Posted on 03/04/2012 11:50:20 AM PST by ethical
To prove that the birth document Obama posted on the White House website on April 27, 2011 is a fraudulent document, all you need to determine is whether or not it is a computer created document or a scanned photocopy.
It is a computer created document. Even the obots can not deny that.
You do not need to ask the Hawaii DOH for a "waiver" in order to get a computer created birth document. Obama asked for special permission from Hawaii DOH to get photocopies of his original birth certificate. Loretta Fuddy granted that request and gave Obama, she says, photocopies of his original birth certificate.
Scanning a photocopy, in order to post it on a website, does not turn it in to a computer created document with multiple layers and movable text. Although interesting, it isn't all the details of the forgery that first reveal that it's a fake; different fonts, the halos, the weird bent page, the strange behavior of the security paper. It is the fact that it IS a computer created document and NOT a scanned photocopy.
But let's look at one of those fun forgery details. I included the web addresses for the quote and images I describe.
Here is what Chiyome Fukino [Former Director of Hawaii Public Health Department] had to say about how the “birthers” would respond to the release of Obama’s birth certificate.
“They’re going to question the ink on which it was written or say it was fabricated.” Said Fukino. “The whole thing is silly.”1
Let’s start with the ink, shall we?
From Hawaii Public Health Regulations Title: Vital Statistics, Registration & Records. Chapter 8, Certificates of Vital Statistics Events, Section 1. Preparation. Certificates of vital statistics events are to be filled in by typewriter or in ink. If ink is used only permanent ink will be acceptable. All signatures are to be made with permanent ink. In all other respects, the certificates shall comply with provisions of Section 57-14, R.L.H. 1955.”
On April 27, 2011 Barack Obama revealed what he said was a photo copy of his original long form ‘Certificate of Live Birth’ from Hawaii (it was posted on the White House website). The signatures on this ‘Certificate of Live Birth’ are required to be made in permanent ink.
Pixels Don’t Lie
Download the BC document off the White House website and open it in Adobe Illustrator. Now zoom in on the signature of Obama’s mother. The pixels reveal that only a portion of the signature is in ink as required by Hawaii Public Health Regulations Chapter 8.
The Ann and the D in Dunham are in ink. The pixels are a variety of gradations in greys and blacks, like ink signature pixels are. But what’s really interesting is that the rest of the signature, ‘unham and Obama’, are not in ink.
The letters are a solid greenish–black color with no gradation in color at all. This lack of gradation reveals that this part of the signature was created in the computer and is not even penmanship.
And what’s it called when you forge a signature on a “Certificate of Live Birth” from Hawaii? FORGERY! Well that would be my top pick but hey they also violated Hawaii Public Health Regulations by not using permanent ink in their forgery! Maybe that’ll tick someone off.
If you ignore the fact that this document was computer created and that fact, in and of itself, makes it a forgery, you can't deny what the pixels are telling us.
The Stanley Ann Dunham Obama signature on this document is a forged signature and that makes the whole document a forgery.
Figure 1. The Dunham part of the signature of Obama’s mother on the alleged long form original ‘Certificate of Live Birth’, posted on the White House website. Here it has been downloaded into Adobe Illustrator.
Figure 2. Zooming in on the top part of the ‘D’ in Dunham. You can see the variation in color pixels—variations of grays to black tones. This is how pixels of a signature will appear when it is applied with ink and scanned.
Figure 3. Focusing now on the start of the ‘u’ next to the D in Dunham. You can see there is no gradation of color at all. A solid dark greenish-black color displays no evidence of the gradation in color for these pixels which implies that this “signature” was created with image editing software and not with ink.
Figure 4. The last image focuses on the O in ‘Obama’ and part of the b. You can see there is no color change in the pixels. The solid pixel color again suggests the signature was not scanned or representative of ink. The ‘Obama’ portion of the signature was computer generated.
1. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42519951/ns/politics-more_politics/t/ex-hawaii-official-denounces-ludicrous-birther-claims/ 2. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf
3. Albert Renshaw Obama BC Fake http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7s9StxsFllY
Also, in the case of the "Name of Hospital or Institution (If not in hospital or institution, give street address)" line I cite above, both the form box in which that text appears, and the box above it are typewriter-entry boxes, with the typewriter entries coming nowhere near the "Name of Hospital or Institution . . ." text. Even if the forger had placed that text on the same layer as elements of the document that were being forged, it seems implausable that any mistake would have affected that text.
It only helps them because there are those on OUR side who won’t take five minutes to examine the issue out of fear of being called a birther.
Of course, it's possible that the forger was disgusted with what was going on and left the separate layers on purpose.
Scanning with OCR created 49 layers helter skelter with no rhyme or reason. Bo’s forgery had nine layers, nine thought out and obviously planned layers. There is no comparison. You guys are desperate and I can understand why.
I can imagine how it went down. It's 1961, Stanley Ann has just given birth in hospital. It's hot and she's so tired but before she can go home to her adoring husband Barack she has to sign the birth certificate for her son. Dang, the pen she was using ran out of permanent ink right after the D in “Dunham”. “I hate it when that happens” pouts Ann. “Not to worry.” says the attending,”"In 40 or so years, when your son is forced to produce a birth certificate we will have the technology to create the rest of your signature inside a computer with a computer program.” “A what?” says Ann. “Is that legal?"she wonders.” “Don't worry about it honey. Just take care of this baby with such a musical name, Barack Hussein Obama II. So musical I will talk about it with my daughter and her friend at dinner this week." ”.'Oh, thank you Dr. West. You are a lifesaver." sighs Ann.
Dream a little dream. While others try and save our country.
Again, if the layers were so well thought out, why was the line "Name of Hospital or Institution (If not in hospital or institution, give street address)" split among two layers as follows:
"N___ _f H______l __ I__________ (If ___ __ h_______ __ ____________ ____ ______ add____)"
and
"_ame o_ _ospita_ or _nstitution ___ not in _ospital or institution, give street ___ress_"
How was this (and other similar instances) "obviously planned" and why?
1: Since most people see birthers as kooks, it makes conservatives look bad by association
2: There is an inordinate amount of time wasted discussing this, and that takes away from serious discussions about real issues.
Do you think the hardcore leftists who still swear than the dan rather memo was real helped their cause, or just looked like idiots and alienated most people with common sense?
You are now at least admitting that scanning a document can create layers, right?
Computer generated document V scanned photocopy. Ink to non-ink. Focus on that and take it from there.
So you have no answer as to why a forger would split the line “Name of Hospital or Institution (If not in hospital or institution, give street address” across two layers?
Don’t deflect. Deal with the facts. I dare ya.
No one. No one can say that B.O. posted a scanned photocopy of his original BC. You have not seen a scanned photocopy of his original. That should bother you. You want to defend the forger? Ask him, pretty please, to reveal the photocopy he says his lawyer brought back from Hawaii. I am sure he will do what you ask.
And what makes you say it is a non ink signature?
How do you explain this document, which the white house released the same day as the PDF? http://www.wbur.org/files/2011/04/0427_obama-certificate.jpg
I only look like an idiot if the BC is real. Guess what? It’s not real. Arpaio had lawyers, computer experts, and seasoned investigators look at it for 6 months... What exactly is so hard for you to understand here?
I am dealing with the facts. The facts are that there were two PDFs of the document released that day. One PDF (the one you are focused on) has a number of abnormalities, which could have been caused by a human forger or which could have been caused by scanning/OCR/optimization. The other PDF (which you have ignored as “deflect[ion]”) has none of the abnormalities of the first.
Assuming that your argument is correct and that the inconsistent pixel size and color gradation of Dunham’s signature is evidence that the signature was forged electronically, how is it possible that the other PDF (in which the pixel size and color gradation of the signature are consistent with other similar text in the document) even exists?
Arpaio is a good man, but he is almost 80 years old, not a computer expert, and is being made a fool by the people around him. Trump was the savior 6 months ago, and now it is Arpaio, and he'll ending up looking like chump, just like Trump did.
The report, like most birthers here, also ignores the non-pdf version of the cert that was released, and I posted, that doesn't have OCR artifacts that you are all obsessed with. I'll post it again:
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.