Monday, June 30, 2008
The Birth certificate: Sorry folks, but it is real
I had not planned to write about the birth certificate controversy until later in the week, but a post in No Quarter forced the matter. In essence, Obama's critics have argued that the COB (certificate of birth) must be a fake, since it lacks the embossed seal and the stamped signature visible on a real COB and mandated by law.
Obama's defenders argue that edge detection software has found just such a seal.
The problem is this: Someone at Kos pulled a fast one. Without telling the reader, they replaced their original scan of the COB with a new scan.
The original -- which I saved to my system the day it first appeared -- is 1024 pixels by 1000 pixels in size. It was saved with a very lossy compression scheme, which is why you can see all sorts of jpg artifacts surrounding the letters. (Those artifacts tend to cluster in areas of high contrast and around the color red.) You can find the original scan here.
Kos has subtly replaced this scan with a much larger one, 2427 pixels by 2369 pixels. The new scan is much less lossy, so you'll see far fewer jpg artifacts.
The new scan has the same name as the original: BO_birth_certificate.jpg. The original Kos post -- the one which introduced this COB to the world -- now points to the new scan, without telling readers that the image has been replaced.
Very sneaky. And indefensible.
According to the No Quarter story, the seal (but not the stamped signature) is now visible on this new scan. To see it, they suggest using the free image software GIMP.
Now, GIMP is an extraordinary piece of freeware, and it does allow one to achieve professional results. However, the industry standard is Photoshop.
Using that software, I've been able to attain a clearer view of the "occulted" embossed seal, simply by using the "Find Edges" filter under "Filter/Stylize." The results are here.
Using the same technique, one can also see the fold in the paper, which runs through the state seal at the top. This fold indicates that we are, in fact, dealing with a scan of a piece of paper, as opposed to an image that was created electronically.
Yeah, but...
The writer at No Quarter, TexasDarlin, considers the fact that we are dealing with a new scan to be a "red flag." As indeed it is.
We all know that Kos and the Obama campaign have achieved an obscene closeness. How do we know that they have not tossed a ringer at us? How do we know that the new 2427 x 2369 scan isn't an extremely clever fake?
TexasDarlin applied the same GIMP software to the ORIGINAL scan. And guess what? No seal.
Is that it? Have we proven that the Kos crowd has tried to fake us out?
I am very sorry to report that the answer is no.
As noted above, GIMP is not the industry standard. As noted above, the original 1024 x 1000 scan is smaller and lossier. It is MUCH harder to pull "hidden" information out of a small, heavily compressed image. So let's subject this image -- the original image -- to Photoshop.
If you use the filter described above ("Find Edges"), you'll get nothing new. So you have to use another filter, called Glowing Edges. This allows you to play with three slider controls. After experimenting, I found that these settings worked best:
Edge width 1, Edge brightness 9, Smoothness 1
Et voila! You do see a very faint, but definitely CIRCULAR impression. In the exact same spot. In the ORIGINAL Kos scan. (To increase visibility, I also adjusted the Image Levels.)
I am a little limited as to what I can display here, since Blogger will shrink images if they are larger than 400 x 400. But I'm not asking anyone to take my word on faith here. Many people have Photoshop and they can repeat the experiment.
I also was able to see evidence of the fold in the original scan.
Have we answered all questions? No. Here are some lingering mysteries:
1. Genuine Hawaiian COBs also have a stamped signature on the back. None appears on Obama's COB. Why?
2. How can Kos excuse replacing the image with a more detailed scan -- and not telling readers what he has done?
3. Obviously, the physical piece of paper must exist. Someone placed it on a scanner. Where is it, who has it, and why is it not available for independent examination?
I hope that I've explained the situation clearly. In the past, when this blog has tried to discuss technical matters, a few readers have wildly (willfully?) misinterpreted my arguments. I encourage people who own copies of Photoshop to repeat the steps taken here.
UPDATE: You can in fact see the seal in the original using GIMP (the freeware program anyone can download). Go to "Edge Detect" and then use the "Roberts" filter. You'll have to play with the amount to get the best result. It is VERY faint, but you can see it.
Obama's defenders argue that edge detection software has found just such a seal.
The problem is this: Someone at Kos pulled a fast one. Without telling the reader, they replaced their original scan of the COB with a new scan.
The original -- which I saved to my system the day it first appeared -- is 1024 pixels by 1000 pixels in size. It was saved with a very lossy compression scheme, which is why you can see all sorts of jpg artifacts surrounding the letters. (Those artifacts tend to cluster in areas of high contrast and around the color red.) You can find the original scan here.
Kos has subtly replaced this scan with a much larger one, 2427 pixels by 2369 pixels. The new scan is much less lossy, so you'll see far fewer jpg artifacts.
The new scan has the same name as the original: BO_birth_certificate.jpg. The original Kos post -- the one which introduced this COB to the world -- now points to the new scan, without telling readers that the image has been replaced.Very sneaky. And indefensible.
According to the No Quarter story, the seal (but not the stamped signature) is now visible on this new scan. To see it, they suggest using the free image software GIMP.
Now, GIMP is an extraordinary piece of freeware, and it does allow one to achieve professional results. However, the industry standard is Photoshop.
Using that software, I've been able to attain a clearer view of the "occulted" embossed seal, simply by using the "Find Edges" filter under "Filter/Stylize." The results are here.
Using the same technique, one can also see the fold in the paper, which runs through the state seal at the top. This fold indicates that we are, in fact, dealing with a scan of a piece of paper, as opposed to an image that was created electronically.
Yeah, but...The writer at No Quarter, TexasDarlin, considers the fact that we are dealing with a new scan to be a "red flag." As indeed it is.
We all know that Kos and the Obama campaign have achieved an obscene closeness. How do we know that they have not tossed a ringer at us? How do we know that the new 2427 x 2369 scan isn't an extremely clever fake?
TexasDarlin applied the same GIMP software to the ORIGINAL scan. And guess what? No seal.
Is that it? Have we proven that the Kos crowd has tried to fake us out?
I am very sorry to report that the answer is no.
As noted above, GIMP is not the industry standard. As noted above, the original 1024 x 1000 scan is smaller and lossier. It is MUCH harder to pull "hidden" information out of a small, heavily compressed image. So let's subject this image -- the original image -- to Photoshop.If you use the filter described above ("Find Edges"), you'll get nothing new. So you have to use another filter, called Glowing Edges. This allows you to play with three slider controls. After experimenting, I found that these settings worked best:
Edge width 1, Edge brightness 9, Smoothness 1
Et voila! You do see a very faint, but definitely CIRCULAR impression. In the exact same spot. In the ORIGINAL Kos scan. (To increase visibility, I also adjusted the Image Levels.)
I am a little limited as to what I can display here, since Blogger will shrink images if they are larger than 400 x 400. But I'm not asking anyone to take my word on faith here. Many people have Photoshop and they can repeat the experiment.
I also was able to see evidence of the fold in the original scan.Have we answered all questions? No. Here are some lingering mysteries:
1. Genuine Hawaiian COBs also have a stamped signature on the back. None appears on Obama's COB. Why?
2. How can Kos excuse replacing the image with a more detailed scan -- and not telling readers what he has done?
3. Obviously, the physical piece of paper must exist. Someone placed it on a scanner. Where is it, who has it, and why is it not available for independent examination?I hope that I've explained the situation clearly. In the past, when this blog has tried to discuss technical matters, a few readers have wildly (willfully?) misinterpreted my arguments. I encourage people who own copies of Photoshop to repeat the steps taken here.
UPDATE: You can in fact see the seal in the original using GIMP (the freeware program anyone can download). Go to "Edge Detect" and then use the "Roberts" filter. You'll have to play with the amount to get the best result. It is VERY faint, but you can see it.
Joe - Have you looked at the .jpg that is still up on the Fight the Smears site?
There is something amiss here. A rope-a-dope or slight of hand. Why post a low res scan in the first place? Using photoshop to lift the seal from the original does not indicate it is real; Could be that it always was a scan of a real document, but not Obama's.
There is something amiss here. A rope-a-dope or slight of hand. Why post a low res scan in the first place? Using photoshop to lift the seal from the original does not indicate it is real; Could be that it always was a scan of a real document, but not Obama's.
Why in the world would KOS need to tell anyone that they replaced the low res scan with a higher one?
People were bitchin about it so they put a bigger file on the site. It's the same scan just a larger file.
The absurdities that the anti Obama people go to crying foul when a clearer image is produced!
Looking silly.
People were bitchin about it so they put a bigger file on the site. It's the same scan just a larger file.
The absurdities that the anti Obama people go to crying foul when a clearer image is produced!
Looking silly.
"Why post a low res scan in the first place?"
Some people still use dial up. Smaller file sizes load up faster.
"Using photoshop to lift the seal from the original does not indicate it is real; Could be that it always was a scan of a real document, but not Obama's."
Now you've shifted the burden of proof. The lack of a seal was considered the best evidence of a fake. But the seal was there, is there, has been there all the time.
Scott: You're being ridiculous. We're talking about a piece of evidence in what has become a very technical controversy. You cannot simply switch out the images while giving the new image the same name as the original. That is unethical.
Some people still use dial up. Smaller file sizes load up faster.
"Using photoshop to lift the seal from the original does not indicate it is real; Could be that it always was a scan of a real document, but not Obama's."
Now you've shifted the burden of proof. The lack of a seal was considered the best evidence of a fake. But the seal was there, is there, has been there all the time.
Scott: You're being ridiculous. We're talking about a piece of evidence in what has become a very technical controversy. You cannot simply switch out the images while giving the new image the same name as the original. That is unethical.
"Why post a low res scan in the first place?"
Because low res scans load faster on web sites. Where have you been?
Because low res scans load faster on web sites. Where have you been?
Besides, Scott, the fact that the images were switched out indicates that Kos is and remains in close contact with whoever is in physical possession of the COB. Probably Obama himself. I don't think Kos wants to admit that he and Obama ARE that close.
It's not unethical. They supplied a better file.
So now you are of the opinion it's authentic but gee they are still bad for not telling you they put a better file.
So now you are of the opinion it's authentic but gee they are still bad for not telling you they put a better file.
Scott, that will be the last word out of you on this. It is OBVIOUSLY unethical to switch evidence and then pretend that we are dealing with the SAME piece of evidence. Even the most blinkered Obot should be able to see these -- and I think most will admit it, however grudgingly.
I suspect Clinton really did want to be president so I doubt that camp would have let this one go by but:
this still doesn't explain the apperance of a jpg image of a Hawaiian birth certificate bearing only the "time" and the "island" on photobucket--happens to be barry's time but everything else is clean--is there a seal on that image as well? How did they scrub all the other info off to make this image?
Also elsewhere someone commented that the document doesn't look scanned. The print is exact parallel--something you see on a document file not document that has been scanned.
The most interesting of all though is using kos as a cut out. Aren't these matters usually settled by lawyers with press conferences?
Hmmmm.
this still doesn't explain the apperance of a jpg image of a Hawaiian birth certificate bearing only the "time" and the "island" on photobucket--happens to be barry's time but everything else is clean--is there a seal on that image as well? How did they scrub all the other info off to make this image?
Also elsewhere someone commented that the document doesn't look scanned. The print is exact parallel--something you see on a document file not document that has been scanned.
The most interesting of all though is using kos as a cut out. Aren't these matters usually settled by lawyers with press conferences?
Hmmmm.
Are you suggesting that Kos has his cob? If kos can post it as a higher res, then why doesn't BO's smears page do the same thing?
Where's the signature block?
More importantly, why is the date stamp (stamped on the back) visible to the naked eye on the low res scan but the stamped seal and stamped signature not? Makes no sense.
There are several other Hawaiian cobs posted online. On all of them, you can see the date stamp, seal and signature block.
The seal was probably layered on after people started asking questions about why it wasn't there. This is too fishy to be true.
Where's the signature block?
More importantly, why is the date stamp (stamped on the back) visible to the naked eye on the low res scan but the stamped seal and stamped signature not? Makes no sense.
There are several other Hawaiian cobs posted online. On all of them, you can see the date stamp, seal and signature block.
The seal was probably layered on after people started asking questions about why it wasn't there. This is too fishy to be true.
lastlemming: A lot of people don't understand what Photobucket is. I read a piece by an Israeli newspaper which referred to several variations of the COB posted to Photobucket. But one of them was an obvious joke.
I used to use Photobucket myself, although now I prefer Imageshack. With Photobucket, you have to sign in and create an account.
Which means that if there is an alternate version of the Obama COB out there, then it should be an easy matter to track down the "owner" of that alternate. Perhaps someone made an alternate simply to demonstrate how easy it would be to do such a thing.
The type would be parallel to each other if the paper is absolutely flat. There's a tool in Photoshop which allows you to straighten a scanned document so that the bottom edge is completely horizontal.
Anon (I wish you were not anon): You write...
"Are you suggesting that Kos has his cob?"
I am suggesting nothing, except that Kos is acting as Obama's cut-out, which is kind of disturbing in its own right. In my post, I ask for the actual physical owner of the document to be identified. I would presume the possessor to be Barack Obama himself.
"If kos can post it as a higher res, then why doesn't BO's smears page do the same thing?"
Good question. It's weird that Kos has taken point on this stuff.
"Where's the signature block?"
I asked the same question. To me, that remains the one lingering mystery of this whole affair.
"More importantly, why is the date stamp (stamped on the back) visible to the naked eye on the low res scan but the stamped seal and stamped signature not? Makes no sense."
I think this can be rationalized. One stamp had lots of ink and was pressed in hard. The other was not.
"The seal was probably layered on after people started asking questions about why it wasn't there."
Okay, now you've pissed me off. YOU DID NOT READ MY POST. WHY DO YOU COME HERE IF NOT TO READ WHAT I SAY?
The seal was NOT layered on after people started to ask questions. I found the seal on the original scan which I downloaded from Kos the day the existence of the COB was first announced to the world.
It was there all along.
You can see it for yourself if you follow my instructions. The few people who have bothered to do so have seen the same seal.
READ BEFORE WRITING. You obviously skimmed the first few paragraphs before you dashed off your questions. I find that behavior really annoying.
I used to use Photobucket myself, although now I prefer Imageshack. With Photobucket, you have to sign in and create an account.
Which means that if there is an alternate version of the Obama COB out there, then it should be an easy matter to track down the "owner" of that alternate. Perhaps someone made an alternate simply to demonstrate how easy it would be to do such a thing.
The type would be parallel to each other if the paper is absolutely flat. There's a tool in Photoshop which allows you to straighten a scanned document so that the bottom edge is completely horizontal.
Anon (I wish you were not anon): You write...
"Are you suggesting that Kos has his cob?"
I am suggesting nothing, except that Kos is acting as Obama's cut-out, which is kind of disturbing in its own right. In my post, I ask for the actual physical owner of the document to be identified. I would presume the possessor to be Barack Obama himself.
"If kos can post it as a higher res, then why doesn't BO's smears page do the same thing?"
Good question. It's weird that Kos has taken point on this stuff.
"Where's the signature block?"
I asked the same question. To me, that remains the one lingering mystery of this whole affair.
"More importantly, why is the date stamp (stamped on the back) visible to the naked eye on the low res scan but the stamped seal and stamped signature not? Makes no sense."
I think this can be rationalized. One stamp had lots of ink and was pressed in hard. The other was not.
"The seal was probably layered on after people started asking questions about why it wasn't there."
Okay, now you've pissed me off. YOU DID NOT READ MY POST. WHY DO YOU COME HERE IF NOT TO READ WHAT I SAY?
The seal was NOT layered on after people started to ask questions. I found the seal on the original scan which I downloaded from Kos the day the existence of the COB was first announced to the world.
It was there all along.
You can see it for yourself if you follow my instructions. The few people who have bothered to do so have seen the same seal.
READ BEFORE WRITING. You obviously skimmed the first few paragraphs before you dashed off your questions. I find that behavior really annoying.
i tried to see this on the photobucket versions and using the same glowing edges setings didn't see a visible stamp. This is still hinky.
Joe - Using your magic can you reverse engineer the c.o.b. found here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2033434/posts?page=46#46
Is the seal on this document the same? Could this image have been added to the larger scan of the obama doc?
Does shrinking the decosta doc to the specs KOS used delete the seal?
Is the seal on this document the same? Could this image have been added to the larger scan of the obama doc?
Does shrinking the decosta doc to the specs KOS used delete the seal?
Joe - The decosta document appears to have 3 different stamps; The seal, the date, and a signature
The Obama doc appears to have the stamp and date in ink
The Obama doc appears to have the stamp and date in ink
Joe, could you please take a look at the scan from Obama's site, and report back?
If it is lo-res, I would think you could find the seal, just like Kos' original scan.
And if it is not there...
Thanks,
John
SluggoJD
If it is lo-res, I would think you could find the seal, just like Kos' original scan.
And if it is not there...
Thanks,
John
SluggoJD
This gentleman:
http://mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com/2008/06/freedom-of-information-act-request-for.html
is doing the obvious.
http://mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com/2008/06/freedom-of-information-act-request-for.html
is doing the obvious.
Jimbus, don't make me bang my cueball noggin against the wall, willya?
"Is the seal on this document the same? Could this image have been added to the larger scan of the obama doc?"
NO. READ MY POST BEFORE OFFERING IGNORANT COMMENTS.
The original Kos scan -- which is what I downloaded onthe very first day, and what I used for my work -- appeared on the net BEFORE (BEFORE! BEFORE! BEFORE!) the DeCosta COB appeared on the net.
Think about the chronology for a few seconds and you'll realize how mind-numbingly dumb your suggestion is.
I mentioned the rubber stamped signature in my piece. I find the lack odd. However, it is simply possible that the rubber stamp ran out of ink. A very faint stamp simply will not show up on the front side, no matter what kind of software you use.
What I find really odd is the lack of a bottom fold mark.
But think about it -- if a faker knew that a seal was supposed to be on the obverse side, then surely he would make the seal visible without the use of image enhancement software. Right?
"Does shrinking the decosta doc to the specs KOS used delete the seal?"
Why on earth would it?
In fact, the DeCosta image is 900 x 921. Smaller than the Kos original.
Anonymous 6:12 -- you either did not follow instructions, or your eyesight is rotten.
John -- the version on Fight the Smears is 585 x 575. (I can't find a larger version on that site. Can you?) Enhancement does not bring out any hidden imagery. But I didn't expect to see any. We simply have much less information. There's a huge difference between 1025x1000 and 585x575. Even the type on the front side is hard to read!
lastlemming -- FOIA is a good idea as far as I am concerned.
"Is the seal on this document the same? Could this image have been added to the larger scan of the obama doc?"
NO. READ MY POST BEFORE OFFERING IGNORANT COMMENTS.
The original Kos scan -- which is what I downloaded onthe very first day, and what I used for my work -- appeared on the net BEFORE (BEFORE! BEFORE! BEFORE!) the DeCosta COB appeared on the net.
Think about the chronology for a few seconds and you'll realize how mind-numbingly dumb your suggestion is.
I mentioned the rubber stamped signature in my piece. I find the lack odd. However, it is simply possible that the rubber stamp ran out of ink. A very faint stamp simply will not show up on the front side, no matter what kind of software you use.
What I find really odd is the lack of a bottom fold mark.
But think about it -- if a faker knew that a seal was supposed to be on the obverse side, then surely he would make the seal visible without the use of image enhancement software. Right?
"Does shrinking the decosta doc to the specs KOS used delete the seal?"
Why on earth would it?
In fact, the DeCosta image is 900 x 921. Smaller than the Kos original.
Anonymous 6:12 -- you either did not follow instructions, or your eyesight is rotten.
John -- the version on Fight the Smears is 585 x 575. (I can't find a larger version on that site. Can you?) Enhancement does not bring out any hidden imagery. But I didn't expect to see any. We simply have much less information. There's a huge difference between 1025x1000 and 585x575. Even the type on the front side is hard to read!
lastlemming -- FOIA is a good idea as far as I am concerned.
By the way, I have some actual paying work that needs to be sent to the client tomorrow AM. So I won't be able to spar with people here as much as I would like to.
Why is the second fold line (at about the fathers name line) not visible on either version?
Why do the letters appear to be from Photo Shop (or other software) and not from a laser print?
What about the discrepancies in the vertical and horizontal boarders intersects between the KOS and BO web page versions?
I don't think you should consider this as a "case closed" situation, until these and other questions and inconsistencies are addressed!
Why do the letters appear to be from Photo Shop (or other software) and not from a laser print?
What about the discrepancies in the vertical and horizontal boarders intersects between the KOS and BO web page versions?
I don't think you should consider this as a "case closed" situation, until these and other questions and inconsistencies are addressed!
The Decosta document is smaller than the Obama document and clearly has an embossed seal shown.
Obama's document looks as though the seal is in ink, and you must do image manipulation to view it.
I don't think your argument is the end of this discussion. You are ignoring the quality of the Decosta document in relation to the Obama document. You are ignoring the obvious visual differences of the 'embossed' seal on the official Decosta document.
Obama's document looks as though the seal is in ink, and you must do image manipulation to view it.
I don't think your argument is the end of this discussion. You are ignoring the quality of the Decosta document in relation to the Obama document. You are ignoring the obvious visual differences of the 'embossed' seal on the official Decosta document.
Do you guys really think that the most powerful Republicans and neocons in the world would let Obama run with a fake birth certificate and not expose him?
Joseph, it's OBVIOUS the KOS and Obama (fight the smears website)birth certificates are two DIFFERENT copies.
1)KOS copy in the bottom left hand corner you can VERY CLEARLY SEE the writing OHSM 1.1
2) On the Obama website you can VERY CLEARLY SEE the writing OHBM 1.1
OHSM is NOT the same as OSBM !!
I smell FORGERY big time!!
1)KOS copy in the bottom left hand corner you can VERY CLEARLY SEE the writing OHSM 1.1
2) On the Obama website you can VERY CLEARLY SEE the writing OHBM 1.1
OHSM is NOT the same as OSBM !!
I smell FORGERY big time!!
Anonymous... they are always anonymous...!
Whoever you are, you're wacky. Come on, think about it: A forger's purpose in transforming an S into a B would be...WHAT, exactly?
The image on "Fight the Smears" is a mere 585 x 575, and it is OBVIOUSLY a mere reduction of the image on Kos.
What you call a "B" is exactly five pixels high. I've been looking at it VERY close (600%). It is hard to make exactly what it is. Some of the other characters in that line are impossible to read.
It's very likely that the S simply came to resemble a B in the course of reduction.
I just reduced the original to 585 x 575. The S came out looking like a 5 or a 6 and the OH looks like a CX.
Weird shit happens when you take tiny type (aliased), introduce jpg artifacts, save that image at a very lossy rate, open the new image up, reduce it still further, then save it again at another very lossy rate...
I'm surprised the result is legible at all.
Cah-MON. You can't build grand conspiratorial monoliths on a foundation so flimsy! You remind me of some of the JFK guys who thought they could read the badge number on Badgeman's badge.
Whoever you are, you're wacky. Come on, think about it: A forger's purpose in transforming an S into a B would be...WHAT, exactly?
The image on "Fight the Smears" is a mere 585 x 575, and it is OBVIOUSLY a mere reduction of the image on Kos.
What you call a "B" is exactly five pixels high. I've been looking at it VERY close (600%). It is hard to make exactly what it is. Some of the other characters in that line are impossible to read.
It's very likely that the S simply came to resemble a B in the course of reduction.
I just reduced the original to 585 x 575. The S came out looking like a 5 or a 6 and the OH looks like a CX.
Weird shit happens when you take tiny type (aliased), introduce jpg artifacts, save that image at a very lossy rate, open the new image up, reduce it still further, then save it again at another very lossy rate...
I'm surprised the result is legible at all.
Cah-MON. You can't build grand conspiratorial monoliths on a foundation so flimsy! You remind me of some of the JFK guys who thought they could read the badge number on Badgeman's badge.
Joseph, isn't there a problem with the posting of blank birth certificates that could be used to fake a person's ID like those we're seeing in the photobucket site where the original certificates were found to have originated? Wouldn't having a gov't document that could be manipulated be against the law? We are fighting hard against ID theft you know.
First, let me say that I appreciate your link to my site. I wish that you would have included my examinations as well, Jospeh, because they conclusively prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the Kos image, and everyone elses are forgeries and fakes, and there is not one shred of evidence that validates the authenticity of any of them.
I have spent a month analyzing not only the Kos image but the "Smears" image, the OpenDNA images, and three actual Certificates of Live Birth.
The result?
They blows your assertion that the "birth certificate is real" right out of the water.
If you re-visit my blog, Polarik.BlogTownhall.Com, you will find irrefutable evidence that all these images were manufactured.
First of all, the images that the Daily Kos posted are identical. Only the size was changed. There has NOT been any rescans of any documents.
How do I know?
Because the JPG headers show no evidence of being a scanned image. What they do show is the following :
Filename : BO_Birth_Certificate_edge.jpg
JFIF_APP1 : Exif
Main Information
Orientation : left-hand side
XResolution : 300/1
YResolution : 300/1
ResolutionUnit : Inch
Software : GIMP 2.4.6
DateTime : 2008:06:30 04:51:12
ExifInfoOffset : 146
Sub Information
ColorSpace : Uncalibrated
ExifImageWidth : 2427
ExifImageHeight : 2369
The data above can be found in both Images posted by the Kos, and also parts of it in other people's images.
Whoever created the first forgery, whom I'll call "Dr X" (for doctoring a State document), took a copy of a certified Certification of Live Birth -- one NOT belonging to Obama -- and proceeded to replace everything below the first fold line, including overlaying pieces of the green background, and overlayingt the actual text with falsified data.
Beginning with the Kos image, the JPG headers reveal that the image was modified by Adobe PhotoshopCS3, on a Mac under OS 2, and saved at 8:42am, right around the time the Kos image was posted.
It also eliminates the Ks as the originator of the scan, which brings us back to Dr X who actually did the scan.
There are so many differences between this image and the image of a real COLB, that the only possible conclusion that can be reached is that this image was heavily altered.
Your assertion that the area around the letters are JPG artifacts, by demonstrating that they are absolutely characteristic of the bitmapped text produced by a graphics program, and that they bear zero resemblance to any laser-printed text, or any printer text, for that matter.
You can take a scan of a document containing laser-printed text, save it at the lowest quality level possible, like 1%, and you will not find any pattern resembling the "JPG artifacts" found on the Kos image.
In other words, you could not produce a forgery like the Kos image using a real COLB that contains letters and numbers absent from the Kos image-- even if you were to replace every pixel with another!
Guess wrong on one pixel, and you screw the whole thing up.
I, too, used the GIMP program, among others, and it affirms that the black rectangle covering the certificate number is a graphic, and that the text in the various fields are graphically-entered as well.
When you said that the "fold indicates that we are, in fact, dealing with a scan of a piece of paper, as opposed to an image that was created electronically," you forgot to explain why there are no more folds, when everyone else's real COLB has three or more folds.
Had you read my entire blog, you would know why there are no more folds.
You would have also known that the borders on the Kos image do not match the borders on the "Smears" website. You would also have known that someone with the nickname, "Ducky," authored the "Smears" forgery.
The fact that a seal on the Kos image is not visible to the naked eye, but shows up under edge detection should have been a red flag because it means that the seal was scrubbed or covered up.
The image on part of Obama's website, aka "Figt the Smears," aka "FactCheck," does not have any hidden seal.
In fact, the Kos forgery is the ONLY one that has a hidden seal.
On the Kos image, someone used Photoshop to clone or cover up the background, and that is why the seal cannot be seen directly.
However, using the same logic that skeptics have used to ignore the evidence, why would the Obama campaign post an image that (a) does not show the seal, and (b) does not show the signature block, when these are the two elements necessary to show that they had Obama's certified COLB to begin with.
Hawaii ONLY issues certified COLB's with both the embossed seal and signature block on the reverse side.
Hawaii does not issue uncertified COLB's.
Either you have a duly certified COLB, or you have zilch, which is exactly what the Obama campaign and his supporters have.
Well, actually they have LESS than zilch because they tried to pass off a falsified document as the real thing.
I have spent a month analyzing not only the Kos image but the "Smears" image, the OpenDNA images, and three actual Certificates of Live Birth.
The result?
They blows your assertion that the "birth certificate is real" right out of the water.
If you re-visit my blog, Polarik.BlogTownhall.Com, you will find irrefutable evidence that all these images were manufactured.
First of all, the images that the Daily Kos posted are identical. Only the size was changed. There has NOT been any rescans of any documents.
How do I know?
Because the JPG headers show no evidence of being a scanned image. What they do show is the following :
Filename : BO_Birth_Certificate_edge.jpg
JFIF_APP1 : Exif
Main Information
Orientation : left-hand side
XResolution : 300/1
YResolution : 300/1
ResolutionUnit : Inch
Software : GIMP 2.4.6
DateTime : 2008:06:30 04:51:12
ExifInfoOffset : 146
Sub Information
ColorSpace : Uncalibrated
ExifImageWidth : 2427
ExifImageHeight : 2369
The data above can be found in both Images posted by the Kos, and also parts of it in other people's images.
Whoever created the first forgery, whom I'll call "Dr X" (for doctoring a State document), took a copy of a certified Certification of Live Birth -- one NOT belonging to Obama -- and proceeded to replace everything below the first fold line, including overlaying pieces of the green background, and overlayingt the actual text with falsified data.
Beginning with the Kos image, the JPG headers reveal that the image was modified by Adobe PhotoshopCS3, on a Mac under OS 2, and saved at 8:42am, right around the time the Kos image was posted.
It also eliminates the Ks as the originator of the scan, which brings us back to Dr X who actually did the scan.
There are so many differences between this image and the image of a real COLB, that the only possible conclusion that can be reached is that this image was heavily altered.
Your assertion that the area around the letters are JPG artifacts, by demonstrating that they are absolutely characteristic of the bitmapped text produced by a graphics program, and that they bear zero resemblance to any laser-printed text, or any printer text, for that matter.
You can take a scan of a document containing laser-printed text, save it at the lowest quality level possible, like 1%, and you will not find any pattern resembling the "JPG artifacts" found on the Kos image.
In other words, you could not produce a forgery like the Kos image using a real COLB that contains letters and numbers absent from the Kos image-- even if you were to replace every pixel with another!
Guess wrong on one pixel, and you screw the whole thing up.
I, too, used the GIMP program, among others, and it affirms that the black rectangle covering the certificate number is a graphic, and that the text in the various fields are graphically-entered as well.
When you said that the "fold indicates that we are, in fact, dealing with a scan of a piece of paper, as opposed to an image that was created electronically," you forgot to explain why there are no more folds, when everyone else's real COLB has three or more folds.
Had you read my entire blog, you would know why there are no more folds.
You would have also known that the borders on the Kos image do not match the borders on the "Smears" website. You would also have known that someone with the nickname, "Ducky," authored the "Smears" forgery.
The fact that a seal on the Kos image is not visible to the naked eye, but shows up under edge detection should have been a red flag because it means that the seal was scrubbed or covered up.
The image on part of Obama's website, aka "Figt the Smears," aka "FactCheck," does not have any hidden seal.
In fact, the Kos forgery is the ONLY one that has a hidden seal.
On the Kos image, someone used Photoshop to clone or cover up the background, and that is why the seal cannot be seen directly.
However, using the same logic that skeptics have used to ignore the evidence, why would the Obama campaign post an image that (a) does not show the seal, and (b) does not show the signature block, when these are the two elements necessary to show that they had Obama's certified COLB to begin with.
Hawaii ONLY issues certified COLB's with both the embossed seal and signature block on the reverse side.
Hawaii does not issue uncertified COLB's.
Either you have a duly certified COLB, or you have zilch, which is exactly what the Obama campaign and his supporters have.
Well, actually they have LESS than zilch because they tried to pass off a falsified document as the real thing.
Good work on the birth certificate but the Obama-haters have moved on. Now he has to prove that he registered for Selective Service. Oh no, Obama's in trouble now. Perhaps you haven't noticed but these people are just as bad as the Clinton-haters.
I am wondering dear Joseph if you are beginning to see that many of the Obama haters are completely nuts.
Just read the responses here and at their sites.
They make the 911 truthers seem like reasonable intellectuals.
Just read the responses here and at their sites.
They make the 911 truthers seem like reasonable intellectuals.
I ask this on texasdarlin's blog also, but my question for you Joseph is why do you say his place of birth is irrelevant with regard to his natural born status? My understanding is that, because his father was an alien (not a US national) and his mother was a citizen who was not serving in the military or working for the US government, if he were born outside of the US or its territories he would not be considered natural born. I know you wrote that this is not the case, but I'm wondering where you got that info. This is what I've found on the subject.
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html
There is a real market for fake birth certificates. They are required to get a social security card. What makes sense is that someone created a template, and tried to remove the evidence of the seal so that they could apply an actual embossed seal on it later. The Obama bc was not made by a true forger, they never put on the true embossed seal. The Kos and Smears bc would never get you a social security card. The campaign people got scammed by the forgers.
From Polarik's comment" "You would also have known that someone with the nickname, "Ducky," authored the "Smears" forgery." I am not a computer geek - barely know how to turn the thing on, but, apparently Ducky is not a person but a header of Adobe. Check out this link written in 2004:http://www.networkworld.com/columnists/2004/062804gearhead.html
"..... the headers of JPEG images created by Adobe's Photoshop image editor contain three tags - JFIF, Adobe and Ducky - indicating the file is in JPEG File Interchange Format and produced by an Adobe program called Ducky."
"..... the headers of JPEG images created by Adobe's Photoshop image editor contain three tags - JFIF, Adobe and Ducky - indicating the file is in JPEG File Interchange Format and produced by an Adobe program called Ducky."
tiade...Yeah, that's one reason why I can't take Polarik seriously.
lburg: I derived my info from reading not a summary of section 1401 of Title 8 of the US Code, but the actual text.
I quote it here:
http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2008/06/once-again-can-barack-obama-legally-run.html
And the link goes here (scroll down for it):
http://www.immigration-usa.com/ina_96_title_3.html
Here is the relevant bit:
SEC. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401] The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
...(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years... This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date...
The last sentence is the one many bloggers always leave out. They quote the law in effect at the time Obama was born. That law was changed, and the change made retroactive, in order to prevent citizenship snafus of just this type.
lburg: I derived my info from reading not a summary of section 1401 of Title 8 of the US Code, but the actual text.
I quote it here:
http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2008/06/once-again-can-barack-obama-legally-run.html
And the link goes here (scroll down for it):
http://www.immigration-usa.com/ina_96_title_3.html
Here is the relevant bit:
SEC. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401] The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
...(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years... This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date...
The last sentence is the one many bloggers always leave out. They quote the law in effect at the time Obama was born. That law was changed, and the change made retroactive, in order to prevent citizenship snafus of just this type.
anon 907:
"What makes sense is that someone created a template, and tried to remove the evidence of the seal so that they could apply an actual embossed seal on it later."
That makes no sense. To get rid of the seal, you'd use the clone tool. Or you would take an overlay of the pattern, fuzz out the edges, and then merge the two layers.
Any method that would naturally occur to a Photoshop artist would utterly destroy what was beneath. There would be no ghostly image of the seal. If you have Photoshop, try it yourself, and you'll see.
"What makes sense is that someone created a template, and tried to remove the evidence of the seal so that they could apply an actual embossed seal on it later."
That makes no sense. To get rid of the seal, you'd use the clone tool. Or you would take an overlay of the pattern, fuzz out the edges, and then merge the two layers.
Any method that would naturally occur to a Photoshop artist would utterly destroy what was beneath. There would be no ghostly image of the seal. If you have Photoshop, try it yourself, and you'll see.
Joseph,
Your assertion that Polarik's comment is a "tirade" and not to respond, is a little weak, don't you think? He brought up some good points, even if it does turn out that he missed on "Ducky."
By the way, you haven't addressed my questions from my earlier post either.
I for one, would like you to look at these questions objectively and reply with your opinion. My motivation is not to put you on the defensive in making this request. It is merely to hear your position on these points of contention.
I'm pretty certain you have other readers that would appreciate this also.
Your assertion that Polarik's comment is a "tirade" and not to respond, is a little weak, don't you think? He brought up some good points, even if it does turn out that he missed on "Ducky."
By the way, you haven't addressed my questions from my earlier post either.
I for one, would like you to look at these questions objectively and reply with your opinion. My motivation is not to put you on the defensive in making this request. It is merely to hear your position on these points of contention.
I'm pretty certain you have other readers that would appreciate this also.
Hi Joseph -- Thanks for your response to my question about citizenship. I still don't understand how it applies to BO, though. As I read it, the citizen parent must be either serving honorably in the military or working for the federal government or one of certain international organizations. At a minimum, we know that is not true of his mother. So, how does the statue apply to him? (I know you don't like cutting and pasting, so sorry but I did copy it here to be sure I have the right section). Thanks again and please let me know what you think...
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (59 Stat. 669; 22 U.S.C. 288) by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (59 Stat. 669; 22 U.S.C. 288) by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.
lburg, I don't know how you can misread a law so thoroughly.
Well, actually, I can. Doing so once led me into a rather embarrassing day in a court room, and I'd rather not talk about it.
Read it again. When you are trying to make sense of these huge run-on sentences that you often find in in law books, one good trick is to look for the verb.
The law says that military service "MAY be included" (not MUST be) to satisfy the residency requirement.
In other words, if someone was born in Kansas, moved to England at the age of 2, then moved back to the US at the age of 17, joined the army at the age of 18 and spent two years in service in Germany -- that person is a natural born citizen of the U.S., and any child of that person is a natural born citizen, even if the child is born in a German hospital and the other parent is German. And the kid can grow up to be president.
Not a very likely situation, I admit. But it would be legal.
I'm not going to argue this one further.
Post a Comment
<< Home
Well, actually, I can. Doing so once led me into a rather embarrassing day in a court room, and I'd rather not talk about it.
Read it again. When you are trying to make sense of these huge run-on sentences that you often find in in law books, one good trick is to look for the verb.
The law says that military service "MAY be included" (not MUST be) to satisfy the residency requirement.
In other words, if someone was born in Kansas, moved to England at the age of 2, then moved back to the US at the age of 17, joined the army at the age of 18 and spent two years in service in Germany -- that person is a natural born citizen of the U.S., and any child of that person is a natural born citizen, even if the child is born in a German hospital and the other parent is German. And the kid can grow up to be president.
Not a very likely situation, I admit. But it would be legal.
I'm not going to argue this one further.
