NOW let's compare "apples to apples" [Obama birth certificate controvery, part 2]

Townhall ^ | 6/22/08 | Polarik

[freespirited]

 

NOW let's compare "apples to apples"

Or, since this involves Hawaii, "pineapples to pineapples:"

With many thanks to Bloggers TexasDarlin, Freeper, and Shainzona, I am posting a copy of Hawaiian-born, Patricia Decosta's certified "Certification of Live Birth," which is what this Certification should look like. If you go back to the points I raised in my original post, specifically about the differences in typeface, letter artifacts, and the border, these points are further reinforced from comparing Decosta's certified document with Obama's uncertified one.

Once again, here is Obama's uncertified (and suspect) "Certification of Live Birth":




And, now, Ms. Decosta's certified (and not suspect) "Certification of Live Birth:"





For comparison purposes, I created a cropped image of each that are approximately the same dimensions in terms of image height and text height. Additionally, each image -- one for Obama's and one for Decosta's -- has approximately the same amount of JPG compression.

Before comparing these and deconstructing them, I draw your attention to the previous images showing the entire certificates. Both have the same "tag line" indicating the form number and revision, OHSM 1.1 (Rev. 11/01) LASER, and the "prima facie evidence" statement.

Given that both have that same tag line, one can assume, for the moment, that this tag line does appear on valid COB's produced by the Office of Health Status Monitoring during the time that Rev. 11/01 was being used.

However, the thing that should jump out at you, besides the visual differences in the typefaces, are the obvious, visual differences in the borders.

But, first, let me reiterate what is my main contention about the images posted on the Daily Kos and Fight The Smears websites.

I maintain that a copy of a real, Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth was graphically modified to resemble what Obama's "Certification of Live Birth" might look like, IF, and only IF, it were a genuine reproduction of a genuine document.

Thus, the crux of my argument is as follows:

Because the image of Obama's copy has so many distinct, visual differences from the image of a copy certified as accurate, like Ms. Decosta's, and that these visual differences represent what could only result from a deliberate, graphical modification of an existing image, that the image itself, and the paper copy it purports to represent, casts doubt on the validity of the claims made for them.

These claims are that Barack Obama's "Certification of Live Birth" does exists somewhere, and that the JPG images posted on the Daily Kos and Fight The Smears websites are genuine reproductions of it.

As I highlighted in my first post, the evidence says otherwise. Here are close-up views of both the Obama and Decosta images:






The typeface on the Decosta image is much darker and thicker, and has less kerning (spacing between the letters), than the Obama image. Moreover, the color of the green paper comes through almost all of the letters regardless of magnification or image compression.

By comparison, you will not see the grey and white pixels found between the letters on the Obama image.

When you enlarge the letters in the Decosta image, they all tend to remain solid, especially letters like "I, L, B, E, H," that continue to look the same no matter how large you make them. Conversely, when you enlarge the letters in the Obama image, they start to fall apart -- that is, they start losing pixels. This is exactly what happens to bitmapped text created by a graphics program.

OK, now let's compare the borders of both images.

In the Obama image -- or, should I say, "images," because the edges of the vertical borders in the Kos image overlap the horizontal ones, whereas the Smears image has them lining up -- the pattern is different from the Decosta image.







The borders in the Obama image might be extremely faint versions of the Decosta image, but then why is so much image information missing, if not because it was a bad reproduction to begin with.

Other bloggers have already noted the reversed, embossed seals and signature imprints that appear on the Decosta image but which are totally absent on the Obama image. The conclusion from this would be that the Obama image never had them, for if they did, wouldn't they be prominently shown as verification?

We still have more questions than answers

[freespirited]

This is a follow-up by the graphics guy who started this debate.

[Perdogg]

ibtz

[devane617]

...it’s still a non issue...

[Bobalu]

The birth certificate thing does not concern me.
The only reason they made the rule that only native born Americans could become president was to keep members of the British Royal family from trying to run.

The fact that he is a Marxist is what concerns me.

[Hillary'sMoralVoid]

NOW IS THE TIME TO PUT THIS OUT ON DAILY KOS. MAKE THEM FORCE OBAMA’S HAND. IF NOTHING ELSE, INTIMIDATE THEM ABOUT THEIR CANDIDATE’S HONESTY.

[Bush_Democrat]

This whole thing is very interested. One thing I didn't see remarked upon is that the border in the dKos version is somewhat transparent; that is you can see the green/white pattern on the ‘paper’ faintly through the ‘border’. On the real one, the border is opaque, you cannot make out any details of the paper showing through.

Curiouser and curiouser...

[Bubbette]

The only “answer” I have for the differences is that there are 30 years between the two documents. It would be extremely helpful to find another birth document from the 1960’s. There are many things about BO that are a cause for concern.

[glorgau]

IF NOTHING ELSE, INTIMIDATE THEM ABOUT THEIR CANDIDATE’S HONESTY.

What honesty? He signed a pledge to run with public funding. Just one more thing that got "thrown under the bus".

[jveritas]

Another “Buckhead” wannabe. Guys you need to give up this stupidity and focus on Obama the defeatist and Obama the socialist. Stupidity like this generates sympathy to Obama. Do you really believe that Obama is not a natural born US citizen? Are you that stupid people. The man has been running for elections for 14 years including a Senate race and the most competitive democrat primary race in decades and against the Clintons, if there is anything to this stupidity that you people are publishing and questioning Obama US citizenship then the Clintons and many people before them would have used it against Obama.

[ikka]

All good points.

However, we already know now, that Obama is an illegitimate child, because his father was married back in Africa. Thus the marriage to Miss Dunham was not valid.

[kcvl]

I know what you mean. What honesty? So far, he has lied about everything he has been confronted with, Wright, Rezko, 'his seal', etc., etc.

I don't believe anything the snob has to say, period. He is a phony wanna be. He wouldn't make a good wart on a President's behind much less become President.

[NoobRep]

Democrats-see no evil, hear no evil. Let's face it, if Osama is Teflon proof against a racist jackleg like Racist Wright, nobody will care much about the fact that he's not a true citizen of this country. The loony left is only interested in putting a communist in power and achieving Stalinist rule.

[Mr. Lucky]

My guess would be that Hawaii law doesn’t specify either the background appearance or the type style for use in a “Certificate of Live Birth”, but rather only the substantive information to be stated on the face of the certificate. Different printers and different purchase lots of the form would be expected.

[Cheburashka]

You can't tell whether a hard copy is genuine by examining a jpg. If you want to know if the BC is genuine you have to examine the hard copy itself.

[ClearCase_guy]

The use of fake documents by the Obama campaign should send up all kinds of red flags. He wouldn't have this out there if the alternative were harmless.

I think people are very wrong to see this as a non-issue.

[Red_Devil 232]

The difference in the ages of the documents is not the same as the diference in ages of the child. The documents are laser printed which did not exist in 1930 or 1961.

[ClearCase_guy]

there are 30 years between the two documents.

One carries a date stamp (on the back) of 2005, and the other has a date stamp of 2007.

[Neidermeyer]

The only “answer” I have for the differences is that there are 30 years between the two documents. It would be extremely helpful to find another birth document from the 1960’s.
*********************************************
While the birth events may be 30 years apart I think laser printers came about much later! The forms themselves should be identical and there are obvious differences , this is definately another Dan Rather “fake but accurate” misrepresentation from KOS and other communist bootlickers,, the Obama fake with no pattern from the form coming up and touching the lettering is screaming FORGERY..

[Migraine]

Sorry, but even Miss Decosta’s certificate is NOT ORIGINAL. It is not 1930s vintage. No way. There was no “arial” font back in those days, certainly no “laser”, as referenced lower-left margin. The term “laser” did not even exist back then.

Too bad. I do believe Baraq’s certificate to be a forgery. It needs, however, to be proven some other way.

[William Tell]

devane617 said: "...it’s still a non issue..."

There would be no reason to modify an existing document unless it was to hide something. Or to create the illusion that something has been hidden so that attention is purposely directed in a particular way.

The fact that the information is printed in slightly different fonts or was printed with a different laser printer is not significant since upgrading of printers would be expected.

I do find it surprising that the appearance of the pre-printed aspects of the form are as different as noted. It doesn't appear to me that both samples could be of the same revision.

Also, the certificate number is the chief means by which the authenticity of the information can be traced and that would be the only purpose of having such a number. There doesn't appear to be any reason to hide that number.

The issuing authority should be maintaining a secure log of some kind which reflects the exact information which appears on that certificate number. It should also contain information as to who verified the information from the original records and when that was done. It would probably also reflect any modifications to the original record that might have been ordered by a court.

Kerry's military record contains similar oddities. I seem to recall that at least one of Kerry's medal citations was signed long after the medal was awarded. No explanation of that belated signing has ever been offered that I have heard.

[okie01]

The only “answer” I have for the differences is that there are 30 years between the two documents.

Thirty years between the births, true. But not thirty years between the documents. Both are certified (or purport to be certified) copies. And both were produced subsequent to November, 2001.

In that respect, the code in the lower LH-corner -- OHSM 1.1 (Rev. 11/01) LASER -- tells you that both were printed using the same computer format that was approved effective November, 2001.

Accordingly, there can't be more than seven years difference in the age of the documents.

[varon]

So, what is the dispute that is being resolved here? That Obama was not a Live Birth?

[calex59]

The birth certificate thing does not concern me. The only reason they made the rule that only native born Americans could become president was to keep members of the British Royal family from trying to run. The fact that he is a Marxist is what concerns me.

Could you be any dumber? Or could you have made a stupider statement? Highly doubtful. You don't care that he might not meet one of the requirements to be President of the USA? What in the He** is the matter with you? You want to keep a Marxist out of the White House then you use the law to stop him. If he is not a US born citizen then he can't run, simple as that and to say it doesn't matter to you tells me you are either a troll or extremely stupid, period.

[wastedpotential]

This seems like a reach to me, the Clintons would have smoked this out if it were true.

[Kirkwood]

Hilarious.

[ValerieTexas]

1930?
Hawaii wasn’t even a state in 1930.
It was in 1961.
I’m sure everything “official” changed after that

[SE Mom]

I haven’t followed this as closely as many- but with all the talk about the comparisons between the two types of paper I’m wondering if the background might be similar-but different from 1930 to 1961?

Obviously it’s not the SAME- but perhaps the state changed the background over the years?

[lilylangtree]

I’ve gotta forward this on to some non-freepers. Thank you.

[Crystal Cove]

Does his being illegitimate somehow affect his citizenship?

[kidd]

He wouldn't have this out there if the alternative were harmless.

I disagree.

Like Larry Sinclair, this is a strawman. A set-up. A diversion.

And if you make a valid point ("he has no experience"), you will be lumped in with the rest ("there are people attacking me because they believe that I was involved with a male prostitute, that I wasn't born in this country, that I don't have enough experience, or that I'm black...") and your valid point will be lost.

[Political Junkie Too]

These are modern certified certificates of birth, they are not original birth documents. They were requested sometime after 2005.

-PJ

[devane617]

...and, it’s still a non issue

[Right Cal Gal]

And wasn’t Hawaii a State in 1961?
Wouldn’t that mean that Nobamasiah would have been a natural born citizen even if his parents weren’t?

[ReleaseTheHounds]

I worry about the 31 year difference between these two documents. I didn’t see that addressed nor acknowledged.

[SE Mom]

Me too- see # 27 and answer # 31

[Right Cal Gal]

Surprising that it doesn’t have the “footprint.” My birth certificate had my footprint. Anyone else’s.

Are these abstracts created from the genuine birth certificate for legal purposes?

[Former War Criminal]

Hey, the birth certificate is as genuine as his Presidential Seal.

[devane617]

mine has a foot print too, but it does not match my current right....

[jveritas]

You proove yourself to be an absolute idiot with an IQ of 70 by saying that I support Barack Obama the socialist and the defeatist. The thing that I am smart enough to know what is required to defeat someone like Obama and it is not the stupidity about his Birth Certificate. I can comment on any thread I want to comment on.

[Bahbah]

I think people are very wrong to see this as a non-issue.

I agree. Not drawing any conclusions, but something is "off" about this. It's just too easy to provide a copy of something like a birth certificate, so the question arises why not just do it.

[GregoryFul]

The documents are of the same vintage, that is, recently laser printed on the form “OHSM 1.1 (Rev 11/01).” I can understand a different font - laser printers have many fonts available. The boarder is a different issue though - unless that is also printed on the form, rather than part of the form.

[Right Cal Gal]

Personally? I think his birth certificate states his mom was single and that’s why he doesn’t want anyone to see it.

[PLMerite]

“My birth certificate had my footprint. Anyone else’s.”

I don’t think that was your actual Birth Certificate, rather something the hospital gives out.

Birth Certificates are issued by the state registrar of births or somesuch, where they don’t have access to your feet.

:)

[txflake]

Well, tell us how to beat him, then; we’re kinda running out of ideas here.

[Kleon]

Do you really believe that Obama is not a natural born US citizen?

Do you really believe he is? There's enough there to pursue this question further.

[William Tell]

devane617 said: "...and, it’s still a non issue"

What do you propose as a reason to black out the certificate number?

[SVW]

People seem to be confused because the birth dates are different. That doesn’t matter - these birth certificates were produced in 2005 and 2007 (not 1930 and 1961) using a computer program. They are not copies in the sense of a scan of the original document.

That said, there’s no proof that Obama’s certificate has been altered or is a fake. For one the two certificates were printed in different years so it’s plausible that the paper used to print was different (different borders etc). It’s actually quite likely - I have certificates from different years that are not graphically the same.

You would need to get a sample of certificates from the same year. It’d be even better to get a vital statistics person to verify whether or not they ever used the stock that Obama’s is printed on. You could maybe find out who supplies vital statistics with the paper and ask them (they might use a private company to produce it and that private company might be more willing to talk to you).

[FFranco]

There is enough evidence to doubt that what Obama has presented is a genuine copy of his birth certificate, but it is not proved.

Now you have a contact in Hawaii, you need to request that contact to take a copy of Obama’s certificate to someone who would know better if it was fake.

If they are trying to pass off a phony birth certificate, that is fraud and I am sure illegal in Hawaii. It would be a big risk for them to try it. Either the certificate is valid and differences can be explained by different printers, etc. Or, it is phony and those who created it are subject to criminal penalties.

All this speculation is getting us nowhere. More definitive action needs to be taken to determine what the truth is.

[devane617]

...ok, so since this is SO important to you, why don’t you tell me/us what exactly you believe is going on, and why. i’m all ears, and eyes...make the case you see and i will have an open mind, but to this point , “IT IS A NONE ISSUE!!!”