Replies

I don't have my original, paper birth certificate - all I have are the “certified” reprints you can order. While I am not attempting to stand up for Obama, why is that such an impossible thing?

The Obama Campaign had an $850 million budget. They could have bought certified paper copies of his real birth certificate and given them to all 535 members of Congress.

The Obama Campaign had an $850 million budget. They could have spent one-thousand of one percent of it and bought the Imacon FlexTight scanner (which scans at 8,000 DPI), about the best scanner you can buy, and used it to make a digital scan.

I have a $100 Canon scanner that I used to make real scans: ones that clearly show the texture of the paper, clearly show the Seal and both folds, and accurately reproduce the actual color and appearance of a real COLB.

But, what they did instead, was to make a single scan image that does not show the texture of the paper, does not show anything more than pieces of the Seal, does not show both folds, and does not accurately reproduce the actual color and appearance of a real COLB.

I began my research on June 13 of last year with a very simple hypothesis: "

Is it possible to naturally produce an original scan image like the one posted online?"

The answer is, "No."

The fact that I am the only one to take an original scan of a real COLB and make it look like the Obama COLB "scan" - and to document what I did to do that, should be telling, in and of itself.

Basically, the bottom line is that you cannot take a real COLB, put it on the scanner, any scanner, and simply press SCAN, and expect it to come out looking like the Obama COLB "scan." You have to manually manipulate the image itself by changing the color balance, blurring, then sharpening the image, and saving it more than once.

These manual changes were not made to make the scan image "better-looking," but "worse-looking," especially the border when compared to original scans of known COLBs with the same border.

Can anyone think of a cogent reason, other than to hide the evidence of forging, why someone would go to all this trouble to fundamentally change the way an original 300 DPI scan image should look like?

I've made several hundred COLB scans myself. Other than increasing the exposure level on the scanner, as you would with a camera, all of the images were originals and fully representative of the COLB document I was trying to reproduce.

All of them had a very visible Seal and second fold line, and if you saw the photo I took of it, it would show that the Seal impression in mine is way more shallow than what appears in Factcheck's photos.

There is no reason on Earth why the Seal shown in the photos would not be visible on a 300DPI scan of it. It doesn't take a document forensic expert to see that: a child can see that.

Factcheck refers to their photos as "high resolution," but, in reality, the resolution of their photos is 180DPI, less than the 300DPI resolution of scanned images.

Scanners produce a more accurate representation of a paper document than do cameras: unlike a camera, they don't have to be precisely aliged to the document and you don't have to worry about focusing and controlling the lighting to avoid color casts and shadows as you would with a camera.

so, for anyone to say that Factcheck photos absolved the the Obama Campaign from having to make any more scans - of better quality and both sides of a COLB -- is patently ludicrous.

Obama supporters are convinced in their mind that the "scam image" is real, genuine, and conclusive proof of his birth in Hawaii, and the only way to resolve the cognitive dissonance is to marginalize the people producing the facts to the contrary.