Pixels Don't Lie

March 4, 2012 | Linda Jordan

[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 Obama’s birth certificate.

“They’re going to question the ink on which it was written or say it was fabricated.” Said Fukino. “The whole thing is silly.”1

Let’s 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 Don’t Lie

Download the BC document off the White House website and open it in Adobe Illustrator. Now zoom in on the signature of Obama’s 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 what’s really interesting is that the rest of the signature, ‘unham and Obama’, are not in ink.

The letters are a solid greenish–black 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 what’s 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 that’ll 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 Obama’s 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 pixels—variations 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

[ethical]

Jeesh. Computer generated and computer viewing are not the same. How far you guys will go to avoid the truth. Review all the Hawaii Department of Health descriptions of exactly what a computer generated ‘Certificate of Live Birth’ is. You can also read White House General Counsel Bob Bauer's description of what a computer generated birth certificate from Hawaii is. It is an abstract of an original birth certificate created in a computer and then printed out from the computer.
You do not need to get a ‘waiver’ from Hawaii in order to get a computer generated birth certificate. Obama says he asked for a ‘waiver’ to get a photocopy of his original birth certificate. Hawaii granted his request and say they gave him photocopies. What you see on the White House website is not a scanned photocopy. It's very simple. The minutia of all the different ways the document was forged are secondary.

[ethical]

And don’t forget the third version of the document that the White House showed. They let the pretty little news lady actually touch it and take photographs of it with her cell phone. They really do have the photocopy of the original but it was too hard to scan it in to the computer to post it so they just had someone make a “stand in” version of it. But they really do have it, Guthrie says so. Yeah...that’s the ticket.

[PA-RIVER]

Hey moron, the cut and paste document came from the white house.

You can stick your head back up your colon now.

[Conscience of a Conservative]

Jeesh. Computer generated and computer viewing are not the same. How far you guys will go to avoid the truth. Review all the Hawaii Department of Health descriptions of exactly what a computer generated ‘Certificate of Live Birth’ is. You can also read White House General Counsel Bob Bauer's description of what a computer generated birth certificate from Hawaii is. It is an abstract of an original birth certificate created in a computer and then printed out from the computer.

You do not need to get a ‘waiver’ from Hawaii in order to get a computer generated birth certificate. Obama says he asked for a ‘waiver’ to get a photocopy of his original birth certificate. Hawaii granted his request and say they gave him photocopies. What you see on the White House website is not a scanned photocopy. It's very simple. The minutia of all the different ways the document was forged are secondary.

The only evidence you have cited for your argument that the document was "computer generated" is the pixellation and . I'm pointing out that there is another version of the document, also released on the same day, that does not have the inconsistent pixellation and layering:

If, as you assert, Dunham's signature was computer-generated (as opposed to being an actual ink-pen signature), how could there be a version of the document that has an ink-pen signature for Dunham?

[Tex-Con-Man]

Hey moron, the cut and paste document came from the white house.

How could I possibly counter such a succinct and compelling presentation of evidence? ...or recover from the complete destruction of my self-esteem?

[HMS Surprise]

Even the BC you post is clearly a fraud, and of course could have easily been printed and scanned to wash the digital data away. Omg, of course a “non-pdf” version won’t have layers, it’s just a copy of the pdf. You must think I’m a moron to consider your drivel anything but the ravings of a madman.

[PA-RIVER]

The truth is usually succinct and compelling.

Bull shit stories require sophistries, like there are three versions of one document, one of them is real blah blah blah ..... why would our president commit a crime .... blah blah blah ...the most powerful man could hire a better forger ... blah blah blah....

Repeat after me “The president has a forged BC.”

Pretty simple. We all downloaded it from the white house and its a cut and paste pile of crap.

[Wayne07]

The BC image I posted isn't a copy of the PDF because it has MORE detail. not less. You can't take the blocky OCR text from the PDF and generate that image.

I don't think you are moron, but I question your inability to address specific questions. You say the non-PDF BC image is clearly a fraud. Why? What do you see in it that is any indication of a forgery?

[Wayne07]

You said: OCR also does not turn an ink signature in to a non-ink signature.

I asked you why you think it is a non ink signature, and you have dodged answering. Why do you make that claim?

[HMS Surprise]

The “D” in “Dunham” is clearly written by pen, the rest clearly not.

[Wayne07]

The “D” in “Dunham” is clearly written by pen, the rest clearly not.

This is the crux of the issue, and why I find the birther nonsense so frustrating. The pixelation of the "unham" is the artifacting I've been trying to explain when you generate the PDF. The computer is trying to separate the text from the background so it is easier to read. It then applies a sharpening filter, which makes the edges blocky.

Even if you are a scanning denier, then there is another piece of evidence that it refutes you. The AP image. You can see the signature is smooth - nothing to indicate it wasn't originally in ink.

Last, Even if you deny scanning technology, and ignore the AP image, it still doesn't make sense that the blocky text is a forgery - why would you do it that way? Why would they fake the "unham" but not the D? Why would you forge in blocky letters?

[Wayne07]

Here is one example of how the left associates birthers with the tea party. Their goal is to make the tea party look extreme and out of touch in order to turn off moderate voters. This image is from the obama birth cert wiki page/

[Wayne07]

Here is one example of how the left associates birthers with the tea party. Their goal is to make the tea party look extreme and out of touch in order to turn off moderate voters. This image is from the obama birth cert wiki page/

[HMS Surprise]

OMG you’re beyond the beyonds. It’s “obvious” to me that either she wrote the D, and then switched to a sharpie, or something is rotten in Kenya. Your attempts to convince yourself of Obama’s purity is an epic fail.

[HMS Surprise]

Here’s how we know that you are probably the same guy who created the doc in the first place: Shakespeare: Methinks he doth protest too much.” Who would go to all of this trouble to prove something that they can’t possible establish with any high degree of certainty? I would understand if you posted once, maybe twice, just to say hey, you looked at it, and it looks good. But what you are doing is over the top, ergo suspect. You car ten times more about this than I do, and I’m the conspiracy nut. The gears are stripping and your transmission is leaking... overdrive doesn’t work when you’re climbing a 9% grade.

[Wayne07]

Really? You, who signed up on Feb 9, 2011? I’ve been here since 2003. I’ll give you a better theory. You work for the Obama campaign, and you are paid to come to forums and make republicans look stupid by posting supporting inane conspiracy theories.

[HMS Surprise]

I love the detective work. Yeah, I became a patriot a year ago. Or, maybe I just joined FR and posted some stuff. Obama is a Constitutional Scholar. Does that mean he loves the Constitution? Or does it mean that people around him knew that the imprimatur of such a title imbued a candidate with teflon, and allowed him or her to advance an even more radical agenda than would otherwise be possible. Here’s a perfect theory: MrShoop is wrong.

[ethical]

Mike Zullo, lead investigator, Cold Case Posse:

“He said some people have stated OCR (optical character recognition) software was used in an attempt to explain away the anomalies in Obama’s birth certificate. But the document failed all three parts of the test that would demonstrate OCR was used. Zullo said they were able to determine “with 100 percent certainty it was not put through OCR.”

Other people claimed the anomalies were caused by “optimization.” However, the document failed the optimization test as well. “Optimization doesn’t explain a single anomaly in Obama’s birth certificate – not a single one,” said Zullo.

Continue reading on Examiner.com Cold Case Posse reveals Obama’s documents are forgeries - Phoenix Crime | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/crime-in-phoenix/cold-case-posse-reveals-obama-s-documents-are-forgeries#ixzz1oOmVRPOq

[ethical]

Deniers of forgery have a one track mind. Deny, deny, deny.

[Brown Deer]

I'm pointing out that there is another version of the document, also released on the same day, that does not have the inconsistent pixellation and layering:

It was a photograph. The document released by the White House was a proven forgery!

Here, go learn something: MCSO: Obama Eligibility Cold Case Investigation (Full Press Conference)