Posted on 07/21/2008 8:39:38 PM PDT by Red Steel
Barack Obama may be on a world tour surrounded by a fawning media, but yesterday an expert in electronic document forensics released a detailed report on the purported birth certificate -- actually a "Certification of Live Birth" or COLB -- claimed as genuine by his campaign. The expert concludes with 100% certainty that it is a crudely forged fake: "a horribly forgery," according to the analysis published on the popular Atlas Shrugs blog. (photos and close-ups, with detailed report)
The purported birth certificate was published by the left wing Daily Kos blog on June 12 in response to unconfirmed reports that Obama was not in fact born in the United States (Canada and Kenya were suggested as the possible locations of his actual birth). Since he would in that case not be a natural born US citizen (his mother was not present in the US sufficiently long as an adult to pass American citizenship on to him automatically), he would not be eligible to be president. Israel Insider has followed the story and uncovered evidence, most recently, of admitted forgery among Daily Kos bloggers, tolerance of electronic forgeries on the blog site, as well as efforts by a blog administrator to conceal the admission of forgery.
The latest examinaton of the purported documents is by far the most detailed and technically sophisticated to date.
Atlas Shrugs publisher Pamela Geller reports that the expert analyst, who goes by the screen name "Techdude", is "an active member of the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, American College of Forensic Examiners, The International Society of Forensic Computer Examiners, International Information Systems Forensics Association -- the list goes on. He also a board certified as a forensic computer examiner, a certificated legal investigator, and a licensed private investigator. He has been performing computer-based forensic investigations since 1993 (although back then it did not even have a formal name yet) and he has performed countless investigations since then."
The pseudonym was apparently inadequate to prevent Techdude's identity from being exposed. He reports that last week one or more persons "decided to track me down and vandalize my car and hang a dead mutilated rabbit from my front door in a lame attempt to intimidate me from proceeding with releasing any details of my analysis. They did succeed in delaying the report by a few days but instead of deterring him they really angered him. To their credit, he says, the extra days enabled him to locate the most damning piece of evidence, the remnants of the previous security border."
Techdude's detailed report, which runs more than 3000 words and 20 pages with extensive magnified illustrations and comparisons, reaches the following conclusion about the documented that was first published on the Daily Kos extreme left-wing blog and subsequently publicly endorsed by the Obama campaign, both in statements by official spokesmen, and featured on its "Fight the Smears" website. Here are some of conclusions:
"The (Daily) KOS image security border pattern does not match any known specimen from any known year. It does not match the pre-2006 nor does it match the post-2006 certificate patterns. The placement of the text in all of the pre-2006 and post-2006 certificates are almost identical pixel location matches while the image's text placement does not match any known specimen from any known year. The shape and kerning of the fonts used in the 2006 through 2008 certificates are identical while the shape and kerning of the fonts used in the image does not match any known specimen. The KOS image shows clear signs of tampering such as the mismatch in RGB and error levels, visible indications of the previous location of the erased security border, easily detectable patterns of repeating flaws around the new security border, EXIF data that says the image was last saved with Photoshop CS3 for Macintosh, and finally a technician from Hawaii who confirms it just looks wrong."
The evidence, he says, allows for two possible scenarios by which the document was fabricated:
"There are two obvious scenarios used to create the image that can be ascertained from evidence. Either a real COLB was scanned into Photoshop and digitally edited or a real COLB was first scanned to obtain the graphic layout then blanked by soaking the document in solvent to remove the toner. After rescanning the blank page to a separate image the graphics from the previously obtained scan could then be easily applied to the blank scan after some editing and rebuilding. It would also explain why date stamp bleeds through the paper and the various bits of toner located around the image as well as the remnants of the previous location of a security border."
After more than a month of controversy and demands that the Obama campaign produce a paper birth certificate for analysis, this damning new evidence raises the stakes for the democratic party and its front-runner.
Will Obama and his people continue to stonewall in the facing of the mounting evidence of forgery, and provide paper proof of an authentic, original birth certificate or even a genuine secondary Certificate of Live Birth? And will the mass media and mainstream pundits, which so far have hesitated to touch the hot potato, finally address the loaded issue of his possible unfitness to meet the basic Constitutional requirement for a President?
Perhaps the outspoken Israeli press corps will be able to do what their American counterparts have failed to do so far. Obama's visit this week to Israel will be an opportunity to begin asking the tough questions, however unpolitically correct, about his apparently forged birth certificate and what that means for his citizenship status and Constitutional fitness to be the next leader of the free world.
"I'd have to be working for the Obama campaign NOT to notice them."Who cares? If your logic is sound and evidence unimpeachable, sue for his BC. Why keep nibbling at the edges? Take the big step! What is stopping you?
Well, I started the contact process two weeks ago.
I’ve already contacted ICE, USCIS, IRS, FCC, Governor Charlie Crist, and Hawaii’s state Registrar Alvin Onaka.
As to the part about bringing a lawsuit, what exactly is the nature of the suit? Remember, we’re talking about the Internet — a huge, gray area for the legal system.
I can prove that the KOS image, and all of its offspring, are originals that were altered. What I cannot prove is what, exactly, was changed in them to make them different from the paper document in the possession of someone authorized to receive it.
Unless someone finds irrefutable evidence that the image purported to be Obama’s COLB lists the wrong mother or father, or date and time of birth, or location of birth, then what can be done, other than trying to get the MSM to investigate it.
Prosecuting Internet fraud is difficult at best, even with the best of evidence.
What I recommend others to do is to start a class-action lawsuit against Obama and his campaign managers for intent to defraud — now, THAT might make some headlines.
I cannot be the one to start it due to conflicts of interest.
"As to the part about bringing a lawsuit, what exactly is the nature of the suit?"That's because McCain didn't black out the only information that could trace it back to a physical record somewhere. By Obama doing that, he created the suspicion.
That brings us back to the first question: who would be trusted to verify an original COLB? The state of Hawaii is under no obligation to release it...
That brings up another point I raised a few weeks ago, via a hypothetical.
Why can't the state of Hawaii verify the information that Obama already released? By releasing what he has, hasn't Obama already consented on the privacy concerns? Shouldn't Hawaii be allowed to address information that Obama himself released publicly, since he already gave up that privacy?
And since what Obama released was purported to be an official Hawaiian certificate of live birth, shouldn't Hawaii be able to now discuss the issues around that certificate, like the blacked out certificate number? To me, the blacked out Certificate Number is actually Hawaii's data to own. They assigned that number to Obama for their purposes, not his. That number identifies Hawaii's records, not anything about Obama. Since Obama already mitigated normal privacy concerns, Hawaii's filing number shouldn't be of question either.
Finally, here's the hypothetical: what if the document is a forgery? Would Hawaii be able to look up their records and see if there is a certification on file with a number for Obama? If yes, then just say so. If no, then there is no legal barrier to Hawaii saying they have confirmed that there is no record on file.
Just to play with that hypothetical a little longer, would Hawaii be protecting a liar's "right to lie privacy" by not exposing the fact that a document does not exist when a party says that it does?
In other words, do I have a right from all the states that I wasn't born in, for those states to not expose that they don't have a birth certificate on file for me, just in case I choose to lie to somebody about it for personal gain?
-PJ
thanks Fred Nerks:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2048202/posts?page=101#101
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2048202/posts?page=115#115
The state's not legally obligated to verify a digital image that's not technically being presented as legal proof outside of a courtroom -- and a court case, unfortunately, is probably what it would take to resolve the issue.
That number identifies Hawaii's records, not anything about Obama. Since Obama already mitigated normal privacy concerns, Hawaii's filing number shouldn't be of question either.
From what I've read, that filing number (referred to as the "Certificate Number" on the form) contains the year of birth, and may also contain an indication of whether the information on the original cert was altered by request of the parents. (If either of the parents' names were changed after the original filing, interestingly enough, there would be no indication of that on an amended cert, and the original record would be sealed.) I believe the certificate number on the COLB would match that of the original certificate filed after the birth, so it's not a randomly-generated number.
Finally, here's the hypothetical: what if the document is a forgery? Would Hawaii be able to look up their records and see if there is a certification on file with a number for Obama? If yes, then just say so. If no, then there is no legal barrier to Hawaii saying they have confirmed that there is no record on file.
I think there is a record on file (or at least I'd be surprised if there weren't one at this point in messianic history), but again, the state has regulations governing how and to whom it will release personal records, and since this isn't yet a legal matter, they're under no obligation to do so. There are thousands of vital record images available in various online databases, and many others individual ones posted online (such as the DeCosta cert). I can't imagine any state going after someone who decides to alter one of them -- or having the time to do so, except maybe in the case of wholesale fraud. It would take a court case, either civil or criminal, for the state to get involved.
And let's face it, what official or state employee in their right mind would want to step into this mine field without a court order to protect them? They'd literally have to enter a witness protection program in this political climate.
I think the KOS COLB is a digital forgery, based on the latest info at AtlasShrugs, but right now that doesn't prove that the guy wasn't born in Hawaii, or that he was born in Kenya or Canada. It convinces me that someone posted a stupid forgery on the net, and all other things considered about this candidate, it's not surprising.
"And since what Obama released was purported to be an official Hawaiian certificate of live birth, shouldn't Hawaii be able to now discuss the issues around that certificate, like the blacked out certificate number?"I do recall reading somewhere that Kos claims to have gotten the information from Obama, or with Obama's permission? If the Smears site only claims that the image is an example of right-wing smears and makes no claim about the authenticity of the document, what about Kos claiming that they got it legitimately from Obama or on his behalf, or did I get that wrong?
-PJ
Barack Obama was born in America, and his story could only happen here. But some smear-mongers claim he can't produce his birth certificate and that he is not a natural-born citizen.
Continue Reading
-PJ
"what about Kos claiming that they got it legitimately from Obama or on his behalf, or did I get that wrong?"Because the Obama campaign hasn't repudiated them, and in fact, linked the same image or a copy of the image, that was there. To me, sharing the image is a tacit endorsement of what Kos said.
On the other hand, I've said from the beginning that I thought this was a rogue operator who thought they were helping, that the Obama webmasters thought it was smart to link it to their (at the time) brand new Fight the Smears site without thinking through all the consequences, and they are now stuck with the mess they created. Therefore, they are just ignoring it now and hoping it goes away.
-PJ
This is the first time I even noticed the "email your friends" portion of the page. They do claim it's his BC in the message text box. That nullifies all of my argument that the Obama staff hasn't claimed the image to be legitimate.
"Because the Obama campaign hasn't repudiated them"Including their own Smears site? Also, the Kos people sponsor an annual convention that the top Democrats are appearing at now, so they have elevated themselves in stature.
-PJ
You raise a lot of questions and offer a lot of theoretical answers... so does Al Gore.
Thank you, but you should have quit while you were ahead.
It was never my task to prove that Obama was not born in Hawaii, or in 1961, or anything else about Obama. That implies a hidden agenda of which I had none.
That is why my research is all the more compelling, because I did not set out to discredit Obama. I jumped into the fray after Jim Geraghty raised the issue. Before then, I did not even know that Obama was refusing to show his BC.
Meanwhile, in comparison to my actual research, all of these endless "What if" exercises are infinitely more a waste of time and totally fruitless.
To me, the overriding question is why, when asked to produce his birth certificate, did Obama refuse? Why the stonewalling? Why allow his campaign to post a bogus image on his own website? Why does the Daily Kos post the same image, but 4 times larger" Why does FactCheck post the same image as the Kos, but with a "stub" seemingly attached?
The answers to all of these questions are crystal clear, really.
They have taken all of the FACTS about him, and claimed that they are SMEARS.
The propaganda game works this way: if you can lie about one thing, and get away with it, then you can lie about everything.
Now, posting a false birth certificate was not exactly child's play by comparison, but it makes perfect sense as to why they answer legitimate questions with illegitimate (keyword here) answers?
We KNOW for a fact that Obama that was raised as a Muslim.
We KNOW for a fact that he went to a Muslim school.
We KNOW for a fact that his books contain racist views.
We KNOW for a fact that that he stopped wearing a flag pin after 9/11.
We KNOW for a fact that Obama did not put his hand over his heart at Tom Harkin's barbeque.
We KNOW for a fact that his wife, Michelle, said that, For the first time in her life, she felt proud to be an American.
And, We KNOW for a fact that he and his campaign are lying through their teeth, and they think that they can say anything they want without being challenged.
Now, of all the "SMEARS" posted on their website, the one that is the most egregious, is saying that Obama made his birth certificate public -- which he has not.
Given that the issue hit McCain first, and he fully complied with it, then it absolutely should be a continuing issue, because Obama needs to be held accountable to the same standards that we hold John McCain.
The question was never "What is on Obama's birth certificate?
No, the question is "Why was it necessary to hide OBama's actual birth record from the public?" and "Why are so many people involved in this scam" if showing it is not important?
To quote Shakespeare, "Aye, there's the rub!"
Nice new text scrolling by there, lol!
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.