Skip to comments.It's Official! Hawaii never issued Obama's 2007 Certification of Live Birth
Posted on 07/14/2009 4:03:41 PM PDT by Polarik
The big problem for Gibbs here, and for Obama, is that what was posted on the Internet and on Obama's website, (which has now been scrubbed) is a fabricated and forged "scan image." Furthermore, the document object shown in photos taken by Factcheck staffer, Jess Henig, and alleged to be the same document shown in the "scan image," is also a fabricated forgery. I documented it all in my final report, Obama's Born Conspiracy, and in my recent post, "Why Obama will never show his birth certificate."
But, the real killer of this birth certificate scam is that Hawaii never made a 2007 Certification of Live Birth for Obama, never issued a 2007 COLB for Obama, and never confirmed anything about this bogus 2007 COLB that Obama, his staff, and Factcheck have insisted is a real document.
Last year, while working on my final report, Obama's Born Conspiracy, I called Hawaii's DOH and asked to speak directly to Dr. Alvin Onaka, the Hawaii State Registrar and Head of the Office of Health Status Monitoring (OSHM), of which Vital Records is a part. I posed as a writer doing geneology research, knowing that if I portrayed myself as yet another investigator seeking information on Obama's birth records, that I would be immediately shot down. Strictly speaking, I was collecting vital record information on Obama's heritage, after all.
I proceeded to ask Dr. Onaka questions about the COLB that only he, or a manager in Vital Records, would know. These are questions that Communications Officer, Janice Okubo does not know or anyone else not connected with Vital Records. I did this as a way to corroborate my conversation with him.
(BTW, I noted this conversation in an earlier comment, on FreeRepublic.com).
I asked Dr. Onaka if the COLBs are stamped using a machine or by hand. He said, "Both." Hawaii uses a machine that applies the Seal and stamps electronically and simultaneously. That's why they appear to be placed in the same position, from year to year - except in years where the large Seal design is used. He said that they use a desktop Seal embosser, similar to what notaries use, but much longer, so as to place the Seal higher up on the paper.
I asked him, "Why is the border on 2007 COLB different from the 2008 COLB, why is the Seal larger, and why is your signature stamp located off to the side instead of directly under the Seal? He told me that they alternate the Seal design and border design, and when the Seal (the larger one) doesn't leave enough room to place the signature stamp below it, it's put off to the side. Evidentally, this larger Seal is what is applied by hand, as in every case where it has been used, the Seal impression appears in a different spot on the paper.
Then, I slipped in the the following question. I asked him if Janice Okubo had confirmed that his office produced a 2007 Certification of Live Birth, date-stamped June 6, 2007, with Obama's birth information on it, and he quickly replied:
"Absolutely not. No one in our office confirmed it."
That promptly ended the conversation as Dr. Onaka was not going to respond to any more questions from me. Since then, Hawaii has not answered anymore questions about Obama's birth record from anyone.
To me, it's rather ironic, or maybe a matter of my experience, that everyone and his brother was calling and quoting Janice Okubo, who is a knowledgeable Communications Officer, but who does not know anything about the technical details of the COLB, such as why do the borders change. I also suspect that some of the sources quoting her - especially Factcheck and their sister site, Politifact - put words in her mouth. For instance, I believe that she said, in response to viewing the "scan image" posted online, that "It looks like my birth certificate." I also believe that these two overzealous sources, Factcheck and Politifact, added the word, "exactly" to her statement so as to make it, "It looks exactly like my birth certificate" - a more definative statement, but false, nontheless.
Politifact reporter, Amy Hollyfield, also made a number of other questionable entries in her article, "Obama's birth certificate: final chapter." At the midpoint of her article she said that "When the birth certificate arrived from the Obama campaign it confirmed his name as the other documents already showed it. Still, we took an extra step: We e-mailed it to the Hawaii Department of Health, which maintains such records, to ask if it was real."
"'It’s a valid Hawaii state birth certificate, ' spokesman Janice Okubo told us."
Yeah, get real. She never asked Okubo if it was "real," and an electronic image is not a valid anything. Only a real certified, stamped paper certificate is valid. There's no way that she could have said, by looking at just a front-side image, that it was a "valid Hawaii state birth certificate." She might have said that "It looked like a "Hawaii state birth certificate," or it that "It looked like my birth certificate,: but there is no way for her to know anything about the validity of an image. She even indicated that Hawaii does not send birth certificates electronically. So, was Politfact exaggerating, or intentiionally misleading? Probably both.
As forensic document examiner, Sandra Lines, noted, the only way to tell if a document is authentic is to examine the actual paper document, and not an image of it. However, much to the chagrin of my critics, you can tell when an image or photo has been altered, irrespective of its subject. You can make an authentic image of a forged document just as you can make a forged image look like an authentic document (although Obama's COLB forgery was hardly authentic-looking).
If the image is bogus, and this "scan image" was, then the document depicted in is also bogus: either it was fabricated or it does not exist. As it turned out, both of these are true: Obama's COLB does not exist and the images that people claim were made of a real COLB, are also, totally bogus.
To that, Janice Okubo might agree, as the last statement she made was to say that "I don’t know that it’s possible for us to even say beyond a doubt what the image on the site represents."
On the other hand, how can she say that the DOH would not know what that image represents? The DOH is the one who could have said, "Yes, it's a copy of a real COLB we produced for Obama," or they could have said what Onaka indicated to me, that "We didn't produce this document."
In her conversation with Factcheck, on two separate occassions, Okubo said that “Someone had requested it [Obama’s COLB] in June 2008,” which would be impossible if it were a real COLB since it has a production date of June 6, 2007, stamped onto it. Since this document, in reality, does not exist, then the only evidence that a document image provides is that the image is a self-evident forgery. Likewise, anything purporting to be a reproduction or representation of this nonexistent document, is itself a forgery.
When DOH Director Chiyome Fukino announced to the press, on October 31, 2008, that “Hawaii has Obama’s original birth certificate on record,” this ahould have been the time for Hawaii to also confirm the exisence of the COLB posted online, since that is what prompted hundreds of phone calls to Ukubo and company in the first place. The fact that she didn't only reinforces the fact that his COLB does not exist.
If the birth information on that COLB matched the birth information in his birth record, then why not say so? It would have stopped them from being bombarded with phone calls, and may have ended the quest for his long-form birth certificate.
Conversely, if the birth information on that COLB did not match the info on his birth record, then they would be dancing around the issue and dodging all questions about it - which is exactly what they did.
Study this image carefully:
The left half of this image is the upper right corner of Factcheck's copy of the "scan image." The right half of this image contain the upper right corner of a real 2007 COLB. The short, vertical border piece is also from the same COLB. What I tried to do here was to duplicate the pattern and color of the "scan image" border through the use of color controls and sharpening techniques found in most advanced image editors. Of the two borders on the right side, I feel that the short, vertical border most closely matches the vertical part of the Factcheck border (although it is a little bit wider than the Factcheck border).
If you agree with me, then you will be surprised to learn that this vertical border piece came from a digital photograph of the 2007 COLB border, while the upper right corner came from a digital scan of the 2007 COLB border. I firmly believe that the forger used a photo of a 2007 COLB to manufacture the border as shown on this bogus "scan image."
From the first time I saw it (when the Daily Kos posted it on June 12, 2008), I thought it looked "really wierd." For months, I was unable to figure out how it was made although I knew how to duplicate the color. Then, I went back to my folder of images and found the one photo I had of the same 2007 COLB scan.
I thought, "What if the forger used a photo like this?" Sure enough, the theory fit.
Since November of last year, I learned something else that was very important, something about a group of photos that I initially pegged as being Photoshopped. I debated as to whether or not to admit my mistake. However, to be true to my research, and to be honest to myself, I need to admit my mistakes, and change my theories accordingly as to how something was made.
Since November of last year, I have conducted a number of sophisticated image analyses using new software that was not available to me last year. One is called, JPEGSnoop, which analyses the digital signatures and compression algorithms in an image and compares them to a database of values for a particular digital camera, scanner, or image editing software like Photoshop. This software allows the user to see if original images have been altered in any way. So, as a result of doing these analyses on Factcheck's photos, which were taken by Jess Henig, I concluded these photo images were not altered in any way.
This is not to say that these photos were not edited in any way, because the Exif data had been changed. The Exif data is the information found inside a photo that describes the camera used and all of the camera's settings used to take the photo.
I proved this to myself by buying the same make and model camera as Jess Henig used and I took my own photos in an effort to replicate hers. I also re-examined the photos with a software program called JMicrovision, which allowed me to make measurements of the objects shown in the photos with respect to size, angle, color, intensity, saturation, pixel point counts, and so forth. Basically, I used this program to compare the document object as shown in the "scan image" with the photos of what Factcheck claims is the same document object. Guess what? They do differ.
All techniques aside, even a child can see that there is no way that the heavily embossed Seal and pronounced second fold line in the document object shown in the photos would NOT show up in a scan of it. As you know, the "scan image" -- the one and only image to which all people refer -- had a barely visible Seal impression, and absolutely and unequivocally, NO 2nd FOLD LINE. The Seal impression on the real 2008 COLB, that I have used to scan and photograph, is much flatter than in Factcheck's document object - yet my scans clearly show it every time.
Given that the "scan image" is unquestionably bogus, and that the Obama COLB does not exist, then by extension, whatever was photographed by Factcheck, has to be bogus, too.
It also means that we have another forgery! It means that, although the photos are not bogus, the document object shown in them surely is, as I had noted in my final report. The difference now is that the document object - what is shown in the front side photos - is a constructed document object, using thicker paper than regular security paper, and having printed on it the original forged image that was posted online.
The timing for this scenario is just right. Obama was in Hawaii during the week of August 9, and then twelve days later, Factcheck produces these suspicious-looking photos.
There is one more "fly in the ointment" regarding Factcheck's photos. Remember to keep in mind that they were taken to "validate the scan image," and not to directly verify the existence of a real COLB. This pesky fly is that the Seal impression on the reverse side, or rather 2/3 of a Seal impression on the reverse side, that appears in two photos (#7 and #8), does NOT match the Seal impression as shown from the front. I mentioned this in my final report, that this Seal was not the same one used for the front-side photos. I also mentioned that this is the reason why the top 1/3 of the Seal was deliberately cropped ou of the photo.
Taken as a whole, what all of these findings mean are the following:
The next questions that Les Kinsolving needs to ask Press Secretary Gibbs is why did the Obama Administration create a forged birth certificate image and post it online? Why are there two hospitals listed as Obama's place of birth? Why has the Obama Administration gone about scrubbing all this incriminating evidence from the Internet?
We shall see... we shall see...
I read here a few weeks ago that the State of Hawaii stopped issuing paper COLB long before 2007. How did you get a copy of a real 2008 COLB when they didn’t issue them? or was that report incorrect?
Great..keep up the good work!
Dr. Orly is on Plains now 6:10 CST
The sharks are circling and they smell blood.
Well then - BUMP!
Your face is going to be showing up on one of chet99’s pit bull threads. (I mean that as a compliment)
Very interesting. Thanks for all your reserach.
Interesting analysis....which will get about as much traction with the MSM as a Ferrari with oil soaked glass tires running at full throttle up the side of a glacier.
LOL! The guy signs his name “Alvin Onaka, Ph.D” ????
I can’t make this stuff up!
Excellent, Polarik! Written in a way that even I can understand.
Hope you can get it to Les Kinsolving.
Are there not serious laws concering conspirecy???
Dr. Polarik; OUTSTANDING presentation!
You wrote- “Then, I slipped in the the following question. I asked him if Janice Okubo had confirmed that his office produced a 2007 Certification of Live Birth, date-stamped June 6, 2007, with Obama’s birth information on it, and he quickly replied:
“Absolutely not. No one in our office confirmed it.””
It must be really embarrassing or something far more sinister. The longer he fights this the more I am inclined to believe he was not born here and that is the reason he is trying to rush things through Congress. He may know his days are numbered. In the beginning I thought the BC issue was silly. It was Obama and his attorney's actions the past several months and the mounting evidence that something is amiss, that make me now want to see that damn birth certificate and not that fake thing they put on the internet. Nothing to hide? Show the damn thing. Why keep fighting it if there is nothing to hide?
Somethings going on and it doesn't sound good. If he was born in Hawaii what was his Mom doing in WA state enrolling for classes when minus his father, with new born little O. Nobody in Hawaii ever saw her with her newborn baby and there is no evidence at all that he was ever there as a newborn. Not one picture of him with his father, none with his mother either. It's all very odd and common logic makes one go ....................HUH?
Ping a ling!
guilty behavior is exhibited by guilty people
You say that you ordered it in 2000, but the birth certificate is stamped 2007.
Did you type 2000 when you meant to type 2007? Thanks.
Nope. What you read was correct. I ordered it - actually my mom did because I had no ID with which to get a copy of it, all of mine was stolen in 2000. Not something one can forget. I have no idea why its stamped 2007, and I wondered that at the time. Perhaps because that’s when they were due to change to a new laser printed background. I don’t know. But I do know that this one is real, official, and was ordered in 2000.
Hummmmmmm maybe I should call and ask........
I cannot speak for everyone, but I am damned glad you are on it. Beyond that, there are no words to express appreciation.
Here's to you...
Apparently it’s not an expiration date since you’re still responding.
Obamah is indeed Erasing & Creating his own version of reality.
Great job Ron.
I pray the sharks find the source and devour it and all involved so we can reclaim our status as “the shiny city on the hill”.
This can’t be true, because there’s a consensus at Wikipedia that all this birth certificate stuff is simply a “fringe theory.” [/sarc]
It’s coming to me but.... Huh?
I am talking to the Office right now... I am told that it should have been stamped in 2000, and they confirm that is the date it was ordered for me. The lady I am talking to says she does not know why this would be. She is checking to see if one of their three stamps matches what appears in the photo I posted. I will update when she comes back, I am on hold.
Only if it’s spelled correctly. lol
How about that! There’s a consensus here that Wikipedia has been taken over by the Left.
Where is that quote? thanks
bump! Excellent work.
No, it’s true! /s
Sometimes it pays to attack from multiple angles. I would also ask, why did Hawaii’s Republican Governor go along with this? What could they have on her that would make her keep quiet?
Yes there is. From my final report:
There are current Federal laws in place that prohibit the use of false identity documents, such as a birth certificate, and they are spelled out in Chapter 18 of the United States Code, Section 1028, Fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents, authentication features, and information. In particular, there are specific paragraphs that relate to the use of a false identification document:
The term “false identification document” means a document of a type intended or commonly accepted for the purposes of identification of individuals that - (A) is not issued by or under the authority of a governmental entity or was issued under the authority of a governmental entity but was subsequently altered for purposes of deceit; and(B) appears to be issued by or under the authority of the United States Government, a State, a political subdivision of a State, a foreign government, a political subdivision of a foreign government, or an international governmental or quasi-governmental organization.
Given the overriding fact that the individual whose identity document is in question, has repeatedly failed to provide a genuine identity document, the charge that this individual, along with other individuals, did conspire to proffer in its place, a false identification document, is hereby levied by the American people, by way of one of its citizens. To summarize the seriousness of these actions and this charge, and to the importance of what is contained within this report:
There is conclusive and irrefutable evidence that the COLB image created and distributed by Obama’s campaign to the Daily Kos, Annenberg’s Factcheck, and the St. Pete Times, Politifact, is, unquestionably, a false identification document. Furthermore, there is conclusive and irrefutable evidence that the photos taken by Annenberg’s Factcheck, in collusion with the Obama campaign, are themselves, false identification documents, having been made from the same false identification document image, as well as from additional false identification documents created for the same purpose; namely, to proffer these false identification documents as true reproductions of a genuine, Hawaii-issued and certified, “Certification of Live Birth” document, and thereby, intentionally deceive the American public into believing that Barack Hussein Obama is a natural-born citizen of the United States, and thereby, fully qualified to become their President.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.