Posted on 07/06/2008 9:57:03 PM PDT by stravinskyrules
May I suggest much more important topics such as Our Pending Victory In Iraq, The Determination Of Our Soldiers To Succeed In Iraq, Obama’s Flip-Flops, and Nagging Problems On Flight 93 Memorial. This birth certificate myth is just not that import Addendum: I failed to note LJStrata (the computer guru behind the curtain here at that Strata-Sphere) was the one who put me onto the anti-aliasing lead. - end update
Days ago I looked into the forged Obama Birth Certificate Myth and realized it was all BS. Basically, we have a lot of people running around making mistakes and then trying to pretend revelations that destroyed their first claims are exposing other, new issues. All I see are people making wild claims, being proved wrong, and then moving onto new wild claims - to be proved wrong again. As proof of this pattern let me point to one of these ‘experts’ who did a poor job of examining the documents in the first place, a person called Polirak over at Town Hall.
Before we get into this I want to share what I discovered when I looked into these files, before I even began to look around the blogosphere.
There are three electronic images of birth certificates at the center of this silly controversy: (1) a BHO certificate Daily Kos posted initially [image loaded here], which Kos says he obtained electronically from the Obama campaign [image here], (2) the version of the certificate on the Obama website, and (3) a clearly mocked up “blank” form produced by a blogger who goes by the name Opendna (aka John Mckinnon).
In my analysis I find the Kos version to be the highest quality image file of the original document, produced in Jun of 2007 by the state of Hawaii. I find the Obama campaign site version to be a lower quality version of the original, probably because someone decided to shrink the file size to optimize download size for the web. And I find the Opendna version to be a deliberately manipulated version of the original Kos image, because the Opendna version has no evidence of bleed through from the back side, no imprinted time stamp, no weak impression of the state seal and signature area.
This analysis took about 30-60 minutes, not days and days.
I have been putting off this posting on this matter because there has never been anything ‘discovered’ that proved a forgery, but simply proved people were running wild with their imaginations. Polarik provides the best example of this.
On 6/20/08 the ‘expert’ Polarik claimed this certificate clearly produced a year ago was a forgery of an original from 1961, which Barack Obama claimed he had in one of his books from years ago. I have no idea if he has the original, but no ‘expert’ would jump to the initial conclusion this was a forgery, unless they did not understand how government document versions are controlled. He even noted the evidence that clearly indicates this is a modern document in his post:
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.
Actually, all the text on the document is produced by a laser printer (via a graphics program). All the text on the two complete versions (which means they have the bleed through images from the back) have a ‘haze’ around the letters. Polarik assumed this was because the text was photo shopped. My view is this is simply standard anti-aliasing of the text, something many word processing programs do:
The above example of an anti-aliasing feature (added to the S, not on the 3) shows how programs add pixels of varying shades around the curved sections of the letters/numbers to provide a smooth font edge on display and printing. Inspection of the files shows consistent anti-aliasing across all letters and images (e.g., the state seal in the middle). Consistent anti-aliasing across the document tells me this was induced when the document was originally printed - not from later manipulation.
Polarik mistakes this anti-aliasing feature with forgery, which is completely ridiculous. Anti-aliasing would show up on all Hawaii certificates since they are now digitally produced (and later I note this is the case). The biggest mistake Polarik makes here is comparing a laser generated certificate to an older type from NY. Unless your comparing apples to apples there is no way to determine a forgery.
Next he discovers, two days later, the image went through Photoshop, which is not really a revelation since someone could scan the original document and prepare if for email or web posting using photo shop. Somehow in his mind just using Photoshop is evidence of a forgery, which of course is ridiculous - as many have since noted. So I’ll just skip that mistaken jump to a conclusion for now.
Then 8 days after his original forgery claim, Polarik finally discovers the items that bleed through from the back, providing hard evidence the two version from Kos and the BHO campaign are actually digital images of an authentically produced birth certificate, created last year. But he was all confused because the Opendna version of the file did not have any bleed through section - thus forgery was at hand again. One day before Polarik’s post on the time stamp, Doug Ross did a great job of showing the time stamp, the stamp of the state seal and the signature area impressions coming in from the back of the Kos and BHO Campaign images, further proving their authenticity - not proving a forgery:
The date stamp from last year is clear, the stamp of the seal and signature area is less clear, but that just means someone applied little pressure - it is the ink that counts and I am sure we will see a scan of the back, when the blogosphere stop’s making themselves look foolish. All this evidence did not stop many sites from still claiming ‘forgery’, simply because they did not know how and where to look for the evidence, or because they jumped to newer, wilder conclusions to support their preconceptions. This is completely shoddy rumor mongering, in my opinion.
BTW, my analysis was backed up when someone compared another HI birth certificate from a Ms Patricia Decostas. You can go and see the same anti-aliasing around the letters, and a much firmer date and seal stamp impression (someone was clearly getting some aggressions out that day!). Download it and zoom in on to see the anti-aliasing for yourself. Since all the same telltales are found in this second “apple”, we see confirmation - again - that the certificate at BHO and Kos are genuine. Same state seal stamp size and shape with attached signature area, etc. People were piling on the evidence of authenticity, yet still only seeing forgery.
So that now leaves us with the black dots, which TexasDarlin noted as late as July 3rd:
There is another, smaller dot on the outside of the border, just to the right of the word “SEX” (no idea if this was part of the mysterious forgery plan or not). These dots show up on the Kos image, BHO campaign image and the Opendna hacked file - meaning something was shared between all three images. And this is the last lame bit of evidence there is to claim forgery. Doug Ross deals with the matter here, but there is a simple explanation, that is not so surprisingly proved by Polarik himself.
Before we get to it here is the conundrum which has some people scratching their heads. The Kos and BHO versions show the bleed through of the information on the back in their images. The Opendna version has no bleed through tell tales, but does have the black dots. This leads a lot of people to assume the dots came before the impressions on the back. But this is not the only answer to this puzzle.
The fact is it looks to me like Opendna photoshopped the Kos image to remove the Obama specific details (minus the island of birth and the time of birth - another bit of evidence all three versions share a common original document). Then added his infamous joke name into the field, and then he printed out his new doctored certificate TO REMOVE THE PHOTO SHOP DETAILS!
It is all so simple. If you want to remove the Photo Shop artifacts you reprint the document, rescan it and all the telltales will be gone. And so will those faint bleed through impressions. But the black dots will remain. Is there some evidence this happened? Yep - let’s go to Polarik’s last attempt to create a conspiracy out of thin air.
Here Polarik compares the resolution (again) of the images from the Kos image and Opendna faked image. Go to the post itself and note the key revelation is that the Opendna resolution is lower than the Kos resolution - which means the Kos image couldn’t have come from Opendna. It has to be the other way around. Therefore those dots, being clearer in the Kos image, provide proof that the Opendna image came from the Kos image. Opendna produced his mock up from the Kos image, therefore the authentic version came first.
But more than that, numerous people have called the state of Hawaii who initially claimed the document was legit, and that they did provide a new copy to Obama on the date noted on the back. Now they cannot claim 100% confidence of the images which, as Opendna quite easily demonstrated, can be manipulated. But if the state says they issued a new copy last summer, and the Kos and BHO images bear that out, where is the forgery?
The only ‘forgery’ is the clearly mocked up joke produced by Opendna. And he (Mckinnon) showed how good he is at this document analysis when he reprinted and rescanned his mock up to delete all the tell tales of his work. But Opendna is not running for President. And after being proved wrong over and over and over again, these people who have latched onto the myth the Obama certificate is forged have done just the opposite.
Through the discovery of the bleed through images (stamp AND seal), the anti-aliasing of the letters, the resolution, even those little black dots, all the evidence points to an authentic certificate issued last year. Enough - this myth has been busted (and it was in my mind last week after less than an hour of analysis).
Update: OK, I did not address the weakest argument - the misaligned border corners. My view is the entire background image and fields is now inside a graphics program. If you look at the Decosta’s certificate you can see it is a different version, and the background pattern is much less clear. This is also born out with the anti-aliasing in the newer, BHO certificate (released 5 years after the Decosta’s certificate), which shows the aliasing merging with the bamboo pattern, which is crystal clear.
I have had to create so many NASA logos for so many years prior to the web taking off I am going to bet these misalignments (which are actually hinted at in the Decosta corners as well) may have been the result of a final resizing of a group of independent rectangles in a graphics program that threw off the alignment a bit. Or it could be a deliberate effect in the original. When government organizations do this kind of transition to digital, you find they hand this off to new hires out of school, which leads to some minor imperfections.
No matter, the corners do not negate all the other evidence and all the other false claims I dealt with above. Myth still busted.
And you Strata believe KOS? It was KOS who somehow got hold of the birth certificate first and then supplied it to the Obama campaign.
Then how come the Obama campaign birth certificate never showed the "embossed seal" when the Edge-Detect filter is applied and the KOS Obama birth certificate does?
In my analysis I find the Kos version to be the highest quality image file of the original document, produced in Jun of 2007 by the state of Hawaii. I find the Obama campaign site version to be a lower quality version of the original, probably because someone decided to shrink the file size to optimize download size for the web.
Again incorrect. The KOS version is of highest quality because the Obama campaign website removed their larger version of it. The Obama people realized that when their version did not have that hidden seal and tell tale signs of a signature they shrunk it to avoid scrutiny and deleted the link to the higher quality version. Didn't KOS tell you that he got it from the Obama campaign - hmmmmm? The two birth certificates should be the same. To have the image fit the webpage is a lame excuse.
You’re no Buckhead, nice try though. Welcome to Free Republic.
We still don't know if Obama's CoLB was actually accepted by the Registrar's office and issued an actual certification number (thus validating it).
We need to ascertain once and for all that it was formally accepted and issued a C.N..
All they've really done here is punctuate a strawman.
Great analysis.
It’s a false argument meant to show the VRWC. That’s all.
Too much scrutiny by too many different parties.
Yes, yes. And Obama can easily clear this up if he wants to.
It's probably not that comparable but I like reminding everyone of this as ofter as the chance arises.
The "I lied to my diary" sworn statement of Joshua L. Steiner, the Clinton Treasury Secretary's chief of staff. It was part of the sham (IMO) Congressional "hearings" of the Clinton era. This one was Whitewater.
I will never forget the look on Democrat of Maryland Senator Paul Sarbanes' face as Mr. Steiner testified that an entry in his diary confirming a fact or two was indeed a lie. He had lied to his diary.
Incredulous stare is not descriptive enough, no where near descriptive enough. Not even close. But good Democrats move on and that's what Senator Sarbanes did.
So I guess it's germane in that sense. If the certificate is indeed phony good Democrats will just "move on."
The lack of an embossed state seal is suspicious, in my opinion. This is not an element which, if present, might or might not show depending on various conditions of reproduction—an embossing deforms and distorts the paper and any image on the paper on both sides, and it should be clearly visible on the face of the Obama certificate.
THIS is going to be America's next First Couple? They look more like Bonnie and Clyde!
Yea. Give a copy to ABC and have them scan both sides. Easy. Every day that this goes on.. one has to wonder why? That is what drives all of the speculation. This could be settled for a few dollars and in a few moments. This is truly lame but 100% Obama’s fault.
In my short stint here on FR, I've come to realize that an occasional slab of red meat tossed into the forum elicits some great responses and advances the debate.....or simply creates a chaotic "Running of the Bulls" effect.
In either case, an enjoyable result.
...and a much firmer date and seal stamp impression [Decostas BC] (someone was clearly getting some aggressions out that day!).
To explain away why it takes some fancy imaging software to see the KOS birth certificate, he says it's normal not to see the embossed seal unless someone squeezes or presses the stamping seal with great force! All the notarizers that I've seen must have been "clearly getting some aggressions out"!
...to see the KOS birth certificate [seal]...
Just for fun, I scanned several print samples at 1200 dpi. It turns out that laser-printed text looks pretty good at high magnification. Here they are:
 HP Laser Printer |
 Epson Ink Jet Printer |
 Bureau of Engraving and Printing |
All three samples look pretty crisp to the naked eye. I was surprised at the poor quality of the ink jet output.
The processes that use ink experience some amount of bleed due to capillary action whereas the Laser Printer uses an electrostatic process to cause the toner particles to stick to the paper and this is fused (melted) to the paper with heat.
Anti-aliasing reflects what is printed but not what is not printed such that you wouldn't see a band of disturbance extending well beyond the letters in the background image because the background image is green on white vs the black on white of the lettering. Any anti-aliasing effects in the background would be uniform across the whole image. This is clearly not the case.
This is all well documented in Polarik's posts at Townhall.com
Was Obama's "Certificate of Birth" manufactured?
I don't see anything in Strata's commentary that deals with this in any substantial way.
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.
