Obama’s Birth Certificate, Dissected

http://bryankeithnixon.com/?p=103 ^

[RED SOUTH]

I AM NOT A BIRTHER! But this one is too interesting to ignore. Upon hearing all the fuss about the newly released Certificate of Live Birth, I decided to open it up in Adobe Illustrator and see just what we were given by the White House. Judge for yourself but looks to be composed by multiple elements.

[D-fendr]

Thanks very much for your reply.

that digitally composited view would be strongly confirmed if there were any pixels of green security background that could be found in one of the component pieces that were clearly overlapped by something else in in one of the other component pieces—such that by hiding an upper element, we can see more green background pixels being revealed.

I just looked for this and didn't see it. It wouldn't be there unless we have the original layers. This would happen if the digital composite was flattened and the layers we see are created by Illustrator and don't correspond. (When I turn off the bkgnd layer some other elements go with it.)

This adds a bit of oddity… since a person was sent to "pick up" the certificate.

Good point. That could be explained this way: HI *did* print out the digital composite. The WH scanned the printout to the PDF we have.

[gopheraj]

You’re right but the LOCAL REGISTRAR (box 21) was on there at birth. The Onaka (or whomever else is there at time of request) is the one not in question as far as I am concerned - this signature and stamp/date would, of course, be different on them. It is the LOCAL REGISTRAR, box 21 that is different on Obama’s and the Nordykes. Information in Box 21 is there from birth.

[Tatze]

Yep, the signature of the Local Registrar is different on the Obama and Nordyke forms. You will also see on the Nordyke form that there is a stamp below the words "Signature of Local Registrar". That stamp says "DEPUTY". So the signature is the Deputy Registrar, who would not be the same person at the Registrar.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2711155/posts?page=115#115

[gopheraj]

I do see that, thanks. I am guessing the all BC’s are signed by deputies. What should happen to lay this to rest completely is for Obama to authorize someone not in his camp to be able to go get the BC from Hawaii. THEN there will be no question. Someone that conservatives trust.

[Tatze]

It could be a great fundraiser for Hawaii. All the information is now out in the public domain, so its not like there is any personal information that needs to be protected.

Obama should give authorization to Hawaii to release his Certificate (the copy of the original doc, as was released yesterday) to anyone who wants one, with raised seal and Okana stamp. The state would make a small fortune off the $10 processing fee.

Not surprisingly, Obama fails to think like a capitalist.

[daisy mae for the usa]

I have appreciated your careful analysis. I do not have a stake in faked or not faked, myself. I just feel like any question anyone wants to ask is fair game since Obama has manufactured this ball of wax for himself.

In light of that, to your knowledge related to computer generated images and such, does the term TXE have any meaning?

I am a complete computer dummy and not afraid to admit it. But I ask you this because I made this observation on another thread. Please feel free to have a hearty laugh on my behalf if it so warrants. But after that, could you please tell me why I am wrong? Thanks in advance.

post from #1454

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2711155/posts?q=1&;page=1451

This is what Hawaii says:

“Original forms from the time of birth are used to produce computer-generated documents recognized as official birth certificates in the state of Hawaii.”

As Clinton says, this is a case of knowing which meaning of “is” we are talking about.

Notice the plural use of the word “form” — forms—

Notice the use of the word FROM, consider it in the sense of a sale at a store with items FROM $7.99. There is more after that FROM.

Now notice these words, “produce computer-generated documents”

They have honestly said exactly what has transpired.

And here is where I think they covered their tracks to keep from getting into legal trouble:

The TXE is no mistake or blurring. It is intentional. TXE is a file extension associated with Enriched Text files. (I picked up this definition from here:

http://www.liutilities.com/products/winbackup/filextlibrary/files/TXE/

Enriched text is a formatted text format for e-mail, defined by the IETF in RFC 1896 and associated with the text/enriched MIME type. It is “intended to facilitate the wider interoperation of simple enriched text across a wide variety of hardware and software platforms”.

That definition from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enriched_text

The following post asks the perfectly right on question:

#1406 asks shouldn’t these match?

And this post really shows some clear information:

#1426 Notice the pixelation surrounding the center line text that does not appear around the text in similar letters in the same stamp in the text above and below the center line.

Here is what I am saying....I may not be specifically on to what they meant by “TXE” but I believe they meant to say “TXE” and I am pretty sure what they are really and truly saying is that what we are seeing is an ABSTRACT (translate compilation) of all the “original forms” (translate ammendments, etc.) -—FROM-— BHO’s time of birth [-—to present-—] put together in digital form ie. “computer-generated documents.”

[gopheraj]

LOLL Yep. and hire an new employee to handle it all. Good idea! ;)

[D-fendr]

Thanks for your question. I'll give it my best shot.

- I''m not familiar with TXE format. I did read the info on it. It is a text markup language, designed to be very simple for text only, to wit:

The capabilities must be extremely limited, to ensure that it can represent no more than is likely to be representable by the user's primary word processor. While this limits what can be sent, it increases the likelihood that what is sent can be properly displayed.

From this I deduce that while TXE may have been used as a format in HI, something more would be needed to go from TXE to the document we see - something capable of handling images. I think it's possible the phrase refers to information, data or records stored in TXE format in HI's system.

- The Obama file does seem to say "…TRUE COPY OR ABSTRACT OF TXE RECORD ON FILE…" It doesn't seem to me to be a blurred THE either, but a lot of the text in places is blotched up pretty good.

- I looked close at the AP version, same results, though I"d have to say it looks a bit more like TXE than the White House release.

- I looked at the Coats BC and it has nothing in this category - it's a photo and I think this is below the picture frame. - I looked at the Nordyke twin BC and it says: "…TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL RECORD ON FILE…" It was issued in 1966.

According to an article in American Thinker, "In 2001 - the state of Hawaii Health Department went paperless.*Paper documents were discarded* The official record of Obama's birth is now an official ELECTRONIC record Janice Okubo, spokeswoman for the Health Department told the Honolulu Star Bulletin, "At that time, all information for births from 1908 (on) was put into electronic files for consistent reporting," she said."

IF the originals were discarded, the question is how do we have the images in Obama's BC? Either not all were discarded, or the paper docs were scanned and stored before the originals destroyed.

This is the best I can do regarding the TXE part. In my opinion, the PDF posted by the White House is a digital composite. It consists of the security background and picture elements (not ASCI text in other words) only. It may, and likely does include a scan, but the document released is not a scan of a printed file.

Again, the WH document could include a scan or photocopy of an original but is not only this - it's not what we would consider a straight scan or photocopy. At the least, the background was removed from a scan of a page in a book.

Whether this was done by HI or HI gave the White House a different file or hard copy and they worked on it, I can't know without more information.

None of this proves forgery. My guess is that HI went paperless and this is the best they can do if asked for a "copy." Their preferred, easier, way is generate the new short form COLB.

Hope this helps.

[D-fendr]

Another thought: a way to test the “this is the best HI can do if asked to provide a “copy” theory, would be to look at other long form copies for other requestors recently.

Hawaii says they don’t provide and haven’t for some time, but I think I heard differently. If we could see other long form copies provided recently and compare with Obama’s that could be useful.

[daisy mae for the usa]

Thank you SO, SO much! Yes, you have helped me understand a great deal. I appreciate your generous attention to my question. Do you mind if I refer a few others to your answer?

[bitt]

Freeper Danae has posted her long form which she had requested in the past few years, I think.

http://www.google.com/search?q=danae+colb&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7GGLL_en

[D-fendr]

You’re very welcome.. and, sure.

[daisy mae for the usa]

Paging FReeper Danae...Freeper Bitt told us you had posted your birth cert. and I see from the below post, that is true, but I can’t find it.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2304917/posts?page=131#131

Danae, I don’t know if you are familiar with D-fendr, but this FReeper has produced some helpful analysis, so I asked a question. Would you be willing to help us out? Basically, we are discussing the “TXE” anomaly. This is my question to D-fendr:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2711307/posts?page=166#166

Here is D-fendr’s answer:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2711307/posts?page=168#168

This confirms two things for me. (1) TXE is real computer terminology that could possibly be used in an official capacity by Hawaii. (2)D-fendr sees the “X” as clearly being an “X”, too, and not a blurred “H”.

The part that doesn’t fit with my idea is this, “In my opinion, the PDF posted by the White House is a digital composite. It consists of the security background and picture elements only. It may, and likely does include a scan.”

For my theory to be true, the certifying statement would have to have been made into a digitized element from a copy of the hand stamp, changed to reflect the “X”, then inserted into Obama’s document in image format.

D-fendr further states it would be helpful to have other long forms to compare to:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2711307/posts?page=169#169

Which is where Bitt referred us to you. Is there anything you could contribute to this discussion related to your birth certificate? Thanks in advance!

I have referred others to this post as well. Many minds make light work. Maybe I’m chasing a wild goose, who knows?

But if my theory is correct, Hawaii has provided **LEGALLY** information that in no way reflects what Americans are actually seeking...the truth as to Obama’s legitimacy. And Obama **LEGALLY** disseminated misleading information because he asked Hawaii for “original” records, and they provided this. He put Hawaii on the hook to take the fall, and they took themselves off the hook by using the ‘ole “X” marks the spot.

I’m sure this is all bunk, though, and I’m just a silly southern girl with crazy ideas. Anyway, hope someone else can shed light.

[daisy mae for the usa]

P.S. Obama wouldn’t really be off the hook, though, because he knows what is on the original record and all the amendments to it! So, by posting this it can be proven that he willingly deceived the public. If, of course, the theory is accurate! :)

[bitt]

http://s966.photobucket.com/albums/ae145/Rose4Spice/Roses%20Photos%20Obama%20COLB%20BC%20Issues/?action=view&current=DanaesHawaiianDocuments.png&sort=ascending

here’s a sighting....

[Danae]

I am going to do some new scans . I will post all the information on what I did and equipment etc. Will that work?

[daisy mae for the usa]

Yes. I think so. Thank you so much!

[cartan]

Heh; that’s a good one. Yes, it looks very much like an X. However, I do not believe that anybody intentionally put an X there :-). First of all, two stamps that are almost identical, including the signatures, except for that one letter? Unlikely. I think it is the same stamp. Now, the letter on the stamp took a very long journey until it appeared on our computer screens. First on the rubber. Then ink was put on the rubber, and in the upper stamp, a bit too much, apparently. So, the letter was smudged. Then possibly another photocopy, and at least one scan. After the scan, the compression software came into play, trying to seperate the text from the background into different layers. The algorithm it uses is not very good, as can be seen from the fact that it missed most of the signatures, for example. It may have done a bad job here (or maybe not). Then, the compression of the layers, lossy in both cases.

In short, it is a long way, and letters morph into other forms along the journey. Take a look at an enlarged picture of the F of ‘OF’ directly on the left: Whatever it looks like, it only resembles an F. I have spent some time with OCR software and automated forms recognition, and I can tell from experience that it is not that unusual that an H morphes into an X. This is a big problem for OCR software: Letters morph into others. The software reads this as an X, too, because that is indeed what it looks like, even though X is clearly not what was meant! That is why it is so important to set the input language correctly when you work with OCR software: The software already knows which characters it often confuses, and then uses dictionaries to pick the ones that make most sense.

[daisy mae for the usa]

This is the kind of feedback I am looking for. You are very correct in the number of operations that would have occurred. Hum. Thanks for answering me!

[cartan]

You’re welcome!