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
You’re saying Obama hired the Orly Taitz of forgers?
What is he supposed to do put an ad in the New York times for an accomplished BC forger? Obama is incompetent at everything he does, what makes you think he would know a good forger from a bad one? The forger probably came to him from a small group of loyalists and offered his services. Maybe the forger intentionally made massive errors to expose the fraud...held back copies and info and after the doc came out as a fraud advised Obama if anything happened to him proof would go to all the right wing conservatives , Arpaio etc and nail Obama...Talk about a forger being able to blackmail Obama...the forger would have to hold back evidence to protect himself, and why not do a little blackmail while he was at it? You need to watch more TV.
Need to narrow it down to Hawaii or not Hawaii and go from there.
roflmao Nathan Goulding. I think he even admitted he was wrong.
http://www.colombospace.com/Youtube/-vkhJNi9GD8
I have no idea what you are talking about, I think you posted your reply to the wrong person, I should respond with a bunny wearing a pancake on it’s head, but I really can’t be bothered.
A PURPOSEFUL forgery. For the SSkeptic, it is all about protecting institutions by any means necessary. The Obama Birth Certificate is one such serious example and form of a Fake-Hoax, albeit slightly different in its logic from the Strange Sounds video issue. A copy of the birth certificate with 17 or more OBVIOUS evidences of inconsistency/apparent adjustments was released to the public last year. The layer tampering was so obvious, that to the reasonable public mind, surely anyone seeking to release a fake birth certificate would never commit such errors. A presumption is therefore foisted by the SSkeptic Cabal, that the errors must have been committed at the originating Hawaii offices back from 1961, and whether fraud or not, therefore a more legitimate birth certificate cannot be located. In this brilliant strategy, the fake-hoax version of the birth certificate exonerates the publishers of the certificate from any crime, as they would be stupid to release such a fake, were they indeed ill-intentioned – and we, the victims are left fully unable to ascertain the truth in the matter. Take as Deskeption closure this ‘fall right in line’ statement by Nathan Goulding in the National Register Online from April 27, 2011, concerning the certificate
“What’s not plausible is that the government spent all this time manufacturing Obama’s birth certificate only to commit the laughably rookie mistake of exporting the layers (with the apparent errors)… Let’s leave it at that.”
Move along folks, nothing to see here.
– Deskeptor
http://deskeption.wordpress.com/tag/debunked-videos/
Well, good luck with that.
What facts are there that it is fake? Is there anything but some graphical artifacts that can more easily be explained by actually using the software? Please tell.
Strange that the example in the cite has ONLY ONE layer unlike Obama's COLB posted by the White House.
Go look at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93cullaHRQc
or
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1YdQ8uwxXQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgIMsSEAkYc&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haiRCLItdEQ&feature=player_embedded How do you explain away the straight 'Male' and 'Kapiolani' as a software issue or other such nonsense? That one thing alone clearly indicates fake added material to Obama's COLB!!
Fact: I downloaded the PDF file directly from the White House website myself. Fact: The layering (read: alterations) are not arbitrary, they are specific. A computer doesn’t know to pick out objects that would necessarily need alteration. Even less than stellar minds can differentiate from noise and intelligent design. Fact: Adobe software design experts were employed by Arpaio’s research team. Did you hear any protests from them about the findings? Fact: You have a strange political affectation; I would call it 5th Columnitis.
Last fact... There is only one thing on FR tonight that is more disingenuous than Obama’s false BC: You.
You are correct. First Goulding makes the mistake of assuming that there was a great conspiracy. More likely that an Obama tool at arm’s length manufactured it, presented it to a flapper in the White House, and was delighted that he/she didn’t have to offer an explanation about its origins. Politicians are expert at parsing language with themselves for cover. Hawaii wasn’t called, and Hawaii never asked. The acceptance was guaranteed precisely because it is an outrageously audacious act.
What makes you think that the 1961 typewriter still exists ..or that a similar one could be found? ..or that those forms still exist in that exact match. How do propose to insert it in the existing microfilm roll or if film to make a duplicate, but alternate, roll is still made? The forger probably had to do it electronically.
thanks for posting and commenting
how did i not see that?
source please.
thanks.
As absurd as it seems, I believe that yes, obummer was in fact limited in his forgery resources. You can’t just farm out a top secret project like that, without putting yourself at risk. Plus, the number of people willing to risk prison (and possible treason charges?) narrows the pool considerably.
I’m guessing bark had to ask someone in the inner circle to make the doc. Knowing he could count on most of the media to ignore it anyway, and threatening (breitbarting) the ones who refused.
Present a hypothesis (such as numerous forged government records and an associated cover-up) that if true would require a massive conspiracy which would have to involve near a dozen government agencies, both major political parties as well a many, many people.
But then to rationalize a completely different point they might say things like: “You can’t just farm out a top secret project like that, without putting yourself at risk. Plus, the number of people willing to risk prison (and possible treason charges?) narrows the pool considerably.”
You're suggesting Obama is willing to assassinate a high profile conservative thorn in his side, but somehow an amateur hack Photoshop forger can inexplicably blackmail the president into sparing his life.
This scenario is more plausible to you than the simple explanation that extracting layers from an unlayered digital image file, an old technology, is actually what happened?
I’m sorry you don’t understand scanning and OCR, but if you did a little searching you’d see that what happens is that when a document is scanned that the software attempts to separate the text into different layers, then it applies a filter to sharpen the text, which is why you get the blocky result. It is easy to understand if you look at the original image I posted. You can’t merge the layers and get to that image, which is more detailed to the PDF. The PDF had to come from the scan.
It was released the same day as the PDF, and published by AP. The link I embedded was from a secondary source, Boston NPR, which was just the first link I came across in google image search.
Yes, I am. I’m guessing obummer’s blackberry can find a trusted chicago “luca brasi” in the blink of an eye. Computer experts however, who are able to produce a flawless forgery? Interestingly, that particular trait might be harder to find, in the Chicago mob.
“What forger would put together a document using this bizarre cut and paste, layering method...and then forget to merge the layers or flatten the image?” - TCM
This one did.
Ask Judith L Corely, my guess is that she knows exactly who did it.
Oh, and since the White House could not send out an RFP for an expert LFCOLB forger, they had to make due with the best they could find and trust - if they were going to create a forgery. IMO the best option was someone at a law firm (lawyer/client priviledge) that already knew the truth. The firm working on this issue with Obama is Perkins Coie. Judtih Corely is the attorney that, I think, went to HI to pick-up the LFCOLBS. (She is the one that wrote the letter to HI that is posted on the White House site.)
You knew that though, right?
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.