That Bogus Birth Certificate

World Net Daily ^ | May 12th, 2011 | Joseph Farah

[palmer]

Takes a few seconds to reply here, not the hours it will take to remember how to use GIMP (not on my regular SW list). I point out facts, if I am wrong, point it out and I will admit it. So far the facts point to post-manipulation of a scanned paper, not a digital forgery with layers. Layers are a red herring since some parts of signatures are in one layer and some in another. For example, the D in Dunham is in one layer and unham in another. Your blowup leaves out the D. Why is that?

[ml/nj]

Maybe you've noticed that I'm not the one talking about layers? (Just because I think they are subject to smoke blowers like you, but I do think as employed in the WH pdf they are evidence of fraud.) I've been talking about pixel sizes in the signatures. You only get one pixel size on a single scan. The WH document clearly has two. Please be sure to duplicate that, when "you get the time," of course.

ML/N

[palmer]

Pixel size and layers are the same thing. So please explain why the D in Dunham has a different pixel size than unham (and why you didn't show that in the blowup that you always post).

It is of course direct evidence that WH manipulated something, which I would also label as fraud, as defined as purposely obfuscating their presented evidence to create ambiguity. A simple 8 megapixel photo of the paper from Hawaii would suffice, instead we get this.

[ml/nj]

Pixel size and layers are the same thing. So please explain why the D in Dunham has a different pixel size than unham (and why you didn't show that in the blowup that you always post).

Pixel size and layers are not the same thing. If you do not know this then you shouldn't be commenting on this topic at all.

The 'D' in Dunham was done with a pen. The rest of the letters in Dunham were added with a graphics program which may be why they have different pixelation. In the image below I show part of Dunham signature beginning with the 'D', a bit of the Sinclar signature, and some stuff I added with a graphics program.

Notice that the pixels in the 'D' in Dunham and in the Sinclair signature are varying shades of black. This is because they were scanned from something written with a pen. The remainder of Dunham is a uniform shade of black. (R=26, G=45, B=31 on my Photoshop scan of the pdf. This might vary depending upon how it is obtained. I'm not sure.) The stuff I added is also in uniform shades, but I didn't use a pen! Note too in the blowup below that I have introduced yet another pixel size, and that my added stuff didn't disturb the green safety backgrounnd AT ALL. ("Gee," as Jack Benny might have said.)

All of this is just additional evidence of deception.

You asked why I didn't show the 'D' in the images I've been posting. Obviously I could have as I have done here. I picked what I thought was the simplest example of fraud that I could. Most people who have scanned something know that they tell the scanning software how many lines per inch they want or that it is preset for them and they have no choice. Whatever, every scan results in a uniform pixel size. Every one except Obama's that is.

ML/NJ

[palmer]

You ought to realize that the pixel sizes are different in each of two layers. In what you call the "done with a pen" layer, we see Stanley and the right paren (the left paren is in the "added with graphics program" layer). Also in "done with a pen" we have "Ann" and "D" from Dunham, "David A Sm...", "U...Lee", and various pen marks such as in the check boxes.

Can you explain why someone would add the left paren before Stanley with a "graphics program" but add or reuse the pen input for Stanley and the right paren?

[ml/nj]

Can you explain why someone would add the left paren before Stanley with a "graphics program" but add or reuse the pen input for Stanley and the right paren?

Touchup done in haste? I don't know. I know there are two different pixel sizes and that doesn't happen without at least two different input sources.

(Weren't you supposed to get to work on a single scan that produces multiple pixel sizes?)

ML/NJ

[palmer]

Here's the WH PDF with the "added with graphics program" layer removed (removes "unham" and most text):

That leaves all other layers including the "done with a pen" layer. The simplest explanation of the result is that the threshold for the left paren and the other text in the layer I removed was sufficient to place it in that layer (OCR preprocessing). Obviously OCR preprocessing does not know what is text and what is not, it simply looks for line darkness and thicknesses.

[ml/nj]

More SMOKE! Leave me alone! (Do you know that the WH pdf shows no evidence in Illustrator of having been OCR'd?)

ML/NJ

[palmer]

Here's the WH PDF file with the largest layer removed. That ended up removing "done with a pen", the hash background, form boxes, pen marks, etc.

This is not smoke, nor intended to confuse anyone. It is simply how the WH PDF file is put together.

[Herbster]

. From henrymakow.com

[ml/nj]

This Markow guy is correct with this, of course. I couldn't find this on his site though. But I did find a lot of kook stuff.

His idea of isolating and identifying a few pixels is a good idea.

ML/NJ

[nikos1121]

Ok, I see where you answered me.

You think someone deliberately altered the document before posting it to get the birther to says it’s forged.

Then why aren’t the so called experts out there saying what you are saying? They say the layering shows the process of constructing the birth certificate.

This is the simplest explanation. Your opinion implies a conpiracy of sorts concocted by the WH.

[palmer]

Your opinion implies a conpiracy of sorts concocted by the WH.

Correct. There was either a conspiracy to forge a BC from digital means, or a conspiracy to take the paper doc that was shown to reporters (e.g. Guthrie held it in her hands), scan it to digital, then process it to obfuscate, confuse or otherwise deceive. No text or signatures needed to be changed for the latter, just thresholding and conversion into layers.

The "so called experts" who talk about layers (I finally watched one of the videos) are not experts at all, merely dopes in the rope-a-dope. There is no way, for example, that a forger would bother forging "BA ACK" on one layer and "R' on a separate layer. That would simply be a waste of time. A forger would forge the whole name at once. If the forger did it separately then he/she would merely be doing the "obfuscate, confuse, deceive" strategy that is identical to my rope-a-dope conspiracy. Note that my "rope-a-dope" hypothesis does not disprove forgery, it is merely a much simpler explanation of how the layers came about. The nature of the layers (words and penned text distributed between layers according to darkness, line thickness, etc) supports my conspiracy not forgery conspiracy.

[Brown Deer]

Pixel size and layers are the same thing.

You're joking right? or you just a fraud like your president?