EXCLUSIVE: Atlas Tech Expert Declares Obama Birth Certificate Forgery

This bombshell was made by Atlas reader techdude in the comment section (oh and btw, techdude, send the screenshots):

As a real forensic computer investigator (board certified, investigated thousands of cases, access to a full forensic computer lab, yadda yadda...) I decided to jump into the fray over the fake vs real discussion a week ago when a friend of mine challenged me to see what I could find (since according to him, the document was clearly a real one). He is what one would call a slightly rabid Obama supporter – he even has the tattoo to prove it.

First things first...I used the latest online KOS version (downloaded 6/29/2008) as it was supposedly the first released digital copy and the Decosta certificate from Israel Insider's blog (also downloaded 6/29/2008) as an exemplar of a real certificate.

Of forensic interest on the KOS version is the EXIF metadata (encoded in the digital image data) showing that the KOS certificate was modified or created with "Adobe Photoshop CS3 Macintosh" on "2008:06:12 08:42:36". Assuming the EXIF data was added after the document was scanned (assuming it is real) and the document modified only by placing a black-out section over the Certificate Number or if it was converted and saved for web use this would not be too unusual. The Daily KOS released the story on “2008:06:12 08:44:37” which would be 2 minutes after the graphic's EXIF stamp was created.

Before I became a forensic geek I worked for [a herein nameless publicly traded company] that designed counterfeit detection hardware and software for the banking and retail industry. The company was very high profile and we received training from [a certain herein nameless department of the Federal government that knows a thing or two about counterfeiting] - but I do not claim to be an all around expert in Questioned Documents but after several years of working with them I do know what to look for to spot an obvious fake.

That being said...I too was able to see "something" that looked like a seal - however even using highly specialized software (specifically designed for law enforcement and forensic examiner use for cleaning up digital images and video) I was unable to recover anything more than what others have previously released using a basic find edges and modification of the contrast. Even when the background security paper pattern was removed there was not enough of a "seal" to view anything usable or verifiable which is a bit odd but still might be possible if the seal had been completely flattened out in the mail, etc. There is also a fold which runs vertically across the top of the certificate which is close to the same location on the Decosta certificate.

At this point I was beginning to believe the certificate was real until I resized and overlaid the Decosta certificate on top of the KOS version. All things being equal there was a 3.82% difference in the size of the KOS version vs the Decosta certificate - but again depending on the optical distortion from the scanner this too was explainable. But upon manually stretching them to match edge to edge I caught a glimpse of what I and apparently everyone else had simply not noticed. The security borders do not match. Literally. They are not even close to identical. For instance "Decosta" contains five 10 pixel wide "diamonds" per vertical row while the "KOS Obama" contains 2 to 2 1/4 36 pixel wide diamonds per vertical row. These differences can clearly be observed even with the naked eye although you may need to enlarge the graphics on your screen. Taking the measurements further - Decosta's "Certification of Live Birth" heading is centered between security diamond pattern and is 762 pixels wide @ 0% angle while Obama's "Certification of Live Birth" heading is not centered evenly between security diamond pattern and is 794 pixels wide @ 0% angle. Decosta's "Any Alterations" footer is centered evenly between security diamond pattern and is 1244 pixels wide @ 0% angle while Obama's "Any Alterations" footer is not centered evenly between security diamond pattern and is 1294 pixels wide @ 0% angle. I kept the comparative screen shots in case anyone wants them.

I am unable to explain the differences between the security diamond sizes and counts and the un-centered portions (meaning the diamond pattern ends on an odd pattern instead of even where it meets the edges of the header and footer boxes). Looking closer at the KOS certificate (magnified to 400%) clearly shows inconsistencies in the security border such as cut and paste marks and overlaying of the side borders where they meet the top and bottom. This effect is not observed in the Decosta certificate at any magnification. Another point of interest, removing the background security pattern did not remove the background area from underneath the security border on the KOS certificate. The color and hue values of the background pattern located and viewable through the security border are also not a match to the rest of the certificate background. I can not explain these discrepancies. I then noticed there were some indications that the background pattern had been duplicated and placed in various locations to clean up the document. Now at some point I just started to laugh and went out for a smoke and gave up looking for more.

I am convinced that the certificate is a fake (and not really a very good one) and I went into this with a completely open mind (something the Obamanationalists seem to have lost). I also have to say that everyone who has been looking into this federal crime (and it is a federal crime even if the certificates were never meant to be used for identification) have done a stupendous job and I wish they all worked for my lab. Talk about a winning team.

UPDATE: KOS released another birth certificate?  How funny that cigar man calls me "this Geller character" :) You know Stogie ...... he helped me design my new banner.

Stogie,  you funny

Techdude sent me the screenshots: Analysis

Analysis 2:

Analysis 3

Techdude said, "Sorry about the image quality but damn it Jim I am a geek not a graphics junkie! (sorry...trekkie moment) I believe they should get the point across. The "cut & paste" artifacts are rather obvious in the "analysis3.jpg" as are the overlapping joints and gaps in the security borders".

*** Copyright © 2005-2008 Pamela Geller | All Rights Reserved *** (credit and link back to Atlas)

Comments

[elvis]

Yes, but was it a fake tatoo?

[Stogie]

>UPDATE: KOS released another birth certificate? How funny that cigar man calls me "this Geller character" :) You >know Stogie ...... he helped me design my new banner.

>Stogie, you funny

BUSTED! :)

[Stogie]

Ms. Geller, the true and authentic birth certificate is at the following link:

http://saberpoint.blogspot.com/2008/07/obamas-birth-certificate-forgery-after.html

[kobi]

hmmmm, he finds gaps in the security borders...

[RISE_UP]

Maybe it's just me.But I find that comment highly disrespectable: 'that geller character' What kind of crap is that?

[directorblue]

Nicely done, Techdude!

One of my commenters noted that the border was suspect, but your analysis is the first detailed breakdown I've seen.

I had written a few days ago, having found what I thought to be the seal and a signature block, that the issue might be resolved:

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2008/06/obamas-birth-certificate-issue-resolved.html

But, as you have ably pointed out, it indeed may not be.

I would caution all who jump on the Obama-Birth Certificate bandwagon that may still turn out to be a trap or dead-end. Obama's campaign produces a real BC and blames the scan on yet another "staffer" who gets thrown under the bus.

Let's not forget to keep attacking the policy differences, Obama's amazing contortions (some would call lies), and business-card sized resume!

Best, Doug

[AJStrata]

I did the same analysis and found the same things - came to completely opposite conclusion. For one thing, you are comparing two different certificate patterns.

The seal and signature block area are there, as you and I and others have detected. And the date the certificate was produced (Jun 2007) as well.

Clearly the person who stamped and signed the back did not use the same pressure as the date stamp, but they are all there. What you need is another original certificate of the same format, as this guy does with the same uneven corners.

At least someone confirmed my find that the Opendna documents are modifications to the Obama certificate because of two tell tale laser printer dots (see here). Sadly, this only proves Opendna printed out the document and rescanned it at a higher resolution so that photoshop could do its work better.

It does not prove the certificate is a fake. If you want to prove it is a fake ask the state of Hawaii! Ask Obama to show the certificate he has to Hawaii! This is so much wasted energy - and it makes the conservatives look foolish.

You better have more than this to make a claim of forgery.

Regards, AJStrata.

[Stogie]

>Maybe it's just me.But I find that comment highly disrespectable: 'that geller character' What kind of crap is >that?

It's called a JOKE Kobi, as in S-A-T-I-R-E. Look it up. (It helps if you look at my satirical graphic of the birth certificate too).

Pam is a character, too, albeit a colorful, funny, and sexy one. And one of my favorite characters on the net.

Stogie

[kobi]

someone is misreading the commments. all i said was re 'gaps in the security borders' alluding to obama's idiocy re security, see, it's from birth. uh, that's a joke. but, not really!

when and how is this birth certificate issue going to be properly and legally resolved? can't it be taken to court?

[Sonny]

To me the first question is, where did the Senator's mother live when he was born? If in Hawaii, then he would be a native citizen of the U.S. All the biographical information seems to indicate that Senator Obama's mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, was in Hawaii attending the U. of Hawaii when she met his father, Obama, Sr. The second question is, if the birth certificate online is a fake, which it appears to be, why go to that trouble? The suspicion that naturally arises is that there is something the Obama campaign doesn't want the public to know, or why not end this problem right now by simply producing an authentic birth certificate. Something definitely seems out of place.

[Pamela Geller]

AJ, we've been asking. Repeatedly. Lambert even submitted a request under the Freedom of Information.

All these damn questions. Of course folks are guessing. It's like we're blind and they've moved the furniture.

The documents were forged. WHY?
Why not release the original? WHY?

Why distract us from more important scandals?

WHY FORGERIES?

[techdude]

Just a (not so) quick early evening response to directorblue who said “For one thing, you are comparing two different certificate patterns.”...

Well of course, that was the point of my analysis which seems to have been lost on a few individuals. Both certificates are printed with the OHSM 1.1 (Rev. 11/01) LASER identifier with the revision dates being identical [11/01]. If there was a new or modified certificate security pattern introduced there would also be a different revision date indicating that it had been revised after November 2001. Some people are apparently under the mistaken impression that the security border printing will just change once and a while or perhaps some folks may just never really understand the issue. As consistency and precision are the keys to spotting forgeries it is extraordinarily unlikely – perhaps even to the point of impossibility - that the revision numbers would be the same while containing different “certificate patterns”. As anyone who has worked at a bar can even tell you there are official guide books handed out by liquor control officials that list what is and what is not found on official state issued documents – and high security documents do not vary from week to week or printer to printer. Israel Insider has already posted on his/her blog that a Hawaiian official had already been contacted about the document and that particular Hawaiian official could not very them as authentic based on the image. I simply wanted to figure out for myself (and to humor my friend) if there was truly anything suspect. At first blush I did not believe there was.

Let’s quickly review how a paper certificate may come into existence. A Certificate of Live Birth, just like any other high security paper document, is almost always first printed on blank specialized paper stock using an offset press to create the base images. The raw paper stock itself may even contain UV reactive micro fibers or security threads. This printing process would generally include the use of special color shifting inks and micro engraved or repeating security patterns such as the ones visible on the Decosta certificate. That process is, of course, not done at the Registrar’s office but at a professional printing house. The ancillary information, such as the child’s name and date of birth, would be later printed onto the pre-printed security stock, which was received months or years earlier from the print house and kept in secure storage until needed, at the time it is requested at the Registrar’s office. This is typically done by running the pre-printed security stock through a laser or thermal wax printer and perhaps even the occasional typewriter. Take for example commercially available yet low security blank check stock which is run through a home laser printer using an accounting application which fills in the blanks. The micro security border and color shifting background were already pre-printed by the manufacturer and the user is only using their laser printer to add the ancillary information.

Now let’s get a bit silly for a moment shall we? Let’s all pretend the certificates were changed by proxy and no one bothered to modify the revision number. Stranger things have happened in government. But our dream world comes crashing down once we actually look at the structure of the images themselves and perform an error level analysis on the underlying graphics.

In the interest of fairness, and well before I even bothered to post my original comment, I also took into account that the security border may have been printed on a laser printer…perhaps even one running out of toner…and only the background security pattern existed beforehand. But then I performed an error level analysis on the KOS Obama and Decosta certificate images. [For an easy to understand paper written for general non-geek audiences on error level analysis see http://www.htcia.org.hk/artman/uploads/2_3_digital_imaging_forensic__v4_.pdf ] Doing the error level analysis using several known error rates revealed some immediate disparities in the KOS image such as the border floating as a “layer” on top of the background. Further the border appears to consist of several distinct parts and individual sections which were pasted together. [To make your lives easier here is a link to a WIRED article which explains a bit in relation to what I am referring to - http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/08/researchers-ana.html ] The compression and error ratio of the security border simply does not match the rest of the certificate. The same can be seen with the text. However the same analysis of the Decosta image using the same exact methodology instead verified the compression and error levels are consistent with equal distribution throughout the document. [Screen captures are also available – but the output created by the analysis are 17MB each…not really made for posting put if Pamela wants them she is always welcome to them :) ]

The bottom line is that if the document was simply scanned into a computer and was not created on, or substantially modified by, a computer there would not be as many variations in the compression and error rates as can be seen in the KOS certificate. Taking the error level analysis into account along with my other findings (such as the obvious cut and paste marks, the glaring errors in the size and count of the security diamonds, and the lack of consistent header and footer start and end point) is how I arrived at my conclusion. None of this can simply be explained away or ignored by people claiming that this is a different un-recorded revision since no one has been able to produce another real certificate that matches the security engravings of the KOS version but there have been numerous reports and sightings of real certificates matching Decosta’s. I believe the Israel Insider blog has links to a few of them.

Occam's razor then forces this issue to a point – the simplest answer generally being the correct one – if there are multiple documents that appear to contain similar security engravings of the Decosta version but no others that resemble the KOS image - the KOS document is a forgery. As others have already repeatedly asked – why would Obama’s webmaster post a fake (or even a suspected one) on the “fight the smears” website? – I have no clue and do not really have an issue with it – they may not even know it is a fake. That was not a goal nor included as an aspect in the analysis of the graphics presented. But as I said before, it is with a high degree of scientific certainty that I must conclude that the KOS Obama image is a pretty bad counterfeit.

Just to touch on the remaining issues raised with the “Opendna versions”. While I am bit busy with a few cases this week and next (the rent is not going to pay itself) and I do not have time to look into their details – others may want to use a hex editor or an application such as JPEGsnoop to create a timeline of the EXIF data and time stamps for all of the known versions, including the KOS version, to create a basic event line to see if the chicken or the egg came first. Deeper analysis by comparing segmented digital signatures (such as partial MD5s) may also reveal statistically identical areas rather than just relying on the naked eye. Just my 2 cents. And on a final quick thought (as I really must get back to the lab) the specifications for the layout and the details of the security features of a real Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth may be obtainable with a sunshine law or FOI request.

Can this entire issue be a simple "bad scan" of a real document - not likely. But as others have said it is better to look into other more important issues (but it would be nice to have him present a real document to settle the nagging resident alien question since even I have to come up with an original certified birth certificate just to renew my own driver's license next month - why should he be so special? I wonder when his license expires.)

And Stogie...I thought your comments were hysterical. :P

[techdude]

Ooops...it was AJStrata who made the "different certificate patterns" comment not directorblue. Doh! Sorry for the typo...I was going to start the post thanking directorblue for the compliments when the keyboard gremlins must have got me :(

Bloggers ask “If you want to prove it is a fake ask the state of Hawaii!” Many have, Hawaii will not disclose any information. Even if there is a faded stamp on the back, any expert as Jim McKinnon claims to be would'nt have been so stupid to forget that feature.

Where was Obama born?

There are websites that say Obama was born at both the ‘Kapiolani Medical Center’ and ‘Queen's Medical Center” he couldn’t have been born at both.

KAPIOLANI MEDICAL CENTER:

The English version of Wikipedia says Obama was born August 4, 1961 at the Kapiolani Medical Center.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama

Ancestry of Barack Obama
Says Obama was born August 4, 1961 at the Kapiolani Medical Center.
www.wargs.com/political/obama.html

The Spirit of Barack Obama
Says Obama was born August 4, 1961 at the Kapiolani Medical Center.
http://www.barack-obama.tv/barack-obama-articles-audio-video/articles-about-barack-obama/wikipedia-barack-obama

QUEEN'S MEDICAL CENTER:

The Italian version of Wikipedia says Obama was born (4 agosto 1961) at the Queen's Medical Center: “Barack Obama nacque al Queen's Medical Center di Honolulu”
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama

Ancestry of Barack Obama, About.com says, Barack Hussein OBAMA was born on 4 August 1961 at the Queen's Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii
http://genealogy.about.com/od/aframertrees/p/barack_obama.htm

This site Familypedia: The Genealogy wikia, gives a detailed listing of Obama’s geneology all the way to his great-grandfather x10. They say he was born at Queen's Medical Center
http://genealogy.wikia.com/wiki/Barack_Obama_(1961)

So was he born at ‘Kapiolani Medical Center’ or ‘Queen's Medical Center’? There is the possibility that he was born on a military base, since his mother Ann Dunham’s father signed up for World War II after Pearl Harbor, and her mother went to work on a bomber assembly line, and after the war, they studied on the G.I. Bill. Maybe their daughter had her child on the military base, which is not considered US soil and therefore to be a “Natural Born Citizen” both Barack’s parents would have had to be US citizens, which they were not, and if only one was, Ann would have had to be a US citizen for at least 10 years with 5 of those years being after age 16, since she was only 18 she did not qualify her son.

There is a rumor circulating in journalistic circles that Barack Obama was born in Nairobi Kenya when his mother and father were in Kenya on a visit and that his parents returned with the infant who was then registered in Hawaii.

Apparently, examination of the hospitals' records in Hawaii have shown no birthing records for Ann Dunham Obama even though there is a registry of the birth in the public records office a week after his date of birth it does not show his place of birth.

Perhaps she visited her friend in Mercer Island as a stop over from Kenya on route to Hawaii to register her son. In Hawaii one could apply for a "Late" Certificate of Birth.

The Certificate of Hawaiian Birth program was established in 1911, during the territorial era, to register a person born in Hawaii who was one year old or older and whose birth had not been previously registered in Hawaii. The Certificate of Hawaiian Birth Program was terminated in 1972, during the statehood era.

"Who is Eligible to “Apply for Late Registration? As provided by law (HRS §§338-15, 338-29.5), the following persons may apply for late registration: Any person born in Hawaii who is one year old or older and whose birth has not been previously registered in Hawaii, or that person's parent, guardian, next of kin, or older person acting for that person and having knowledge of the facts of birth may request the registration of a late certificate of birth.” What I find curious is under the law you can apply for one of these years after the birth as long as someone has knowledge of the facts of birth. After reading this I am wondering if Obama was really born in Hawaii if all that was needed was his mother’s say so. He could have easily been born in Kenya, brought back to the US and applied for a LATE Certificate.

http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/latereg.html

You do not have to be a Natural Born Citizen to receive a passport or a driver’s license; you can be a naturalized citizen and just because Obama filed with the Federal Election Commission does not mean he showed his Birth Certificate. The FEC does not require candidates to file birth certificates in order to run for office.

http://www.contrariancommentary.com/

[AJStrata]

Techdude,

Your entire analysis rests on YOUR assumption the version control number covers the background elements and is not simply limited to the document contents (fields) and layout. Clearly it does not cover the background since the document was updated - and I have proof.

http://strata-sphere.com/blog/wp-admin/post.php?action=edit&post=5652

Sorry, but checkmate. Don't waste your time and credibility unless you have a way to prove this is not simply a new security-enhanced background in answer to the Real ID Act of 2005. Otherwise your house of cards has collapsed.

[AJStrata]

BTW, The Real ID Act is why HI will not answer questions about this. Check the link, it has sources folks can research. It was news to me.

Cheers, AJStrata

[AJStrata]

OK, One more comment. Techdude, you are aware of how new graphics programs use layering to shim a background pattern under a background layout, and then overlay the data fields and contents on top. And under these new graphics programs can ingest images and scans at any of these layers.

I am not saying what happened here, but if you are trying to create hard evidence you need to prove there is NOT an obvious and alternative answer to the evidence. It is not evidence to say this could be a forgery or could just be the production of a valid document. You must show how, under any assumption, there is no way this could be a valid document.

So far you have not done this. You have been showing possible, but highly implausible, reasons this might be a forgery. Until you exclude all reasonable scenarios that would support this being valid, you have not shown even within reasonable doubt that this is a forgery. So far all I have seen is possible, but highly improbable!

[Polarik]

AJStrata, what you fail to understand, time and time again, is exactly what I've said.

So, for your benefit, I'll say it again.

Your hypothesis is that the so-called "Kos image" is a true and faithful copy of an original, PAPER DOCUMENT.

No way, Jose. Which brings me to my first hypothesis,

My first hypothesis says, with 100$ certainty, that the Kos image is NOT a true copy of a laser-printed paper document.

In fact, the Kos image is a copy of a copy.

For starters, a direct copy would not have a black bar obscuring the Certificate Number. May I direct your attention to the caveat:

ANY ALTERATIONS INVALIDATE THIS CERTIFICATE.

Obscuring the Certificate Number would count as an alteration.

The EXif information in the Kos image indicates that we are looking at a COPY of a scanned image that was altered by Photoshop.

The inconvenient truth is that we were NEVER shown the original scanned image.

Oh, BTW, the uncropped dimensions of the original scan were 2546 x 2388, and not 2427 x 2369.

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.

Gotcha! I could stop right here because you, AJ, have staked your reputation on the Kos image being a true scan of the original document, and I just knocked that curve ball right out of the park.

Since you, AJ, have not seen the original scanned image, you cannot know, with any degree of certainty, that ONLY the Cert. No. was blacked out.

PLUS, AJ, you cannot claim to know what was the SIZE of the original scanned image. It could have been larger than the size of the Kos image, and you would never know it.

Gotcha again, Strata!

But, let me continue.

My hypothesis is the exact opposite: that the pixel patterns on the Kos image are anything but the result of a scanned laser-printed paper document.

You also claim the following:

"Inspection of the files shows consistent anti-aliasing across all letters and images (e.g., the state seal in the middle). Consistent anti-aliasing across the document tells me this was induced when the document was originally printed - not from later manipulation.

Polarik mistakes this anti-aliasing feature with forgery, which is completely ridiculous"

I know what anti-aliasing is, and I did not equate it with forgery, nor does it have any bearing on what I said about the textual pixel patterns found in the Kos image.

Now, when you claim that everything we see in the Kos image is a direct result of the anti-aliasing fonts used to print the original, then that claim is ridiculous because I have four different COLBs that I know are genuine copies (one of which is Pat DeCosta's) and none of them show any of the patterns that you claim are due to anti-aliasing.

They are not there, nor were they ever there.

The text in DeCosta's COLB is exactly what the text should look like when laser-printed onto a patterned, green sheet of paper, and it bears no ill effects from anti-aliased laser text.

I also have in my possession, a direct image of a recently-printed COLB, circa June 30, 2008, and it looks nothing like the Kos image, especially in the borders.

The borders on the Kos document look blurry and smeared, by comparison.

If the Kos image is so high in quality, then why are there no black pixels in the criss-cross lines of the border? I can clearly see black, criss-cross lines in the other COLB borders (except for Smith's which has matching dark green pixels) but, there isn't a single, black pixel present in the criss-cross lines on the Kos image. In fact, there are several missing lines, or parts thereof, in the border that should have been printed.

The text in the Kos image is black and clearly legible. The seal in the Kos image is black and clearly legible. The rectangle is black and clearly legible. The title and caveat text boxes are black and clearly legible.

Yet, the borders in the Kos image are blurry and contain nothing that a color wheel would call, black. There are only faint, dark shades of gray.

And, you're trying to tell us that this is the "new" border used on COLBs?

My second hypothesis, in support of my first hypothesis, says that the patterns I found around and between specific groups of letters in the Kos image are not due to laser printing, not due to anti-aliasing fonts, not due to resizing JPGs, and not due to changing a JPGs compression factor.

In short, they are not the result of anything that you, AJ, said they were.

I've scanned thousands of multi-colored documents and patterned paper that were printed by a laser, reducing their image size and file size by 30 percent or more, and none of them had pixel patterns around the text that resembled those I found on the Kos image.

If you think that you could recreate the Kos image simply by scanning a paper COLB, then I'll bet you that you cannot do it.

[Tech Expert]

Technically, the possibility of this is being true is less than .05%.