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 ... 261-280281-300301-320321-334 last
To: x; Aurorales
There was a period of time (64-67 or thereabouts) where it quickly became the practice to NOT include "race". Then federal law began requiring reports concerning open accommodations, home loans, etc. showing "race" so that it could be determined if "race" was used to discriminate against people.

So, yes, not just the nomenclature used for "race", but also the very question itself changed, and in dramatic ways.

The colorblind society was safely tucked out of the way so that the racebaiting welfare pimps could make a living.

321 posted on 06/19/2008 6:32:23 PM PDT by muawiyah (We need a "Gastank For America" to win back Congress)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 314 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

1. I know it is an open discussion board.

2. I know about pinging courtesy.

3. I know you are allowed to comment on any thread.

I just don’t know why you have chosen to continually respond to me about nothing on this thread.

As I said, I don’t care that you think this is settled and I thought the issue raised by the thread starter raised some interesting questions. I furhter said, I might care had you said the particular issue I raised was settled and provided me a link where you thought it was settled. You didn’t, so I don’t understand why you keep respond to or even more about me?


322 posted on 06/19/2008 9:13:35 PM PDT by JLS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 311 | View Replies]

To: The_Reader_David

Well I am not so conerned with what the document is called or if it is the orginal issued in 1961 or if it is a follow document issued later or a copy of the original. I just don’t understand why the campaign would think it would benefit not to release what ever document Obama used to get his passport.


323 posted on 06/19/2008 9:16:28 PM PDT by JLS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 317 | View Replies]

To: Dutch Boy

My birth certificate, like the author’s, was issued in New York County (Manhattan). Mine, however, was issued in 1950. It was filled in by hand and signed by the attending physician. My copy is a microfiche negative, with a raised seal.


324 posted on 06/20/2008 3:59:52 AM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets (Hillary to Obama: Arkancide happens.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: freespirited

GREAT DETECTIVE WORK!!


325 posted on 06/21/2008 11:30:48 AM PDT by Ann Archy (Abortion.....The Human Sacrifice to the god of Convenience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoftballMominVA
I have a friend who was born in HI and I compared her COB to this one - it was/is identical, all the way down the the anomalies the author notices. And yes, the seal is in black/white and hers has the authentication stamp on the back, in blue, which is identical.

Does your friend's cert have the certificate number blacked out? Does it have an embossed seal (Obama's doesn't -- the issuing department in HI says all certs it sends out have one).

Also a Patricia DeCosta has posted her cerfication from HI online. Hers says "Date Accepted by Registrar" while Obama's says "Date Filed by Registrar."

I think the jury is still out as to what is going on.

326 posted on 06/21/2008 12:20:29 PM PDT by freespirited (A Democrat is a person who lives in fear that someone, somewhere is proud to be an American.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies]

To: freespirited

ONE bit of evidence that the Birth “Certificate” is a fake is that it lists the father’s race as AFRICAN! In the early 1960’s no jurisdiction would make a mistake THAT egregious. African is a geographic location, not a race, which should have been Negroid. The mother’s race, Caucasian, is correct, however. Could this document have been forged by an Osama Obama supporter?


327 posted on 06/21/2008 1:58:27 PM PDT by 2harddrive (...House a TOTAL Loss.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crimson Elephant
Obviously that is a bad example because everyone knows Arnold wasn’t born in the US. But take Bobby Jindal. Let’s assume a couple of people knew he wasn’t born in the USA, but moved here when he was one...and for some reason the public didn’t know etc etc. There is no mechanism to “apply” to run for President? So unless someone bothers to ask, after the fact, there is no mechanism to deal with such a scenario?

The states should require proof of being a "natural born citizen" in order to file for and be placed on a primary election ballot or general election ballot for electors for President of the United States. Anyone not meeting the requirements of office such as being at least 35 years old, a "natural born citizen", or legally barred from holding the office of President under the 22 amendment should be barred from appearing as a candidate in all states for any primary for President or general election where electors are chosen for the office of President of the United States.

328 posted on 06/22/2008 10:19:26 AM PDT by Paleo Conservative (Drill Here. Drill Now. Pay Less.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 309 | View Replies]

To: Crimson Elephant; Jim Noble
Obviously that is a bad example because everyone knows Arnold wasn’t born in the US. But take Bobby Jindal. Let’s assume a couple of people knew he wasn’t born in the USA, but moved here when he was one...and for some reason the public didn’t know etc etc. There is no mechanism to “apply” to run for President? So unless someone bothers to ask, after the fact, there is no mechanism to deal with such a scenario?

The states should require proof of being a "natural born citizen" in order to file for and be placed on a primary election ballot or general election ballot for electors for President of the United States. Anyone not meeting the requirements of office such as being at least 35 years old, a "natural born citizen", or legally barred from holding the office of President under the 22 amendment should be barred from appearing as a candidate in all states for any primary for President or general election where electors are chosen for the office of President of the United States.

329 posted on 06/22/2008 10:21:15 AM PDT by Paleo Conservative (Drill Here. Drill Now. Pay Less.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 309 | View Replies]

To: Crimson Elephant; Jim Noble; Congressman Billybob

Not only should the states ban anyone constitutionally banned from being president from being on a candidate in a presidential primary or election of electors from appearing on any ballot, but the states should be made to disclose their documentation of each candidate. Individuals or organizations should be able to sue the various state governments to produce the documents proving that a candidate meets the qualifications for the office of President under the Freedom of Information Act.


330 posted on 06/22/2008 10:26:43 AM PDT by Paleo Conservative (Drill Here. Drill Now. Pay Less.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 329 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative
The states should require proof of being a "natural born citizen" in order to file for and be placed on a primary election ballot or general election ballot for electors for President of the United States

Since the chusing of electors is under the direct, unchecked, control of State Legislatures, perhaps you should take it up with them.

I think all Federal legislation regulating the acts of the People with regard to elections (except as provided for in Article I, section 4) is unconstitutional - please let's not make the problem worse.

331 posted on 06/22/2008 10:45:26 AM PDT by Jim Noble (Cut the birth certificate crap! It's the communism, stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 329 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
Since the chusing of electors is under the direct, unchecked, control of State Legislatures, perhaps you should take it up with them.

I think all Federal legislation regulating the acts of the People with regard to elections (except as provided for in Article I, section 4) is unconstitutional - please let's not make the problem worse.

That's what I was implying. The action does not need to be taken up by the federal government at all. I think an FOI inquiry should be made for every single state where Obama filed.

332 posted on 06/22/2008 12:18:46 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative (Drill Here. Drill Now. Pay Less.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 331 | View Replies]

To: freespirited
this animated gif image goes back and forth between obama's birth certificate and a real birth certificate. note the missing seal, the blacked out certificate number and the differences along the edges of the seal. in order to show detail this is a high mg download.

this writer examines the writing in detail and shows why much of the writing on obama's birth certificate was photo shopped.

This is a google search of birth certificate obama. This story is steadily making its way up the info food chain.

This link gives the growing list of posts at free republic on obama's birth certificate.
333 posted on 06/28/2008 3:52:26 PM PDT by ckilmer (Phi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xiangchi

bookmark


334 posted on 07/12/2008 4:07:59 AM PDT by Fred Nerks (fair dinkum!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280281-300301-320321-334 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