17/2008 8:39:47 PM PDT by usmcobra (I sing Karaoke the way it was meant to be sung, drunk, badly and in Japanese)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard
"I suspect that this fake document was MEANT to be uncovered by internet warriors."

That's what I've been wondering about -- assuming for a moment that this is not being put out only by one demented DailyKosFreak, someone WANTS this fraudulent doc to be exposed -- WHY? To create a blog-swarm so that there is publicity for this issue, and then the real doc is released and it makes the blogosphere look foolish?? There has to be a motive for putting out such an obviously fake doc in the wake of Rathergate..... the most plausible motive would be to provide a kind of innoculation so that in coming months other Obama scandals are discounted in advance by MSM and the public, critics are viewed as obsessive and foolish, etc.?? We can be correct in exposing THIS doc as a fake and yet end up looking foolish if/when there is a real Obama birth certificate that does not raise any red flags......
134 posted on 06/17/2008 8:39:53 PM PDT by Enchante (Barack Chamberlain: My 1930s Appeasement Policy Goes Well With My 1960s Socialist Policies!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: RetSignman
You mean, like one of his brothers was brought to Hawaii as a newborn after HI gained statehood, was passed off as Obama, and got a birth certificate as a home birth from a Honolulu hospital?

I'd thought of that, Obama doesn't exactly seem 46.

135 posted on 06/17/2008 8:41:20 PM PDT by txhurl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: usmcobra

Please see my #92. Thanks.


136 posted on 06/17/2008 8:42:03 PM PDT by savedbygrace (SECURE THE BORDERS FIRST (I'M YELLING ON PURPOSE))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: freespirited

That posting of a faked Certification of Birth is good enough for me...How about if the RNC takes this to court to ask the Court to determine whether Obama is a natural born citizen of the United States?..That would force Obama to produce his real birth certificate where it could be examined by experts..For all we know he may have been born in the Philippines or in Kenya and is therefore not a natural born US Citizen...The question of ‘natural born citizen’ has never been addressed by the Supreme Court directly..Still, it would be interesting to see where he was born and what proof he has to show...

The RNC should realize this is not to see who becomes head Scoutmaster but the President of the United States...

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born_citizen


137 posted on 06/17/2008 8:43:46 PM PDT by billmor (The American Voter--the Sleeping Tiger. Kicked in the back end.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freespirited

obumpa


138 posted on 06/17/2008 8:49:24 PM PDT by Dajjal (Who murdered Larry Bland, Nate Spencer & Donald Young?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freespirited
The Fight the Smears site, "Paid for by Obama for America," proudly displays the fraudulent certificate. Will be interesting to see when it eventually gets taken down and the site scrubbed.

Image Hosting

139 posted on 06/17/2008 8:58:48 PM PDT by Plutarch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: txflake

There is no doubt in my mind that the document is fake so the date would have to been altered to show he was a citizen of the United States and not a foreign country which Hawaii was in 1958 or sometime in 1959.


140 posted on 06/17/2008 8:59:42 PM PDT by RetSignman (DEMSM: "If you tell a big enough lie, frequently enough, it becomes the truth")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 321-334 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson