TRO Denied; Obama Can Still Run -- For Now

The Obama campaign is probably breathing a sigh of relief now that the motion for temporary restraining order sought by Philip J. Berg, Esquire, has been denied. Berg, who says he is a Democrat (and presumably a Clinton supporter), filed a lawsuit last Thursday in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Obama, the DNC and the FEC, claiming that Obama can't be president because he isn't a "natural born Citizen," as required by Article II, Section I of the Constitution. Berg also immediately sought a TRO to "put a stop to Defendant Obama's fraudulent campaign scheme."

Berg is a Pennsylvania attorney who is acting pro se. While the skepticism that usually attaches to pro se plaintiffs may not be justified, generally speaking -- except that it is -- Berg did not help his credibility by referring to himself under "Parties" as "Plaintiff, Plaintiff, Philip J. Berg, Esquire [hereinafter "Plaintiff"] . . . ."

First, it is usually possible to figure out who the plaintiff is in a lawsuit without that kind of bracketed help, especially when he has called himself that twice already in the same sentence. Second, Plaintiff Plaintiff Berg, you're suing a presidential candidate on the eve of the nominating convention and you couldn't take a second to proofread the sentence with your own name in it? Please.

Obama -- or, as Berg calls him, "Defendant Barack Hussein Obama, a/k/a Barry Soetoro, a/k/a Barry Obama, a/k/a Barack Dunham, a/k/a Barry Dunham [hereinafter 'Obama']," is running for president. But he can't be president, according to Berg, who charges that Obama is not a "natural born citizen" because, "just to name one of the problems," he "lost his U.S. citizenship when his mother married an Indonesian citizen" and the family moved there. Just to name two of the problems with that argument, (1) it concedes that Obama had U.S. citizenship to lose, and (2) you don't lose citizenship just because your mom marries a non-citizen, even if you move. Berg did not cite any support for this point, though he did set it forth in bold underlining, which is almost as good.

For the most part, Berg just raises "questions" about Obama's birthplace (Berg claims it was Kenya) and citizenship, and then charges that Obama "has refused to prove" he is qualified to run. The complaint concedes that Obama has posted a birth certificate on his website, but, Berg says, "as posted all over the internet," that is a forgery. And as we should all know by now, anything posted all over the internet must be true.

The complaint includes three counts: (1) violation of Article II, Section I of the Constitution; (2) "dual citizenship," and (3) fraud. Berg concludes, "For the above aforementioned reasons, Obama needs to immediately step down and withdrawal his candidacy for Presidency."

What is especially amusing about all this is that, as Berg may or may not know, the other guy in the race has the same problem, if it is a problem. John McCain was not born in the U.S. -- he was born in the Canal Zone. There is no question that he is a U.S. citizen. But Article II doesn't say "citizen" -- it says "natural born Citizen." And, it seems, nobody really knows for sure what that means. Barry Goldwater had the same problem (he was born in the Arizona Territory), as did Mitt Romney's dad, George, who was born in Mexico. They weren't disqualified from running, despite the legal uncertainty about the term. George Romney's opponent apparently did insist on calling him "Jorge," but that's the worst that has happened so far.

Obama's "campaign scheme" can go forward, at least for now, because the motion was denied after a hearing on Friday. Sadly, a transcript of that hearing does not yet seem to be available, but the pleadings (downloaded from the court via PACER) are posted below.

Link: iReport.com (Flash required) Link: Complaint in Berg v. Obama (PDF) Link: Motion for TRO in Berg v. Obama (PDF) Link: Order Denying TRO in Berg v. Obama (PDF)

August 25, 2008 in Constitutional Law, Elections & Voting, Fool for a Client | Permalink

http://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/2008/08/04.html

Here’s Dr. Krawetz’s technical analysis of Techdude’s findings.

Secure Computing: Sec-C
Entries from Monday, August 4. 2008
Bad Science: How Not To Do Image Analysis
Monday, August 4. 2008
Intentionally misleading research offends me. Real researchers strive to create the best work possible and are willing to have it put up to peer-reviewed scrutiny. They list their methods and provide enough information for other researchers to replicate the experiment. And good science should be able to draw the same conclusion with different analysis methods. In contrast, fake researchers intentionally doctor their data to support their theories. They do not provide their methods and their conclusions are not repeatable. While it is important to understand how real research is done, it is equally important to analyze and understand fake research.

Obama’s Birth Certificate

I have previously written about the smear campaigned against Barack Obama. In this attack, alleged experts claim that Obama has doctored his Certificate of Live Birth (COLB). They support their claims with false research using image analysis. Since I work with image analysis, I feel that it is important to properly represent the field. Please be aware, while their attack is against Obama, this is not a political debate. I am only addressing the technologies used to perform the analysis. If they did a similar attack against McCain or any other public official, I would be just as offended by their work.

There are three main players in this conspiracy theory. An anonymous racist who goes by the nickname “Texas Darlin”, and two anonymous “researchers” named Polarik and TechDude.

Polarik claimed to have “indisputable evidence”, but it was really just his gross misunderstanding of even the most basic image analysis.

However, the other anonymous researcher (and I use the term “researcher” very loosely) has come out with his “proof, beyond any doubt” of a forgery. Unlike Polarik, TechDude did not make amateur mistakes. Instead, he intentionally manipulated the data so that it would support his theory.

There is a wonderful book titled How to Lie with Statistics. Although it was written in 1954, the examples and topics are very apt today. Chapter 1 covers the built-in bias and is exactly what TechDude did in his writeup. TechDude is also guilty of using wiz-bang pictures to support a false conclusion (see Chapters 3, 4, and 7).

Detailed Rebuttal

TechDude’s analysis is divided into sections. My rebuttal and analysis only addresses his most grievous errors.

The Printer

Under TechDude’s section titled, “The Printer”, TechDude states “Some have also tried to blur the issue by pulling facts out of their butts and claiming that all three documents must have been printed on different printers – sorry, but all real certificates are printed and issued through the same office using the same printer.”

Hawaii has been a state since 1959. TechDude is claiming that Hawaii has only had one printer since 1959. Ignoring that a printer in 1959 was not hooked to a computer (and the COLB says “laser” on it), the MTBF (mean-time between failures) for your typical printer is a few years (varies by manufacturer and printer model). For example, Brother manufactures very long-lasting laser printers. They typically have a MTBF of 10,000 hours. That is equivalent to 416 days of 24x7 use. Since most government offices (including Hawaii) are open less than 2000 hours a year (8 hours a day, 5 days per week, 50 weeks per year), that means they can expect a failure about once every five years. I am not aware of any high-usage printer that is expected to last more than 5 years without a failure. Some failures are serviceable, but some are not. However, between failures and technological advancements, the state of Hawaii is almost certainly not using the same printer today as it was 30, 20, or possibly even 10 years ago. Moreover, unless they have dedicated one printer for birth certificates, they are very likely using more than one printer.

The Red Images

There are a large variety of image analysis techniques. They range from computationally intensive (e.g. wavelet transformations and k-means) to mathematically complex (e.g., principal component analysis, copy-move detection) to relatively simple (luminance gradient, max RGB, LSB, etc.). One of the simplest methods uses image recoloring. You usually see it done with contrast or color enhancement. It is generally hard to do color enhancement incorrectly, yet TechDude did just that...

TechDude adjusted the hue to red. JPEGs store images in YCrCb format (luminance/brightness, chrominance red, and chrominance blue). When converted to HSV (hue, saturation, value), the “V” is similar to the luminance. If you use Gimp, then you can do a color decomposition to HSV (under the Filters -> Colors -> Decompose menu item). This will create three layers: hue, saturation, and value. The “value” has the clearest image because it has the most information in the JPEG. In contrast, the hue appears blurriest because it actually corresponds to the least amount of information stored in the JPEG. So, recoloring the hue to red does not really have “the best contrast in colors between different colored pixels” (as TechDude wrote). In fact, if he wanted to see the high contrasting elements, then he should look at the value/luminance. Viewing the hue only pulls out the level of degradation created by the JPEG compression algorithm.

Decomposition: Hue Decomposition: Saturation Decomposition: Value

TechDude claims to see manipulation artifacts in the picture. He highlighted 100 points around the edge and text. Frankly, I just do not see some of the items he is highlighting. For example, his data points 11, 14, 17, 21, and 23 are in the upper left corner. I just do not see what he is highlighting. Other data points appear to be line intersections and darker edges (e.g., points 5, 35, 53, and 67, just to name a few). However, TechDude did not highlight similar artifacts in the middle areas of the picture. My own color density mapping identifies many of the same artifacts as well as ones found all over the middle of the document. These artifacts are not caused by digital manipulation; they are very likely caused by dirt or dust on the scanner’s glass, or by the scanner itself. Moreover, most of these artifacts are found at the endpoints or intersections of lines — this makes me believe it is the scanner more than dust or dirt.

TechDude’s identification of 100 suspicious points. (http://texasdarlin.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/2007-bo-cert-map-small.jpg)

More damning against TechDude is the selective nature of his “100 points”. The observable artifacts are all over the document and not just around the text areas that TechDude identified. TechDude appears to have chosen to identify the areas along the border and text in order to make the finding support his conclusion. (Bad TechDude. No cookie for you!)

TechDude’s second big picture attempts to identify a forgery via document overlay. However, he makes no attempt to align the text. When documents are scanned in, they can be cropped along the edge by the scanner. (Nearly all scanners and photocopy machines have alignment lines physically labeled on the scanner — put your paper between those lines or the document will be cropped.) Also, the image itself has been cropped. What TechDude seems to be identifying is that one or both of the documents were not placed exactly in the alignment box on the scanner and/or were cropped by software. However, TechDude mistakenly concludes that it “continues to prove the KOS document is a horrible forgery.”

TechDude’s overlay of two COLB documents. (http://texasdarlin.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/2007-bo-cert-map-overlay-small.jpg)

TechDude also says that he aligned it based on the pattern at the top. The top border pattern is repetitive. Notice on the right edge of the red text box (”CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH”) that the alignment misses by exactly one red square. If he were to shift it over by one red square, then it should have a much better alignment.

The overlaid documents also vary by width and height. This goes back to the resolution of the scanner. If both documents were not scanned at the exact same resolution, then there will not be a perfect alignment.

For someone who claims to be familiar with image analysis, I am surprised that TechDude forgot about one other scanner alignment issue: scanners are not perfect. Here’s a fun experiment:

Scan in a document.

Take the document off the scanner.

Put it back on the scanner.

Scan it again.

Now try the overlay.
Documents scanned twice on the same scanner will not scan the same way each time. And auto-size width and height will probably detect slightly different image sizes. If your software does not auto-detect width and height, then it will be the same dimensions, but image pixels should shift. Now, try the same experiment with two completely different scanner models. The overlay will show that they do not align since different scanners have slightly different aspect ratios.

TechDude claims to align his previous selective artifacts with a second document. However, I do not see the alignments as he described. Instead, I see his selective artifacts. If you select all of the artifacts, then the artifacts TechDude identified are coincidental. A few examples: 78 is in the bottom corner — there is a big red dot right below the “7”. And “68” is next to the word “AFRICAN”. Follow it horizontally past two of the background “=” and there is another big dot in the middle. If TechDude were correct, then these would align with text or border from the second document. However, these do not align. There are plenty of these big red dots with no alignment and they are all over the document. In the scientific community, what TechDude has done is called a “selective bias”.

TechDude’s closeup of the overlay, clearly showing large red dots that are not found in his alignment. (http://texasdarlin.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/overlay_r24_c02.jpg)

“Artifacts of Previous Owner: Text Uncovered”

TechDude believes that a zoom of the image, to the point of artificial distortion, can identify subtle variances which indicate a forgery.

This is just amazingly bogus. First, these images are low resolution JPEGs that were scanned in from an unknown scanner. When TechDude does a pixel-based zoom in as he did on his “FEM” image, he is seeing a combination of scanner artifacts, JPEG artifacts, and software anti-aliasing.

Second, JPEG stores images with a 2:1:1 compression ratio for color sub-sampling. (Twice as much luminance information is stored, compared to chrominance red and chrominance blue.) This means, if you zoom a JPEG larger than 100%, then the color gets approximated by your software. Above 200%, the brightness (luminance) gets approximated. TechDude has scaled this picture by more than 500%. His analysis of pixel coloring is bogus. The artifacts he is highlighting are due to his drawing program and not due to anything stored in the JPEG file.

TechDude’s zoom of a word added by TechDude identifies distortions added by his own graphics software. (http://texasdarlin.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/female-zoom.jpg)

After scaling the image larger, TechDude identifies regions that he believes contains a ghost image of the original text. He gives an example from a section of the background located next to the heading “SEX”. He claims to be seeing residuals from the word “FEMALE” being removed. Thus, he adds in the word “FEMALE” to prove his point. What he is actually seeing is the background pattern — a repeating pattern of horizontal and vertical lines (”||==||”) — along with artifacts from his software zooming in too far for the JPEG to maintain any quality. However, I should point out that even while squinting and blurring my eyes, I do not see the letters he claims are present in the region labeled 33.

A closeup of TechDude’s region 33 before TechDude added the word “FEMALE” to it. TechDude claims that the word FEMALE is visible.

“Conclusion”

In his “Conclusion”, TechDude writes “So now does anyone STILL think the KOS image is legitimate or will people just complain I overused the word ‘artifacts’ now?” I am not convinced. His analysis combines a selective bias with misinterpreted artifacts and false data. His analysis is a work of fiction.

Critics

TechDude claims that his credentials have been vetted and that we should trust his analysis. However, when addressing critics (and I assume that means me), TechDude writes: “people have already thoroughly checked my credentials and background, hence the reason I was personally asked to investigate and report on the digital images.” Since he won’t give us his name, can he provide the names of his professional reference who are not also anonymous? Saying “some people have vetted me” is like saying “My mother says I’m smart”. To be properly vetted, we need professional references and not vigorous handwaving with anonymous citations.

Credentials

Updated 6-Aug-2008
Under his credentials, TechDude claims:

20 years experience in the computer field; performing computer forensic investigations since 1993. Board certified as a forensic computer examiner and for the previous six years also licensed as a private investigator. A certificated legal investigator, served close to 6 years under the direction of a practicing attorney. Testified in numerous trials at the state level...written (winning) briefs and motions that have been presented for state’s Court of Appeals and state’s Supreme Court.

U.S. Department of Justice clearance for access to sensitive but unclassified information and has personally handled the investigation of over 7,000 cases. Previously received training from the Department of the Treasury, the Department of Homeland Security and FEMA as well as countless forensics seminars and specialized training events over the years. Five years ago, opened his own computer forensic science lab and often accepts cases pro bono. Active member of the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, the American College of Forensic Examiners, Computer Forensics Volunteer Project, a Member of Federal Bureau of Investigation’s InfraGard program, International Information Systems Forensics Association, The International Society of Forensic Computer Examiners, and others.

However, TechDude provides no information to support these claims. Moreover, these credentials are an adaptation from a respected investigator. TechDude’s credentials, background, and claimed real name in an online interview are an impersonation.

Who is TechDude?

Updated 6-Aug-2008
I have heard from the person that TechDude is impersonating. TechDude is impersonating Adam Fink’s background and credentials. I offer a sincere apology to Mr. Fink for associating his impersonation with TechDude.

I previously wrote that TechDude’s declared background was similar to Mr. Fink, but not a perfect alignment with Mr. Fink, suggesting that it could be an impersonation. That indeed is the case.

It is important to recognize that TechDude’s analysis is misleading and fraudulent. Moreover, TechDude is impersonating a respected investigator. People should not harass Mr. Fink since he is yet another victim of TechDude’s deception.
Posted by Dr. Neal Krawetz in Image Analysis at 13:18 | Comments (71)

Here’s the comments to that section

Comments
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

#1 Ray on 2008-08-04 14:45

I’m speechless. What a knockout!
#2 se on 2008-08-04 14:53

Hey Neal!

I think you may be misunderstanding just what it is that Techdude is claiming.

Essentially what he’s claiming is that the “forgers” took a genuine, paper COLB that belonged to someone other than Obama and removed the laser printing.

They then used the “blank” for creating the Obama COLB.

The 100 bits and pieces that he maps out on the image are what he claims to be the remnants of the original laser printing.

He then overlays the Michele COLB to show that the location of the remnants are consistent with the location of the border and text of a “real” COLB, such as the Michele COLB.

se
#2.1 Dr. Neal Krawetz (Homepage) on 2008-08-04 15:09

Hi se,

And what I am saying is that those “100 bits and pieces” don’t exist. He claims to be seeing things in the JPEG that do not exist.

His analysis approach does not reveal what he claims to show. He analyzes based on the least significant data (hue) and zooms the image in far beyond the maintainable quality.
#2.1.1 John Q. on 2008-08-04 17:28

Agreed. I fired up Photoshop and tried to recreate what was claimed. I did find some of the artifacts at various points which I are consistent with what you would get from any scanner. But I couldn’t find these so-called letter fragments, even zooming in to 500% and with inversion and various hue adjustments to increase the contrast. They simply were not there.
#2.1.2 NObama08 on 2008-08-04 20:41

Dr. Krawetz

In your 1st paragraph you lost the whole audience. Techdude did not make the claim that all COLB’s since 1959 were printed on the same printer.

What a moron you are if think you that is the case.

No need to read further. That large a blunder set you up for the ridicule you justifiably deserve.

If you happen to retract your mistake, I might waste my time reading the rest.
#2.1.2.1 John Q. on 2008-08-04 22:36

He didn’t lose me. I’ve read all of the ramblings of TD’s various “experts” even when I completely disagreed with their analysis or comments against Obama. I never demanded apologies or made snide remarks about their abilities. I challenged their assumptions and facts. I know that concept seems to escape you. Try it sometime. Or are you having a problem challenging the Dr.’s analysis?
#3 erik on 2008-08-04 16:07

Great report man!
#3.1 se on 2008-08-04 16:57

And what I am saying is that those “100 bits and pieces” don’t exist. He claims to be seeing things in the JPEG that do not exist.

No, there are “things” there. It’s just that the same sorts of “things” are found throughout the image, and not just where he’s pointing at.

Among others, you said you couldn’t see what he was highlighting for 11 and 14.

Here’s what he was highlighting:

http://www.q-audio.com/images/1114.jpg

See the tiny vertical looking smudge at 11? And the tiny horizontal looking smudge at 14?

Those are the sorts of things he’s highlighting. And you can see most of them in the image even at 1:1.

But as I said, you can see those sorts of things throughout the entire image, not just at the places he’s highlighted. It was all cherry picked.

se
#3.2 se on 2008-08-04 18:41

John Q

Yeah. I think what’s going on there just boils down to JPEG processing again.

The JPEG algorithm processes an image in 8 pixel by 8 pixel cells so the processed image is basically a big patchwork quilt of these cells.

As a result, there can be a fair amount of contrast between one cell and another.

Here’s a 14:1 blowup of a portion of the Obama image:

http://www.q-audio.com/images/jpegcells.jpg

You can pretty clearly see the delineation between cells.

I think these deliniations, at lower zoom levels, are simply causing people to “see” letters in them (I say people because others have claimed to see them as well).

se
#3.2.1 se on 2008-08-04 18:57

Oops. Forgot to upload the image to my server. It’s there now. Sorry.

se
#3.2.2 Ray on 2008-08-04 19:28

If these real or unreal marks are so prolific, we should be able to demonstrate what’s happening with a small high res TIFF (say 2 x 2 inches) after it is converted to JPG.
#4 Jerry on 2008-08-04 16:30

Dr. Krawetz,
I’m afraid that the notion that “this is not a political debate” flies out the window when you refer to Texas darlin as an “anonymous racist”, we all know that calling people racist is a tactic of the Obama-bots and you sir must be downing the Fool-Aid along with the rest of them!! Anytime someone throws out these accusations about anyone who questions anything about their new messiah,...well it is transparent where your loyalies lie and therefore your “opinion” is tainted and discredited.
I would suggest in order to be taken more seriously next time that you leave the “racist” comments out of you preamble.
#5 Roxy on 2008-08-04 17:59

I got as far as the your printer response, and don’t know if you misunderstood OR are deliberatry saying something different then he said.
you said “Hawaii has been a state since 1959. TechDude is claiming that Hawaii has only had one printer since 1959. Ignoring that” which is NOT what Techdude claimed, he said they have had the same printer since March of 2007 and the COLBs beng compared ALL were printed since that time.

“There is just one office that prints the COLB form for any birth that occurred in Hawaii. They have not changed their printer since the March 2007 COLB was printed and they only use one printer. For the really slow people that means they print one COLB at a time using the same computer and printer and unless Obama was NOT born in Hawaii the COLB form would have come from the same printer as the March 2007 and June 2008 COLBs”

Since I see how you changed this around, it makes me doubt anything else you are claiming.
#5.1 John Q. on 2008-08-04 18:42

I think you have a valid criticism. TD is claiming that only one printer has been used to print COLBs and therefore all of the printers should generate the same document. What this assumes, incorrectly, is that the same printer will print a document the same way every time. In fact, printers, especially “standard laser printers” that TD claimed is used, will not create the same document every time. Print the same document 500 times on a standard laser printer and I guarantee that there will be numerous flaws, shifts in alignment and other quirks that are par for the course for such a piece of equipment. These are not precise machines. They are “good enough” for most printing purposes but the idea that they will generate the same document over and over and over again is just ludicrous.
#5.1.1 Ray on 2008-08-04 19:24

The old 300 dpi laser printers used to splatter the whole page with black carbon dust. I used to see it quite frequently in same size line negatives while developing them. After the 600 dpi printers became more popular I noticed the splatter was greatly reduced bur still there, although they werw closer to the text than they were previously.

Those black spots would probably look rather big if they had been scanned at very high resolution - such as 600 or 1200 ppi. Would someone here be able to run out TWO very high resolution TIFFS of 2 laser prints (about 2 inches square) to demonstrate what can happen with good printers these days?
#5.2 Ray on 2008-08-04 20:50

“Since I see how you changed this around, it makes me doubt anything else you are claiming.”

It’s your own comments that are not credible if you cannot get past the bit about printers since 1959. No one would expect you to base your opinion on your impression of a writer. You’re supposed to be reading the evidence - all of it, instead of spitting the dummy.
#6 Patrick McKinnion on 2008-08-04 18:17

Jerry -

Attack the messenger much?

If I have to choose between the word of someone who I can verify their background and credentials, and the word of someone who hides behind a handle and claims a background that has no way of being proven, well, the internet tough guy loses.

Let’s have “TechDude’s” real name and background and submit his work to proper peer review. If it’s has good as he claims, there shouldn’t be a problem with that. It’s all about the truth, right?

Unless it’s not about the truth after all, and is just another internet smear job hiding behind shoddy research by nameless people
#6.1 Jerry on 2008-08-04 19:48

It appears that someone else may now have come to the same conclusion as Techdude,so he say’s he will come clean on who he is and what he believes..I don’t blame Techdude for wanting to keep his identity private, I wouldn’t want the Obama thugs targeting me!! I don’t really care who ends up being correct but I am so sick and tired of people accusing others of being racist!! The second that I hear that, you’ve lost me,....
#6.1.1 patrick McKinnion on 2008-08-04 20:12

You’re the one who brought up racism, not me. Which is the normal tactic you guys use - claim someone is playing the “racism/sexism/whateverism” card so you don’t have to answer things.

And if by making the claim that someone else managed to supposely find the “hidden name - find it and you win a FREE trip to Vegas on Air TechDude!!” thing, please. The fact that TD felt the need to rehash a post from mid-July about Sen. Obama’s sister and the fact that Larry Johnson at the formerly sane “NoQuarter” suddenly guessed the name kinda tells me that the mysterious name that “TechDude” claims to have found is “Maya Kassandra Soetoro”

Because that fits the entire “attack the family” tactic that “TexasDarling” and her tinfoil hat brigade have been claiming. So far, “TexasDarlin”, “Judah Benjamin”, “Polarik”, and “TechDude” have been not just slamming Sen. Obama, but his mother, father, stepfather, grandparents AND sister.

Just as the 90’s saw a cottage industry in stupid Clinton conspiracy theories, “TexasDarlin” and her band are trying to start a cottage industry in stupid Obama conspiracy theories.

Again, I’d rather choose the word of someone who I can verify their background and credentials, against the word of someone who hides behind a handle and claims a background that has no way of being proven. Even if that nameless internet tough guy is saying something I agree with, if I can’t verify what they claim, I take their claims with a grain of salt.
#6.1.1.1 Roxy on 2008-08-04 21:35

Jerry did not bring up racism,
“There are three main players in this conspiracy theory. An anonymous racist who goes by the nickname “Texas Darlin”, and two anonymous “researchers” named Polarik and TechDude.”

Techdude said he will tell his name ect. but the way Obama supporters go around with death threats ect, I can see why someone would be nervous having their personal info out there.
#6.1.1.1.1 Patrick McKinnion on 2008-08-04 21:52

What death threats??

The only reference to “Obama Supporter death threats” is in the PUMA echo chambers.

It’s like the “400 Paid Blogger” myth so many PUMAs believe. Trace it back far enough, and all you find is a single second-hand source claiming it was on a Fox News screen crawl with absolutely no proof, screenshots, or anything else. Just a single post that snowballed from site to site with not a single bit of proof except people’s willingness to believe the worse.

So, what credible sources do you have for these “death threats”. Police reports? Media reports? Or just more stories bouncing in the echo chambers?
#6.1.1.1.1.1 Philly Guy on 2008-08-05 15:11

Not so surprising when Obama’s supporters view him as [censored]?
And how about this:

[omitted]

[Moderator’s note: Flame bate omitted. Please keep comments on topic. Political discussions and digressions into fictional news articles should be moved to other forums. - Loris Kim]
#6.1.2 John Q. on 2008-08-04 20:16

Jerry,

Do you ever see black helicopters? Seriously, if you really believe that the Obama campaign is so powerful that people who oppose it have to live in fear of their lives, how could that same campaign be responsible for what TechDude claims is a shoddy fake? If you’re going to buy into the conspiracy, why only go half-way? Or did you ever consider that perhaps TechDude’s so-called findings aren’t backed up by the science that he claims supports them? I know that’s not as interesting but science isn’t about what looks good in the tabloids, it’s about dealing with the facts.
#7 Sami on 2008-08-04 19:01

The racist comments are really getting old. He lost me at that point — and so did Obama’s campaign.
#7.1 John Q. on 2008-08-04 19:46

This seems to be typical for the trolls from TexasDarlin. They refuse to address the substance of the criticisms, they refuse to deal with facts and they refuse to listen to anything that might counter their view of the world. I’ve tried to post to numerous contrary points both legal and technical at TexasDarlin and most of those comments have been rejected. That’s TD’s right but it just goes to show that those perpetuating this smear campaign are doing everything possible to keep the masses from hearing anything but their fantasy world version of the issue.
#7.1.1 Patrick McKinnion on 2008-08-04 20:19

You have to understand something......

The people who want to believe this - like people who want to believe ANY conspiracy theory - will believe it no matter what. We can present solid, strong evidence, but since we don’t believe, it doesn’t matter.

I’m not looking to convince those who want to believe this bogus theory of “TexasDarlin”, “Judah Benjamin”, “TechDude”, and the rest of the echo chamber. I’m looking to show people what the other side of the discussion is, so they can make their decisions based on truth and logic, not lies and mad theories by faceless and nameless internet “experts”
#7.2 Ray on 2008-08-04 19:50

A comment about racism is a relevant piece of background in an instructive blog, and so were some of the other comments that may not have been included in a formal report.
#7.3 se on 2008-08-04 20:27

I don’t blame Techdude for wanting to keep his identity private, I wouldn’t want the Obama thugs targeting me!!

Who or what exactly is this Obama Bogey Man that y’all seem to be afraid of and has you hiding under your beds like a bunch of scared children?

se
#8 Ray on 2008-08-04 21:52

NObama08 wrote:

Dr. Krawetz

In your 1st paragraph you lost the whole audience. [...]

No, that would only be the dopes who don’t want to hear the evidence, challenges or corrections.
#9 Christoph on 2008-08-04 23:10

Even though overall I tend to agree with your analysis, the reality is you made a BIG mistake regarding TechDude’s statement about the printer. He said:

“They have not changed their printer since the March 2007 COLB was printed and they only use one printer.”

TechDude also said:

“No need to take my word for any of this either as many people besides myself have already verified that this is indeed the case. Feel free to pick up a phone and call the good folks over at Vital Records yourself....”

So while I think TechDude is wrong and you are right and more knowledgeable on this subject, the reality is your statement in “The Printer” section:

“TechDude is claiming that Hawaii has only had one printer since 1959.”

... is terribly inaccurate, don’t you agree?
#10 Ray on 2008-08-04 23:27

Roxy wrote:

“Techdude said he will tell his name ect.”

No outline of name CAN be visible. While you’re waiting you should look at what’s actually around alphabetical characters in JPEG format — a sort of checkerboard full of artifacts that DON’T define outlines. That’s what they are there for - to provide a random-looking graduation of tone from the text colour text to the background colour.
#11 erik (Homepage) on 2008-08-04 23:46

according to the conspiracy nuts it looks the answer was Maya Kassandra Soetoro.(The funny thing is his mom was not born in Hawaii so she would not have have a birth certificate from that state.)
#12 Patrick McKinnion on 2008-08-05 00:04

I hate being right.

But I was. “Techdude’s” exclusive - he supposedly found Obama sister’s name on the COLB, just like I expected he would - and predicted earlier in the day.

http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/08/05/breaking-sister-mayas-birth-certificate-used-to-forge-obamas/

In case it didn’t look enough like a fishing expedition. Of course, “Techdue” could have claimed “Mickey Mouse” was on the COLB and it would be just as valid a claim as any other he’s made.
#13 Mike on 2008-08-05 01:16

“I am unaware of any “board” for certifying computer forensic examiners.”

Well why does the International Society of Forensic Computer Examiners have this language on their home page?

“even though they have not been credentialed by the ISFCE certifying board. “

Note it says BOARD.
#13.1 Patrick McKinnion on 2008-08-05 07:04

Since “TechDude” claims to be an ISFCE member, perhaps he should look at their code of ethics again.

http://www.isfce.com/ethics-form.htm

Particularly:

“A Certified Computer Examiner will at all times:

Maintain the utmost objectivity in all forensic examinations and accurately present findings.
Strive to maintain professionalism in assigned duties.

A Certified Computer Examiner will never:

Withhold any evidence that would tend to distort the truth.
Express an opinion on the guilt or innocence of any party.
* Show bias or prejudice in findings or examinations.

I suspect that one of the many reasons why “TechDude” really doesn’t want his name to be made public is that, if he was actually a member of the organizations he claims to be, he has opened himself up to complaints against those organizations charging violation of the ethical code all members are supposed to uphold.
#14 Dr. Neal Krawetz (Homepage) on 2008-08-05 10:03

I’ve just begun following the comments about my posting. So far, I see lots of insults and some minor criticism about my printer section, but nobody criticizing the image analysis analysis that I use to prove that TechDude’s analysis is a work of fiction, and that TechDude is a fraud.

I have also seen a couple of comments (not on my blog) that are outright false.

In her comments, TexasDarlin (http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/08/04/techdude-challenge-all-the-images-i-have-so-far/) wrote:

texasdarlin // August 4, 2008 at 10:06 pm
I attempted to post there, and Mister Krawetz would not accept the message.

I have checked with my site administrator and she assures me that no comments have been blocked or deleted. The last comment “censored” was from David Drake on Sun, 20 Jul 2008 17:28:22 -0700 due to personal attacks and fowl language, but his censored comment was posted. (Is TexasDarlin claiming to be David Drake?)

This was followed two hours later by another comment by TexasDarlin:

texasdarlin // August 5, 2008 at 12:45 am
I just read Dr. Neal’s blog! (I’m busy).
...
As for being racist, I DEMAND that Dr. Neal, whoever the hell he is, back up those charges with proof.

First, why would TexasDarlin be trying to post to my blog if she had not read the content? Then again, there is no record in the web log of her ever trying to post.

With regards to my comment: My proof is in the hyperlinked citation. TexasDarlin and Harriet Christian use the same email address. TexasDarlin claims that everyone uses the same email address, but that just isn’t true either. There are postings on the same forum from people who use other email addresses. Unless TexasDarlin can prove that he/she/it is not affiliated with Harriet Christian, I stand by the accusation.

The remainder of the comments on that blog which address my blog are “Proof by Bullying” or just nonsense. TechDude even tries to do a math proof (comment posted at August 5, 2008 at 12:23 am) and fails miserably.

With regards to the comments on my blog.
1. My section about printers was to serve three purposes.
First, to show that printers can change and printer output does change even with the same printer.
Second, to nit-pick about a sentence by TechDude.
Third, I knew it wasn’t written very well. This was intentional: I wanted to use it as a controlled test case to see how well the arguments were against my work. It is easy to argue the printer, but if the printer arguments lack logic, then it would be clear that opponents to my findings would not talk about the image analysis. Anyone attacking my image analysis findings must directly address the technology and use logical arguments. So far, there have been very weak arguments against my printer paragraph in other forums. (But in my own blog, some of the comments, like those by John Q and Ray, are well thought out.) In contrast, none have tried to even vaguely show anything wrong with my image analysis.

Having said that, I have no intention of rewriting or updating the printer section. Doing so would only give the conspiracy freaks a reason to think I am covering something up.

2. I stand by my statement about TexasDarlin being a racist. His/her continual attacks against a politician about something other than his political views directly indicates an ulterior motive. And his/her alignment with the email address associated with Harriet Christian shows a racial motivation. My inclusion of it in my report was as background material concerning the people making the accusations about a false COLB.

With regards to the insults: they do not prove me wrong.

Finally, I found one posting at http://koyaan.wordpress.com/2008/08/03/techdude-aint-got-zip/ by koyaan (comment dated August 4, 2008 at 1:04 am) that is excellent, in my opinion. He has an image he calls “Obama Measles”: http://www.q-audio.com/images/obamameasles.jpg
In this picture, Koyaan highlighted all of the “dots” that TechDude claims indicate a forgery. As I mentioned (but did not show), those dots are all over the document and all over the page. This further shows the selective nature of TechDude’s sample bias.
#14.1 Ray on 2008-08-05 11:57

Dr. Neal Krawetz wrote:

Everyone here would have known that you hadn’t really lost the plot and thought that there were laser printers in use in 1959. Inventors were still working on a carbon ribbon for manual typewriters back then.

And yes, TechDude is definitely a fraud - for many reasons, but particularly because there is no such thing as distinguishable outlines around alphabetical characters in JPG’s at ANY time - let alone after the characters have been filled in with the background pattern. There have been far too many lies and crooked innuendo to call his work a prank.

For the record - Texasdarlin has exhibited, and continues to exhibit SOME of the signs of a rabid racist. She may not be totally ignorant and believe that her race is superior, but she certainly doesn’t want any “foreign, tom-tom playing, native African, Arab, Muslim, Indonesian, illegitimate, adopted ‘bastard’ “ having a shot at the Presidency of HER country.
#15 polo on 2008-08-05 12:10

Just a dumb thought...

How difficult would it be to post a photoshop project file we could all open too see each of the steps?

I do it all the time. No offense but this 2000 word critic is unnecessary without techdude presenting a project file.

They people willing to spread this story without such file aren’t going to care what you write.

TexasDarlin, Uppity woman, Susan, and Larry are all racists. Anyone one paying attention knows this. Don’t waste a single minute on their whines to the contrary.
#15.1 Ray on 2008-08-05 13:02

polo wrote:

Just a dumb thought...

How difficult would it be to post a photoshop project file we could all open too see each of the steps?

How dificult? Very, very, very, very difficult because it doesn’t exist outside of Techdud’s skull.
#16 Rodn on 2008-08-05 12:17

All of this explanation is stupid.

The bottom line is that Senator Obama should release his original COLB. Period.

What re you afraid of?

The American people have a right to see his original COLB if they so request. NOT an image througha website (DKos or fightsmears).

It is a Constitutional requirement.

Why are you so afraid of asking to see the real deal ?

*THE ORIGINAL SIR, THE ORIGINAL PLEASE*.
#16.1 Mark on 2008-08-05 12:27

Wow Rodn - That is the best counter argument I have ever heard. “All of this explanation is stupid.” Well-reasoned, logically discussed, and coherently argued.

Rodn: You are the definition of “FAIL”.
#16.2 John Q. on 2008-08-05 13:57

“The American people have a right to see his original COLB if they so request. NOT an image througha website (DKos or fightsmears).

It is a Constitutional requirement.”

I’m sorry, please direct me to where in the Constitution it says that you have a right to view anyone’s COLB if you request, as you claim?
#16.3 Jennem on 2008-08-05 15:01

Are you suggesting that Obama should mail every single registered voter a certified copy of his COLB?

Seriously?

Because THAT MAKES SENSE.
#16.4 Mark on 2008-08-05 17:16

Even before being elected, the President candidates undergo extensive background checks. The COLB is not required, nor are any findings from the background check required to be made public. While governmental oversite groups have access, the general populace does not.

Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, etc. never released their birth certificates — I openly challenge PUMA to find birth certificates for the last ten presidents and proof that it was made public before being elected.

Having Obama release his COLB publicly shows an openness not seen with other political candidates.
#16.4.1 anon voter on 2008-08-05 21:28

well, there’s mccain, who has shown reporters his birth certificate and gave access to his medical records. so jennem, i think thats what people want- a real copy to reporters, not individual mailings! I agree with many here that the way in which these findings are being presented are suspicious. However, i also think the secrecy of the Obama campaign is suspicious. So as you ask techdude to provide his results in an open way, I think Obama should too. If there is nothing to this, give the major networks access to the birth certificate.
#17 Ray on 2008-08-05 12:56

Rodn wrote:

All of this explanation is stupid.

The bottom line is that Senator Obama should release his original COLB. Period.

No he shouldn’t. He MUST be and WILL be treated like the White folks.

Ray
#18 Ray on 2008-08-05 15:54

John Q. wrote:

_”The American people have a right to see his original COLB if they so request. NOT an image through a website (DKos or fightsmears).

It is a Constitutional requirement.”_

I’m sorry, please direct me to where in the Constitution it says that you have a right to view anyone’s COLB if you request, as you claim?

Here it is. It’s a writ that is similar to that of Habeas Corpus.

[omitted]

Ray

[Moderator’s note: Flame bate omitted. Please keep comments on topic. Political discussions and digressions into fictional laws should be moved to other forums. - Loris Kim]
#19 John Q. on 2008-08-06 00:53

I see that TechDude has re-emerged to obfuscate the situation.

http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/08/05/breaking-sister-mayas-birth-certificate-used-to-forge-obamas/#comment-5650

As always, TD says a lot without saying much at all. He questions the requests for step-by-step instructions in Photoshop, even though this would be considered by many to be a standard program for viewing and altering images, as TD suggests we do. He suggests that he’s writing the instructions for multiple skill levels and multiple applications on different operating systems. Why? So to introduce all kinds of variables that he can use to justify why you couldn’t replicate his work? Why will he not simply list:

1) The graphics program that he used
2) The OS that he used it on
3) The steps he used to “discover” the text he claims exists
4) Images that demonstrate the final product (we’re still waiting on the ZIP file that was promised but never produced)

This is basic information. His continued refusal to list that information is more evidence that his “discovery” exists only in his head.
#19.1 Dr. Neal Krawetz (Homepage) on 2008-08-06 03:50

And we return to proof-by-bullying. Notice all of his insults without ever addressing the image analysis.

TechDude seems to balk at the idea of showing a step-by-step solution. However, in his interview at Atlas Shrugs (http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/07/forensic-expert.html), he mentions enjoying things like the DC3’s Forensic Challenge. The challenge has a very specific rule: you must show your work. All of the challenges start with instructions like “Examiners must develop and document a methodology to...” Failure to do so will cost you points in the challenge. Being asked to provide enough detail to replicate the work is not an unreasonable request.

TechDude then begins to attack my credibility. I can already see that he is doing some really bad background checking.

1. Hany Farid never “spanked his ass publicly for trying to pass yet another crock of crap to the media in one of Neil’s desperate bids for attention”. I believe this reference is to the following interview with NBC:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21530470/
In the interview, Dr. Farid was quoted as:
He suggests that while there are “quirky” aspects to the video, he doesn’t think there is a clear case that the two videos were made at the same time and are certainly not the same video used twice.

“I think it’s extremely unlikely these are actually the same video,” says Farid. “I know that there’s people out there who are saying that it’s probably a copy, but I think in what we have seen so far, that is probably not the case. There are just too many differences between the videos, both at the visual level and at sort of a mathematical level.”

That certainly isn’t “being spanked”. In fact, we both agree that it is not the same video (read the next few paragraphs in the same article):
Krawetz does not believe that al-Qaida used the exact same video it did in 2004. Instead, he suspects that al-Qaida had recorded much more video than it released in 2004. There may have even been two sittings. “The main thing I am getting at: I am not saying that they are the same recording,” he said. “I believe they recorded a speech, changed a little, and then recorded some more. (Under this same theory, they may have done it many times and AQ just has not released other videos yet).”

The professional difference is that I believe the two videos were made within days of each other, while Dr. Farid is leaving open the possibility that they were not.

I should also mention that prior to this news report, US Intelligence officials would quickly confirm “it is Bin Laden” whenever a video was released. Following this interview, they stopped confirmation. Now they simply say that they are investigating the authenticity whenever new recordings by Bin Laden are released. Call this coincidence if you like.

I am actually surprised that TechDude would attempt to drag in other image analysis professionals who have not voluntarily entered this heated topic. This seems very unprofessional.

2. It seems that TechDude is searching newsgroups and cannot tell the difference between myself and some people who impersonated me. I saw this because he mentions two trolls — one who actually left death threats on my answering machine while impersonating the other troll. I would like to reference TechDude to this posting (posted on a forum where I have never made any postings, but my impersonators did):
http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2007/Jun/0401.html
And to a paper I wrote at Security Focus on online impersonations:
http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/441
It is not a coincidence that I wrote an article about online impersonations during a time when I was being impersonated online.

As an aside, TechDude should be very careful since he openly mentions two professional trolls by name — they have a nasty habit of attacking anyone who does so.

Finally, as I wrote in my blog (http://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/209-Black-Hat-2008.html), I will likely be at a conference when TechDude’s report and directed attack against me is made public. I will have limited network access and will probably be unable to respond (if a response is warranted) until next week. During that same time, comments to my blog may be delayed (the forum moderator is also going to the conference).

#19.1.1 don wilkie on 2008-08-06 07:29

devestating analysis, but aren’t we missing the forest for the trees. we are hiring obama to fill a position that would make him the most powerful man in the world. when i hire someone, i want to see the actual drivers license and ss card, not a copy. if your underage and go to a bar will a copy of a birth certificate or drivers license get you served? i think not. all of this back and forth is missing the central point; we have a right to see the actual certificate. period.
#19.1.1.1 Dr. Neal Krawetz (Homepage) on 2008-08-06 08:10

Hi Don Winkie,

Two responses come to mind.

1. My analysis is not questioning the authentication of the COLB. My analysis is answering the question “has it been modified”. (There is a difference between “real” and “authentic”.) To this regard, there is no evidence of modification. Moreover, I believe I have debunked a fictional analysis that claims to have shown modification.

2. As far as the political aspect goes, yes and no...
Yes: someone must and will (and probably has) validated his eligibility.
No: that someone does not need to be you.
While we should trust that someone in our government will do the right thing, there are levels upon levels of oversight committees designed to make sure they do the right thing. If you wish to be on the list of presidential eligibility reviewers, then I suggest joining one of the appropriate oversight committees.

[omitted]

[Moderator: Sorry Neal. Please take the political debate to some other forum. The focus here is on image analysis. -Loris Kim]
#19.1.1.2 Liz I. on 2008-08-06 08:24

Don, it took me a while, because I’m old, but I finally remembered and yeah, you’re absolutely right. We have a “right” to see “the actual birth certificate” of Senator Obama!

Just as we saw the birth certificates of the candidates in all the other preseidential elections I’ve voted in since 1968.

Yes, I remember this quite clearly now. Let’s see, we must have demanded ACTUAL! birth certificates from:

Hubert Humphery
Richard Nixon
George McGovern
Gerald Ford
Jimmy Carter
Ronald Reagan
Walter Mondale
George H. Bush
Michael Dukakis
William Clinton
Robert Dole
George W. Bush
Albert Gore
John Kerry

Who in the world, seeing this list could POSSIBLY think anyone is trying to apply different standards to the African American candidate?
#19.1.1.2.1 Dr. Neal Krawetz (Homepage) on 2008-08-06 08:43

Hi Liz,

I believe you are mistaken.
There is only one form required to run for president:
http://www.fec.gov/info/forms.shtml
http://www.fec.gov/pdf/forms/fecfrm2.pdf

Nowhere does it require proof of citizenship. The proof is required by laws and the laws do not say that a birth certificate must be provided; only proof of US citizenship.

Loris: I’m just replying. I don’t mean to extend a political debate.

[Moderator: I’ll let it go this time. -Loris Kim]
#19.1.1.2.1.1 Bubblechaser on 2008-08-09 10:35

Thank you Dr. Krawetz, I stand in support of you and your position. Tech Dude is like this 300# bully I have living across from me. A lot of wind and a lot of mass, but that is about it; no science, just down-talking and making fun of people who may not support him before any has said anything. I love it when a professional gets into the fray on the side of justice, not a particular person. The language used by Tech Dude just says so much about his own emotional insecurity. If any of us would meet this person in real life we would probably just walk away and ignore him, because it would be so difficult to listen to them. We should never answer a fool according to his folly if we do not have our facts straight and this is mostly emotional rhetoric coming from him. Thank you for setting me straight on this subject.
#19.1.1.2.2 donald wilkie on 2008-08-07 23:41

dear liz,
you are quite right, i don’t recall anyone asking for the birth certificates of the candidates you list. i do know, though, because i too am old, that their eligibility was never in question. it is undeniable, however, that mr obama is a different case. his father was of african nationality, his step-father was of indonesian nationality, and obama spent his youth and was schooled in indonesia.
is there a possibility that obama is not a native born american? the answer is obviously yes. (this is simple, and should not lead someone to call someone else a racist, don’t you think, liz?)
that being said, my governor cannot be president because she was born in canada (jennifer granholm). the governor of california cannot be president because he was born in austria (arnold).
i believe you are passionate about this issue and therefore are a believer in the constitution. so in closing i will say only this, we the people created the constitution and we put in it the rules by which we the people have to live by. we the people decided that in order to be president you have to be natural born: “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President”
my dear liz, being an american, wouldn’t you want to know, for sure, that our presidential candidate was eligible for the position... without question? i say, show me the real thing. don’t we deserve that? should we elect someone who time will tell is inelegibe? can’t you and i agree on this simple point, liz?
#19.1.1.2.2.1 John Q. on 2008-08-10 19:55

The nationality of Mr. Obama’s father and step-father are irrelevant to his eligibility to be President. He was born in the United States, has never renounced his citizenship and thus is eligible to run and serve. What evidence do you have to the contrary?
#20 se on 2008-08-06 08:31

BREAKING Techdude Disproves His Own Analysis.

Film at 11:00!

http://koyaan.wordpress.com/2008/08/06/mayas-split-personality/

se
#21 Patrick McKinnion on 2008-08-06 09:43

Brace yourself Dr. Krawetz - the talking heads at “TexasDarlin” are claiming that YOU “couldn’t deny Techdude’s qualifications are impeccable”

http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/08/05/1521/

“IF Techdude is right, and I believe he must be since his qualifications are impeccable (even Dr Neal Krawetz cannot deny that), the Certification of Live Birth posted on KOS and FTS is a Forgery based upon an original belonging to somebody other than Senator Obama.”
#22 Ray on 2008-08-06 10:32

On the Texasdarlin blog (2nd thread)
a short time ago, Techdude said a few
things that indicate he is no longer
treating the alleged forgery as the
earth-shattering, issue that it was
previously.

“I just do not care as much about
this issue nor do I think it is as
ground breaking or important as you
do.”

Ray
#23 John Q. on 2008-08-06 14:26

To use the style used by the conspiracy theorists, let’s examine TechDud’s record:

1) Real Name - Not released
2) Professional qualifications - Not released
3) Graphics program used to manipulate images - Not released
4) Operating system of computer used with graphics program - Not released
5) Promised ZIP file of full-scale images - Not available
6) Images showing name “hidden” in image artifacts - Not released
7) Step-by-Step instructions on how to recreate said image - “Not available”
8 ) Published articles - None
9) Examples of peer-reviewed work - None

Seems like TechDud’s needs to get working on his own paper trail.
#24 Ray on 2008-08-06 14:56

I doubt if anyone here would be concerned about any of that stuff if Techdude released just one image that gives some sort of credible outline of Obama’s sister’s name on his COLB.
#25 John Q. on 2008-08-06 15:18

Another example of the detective “work” done over at TD. This time it’s “Judah Benjamin” who finds “proof” that Obama lied about his parents divorce because he found a court record that said the divorce was initiated in 1980 but not terminated until 1988. A quick search on a common name found that it was not just his parents engaging in such deception. Here are the Jones - they have the exact same termination date as Obama’s parents:

SHEILA ANNETTE JONES VS ROBERT ANTHONY JONES
Case #: 1DV00-0-119484

Or how about these Joneses? Like Obama’s parents, their divorce was stated back in 1981 but not finalized until 1988.

JOHN S JONES VS. PAMELA L JONES
1DV00-0-122221
Case Termination Date: 10-22-1988

Look! It’s proof of deception! Or the more logical answer is that these cases are not “terminated” until a minor child comes of age due to the child support arrangements (as is referenced in the documents attached to the case for Obama’s parents). With master sleuths like this, I’m sure that the Holy Grail will soon be found.
#26 Sue on 2008-08-06 19:34

Wow. How much trouble would it have been to contact Mr. Fink before drawing him into this kernuffle on a guess?

[Moderator’s note: Be patient. -Loris Kim]
#26.1 John Q. on 2008-08-06 21:01

The person who drew Mr. Fink into this “kerfuffle” was TechDud who made numerous references that played on Mr. Fink’s name, background and credentials in an attempt to pass himself off as an expert. I caught the recent reference by TechDud to “Adam” which was part of the hoax.
#27 se on 2008-08-06 20:10

Turns out Techdude’s verifying KG’s analysis isn’t the first time he’s contradicted his own claims.

http://koyaan.wordpress.com/2008/08/06/more-proof-of-techdudes-cherry-picking-fabrication/

se
#28 John Q. on 2008-08-11 08:54

Another Expert takedown of TechDud.

http://exforensis.blogspot.com/2008/08/obama-fake-birth-certificate-fact-or.html

My follow-up in response to Judah Benjamin (who won’t give up the fraud) that likely won’t be posted at TD’s site.

“There you would discover that Daniel does believe that the document has been “interfered” with in such a way as to remove its evidential value and render it, at the best, questionable.”

That is not what he says and I doubt he would agree with your summary of his comments. I work with scanned documents every day and almost every document that goes online is run through Photoshop. Why? In order to make them suitable for viewing online by reducing the file size and putting them into a file format, like JPEG, that is suitable for web browsers. This isn’t evidence that the image has been manipulated in any way (other than to reduce the size of the image and change the format). Nowhere on the Obama web site does it claim that the image presented online is of the original scan. Nor would it make sense that the original scan was done in a JPEG format. Anyone who actually works with scanned images would know that which is why it’s best to leaving the discussion to people who actually know what they are talking about.
#29 josh on 2008-08-11 13:51

You are all missing the point,

The document at question is at best merely an ABSTRACT of what purports to be a birth certificate. The real birth certificate would be typewritten or handwritten into a stock form for the state of HA. If the Obama campaign cannot furnish a certified copy of the origional form filled out bedside in 1961, that is evidence he was born outside the USA and is inelegible by the Constution. The stakes could not be higher. Go HIll go!!!
#29.1 Dr. Neal Krawetz (Homepage) on 2008-08-11 14:59

Josh,

I don’t know how to put this any other way: you are wrong.

I strongly suggest that you actually take the time to learn about what a birth certificate is, how it is presented in legal documents, and what the requirements are for presidential eligibility before you reply again. You are wrong on far too many levels.
#30 Edward M on 2008-08-14 22:25

Dear Dr. Krawetz,
In your published rebuttal of techdude’s claims, you admittedly made a gross misrepresentation of his claims about the printer. This was seemingly done as a “test” of other bloggers, to see whether they noticed it, and if so, how well they argued against it. Your behavior begs a question: Have you written any other “tests” into your rebuttal?
#30.1 Dr. Neal Krawetz (Homepage) on 2008-08-15 06:44

Hi Edward M,

Excellent question. No I did not. Everything else (image analysis, credential check, “Who is”, etc.) are as accurate as I could do, with no intentional misinformation.

And I am still disappointed that the conspiracy people did not do a technical attack against the printer section. Good arguments could include inkjet vs toner, low toner levels leading to different quality, low ink levels, if inkjet then yellow-dotting, and more. Anti-conspiracy people mentioned different printings being unique and toner dust. Sadly, the conspiracy people they just resorted to calling me names.

In contrast to the printer section, nobody has even begun to attempt to counter my image analysis. (It’s hard to attack my findings since they are probably accurate.)

In other blog entries (not on the COLB topic) my intentional misinterpretations are usually done tongue-in-cheek.
#31 Ray on 2008-08-15 23:37

[HONOLULU ADVERTISER] - Comment from Hawaii Health again.

Health officials contacted the Obama campaign a few months ago in response to the persistent inquiries “to see if they could try and resolve the issue with the people who were asking questions,” she said.

“They responded and apparently it isn’t good enough that he posted his birth certificate,” Okubo said. “They say they want it because they claim he is not a citizen of the United States. It’s pretty ridiculous.”

TINYURL: http://tinyurl.com/6o4rpw

The author does not allow comments to this entry

I found some of Polarik's comments on the Secure Computing website. I don't think it's all of them. Here's what I'd do if I were Polarik. I'd answer the last comment, post it here, and copy it there and direct people over to this website with a link. The reason is that the other website is likely to go down a dark hole some time in the next 2 years, especially if Obama's goons start crawling all over the place. http://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/202-The-Birth-of-a-Conspiracy.html#comments The Birth of a Conspiracy Monday, July 14. 2008 I am always fascinated by new conspiracies. Even when shown the truth, some people hold tightly to their beliefs that something must be wrong. This is the same mentality that forms "guilt before proving innocent". While some conspiracies are short lived, others seem to take a life of their own. One such conspiracy that just will not die concerns presidential hopeful Barack Obama's birth certificate. The conspiracy is best summed up at Kos' blog, DailyKos: Those rumors include the claim that Obama was born in Kenya, that his middle name isn't "Hussein", but "Muhammad", and that his real name is "Barry" and not "Barack". The first and third are attempts to reinforce the claims that Obama isn't "American" enough -- the first because he wouldn't have been born in this country, and the third because he would've taken a perfectly good "American" name and rejected it in favor of a foreign one. DailyKos and FactCheck.org even went so far as to acquire a copy of the birth certificate. However, the conspiracy theorists then claimed that the image was fake. I am currently getting 1-2 requests per week about analyzing this image. Sometimes people want me to prove it is fake, other want me to prove it is real. However, many people have already investigated and analyzed the picture... My colleague, Chris 'Xenon' Hanson, did an excellent job debunking the manipulation theory. My own analysis supports Xenon's findings. However, Xenon analyzed a smaller version of the birth certificate, while I analyzed the large one found at DailyKos. The net result? Luminance Gradient. Digital cameras and scanners add noise into the image. The main things to look for are noise and straight edges. In this case, there is a realistic noise pattern across the entire image. Although the letters look straight, they all have distinct anti-aliasing patterns, making every letter unique. If this were computer generated, then I would not expect the noise pattern, and many letters should look identical. Principal Component Analysis (PCA). There are three principal components. PC1 identifies jpeg artifacts from resaves. (Technically, I compute distance from a line normal to PC1 that passes through the center of mass, but nobody like math-talk.) If the image is manipulated or spliced, then different areas will have different artifact qualities. However, this picture seems consistent. The remaining two PC's (PC2 and PC3) can identify if colors come from alternate color spaces (common when splicing images). In this case, nothing stands out beyond the center of the black text letters (a good, high-quality scanner can turn black into real black when it detects it). PC3 also brings out the folds in the paper (look at the top, near the seal, for the horizontal line). This sure looks like a scanned piece of paper. Color Density. This algorithm clusters colors by similarity. Computer graphics will usually appear as uniform coloring. However, real life images will have blotches of different colors. The background shows good blotches; it looks real. Unfortunately, there is not much I can say to the people who believe this image has been manipulated, except "you're wrong." There is no indication of image manipulation. In contrast, there are a few things that do stand out from all of this: At Xenon's blog, he not only analyzed the real certificate, but also some forgeries. The forgeries really stand out as being fake when doing PCA. The edited text is clearly the wrong color. With the exception of the black censor line, nothing appears abnormal. EXCEPT: The image on Obama's site has no visible noise when doing a luminance gradient analysis. Real pictures should have noise. However, this picture is also much smaller. When images are shrunk, noise is averaged out. DailyKos has a different image (bigger) of the same thing. This bigger picture contains the expected noise as well as realistic scanner artifacts. The black censor stripe appears to be in the same location. Thus, this bigger version appears to be the original to the smaller version found on Obama's site. Amazingly, Kos does not say where he got this higher quality scan. (Usually he does such a good job of citing his sources.) And I cannot find the big picture at "barackobama.com". This begs the question: where did the big picture come from? Did "barackobama.com" take the big version from Kos (or from that same source where Kos got it) and then shrink it down for their own site? Or maybe I'm just not looking in the right location. Of course, there are ways to fool image analysis. For example, if someone created the birth certificate, printed it, folded it, put on a stamp on the back, then scanned it in, then it would appear real, and yet not be authentic. This leads to the other item: only US citizens born in the United States or in a US territory or born to US citizens can become President. If there was anything funny in Obama's background, you can be certain that both the Democrats and Republicans would have stopped him long ago. (And if any conspiracy nut thinks that every Republican and every Democrat is secretly working together to make Obama president, then you are seriously delusional.) PS. Thanks to Steve Eddy for convincing me to make my own evaluation public. Posted by Dr. Neal Krawetz in Image Analysis at 20:32 | Comments (43) Comments Display comments as (Linear | Threaded) #1 Ray on 2008-07-15 02:33 (Reply) As a matter of interest, I found when I compared Kos's image of the certificate with the 'Smears' website image, that they aligned perfectly. I did that by altering the resolution of the smaller 'Smears' image from 72ppi to 300ppi and then copy/pasting it onto Kos's image at a slightly smaller size, so that the same alpha-letters lined up. It sounds like Kos and Factcheck.org both received an identical 11 x 8.5" 1.7MB jpeg from the Obama campaign people, but Kos re-compressed his version after removing the excess image outside the borders. This took the cropped image from potentially 1MB after cropping, to 0.5MB. If any of the Photoshoppers still claim that the Obama certificate is a forgery, then all they need to do to show us how it can be done without tampering being obvious. So far none of them have accepted this challenge. #2 ksdb on 2008-07-15 07:03 (Reply) First, look at the EXIF data in the factcheck.org document. There are several Photoshop tags in there ... much more than would be needed to black out the certificate number. Unfortunately, the tags are unknown tags, so we can't track what type of manipulation was done, but something definitely was done to the document as posted. Second, there's a typo under the date filed. There's no space between the comma and the year. Contrast that to the space with the date of birth. The large amount of space between all the first, middle and last names suggests that the state of HI prints certificates from a database with a template and field codes. (If you've printed address labels through a database merge, you'll know what I'm talking about.) There's no reason the spacing on the dates would be inconsistent ... and they aren't on three other known HI birth certificates. This suggests that the date was manually entered on the document, such as through the photoshop text tool. Otherwise, some poor soul at the Department of Health at Hawaii has to enter birth certificate information by hand for each request?? Doesn't seem very likely. Third, someone had described the method for opendna to make his blank certificate that caused degradation of the raised state seal. They explained that he could have modified it with a graphics program, printed it and then rescanned it. This technique would also explain why Obama's seal can't be seen clearly (without graphic manipulation) on the factcheck, KOS or Fight the Smears images. It would also explain why several of the things that Dr. Krawetz looked for did not show up. Maybe a blank or 'erased' certificate was scanned and all the text was added back in ... and then printed and scanned again ... this time with the number blacked out. The other thing that points to some sort of tampering is the black box over the certificate number. The edges are blurry. If you simply place a black box on an image in photoshop and save it, the edges should be sharp. This blurring could be an indication that a filter was applied to the image, perhaps to make it look less than 'perfect.' It could also be the result of compressing the image when it was saved or resizing the image. The factcheck image has the largest dimensions and file size of those other certificates that are posted, so one expects not to see compression or resizing on that image. For the images posted on Web sites that had to be resized, yes, but for the original image, it shouldn't be necessary. I don't necessarily think the Obama certificate is an outright forgery, but there are enough anomalies to suspect tampering. This could easily be cleared up if Obama releases unaltered scans of the frong and back of his certificate. #2.1 Dr. Neal Krawetz (Homepage) on 2008-07-15 08:37 (Reply) Hi ksdb, Clearly, you have not analyzed at many JPEG images. First, I suggest downloading exiftool and using it to view the metadata. Now, to address your comments: 1. You stated, "There are several Photoshop tags in there ... much more than would be needed to black out the certificate number." You are incorrect. Photoshop always adds in those tags, even if you only save the image once. Moreover, the use of Photoshop is not even abnormal -- this image appears to be scanned in, and many people use Photoshop to read data from the scanner. 2. You point out a missing space in the registrar's date. This could be attributed to human data entry. As I mentioned, there is no evidence of digital manipulation. You also said, "Otherwise, some poor soul at the Department of Health at Hawaii has to enter birth certificate information by hand for each request?? Doesn't seem very likely." Clearly, you have never worked for the government. It strikes me as VERY likely -- a human probably handles all requests for duplicate birth certificates. However, let's assume it is automated. This would mean the program that prints the date is missing a comma. Programs like this are created by the lowest bidder. Moreover, they charge for bug fixes (like "add a comma"). Assuming a program and assuming anyone in the Hawaii government noticed, they probably didn't want to pay to have the comma-space fixed. Arguing why the space is not there does not change the fact that there is no evidence of digital manipulation. 3. With regards to OpenDNA (see http://s100.photobucket.com/albums/m35/opendna/?action=view&current=HI_birthcert.jpg). I love it! Use error level analysis on the image -- it has clearly been doctored! Xenon has his own analysis of it where he shows all of the evidence of manipulation. (http://xenon.arcticus.com/barack-obama-birth-certificate-image-tampering-analysis-redux) 4. You also wrote about the censor box in the top corner. You wrote, "The edges are blurry. If you simply place a black box on an image in photoshop and save it, the edges should be sharp." The large image from factcheck.org was saved at a relatively low quality (88% -- Photoshop "8 High" quality, see my jpegquality tool). What you are seeing are JPEG artifacts and not evidence of manipulation. You also wrote "So one expects not to see compression or resizing on that image." I see no evidence of resizing on factcheck.org's image. And as far as seeing compression goes, JPEG is a lossy image file format. Any time an image is saved as a JPEG, there is a little image corruption introduced. With JPEGs, corruption will show up strongest along high-contrast colors that are not on an 8x8 grid boundary. This accurately describes the black censor line. Although the top is along an 8x8 boundary (and the top is crisp), the sides and bottom of the box are not on the 8x8 boundary, so they appear blurry. While you may see anomalies and suspect tampering, I see none. I see no evidence of image manipulation, no abnormalities to raise suspicion, and no motive. Remember: Obama is already a Senator and has been vetted for security clearance. Otherwise he could not be on committees like the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs -- both committees have access to classified information. If he did misrepresent his birth certificate, then it would be immediately contradicted by his background check and would be used against him by his opposition. Obama is a Senator. As such, he certainly has skeletons in his closet and stuff he is likely trying to hide. (There are no purely innocent Senators.) However, I believe that Obama's birth certificate is not one of these dirty secrets. (And the same argument goes for McCain. At least we know Hillary's dirt -- it's her husband.) #3 ksdb on 2008-07-15 09:48 (Reply) 1) This is absolutely false. I've tested several jpgs and did not come up with the same tags that were embedded in the factcheck.org document. Many of these tags do NOT appear in the KOS and Fight the Smears document. They were either saved for the web or used with software program other than photoshop by KOS. This suspsicion stands to reason because the St. Petersburg Times posted copies of the certificate and saved them in photoshop, which embedded a new date while preserving some of the original tags. This was NOT the case with the KOS images, which still showed the same embedded time stamp as the factcheck document, but without some of the other photoshop tags. Clearly some sort of image manipulation occurred beyond blacking out the certificate number. Whatever was done MIGHT be innocent, but we won't know unless we see a document that was NOT opened and saved in Photoshop or if a physical copy is presented to reporters. 2) I already mentioned there could be human error, but it shouldn't happen if the process is automated by processing the data with merge codes. I'm aware of three other examples where the certificates were printed without this error. This leaves a strong suspicion of tampering - that the date was changed but not proofread to catch the typo. If it can be shown that the state of HI has this problem with other certificates, then we have a reasonable explanation for the mistake. Until then, it's definitely cause for suspicion. 3) Sorry, but I'm not seeing where xenon is utilizing the same tests you applied, i.e., lumninance, color density, etc. The evidence of forgery Xenon found can be seen pretty easily with the naked eye, so sorry, I'm not impressed by the smoke and mirrors he used. I mentioned the opendna image because the seal is less visible than it is on Obama's, which is barely visible to begin with. This goes in stark contrast to the three other known certficates that I mentioned in the previous point. If opendna copies the KOS image, printed it and rescanned it, it explains why his seal is less visible then Obama's. This same technique could explain Obama's seal is much less visible than the other three documents I mentioned. Each time it's scanned, printed and/or resized, it fades further and further away. 4) This explanation fails by simple testing. I created a new document, added a black rectangle and saved the image at jpg level 8. When reopened, the box is clean with no artifacts. I also did a second test by creating a black box in the factcheck image and saved it at 8. Again, when reopened, no blurring of ANY edges. 5) Obama's security clearance would not vet him as being a natural born citizen, which is constitutionally required for being president. He is a citizen, which is not in question, but not necessarily a natural born citizen. We can't assume anything about his status as a natural born citizen based on his position as senator. Also, this particular certificate is obviously NOT the certificate he would have used to get any kind of a clearance (if a birth certificate was even requested), since it is barely more than a year old. As far the information being found before, no one has had direct access to Obama's birth certficate. The state of Hawaii doesn't allow it. The St. Petersburg Times requested it since April, but it wasn't until June (after Hillary conceded) that Obama finally released the certificate. One last thing - Obama has no reason to black out the certificate number. It is the least sensitive information on the document and the one piece of information that could actually confirm its legitimacy. Covering up that number makes it look like Obama has something to hide. John McCain presented his birth certificate without blacking out the certificate number, so we can certainly expect the same from Obama. Bottom line, the evidence of Photoshop and the the typo hints at tampering. Your analysis does nothing to change that. #3.1 Rob in Denver (Homepage) on 2008-07-15 12:46 (Reply) @ksdb: I don't think the typo in the date field is enough to cast further suspicion... if only because you're assuming incorrectly that "the date's in a computer database, therefore the data must be clean." I agree with you that the likelihood is small that a State of Hawaii employee who must fill these things out each time someone requests a COLB copy. But at some point, someone had to keywhack this information into the state's system. What's more, I think it's safe to assume the state began using computerized databases for this purpose sometime after 1961. Assuming this is correct, and I think that's likely, there were probably tens of thousands of birth records in Hawaii --- if not more --- that needed to be entered. Plus, depending on when the data was entered, the user interface may not have had form validation, a calendar control, or field masking... all of which would help improve data integrity. All of this, of course, introduces a significant potential for human error, which includes a missing space between the comma and the year. #3.1.1 ksdb on 2008-07-15 23:26 (Reply) Rob, if you merge data from a database, there's going to be a month field, a day field and a year field. Do we assume the comma is added to the day field or included as part of the template code for printing the certificates, such as: 'mmmmmmmm&dd;yyyy'?? What would a database entry have to contain to omit that space?? The year field would have to start like this #yyyy and Obama's is missing the #?? Or do we assume the day field has a comma and a space, so it would 'mmmmmddddyyyy'?? This method seems pretty unlikely, especially given the wide amount of space between first, middle and last names, which all seem to be uniform. These are probably standardized fields, so it seems unlikely that it would require an operator to make any changes in field masking or validation on a certifate-by-certificate basis. Hopefully you see why it doesn't make sense that someone keywhacked an entry in a data field that somehow caused a space to disappear. If anything was keywhacked, it was either by the poor soul who is stuck in a 1961-styled work flow and is manually typing certificates on request or it was manually entered by someone who tampered with the document, but neglected to proofread and correct a fatal mistake. I already mentioned that I've seen three certificates that have no similar spacing error. Without seeing another certificate that does, then Obama's remains under suspicion. #3.1.1.1 Rob in Denver (Homepage) on 2008-07-16 08:49 (Reply) @ksdb: And hopefully you understand that a database doesn't necessarily have separate fields for each data type (ie. one field each for month, day, and year). If there was a single field for that datatype --- Date Filed By Registrar --- we're back to my original point. I don't know that this is the case, but it's a valid condition you fail to consider. Now, I understand that database architecture best practices tell us that doing what I describe is less than ideal. It's shoddy, in fact. But I've also been in database software development long enough to know that the end product is only as good as the spec (if not the money, time, people, or equipment --- or all of the above --- required to build it). Be suspicious all you want. I'm just saying the absence of the space --- with all things considered --- is a weak basis for it. #3.1.1.1.1 ksdb on 2008-07-16 11:58 (Reply) Rob, the possibility you mentioned is extremely weak and unlikely. From a statistics point of view (which is why this information is kept - for vital statistics) it would be absolutely ignorant not to separate the date fields, especially the year. If they don't do that, there's no way to sort annual statistics, such as for cross referencing purposes, genealogy research, etc. Plus, we know that Alvin T. Onaka, Ph.D., the HI state registrar has participated in reports that specifically address these practices, such as this report I'm citing below from 2001 (the same year in the bottom left corner show of Obama's certificate showing the revision date). Below is an entry from a report that is posted in a PDF online, page 62. Alvin was a member of the subgroup making the recommendation. The idea overall in this report is to have information that can used in a national database, so there would have to be universal standards that allow searching and sorting. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/panelreport_acc.pdf 13. DATE FILED BY REGISTRAR ___/___/____ MM DD YYYY The Subgroup recommended that this item be retained, but modified to use the MM/DD/YYYY format rather than Month, Day, Year. This information documents whether the certificate was filed within the time period specified by law. In addition, the information is used administratively by the Passport Agency and the Social Security Administration and it is used for issuing certified copies. This item is collected for legal purposes. Now, do you honestly believe the typo in the date on Obama's certificate was a result of human error at the state of Hawaii?? #3.1.1.1.1.1 Ray on 2008-07-16 18:32 (Reply) ksdb wrote: "Now, do you honestly believe the typo in the date on Obama's certificate was a result of human error at the state of Hawaii??" -------- One would need to have something wrong with them NOT to believe it, when we consider the following: (1) A senator and 2 spokesmen have stated that the COLB is genuine. (2) The Hawaii Health Dept said the Obama JPEG is exactly the same as their version. (3) All of Sen. Obama's past records match what is on the certificate. (4) Sen. Obama goes to jail if he has has misrepresented his birth date and place - either now or on all previous documents. (5) Sen. Obama would be forever labelled a liar and forger. (6) Dr. Neal Krawetz's reputation would be tarnished (7) Logic would need to be re-invented (8) Common sense would need a serious overhaul (9) The FBI and CIA would be disbanded (10) Trolls would rule the world. We cannot afford NOT to believe that a typist hit the space-bar once too often or too few times. #3.1.1.1.1.1.1 ksdb on 2008-07-16 21:55 (Reply) 1) Senators and spokesmen are infallible?? Sorry, but this is a weak point. 2) The HI DOH backed off on their statement TWICE: Janice Okubo, DOH PR rep, to St. Petersburg Times reporter Amy Hollyfield: “I don’t know that it’s possible for us to even say beyond a doubt what the image on the site represents.” Alvin T. Onaka, Ph.D., HI State Registrar, in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin: Onaka said he has had many calls asking him to confirm Obama's birth certificate, but he cannot disclose such information: "Only Obama can consent to that." 3) What past records?? I'm not aware of any actual records being made public. 4) Sen. Obama has plausible deniability. There's no evidence that he personally posted this certificate or that he's spoken about the certificate and its contents. 5) Deservedly so, if it turns out that certificate is inaccurate. 6) Why?? He gave a series of evaluations that dealt with issues other than what I mentioned. His tests serve limited purposes. His reputation isn't on the line. 7) Nonsense. Now you're just being melodramatic. 8, 9, & 10: See answer to No. 7. Maybe the state of Hawaii is extremely sloppy in their work. So far we have to believe that: 1) THEY made a typo on the date. 2) THEY didn't impress the seal firmly enough to be seen when scanned. 3) THEY mysteriously had the registrar place his signature block and signature underneath the security border where it doesn't bleed through 4) THEY have no formal procedure for authenticating questionable certificates. #3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Ray on 2008-07-16 22:43 (Reply) ksdb wrote: "3) What past records?? I'm not aware of any actual records being made public." Marriage certificate and Drivers license were on this site but I've just checked and found they have been removed within the last week or so: http://www.tampabay.com/news/article648060.ece #3.1.1.1.1.1.1.2 Ray on 2008-07-16 22:57 (Reply) [CORRECTION]: ksdb wrote: "3) What past records?? I'm not aware of any actual records being made public." Here is his Marriage certificate and some of his drivers license details http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/ #4 WTB on 2008-07-15 10:01 (Reply) I'm curious as to why the preprinted border on the certificate of live birth does not line up with the background crosshatch pattern. One can see a full line at the far left top corner which sinks as you move right until it is submerges completely beneath the border at the far left. Have you found this kind of misalignment present in other Hawaiian certificates of live birth that you've compared this one to? Of course, it raises suspicion when, even though it is essential that the paper document display the seal and signature, the Obama camp chose to go with a scan in which it is invisible. It can definitely be scanned so as to be visible. One last question: did the COLB which was blank except for "Hour of Birth" and "Island of Birth" entries show any signs of tampering? #4.1 se on 2008-07-15 17:04 (Reply) WBT, can you give me a better idea of just what you're looking at when you describe the border not matching up with the background? I'm not seeing any sort of mismatch. The patterns of the background appear consistent in the border areas. se #5 Ray on 2008-07-15 16:12 (Reply) WTB wrote: "I'm curious as to why the preprinted border on the certificate of live birth does not line up with the background crosshatch pattern. One can see a full line at the far left top corner which sinks as you move right until it is submerges completely beneath the border at the far left. Have you found this kind of misalignment present in other Hawaiian certificates of live birth that you've compared this one to?" As a person with 25 years experience with process cameras and the preparation of artwork like that, I can say that it is quite normal to see that sort of out-of-squareness of borders before the introduction of PC's to generate artwork. A quarter of a millimetre error is often considered near enough for non-critical work - that's about 3pixels at 300ppi. The Obama certificate is out by 7 pixels in one corner. The big cameras that are used to make the same negatives from the same-size artwork have very expensive lenses in them, but they are never perfect even though they are highly corrected for astigmatism (which ordinary lenses are not). Besides that, the physical construction of process cameras, while usually very good, is still not without error, so if the construction of the big process camera - perhaps 12 feet long, is out-of-whack in it's alignment between the copyboard (artwork board) and the film plane by the thickness of a hair (about .011mm) then so is the resulting negative by that same amount -- and when such an image is later scanned after printing, the error can look HUGE when looking at it at 1600% in Photoshop. If small vertical process cameras are used, then the errors in squareness are always there. As a mattr of interest, the typical lens in a process camera only has a "depth of field" of about 1mm i.e. -- it can only SEE things in focus for about 1 millimetre -- unlike your snapshot camera that can see in focus for several inches at close range, so the slightest mis-alignment there can also cause out-of-squareness. Even today with the relatively new photographic imagesetters which read the image straight from a PC at 2540 dpi (or higher) there can still be minimal error if the design of the film carrier allows the film NOT to stay dead-flat against the flat (usually vertical) backing plate. This Hawaii Obama COLB under discussion looks like it was produced by amateurs with low grade equipment. Personally I wouldn't have dared to deliver such a shoddy job to any customer - let alone a state government department for birth records. I would guess that the border image was not produced within the last 5 years at least - even though it may have appeared in 2007. Ray #6 polarik (Homepage) on 2008-07-15 17:00 (Reply) You're barking up the wrong tree. First of all, PCA is a statistical analysis technique to identify common sources of variance among a set of continuous variables. It is similar to Factor analysis and Canonical correlation in that it calculates linear combinations of variables, called vectors, using least squares analysis, or some other optimizing function, to project a vector through multidimensional variable space that minimizes the total sum of squared deviations from the vector. I don't see how this is relevant to analyzing JPG data. It cannot identify whether the current JPG data was translated from a different a different image format. Next, the "realistic noise pattern across the entire image," is pure speculation. It assumes that all of the image data has remained constant, but there is no way to determine what was the origin. There is nothing realistic about it, given the alleged conditions under which AJStrata claims are the cause for the matrix of pixel diffusion. Finding "Good blotches" is the most irrelevant because, again, you cannot say, with any certainty, from where the Kos image originated. You cannot even tell if it is a copy of a scan, or a copy of a copy of a scan. The scanner software, or rather the TWAIN-compliant source layer it employs, transfers the scanned image data directly or indirectly via buffers, computer memory, or virtual memory. Photoshop makes a temporary working file from this data in its own, native format. Actually, everything you do in Photoshop is recorded. When the user wants to save the image in a common graphics file format like JPG, Photoshop will translate its native image data into JPG data, including "headers," or information about the image file. We know that the Kos image was modified by Photoshop. Not a great discovery since we know that the black bar was added to obscure the certificate number, and "black bars" are not original features of the COLB. What we don't know is the exact path taken by the original scanner data. None of your analyses can show that. you cannot say, for sure, what was done to the original scan data, besides adding the black bar, cropping the image, resizing the image, and saving it as the Kos JPG image. The actual size of the Kos image is 2427 x 2369 pixels, and indicates that it was cropped from an image that was actually 2546 x 2388 pixels. Since the Kos image is NOT the originally scanned image, we can truthfully say that we have NEVER seen the actual copy of his COLB. If a person wanted to post the originally scanned image, except for the Certificate Number, it would have been child's play to place a small rectangle of paper over the number, and hold it in place with a smidgen of removable Scotch tape. In this way, a true copy of the original paper document could have been made, but it wasn't. Here's the deal-breaker I found: There is one. and only one, way to produce the pattern of pixels found around the field data. Whoever wishes to try, can take all the time they want, but they are not going be able to recreate the Kos image by JPG file manipulation. Not now. Not ever. AJStrata claims that the Kos image is a direct copy of the COLB paper document, and that the pixel pattern is due to anti-aliasing of laser printed text. I have done the research to prove that there's no way on Earth that simply scanning laser-printed text into a JPG will reproduce the pixel patterns on the Kos image. No way, Jose. I guess that y'all will have to read my last post to find out why the Kos image is absolutely the farthest thing from being a true and accurate scan of ANYBODY's COLB, let alone Obama's. It's a graphic that has been altered -- no question, without a doubt -- and there is no way to prove that it is without some underhanded alterations. The data tilts the scale in favor of a forgery, and away from being a true, unadulterated, original copy of a paper document containing accurate data from his birth record. All that this unnecessary analyses doe is to obfuscate the fact that the text on the image was altered in between the time a COLB was placed on a scanner glass, and the time the Kos image was created My challenge to you folks is to try and recreate the Kos image according to AJstrata's protocol. Good luck trying. #6.1 Dr. Neal Krawetz (Homepage) on 2008-07-15 18:28 (Reply) Hi Polarik, You are correct that PCA is a mathematical tool based on statistical deviations. You are incorrect that it only applies to continuous variables and you are incorrect when you say that it does not apply to image analysis. PCA is heavily used for image analysis in areas such as robotic vision and tamper detection, as well as other fields such as lossy data compression. Data compression is the most obvious use: you can remove the lowest PC without significantly impacting the data. (In 3 dimensions, this means dropping PC3.) For image analysis, each datapoint can represent one pixel color, or a specific image attribute. For robotic vision, they want to remove noise (the lowest PCs) and just keep the significant data. For image analysis, we want to drop the data and keep the noise. As image analysis with RGB goes, PC3 may show JPEG artifacts, but the distance from a line normal to the PC1 plane that goes through the center of mass always shows artifacts the best. This line represents the minimum variance across the maximum amount of information. I could go on about PCA, but instead I'll just refer you to some good source: http://www.hackerfactor.com/papers/bh-usa-07-krawetz-wp.pdf http://www.snl.salk.edu/~shlens/pub/notes/pca.pdf Second, you are mistaken about the "realistic noise pattern". Image capture devices, such as scanners and cameras introduce noise into the captured image. For cameras, this happens because the CCDs are not perfect; the CCD captures stray electron and record random voltage spikes. If you go into a black room and take a picture, the picture is neither black nor solid in color. Instead, there are variations of black. As a result, real pictures have noise. In contrast, computer graphic images (CG), scaled images, and modified images usually do not have the same noise pattern. Even added noise, such as uniformly distributed or gaussian random noise, appears different from natural noise. The variance is quantifiable; it is not "speculation." With regards to color density, the goal is to identify whether the color space appears to be divided into many small clusters or large clusters. While algorithms like k-means can do the clustering, you need to specify the number of clusters a priori. In contrast, the density algorithm integrates over the entire color space (it's a slow algorithm), forming the best fit number of clusters. Because CCDs and scanners are imprecise, they create many small clusters -- creating "blotches". In contrast, CG and manipulated images usually form a few large clusters. As with the noise analysis, density is quantifiable and not speculative. You are incorrect that I "cannot say, for sure, what was done to the original scan data, besides adding the black bar, cropping the image, resizing the image, and saving it as the Kos JPG image." However, I cannot say what was not done. Or in less confusing terms, if the tests identify CG or manipulation, then they are conclusive. However, not detecting modifications does not mean that there was no modification. The hypothesis is "is the image real?" You can always prove the hypothesis is wrong, but you can never prove that it is true. Does being unable to prove it is real mean it is not real? No. Between the error level analysis, quantization table fingerprinting, PCA, LG, and other tests, I can develop a confidence interval. My confidence is around 98% that this image has not been digitally modified. It is beyond a reasonable doubt. Finally, you are correct that someone could place a "small rectangle of paper over the number" and scan it in. I even give this scenario at the end of my blog entry. This appears as real -- because it is real. However, it says nothing about the authenticity. There is a difference between "precise" and "accurate". Saying PI is "3.992451221" is precise, but not accurate. Saying PI is "3.14" is accurate, but not very precise. In image analysis, there is a difference between between "real" and "authentic". The picture is "real" -- it has not been digitally modified. However, I have no means to validate the authenticity. Similarly, 2 of the 3 photos of the recent Iranian missile launch are "real" (the 3rd was manipulated by adding in another missile). Even though 2 are real, they are not "authentic". Automated image analysis of the individual pictures could not identify that the pictures were 2 years old and not recent. The two pictures could only be identified as "real" without comment as to "authenticity". Back to Obama COLB: the image passed every test I could throw at it. It is "real". And the lack of motive permits me to believe it is "authentic". #6.2 se on 2008-07-15 19:21 (Reply) polarik, please cite the source for the DeCosta COLB you used to produce this image on your blog that claims to be the DeCosta COLB: http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn227/Polarik/DEC-BIRT.jpg The only DeCosta COLB I have seen out there is identical to the 900 x 921 COLB in the Patricia DeCosta entry on the Valleehill Genealogy website, which is likely where it was taken from. And the "BIRT" portion of "DATE OF BIRTH" from that image looks absolutely nothing like what you are claiming is from the DeCosta COLB on your blog. In fact, it looks to me like what you're claiming is "BIRT" from the DeCosta COLB is nothing more than "BIRT" which was added in a blank portion of the Obama COLB and saved out at a higher quality level of JPEG. se #6.3 Ray on 2008-07-16 13:23 (Reply) polarik wrote: "My challenge to you folks is to try and recreate the Kos image according to AJstrata's protocol." Hang on, hang on, that's MY challenge to you and the others who claimed that the KOS version of Obama's COLB was forged. You cannot go round knocking-off other people's challenges. Now you had your own theory about how the phantom-forger did his/her dirty work, but your theory was up the creek - which is why I challenged you to attempt what you SAID was done, i.e. Take an existing COLB image and change the details without leaving tell-tale signs of it. It's no good for us to go around saying "Polarik's got this idea in his head about how the imagined forgery was done but: (a) He hasn't got time to demonstrate it. (b) He can't find the right font. (c) He can't get the kerning of the alpha-characters right. (d) He can't make the artifacts blend smoothly. (e) He can't reproduce the background noise in his pasted up rectangles. (f) He can't find a suitable certificate to use as a master. Look I reckon claims like yours on the internet ought to be subject to an unofficial "statute of limitations" which says that if we can't put up evidence within 7 days we need to drop the claim - OR have it dropped for us. #7 thefaxman on 2008-07-15 19:07 (Reply) Dr. Neal Krawetz, First off, I would like to thank you and the other experts for taking your time and resources to conduct this investigation. It is always good to have several opinions on matters such as these. You state, "And the lack of motive permits me to believe it is "authentic"." Lets be honest, you can't think of any potential motive(s), like an ambitious politician that would like to be POTUS? You really must get out of the lab more, this is real life politics and everybody has motives! There are indications that there is something politically embarrassing that Barack has not disclosed about his past, at this point in time. What that is is unknown and therefore leaving a lot to speculation. Keep up the good work and I hope this can be resolved one way or the other, in the near future. #7.1 Dr. Neal Krawetz (Homepage) on 2008-07-15 19:29 (Reply) Dear thefaxman, Thank you for the positive feedback. The reason I believe that there is a lack of motive is pretty simple: if he hasn't been vetted yet, then he definitely will be if he wins. There is no way a doctored birth certificate from a US-state will go unchecked and pass the vetting system. Regardless of how much ambition he has, he's not stupid -- he knows that a forgery like this would never pass muster. While there are many things he may be hiding, many buried bodies, and many skeletons in his closet, a fake COLB would never pass the vetting system. (If you've ever gone for any kind of government clearance, you know the detail that they require and the depth of the anal probing.) Thus: the image analysis tests found no evidence of a manipulated file, and I can find no realistic motivation for releasing an unauthentic COLB. And you're right about needing to get out of the lab more. If it wasn't 97-degrees today, I would have gone for a bike ride. #8 thefaxman on 2008-07-15 20:26 (Reply) Thank you for your reply. I am sure you are familiar with the work another blogger, Polarik, who has done his own examination of the KOS birth certificate image. He has recently posted an update: http://polarik.blogtownhall.com/2008/07/15/obama%e2%80%99s_fake_birth_certificate_why_i%e2%80%99m_right,_and_they%e2%80%99re_wrong!.thtml It appears that there is a problem with the photos on the link, but I'm sure this will be corrected shortly. It would be interesting to have your opinion and thoughts on his current examination results and conclusions, that is if you have the time. Bike rider, so am I. Today is a recovery day for me! Of course it was a comfortable 72 degrees and mostly foggy here today (on the bay in the central coast of Calif.). Thank you for taking the time to address this important issue. #8.1 se on 2008-07-15 21:36 (Reply) It would be interesting to have your opinion and thoughts on his current examination results and conclusions, that is if you have the time. I know you weren't asking for my opinion, but I'll offer it anyway. Polarik has absolutely no credibility as far as I'm concerned. He's not only wrong, he's flat out lying. The best example is his comparison of "BIRT" from "DATE OF BIRTH" between the Obama COLB and the DeCosta COLB. Here's his image from the Obama COLB: http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn227/Polarik/BHO-BIRT.jpg And here's his image from what he claims is the DeCosta COLB: http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn227/Polarik/DEC-BIRT.jpg The now famous DeCosta COLB was lifted from the personal website of Virginia Travis, of Richmond, VA (http://www.valeehill.net/). There she has a genealogy section for her family which includes "photos, documents, history, and more." Patricia DeCosta was her mother. And if you go to the documents section, you'll find the same relatively low resolution (900 x 921), low quality JPEG that has been passed around as the DeCosta COLB. It even has the same file name. Now here's the interesting part. Here's a blowup from the DeCosta COLB of "BIRTH" from "DATE OF BIRTH": http://www.q-audio.com/images/birt.jpg And here's a blowup of the same area after the image has been resized to a pixel resolution similar to the Obama COLB: http://www.q-audio.com/images/birt2.jpg It's pretty clear that what Polarik is passing off as "BIRT" from the DeCosta COLB isn't even in the same universe as anything from the actual DeCosta COLB. Actually it appears that what he's passing off as being from the DeCosta COLB was created by laying in some text over the Obama COLB and then saving it out as a JPEG with a higher quality level to avoid getting nearly as much of the the er, "non-green" stuff between the letters that he uses as his "smoking gun." If the guy's not intentionally being deceitful, he's just utterly clueless. Again, he has absolutely no credibility as far as I'm concerned. se #8.1.1 se on 2008-07-15 22:01 (Reply) Oops. I thought I'd included a direct link to the original DeCosta COLB. Here it is: http://www.valeehill.net/genealogy/documents/doc_decosta_pat_birth.jpg se #8.1.1.1 se on 2008-07-16 00:08 (Reply) Ok, someone must have been listening because Polarik mea culpa'd about the DeCosta COLB. What he was claiming was the DeCosta COLB was apparently a new scan of someone else's COLB. And he's added the blow-up of the DeCosta COLB. However he argues that even the blow-up of the actual DeCosta COLB still proves his case. That there's still "lots of green" between the letters. While there's still "lots of green" between the letters, it doesn't prove his case because it's an apples to oranges comparison. There's really no way that I can think of to do an apples to apples comparison without taking a known good contemporary COLB and scanning it on the same type of scanner at the same resolution and using the same settings (i.e. brightness/contrast, etc.). And THEN save it out as a JPEG of the same quality level. Or, you could see if you could convince the Obama campaign to release an un-compressed image of the original scan. And to that end I've EMailed the Obama campaign both at their main website as well as the Fight the Smears site making just such a request. It's time for bed now but tomorrow I'll contact DailyKos and Factcheck and see if I can convince them to make the request since they both obviously have direct contact with the Obama campaign. se #9 thefaxman on 2008-07-15 20:44 (Reply) Dr. Neal Krawetz, Thank you for your reply. You are certainly right about obtaining a government clearance. In terms of: "Thus: the image analysis tests found no evidence of a manipulated file, and I can find no realistic motivation for releasing an unauthentic COLB." I am sure you are familiar with the work another blogger, Polarik, who has done his own examination of the KOS birth certificate image. He has recently posted an update: http://polarik.blogtownhall.com/2008/07/15/obama%e2%80%99s_fake_birth_certificate_why_i%e2%80%99m_right,_and_they%e2%80%99re_wrong!.thtml It would be interesting to have your opinion and thoughts on his current examination results and conclusions, that is if you have the time. Bike rider, so am I. Today is a recovery day for me! Of course it was a comfortable 72 degrees and mostly foggy here today (on the bay in the central coast of Calif.). I think I would prefer that over 97 degrees any day! Thank you for taking the time to address this important issue. #10 Ray on 2008-07-16 19:46 (Reply) [UPDATE RE: - "The Case of the Missing Space" From Texasdarlin Blog: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ QUOTE ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ texasdarlin // July 16, 2008 at 7:19 pm Polarik deleted the paragaraph about date spacing after re-examining the new COLB. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~[END QUOTE ~~~~~~~~~~ Now we have a new line of inquiry to follow. Did Polarik inadvertently omit the paragraph about the missing space? #10.1 Ray on 2008-07-17 00:27 (Reply) [UPDATE] The Texasdarlin blog now has a poster who is claiming to be an experienced graphic designer who has found HUGE differences in the font used for different letter "S". #10.1.1 Dr. Neal Krawetz (Homepage) on 2008-07-17 06:07 (Reply) He's looking at pixelation between different quality JPEG images. His analysis is mock-science and totally bogus. Let's see what we have: - Multiple image analysis experts says that there is no sign of digital manipulation. - Multiple public records report the same name and age. Claims of the name being altered must be dismissed unless you can prove that all of the public documents have been modified. - Multiple people with Hawaiian COLBs say that their documents look the same. - No public authorities have called the COLB a forgery. It seems that a small handful of conspiracy freaks are ignoring an overwhelming number of facts in order to push their own defamation agenda. Unless there is any hard and scientifically provable analysis of a forgery from a reputable expert, I think it is time to stop propagating their forgery-myth. Analyzing and re-analyzing the same images in order to counter bogus arguments that the document is a cover-up is a waste of time. As I mentioned in one of my previous blogs, the biggest problem with a conspiracy's "true believers" is that no amount of valid and provable evidence will counter their false beliefs. The world is flat, the CIA is behind Bin Laden, and Obama's COLB is fake. None are true, yet the myths are still propagated by a handful of true believers. http://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/98-True-Believers.html #10.2 se on 2008-07-17 19:19 (Reply) Hey Ray! It wasn't about a missing space. And it got pulled because I pointed out to TexasDarlin and to Polarik just how silly it was and just how out of his depth Polarik is. Here's what Polarik had posted on his blog, which TexasDarlin reposted on hers: First, let me add another nail to the coffin. What's wrong with this picture? [IMAGE OF THE TWO CROPPED DATE FIELDS] These two date fields were cropped from the original Kos image. If the Kos image was a true copy of an original, then, the entire date fields would be of equal width. BUT, the date of birth (below) is a full 10 pixels SMALLER than the date below, the date the COLB was filed. The font in both dates are the same. This anomaly does not happen in real life. Here's what I posted to Polarik on his blog (I also sent essentially the same thing to TexasDarlin): Are you kidding me? This anomaly doesn't happen in real life? Are you truly so utterly without a clue here? This -ahem- "anomaly" happens in real life EVERY TIME you oops and don't put a space between the comma and the year. And that's all that has happened here. Don't believe me? Just pull up the COLB, type "August 8,1961" using the Ariel font and leaving out the space between the comma and 1961. Overlay it on the same text in the COLB and you'll find that they match up perfectly. Unbelievable. By the way, TexasDarlin banned me from posting on her site several days ago. However I still communicate with her because I can still enter a message, but it's set for moderation before posting so it gets to her. That's why she's had to make so many revisions and updates. Anyway, all the attention seems to be on the Polarik's TexasDarlin piece. However I've been picking it apart apart in the comments section at his blog. http://www.townhall.com/youropinion/comments.aspx?g=b62b5d38-3be4-477c-9186-ae57bd762e19 I just posted a three part post (it's limited to 2,000 words per post) detailing why his comparison is without merit. se #10.2.1 Ray on 2008-07-17 19:57 (Reply) se wrote: [se]: It wasn't about a missing space. And it got pulled because I pointed out to TexasDarlin and to Polarik just how silly it was and just how out of his depth Polarik is. [Ray]: Missing space in one or less extra space in the other - depending on the style they normally use for all of their spacing. --------------- Here's what Polarik had posted on his blog, which TexasDarlin reposted on hers: First, let me add another nail to the coffin. What's wrong with this picture? [IMAGE OF THE TWO CROPPED DATE FIELDS] These two date fields were cropped from the original Kos image. If the Kos image was a true copy of an original, then, the entire date fields would be of equal width. BUT, the date of birth (below) is a full 10 pixels SMALLER than the date below, the date the COLB was filed. The font in both dates are the same. This anomaly does not happen in real life. Here's what I posted to Polarik on his blog (I also sent essentially the same thing to TexasDarlin): Are you kidding me? This anomaly doesn't happen in real life? Are you truly so utterly without a clue here? This -ahem- "anomaly" happens in real life EVERY TIME you oops and don't put a space between the comma and the year. And that's all that has happened here. Don't believe me? Just pull up the COLB, type "August 8,1961" using the Ariel font and leaving out the space between the comma and 1961. Overlay it on the same text in the COLB and you'll find that they match up perfectly. Unbelievable. [Ray]: I assume he knew that the isue was a space-bar one and not a copy/paste 'error'. Incidentally we cannot use the Ariel font all the time for comparisons like that because the spacing varies erratically. I've never done any precision typesetting in Photoshop where exact spacing is required, so I'm not sure if it can do it - probably not. I use a proper typesetting program for text. [se]: By the way, TexasDarlin banned me from posting on her site several days ago. However I still communicate with her because I can still enter a message, but it's set for moderation before posting so it gets to her. [Ray]: I had posts deleted from day one, and was banned shortly afterwards; however I still reply to anything interesting as normal. The most recent post was about the best way to to make the seal show up for scanning -(lead pencil graphite powder rubbed on with a finger). That's why she's had to make so many revisions and updates. [Ray]: Well we might have to delegate you to obtain a full admission. Anyway, all the attention seems to be on the Polarik's TexasDarlin piece. However I've been picking it apart apart in the comments section at his blog. http://www.townhall.com/youropinion/comments.aspx?g=b62b5d38-3be4-477c-9186-ae57bd762e19 [Ray]: I haven't joined up. Couldn't think of a fake address I just posted a three part post (it's limited to 2,000 words per post) detailing why his comparison is without merit. [Ray]: I'll pop in and see how it's all going. #11 se on 2008-07-17 20:48 (Reply) Seems Polarik has pulled the comments option. And right after I'd written this: Unless you have no control over the comments that are posted here, I just want you to know that I am not ungrateful for your allowing me to continue posting here. If nothing else it shows you are not afraid of allowing opinions to be expressed which you may contrary to your own. And for that you have my respect. Something I can't say about certain others who are afraid. Thank you. se Some strange people out there. Ah well. You can get to the comments section indirectly. http://tinyurl.com/5z2ns6 se #12 se on 2008-07-18 13:48 (Reply) Since I'm no longer able to post on TexasDarlin, and Polarik has blocked any comments in response to his analysis, and since I don't want to post my critiques of those analyses of the certificate on multiple blogs, I decided to just register my own blog. The first entry is in regard to the sizes of the embossed seals between the Obama COLB and the Michele COLB. http://koyaan.wordpress.com/ Anyone who is interested is welcome, including those who wish to criticize my analyses. se #12.1 Ray on 2008-07-18 22:41 (Reply) I see that a new bogus claim has been introduced on the TD blog - that the Obama seal is smaller than the Michele seal. It's not of course, but it IS interesting that all the seals are the wrong size. They are supposed to be (according to law) 2.5 inches in diameter but they are 1.6 inches. Ray #13 david drake (Homepage) on 2008-07-20 15:56 (Reply) ATTENTION RAY: ATTENTION RAY: Obama Birth Cert Fraudulent! Please see: http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/07/atlas-exclusive.html (giggle), Ray, you're such an [censored] I earnestly ask that you approve publishing my comment, especially for all of [censored]: [site removed] Thank you. [Moderator's comment: Name calling, false information, inappropriate language, and flame bate is not permitted in this forum. Future comments from you will be deleted. - Loris Kim, moderator.] #13.1 Dr. Neal Krawetz (Homepage) on 2008-07-20 17:28 (Reply) I have looked over the AtlasShrugs site that you cited and find it offensively ignorant. For example, Image 14 claims to highlight "Some random flaws" in the Obama COLB. However, the only random flaws I see are JPEG artifacts. Considering that the full-size Obama COLB has been resaved multiple times, the appearance of artifacts is expected and not startling. Other copies of the COLB, such as the cropped version from Kos and scaled version found on Obama's site, have been saved even more times. And then there is the heat maps that are cited. The heat maps were generated by http://www.tinyappz.com/wiki/Error_Level_Analyser. Noah created the heatmap program because I haven't released my error level analyzer code. (Yes, it all comes back to me. I guess that makes me the expert!) Photoshop does some really cool color tweaking when saving as a JPEG. This allows them to save as a JPEG without getting all of the data loss. JPEG data loss comes from two places: quantization tables (major) and data compression (minor). Photoshop seems to manipulate the compression ratio in order to compensate for some of the quantization table distortion. It's very cool. Unfortunately, it also leads to huge artifacts on the second resave. In addition, this manipulation will appear as an overall higher potential error level (more heat) across the image, and very hot levels in high contrast areas. As I wrote to Noah in November 2007: http://www.tinyappz.com/wiki/Talk:Error_Level_Analyser "Consider combining your tool with an edge detection algorithm. Regions of high adjacent contrast (think "Zebra") will appear to have a higher error level than the rest of the image. Edge detection algorithms allow you to identify these areas." Looking at the heatmaps of the different COLBs, all have the same high temperature around high contrast areas (black text, light greenish-white background). All of the images are consistent -- there is no indication of manipulations. Manipulation should appear as a very different heat level from the rest of the picture (like the censor blocks). Frankly, there are just too many questions about how the image/evidence has been handled: - Who scanned in each COLB? How was it scanned? What artifacts were introduced? - How many times was each COLB scanned in and/or converted and/or resaved? With each transformation, what artifacts were introduced? - Who is making the claims? Remember: TexasDarlin, Polarik, and TechDude have all made numerous claims that are provably false. As for TexasDarlin, she has directly aligned herself with a racist viewpoint and made it clear that race is the primary reason for her dislike of Obama. All of this seriously undermines the credibility of the people making the forgery claims. http://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/203-The-Presidential-Race.html - How precise is their analysis? As I already mentioned, AtlasShrugs seems to confuse "random flaws" with JPEG artifacts. (For someone who claims to do image analysis, this is a beginner's mistake.) Similarly, the "kerning differences" could easily be explained by different scanners, scaling artifacts, and JPEG artifacts. - Who is validating the claim? So far, no officials have validated the claim. An alleged phone call with an unofficial representative who is unnamed and unverifiable could just as easily be a false claim. In contrast, image analysis experts have identified no signs of image manipulation, and named officials have said that it appears authentic and matches the information that they have. While there are a few observable differences, there is not enough information to identify why there are differences. For example, is the border on the Obama COLB darker because of the scanning process? Was it scanned multiple times, at what resolution, and with what type of equipment? Considering that the green background appears consistent with other COLB versions and appears to be behind the lettering makes me suspect that the observable differences are transcoding artifacts rather than indications of a forgery. So far, I have seen nothing to even make me vaguely think that the Obama COLB could be a forgery. #13.1.1 Patrick McKinnion on 2008-08-02 22:03 (Reply) Just an FYI, "TexasDarlin" is claiming a "new special update" from "Techdude" soon on the border issue. She's also claiming that Polarik is documents expert with 20+ years of computer expertise and Techdude is computer forensics specialist with 30+ years of experience. Is there any evidence they are anything other than internet wannabes?? #13.1.1.1 Dr. Neal Krawetz (Homepage) on 2008-08-03 09:11 (Reply) Hi Patrick, You asked: "Is there any evidence they are anything other than internet wannabes??" Take a look at my followup to this blog entry and comment: http://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/203-The-Presidential-Race.html http://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/202-The-Birth-of-a-Conspiracy.html#c314 Texas Darlin is nothing more than a conspiracy freak. Moreover, the account may be more than one person. In fact, Texas Darlin has contradicted herself between posting on multiple occasions. Keep in mind, as someone with an academic background, I am usually hesitant to use definitives in sentences. I rarely says that something "is" or "is not"; I usually say something "is likely" or "probably is not". Without definitive proof, I try not to make definitive statements. Having said that: Polarik definitely does NOT have 20 years of experience "in computers, printers, and typewriters". Unless he simply means "I have used a computer with a printer and I have used a typewriter for at least 20 years". He is not an expert in image or document analysis. His analysis approaches are qualitative and not quantitative, he does not cite his references or algorithms, and he uses no terms common to the field. Polarik is a fraud. TechDude claims to be a "computer forensics specialist with 30+ years of experience". (http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/08/02/new-birth-certificate-report-exclusive/) This is also bogus. First, as a field, computer forensics has not been around for 30 years. In fact, thirty years ago (1978) personal computers consisted of the Commodore, Apple, and Radio Shack/Tandy computers. Modems were a new thing and network cards really did not exist. http://www.computerhope.com/history/196080.htm "Computer Forensics" did not surface as a concept until 1986. Remember The Cuckoo's Egg? In 1986, Cliff Stoll was tracking down a $0.75 accounting error and discovered the first case of computers being used for government espionage. Early in the non-fiction book about the "Hanover Hackers", Stoll meets up with Jim Christy (Air Force). Jim Christy later formed the Department of Defense's Cyber Crime Center (DC3) -- this was the first computer forensics lab in the world. Going back to TechDude... Assuming he worked on this problem back in 1986, then he could have a maximum of 22 years of experience. And I am certain that TechDude did not work on this case. Moreover, TechDude is pretending to do image analysis. As far as image analysis goes... There are only a handful of researchers in this field, and I think I am the only researcher who is not in academics or government. Since TechDude does not use even introductory methods, uses no terminologies related to the field, and has a child-like writeup to his proofs (and I use the term "proofs" very loosely), I seriously doubt that he has any experience doing any form of computer forensics. TechDude is a fraud. You asked: "Is there any evidence they are anything other than internet wannabes??" My response: No. There is no evidence at all. They are not experts, they do not have the experience that they claim to have, they intentionally misinterpret data, and they have not provided even precursory evidence to suggest a forgery in the COLB. #13.1.1.1.1 Patrick McKinnion on 2008-08-03 10:38 (Reply) Thank you! I've been putting together a timeline of events for this particular subject, and I had used the links for your previous posts in it. VERY helpful. The claims about "Polarik" and "Techdude" just didn't hold water to me. Especially the supposed certification and professional background the people who run "Atlas Strugs" and "TexasDarlin" give for "TechDude". Not only is the amount of time extreme, but has you said, computer forensics didn't start as a field until 1986 - and anyone who started at that point should have the professional confidence to give their actual name and bona fides. Back in my tech support days, I found people who believed that "owning Photoshop" = "graphic artist". It became evident when seeing the quality of their work and how they described things that they had no graphic arts background at all. I get the same vibe here - that "Polarik" and "Techdude" may have the tools, but don't have the background they claim. Thanks for confirming this for me. Best regards #13.1.1.1.2 Patrick McKinnion on 2008-08-03 17:27 (Reply) Oh, and by the way, "Techdude's" latest "exclusive" (where he claims to have uncovered the real COLB owner's data) is up on "TexasDarlin's website. 47 paragraphs, 20 of which is attacking his critics and defending his credentials. He's also claiming the reason for hiding his real name is unspecified "threats" against his life. He's claiming the following: "20 years experience in the computer field; performing computer forensic investigations since 1993. Board certified as a forensic computer examiner and for the previous six years also licensed as a private investigator. A certificated legal investigator, served close to 6 years under the direction of a practicing attorney. Testified in numerous trials at the state level…written (winning) briefs and motions that have been presented for state’s Court of Appeals and state’s Supreme Court. U.S. Department of Justice clearance for access to sensitive but unclassified information and has personally handled the investigation of over 7,000 cases. Previously received training from the Department of the Treasury, the Department of Homeland Security and FEMA as well as countless forensics seminars and specialized training events over the years. Five years ago, opened his own computer forensic science lab and often accepts cases pro bono. Active member of the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, the American College of Forensic Examiners, Computer Forensics Volunteer Project, a Member of Federal Bureau of Investigation’s InfraGard program, International Information Systems Forensics Association, The International Society of Forensic Computer Examiners, and others." Quite frankly Dr. Krawetz, I've smelled week-old tuna that didn't smell as fishy as this. #14 david drake on 2008-07-20 16:46 (Reply) Attn: Loris Kim Like I f[censored]ing care about being banned here. But keep up the great hypocrisy is allowing [censored] to spew his [censored] lies and [censored]. Unlike me, of course, who encourages discourse and an exchange of opinons and intellectual debate, by allowing [censored] to comment at my blog such things as: [omitted] Anyway, i'll just be a sec, I'm doing a screen capture of this message - together with my "non-message" that you were too [censored] to print. [omitted] (Looking at the time) gee Loris, I think its time again for you to [censored]. [censored] [Moderator's note: Well David, you have certainly demonstrated that you "encourage discourse and an exchange of opinons and intellectual debate" -Loris Kim] #15 Polarik (Homepage) on 2008-07-30 07:04 (Reply) My current post to my blog, polarik.blogtownhall.com, proves indisputable evidence (yes, really) that the forger of the Kos image used Patricia DeCosta's COLB as a template to "manufacture" Obala's alleged COLB. Essentially it says that the printed elements on the DeCosta COLB match exactly to the Kos COLB when it is resized to be the same width of the DeCosta image. The two overlap perfectly and, obviously, they both have the same aspect ratio (ratio of height to width). Why is this significant? Because the aspect of the DeCosta COLB is not what it should be because of the two massive folds in the paper document. As can be seen in the image, the paper is "scrunched" by them making the height of the COLB to be shorter than it would be had the paper document been able to lie flat against the scanner glass. Since the Kos image has only ONE THIN FOLD line, when there should be at least two, the paper COLB was flat against the scanner glass and copied to its original height and width, IF TRUE. But, it cannot be true to have a full length COLB perfectlyh overlap one whose height had been effectively make shorter by the large folds. The only other COLB to match up against the DeCosta image belongs to Smith, whose paper COLB also has two large folds in it. Every other COLB that was copied at its full-size, fails to match up with the Kos COLB adding further evidence that the Kos image was based on DeCosta's. Or, in plain English: The ONLY way, on God's green Earth, for the Kos COLB to be a mirror image of the DeCosta COLB is by basing one on the other, aka, FORGERY. Oh, and "Yes," there was another, more recent COLB used to create a new background onto which the forger typed in altered information #15.1 Dr. Neal Krawetz (Homepage) on 2008-07-30 07:29 (Reply) Polarik, "Indisputable evidence"? Ha! Your "indisputable evidence" shows that they are not perfect copies. Therefore, they are not from the same template. They are not even close. Among other things, look at the green pattern on the paper background. In the top right corner (inside the border), the Decosta begins with a =||= pattern. In contrast, the Obama begins with a ||=|| pattern. How can they be perfect copies if the green background is totally different? Since there is no indication of image manipulation, they never changed the background. You also say that having the same aspect ratio is significant. Yes: it indicates that they were scanned in with the same aspect ratio. You state that "The ONLY way, on God's green Earth, for the Kos COLB to be a mirror image of the DeCosta COLB is by basing one on the other". Here's another method: what if they are both original and printed by the same office in Hawaii? They would have the same aspect ratio and look similar. The different folds were because... they are different piece of paper. The seal moves because they were stamped at different times. And the green background differs because they were printed on different sheets of paper. Your theory and indisputable evidence is laughable and does not hold up to even a precursory glance.

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.