Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

NOW let's compare "apples to apples" [Obama birth certificate controvery, part 2]
Townhall ^ | 6/22/08 | Polarik

Posted on 06/23/2008 3:45:52 PM PDT by 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":

Photobucket


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


Photobucket


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:


Photobucket


Photobucket

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.


Photobucket

Photobucket


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


TOPICS: Politics/Elections; US: Hawaii
KEYWORDS: birthcertificate; certifigate; elections; obama; obamatruthfile
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-146 next last
This is a follow-up by the graphics guy who started this debate.
1 posted on 06/23/2008 3:45:52 PM PDT by freespirited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: freespirited

ibtz


2 posted on 06/23/2008 3:49:00 PM PDT by Perdogg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freespirited

...it’s still a non issue...


3 posted on 06/23/2008 3:49:49 PM PDT by devane617 (we are so screwed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freespirited

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.


4 posted on 06/23/2008 3:49:53 PM PDT by Bobalu (What do I know, I'm a Typical White Guy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freespirited

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.


5 posted on 06/23/2008 3:50:19 PM PDT by Hillary'sMoralVoid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freespirited
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...

6 posted on 06/23/2008 3:53:02 PM PDT by Bush_Democrat (Ex-Dem since 2001 *Folding@Home for the Gipper - Join the FReeper Folders*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freespirited

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.


7 posted on 06/23/2008 3:53:48 PM PDT by Bubbette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hillary'sMoralVoid
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".

8 posted on 06/23/2008 3:55:53 PM PDT by glorgau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: freespirited
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.
9 posted on 06/23/2008 3:55:55 PM PDT by jveritas (God Bless President Bush and our brave troops)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freespirited
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.

10 posted on 06/23/2008 3:56:04 PM PDT by ikka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hillary'sMoralVoid
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.

11 posted on 06/23/2008 3:58:59 PM PDT by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: freespirited
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.
12 posted on 06/23/2008 3:59:16 PM PDT by NoobRep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freespirited

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.


13 posted on 06/23/2008 4:01:05 PM PDT by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freespirited
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.
14 posted on 06/23/2008 4:02:24 PM PDT by Cheburashka (Democratic Underground: Ever wonder where all those who took the brown acid at Woodstock wound up?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freespirited
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.

15 posted on 06/23/2008 4:03:27 PM PDT by ClearCase_guy (Et si omnes ego non)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bubbette

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.


16 posted on 06/23/2008 4:03:35 PM PDT by Red_Devil 232 (VietVet - USMC All Ready On The Right? All Ready On The Left? All Ready On The Firing Line!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Bubbette
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.

17 posted on 06/23/2008 4:06:42 PM PDT by ClearCase_guy (Et si omnes ego non)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: 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.
*********************************************
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..


18 posted on 06/23/2008 4:07:29 PM PDT by Neidermeyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: freespirited

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.


19 posted on 06/23/2008 4:07:53 PM PDT by Migraine (Diversity is great (until it happens to YOU)...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: devane617
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.

20 posted on 06/23/2008 4:08:02 PM PDT by William Tell (RKBA for California (rkba.members.sonic.net) - Volunteer by contacting Dave at rkba@sonic.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Bubbette
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.

21 posted on 06/23/2008 4:10:09 PM PDT by okie01 (THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA: Ignorance on Parade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: freespirited
So, what is the dispute that is being resolved here? That Obama was not a Live Birth?
22 posted on 06/23/2008 4:13:30 PM PDT by varon (Allegiance to the constitution, always. Allegiance to a political party, never.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 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.

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.

23 posted on 06/23/2008 4:13:55 PM PDT by calex59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: freespirited

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


24 posted on 06/23/2008 4:14:57 PM PDT by wastedpotential (McCain says I am an agent of intolerance, he's right - I can't tolerate liberal Republicans!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freespirited

Hilarious.


25 posted on 06/23/2008 4:15:50 PM PDT by Kirkwood (Ask me again tomorrow.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freespirited

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


26 posted on 06/23/2008 4:17:25 PM PDT by ValerieTexas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freespirited

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?


27 posted on 06/23/2008 4:18:33 PM PDT by SE Mom (Proud mom of an Iraq war combat vet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freespirited

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


28 posted on 06/23/2008 4:19:12 PM PDT by lilylangtree (Veni, Vidi, Vici)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ikka

Does his being illegitimate somehow affect his citizenship?


29 posted on 06/23/2008 4:21:01 PM PDT by Crystal Cove
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
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.

30 posted on 06/23/2008 4:21:57 PM PDT by kidd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

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

-PJ

31 posted on 06/23/2008 4:26:10 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (Repeal the 17th amendment -- it's the "Fairness Doctrine" for Congress!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: William Tell

...and, it’s still a non issue


32 posted on 06/23/2008 4:26:24 PM PDT by devane617 (we are so screwed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ValerieTexas

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?


33 posted on 06/23/2008 4:26:35 PM PDT by Right Cal Gal (Abraham Lincoln would have let Berkeley leave the Union without a fight)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: freespirited

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


34 posted on 06/23/2008 4:29:53 PM PDT by ReleaseTheHounds ("The demagogue is one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ReleaseTheHounds

Me too- see # 27 and answer # 31


35 posted on 06/23/2008 4:33:39 PM PDT by SE Mom (Proud mom of an Iraq war combat vet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

Comment #36 Removed by Moderator

To: ReleaseTheHounds

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?


37 posted on 06/23/2008 4:35:31 PM PDT by Right Cal Gal (Abraham Lincoln would have let Berkeley leave the Union without a fight)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: freespirited

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


38 posted on 06/23/2008 4:38:00 PM PDT by Former War Criminal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Right Cal Gal

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


39 posted on 06/23/2008 4:40:12 PM PDT by devane617 (we are so screwed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: cahome
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.
40 posted on 06/23/2008 4:40:45 PM PDT by jveritas (God Bless President Bush and our brave troops)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
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.

41 posted on 06/23/2008 4:42:23 PM PDT by Bahbah (Typical white person)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Bubbette

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.


42 posted on 06/23/2008 4:43:06 PM PDT by GregoryFul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: devane617

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


43 posted on 06/23/2008 4:47:19 PM PDT by Right Cal Gal (Abraham Lincoln would have let Berkeley leave the Union without a fight)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Right Cal Gal

“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.

:)


44 posted on 06/23/2008 4:48:52 PM PDT by PLMerite ("Unarmed, one can only flee from Evil. But Evil isn't overcome by fleeing from it." Jeff Cooper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: jveritas

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


45 posted on 06/23/2008 4:48:56 PM PDT by txhurl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: jveritas
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.

46 posted on 06/23/2008 4:49:01 PM PDT by Kleon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

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

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

47 posted on 06/23/2008 4:51:28 PM PDT by William Tell (RKBA for California (rkba.members.sonic.net) - Volunteer by contacting Dave at rkba@sonic.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: kidd

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).


48 posted on 06/23/2008 4:52:18 PM PDT by SVW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: freespirited

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.


49 posted on 06/23/2008 4:53:12 PM PDT by FFranco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: William Tell

...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!!!”


50 posted on 06/23/2008 4:55:01 PM PDT by devane617 (we are so screwed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-146 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson