Skip to comments.New Obama Birth Certificate Forgery Proof in the Layers
Posted on 07/20/2012 2:06:28 PM PDT by Seizethecarp
The layers have been the most damning and problematic evidence of file-manipulation, and the defenders of Obama are quick to respond with a plethora of explanations to justify the presence of layers. The excuses range from OCR (Optical Character Recognition) software to the more predominant excuse of optimization -- both of which have been debunked in my previous report for the Cold Case Posse press conference.
Many Obama defenders have conceded that OCR is not a factor and admit that OCR was never applied to the PDF file. However, arguments for optimization still persist. Optimization refers to a file-saving process in which the goal is to reduce the file size while maintaining (or optimizing) the quality of the image (as best as possible depending on the settings applied).
Those who insist on the optimization argument either do not understand what attributes need to be present for this argument to hold water -- or they are hoping the general public does not understand. It's probably a little of both. The defenders certainly count on the ignorance of the average citizen when it comes to understanding the differences in layers produced from an automated process (such as optimization) compared to a manual choice to manipulate the file. One goal of the report is to offer a deeper understanding for recognizing the two patterns of layering (and to avoid being deceived or bamboozled). The report adds additional proof along the way that the optimization excuse fails miserably and can be completely ruled out as a justification for layers.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
ping to Mara Zebest layer analysis update...
This is a clear indication that someone in Photoshop or Illustrator dragged or copied only the black area of the form and entries onto a 'green security paper image' background. This is the only possible explanation for the white halos. The black content (form and entries) was originally on a white or light blue background. The green security paper background was used to trick America into thinking the birth certificate was authentic.
And the Missing National Archives records Aug. 1 through Aug. 7, 1961 could be in Sandy Berger’s socks!!
Who has a pieced together BC???
Felons committing ID theft!
Frog march his highness to the hoosegows pronto!
Ricky and Janet Murdered around 80 US citizens Men, Women, and Children at Waco.
GW did nothing.
Are you noticing a pattern here?
It isn't R vs D.
It's US vs the instilled aristocracy.
As for OCR, what does that have to do with a supposedly type written document supposedly created in 1961? The technology did not even exist then.
Layers of Bull S when Odumba and Cow-Odumba signed them.
It’s called security paper for a reason....SO why didn’t they just create a file and print it directly on the paper? Did they also create virtual paper?
It is to some people. They prefer to believe conventional wisdom than to think for themselves. Not sure why? Perhaps they believe Obama and his evil minions are surely smarter than to offer up such a shoddy forgery.
Or perhaps Obama and his evil minions really are smarter than those who continue to believe Obama wouldn't cheat and lie and pull every rotten trick in the book to hold onto power.
The reason is because there is a very limited number of high level people in on this conspiracy. Do you really expect a "David Axelrod" level person to know details about digital document manipulation?
Back in the late 1980s and early 1990s, “document automation” became viable for the first time. There was enough processing power and storage to - barely - convert warehouses of documents from paper to digital form. The key problem was “barely”. Document scanning, as we know it today, requires far more storage space than was affordable back then.
I remember being amazed, at that time when I worked for a large insurance company handling large volumes of documents, at the brilliant insight of Xerox et al in solving this storage problem. The workable solution was to scan the image as a whole, then identify various components of the image and process them as different sections at different resolutions, color depths, and even duplication or elimination of sections.
Consider a standard pre-printed form, partially typed in (for those of you who remember typewriters), and partially marked up & signed by hand. Most of the document can in fact be thrown away: the bulk of the paper is just empty space with a little random visual noise (dust, dots, etc.). Much of the document is unimportant, and may be rendered at low resolution with color depth as low as 1 bit; for large volumes of near-identical forms, some of the pre-printed content can even be duplicated across documents or copied from a standard template. Some of the content can be recognized with OCR software, reducing a relatively high pixel count down to just a few bytes of text, font, size, and position. Some of the content is more important, or unusable at extremely low resolutions or color depths, so it is rendered at medium resolutions with more bits per pixel. Part of the image is deemed of high legal importance and is thus stored at high quality (and high data count). Result is a mix of discarded, converted, low, medium, and high quality image data - all which take up an absolute minimum of space and still capable of being assembled into a legally viable copy of the original document.
This was a big thing at the time. Most people didn’t know this, and don’t know it today, because it was a complex process involving lots of expensive equipment stored in limited-access computer rooms. LOTS of documents were converted with this process, often coupled with outright destruction of the original documents as the digital renderings were deemed legal equivalents. Among IT and data warehousing departments, such “document automation” became fashionable and huge amounts of paper forms were subjected thereto at great cost and effort. Government agencies led the way, having vast piles of stagnant paper and near-endless funds to “automate” them.
I remember at the time thinking “wow, that’s all really cool...but someday, what’s considered a legal equivalent now won’t cut it.” Someday the various layers, scanned and compressed and converted based on assumptions, would be assembled into an equivalent of the original - and be deemed inadequate, if not an outright forgery. Someday has arrived.
By now it is more likely that they’re stored in Hillary Clinton’s jockstrap and only Huma can access them.
I know Mara and am trying to get her to post on here.....she has the link and is monitoring this post....
I always look at both sides and want to see what the Libs are posting..... Does anyone have a comment on this site debunking the Sheriff?
It’s based on the Dr. Conspiracy site which itself is based on misinformation from the so-called Dr. Conspiracy, plus a document he claimed to obtain that can’t be independently corroborated as authentic. IOW, nothing has been debunked.
With all due respect to your expertise, what does this have to do with two certified paper copies of Obama's original birth certificate being flown from Hawaii to Washington D.C. in a lawyer's hands and then being presented in PDF format to the world as the real thing?
Thank you for that.
I am working at getting her to present her info at our local Tea Party group here in El Dorado Hills.
She is up for it but we have to convince our membership board to let her speak.
I suspect that if or when she does speak at our group that we will have some debunkers in the audience.
I want to be able to debunk the debunkers so any other info would be appreciated.
Meanwhile.....Mara get on here now and post woman!!!
Except that you miss one minor detail. ALL of the compression, so-called, taking place on Obama’s BC miraculously occurs in areas that would need possible alteration for it to be deemed useful for his NBC purposes. Is that little tidbit too complicated for you to understand?
Note: Document specialist/analyst Doug Vogt pointed out that the alleged 'imprinted seal' is THE WRONG SIZE.. Too small! See item #6 herein: http://www.scribd.com/doc/58721290/Obama-Birth-Certificate-Final-Affidavit-of-Douglas-Vogt-June-24-2011-Total-of-9-items-now-listed
Methinks both the paper copies and PDF were generated from decades-old data rendered as I described. That explains the multiple data layers featuring inconsistent rendering styles.
“Birthers” are making a serious mistake in applying modern technical sensibilities to what amounts to ancient technology. They don’t know how document processing worked in the past, thus they don’t understand what they’re looking at and can only explain it as “conspiratorial”. Should this ever reach court, they risk a very embarrassing & effective legal smackdown as a result. (Of course, whenever I try to explain these facts about technology past, I get lambasted as an Obama sympathizer. Emotional abuse doesn’t change the facts to fit their beliefs.)
Here are a few tidbits. Dr. Nonsense claims Hawaii first participated in the national natality report in 1961. This is not true. The 1960 reported is posted at the CDC website and can be downloaded. Hawaii’s birth statistics are in it. The race classifications changed somewhat from 1960 to 1961, which is explained in these reports. Dr. Nonsense allegedly obtained a 1960-1961 coding document through a freedom of information request that shows how both years were coded the exact same way, and in a much more detailed manner than is specified in the 1960 report. Second, the document he obtained has a division heading from a government division that didn’t get created until TWO years later in 1963. Something fishy is afoot. Do not trust ANYTHING posted by Dr. Nonsense.
Sorry, but this is simply babbling nonsense. The paper copies and PDF weren’t generated from decades-old data. The alleged long-form would have been a hard copy that had to be copied onto a current form. It wouldn’t be in any kind of data form. This is really a new low in fogger-styled excuses.
Based upon 26 years involved directly in pre-press operations both film based and electronic, I can attest with 100% certainly that the site you posted has it wrong and this document is a complete poorly done forgery.. A person with just one year of experience would be able to spot all the edits.
Even without everything they tried to disprove (which they did not) I based my assessment on edits completely different.
I downloaded the document right from the White House site and the very first thing after opening it in Adobe Illustrator was over 25 layers of edits. Now a few layers might be expected for re-sizing and maybe adjusting the brightness or contrast level. So maybe 2 or 3 layers would not be unusual.
Looking at items like the signature which when enlarged will show a dark center line and as you look to the edges of a REAL pen/pencil line you would expect to see pixels get progressively lighter.
This was NOT the case in this forgery. There were partial segments of the signature which looked normal but the majority of the signature was solid black which is an obvious manual edit by a very lazy person. They simply picked black as the color then tried to make the signature look like what they wanted. The line was solid black with no gradual graying of the pixels. Just in this case it is 100% fake.
If anyone doubts what I am saying just sign your name in pen/pencil on paper then look at the line under enlargement. You will easily see how the pen/pencil line is never fully solid from center to the edges.
There were also letters typed which suffered from a similar problem. A typed letter will have less of a soft transition from solid black to transparent but you can easily see some numbers/characters were just solid black which again is a manual edit by a very lazy and unprofessional operator. These edits, to an untrained eye simply look like they were typed on a different machine. They were manually edited 100% certainty.
Better have her post under a pseudonym or the libs and the afterbirthers will be attacking her 24/7.
They already do
Now how does anyone proceed further with this? The Congress, and the Courts simply are scared to touch it because of the scandal that will ensue.
Still, it’s a good idea.
So you're saying the lawyers returning to Washington DC from Hawaii with the envelope containing two certified copies of the birth certificate and a cover letter from Loretta J. Fuddy, Hawaii's Secretary of Health, wherein she states: "Enclosed please find two certified copies of your original Certificate of Live Birth," is a lie and she also included a diskette with an electronic copy containing layers?
And when she said, "I have witnessed the copying of the certificate and attest to the authenticity of these copies," she really meant the document she witnessed being copied was first compiled from electronic copy and then put on a copy machine so she could witness the process? Wouldn't her language have been different if the process you describe had been used?
I'm not in any way trying to be antagonistic and have no doubt early efforts at non-paper archiving were quite different than they are today. However, the facts in evidence do not convince me of your theory.
[shrug] Whatever. I just know from having been involved in document processing at the time that it was common for warehouses of important paper documents to be digitized, processed, and destroyed - leaving only a mangled image file as I described. Any printed copies would be rendered from that data (perhaps run thru a few layers of modernization software, producing “haloing” and related artifacts) and printed on new green-hash “security” paper, or .PDF files generated with a similar background.
Believe me or not. I’m trying to help; ignore the past at your peril.
31 was for you
I’m waiting on an email to authorize my register info before I can post but in the mean time... you need to tell ctdonath2 that all of his posts are irrelevant to the topic... all the misdirection information he posted would not apply to a microfiche storage of birth certificate information... so I’m having a WTF moment on why he’s even going down the road he travels. He clearly has no understanding of the pertinent points to the discussion and should start by reading my article and report... and to also check out the link to my first report (released for the Cold Case Posse)... that report explains why OCR is not a factor...
Here she comes!!!!
If you want to help, turn off your computer, call your Congressmen and Representatives and demand that they investigate the HI DOH and the illegitmate Kenyan Coward posing as our president.
The fact were still talking about the layers and optimization and other abnormalities over year after the release by the whitehouse shows IT’S AS PHONEY AS A THREE DOLLAR BILL. I have produced a copy of my original long form birth certificate several times and never was it questioned once. If the FOREIGNER had a real one it would not be questioned either. What is equally pathetic as this charade of deceit by the socialist democrats on the american people, is the LEFTIST’S in the MSM TURNING A BLIND EYE ON THIS FRAUD. They truely are anti american and have no credibility left.
No lie involved. I’m saying the HI SoH personally watched a printer print two copies the official image data onto generic “security paper”, stamped them as certified authentic, handed the lawyers the two copies plus a floppy (or whatever) with the PDF file. No, her language would not be different because - legal terminology often having different nuances than general conversation - her language is consistent with legally equivalent processes across different technologies. “Witnessing copying” could apply to paper-to-paper photocopying or to digital-to-paper printing; same idea as far as the lawyers are concerned so long as the source is legally declared “original”, which was a big issue with the obnoxious process I described.
Yeah, I know I’m not going to convince many here. It’s hard to grasp if you weren’t there and haven’t seen the technology - and laws involving it - evolve.
""Birthers" are making a serious mistake in applying modern technical sensibilities to what amounts to ancient technology. They don't know how document processing worked in the past, thus they dont understand what theyre looking at and can only explain it as "conspiratorial". Should this ever reach court, they risk a very embarrassing & effective legal smackdown as a result. (Of course, whenever I try to explain these facts about technology past, I get lambasted as an Obama sympathizer. Emotional abuse doesnt change the facts to fit their beliefs.)"If the information would be embarrassing in a court then why did a FEDERAL JUDGE read Mara's report and say the following: Alabama Supreme Court Justice Notes Evidence Presented Raises Serious Questions to Authenticity of Both Obama's Birth Certificates http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/03/alabama-supreme-court-serious-questions.html This is a Federal Judge... he couldn't rule on the case because it hadn't gone through the proper process of a lower court first... but read his ruling which references Mara's report as an attachment and he states the following:
"Mclnnish has attached certain documentation to his mandamus petition, which, if presented to the appropriate forum as part of a proper evidentiary presentation, would raise serious questions about the authenticity of both the "short form" and the "long form" birth certificates of President Barack Hussein Obama that have been made public."
I contend they don't have a microfiche of the BC, nor true original paper form. At the time I describe, it was fashionable to "automate the documents" and destroy all physical copies; to solve some of the legal problems, it was legally necessary to destroy the originals (laws being the twisted derangements they often are).
I read the report. Methinks the references to "random" breakdowns and inconsistencies in the image data fit perfectly with data processing models of the time.
A lot of people have a lot invested in proving this a forgery. Maybe it is. So far I haven't seen anything, consistent with my own experiences in the field & history thereof, which points to fraud instead of mundane low/old-tech software.
Where is the evidence that the HI SoH (and what the hell is an SoH???) hand a floppy containing a PDF to anyone??
I agree serious questions are raised by the report.
The judge is right to acknowledge those questions as valid and serious.
I’m providing serious answers, or at least pointing the way thereto.
Gonna be REAL embarrassing for birthers if the defense produces the explanation I described.
That’s why I’m posting it: to give you guys a heads-up.
SoH = Secretary of Health
If the legal original is a late-1980s data file (processed from a now-destroyed paper or fiche form), giving the Obama’s lawyers a digital copy would have been a no-brainer, and would most likely be a duly mangled-looking mess of a PDF. Floppy, thumbdrive, CD, email, whatever. There’s no evidence there _wasn’t_ such a transfer.
OK, so I do that. Just one of many calls. You guys won’t take me seriously on the complexity & history of the technology involved, so why would my reps?
It is always good to have people question and take the other side.
I keep an open mind on this topic and when I first met Mara and we talked about the BC, I was not totally convinced.
I was not saying that the “birthers” were wrong, but that I just was not convinced.
The main thing that got me was the birth announcement in the 2 local newspapers but now I have read why it was in there and it is a very good explanation.
I don’t see the BC as a single issue/problem but as just one of the many documents that have so many questions about them.
And it is not just the documents.... it is also his younger years and who he associated with.
As far as I am concerned, you can keep asking the questions but do keep an open mind.
There’s no Secretary of Health. Hawaii has a director of health. It’s no wonder you don’t know anything else about what’s actually going on.
"This was NOT the case in this forgery. There were partial segments of the signature which looked normal but the majority of the signature was solid black which is an obvious manual edit by a very lazy person. They simply picked black as the color then tried to make the signature look like what they wanted. The line was solid black with no gradual graying of the pixels. Just in this case it is 100% fake."I understand the point Wurlitzer is making and overall... he's correct... but it's technically incorrect to refer to any of the colors in Obama's PDF file as "black"... there is black in the first 8 layers due to the fact that they are 1-bit ImageMask true layers... read the article and the report for further explanation on that point... but for the observer... the color is deceptive and no visible black exists (most text is a dark greenish color - not pure grayscale black). This is important and significant evidence to tampering on a higher level. Again... the current report explains all of this.
“Now how does anyone proceed further with this? The Congress, and the Courts simply are scared to touch it because of the scandal that will ensue.”
Why should anyone believe anything in that article? They offer no proof.