Who died and made him the final word on Obama's Birth Certificate fake?

Listen, I like AJ, but when did he become the final authority on document forensics and such?  Apparently, he weighed in and the big blogs that have decided his amateur analysis closes the case. Perhaps they fear looking foolish? But the more that emerges the more questions are raised.

Techdude, who is an expert by occupation,  is further investigating and I will have more of his superb and detailed analysis but in case you missed Tech dude's comment:

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 -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 but 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.)

As I previously reported, Mitchell Lambert has submitted an FOI request, we await the State of Hawaii.

Tech dude's previous analysis here. Techdude declares Obama's birth certificate a forgery

BLOGGER ADMITS TO Obama Birth Certificate Forgery

Comments

[tehfaxman]

Thank you for making this post of techdude's response to AJ Strata's comments from your previous posting. I find AJ's posting and comments (referring to his site) to be smug, belittling and condescending. He also seems to be defensive when questioned or criticized, which usually is an sure indication that one doesn't know what they are talking about.

If he really wanted to query or counter techdude's opinion and conclusions, he should or have his "expert" make a point by point argument with documentation, for example like techdude submitted.

By the way, I believe techdude dimensioned his very technical analysis in such a way that most readers could understand that there are real issues with the KOS document has presented for Mr. Obama birth certificate.

AJ does make a valid point, which is there are many other politically vulnerable areas to be explored and investigated. Rest assured AJ, there are current activities pursuing those endeavors and this does not act as a distraction.

AJ appears to be one of the "Just move on" crowd, but I believe this has to be resolved one way or the other. Since Mr. Obama has not taken the opportunity to resolve this constitutional requirement, I guess this will remain to be a point of discussion for many.

Keep up the great work!

[Polarik]

Thanks to Tehfaxman for noticing AJStrata's more positive attributes, i.e, smug, belittling and condescending."

As the target of his ad hominim attacks and his smug, belittling and condescending comments,I certainly would not only be justified in seeking payback, such as humiliating him, and making him look stupid.

But, that's not my style at all. Also, I've learned over the years that it's useless to try and argue with someone who understands so little about the actual things I've said.

I am not sure what to make of him, really, given how off-the-mark were his interpretations of my work.

What I can say is that he didn't exactly get off to a good start, when he got my name wrong, calling me, Polirak, followed by a dissing my research, calling it "Poor," and then proceeding to reference me as the 'expert' Polarik, as if he's the "God of Graphic Arts," and I'm some, stupid shmuck who doesn't know his asterisk from his elbow.

As an example of how he screwed up what I did and what I said, read the following:

"On 6/20/08 the ‘expert’ Polarik claimed this certificate clearly produced a year ago was a forgery of an original from 1961, which Barack Obama claimed he had in one of his books from years ago."

I never said anything of the sort. Not even remotely close. In fact, nowhere in my post is 1961 even mentioned. I was speaking about a forged IMAGE, not a forged DOCUMENT, and that is exactly what I've been saying all along in all my posts.

It's a shame that AJStrata never bothered to read my first post carefully, as well as the other eight posts I made, before going online and shooting his mouth off.

He goes on to ramble about a forged document, when all I have ever been saying is that someone overwrote the original data on an image of a COLB, to either obscure what really was there, and/or to add false information. The only things I have ever said about a real paper COLB document, is in regards to the evolution of the images, that there had to have been a real one in the inital creation of the base image, aka, the one from which ALL of the other altered images sprang.

A lot of what he says is flat-out unbelievable, like the following:

"Before we get into this I want to share what I discovered when I looked into these files, before I even began to look around the blogosphere...I could detect the impression of the state seal stamp and signature area on two of the files."

First of all, from where did he get these two images, if not from the blogsphere?

Secondly, there's no way that these features can be seen without the aid of image enhancement. None. Zip. Zero.

Sure, you can make out a few depressions, but to say that these are the embossed seal and signature stamp from a genuine COLB, strains credibility to the max.

Well, that's all I'm going to say on the matter. I stand by my research, and certainly do not say it is free of any errors -- I found a few errors and corrected them in subsequent posts.

The bottom line is that America STILL has never seen a duly certified, true copy of Obama's birth record (aka COLB), that has been accurately reproduced in scans of BOTH SIDES, including one side that has the embossed State Seal and the inked Registrar's stamp clearly visible to the naked eye, PLUS a hand-written signature from the Director of Vital Records attesting to its validity.

Anything less than that just won't do.

[techdude]

I would like to address a few questions and concerns which have been raised around the collective blogosphere since I first posted my original comments explaining some of the conclusions I reached in my forensic investigation of the KOS certificate controversy. Think of it of my own “Fight the Smears” campaign and before you have to even ask – yes, the certificate is still a horrible forgery. Please keep in mind that I am writing this at 3 AM after having spent the last 18 hours working on imaging and examining a 2 TB RAID array so I may ramble on a bit and I may miss some the questions people wanted answered.

Q. Why should we trust the findings of some anonymous blog poster?

A. These days that is one of the most insightful questions people should be asking about anything they read or see on the Internet and in even mass media. I applaud you for questioning my credentials which I will get to momentarily. Today we are so inundated with misinformation and rumors posed as facts that if you fail to question everything and if you do not do your own research about all you are force fed - you are doomed to be some one else’s sock puppet. I feel that the same question demands to be asked about the claims made by the Daily KOS blog since they posted Senator Obama’s “Certificate of Live Birth” which they received from an anonymous source who they claim works for the Obama Campaign. If Senator Obama had personally provided the document to the folks at KOS I never would have given the issue a passing thought even if my friend had asked me to look into it – not that I would take any politician on their word but it would have been a verified source for the information which, for me at least, would have removed some of the red flags. I am sure we all remember last year’s problems that Reuters was having with their digitally manipulated “news” images – so to accept a digital image at face value without any substantiating corroboration is just plain silly whether you support the candidate or not.

Next allow me to explain why the original story was posted with the username “techdude” and not my real name – when you register to post a comment it asks for a screen name a/k/a handle or nickname. I have used techdude as my screen names since the early 90’s. It was not done as a way to create some odd air of mystery and people actually call me “techdude” as a nickname in the real world too.

As for me, my given name is Adam, and no you can not currently have my last name – too many nut cases in the world, but if you want a copy of my full CV contact Ms. Geller at Atlas Shrugs and, if you ask her very nicely, perhaps she will forward your emails to me and if I am in a giving mood I may send you a reply. I also strongly suggest donating some money to her blog to help keep her independent and insightful thoughts alive and well online – but if you want to have some fun trying and you have some free time you should also able to locate me all by yourself. I am the owner and primary forensic examiner of a computer forensic science laboratory – [the name of which I will also not give out at this time – still too many nut cases and I will not endanger people around the lab. But again if you feel like donating some money to Atlas Shrugs perhaps Ms. Geller will forward your emails to me.] I am an active member of the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, American College of Forensic Examiners, The International Society of Forensic Computer Examiners, International Information Systems Forensics Association - the list could go on. I am also a board certified as a forensic computer examiner, a certificated legal investigator, and a licensed private investigator. I have been performing computer based forensic investigations since 1993 (although back then it did not even have a formal name yet) and I have performed countless investigations since then. I also volunteer my services for free to those who can not afford the $250 an hour it takes to secure the services of their own private computer forensic expert. I did not go into this field for the money. Just call me an idealist.

Now to quickly clear up some of the strangest speculations I have read about my supposed background - all in one or two rather convoluted run-on sentences…yes, I have a government issued security clearance (sensitive but unclassified information – sorry but I have no access to space aliens) and NO I am NOT an agent of the federal government. Yes, I have received training from the Treasury Department, Department of Homeland Security and FEMA, and yes I am involved with the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s InfraGard program but again that does NOT make me a federal agent. They do not get paid enough to put up with the massive amount of crap they have to deal with.

All will be revealed eventually – I am just wary of finding my brake lines cut and my bunny boiled in a pot of water as this issue has raised more ire than the time I found inculpatory evidence against some local law enforcement officers. At least all they did in retaliation was to randomly pull me over for a couple of weeks where as here I only gave a sound opinion based on established facts in the comment section of a blog and I am already hearing about physical threats from whack-jobs.

Q. Why would you waste your time with something so trivial?

A. Some people collect stamps, others prefer to garden. I enjoy forensic challenges such as the Department of Defense’s DC3 Forensic Challenge which this year (and last) just so happen to include the issues raised by the KOS certificate controversy. Is it a real image or has it been created on a computer…or is it a mix of both? I have simply been using this exercise as a way to verify and validate both proven and theorized methodologies for detecting digital tampering. That is after all what good science is all about. What may appear as a trivial waste of time on the surface to the casual observer is actually part of a deeper rooter issue facing computer forensic investigations. Since the US Supreme Court ruled in their Ashcroft decision that possessing digitally created and modified images of children engaging in sexual conduct is legal the computer forensics community has had to meet this challenge to prove to a court of law that images were either real or they were created or modified on a computer. Not too surprisingly, since that decision was handed down, almost every one arrested for possessing child pornography has tried to use “it is not a real image” as a defense. It now beats the “a virus downloaded those 5,000 images” defense as the biggest waste of our time. So before you say looking at the KOS COLB is a waste of time try looking at the much larger picture and forget about your politics. Besides, “forensics” is the process of using science to establish facts suitable for the courtroom and also to inspire public debate. I believe this issue accomplishes both.

Q. Are you politically biased? Do you hate Obama? What are you REALLY working towards?

A. I am a political agnostic – While I know there is a Congress I do not worship at the alter of any political ideology because it is a worthless endeavor. I am a proud American and nothing more. Besides today’s politicians all demand to be treated like spoiled rock stars and I have never really been fan of any of their music. Sure there may be that one-hit wonder or a chart topper or two but generally their entire collection of records suck and can all be bought for a few dollars at WalMart. If you have enough money they will even perform at your son’s wedding. I vote only for the person or issue NOT for the party and NO I am not a Republican operative, a Right Wing nutcase, an angry Hillary supporter, a NeoCon Zionist, or an Israeli Mossad agent (it sounds like a fun job though). In this election cycle I am still one of those G-d forsaken undecided voters who do not belong to any political party. I mean can you really blame me? Generally I am just your average every day middle of the road kind of guy with the occasional very strong opinion. In the interest of full disclosure I was rooting for Rudy, and out of all the candidates running for President I would only want to go out for drinks with Hillary as she would easily be the most entertaining. Oh, and for the stories and gossip I am sure she could tell.

Obama appears to be a somewhat nice person but I would not be interested in attending a Mets game with the guy. I just do not get a good vibe from him. There are too many real issues that he has not addressed plus the ones that he has flipped on and I believe he is just another typical politician in a long line of typical politicians offering more of the same BS in a shiny new package. Now before you run off screaming that I am biased against Obama I also feel the same way about McCain – minus the shiny and new part.

Some people also took my “Obamanationalists loosing their minds” comment completely out of context assuming that I could not possibly be even remotely unbiased in my findings that the KOS certificate is a really bad fake because I would dare to make a disparaging comment. Well, you can fix dumb but you can not fix stupid so I will not even bother to address that one and if you were offended by the remark – grow a damn pair. If it makes you feel any better I also call McCain’s brain dead legion of followers “McMorons” and the occasional “CaptMcNutterButters”. Hey, I may not be Mother Teresa but I am always honest. In this race I am not betting on any horse and I really do not care about the outcome so you can check that off your bizarre conspiracy theory list. Just call me disenfranchised. Everyone is free to just assume I dislike all stupid people if that will make you feel better. Plus as I stated in the previous section this was never about a campaign issue for me – it is about improving forensic methodologies and scientific techniques to spot digital image manipulations and for prosecuting pedophiles. Granted at this point in time my curiosity is peaked and I would really like to see what his real COLB looks like just to see how bad of a forgery the KOS version really is.

Q. Are you the same techdude who posts comments full of conspiracy theories on all the blogs?

A. Uhmmm…..no. First time I ever felt compelled to leave a comment on a blog was the one that caused me to have to write this mess of an answer. (Or is this part of some vast conspiracy? j/k) Apparently “techdude” has just become a rather popular handle.

Q. Are you the same techdude who posts all those articles on StormFront?

A. Uhmmm…..hell no.

Q. Wasn’t the KOS COLB already declared real and this issue laid to rest? Haven’t you read the blogs? You can not both be right.

A. If you are talking about the findings of a certain 2 initialed blogger whose dubious findings are based on obviously false conclusions and a complete lack of basic information that was compiled in under an hour and was then picked up across the blogosphere and taken as the word of G-d even though it has absolutely no basis in fact then yes I have read that. That will be addressed once I compile all of my findings (there are many that I just did not bother to post at the time as I had wrongfully assumed that every already knew it was a fake) and the results of several experiments which may explain more than anyone ever wanted to know about that KOS COLB image and exactly how the forgery was created. I will also touch a little bit on the OpenDNA COLB versions but that really is a dead horse at this point as everything he has already admitted can be corroborated by looking at the images which are based on the pre-existing KOS COLB. But for the fun of it I will beat that horse a bit longer just to prove a point and show how wrong some people can be when they begin to develop implausible theories that have no basis in fact – and how they loose all credibility when they start to make up their own facts or purposely misquote other people’s conclusions. It will be both entertaining and informative. And before we all go off in a huff let us not forget that there are more than one known official Hawaiian COLB's to work with.

Now of course if you have two very differing opinions – one saying it is authentic and the other saying it is a forgery – only one can be correct. It is almost impossible to prove a negative such as trying to prove G-d does not exist but I assure you it is pretty easy to prove a document is a forgery by comparison. That is why all of my findings are being made public (the good and the bad, the parts I can explain, and the unanswered questions that need further study or examination) – it is called peer review.

For the ill-informed and the amature analysts that may have seen one too many episodes of CSI that means a point by point rebuttal showing how certain findings are factually incorrect or inaccurately interpreted or simply the admission and acceptance that the findings are correct. Calling me a doody-head and making even more implausible theories having no basis in fact is not generally considered a proper peer response but I will accept those if that is the best that you can offer.

Q. When will you post your final summary with all the goodies?

A. If I am able to conclude some interpolation of various bits of missing data before this weekend (7/12/2008) and I do not get any emergency calls that will take me away from the lab and if I do not keep finding more corroborating evidence for the summary – it should be completed and emailed to Pamela with all of the associated screenshots sometime next week. Sorry but Atlas Shrugs gets the Exclusive – no soup for anyone else. Now go donate some damned money to support this blog or she may just decide to NOT publish the data! (How is that for the hard sell?) And do not worry about understanding the summary – I will de-geek it the best that I can while also including footnotes and references for those of you who are trying to follow along or teach yourself as you go. In fact I may try to write it up as a step by step guide so you can follow along and recreate everything yourself in the comfort of your living rooms using freely available software if at all possible. Learn to do it “on the cheap” as my grandmother used to say. The world needs more forensics geeks.

And to the previously aforementioned 2 initialed blogger I just read your latest reply to my conclusions on your blog – and once I stop laughing, take a nap, and get this paid case done I will have to write up a very subjective reply but until then pleasen stop typing you are really beginning to embarrass yourself. I mean seriously just stop it man. Oh gosh...I just read your replies to the comments left under your masterpiece of deductive reasoning and I just spit my coffee all over my laptop. Oh hey, I see here you are a “computer expert, which covers all aspects of computers and how they manipulate data” with an obvious grasp on your special version of reality...how do I get this crap out of the nooks and crannies of my keyboard since it is obvious you know all about crap? Just one more question – since you claim you are “also a NASA engineer who focuses on and reviews computer and communications systems flight and ground. Documents are a simple niche in my world.” What computers does NASA use that run on paper? Or did you mean you read magazine articles about hardware reviews? Just asking. And as a busy NASA Engineer you are obviously busy engineering NASA or something to be able to spend more than a few minutes posting logical replies. [cat fight cat fight!] Now go send some money to support Ms. Geller's blog or it will be no more soup for you!

[Mike]

I hope you don't mind -- I emailed techdude's comment to Reuven Koret at israelinsider. He's been doing such good work on this story and I didn't want him to miss it.

I just want to say that, those who have tried to state that in order to say that the COLB is fake one must prove some sort of conspiracy, have it all wrong. That's not a logical approach to this. The bottom line is, if it is "a horrible forgery" as techdude says, it's the people who advanced the COLB as real in the first place (Kos, "Fight the Smears," etc.) who have some explaining to do.

Some time ago I sent an email to Amy Hollyfield from PolitiFact to argue this -- you can claim that the COLB is not a forgery, but you can't logically support an argument that it's "authentic" or "genuine" because you can't see the things that would make it so, i.e. the seal, the signature block, and most importantly, the certification number. The best anyone could say was that it "looks like what a genuine COLB is supposed to look like" except for those things, and nothing more. And PolitiFact (and basically, the entire media) had declared it to be the real deal at least a week before anyone figured out the Photoshop "find edges" trick that lets you see the seal.

I think it's striking that the "blogosphere" that nearly broke its arm patting itself on the back over the Rathergate incident has decided to sit this one out entirely, or go so far as to declare anyone who questions the COLB to be a conspiracy kook. For all the independence and open-mindedness that the conservative blogosphere is supposed to have, no one has been willing to demand to see the original document or else have been willing to simply say that it's incomplete and unacceptable. Getting this story right would have required an absolute minimum amount of skepticism.

When I saw the COLB for the first time, the red flag for me was that it just doesn't "look" like a scanned document. Now, I don't have techdude's credentials, but I do scan documents all the time and I often have to do it at print quality so I can reproduce them in publications. The other red flag was the blocked out certification number. It's more important than the seal and signature block, in fact it's the heart of the matter. There either is or isn't a record on file in a Hawaii state computer that matches that number (assuming there is one) with what's on the COLB.

Anyway, thanks to you, techdude, and to you Pam!

[Pamela Geller]

Mike, I do not mind, I am glad and I agree. Thank you!

I have a follow up post in progress by our forensic tech expert and Atlas reader :) addressing AJ's latest shallow argument.

[Ray_in_Aus]

Polarik wrote:

"I would like to address a few questions and concerns which have been raised around the collective blogosphere since I first posted my original comments explaining some of the conclusions I reached in my forensic investigation of the KOS certificate controversy. Think of it of my own “Fight the Smears” campaign and before you have to even ask – yes, the certificate is still a horrible forgery."
---

If the Obama certificate was really a forgery, then instead of just theorizing about how it was done, you ought to be able to create an example which demonstrates it with some DIFFERENT alpha characters.
I say you cannot do it.

[Ray_in_Aus]

Tech dude seems quite oblivious to the fact that old certificate with the dark border was (effectively) grossly under-exposed in a graphics program in order to capture the seal. That's why the type is so thick, and yet he still proceeded to compare a normal letter "c" with a deliberately thickened one.
It's all quite unbelievable!

[Ray_in_Aus]

For those who are still salivating about what sort of
incriminating evidence that Obama's original birth
record may contain - have a look at this 1963 birth
record on a blog:

http://snarkybytes.com/?p=521

[Ray_in_Aus]

So the experts know how some
forger placed new type on a
blank COLB but none of them
can actually do it themselves.
Why? Because it will leave
tell-tale signs.