It wasn't until post 69, and then again in post 178, that somebody questioned this part of the story, but I wasn't in a position to endorse the post at the time.
That said, there are lots of questions about the first document that need to be answered, such as why the change in border patterns from the Kos to Smear versions, why not scan and post the back side of the document, why do "artifacts" of an embossment and signature block appear, when the real things should be plainly evident (were they cleaned from the source document?).
-PJ
bookmark
Maybe some of THOSE questions can be answered here:
Polarik // July 4, 2008 at 11:37 am
Sorry, to disagree with you, JimJ, but OpenDNA’s images — both of them came directly from the Kos image. Absolutely, 100%, no doubt. The “little dot” as you call it is actually a BIG boo-boo on the Kos image that appears smaller on the OpenDNA image — a definite sign of being copied.
What is throwing you off is the difference in the resolution of the images and not the size or quality.
Nearly all monitors are scaled at 96 DPI, which is why web images are scaled to 98 DPI — to look best when seen by a monitor. The OPLNY reason, then, why OpenDNA’s image appears of “higher quality” is there difference in resolution.
Making an image of higher resolution — like what the Kos image happens to be, namely, 300 DPI, is COUNTERPRODUCTIVE with web graphics; i.e., they look WORSE WHEN ENLARGED.
OpenDNA’s images are 800 x 781 - exact scale reductions from 2427 x 2369, and by changing the resolution to 96 DPI from 300 DPI was not done just to make them look better — but also to make one think that, “Hey maybe this was the original image derived from a scanner, since the default resolution of scanners is 96 DPI.”
But, when you look at the Kos image and the OpenDNA’s images under edge detection, and at the same size, the “dot,” the anomaly you mentioned looks huge compared to the tiny dot of OpenDNA’s.
Because, when you try to enlarge OpenDNA’s image up to the original size of the Kos, that “well-defined, and large boulder” on the Kos looks positively smeared on OpenDNA’s.
To compare apples to apples instead of apples to guacamole, I’m going to slice off the upper right-hand corner of each image after setting the images to the same size and resolution of OpenDNA’s image scaled back up to 2427 x 2369, 96 DPI. All images will be saved at 100% JPG quality.
The resulting slice dimensions will be around 786 x 268px.
I’m also going to dispense with any image enhancement because the differences are plainly visible to the naked eye. I’m also going to leave the images unmarked because, by now, you should know that the “dot” in question lies right below the E in “CERTIFICATION” and directly to the right of “STATE OF HAWAII .”
Now, drum roll please….
Here is the Kos ‘ larger image at 2427 x 2369 with the resolution now set @ 96 DPI
http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn227/Polarik/Kos-dot-1.jpg
Here is the OpenDNA image, originally scaled down to 800 x 781 @ 96 DPI, restored to the original Kos size of 2427 x 2369:
http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn227/Polarik/OpenDNA-name-dot-2724.jpg
Which of these looks a lot clearer, the Kos or the OpenDNA?
Unless you left your contacts on the night table, the “big dot” on the Kos is much clearer, as are all of the letters.
Now, let’s take the first Smears image, which was 1024 x 1000 @ 300 DPI — exactly the same as the very first Kos image posted (which was, also, a proportionate reduction in size alone).
http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn227/Polarik/Smearsoriginal-dot.jpg
Again, not as clear as the Kos image, BUT clearer than the OpenDNA images. Check out the differences between STATE OF HAWAII on the Smears versus OpenDNA.
Notice anything?
First off, there are more artifacts on OpenDNA’s slice than on Smears slice.
More importantly — the fonts closely resemble each other, but no OpenDNA’s are not the same as either the Kos or the Smears when looked at under the same magnification.
The difference is not an artifact. You can also see that the absolute positions of the type differ from both the Kos and the Smears, leading to one conclusion.
Open DNA, like “Dr X,” literally started with an almost blank canvas, wiping out all of the type, both field names and data. “Dr. X,” is the unknown person to whom I refer as the one producing the original scanned image that wound up in the hands of the Kos ..
That the fonts are slightly different in shape and position should ring a few bells, don’t you think?
The last image I’ll show you is the reduced image that the Smears used to replace the first one they had (which, as we’ve seen was a direct copy of the Kos ). Instead of the dimensions of the new image being proportionate, they are 585 x 575 @ 100 DPI which is off by 4 pixels, but is off 200 DPI in resolution. A significant difference designed to obscure the detail in the image — as many of you astute observers have noted.
BTW, ONLY the Kos images show the seal under edge detection. The ALLEGED higher quality OpenDNA brought back up to 2427 x 2369 @ 96 DPI shows squat!
http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn227/Polarik/HI_birthcert_corvo-96-2427-edge-mid.jpg
(NOTE: this is obviously not the entire image — it is just the area where the seal should be. The entire image is nearly 6MB — too long to post, but it is also on my Photobucket album._
THE MISSING “MAGIC SEAL.”
That’s the penalty for reducing the original Kos image down in size and resolution.
Remember, in my blog, The Greater Evil, I noted that one could reproduce the edge-detected, smaller Smears image by first reducing the original, larger Kos image down to the same size and resolution of the Smears image, and then apply edge detection.
The process of edge detection, not only changed the pattern of the background, it made the entire image magenta!
http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn227/Polarik/BO_birthcert-Sobel-Edge.jpg
Despite the yucky color, notice how the background has changed from a series of lines to a crosshatched one.
Guess what? OpenDNA’s images have the same pattern:
http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn227/Polarik/HI_birthcert-sobel-edge.jpg
Now, rather than cut-and-paste the entire post I placed on my blog, and make this comment way too long to read in one sitting, you may visit my blog for the entire analysis.
To conclude:
In the beginning, there was Dr X. Dr X. took a certified COLB, that DID NOT BELONG TO OBAMA, scanned it, and then proceeded to Photoshop out two of the three folds, and all of the field headers and data, using pieces of the background and the HEALING tool to blend them in — that is why the Kos seal is so faint.
Then, with a blank canvas on which to paint his “masterpiece of fakery,” freshly typed in the filed names and the MODIFIED data fields to make it look like a COLB from BHO.
Dr X then gave it up to the Kos , who then proceeded to proudly display it on its web page.
Meanwhile, back at the Obama ranch, news of the posted image hit the Obamanites like a bombshell, and they proceeded to copy the newly-minted image, while making plans to post it on their “Fight the Smears” site.
BEFORE they could do that, the authenticity of the Kos image was challenged by OpenDNA, and in a move they have regretted, challenged OpenDNA to produce a faked COLB.
He doubled their dismay by producing two from their original image: one totally blank, except for the field and date for the island of birth and time of birth — both simply left there by OpenDNA as he proceeded to blot out the rest of the fields and data. In his second rendition, he entered that weird name for the child field.
The “Smears shmucks” were caught, flatfooted. They quickly slammed down their direct copy of the Kos image, and claimed, “Here is his birth certificate,” after weakly countering the argument that BHO was not born in the USA .
Realizing the dumb move of posting a really good copy of the fake that was open to inspection, the Smears shmucks pulled it down and replaced it with one almost half its size.
They also removed the “Here is his birth certificate,” claim! So, instead of seeing an image tied to a counterargument verified by the COLB, we just have a totally different argument, followed by an orphaned image.
OK, now.
Who’s on first?
“That said, there are lots of questions about the first document that need to be answered, such as why the change in border patterns from the Kos to Smear versions, why not scan and post the back side of the document, why do “artifacts” of an embossment and signature block appear, when the real things should be plainly evident (were they cleaned from the source document?).”
I have the same questions. I can’t believe any state would use such a cheesy border for an official document. Changes in .jpg compression explain a whole lot of the apparent differences. We are looking at a 72dpi screen and trying to discern the finer points of a document that has been digitally scanned and compressed. All we can do is make observations about the font and the background that we can see.
I suspect the Obama people are laughing at us. It is so far fetched that they would post an official fake that I have my tinfoil hat on. I suspect that they have posted two different versions of the scan just to confuse matters and keep the controversy going. It’s really easy to either scan a document or save a previously scanned document with new settings that make it appear different to the eye.
It’s true openDNA didn’t explicitly state he forged Obama’s birth certificate. But he certainly created the I.B. Aphorgerie version (as a joke) and he undeniably is behind posting a completely blank form with only birth location and time filled in. Most important, this blank version did NOT blank out the Certificate Number (on that version, no number appears).
I’m no expert on this, but I’ve seen several different claims by experts—not just Israeli Insider—that there is no way the blank form could have been created from the earlier-posted forms because it would be too difficult to eradicate the black rectangle covering the Certificate Number without leaving some sort of digital fingerprints, so to speak. This implies that openDNA somehow has created/acquired a “master” form used by others to create all the subsequent copies (since they all have identical birth time, location and a glitch up near the state seal at the top that confirms all these various copies are “connected” in some way.
If openDNA does have such “master” he’s likely in hot legal water, so it wouldn’t make a whole lot of sense to confess to this. Nevertheless, by what he has already done—i.e., posting a blank template that essentially in theory could be use to produce a forged document for some nefarious purpose—he may be in trouble anyway.
If Smears folks knowingly posted a fraudulent document, that says a lot about their own credibility. But even if they were completely innocent victims, it speaks to their naivete. What justification could they possibly offering for blindly accepting a document from Kos without confirming its origin or authenticity?
More information here on the alleged forger Jay Mckinnon Daily Kos, an Obama Activist, and Forged Birth Certifications
Israel Insider may have jump the gun with their headline; however, Mckinnon has implicated himself with all the evidence available. It's very likely that Jay Mckinnon is the culprit.
If they know that the documents are real, then they know that we will just look stupid when they prove it. Why not let us hang ourselves?
