Mystery, Clarification and Obfuscation of Obama's Birth Certificate Forgery

WHAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH OBAMA'S REAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE?

Wikipedia used to have "Obama, Jr." and now has changed to "Obama II" in the wake of the COLB. (hat tip Larwyn). Over at JOM

Is there anything in Obama's books? I notice that the NYT back in 1990 referred to both father and son as simply "Barack Obama."

An excerpt from a noteworthy 2007 Obama speech:

There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Alabama, because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born. So don't tell me I don't have a claim on Selma, Alabama. Don't tell me I'm not coming home to Selma, Alabama.

I wonder what news organization was the first to use "Jr." and whether there is any use of "II," by the press or Obama, prior to the COLB.

There's been a good deal of back and forth - a lot of the back though didn't come forth in the comment section of this post:  FORENSIC EXPERT: "the [birth] certificate is still a horrible forgery". If, Obama had his original birth certificate it would look like this (although in his book "Dreams of My Father", Obama wrote: "I discovered this article, folded away among my birth certificate and old vaccination forms, when I was in high school.”)

Mitchell Langbert is getting stonewalled on his FOIA request for a copy of Obama's COLB from the Public Information Office in Hawaii. Please read it all -  the letters are there. Hawaii knows the documents are fake so why not release the original - who are they protecting? Whose side are they on?

I have previously requested a copy of Barack Obama's birth certificate. Janice Okubo, Public Information Office of the Communications office of the State of Hawaii, responding on July 3, has chosen to refuse to provide a copy of the birth certificate. This blog consists of three parts. First, I quote Ms. Okubo's letter, dated July 3, 2008, verbatim. Her letter responds to my inquiry under the Freedom of Information Act. Although Ms. Okubo points out that the Freedom of Information applies to the federal government and not the states, most states, including Hawaii, have similar statutes. With respect to birth certificates, though, there is a separate section of the Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) that Ms. Okubo cites, HRS § 338-18. The link that Ms. Okubo provides in her hard copy snail mail letter respecting § 338-18 was dead when I tried to use it, but I obtained a copy of HRS § 338-18 from the Lexis-Nexis data base available from New York University's Bobst library. In addition, I obtained information on Hawaii's Uniform Information Practices Act from the State of Hawaii Website. In the second part of this blog, I respond to Ms. Okubo by drafting two letters, one a response to Chiyome Fukino, Director of Health, Ms. Okubo's superior, with a copy to Ms. Okubo and Governor Linda Lingle (R-HI), and also a letter to Barack Obama requesting that he send me a letter authorizing me to represent him in obtaining a copy of his birth certificate in the interest of avoiding accusations of political gamesmanship and manipulation. In the third section I copy the relevant sections from § 338-18 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes for your reference. I also quote from the State of Hawaii Website about its "Uniform Information Law" booklet.

It is evident that, Ms. Okubo's letter notwithstanding, § 338-18 DOES NOT PROHIBIT the State of Hawaii from making Mr. Obama's birth certificate public for three reasons. First, because he is a presidential candidate the public has a vital interest in Mr. Obama's birth certificate. The statute specifically permits divulging birth certificate information to anyone who has a vital interest in the information.

Second, the State of Hawaii Department of Health is granted the authority to fashion its own regulations about providing birth certificate information, and given the national importance of Mr. Obama's birth certificate, the question needs to be asked why the Hawaii Health Department has fashioned rules that contradict its own public law § 338-18 and its own Open Records Law.

Third, although the statute includes a list of persons who are entitled to obtain a copy of the birth certificate, it does not anywhere indicate that the list is exhaustive or exclusive. If the drafters of § 338-18 had meant the list to be exhaustive and exclusive they could have said so, but they did not. Therefore, Ms. Okubo misconstrues the law she claims to enforce.

AJ called out Techdude, expert in the field of forensic digital forgery examination  in a ridiculously titled post: How 9-11 Helped Cause The Obama Birth Certificate Silliness. The thing I don't understand is why doesn't AJ wait for this expert's full report which we have emphatically made clear would be released shortly. But no, AJ digs bottom, keeps digging.

Anyway, things got even crazier as the fringe kept grasping to save their conspiracy theory from the dustbin of history. When a poster at Kos took the image of the COLB and doctored it using MacPaint, the junior sleuths were at it again claiming this doctored image was actually the source of the Kos image (and a companion one on the Obama campaign site). I debunked that fantasy in the links above, and a forensic document expert at Atlas Shrugs confirmed my conclusions, while simultaneously creating the next myth of a clear forgery. The mock-up, known as the Opendna image, is of much lower resolution and cannot be the source of the other two images.

You can go to the last two posts above to see my conclusions, but I found the last theory at Atlas Shrugs to verge on the stupid. Sorry, but as the options for keeping the myth alive died out, the 'logic' to find one more way to salvage it went well into the bizarre. Techdude, the computer forensic expert at Atlas Shrugs, noted the glaringly obvious fact that a Sep 2002 COLB for one Ms Decosta was dramatically different from the Jun 2007 COLB for Barrack Obama.  And they are different, but the reason why is quite interesting.

And our digital forensic expert in residence (Techdude)  teaches A J the ABCs in this lesson. HIS FULL REPORT WILL FOLLOW IN A DAY OR SO:

Let's not resort to name calling, folks..  AJ is correct on several of his assumptions such as the OpenDNA images came after the KOS image and that there was a change in the COLB certificates between the Decosta and the KOS versions. However I have been using a half dozen separate Hawaiian COLBs issued over a 6 year period all the way through 2008 - some hi-res digital scans and some sitting on my desk (real ones) as comparison specimens. And once again to summarize - none of them match the security border of the KOS image.

Unlike AJ I just happened to have been lucky enough to have had more than just the Decosta image to work with so that I am able to see the progression of the document modifications through time. (I also called Hawaii and talked to them about it) But f rom AJ's point of view his observation would be correct having not seen a 2006, other 2007's, or 2008 COLBs. I also realize that there has been some confusion and I am not basing my analysis on the border itself but on the analysis of the actual overall modifications made to the KOS image. The border just happened to be what caught my attention in the first place. Long story short the KOS image is made up of several discrete layers (changes) that can be viewed by using advanced image analysis techniques. [geek alert] Any recent changes made to a JPEG are for lack of a better word "recorded" by the individual 8x8 pixel cells that make up the JPEG. By measuring the differences in error rates and performing wavelet and PCA analysis you can actually show the individual modifications. Mix that with basic observational analysis and metadata extraction and you can form a more complete picture. In the case at hand the KOS COLB was not just simply scanned into Photoshop and a box placed over the certificate number and then exported for the web. The original scan has been saved multiple times, the text and the borders have both been modified, and the background image (the paper) may be the only thing still "real" in the image. Unfortunately there is no way to know what the original state of the document was (you can not bring things back from the dead at least I can’t) but it is not in the same state as the original scan. The best I can do is show you what changes were made with an estimate as to order in which they were modified. Why they were made and who made them is not my concern. While AJ and I may poke fun at each other it is not in a mean spirited way. And on a serious note I would like to get AJ’s take on the analysis techniques I have been using. A whitepaper presentation by Dr. Neal Krawtz on which some of my methods and algorithms are based on can be found here and one by Jessica Fridrich et al here. 
So everyone keep your shirts on - I am writing up the full report and it will be done as soon as I have the time with all of the explicit details and lots of geeky stuff tossed in for good measure. I still need to finish capturing screenshots, resize them a bit, and then put together a section of the report so you can all do the same experiments at home using some freely available analysis tools.

But on a side note if AJ or anyone else has any questions for me feel free to post them. I will answer anything you ask to the best of my abilities but you might want to wait a few more days so you can read the entire report - so far just explaining the methodology and the science behind them has put it over a dozen typed pages (I obviously also need to edit them down a bit). It may have to be posted in parts at this rate.

P.S. - For giggles I also used the same analysis method against McCains posted COLB...it is not modified (are you shocked?) and tossed it into the report for good measure. I also added in a few known modified images so you can see how the process works.

The plot thickens and Google gets into the act.  bvw asked in the comment section why Google puledl all or nearly all Obama and Decosta birth cert images from it's image search results over the weekend?
Swordmaker researched it  -- Google has scrubbed their images of Obama's birth certificate. For those of you that captured the image DO NOT DELETE THEM:

I have discovered that as of this evening (not sure when it occurred) that Google Image search no longer has ANY of the disputed Barack Obama Birth Certificate images in its index. Articles are still present but after searching over 980 image returned by the search Barack Obama "Birth Certificate" not one single version, blank, filled in, or otherwise, was in the index. Google has made them disappear. Articles on Obama's BC are still there but images that can be used to check the pro or con of the arguments about authenticity are now not to be found. In addition, a couple of quite similar images are linked to sites where they simply do not, nor never did exist. One in particular appears the same as the BHO Birth Certificate that Google claims is from FreeRepublic.com. The image is actually an Hawaiian Marriage Certificate and is linked to a comment about the Birth Certificates that never had an image—nor is there any marriage certificate in any of the 333 comments on the FR thread. Somebody is making the birth certificate images disappear. If you can't trust the librarian, how can you find the books in the library—or even if the books exist? Somebody is playing games.

Vanity: Google buries disputed Barack Obama Birth Certificates - they are gone from index

And then of course, there are the other birth certificates in  in this curious tale of the charlatan's COLB:....a birth certificate from the Kenyan city of Mombasa registering the birth of Barack Obama Jr. on August 4, 1961. 

June 5, 2008 -Obama is not eligible to be President

"WMR's intelligence sources in Africa are reporting that amid the post-election turmoil wracking Kenya, a three-person team (including a possible Korean-American woman) arrived in Nairobi last week and began asking questions about Barack Obama's father, the late Barack Obama, Sr. The team also inquired about the Senator Obama Secondary School in Nyangoma-Kogelo in northwestern Kenya, the area where Obama's father, an ethnic Luo, hailed and where his grandmother, Sarah Ogwel Onyango, still lives."

Why not? What's to fear?

It now appears that this same team traveled to Mombasa and dug up a certificate registering the birth of Barack Obama Jr. to his father, a Kenyan citizen, and mother, an American citizen. The GOP hopes to make the claim that Senator Obama is not eligible to become President of the United States because he was born in a foreign country, or, at the very least, plant the seed in the voters' minds that Obama is a foreigner even if the charge is false.

GOP operatives are already trying to make political hay out of the federal conviction on June 4 of Chicago Democratic fundraiser Tony Rezko on 16 24 corruption charges. The Republicans are attempting to show that Rezko had close links to Obama although the probe was more closely connected to the administration of Illinois Democratic Governor Rod Blagojevich From the Wayne Madsen Reort (a left wing blog no less)

And just to muck things up a bit, just to give you an indication of just what kind of shady invidual we are dealing with:

he could be CITIZEN OF INDONESIA!!.....  

Furthermore, it is common practice in many US states to edit such secondary certificates to account for name-changes, sex-changes (ha, that would be a good story!), updated info (such as a newly identified father etc.). In other words, if he has changed his name, he could request that this ID reflect that change.

This just raises more doubts about Obama. What on Earth is his problem?

How is it possible that not one reporter has asked him if he is a citizen of any other country?

While Obama has shared his extensive obsessions with Africa and his skin color, no-one has paid attention to reports that he was listed as an Indonesian citizen at school, and that he traveled on an Indonesian passport. Is their any validity to these reports? You'd think inquiring minds would want to know. But no. I guess that would just be expressing far too much curiosity about a virtual unknown who wants to be the leader of the most powerful nation on Earth.

PREVIOUS:FORENSIC EXPERT: "the [birth] certificate is still a horrible forgery"

Atlas Tech Expert Declares Obama Birth Certificate ...

Who died and made him the final word on Obama's ...

The "Missing" Obama Birth Certificate Seal 6/29/08

SUCH A LIAR: OBAMA'S FAKE BIRTH CERTIFICATE  6/26/08

RELEASE OBAMA'S BIRTH CERTIFICATE! 6/10/08

UPDATE: If you are related to any of these people, you can  request a copy of Obambi's birth certificate.

As I recently blogged, § 338-18 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes permits someone to obtain someone else's birth certificate if they are:

(5) A person having a common ancestor with the registrant.

Someone just e-mailed with a brilliant suggestion:

"Since anyone with a common ancestor can request a certificate, why not find someone with an ancestor in common with Obama and ask that person to request his birth certificate? Dick Cheney, for example. (Just kidding, but supposedly they do share an ancestor.)"

I obtained the Baltimore Sun article to which my correspondent referred in her e-mail. The article concerns genealogist, William Adams Reitweisner, who has compiled Senator Obama's genealogy. The article mentions George Washington Overall, Mary Duvall and Christopher Columbus Clark. Mr. Reitweisner's analysis is here. Senator Obama's family goes back 11 generations in America and includes quite a few ancestors from 17th century New York and New Jersey, including a Simon de Ruyne, who was born in Flushing in 1645.

The following is a list of Mr. Obama's ancestors from Mr. Reitweisner's analysis. Mr. Reitweisner cautions that the list is a "first draft". The most recent Obama ancestors are listed first.

IF YOU SHARE AN ANCESTOR WITH MR. OBAMA AS PER THE FOLLOWING LIST, PLEASE contact Janice Okubo and Chiyome L. Fukino, MD at

State of Hawaii Department of Health
Honolulu, Hawaii 98601-3378

and inform them that under § 338-18 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes you are entitled to obtain a copy of Mr. Barack Obama's birth certificate because you share an ancestor in common. Please forward the copy to me, other bloggers and the newspapers. The list includes:

Go here. (hat tip Larwyn)

UPDATE July 15 2:46am : More from Techdude in response to comment thread:

Well I just got home and read the latest comments. I really need to get some sleep but I wanted to chime in. First let me say I am happy to see Dr. Neal finally weighed in on the topic but I have to quickly point out they have been reviewing the wrong images.

The original KOS COLB is not the one still posted at either of the sites - it is just a lower quality (higher compression) crop of the larger 8 1/2 x 11 image that was removed almost immediately after it was first posted. But to touch on something he did bring up (which was going to be in the final report) the document does appear to have been recreated on top of an existing certificate. It may have been printed, scanned, and touched up or scanned blank and modified which is why I have been saying the background i s the only part of the image that appears to be unmodified (does that make sense? I have been up for 18 hours).

Allow me to quickly add some fuel to the fire before I pass out. Since they did not have access to the other COLBs I will tell you all the information I have gathered from the ones I have plus some other information I have received. The paper pattern has remained the same (I think there are only a few manufacturers of security paper unless they buy some off brand made in China) but the weight of the paper has changed. It is cotton or linen based and is now thicker (a heavier weight). The border appearance has changed between 2003 and today – but it is nothing like the 2007 KOS COLB image.

Allow me to expand on that a bit. Out of the series of COLBs I have looked at the KOS image is still the only one with no matches. I have exact matches to the Decosta version and exact matches to the 2006-2008 certificates (I do not have any from 2004-2005…feel free to send them). There is no match to the KOS version, supposedly issued in 2007, amongst any of them. Another observation is that the text in the known good 2007 and 2008 certificates do not line up with KOS version but they will align with one another. I know, I am going to have to post screen shots but I have not had the time to take any. Other glaring differences are seen with the spacing and kerning of the text on the documents versus the KOS image. I will have to post some screen shots to show them perhaps in an LGF pulsating gif sort of way. If you look at the full image of the KOS version (not the low quality cropped ones) you will also see that it is printed well off center (too far to the left of the page). And of course none of the other certificates (from all date ranges) are printed off center.

The KOS version is also the only post-2006 version that you can see the date stamp bleed through on the back. This led me to my original assumption that someone had used a very common technique to remove the printing and simply recreated the document on top of the almost blank page. (Without getting too detailed it is easy done at home and is a common method used by ID and check thieves and with a bit of extra work you can make your own $20 bills out of a $1.) Unfortunately none of the owners of the COLBs will allow me to destroy them to test out the hypothesis to see if it was printed and then scanned in and touched up. Apparently I have been able to pick up on some artifacts that they have missed but it will all be laid out once I get some time to finish the report. I look forward to having them review what I have found using some of their analysis methods. On a final note (I really have to get to bed)

I have talked to a few people in Hawaii over the last few weeks who have all said they have seen the KOS image and they all agreed it looks suspicious. One person went so far as to say flat out that there was no way that was printed by them. Sorry for the short reply and the typos but my bed needs me more than I need to be here replying :)

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

Comments

[AJStrata]

Techdude,

Thanks for confirming my point the Opendna image as a derivative of the Kos image - that was at the core of my initial debunking of the myth. I will be looking into your analysis methodology and post back here soon.

Some questions if you have the time. Do the more recent COLBs have the same general background and border as the Jun 2007 COLB? You are correct, I do not have any interim versions (which I assume all share the same Laser version control number).

If these COLBs do show an updated background and border consistent with the Obama COLB image, do you agree there was an upgrade to the HI COLB as I deduced between the 2002 Decosta and 2007 Obama COLBs? You have the lab - I don't!

BTW, we both know the KOS image was manipulated to black out the control number. I am interested in seeing where else you think there was manipulation.

Cheers, AJStrata

[AJStrata]

Pam,

To answer your question on why I preempted Techdude I am sure he figured it out by now, but I let you in on it as well. I basically tipped my hand to him ahead of time so he would know exactly what I was looking for. Techdude is out on a professional limb here, IMHO. So I will tip my hand again, so he can address my issues ahead of time.

The evidence of a forgery has to be beyond a reasonable doubt. You cannot say we see artifacts of image manipulation and conclude forgery, since we KNOW the image was cropped and one field blacked out. To keep the claim of a crime alive there must be strong evidence that whatever was done was ONLY to create a forgery. Just like the Opendna dead end was not proof of a forgery, but of someone playing with an image file, there has to be solid evidence what is detected is clearly and indication of forgery, not something much less mundane, like making a web friendly version.

I look forward to seeing what Techdude has, I am sure he will have found reasonable telltales to raise some questions. Though I seriously doubt he will have something that indicates, without a reasonable doubt, a forgery took place. And that is the level of standard that must be met when someone accuses someone else of committing a crime.

I have debunked so many aspects and variations of this myth you have to give me credit for being right nearly all the time (if not all the time). Given my track record I would suggest people reserve jumping to conclusions.

AJStrata

[wxjames]

I know little about COLBs or the skills needed to alter such documents, but I know a great deal about politics. This is fact one; the democrat party is now and has been corrupt. The democrat party is the normal vehicle used by organized crime to affect local, county, state, or court control. This has been a backbone of democrat politics since the sham president FDR. The democrats never considered truth, or the good of the people from interfering with their political agenda, from labor union corruption to today's socialist elitism. Books have been written exposing their methods, yet even today, we get bills like the increase in the minimum wage with exceptions for Pelosi's fish cannery holdings. They don't even try to hide it, nor do they need to. The MSM is the enemy of America and they support the democrat corruption in total. This country would be great, and our system would be perfect if and when we replace the MSM with honest men and women.
We may well see the pale horse first.

[john jay]

pamela:

were i the democrats i would want to make very certain prior to the national convention that barrack obama is indeed an american citizen and eligible to be elected potus. very damned sure.

ajstrata:
the above observation leads to this comment re: your assertion that "... evidence of a forgery has to be beyond a reasonable doubt." at the very least this assertion is poppycock, and at the worst it is misdirection flirting with falsehood, a vain attempt to mislead.

"beyond a reasonable doubt" is an evidence standard pertaining to criminal prosecution, and must be found by a fact finder at trial to support criminal conviction.

this controversy is not about that, in the slightest: i know of no one who is actually concerned about finding, prosecuting and convicting the perpetrator of this quite likely forgery. no one.

what this is about is politics. there is no "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard of proof in politics. to assert otherwise is the poppycock of your position. if, on the basis of this controversy swirling around obama's birth certificate the american public were to find obama and the democrats duplicitous with regard to obama's birthplace and date, and were to find him untrustworthy and a liar to boot, then they would be well advised and well justified in not voting for him for president. to suggest that this political judgment has to be based on a "beyond a reasonable doubt" evidentiary legal standard is absolute nonsense, and you know it.

or, g_d help us, i hope you do.

finally, there is one arena in which a legal evidentiary standard might well prove applicable in this matter, and that would be in a civil court in which someone might seek to put obama's true birth facts into controversy, e.g., would seek an adjudication as to his birth place and date of birth, and a resulting judgment on whether he is in fact and in law eligible to be potus.

in that situation, the "beyond the reasonable doubt" evidentiary standard is not used.

the legal standard in such a judicial setting born by the proponent of the law suit would be "by a preponderance of the evidence," or as it is sometimes called, "the more likely than not" standard of proof. lawyers in that context have been allowed to argue to juries, that "... if you find by a margin of 51% to 49% that my client is correct, then you must find ..." for the legal and factual propositions which we have put before you.

your assertion that techdude must prove this forgery "... beyond a reasonable doubt ..." is therefore ridiculous, and quite likely calculated to mislead and deceive. and, people who have read your assertion of this standard as probative of the issues at hand should understand that.

i conclude, based on what must have been a very calculated attempt on your part to mislead and deceive, that you are not to be trusted in any particule in this analysis. (this, by the way, is another legal standard argued to juries by lawyers for years, and was a standard instruction to juries in many jurisdictions for years, though, as of late, it has fallen out of favor as a formal instruction, but is still argued.)

you attempt to appear to be interested in reason, neutral, detached and objective. you are rather more interested, it seems to me, in deceiving, and in misleading people as to what the reasonable standards for judging this controversy are. and, ultimately, they are social and political, and not legal. you know this, and you attempt to avoid the consequences of it, by applying a false standard of judgment, hoping to avoid the inevitable consequences of judgment applied to your "analysis" and the analysis of techdude.

he will prevail, i expect, in the court of public opinion. you will fall. you attempt to soften the landing.

john jay
milton freewater, oregon usa

[john jay]

p.s. the only other legal evidentiary standard which might be applied in a civil suit setting would be the "... by clear and convincing evidence ..." standard. it is usually found in the trial context where a proof more rigorous than the preponderance standard is called by in a proceeding governed by statute. this proof, however, remains substantially less rigorous than the "...beyond a reasonable doubt..." standard, which is reserved for criminal prosecutions.

again, the matter of a criminal trial to find someone guilty of a forgery is not germane to the discussions at hand over this matter.

these issues are political and social, and the persons who make the relevant decisions are not governed by formal legal standards applicable to the rigors of proof in a courtroom: these decisions are made by real people exercising the same standards of judgment and assessment as they do in real life to decide whether another person is trustworthy, and reliable, and is a good person.

again, to suggest otherwise is to mislead and to deceive.

jjjay

[AJStrata]

John Jay,

You want to face libel charges with that? LOL! Go ahead - it's your life savings.

[Sue]

face libel charges?

What are you talking about AJ? Who is going to sue whom?

[Pamela Geller]

lawusuit?
oyish

the bottom line is AJ is saying the document is real

We are saying is a "horrible forgery"

The final paper will be submitted shortly

[Davod]

You will know you are on to something when the attempt to remove McCain because he was born in Panama reaches fever pitch.

Remember, Obama, in most cases, got where he is by removing a better candidate by any means.

[AJStrata]

JJ,

You mean no one ever files libel claims against those who make demonstrably false accusations? Whodathunkit.

[Drake]

Alright, everybody, calm down.

John Jay is correct that the issue is not a criminal prosecution, and thus the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard is not at play. What is at issue is whether there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the posted birth certificate is probably a forgery, thus prompting Obama to further action.

However, AJ is correct in that there needs to be more than mere suspicious irregularities, because to confront Obama with only marginal evidence would seriously backfire if he later did produce a real birth certificate and were able to proffer reasonable explanations for the irregularities.

AJ is not the enemy here. Although I very much oppose Obama, I appreciate that AJ is challenging Techdude's findings. The scientific method is built on hypothesis and disproof. Peer review is good. As I said, it would be rather embarrassing to come forth with weak evidence only to be sandbagged. I also appreciate that the tenor of discourse between AJ and Techdude has become congenial. So, let's just let the dueling forces battle until the truth comes out. AJ, keep up the good work.

[john jay]

ajstrata:

file away.

john jay

[se]

In one of his follow-up posts, techdude cites a technical white paper by a Dr. Neal Krawetz which he says he has based some of his methods and algorithsm that he's used to declare the Obama certificate "a horrible forgery."

So last night I EMailed Dr. Krawetz mentioning techdude's conclusion that is a forgery and asked if he might have any interest in analyzing it himself.

This morning I received a reply. When I asked if I could have permission to make his comments to me public, he said that I wasn't the first person to ask him about this and that he would try and get his own analysis posted on his blog this afternoon.

I'll post the URL here when it becomes available.

se

[Pamela Geller]

John Jay .... you da man

[john jay]

pamela:
thank you, dear lady.
you da woman. smiling.
john jay

[AJStrata]

JJ,

Why in the world would I file a suite against you? Dude, being naive and technically ignorant is not against the law!

[Sue]

AJ,

Why in the world would I file a suite against you?

Then why in the world did you say this?

You want to face libel charges with that? LOL! Go ahead - it's your life savings.

Who is going to sue him and for what?

[se]

I wanted to post something to rebut a claim made by techdude in his original write-up but it seems I'm not able to include images in my post. Am I simply overlooking something or are images not allowed in posts?
s
e

[Pamela Geller]

Typepad allows html but not photos. Retro I know but until they get up to speed you can post links to your pics

[se]

Ok, Dr. Krawetz has posted his analysis on his blog. He links to an analysis done by his colleague, Chris “Xenon” Hanson who had analyzed the lower resolution image on the Obama website while Dr. Krawetz’s analysis is of the higher resolution image on DailyKos.

The conclusion of both gentlemen is that contrary to techdude's claims, there is no indication of image manipulation in either image.

Dr. Krawetz’s blog entry can be found here:

Birth of a Conspiracy

se

[se]

Thanks, Pamela. I'll use the workaround.

se

[se]

Ok.

In techdude's original write-up on this issue, he states:

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.

I'm not sure exactly what he's referring to when he says "cut and paste marks," but it's obvious what he means when he says "overlaying of the side borders where they meet the top and bottom."

I disagree that this effect is not observed in the DeCosta certificate.

Here is a 400% blow-up I made of one corner of the DeCosta certificate.

corner1.jpg

Look at the six left-most "dots" (for lack of a better word) running horizontally along the inside edge of the border. They appear to be approximately the same size as those below it.

Now look at the next four where they cross the vertical portion of the border. They they rather clearly have their tops truncated.

I then drew a white line across the very tops of the first six dots, and a second line across the tops of the next four dots which illustrates the offset between tops of the first six and next four.

corner2.jpg

Thicken up the lines, add a vertical line, and we see that we have a situation that is perfectly consistent with the same "overlaying" that is seen in the Kos image.

corner3.jpg

se

[techdude]

Well I just got home and read the latest comments. I really need to get some sleep but I wanted to chime in. First let me say I am happy to see Dr. Neal finally weighed in on the topic but I have to quickly point out they have been reviewing the wrong images. The original KOS COLB is not the one still posted at either of the sites - it is just a lower quality (higher compression) crop of the larger 8 1/2 x 11 image that was removed almost immediately after it was first posted. But to touch on something he did bring up (which was going to be in the final report) the document does appear to have been recreated on top of an existing certificate. It may have been printed, scanned, and touched up or scanned blank and modified which is why I have been saying the background is the only part of the image that appears to be unmodified (does that make sense? I have been up for 18 hours). Allow me to quickly add some fuel to the fire before I pass out.

Since they did not have access to the other COLBs I will tell you all the information I have gathered from the ones I have plus some other information I have received. The paper pattern has remained the same (I think there are only a few manufacturers of security paper unless they buy some off brand made in China) but the weight of the paper has changed. It is cotton or linen based and is now thicker (a heavier weight). The border appearance has changed between 2003 and today – but it is nothing like the 2007 KOS COLB image. Allow me to expand on that a bit. Out of the series of COLBs I have looked at the KOS image is still the only one with no matches. I have exact matches to the Decosta version and exact matches to the 2006-2008 certificates (I do not have any from 2004-2005…feel free to send them). There is no match to the KOS version, supposedly issued in 2007, amongst any of them. Another observation is that the text in the known good 2007 and 2008 certificates do not line up with KOS version but they will align with one another. I know, I am going to have to post screen shots but I have not had the time to take any. Other glaring differences are seen with the spacing and kerning of the text on the documents versus the KOS image. I will have to post some screen shots to show them perhaps in an LGF pulsating gif sort of way. If you look at the full image of the KOS version (not the low quality cropped ones) you will also see that it is printed well off center (too far to the left of the page). And of course none of the other certificates (from all date ranges) are printed off center. The KOS version is also the only post-2006 version that you can see the date stamp bleed through on the back. This led me to my original assumption that someone had used a very common technique to remove the printing and simply recreated the document on top of the almost blank page. (Without getting too detailed it is easy done at home and is a common method used by ID and check thieves and with a bit of extra work you can make your own $20 bills out of a $1.) Unfortunately none of the owners of the COLBs will allow me to destroy them to test out the hypothesis to see if it was printed and then scanned in and touched up.

Apparently I have been able to pick up on some artifacts that they have missed but it will all be laid out once I get some time to finish the report. I look forward to having them review what I have found using some of their analysis methods.

On a final note (I really have to get to bed) I have talked to a few people in Hawaii over the last few weeks who have all said they have seen the KOS image and they all agreed it looks suspicious. One person went so far as to say flat out that there was no way that was printed by them.

Sorry for the short reply and the typos but my bed needs me more than I need to be here replying :)

[--mdd--]

Thats good for the night.
Pamela, I havent't been in for a while. This was a a most enjoyable read. Looking forward to the next chapter.

[se]

First let me say I am happy to see Dr. Neal finally weighed in on the topic but I have to quickly point out they have been reviewing the wrong images. The original KOS COLB is not the one still posted at either of the sites - it is just a lower quality (higher compression) crop of the larger 8 1/2 x 11 image that was removed almost immediately after it was first posted.

Oh well now that's just bloody brilliant! Doing an analysis and making claims of a horrible forgery regarding an image file the original source for which is no longer available.

You could manipulate the file to make your analysis come out however you want it to. And who would be the wiser? Sure, someone could claim they had the real original file and dispute your analysis. But it would just be he said/she said. Without the original source being available, there's no way to independently verify or falsify the claims of either.

Brilliant!

se

[bvw]

se,

The good Dr. K leads with a quote from KOS, labels the whole issue a conspiracy and ends with a highly presumptive statement that Obama's credentials would have already have been vetted by the Democrats or the Republicans. If you don't have a problem with that, I do. It sets off a lot of flags, and in my own opinion, on the stand, just on the basis of those political statements (for they are not emotionally detached analysis) he would be labeled as a hostile witness.

I suspect that techdude has done far more work and more thorough analysis than Dr. K on this, at least in that he has assembled copies of the blanks over the years, but also I'm guessing, in his technical image analysis.

In any case, what does one call a concerted, combined and cooperative effort to supply a modified limited hangout of facts? How else to describe the low-res edited images as a proof of birth presented not just on Obama's site but on a few liberal blogs, the wiping of stories that differed from the official storyline from African websites, the wiping of images for the Google and Yahoo search image, and Obama's stonewalling in refusal to allow Hawaii to release the full records -- the full records without redactions. In the Watergate era it was indeed called for what it was -- a conspiracy of those in power. And just 18 minutes of blanked audio tape brought down a President who attempted to pull such a modified, limited hangout.

What's the cert number, Kevin?

[re-posting this reply on the correct thread.]

[AJStrata]

Techdude,

Look forward to seeing your results. But let's recap a bit here.

(1) When I posted the forgery myth was busted I focused on the rumors the the Opendna image could not be used to create the Kos Image. You confirmed that assessment and thanks for that.

(2) When you claimed the differences in the 2002 and 2007 COLB border did not match and that alone was evidence of a forgery, I noted that there has been revisions to the COLB since 2002. You confirmed that, and again I thank you for taking my logical deductions and supporting them through detailed analysis.

(3) I should note that in my post on the enhancements I deduced the paper had been upgraded from paper to something made up with cloth because the impressions from the seal stamp on the back were not as clear as in the earlier paper versions. You confirmed that too.

(4) I read your white papers - and thank you. They were quite informative. But I have also been hinting that you need to beware how new graphics programs use layering to develop a final image. So that the template fields may look to be different layers from the person specific data entries.

You may be on to something, but let's take some of these developments and slow down a bit. Being printed "off center" could simply be (a) a paper misfeed on the printer, or (b) a new printer, etc. Offset printing is not going to be definitive. And this goes for any mismatches you may find. I must admit you have me very intrigued and I feel you may be onto something.

But so far you have been confirming my analysis. Before you cry 'forgery' make sure you have eliminated all obvious alternative explanations - like you have done since you claimed the border differences between the 2002 COLB and the 2007 COLB mean there was a forgery. I think you have to admit that initial claim did not hold up under your own continued investigation.

Cheers, AJStrata

[Joe Izrael]

Hey, Pamela, why are you soooooooooooooooooo meeeeeeeeeeeean?
Don't you realize we was slaves for 400 years, far before 'em Greek homos got to it? Don't yo wealize we fighted sssso ha'd fo it? So now be-coz just such a silly little detale like where he was bo'n, you wanna destroy uncle O'Bama's cabin? Dat's sooooo nasty and soooo rassist. Stop it alrrreddy! You had 43 whiti precidants, now give us one as wel! Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

[AJStrata]

One question on text kerning and spacing - could this be a change in FONT caused by using a different printer?

AJStrata

[Ray_in_Aus]

This Obama forgery fiasco is unbelievable.
As an expert in graphic reproduction since
long before Photoshop was even thought of,
I know that none of these Photoshop experts
and 'allegators' can reproduce the forgery
effect that they have imagined, without it
being detected. Some would even be scratching
to find the correct font.

So what about the allegators giving a demo,
and showing us how they can "forge" just
ONE name - say G.W. Bush on part of a
certificate?

Incidentally AJStrata, I've been kicking on
your blog door for days, trying to get in so
I could agree with nearly everything you've
written but your blog won't send the password.

[Ray_in_Aus]

Here's 2 images that I uploaded to Photobucket a few days ago. They might help some of the conspiracy theorists figure out a way to try and duplicate what they imagined the phantom forger did with Obama's certificate. They are best viewed in a proper graphics program.
http://s355.photobucket.com/albums/r478/RayAus/?action=view¤t=ArtifactsfromJPG.jpg
http://s355.photobucket.com/albums/r478/RayAus/?action=view¤t=FUZZY.gif

[se]

The good Dr. K leads with a quote from KOS, labels the whole issue a conspiracy and ends with a highly presumptive statement that Obama's credentials would have already have been vetted by the Democrats or the Republicans. If you don't have a problem with that, I do. It sets off a lot of flags, and in my own opinion, on the stand, just on the basis of those political statements (for they are not emotionally detached analysis) he would be labeled as a hostile witness.

I agree that the presumptive statement and other comments have no direct bearing on the issue of whether or not the images in question have been manipulated. Though I'll note that much of the rest of your post is rather highly presumptive as well.

At the end of the day, the analysis is what it is and is open to question or challenge by others. And unlike techdude's analysis, it is of images for which the original sources are still available and which others may use to verify or falsify Dr. Krawetz's analysis. So if you have issues with the analysis, then speak to the analysis and not to the possible motives of others.

I suspect that techdude has done far more work and more thorough analysis than Dr. K on this, at least in that he has assembled copies of the blanks over the years...

Oh really? And you know this how exactly? Have you seen them? I haven't. At this point as far as I'm aware all we have is techdude's claiming to have them.

...but also I'm guessing, in his technical image analysis.

Well I can't say I'm terribly impressed so far.

Did you read my post above regarding his claim that overlapping of the borders was not observed in the DeCosta certificate?

In any case, what does one call a concerted, combined and cooperative effort to supply a modified limited hangout of facts?

Not sure what you mean here by "a modified limited hangout of facts."

How else to describe the low-res edited images as a proof of birth presented not just on Obama's site but on a few liberal blogs...

What was edited?

...the wiping of stories that differed from the official storyline from African websites, the wiping of images for the Google and Yahoo search image, and Obama's stonewalling in refusal to allow Hawaii to release the full records -- the full records without redactions. In the Watergate era it was indeed called for what it was -- a conspiracy of those in power. And just 18 minutes of blanked audio tape brought down a President who attempted to pull such a modified, limited hangout.

Who's being presumptive now?

se

[Ray_in_Aus]

Techdude wrote:
"If, Obama had his original birth certificate it would look like this"
[referring to the 1998 image of a 1963 birth record]
http://snarkybytes.com/?p=521
-------

The black image on the above certificate
would probably be very similar to Obama's
1961 birth certificate which he possessed,
if not identical, but we couldn't assume
that it had the green background, or indeed
ANY background.

It seems to me that the 1998 COLB of the
1963 birth is a photocopy of the original
birth certificate image printed onto the
green security paper.

It will pay to find out if COLB's in the
years after Obama's birth were actually
photocopies or photostats because photocopies
were of very low quality in the early years,
but photostats (photographic paper with a
negative image were much clearer).

In Australia they were still issuing photostat
copies of birth certificates in 1964, and while
they were of very high contrast, they still
captured most signatures quite well.

[Pamela Geller]

Ray_in_Aus wrote,

If, Obama had his original birth certificate it would look like this" [referring to the 1998 image of a 1963 birth record] http://snarkybytes.com/?p=521 ------- The black image on the above certificate would probably be very similar to Obama's 1961 birth certificate which he possessed, if not identical,....

Techdude didn't write that I did. Please read carefully. I am very careful about attribution. Anything quoted will be in blockquote and rarely italicized but it is is very clearly stated.

Stay tuned, Techdude should post a follow up tonight and then the final analysis.

[se]

AJStrata

One question on text kerning and spacing - could this be a change in FONT caused by using a different printer?

I don't know exactly what techdude means when he says "Other glaring differences are seen with the spacing and kerning of the text on the documents versus the KOS image."

However if the DeCosta image is assumed to be genuine, then overlaying the text from the images currently on the Kos, FactCheck, and Obama websites on the DeCosta image doesn't show any differences in kerning and spacing.

Remember, techdude's claiming that his analysis is of an image the original source of which is no longer available.

se

[AJStrata]

Ray,

Registration is back open - come on by!

And thanks for the assist!

AJStrata

[AJStrata]

Pam,

Nice debate going on here! Actually, overlaying the 2007 COLB onto the 2002 COLB means northing since, as Techdude now admits, they are from two different version of the standard HI COLB.

Cheers, AJStrata

[Ray_in_Aus]

Someone wqrote:
"In the case at hand the KOS COLB was
not just simply scanned into Photoshop
and a box placed over the certificate
number and then exported for the web.
The original scan has been saved multiple
times, the text and the borders have both
been modified, [...]"

No, the original 11 x 8.5", 1.7M JPEG
has not been tampered with in any way.
It was merely cropped and blacked-out
over the number and also reduced in
memory size from a potential 1MB after
cropping, down to 0.5MB for Kos's final
file.

I have examined the various images
extensively and I agree wholeheartedly
with the latest assessment that has just
been released here:
http://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/202-The-Birth-of-a-Conspiracy.html&serendipity[csuccess]=true#feedback

[Ray_in_Aus]

AJStrata wrote:
[in ref to his blog being difficult to access]

"Registration is back open - come on by!

And thanks for the assist!"

Hey, you don't need any assistance with the technical/logical side of things, but you sure look like you need someone to stop you from banging your head against the wall out of sheer frustration.

I'm still trying to get a password to get in.
The blog says it's going to email one but it never does.
address is raymur@chariot.net.au [not private]

Ray

[Ray_in_Aus]

se wrote:

"Remember, techdude's claiming that his
analysis is of an image the original
source of which is no longer available."

That wouldn't make any difference. Kos only took off the excess space around the border. It's the same document.

[Ray_in_Aus]

Someone wrote:
"[...]the State of Hawaii Department
of Health is granted the authority to
fashion its own regulations about
providing birth certificate information,
[...]"

The Health Dept in Hawaii has indicated that it will release birth information about Senator Obama only an appropriate person, so it follows that they must HAVE that information. If they had no birth record for Sen. Obama they would be at liberty to say so because they would have no client information to protect. Therefore Obbama HAD to have been born in Hawaii - so why ask for extra details that are on his original certificate and which Obama will not reveal now anyway.

Look how much he's pushing the limits on so many fronts. Pushing a few irritable bloggers is no biggie for him.

[AJStrata]

BTW Ray, you should be able to just set your password. Throw up a comment, I have to authorize the first one, and you should be good to go. Still having problems email me a ajstrata@.. well, you know the rest.

[bvw]

Se,

When a subtle minded intelligent person like you responds 'Not sure what you mean here by "a modified limited hangout of facts."', I do question those aforementioned in this sentence presumptions. Perhaps you were being coy.

[bvw]

A "Modified, Limited Hangout" (MLH) is a term coined during the Watergate scandal. Nixon's advisors used the phrase to describe a limited, "controlled" release of facts. The release by Obama is *at best* a "modified limited hangout". Clearly Obama and his allies have shown a delight and energy in erasing the record, almost at whim. With Obama, based on those many and growing numbers of record erasures, and this birth certificate partial-truth "release" -- we have evidence of a man acting like a Nixon, and perhaps even a Stalin.

[se]

Ray in Aus

That wouldn't make any difference. Kos only took off the excess space around the border. It's the same document.

Well, one might make that assumption. But with the original source for that image no longer available, it can't be independently verified that that was the case.

The broader point I'm trying to make here is that without that original source being available, there's no way to guarantee the provenance of the document that techdude is using to make his case for "a horrible forgery."

It would be a relatively simple matter to alter it in such a way as to appear to be "a horrible forgery" under analysis.

I'm not saying this is what techdude has done, but by the same token, without the original source being available for independent verification or falsification, we won't know that he hasn't.

se

[bvw]

BTW, Stalin's own Dad abandoned him and his mother, and he was raised in the house of a Priest who took his mother in. Stalin is said to have been picked on as a schoolboy, being small and a bit misshapen. Yet he was a voracious reader and excelled academically. He was ardent and energetic -- and one might imagine -- quite the dreamer!

[se]

bvw

When a subtle minded intelligent person like you responds 'Not sure what you mean here by "a modified limited hangout of facts."', I do question those aforementioned in this sentence presumptions. Perhaps you were being coy.

No. I was simply being straightforward. A "modified limited hangout of facts" wasn't a phrase I had any particular familiarity with, which left me wondering what it was you were meaning to say. And it just seemed to me that an intelligent person, when not sure what another is meaning to say, would well... just say they weren't sure what that person was meaning to say.

A "Modified, Limited Hangout" (MLH) is a term coined during the Watergate scandal. Nixon's advisors used the phrase to describe a limited, "controlled" release of facts.

Ah. Wasn't aware of that.

Thanks for the explanation.

se

[Ray_in_Aus]

se wrote:

[Ray]: That wouldn't make any difference.
Kos only took off the excess space around
the border. It's the same document.

[se]: Well, one might make that assumption.
But with the original source for that image
no longer available, it can't be independently
verified that that was the case.

[Ray]: Don't tell me we have a SECOND "forgery
of the forgery" floating around! If so, then
it will take twice as long to debunk the
conspiracy claim.

[se]: The broader point I'm trying to make here
is that without that original source being
available, there's no way to guarantee the
provenance of the document that techdude is
using to make his case for "a horrible forgery.

It would be a relatively simple matter to alter
it in such a way as to appear to be "a horrible
forgery" under analysis.

I'm not saying this is what techdude has done,
but by the same token, without the original
source being available for independent
verification or falsification, we won't know
that he hasn't."
-----------

[Ray]: It sounds like we need to see it. Can someone
put it up for us to download and check?

Also, waht is he saying is different about
it - does anyone recall?

[Mike]

Regarding the Kos image that's no longer available -- I think techdude is referring to this (see link below). It's the uncropped version, which I downloaded from PolitiFact.

http://img28.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=52348_a4s_obamacert_27584a_122_1189lo.jpg

I don't buy into the "dog that didn't bark" idea -- that Hawaii must have a record because they didn't say they don't have one. But that's entirely beside the point, as far as I'm concerned. If this COLB is indeed a forgery, the onus is on the Obama campaign and Kos to explain.

Kos said he received it from the campaign and said "I trimmed the edges of the scan." Amy Hollyfield said she got it from the campaign, too. Those two documents matched. If it was a forgery... well I can't wait to watch Obama spin his way out of it. I'm under no delusion that a forged COLB would doom the Obama campaign. But that doesn't mean that I don't want to get to the bottom of this.

[se]

Ray in Aus

It sounds like we need to see it. Can someone
put it up for us to download and check?

And check what exactly?

Let's say I (or anyone else) say "Here you go, Ray, it's on my server, go ahead and download it."

How will you know it's actually the one that was originally posted on Kos and not just something I've claimed is the one that was originally posted on Kos?

And let's say you download it and find that it's not the same image that techdude's using for his analysis. Who's lying here? techdude? Me? Both of us?

se