Skip to comments.Pixels Don't Lie
Posted on 03/04/2012 11:50:20 AM PST by ethical
To prove that the birth document Obama posted on the White House website on April 27, 2011 is a fraudulent document, all you need to determine is whether or not it is a computer created document or a scanned photocopy.
It is a computer created document. Even the obots can not deny that.
You do not need to ask the Hawaii DOH for a "waiver" in order to get a computer created birth document. Obama asked for special permission from Hawaii DOH to get photocopies of his original birth certificate. Loretta Fuddy granted that request and gave Obama, she says, photocopies of his original birth certificate.
Scanning a photocopy, in order to post it on a website, does not turn it in to a computer created document with multiple layers and movable text. Although interesting, it isn't all the details of the forgery that first reveal that it's a fake; different fonts, the halos, the weird bent page, the strange behavior of the security paper. It is the fact that it IS a computer created document and NOT a scanned photocopy.
But let's look at one of those fun forgery details. I included the web addresses for the quote and images I describe.
Here is what Chiyome Fukino [Former Director of Hawaii Public Health Department] had to say about how the birthers would respond to the release of Obamas birth certificate.
Theyre going to question the ink on which it was written or say it was fabricated. Said Fukino. The whole thing is silly.1
Lets start with the ink, shall we?
From Hawaii Public Health Regulations Title: Vital Statistics, Registration & Records. Chapter 8, Certificates of Vital Statistics Events, Section 1. Preparation. Certificates of vital statistics events are to be filled in by typewriter or in ink. If ink is used only permanent ink will be acceptable. All signatures are to be made with permanent ink. In all other respects, the certificates shall comply with provisions of Section 57-14, R.L.H. 1955.
On April 27, 2011 Barack Obama revealed what he said was a photo copy of his original long form Certificate of Live Birth from Hawaii (it was posted on the White House website). The signatures on this Certificate of Live Birth are required to be made in permanent ink.
Pixels Dont Lie
Download the BC document off the White House website and open it in Adobe Illustrator. Now zoom in on the signature of Obamas mother. The pixels reveal that only a portion of the signature is in ink as required by Hawaii Public Health Regulations Chapter 8.
The Ann and the D in Dunham are in ink. The pixels are a variety of gradations in greys and blacks, like ink signature pixels are. But whats really interesting is that the rest of the signature, unham and Obama, are not in ink.
The letters are a solid greenishblack color with no gradation in color at all. This lack of gradation reveals that this part of the signature was created in the computer and is not even penmanship.
And whats it called when you forge a signature on a Certificate of Live Birth from Hawaii? FORGERY! Well that would be my top pick but hey they also violated Hawaii Public Health Regulations by not using permanent ink in their forgery! Maybe thatll tick someone off.
If you ignore the fact that this document was computer created and that fact, in and of itself, makes it a forgery, you can't deny what the pixels are telling us.
The Stanley Ann Dunham Obama signature on this document is a forged signature and that makes the whole document a forgery.
Figure 1. The Dunham part of the signature of Obamas mother on the alleged long form original Certificate of Live Birth, posted on the White House website. Here it has been downloaded into Adobe Illustrator.
Figure 2. Zooming in on the top part of the D in Dunham. You can see the variation in color pixelsvariations of grays to black tones. This is how pixels of a signature will appear when it is applied with ink and scanned.
Figure 3. Focusing now on the start of the u next to the D in Dunham. You can see there is no gradation of color at all. A solid dark greenish-black color displays no evidence of the gradation in color for these pixels which implies that this signature was created with image editing software and not with ink.
Figure 4. The last image focuses on the O in Obama and part of the b. You can see there is no color change in the pixels. The solid pixel color again suggests the signature was not scanned or representative of ink. The Obama portion of the signature was computer generated.
1. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42519951/ns/politics-more_politics/t/ex-hawaii-official-denounces-ludicrous-birther-claims/ 2. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf
3. Albert Renshaw Obama BC Fake http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7s9StxsFllY
Here is an example National Review put together, showing how a scanning to a pdf will create layers as seen in the obama cert.
There are no facts in the original post - just a lot of kooky conspiracy theories, and technological illeterates. Instead of spending time talking about all the real bad things Obama is doing, we have a bunch of useful idiots making conservatives look stupid because they don’t understand how scanning software works.
That's what happens when you get a yellow bellied POS who forges his Selective Service registration and Birth Certificate, and the cowardly POS then becomes president.
Nailing down a weaseling conniving dirtbag can take time. Since we're vetting the sleazbag without his cooperation, I'd say we've done a good job at nailing the POS down in just a few years.
Crock o shit, Tex.
Any computer expert that looks at it knows its a fraud.
Not one legitimate computer expert will vouch for it.
I have 25 years in the field and I knew the document was garbage within the first week.
Law enforcement is now calling it a forgery.
In other words, IT'S REAL BUT FAKE.
Wake up and smell the firkin coffee.
Your theory about the completely fraudulent BC (yes, that’s what it is Bunky) seems to be that since a few of the observations are incorrect, all of the other facts must be disgarded. Ridiculous. I always wonder what draws people here who claim to simply want to point out the “real” issues are being ignored. They are not. But neither am I going to ignore a self-evidently false document that probably is offering cover for a faux President. I can chew gum and walk at the same time, but thanks for worrying needlessly.
This forger picked the absolute worst method possible to forge a document, by cutting and pasting different elements from other documents and layering them to create a Frankenstein birth certificate. This somehow makes sense to you when the corrupt Hawaiian officials could have simply forged a new... perfect... document.
You're saying Obama hired the Orly Taitz of forgers?
I read your Nat. Rev. article, and of course it’s BS, like everything else you post. Here, as an example, is some of the comments at that bottom of the ridiculous screed...
UTTERLY RIDICULOUS! The explanation in this article is ludicrous! A document that is scanned - as a real birth certificate would be - would never generate layers in any software, least of all Illustrator. These are opposing file types. A scan is a bitmap (pixel-based) format, but Illustrator is a vector (EPS) based format. Scans have only one layer. Period! Additionally, any document scanned with an OCR (optical character recognition) software will only generate a text (txt, rtf, etc.) file and ignore all graphic content.
I am an award-winning graphic designer with 30+ years experience. I have been using both Illustrator and Photoshop since they were introduced in the 80’s. In fact I personally post-produced the first Illustrator88 instructional video as a sub-contractor to Mountain View-based Adobe Sys.
Whomever was in charge of the fabrication of this wanna-be birth certificate is a technical moron. Even my first year graphic students know how to uncheck the box that says “remain editable”. This “graphics” person should be fired and the White House should own up to this colossal deception!
As you can see, months after the article professionals have had time to examine and consider the facts, and they all can easily conclude that Obama is a fraud and his BC is a an OBVIOUS fake.
You’re saying Obama hired the Orly Taitz of forgers?
What is he supposed to do put an ad in the New York times for an accomplished BC forger? Obama is incompetent at everything he does, what makes you think he would know a good forger from a bad one? The forger probably came to him from a small group of loyalists and offered his services. Maybe the forger intentionally made massive errors to expose the fraud...held back copies and info and after the doc came out as a fraud advised Obama if anything happened to him proof would go to all the right wing conservatives , Arpaio etc and nail Obama...Talk about a forger being able to blackmail Obama...the forger would have to hold back evidence to protect himself, and why not do a little blackmail while he was at it? You need to watch more TV.
Need to narrow it down to Hawaii or not Hawaii and go from there.
roflmao Nathan Goulding. I think he even admitted he was wrong.
I have no idea what you are talking about, I think you posted your reply to the wrong person, I should respond with a bunny wearing a pancake on it’s head, but I really can’t be bothered.
A PURPOSEFUL forgery. For the SSkeptic, it is all about protecting institutions by any means necessary. The Obama Birth Certificate is one such serious example and form of a Fake-Hoax, albeit slightly different in its logic from the Strange Sounds video issue. A copy of the birth certificate with 17 or more OBVIOUS evidences of inconsistency/apparent adjustments was released to the public last year. The layer tampering was so obvious, that to the reasonable public mind, surely anyone seeking to release a fake birth certificate would never commit such errors. A presumption is therefore foisted by the SSkeptic Cabal, that the errors must have been committed at the originating Hawaii offices back from 1961, and whether fraud or not, therefore a more legitimate birth certificate cannot be located. In this brilliant strategy, the fake-hoax version of the birth certificate exonerates the publishers of the certificate from any crime, as they would be stupid to release such a fake, were they indeed ill-intentioned and we, the victims are left fully unable to ascertain the truth in the matter. Take as Deskeption closure this fall right in line statement by Nathan Goulding in the National Register Online from April 27, 2011, concerning the certificate
Whats not plausible is that the government spent all this time manufacturing Obamas birth certificate only to commit the laughably rookie mistake of exporting the layers (with the apparent errors) Lets leave it at that.
Move along folks, nothing to see here.
Well, good luck with that.
What facts are there that it is fake? Is there anything but some graphical artifacts that can more easily be explained by actually using the software? Please tell.
Strange that the example in the cite has ONLY ONE layer unlike Obama's COLB posted by the White House.
Go look at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haiRCLItdEQ&feature=player_embedded How do you explain away the straight 'Male' and 'Kapiolani' as a software issue or other such nonsense? That one thing alone clearly indicates fake added material to Obama's COLB!!
Fact: I downloaded the PDF file directly from the White House website myself. Fact: The layering (read: alterations) are not arbitrary, they are specific. A computer doesn’t know to pick out objects that would necessarily need alteration. Even less than stellar minds can differentiate from noise and intelligent design. Fact: Adobe software design experts were employed by Arpaio’s research team. Did you hear any protests from them about the findings? Fact: You have a strange political affectation; I would call it 5th Columnitis.
Last fact... There is only one thing on FR tonight that is more disingenuous than Obama’s false BC: You.
You are correct. First Goulding makes the mistake of assuming that there was a great conspiracy. More likely that an Obama tool at arm’s length manufactured it, presented it to a flapper in the White House, and was delighted that he/she didn’t have to offer an explanation about its origins. Politicians are expert at parsing language with themselves for cover. Hawaii wasn’t called, and Hawaii never asked. The acceptance was guaranteed precisely because it is an outrageously audacious act.
What makes you think that the 1961 typewriter still exists ..or that a similar one could be found? ..or that those forms still exist in that exact match. How do propose to insert it in the existing microfilm roll or if film to make a duplicate, but alternate, roll is still made? The forger probably had to do it electronically.
thanks for posting and commenting
how did i not see that?
As absurd as it seems, I believe that yes, obummer was in fact limited in his forgery resources. You can’t just farm out a top secret project like that, without putting yourself at risk. Plus, the number of people willing to risk prison (and possible treason charges?) narrows the pool considerably.
I’m guessing bark had to ask someone in the inner circle to make the doc. Knowing he could count on most of the media to ignore it anyway, and threatening (breitbarting) the ones who refused.
Present a hypothesis (such as numerous forged government records and an associated cover-up) that if true would require a massive conspiracy which would have to involve near a dozen government agencies, both major political parties as well a many, many people.
But then to rationalize a completely different point they might say things like: “You cant just farm out a top secret project like that, without putting yourself at risk. Plus, the number of people willing to risk prison (and possible treason charges?) narrows the pool considerably.”
You're suggesting Obama is willing to assassinate a high profile conservative thorn in his side, but somehow an amateur hack Photoshop forger can inexplicably blackmail the president into sparing his life.
This scenario is more plausible to you than the simple explanation that extracting layers from an unlayered digital image file, an old technology, is actually what happened?
I’m sorry you don’t understand scanning and OCR, but if you did a little searching you’d see that what happens is that when a document is scanned that the software attempts to separate the text into different layers, then it applies a filter to sharpen the text, which is why you get the blocky result. It is easy to understand if you look at the original image I posted. You can’t merge the layers and get to that image, which is more detailed to the PDF. The PDF had to come from the scan.
It was released the same day as the PDF, and published by AP. The link I embedded was from a secondary source, Boston NPR, which was just the first link I came across in google image search.
Yes, I am. I’m guessing obummer’s blackberry can find a trusted chicago “luca brasi” in the blink of an eye. Computer experts however, who are able to produce a flawless forgery? Interestingly, that particular trait might be harder to find, in the Chicago mob.
“What forger would put together a document using this bizarre cut and paste, layering method...and then forget to merge the layers or flatten the image?” - TCM
This one did.
Ask Judith L Corely, my guess is that she knows exactly who did it.
Oh, and since the White House could not send out an RFP for an expert LFCOLB forger, they had to make due with the best they could find and trust - if they were going to create a forgery. IMO the best option was someone at a law firm (lawyer/client priviledge) that already knew the truth. The firm working on this issue with Obama is Perkins Coie. Judtih Corely is the attorney that, I think, went to HI to pick-up the LFCOLBS. (She is the one that wrote the letter to HI that is posted on the White House site.)
You knew that though, right?
Let’s assume that you are right. Why would the pdf file have been presented as anything other than a straight scan? Why not a picture of someone in Hawaii holding it? Why not a simple press conference, TOMORROW, in Hawaii? The proper authority figure could hold up the actual piece of paper, shake it, let the press take numerous hi-def photos, which would make Arpaio, me, and all the people on here you consider birthers, look like imbeciles. Do you honestly think that Hawaiian authorities aren’t aware of the cold case posse? I’m sorry that you don’t understand how easy it is for people to locate a troll here.
An expert forger couldn’t be trusted not to be bought or respond to the prospect of gain for “outing” BO.
I guess, though, they could have hired one, then offed him. I’m surprised they didn’t do just that.
It’s nice to see someone in these discussions who actually knows how the software works. First of all, the Illustrator file doesn’t actually have “layers,” it has “groups” on a single layer. If the document was forged the way people claim, it would have actual layers.
Second, nobody would use Illustrator for a job like this. If you’re going to copy and past fragments of other documents to create a forgery, you’d use Photoshop, a program a lot more people have heard of. I wonder how many of the conspiracy theorists even know Adobe made a product named Illustrator before all this.
Third, even the internal details of how the forgery “must” have been created don’t make sense. We’re supposed to believe that they copied one numeral ‘1’ from one source and a different numeral ‘1’ from another—what the heck for? If you’re bad enough at this that you wouldn’t even flatten the image, why wouldn’t you just duplicate the ‘1’?
And fourth, one thing I agree with the birthers on is that an online PDF of a birth certificate isn’t legal proof. But if you can’t verify the veracity of a digital document, you can’t prove it a forgery either.
And I would say to your explanation, why is the font size of the “M” in the P.M time of the “messiah’s” birth so obiously smaller than the rest of the type? I was alive then and I knew about computers - big ass things. I’d never heard of font size, computers that were used for everyday office keeping duties, etc.
Ok lets think that through...
How would the WH find the *one* forger they want, without raising any suspicion?
Then, assuming they find a true expert, how do they keep perfect confidence there is no trace between the forger and the WH. (even after the disappearance) A professional forger has got to have a some experience in staying alive, and not getting caught.
Seems to me that it would be too risky, and worth it *only* if there was not someone adequate that could be controlled/trusted.
That's simply not true. There are multiple places in the document where there are words that are split between multiple layers (e.g., the first half of a word is on one layer, the rest on another). For example, the (pre-printed) line "Name of Hospital or Institution (If not in hospital or institution, give street address)" is split among two layers as follows:
one layer contains "N___ _f H______l __ I__________ (If ___ __ h_______ __ ____________ ____ ______ add____)"
Another layer contains "_ame o_ _ospita_ or _nstitution ___ not in _ospital or institution, give street ___ress_"
If, as you assert, the layering is "not arbitrary," but rather "specific," why would the person working with the layers they split that sentence (or any of the other words/lines that are so split) across different layers?
Indeed, they would opt more for “trust” than for “expertise”.
Anyone that would engage in such a huge fraud would cover their bases. And the more “professional” the forger, the better he would have set up his “insurance policies”.
They wouldn’t be able to keep him “bought”.
The M. was already on the form, since both A.M. and P.M. both end in M. That way, you don’t have to type M. every time. When you fill in a form the old-fashioned way, by hand or typewriter, every letter you don’t have to fill in saves time.
The ‘M’ is on the form. They typed in only the A (for AM) or the P.
That said there are *many* real problems beyond that, such as color aberrations from scanning missing and single color “Unblurred” text and image marks. Read the Mara Zebest report.
From Zebest page 3:
“Scanned images will have a consistent noise. Any inconsistencies in noise would be a strong telltale sign of tampering. When looking at an image at a normal zoom level (100%) colors may appear as one color of any particular area of an image. Zooming in closer to the area, consistent noise is easily apparent in the slight variations of color from neighboring pixels that make up each color (shown in Figure 8). This is the natural noise level for this image. Note that it is consistent throughout the image; variations can be seen for neighboring pixels of each color area in the original image.”
The "M" is the same size font as the pre-printed elements of the form. Considering that both "A.M." and "P.M." end with "M", it looks like the form was constructed so whoever was entering data would only have to type "A." or "P."
Are you a troll? Tremblay’s spin was discredited long ago. Scanning a document does not generate layers of this kind.
Are you a troll? Tremblay’s spin was discredited long ago. Scanning a document does not generate layers of this kind.
It doesn’t have to be Illustrator — there are lots of image processing apps that use layers to edit documents, and the layers stay if you are stupid/lazy enough to forget to flatten it before publishing it.
Why would a person creating a document out of layers split individual words and sentences across multiple layers, seemingly randomly (see my post above for an example)?
The “M” is part of the form - the person filling it in only types the “A” or the “P”. You can clearly see it in the image I posted.
Did you watch Arpaio’s video? Even they acknowledge scanning with OCR will create layers. In fact, their specific criticism is that there should be more layers.
The PDF is a straight scan (with OCR enabled). If they realized that it would introduce artifacts, they may have chosen another format, or they may bot have cared. The controversy helps them at this point - it just diverts a lot of time and energy from real issues.
One reason: if the forger were unhappy with his results for some parts of the text he was forging, and had another go at those parts. In that case, those parts would end up in a separate layer. (I should add that I have significant experience in editing imagery for (legal) use on the web, and have practical familiarity with the vagaries of layer generation during such editing).
Okay. I see it now. Thanks.