I am always fascinated by new conspiracies. Even when shown the truth, some people hold tightly to their beliefs that
something must be wrong. This is the same mentality that forms "guilt before proving innocent".
While some conspiracies are short lived, others seem to take a life of their own. One such conspiracy that just will not die concerns presidential hopeful Barack Obama's birth certificate. The conspiracy is best summed up at Kos' blog,
DailyKos:
Those rumors include the claim that Obama was born in Kenya, that his middle name isn't "Hussein", but "Muhammad", and that his real name is "Barry" and not "Barack". The first and third are attempts to reinforce the claims that Obama isn't "American" enough -- the first because he wouldn't have been born in this country, and the third because he would've taken a perfectly good "American" name and rejected it in favor of a foreign one.
DailyKos and
FactCheck.org even went so far as to acquire a copy of the
birth certificate. However, the conspiracy theorists then claimed that the image was fake.
I am currently getting 1-2 requests per week about analyzing this image. Sometimes people want me to prove it is fake, other want me to prove it is real. However, many people have already investigated and analyzed the picture...
My colleague, Chris 'Xenon' Hanson, did an excellent job
debunking the manipulation theory. My own analysis supports Xenon's findings. However, Xenon analyzed a smaller version of the birth certificate, while I analyzed the
large one found at DailyKos. The net result?
- Luminance Gradient. Digital cameras and scanners add noise into the image. The main things to look for are noise and straight edges. In this case, there is a realistic noise pattern across the entire image. Although the letters look straight, they all have distinct anti-aliasing patterns, making every letter unique. If this were computer generated, then I would not expect the noise pattern, and many letters should look identical.
- Principal Component Analysis (PCA). There are three principal components. PC1 identifies jpeg artifacts from resaves. (Technically, I compute distance from a line normal to PC1 that passes through the center of mass, but nobody like math-talk.) If the image is manipulated or spliced, then different areas will have different artifact qualities. However, this picture seems consistent. The remaining two PC's (PC2 and PC3) can identify if colors come from alternate color spaces (common when splicing images). In this case, nothing stands out beyond the center of the black text letters (a good, high-quality scanner can turn black into real black when it detects it). PC3 also brings out the folds in the paper (look at the top, near the seal, for the horizontal line). This sure looks like a scanned piece of paper.
- Color Density. This algorithm clusters colors by similarity. Computer graphics will usually appear as uniform coloring. However, real life images will have blotches of different colors. The background shows good blotches; it looks real.
Unfortunately, there is not much I can say to the people who believe this image has been manipulated, except "you're wrong." There is no indication of image manipulation.
In contrast, there are a few things that do stand out from all of this:
- At Xenon's blog, he not only analyzed the real certificate, but also some forgeries. The forgeries really stand out as being fake when doing PCA. The edited text is clearly the wrong color.
- With the exception of the black censor line, nothing appears abnormal. EXCEPT: The image on Obama's site has no visible noise when doing a luminance gradient analysis. Real pictures should have noise. However, this picture is also much smaller. When images are shrunk, noise is averaged out. DailyKos has a different image (bigger) of the same thing. This bigger picture contains the expected noise as well as realistic scanner artifacts. The black censor stripe appears to be in the same location. Thus, this bigger version appears to be the original to the smaller version found on Obama's site.
- Amazingly, Kos does not say where he got this higher quality scan. (Usually he does such a good job of citing his sources.) And I cannot find the big picture at "barackobama.com". This begs the question: where did the big picture come from? Did "barackobama.com" take the big version from Kos (or from that same source where Kos got it) and then shrink it down for their own site? Or maybe I'm just not looking in the right location.
Of course, there are ways to fool image analysis. For example, if someone created the birth certificate, printed it, folded it, put on a stamp on the back, then scanned it in, then it would appear real, and yet not be authentic. This leads to the
other item: only US citizens born in the United States or in a US territory or born to US citizens can become President. If there was anything funny in Obama's background, you can be certain that both the Democrats and Republicans would have stopped him long ago. (And if any conspiracy nut thinks that every Republican and every Democrat is secretly working together to make Obama president, then you are seriously delusional.)
PS. Thanks to Steve Eddy for convincing me to make my own evaluation public.
I did that by altering the resolution of the smaller 'Smears' image from 72ppi to 300ppi and then copy/pasting it onto Kos's image at a slightly smaller size, so that the same alpha-letters lined up.
It sounds like Kos and Factcheck.org both received an identical 11 x 8.5" 1.7MB jpeg from the Obama campaign people, but Kos re-compressed his version after removing the excess image outside the borders. This took the cropped image from potentially 1MB after cropping, to 0.5MB.
If any of the Photoshoppers still claim that the Obama certificate is a forgery, then all they need to do to show us how it can be done without tampering being obvious. So far none of them have accepted this challenge.
Second, there's a typo under the date filed. There's no space between the comma and the year. Contrast that to the space with the date of birth. The large amount of space between all the first, middle and last names suggests that the state of HI prints certificates from a database with a template and field codes. (If you've printed address labels through a database merge, you'll know what I'm talking about.) There's no reason the spacing on the dates would be inconsistent ... and they aren't on three other known HI birth certificates. This suggests that the date was manually entered on the document, such as through the photoshop text tool. Otherwise, some poor soul at the Department of Health at Hawaii has to enter birth certificate information by hand for each request?? Doesn't seem very likely.
Third, someone had described the method for opendna to make his blank certificate that caused degradation of the raised state seal. They explained that he could have modified it with a graphics program, printed it and then rescanned it. This technique would also explain why Obama's seal can't be seen clearly (without graphic manipulation) on the factcheck, KOS or Fight the Smears images. It would also explain why several of the things that Dr. Krawetz looked for did not show up. Maybe a blank or 'erased' certificate was scanned and all the text was added back in ... and then printed and scanned again ... this time with the number blacked out.
The other thing that points to some sort of tampering is the black box over the certificate number. The edges are blurry. If you simply place a black box on an image in photoshop and save it, the edges should be sharp. This blurring could be an indication that a filter was applied to the image, perhaps to make it look less than 'perfect.' It could also be the result of compressing the image when it was saved or resizing the image. The factcheck image has the largest dimensions and file size of those other certificates that are posted, so one expects not to see compression or resizing on that image. For the images posted on Web sites that had to be resized, yes, but for the original image, it shouldn't be necessary.
I don't necessarily think the Obama certificate is an outright forgery, but there are enough anomalies to suspect tampering. This could easily be cleared up if Obama releases unaltered scans of the frong and back of his certificate.
Clearly, you have not analyzed at many JPEG images. First, I suggest downloading exiftool and using it to view the metadata. Now, to address your comments:
1. You stated, "There are several Photoshop tags in there ... much more than would be needed to black out the certificate number." You are incorrect. Photoshop always adds in those tags, even if you only save the image once. Moreover, the use of Photoshop is not even abnormal -- this image appears to be scanned in, and many people use Photoshop to read data from the scanner.
2. You point out a missing space in the registrar's date. This could be attributed to human data entry. As I mentioned, there is no evidence of digital manipulation.
You also said, "Otherwise, some poor soul at the Department of Health at Hawaii has to enter birth certificate information by hand for each request?? Doesn't seem very likely." Clearly, you have never worked for the government. It strikes me as VERY likely -- a human probably handles all requests for duplicate birth certificates.
However, let's assume it is automated. This would mean the program that prints the date is missing a comma. Programs like this are created by the lowest bidder. Moreover, they charge for bug fixes (like "add a comma"). Assuming a program and assuming anyone in the Hawaii government noticed, they probably didn't want to pay to have the comma-space fixed.
Arguing why the space is not there does not change the fact that there is no evidence of digital manipulation.
3. With regards to OpenDNA (see http://s100.photobucket.com/albums/m35/opendna/?action=view¤t=HI_birthcert.jpg). I love it! Use error level analysis on the image -- it has clearly been doctored! Xenon has his own analysis of it where he shows all of the evidence of manipulation. (http://xenon.arcticus.com/barack-obama-birth-certificate-image-tampering-analysis-redux)
4. You also wrote about the censor box in the top corner. You wrote, "The edges are blurry. If you simply place a black box on an image in photoshop and save it, the edges should be sharp." The large image from factcheck.org was saved at a relatively low quality (88% -- Photoshop "8 High" quality, see my jpegquality tool). What you are seeing are JPEG artifacts and not evidence of manipulation.
You also wrote "So one expects not to see compression or resizing on that image." I see no evidence of resizing on factcheck.org's image. And as far as seeing compression goes, JPEG is a lossy image file format. Any time an image is saved as a JPEG, there is a little image corruption introduced. With JPEGs, corruption will show up strongest along high-contrast colors that are not on an 8x8 grid boundary. This accurately describes the black censor line. Although the top is along an 8x8 boundary (and the top is crisp), the sides and bottom of the box are not on the 8x8 boundary, so they appear blurry.
While you may see anomalies and suspect tampering, I see none. I see no evidence of image manipulation, no abnormalities to raise suspicion, and no motive. Remember: Obama is already a Senator and has been vetted for security clearance. Otherwise he could not be on committees like the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs -- both committees have access to classified information. If he did misrepresent his birth certificate, then it would be immediately contradicted by his background check and would be used against him by his opposition.
Obama is a Senator. As such, he certainly has skeletons in his closet and stuff he is likely trying to hide. (There are no purely innocent Senators.) However, I believe that Obama's birth certificate is not one of these dirty secrets. (And the same argument goes for McCain. At least we know Hillary's dirt -- it's her husband.)
2) I already mentioned there could be human error, but it shouldn't happen if the process is automated by processing the data with merge codes. I'm aware of three other examples where the certificates were printed without this error. This leaves a strong suspicion of tampering - that the date was changed but not proofread to catch the typo. If it can be shown that the state of HI has this problem with other certificates, then we have a reasonable explanation for the mistake. Until then, it's definitely cause for suspicion.
3) Sorry, but I'm not seeing where xenon is utilizing the same tests you applied, i.e., lumninance, color density, etc. The evidence of forgery Xenon found can be seen pretty easily with the naked eye, so sorry, I'm not impressed by the smoke and mirrors he used. I mentioned the opendna image because the seal is less visible than it is on Obama's, which is barely visible to begin with. This goes in stark contrast to the three other known certficates that I mentioned in the previous point. If opendna copies the KOS image, printed it and rescanned it, it explains why his seal is less visible then Obama's. This same technique could explain Obama's seal is much less visible than the other three documents I mentioned. Each time it's scanned, printed and/or resized, it fades further and further away.
4) This explanation fails by simple testing. I created a new document, added a black rectangle and saved the image at jpg level 8. When reopened, the box is clean with no artifacts. I also did a second test by creating a black box in the factcheck image and saved it at 8. Again, when reopened, no blurring of ANY edges.
5) Obama's security clearance would not vet him as being a natural born citizen, which is constitutionally required for being president. He is a citizen, which is not in question, but not necessarily a natural born citizen. We can't assume anything about his status as a natural born citizen based on his position as senator.
Also, this particular certificate is obviously NOT the certificate he would have used to get any kind of a clearance (if a birth certificate was even requested), since it is barely more than a year old.
As far the information being found before, no one has had direct access to Obama's birth certficate. The state of Hawaii doesn't allow it. The St. Petersburg Times requested it since April, but it wasn't until June (after Hillary conceded) that Obama finally released the certificate.
One last thing - Obama has no reason to black out the certificate number. It is the least sensitive information on the document and the one piece of information that could actually confirm its legitimacy. Covering up that number makes it look like Obama has something to hide. John McCain presented his birth certificate without blacking out the certificate number, so we can certainly expect the same from Obama.
Bottom line, the evidence of Photoshop and the the typo hints at tampering. Your analysis does nothing to change that.
I agree with you that the likelihood is small that a State of Hawaii employee who must fill these things out each time someone requests a COLB copy. But at some point, someone had to keywhack this information into the state's system.
What's more, I think it's safe to assume the state began using computerized databases for this purpose sometime after 1961. Assuming this is correct, and I think that's likely, there were probably tens of thousands of birth records in Hawaii --- if not more --- that needed to be entered.
Plus, depending on when the data was entered, the user interface may not have had form validation, a calendar control, or field masking... all of which would help improve data integrity.
All of this, of course, introduces a significant potential for human error, which includes a missing space between the comma and the year.
Or do we assume the day field has a comma and a space, so it would 'mmmmmddddyyyy'?? This method seems pretty unlikely, especially given the wide amount of space between first, middle and last names, which all seem to be uniform. These are probably standardized fields, so it seems unlikely that it would require an operator to make any changes in field masking or validation on a certifate-by-certificate basis.
Hopefully you see why it doesn't make sense that someone keywhacked an entry in a data field that somehow caused a space to disappear. If anything was keywhacked, it was either by the poor soul who is stuck in a 1961-styled work flow and is manually typing certificates on request or it was manually entered by someone who tampered with the document, but neglected to proofread and correct a fatal mistake. I already mentioned that I've seen three certificates that have no similar spacing error. Without seeing another certificate that does, then Obama's remains under suspicion.
I don't know that this is the case, but it's a valid condition you fail to consider.
Now, I understand that database architecture best practices tell us that doing what I describe is less than ideal. It's shoddy, in fact. But I've also been in database software development long enough to know that the end product is only as good as the spec (if not the money, time, people, or equipment --- or all of the above --- required to build it).
Be suspicious all you want. I'm just saying the absence of the space --- with all things considered --- is a weak basis for it.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/panelreport_acc.pdf
13. DATE FILED BY REGISTRAR
___/___/____ MM DD YYYY
The Subgroup recommended that this item be retained, but modified to use the MM/DD/YYYY format rather than Month, Day, Year. This information documents whether the certificate was filed within the time period specified by law. In addition, the information is used administratively by the Passport Agency and the Social Security Administration and it is used for issuing certified copies. This item is collected for legal purposes.
Now, do you honestly believe the typo in the date on Obama's certificate was a result of human error at the state of Hawaii??
"Now, do you honestly believe the typo in the date on Obama's certificate was a result of human error at the state of Hawaii??"
--------
One would need to have something wrong with them NOT to believe it, when we consider the following:
(1) A senator and 2 spokesmen have stated that the COLB is genuine.
(2) The Hawaii Health Dept said the Obama JPEG is exactly the same as their version.
(3) All of Sen. Obama's past records match what is on the certificate.
(4) Sen. Obama goes to jail if he has has misrepresented his birth date and place - either now or on all previous documents.
(5) Sen. Obama would be forever labelled a liar and forger.
(6) Dr. Neal Krawetz's reputation would be tarnished
(7) Logic would need to be re-invented
(8) Common sense would need a serious overhaul
(9) The FBI and CIA would be disbanded
(10) Trolls would rule the world.
We cannot afford NOT to believe that a
typist hit the space-bar once too often or too few times.
2) The HI DOH backed off on their statement TWICE:
Janice Okubo, DOH PR rep, to St. Petersburg Times reporter Amy Hollyfield:
“I don’t know that it’s possible for us to even say beyond a doubt what the image on the site represents.”
Alvin T. Onaka, Ph.D., HI State Registrar, in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin:
Onaka said he has had many calls asking him to confirm Obama's birth certificate, but he cannot disclose such information: "Only Obama can consent to that."
3) What past records?? I'm not aware of any actual records being made public.
4) Sen. Obama has plausible deniability. There's no evidence that he personally posted this certificate or that he's spoken about the certificate and its contents.
5) Deservedly so, if it turns out that certificate is inaccurate.
6) Why?? He gave a series of evaluations that dealt with issues other than what I mentioned. His tests serve limited purposes. His reputation isn't on the line.
7) Nonsense. Now you're just being melodramatic.
8, 9, & 10: See answer to No. 7.
Maybe the state of Hawaii is extremely sloppy in their work. So far we have to believe that:
1) THEY made a typo on the date.
2) THEY didn't impress the seal firmly enough to be seen when scanned.
3) THEY mysteriously had the registrar place his signature block and signature underneath the security border where it doesn't bleed through
4) THEY have no formal procedure for authenticating questionable certificates.
"3) What past records?? I'm not aware of any actual records being made public."
Marriage certificate and Drivers license were on this site but I've just checked and found they have been removed within the last week or so:
http://www.tampabay.com/news/article648060.ece
ksdb wrote:
"3) What past records?? I'm not aware of any actual records being made public."
Here is his Marriage certificate and some of his drivers license details
http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/
Of course, it raises suspicion when, even though it is essential that the paper document display the seal and signature, the Obama camp chose to go with a scan in which it is invisible. It can definitely be scanned so as to be visible.
One last question: did the COLB which was blank except for "Hour of Birth" and "Island of Birth" entries show any signs of tampering?
I'm not seeing any sort of mismatch. The patterns of the background appear consistent in the border areas.
se
"I'm curious as to why the preprinted border on the certificate of live birth does not line up with the background crosshatch pattern. One can see a full line at the far left top corner which sinks as you move right until it is submerges completely beneath the border at the far left. Have you found this kind of misalignment present in other Hawaiian certificates of live birth that you've compared this one to?"
As a person with 25 years experience with process cameras and the preparation of artwork like that, I can say that it is quite normal to see that sort of out-of-squareness of borders before the introduction of PC's to generate artwork. A quarter of a millimetre error is often considered near enough for non-critical work - that's about 3pixels at 300ppi. The Obama certificate is out by 7 pixels in one corner.
The big cameras that are used to make the same negatives from the same-size artwork have very expensive lenses in them, but they are never perfect even though they are highly corrected for astigmatism (which ordinary lenses are not). Besides that, the physical construction of process cameras, while usually very good, is still not without error, so if the construction of the big process camera - perhaps 12 feet long, is out-of-whack in it's alignment between the copyboard (artwork board) and the film plane by the thickness of a hair (about .011mm) then so is the resulting negative by that same amount -- and when such an image is later scanned after printing, the error can look HUGE when looking at it at 1600% in Photoshop. If small vertical process cameras are used, then the errors in squareness are always there.
As a mattr of interest, the typical lens in a process camera only has a "depth of field" of about 1mm i.e. -- it can only SEE things in focus for about 1 millimetre -- unlike your snapshot camera that can see in focus for several inches at close range, so the slightest mis-alignment there can also cause out-of-squareness.
Even today with the relatively new photographic imagesetters which read the image straight from a PC at 2540 dpi (or higher) there can still be minimal error if the design of the film carrier allows the film NOT to stay dead-flat against the flat (usually vertical) backing plate.
This Hawaii Obama COLB under discussion looks like it was produced by amateurs with low grade equipment. Personally I wouldn't have dared to deliver such a shoddy job to any customer - let alone a state government department for birth records. I would guess that the border image was not produced within the last 5 years at least - even though it may have appeared in 2007.
Ray
First of all, PCA is a statistical analysis technique to identify common sources of variance among a set of continuous variables. It is similar to Factor analysis and Canonical correlation in that it calculates linear combinations of variables, called vectors, using least squares analysis, or some other optimizing function, to project a vector through multidimensional variable space that minimizes the total sum of squared deviations from the vector.
I don't see how this is relevant to analyzing JPG data. It cannot identify whether the current JPG data was translated from a different a different image format.
Next, the "realistic noise pattern across the entire image," is pure speculation. It assumes that all of the image data has remained constant, but there is no way to determine what was the origin. There is nothing realistic about it, given the alleged conditions under which AJStrata claims are the cause for the matrix of pixel diffusion.
Finding "Good blotches" is the most irrelevant because, again, you cannot say, with any certainty, from where the Kos image originated.
You cannot even tell if it is a copy of a scan, or a copy of a copy of a scan.
The scanner software, or rather the TWAIN-compliant source layer it employs, transfers the scanned image data directly or indirectly via buffers, computer memory, or virtual memory. Photoshop makes a temporary working file from this data in its own, native format. Actually, everything you do in Photoshop is recorded.
When the user wants to save the image in a common graphics file format like JPG, Photoshop will translate its native image data into JPG data, including "headers," or information about the image file.
We know that the Kos image was modified by Photoshop. Not a great discovery since we know that the black bar was added to obscure the certificate number, and "black bars" are not original features of the COLB.
What we don't know is the exact path taken by the original scanner data. None of your analyses can show that.
you cannot say, for sure, what was done to the original scan data, besides adding the black bar, cropping the image, resizing the image, and saving it as the Kos JPG image.
The actual size of the Kos image is 2427 x 2369 pixels, and indicates that it was cropped from an image that was actually 2546 x 2388 pixels.
Since the Kos image is NOT the originally scanned image, we can truthfully say that we have NEVER seen the actual copy of his COLB.
If a person wanted to post the originally scanned image, except for the Certificate Number, it would have been child's play to place a small rectangle of paper over the number, and hold it in place with a smidgen of removable Scotch tape.
In this way, a true copy of the original paper document could have been made, but it wasn't.
Here's the deal-breaker I found:
There is one. and only one, way to produce the pattern of pixels found around the field data. Whoever wishes to try, can take all the time they want, but they are not going be able to recreate the Kos image by JPG file manipulation.
Not now. Not ever.
AJStrata claims that the Kos image is a direct copy of the COLB paper document, and that the pixel pattern is due to anti-aliasing of laser printed text.
I have done the research to prove that there's no way on Earth that simply scanning laser-printed text into a JPG will reproduce the pixel patterns on the Kos image.
No way, Jose.
I guess that y'all will have to read my last post to find out why the Kos image is absolutely the farthest thing from being a true and accurate scan of ANYBODY's COLB, let alone Obama's.
It's a graphic that has been altered -- no question, without a doubt -- and there is no way to prove that it is without some underhanded alterations.
The data tilts the scale in favor of a forgery, and away from being a true, unadulterated, original copy of a paper document containing accurate data from his birth record.
All that this unnecessary analyses doe is to obfuscate the fact that the text on the image was altered in between the time a COLB was placed on a scanner glass, and the time the Kos image was created
My challenge to you folks is to try and recreate the Kos image according to AJstrata's protocol.
Good luck trying.
You are correct that PCA is a mathematical tool based on statistical deviations. You are incorrect that it only applies to continuous variables and you are incorrect when you say that it does not apply to image analysis.
PCA is heavily used for image analysis in areas such as robotic vision and tamper detection, as well as other fields such as lossy data compression. Data compression is the most obvious use: you can remove the lowest PC without significantly impacting the data. (In 3 dimensions, this means dropping PC3.) For image analysis, each datapoint can represent one pixel color, or a specific image attribute. For robotic vision, they want to remove noise (the lowest PCs) and just keep the significant data. For image analysis, we want to drop the data and keep the noise. As image analysis with RGB goes, PC3 may show JPEG artifacts, but the distance from a line normal to the PC1 plane that goes through the center of mass always shows artifacts the best. This line represents the minimum variance across the maximum amount of information.
I could go on about PCA, but instead I'll just refer you to some good source:
http://www.hackerfactor.com/papers/bh-usa-07-krawetz-wp.pdf
http://www.snl.salk.edu/~shlens/pub/notes/pca.pdf
Second, you are mistaken about the "realistic noise pattern". Image capture devices, such as scanners and cameras introduce noise into the captured image. For cameras, this happens because the CCDs are not perfect; the CCD captures stray electron and record random voltage spikes. If you go into a black room and take a picture, the picture is neither black nor solid in color. Instead, there are variations of black. As a result, real pictures have noise. In contrast, computer graphic images (CG), scaled images, and modified images usually do not have the same noise pattern. Even added noise, such as uniformly distributed or gaussian random noise, appears different from natural noise. The variance is quantifiable; it is not "speculation."
With regards to color density, the goal is to identify whether the color space appears to be divided into many small clusters or large clusters. While algorithms like k-means can do the clustering, you need to specify the number of clusters a priori. In contrast, the density algorithm integrates over the entire color space (it's a slow algorithm), forming the best fit number of clusters. Because CCDs and scanners are imprecise, they create many small clusters -- creating "blotches". In contrast, CG and manipulated images usually form a few large clusters. As with the noise analysis, density is quantifiable and not speculative.
You are incorrect that I "cannot say, for sure, what was done to the original scan data, besides adding the black bar, cropping the image, resizing the image, and saving it as the Kos JPG image." However, I cannot say what was not done. Or in less confusing terms, if the tests identify CG or manipulation, then they are conclusive. However, not detecting modifications does not mean that there was no modification. The hypothesis is "is the image real?" You can always prove the hypothesis is wrong, but you can never prove that it is true.
Does being unable to prove it is real mean it is not real? No. Between the error level analysis, quantization table fingerprinting, PCA, LG, and other tests, I can develop a confidence interval. My confidence is around 98% that this image has not been digitally modified. It is beyond a reasonable doubt.
Finally, you are correct that someone could place a "small rectangle of paper over the number" and scan it in. I even give this scenario at the end of my blog entry. This appears as real -- because it is real. However, it says nothing about the authenticity.
There is a difference between "precise" and "accurate". Saying PI is "3.992451221" is precise, but not accurate. Saying PI is "3.14" is accurate, but not very precise. In image analysis, there is a difference between between "real" and "authentic". The picture is "real" -- it has not been digitally modified. However, I have no means to validate the authenticity. Similarly, 2 of the 3 photos of the recent Iranian missile launch are "real" (the 3rd was manipulated by adding in another missile). Even though 2 are real, they are not "authentic". Automated image analysis of the individual pictures could not identify that the pictures were 2 years old and not recent. The two pictures could only be identified as "real" without comment as to "authenticity".
Back to Obama COLB: the image passed every test I could throw at it. It is "real". And the lack of motive permits me to believe it is "authentic".
http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn227/Polarik/DEC-BIRT.jpg
The only DeCosta COLB I have seen out there is identical to the 900 x 921 COLB in the Patricia DeCosta entry on the Valleehill Genealogy website, which is likely where it was taken from.
And the "BIRT" portion of "DATE OF BIRTH" from that image looks absolutely nothing like what you are claiming is from the DeCosta COLB on your blog.
In fact, it looks to me like what you're claiming is "BIRT" from the DeCosta COLB is nothing more than "BIRT" which was added in a blank portion of the Obama COLB and saved out at a higher quality level of JPEG.
se
"My challenge to you folks is to try and recreate the Kos image according to AJstrata's protocol."
Hang on, hang on, that's MY challenge to you and the others who claimed that the KOS version of Obama's COLB was forged. You cannot go round knocking-off other people's challenges.
Now you had your own theory about how the phantom-forger did his/her dirty work, but your theory was up the creek - which is why I challenged you to attempt what you SAID was done, i.e. Take an existing COLB image and change the details without leaving tell-tale signs of it.
It's no good for us to go around saying "Polarik's got this idea in his head about how the imagined forgery was done but:
(a) He hasn't got time to demonstrate it.
(b) He can't find the right font.
(c) He can't get the kerning of the alpha-characters right.
(d) He can't make the artifacts blend smoothly.
(e) He can't reproduce the background noise in his pasted up rectangles.
(f) He can't find a suitable certificate to use as a master.
Look I reckon claims like yours on the internet ought to be subject to an unofficial "statute of limitations" which says that if we can't put up evidence within 7 days we need to drop the claim - OR have it dropped for us.
First off, I would like to thank you and the other experts for taking your time and resources to conduct this investigation. It is always good to have several opinions on matters such as these.
You state, "And the lack of motive permits me to believe it is "authentic"." Lets be honest, you can't think of any potential motive(s), like an ambitious politician that would like to be POTUS? You really must get out of the lab more, this is real life politics and everybody has motives!
There are indications that there is something politically embarrassing that Barack has not disclosed about his past, at this point in time. What that is is unknown and therefore leaving a lot to speculation.
Keep up the good work and I hope this can be resolved one way or the other, in the near future.
Thank you for the positive feedback.
The reason I believe that there is a lack of motive is pretty simple: if he hasn't been vetted yet, then he definitely will be if he wins. There is no way a doctored birth certificate from a US-state will go unchecked and pass the vetting system. Regardless of how much ambition he has, he's not stupid -- he knows that a forgery like this would never pass muster.
While there are many things he may be hiding, many buried bodies, and many skeletons in his closet, a fake COLB would never pass the vetting system. (If you've ever gone for any kind of government clearance, you know the detail that they require and the depth of the anal probing.)
Thus: the image analysis tests found no evidence of a manipulated file, and I can find no realistic motivation for releasing an unauthentic COLB.
And you're right about needing to get out of the lab more. If it wasn't 97-degrees today, I would have gone for a bike ride.
I am sure you are familiar with the work another blogger, Polarik, who has done his own examination of the KOS birth certificate image. He has recently posted an update:
http://polarik.blogtownhall.com/2008/07/15/obama%e2%80%99s_fake_birth_certificate_why_i%e2%80%99m_right,_and_they%e2%80%99re_wrong!.thtml
It appears that there is a problem with the photos on the link, but I'm sure this will be corrected shortly.
It would be interesting to have your opinion and thoughts on his current examination results and conclusions, that is if you have the time.
Bike rider, so am I. Today is a recovery day for me! Of course it was a comfortable 72 degrees and mostly foggy here today (on the bay in the central coast of Calif.).
Thank you for taking the time to address this important issue.
I know you weren't asking for my opinion, but I'll offer it anyway.
Polarik has absolutely no credibility as far as I'm concerned. He's not only wrong, he's flat out lying.
The best example is his comparison of "BIRT" from "DATE OF BIRTH" between the Obama COLB and the DeCosta COLB.
Here's his image from the Obama COLB:
http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn227/Polarik/BHO-BIRT.jpg
And here's his image from what he claims is the DeCosta COLB:
http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn227/Polarik/DEC-BIRT.jpg
The now famous DeCosta COLB was lifted from the personal website of Virginia Travis, of Richmond, VA (http://www.valeehill.net/). There she has a genealogy section for her family which includes "photos, documents, history, and more."
Patricia DeCosta was her mother. And if you go to the documents section, you'll find the same relatively low resolution (900 x 921), low quality JPEG that has been passed around as the DeCosta COLB. It even has the same file name.
Now here's the interesting part.
Here's a blowup from the DeCosta COLB of "BIRTH" from "DATE OF BIRTH":
http://www.q-audio.com/images/birt.jpg
And here's a blowup of the same area after the image has been resized to a pixel resolution similar to the Obama COLB:
http://www.q-audio.com/images/birt2.jpg
It's pretty clear that what Polarik is passing off as "BIRT" from the DeCosta COLB isn't even in the same universe as anything from the actual DeCosta COLB.
Actually it appears that what he's passing off as being from the DeCosta COLB was created by laying in some text over the Obama COLB and then saving it out as a JPEG with a higher quality level to avoid getting nearly as much of the the er, "non-green" stuff between the letters that he uses as his "smoking gun."
If the guy's not intentionally being deceitful, he's just utterly clueless. Again, he has absolutely no credibility as far as I'm concerned.
se
http://www.valeehill.net/genealogy/documents/doc_decosta_pat_birth.jpg
se
What he was claiming was the DeCosta COLB was apparently a new scan of someone else's COLB.
And he's added the blow-up of the DeCosta COLB.
However he argues that even the blow-up of the actual DeCosta COLB still proves his case. That there's still "lots of green" between the letters.
While there's still "lots of green" between the letters, it doesn't prove his case because it's an apples to oranges comparison.
There's really no way that I can think of to do an apples to apples comparison without taking a known good contemporary COLB and scanning it on the same type of scanner at the same resolution and using the same settings (i.e. brightness/contrast, etc.).
And THEN save it out as a JPEG of the same quality level.
Or, you could see if you could convince the Obama campaign to release an un-compressed image of the original scan.
And to that end I've EMailed the Obama campaign both at their main website as well as the Fight the Smears site making just such a request.
It's time for bed now but tomorrow I'll contact DailyKos and Factcheck and see if I can convince them to make the request since they both obviously have direct contact with the Obama campaign.
se
Thank you for your reply.
You are certainly right about obtaining a government clearance.
In terms of:
"Thus: the image analysis tests found no evidence of a manipulated file, and I can find no realistic motivation for releasing an unauthentic COLB."
I am sure you are familiar with the work another blogger, Polarik, who has done his own examination of the KOS birth certificate image. He has recently posted an update:
http://polarik.blogtownhall.com/2008/07/15/obama%e2%80%99s_fake_birth_certificate_why_i%e2%80%99m_right,_and_they%e2%80%99re_wrong!.thtml
It would be interesting to have your opinion and thoughts on his current examination results and conclusions, that is if you have the time.
Bike rider, so am I. Today is a recovery day for me! Of course it was a comfortable 72 degrees and mostly foggy here today (on the bay in the central coast of Calif.). I think I would prefer that over 97 degrees any day!
Thank you for taking the time to address this important issue.
From Texasdarlin Blog:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~ QUOTE ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
texasdarlin // July 16, 2008 at 7:19 pm
Polarik deleted the paragaraph about date spacing after re-examining the new COLB.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~[END QUOTE ~~~~~~~~~~
Now we have a new line of inquiry to follow. Did Polarik inadvertently omit the paragraph about the missing space?
The Texasdarlin blog now has a poster who
is claiming to be an experienced graphic
designer who has found HUGE differences in
the font used for different letter "S".
Let's see what we have:
- Multiple image analysis experts says that there is no sign of digital manipulation.
- Multiple public records report the same name and age. Claims of the name being altered must be dismissed unless you can prove that all of the public documents have been modified.
- Multiple people with Hawaiian COLBs say that their documents look the same.
- No public authorities have called the COLB a forgery.
It seems that a small handful of conspiracy freaks are ignoring an overwhelming number of facts in order to push their own defamation agenda. Unless there is any hard and scientifically provable analysis of a forgery from a reputable expert, I think it is time to stop propagating their forgery-myth. Analyzing and re-analyzing the same images in order to counter bogus arguments that the document is a cover-up is a waste of time.
As I mentioned in one of my previous blogs, the biggest problem with a conspiracy's "true believers" is that no amount of valid and provable evidence will counter their false beliefs. The world is flat, the CIA is behind Bin Laden, and Obama's COLB is fake. None are true, yet the myths are still propagated by a handful of true believers.
http://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/98-True-Believers.html
It wasn't about a missing space. And it got pulled because I pointed out to TexasDarlin and to Polarik just how silly it was and just how out of his depth Polarik is.
Here's what Polarik had posted on his blog, which TexasDarlin reposted on hers:
First, let me add another nail to the coffin. What's wrong with this picture?
[IMAGE OF THE TWO CROPPED DATE FIELDS]
These two date fields were cropped from the original Kos image. If the Kos image was a true copy of an original, then, the entire date fields would be of equal width.
BUT, the date of birth (below) is a full 10 pixels SMALLER than the date below, the date the COLB was filed. The font in both dates are the same. This anomaly does not happen in real life.
Here's what I posted to Polarik on his blog (I also sent essentially the same thing to TexasDarlin):
Are you kidding me? This anomaly doesn't happen in real life? Are you truly so utterly without a clue here?
This -ahem- "anomaly" happens in real life EVERY TIME you oops and don't put a space between the comma and the year.
And that's all that has happened here.
Don't believe me? Just pull up the COLB, type "August 8,1961" using the Ariel font and leaving out the space between the comma and 1961. Overlay it on the same text in the COLB and you'll find that they match up perfectly.
Unbelievable.
By the way, TexasDarlin banned me from posting on her site several days ago. However I still communicate with her because I can still enter a message, but it's set for moderation before posting so it gets to her.
That's why she's had to make so many revisions and updates.
Anyway, all the attention seems to be on the Polarik's TexasDarlin piece. However I've been picking it apart apart in the comments section at his blog.
http://www.townhall.com/youropinion/comments.aspx?g=b62b5d38-3be4-477c-9186-ae57bd762e19
I just posted a three part post (it's limited to 2,000 words per post) detailing why his comparison is without merit.
se
[se]: It wasn't about a missing space. And it got pulled because I pointed out to TexasDarlin and to Polarik just how silly it was and just how out of his depth Polarik is.
[Ray]: Missing space in one or less extra space in the other - depending on the style they normally use for all of their spacing.
---------------
Here's what Polarik had posted on his blog, which TexasDarlin reposted on hers:
First, let me add another nail to the coffin. What's wrong with this picture?
[IMAGE OF THE TWO CROPPED DATE FIELDS]
These two date fields were cropped from the original Kos image. If the Kos image was a true copy of an original, then, the entire date fields would be of equal width.
BUT, the date of birth (below) is a full 10 pixels SMALLER than the date below, the date the COLB was filed. The font in both dates are the same. This anomaly does not happen in real life.
Here's what I posted to Polarik on his blog (I also sent essentially the same thing to TexasDarlin):
Are you kidding me? This anomaly doesn't happen in real life? Are you truly so utterly without a clue here?
This -ahem- "anomaly" happens in real life EVERY TIME you oops and don't put a space between the comma and the year.
And that's all that has happened here.
Don't believe me? Just pull up the COLB, type "August 8,1961" using the Ariel font and leaving out the space between the comma and 1961. Overlay it on the same text in the COLB and you'll find that they match up perfectly.
Unbelievable.
[Ray]: I assume he knew that the isue was a space-bar one and not a copy/paste 'error'.
Incidentally we cannot use the Ariel font all the time for comparisons like that because the spacing varies erratically. I've never done any precision typesetting in Photoshop where exact spacing is required, so I'm not sure if it can do it - probably not. I use a proper typesetting program for text.
[se]: By the way, TexasDarlin banned me from posting on her site several days ago. However I still communicate with her because I can still enter a message, but it's set for moderation before posting so it gets to her.
[Ray]: I had posts deleted from day one, and was banned shortly afterwards; however I still reply to anything interesting as normal. The most recent post was about the best way to to make the seal show up for scanning -(lead pencil graphite powder rubbed on with a finger).
That's why she's had to make so many revisions and updates.
[Ray]: Well we might have to delegate you to obtain a full admission.
Anyway, all the attention seems to be on the Polarik's TexasDarlin piece. However I've been picking it apart apart in the comments section at his blog.
http://www.townhall.com/youropinion/comments.aspx?g=b62b5d38-3be4-477c-9186-ae57bd762e19
[Ray]: I haven't joined up. Couldn't think of a fake address
I just posted a three part post (it's limited to 2,000 words per post) detailing why his comparison is without merit.
[Ray]: I'll pop in and see how it's all going.
And right after I'd written this:
Unless you have no control over the comments that are posted here, I just want you to know that I am not ungrateful for your allowing me to continue posting here. If nothing else it shows you are not afraid of allowing opinions to be expressed which you may contrary to your own. And for that you have my respect. Something I can't say about certain others who are afraid.
Thank you.
se
Some strange people out there.
Ah well. You can get to the comments section indirectly.
http://tinyurl.com/5z2ns6
se
The first entry is in regard to the sizes of the embossed seals between the Obama COLB and the Michele COLB.
http://koyaan.wordpress.com/
Anyone who is interested is welcome, including those who wish to criticize my analyses.
se
Ray
ATTENTION RAY:
Obama Birth Cert Fraudulent!
Please see:
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/07/atlas-exclusive.html
(giggle), Ray, you're such an [censored]
I earnestly ask that you approve publishing my comment, especially for all of [censored]:
[site removed]
Thank you.
[Moderator's comment: Name calling, false information, inappropriate language, and flame bate is not permitted in this forum. Future comments from you will be deleted. - Loris Kim, moderator.]
And then there is the heat maps that are cited. The heat maps were generated by http://www.tinyappz.com/wiki/Error_Level_Analyser. Noah created the heatmap program because I haven't released my error level analyzer code.
Photoshop does some really cool color tweaking when saving as a JPEG. This allows them to save as a JPEG without getting all of the data loss. JPEG data loss comes from two places: quantization tables (major) and data compression (minor). Photoshop seems to manipulate the compression ratio in order to compensate for some of the quantization table distortion. It's very cool. Unfortunately, it also leads to huge artifacts on the second resave. In addition, this manipulation will appear as an overall higher potential error level (more heat) across the image, and very hot levels in high contrast areas.
As I wrote to Noah in November 2007:
http://www.tinyappz.com/wiki/Talk:Error_Level_Analyser
"Consider combining your tool with an edge detection algorithm. Regions of high adjacent contrast (think "Zebra") will appear to have a higher error level than the rest of the image. Edge detection algorithms allow you to identify these areas."
Looking at the heatmaps of the different COLBs, all have the same high temperature around high contrast areas (black text, light greenish-white background). All of the images are consistent -- there is no indication of manipulations. Manipulation should appear as a very different heat level from the rest of the picture (like the censor blocks).
Frankly, there are just too many questions about how the image/evidence has been handled:
- Who scanned in each COLB? How was it scanned? What artifacts were introduced?
- How many times was each COLB scanned in and/or converted and/or resaved? With each transformation, what artifacts were introduced?
- Who is making the claims? Remember: TexasDarlin, Polarik, and TechDude have all made numerous claims that are provably false. As for TexasDarlin, she has directly aligned herself with a racist viewpoint and made it clear that race is the primary reason for her dislike of Obama. All of this seriously undermines the credibility of the people making the forgery claims.
http://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/203-The-Presidential-Race.html
- How precise is their analysis? As I already mentioned, AtlasShrugs seems to confuse "random flaws" with JPEG artifacts. (For someone who claims to do image analysis, this is a beginner's mistake.) Similarly, the "kerning differences" could easily be explained by different scanners, scaling artifacts, and JPEG artifacts.
- Who is validating the claim? So far, no officials have validated the claim. An alleged phone call with an unofficial representative who is unnamed and unverifiable could just as easily be a false claim. In contrast, image analysis experts have identified no signs of image manipulation, and named officials have said that it appears authentic and matches the information that they have.
While there are a few observable differences, there is not enough information to identify why there are differences. For example, is the border on the Obama COLB darker because of the scanning process? Was it scanned multiple times, at what resolution, and with what type of equipment? Considering that the green background appears consistent with other COLB versions and appears to be behind the lettering makes me suspect that the observable differences are transcoding artifacts rather than indications of a forgery.
So far, I have seen nothing to even make me vaguely think that the Obama COLB could be a forgery.
She's also claiming that Polarik is documents expert with 20+ years of computer expertise and Techdude is computer forensics specialist with 30+ years of experience. Is there any evidence they are anything other than internet wannabes??
You asked: "Is there any evidence they are anything other than internet wannabes??"
Take a look at my followup to this blog entry and comment:
http://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/203-The-Presidential-Race.html
http://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/202-The-Birth-of-a-Conspiracy.html#c314
Texas Darlin is nothing more than a conspiracy freak. Moreover, the account may be more than one person. In fact, Texas Darlin has contradicted herself between posting on multiple occasions.
Keep in mind, as someone with an academic background, I am usually hesitant to use definitives in sentences. I rarely says that something "is" or "is not"; I usually say something "is likely" or "probably is not". Without definitive proof, I try not to make definitive statements.
Having said that:
Polarik definitely does NOT have 20 years of experience "in computers, printers, and typewriters". Unless he simply means "I have used a computer with a printer and I have used a typewriter for at least 20 years". He is not an expert in image or document analysis. His analysis approaches are qualitative and not quantitative, he does not cite his references or algorithms, and he uses no terms common to the field. Polarik is a fraud.
TechDude claims to be a "computer forensics specialist with 30+ years of experience". (http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/08/02/new-birth-certificate-report-exclusive/) This is also bogus. First, as a field, computer forensics has not been around for 30 years. In fact, thirty years ago (1978) personal computers consisted of the Commodore, Apple, and Radio Shack/Tandy computers. Modems were a new thing and network cards really did not exist.
http://www.computerhope.com/history/196080.htm
"Computer Forensics" did not surface as a concept until 1986. Remember The Cuckoo's Egg? In 1986, Cliff Stoll was tracking down a $0.75 accounting error and discovered the first case of computers being used for government espionage. Early in the non-fiction book about the "Hanover Hackers", Stoll meets up with Jim Christy (Air Force). Jim Christy later formed the Department of Defense's Cyber Crime Center (DC3) -- this was the first computer forensics lab in the world.
Going back to TechDude... Assuming he worked on this problem back in 1986, then he could have a maximum of 22 years of experience. And I am certain that TechDude did not work on this case.
Moreover, TechDude is pretending to do image analysis. As far as image analysis goes... There are only a handful of researchers in this field, and I think I am the only researcher who is not in academics or government. Since TechDude does not use even introductory methods, uses no terminologies related to the field, and has a child-like writeup to his proofs (and I use the term "proofs" very loosely), I seriously doubt that he has any experience doing any form of computer forensics. TechDude is a fraud.
You asked: "Is there any evidence they are anything other than internet wannabes??"
My response: No. There is no evidence at all. They are not experts, they do not have the experience that they claim to have, they intentionally misinterpret data, and they have not provided even precursory evidence to suggest a forgery in the COLB.
I've been putting together a timeline of events for this particular subject, and I had used the links for your previous posts in it. VERY helpful.
The claims about "Polarik" and "Techdude" just didn't hold water to me. Especially the supposed certification and professional background the people who run "Atlas Strugs" and "TexasDarlin" give for "TechDude". Not only is the amount of time extreme, but has you said, computer forensics didn't start as a field until 1986 - and anyone who started at that point should have the professional confidence to give their actual name and bona fides.
Back in my tech support days, I found people who believed that "owning Photoshop" = "graphic artist". It became evident when seeing the quality of their work and how they described things that they had no graphic arts background at all. I get the same vibe here - that "Polarik" and "Techdude" may have the tools, but don't have the background they claim. Thanks for confirming this for me.
Best regards
He's claiming the following:
"20 years experience in the computer field; performing computer forensic investigations since 1993. Board certified as a forensic computer examiner and for the previous six years also licensed as a private investigator. A certificated legal investigator, served close to 6 years under the direction of a practicing attorney. Testified in numerous trials at the state level…written (winning) briefs and motions that have been presented for state’s Court of Appeals and state’s Supreme Court.
U.S. Department of Justice clearance for access to sensitive but unclassified information and has personally handled the investigation of over 7,000 cases. Previously received training from the Department of the Treasury, the Department of Homeland Security and FEMA as well as countless forensics seminars and specialized training events over the years. Five years ago, opened his own computer forensic science lab and often accepts cases pro bono. Active member of the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, the American College of Forensic Examiners, Computer Forensics Volunteer Project, a Member of Federal Bureau of Investigation’s InfraGard program, International Information Systems Forensics Association, The International Society of Forensic Computer Examiners, and others."
Quite frankly Dr. Krawetz, I've smelled week-old tuna that didn't smell as fishy as this.
Like I f[censored]ing care about being banned here.
But keep up the great hypocrisy is allowing [censored] to spew his [censored] lies and [censored].
Unlike me, of course, who encourages discourse and an exchange of opinons and intellectual debate, by allowing [censored] to comment at my blog such things as:
[omitted]
Anyway, i'll just be a sec, I'm doing a screen capture of this message - together with my "non-message" that you were too [censored] to print.
[omitted]
(Looking at the time) gee Loris, I think its time again for you to [censored].
[censored]
[Moderator's note: Well David, you have certainly demonstrated that you "encourage discourse and an exchange of opinons and intellectual debate" -Loris Kim]
Essentially it says that the printed elements on the DeCosta COLB match exactly to the Kos COLB when it is resized to be the same width of the DeCosta image.
The two overlap perfectly and, obviously, they both have the same aspect ratio (ratio of height to width).
Why is this significant?
Because the aspect of the DeCosta COLB is not what it should be because of the two massive folds in the paper document.
As can be seen in the image, the paper is "scrunched" by them making the height of the COLB to be shorter than it would be had the paper document been able to lie flat against the scanner glass.
Since the Kos image has only ONE THIN FOLD line, when there should be at least two, the paper COLB was flat against the scanner glass and copied to its original height and width, IF TRUE.
But, it cannot be true to have a full length COLB perfectlyh overlap one whose height had been effectively make shorter by the large folds.
The only other COLB to match up against the DeCosta image belongs to Smith, whose paper COLB also has two large folds in it.
Every other COLB that was copied at its full-size, fails to match up with the Kos COLB adding further evidence that the Kos image was based on DeCosta's.
Or, in plain English:
The ONLY way, on God's green Earth, for the Kos COLB to be a mirror image of the DeCosta COLB is by basing one on the other,
aka, FORGERY.
Oh, and "Yes," there was another, more recent COLB used to create a new background onto which the forger typed in altered information
"Indisputable evidence"? Ha!
Your "indisputable evidence" shows that they are not perfect copies. Therefore, they are not from the same template. They are not even close.
Among other things, look at the green pattern on the paper background. In the top right corner (inside the border), the Decosta begins with a =||= pattern. In contrast, the Obama begins with a ||=|| pattern. How can they be perfect copies if the green background is totally different? Since there is no indication of image manipulation, they never changed the background.
You also say that having the same aspect ratio is significant. Yes: it indicates that they were scanned in with the same aspect ratio.
You state that "The ONLY way, on God's green Earth, for the Kos COLB to be a mirror image of the DeCosta COLB is by basing one on the other". Here's another method: what if they are both original and printed by the same office in Hawaii? They would have the same aspect ratio and look similar. The different folds were because... they are different piece of paper. The seal moves because they were stamped at different times. And the green background differs because they were printed on different sheets of paper.
Your theory and indisputable evidence is laughable and does not hold up to even a precursory glance.
http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/obama_birth_certificate/2008/10/24/143882.html
This has been investigated, and you are wrong.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
The document includes whatever information the parents put down. If they listed their race as Martian, then it would say "Martian". In this case, they said "African", so the form says "African".
The same thing happened in Ellis Island when families came over in the early 1900's. When asked what the family's name is, the form simply includes the phonetic spelling of whatever they said. Since many families did not understand the question, many surnames do not match their pre-immigration surname. (Many families seem to have stated their occupation instead of last name. That's why many surnames are actually occupations. My own surname, "Krawetz", means "tailor" (one who sews fabric) in Russian -- probably not the original surname.)
Suffice to say, whatever the parents put down becomes the official record. There is no conspiracy here.
Four of my six children were born in Honolulu, Hawaii in 1971, 1973, 1977 and 1980 and their certificates do not look anything like his. They look like the example on this site. However, my youngest child was born abroad in 1985 and the certificate posted looks more like that.
Right, I do not understand the munbo-jumbp of tags, etc, but I respect the people who are making points . . . however I ask, wouldn't your job be easier if you had a "vault copy"?
Why is it sealed? All Obama has to do is ask the Governer to release a vault copy then it can be analyzed by reporters, both anti- and pro-Obama. What's wrong with that?
ELECTION 2008
Obama's birth certificate sealed by Hawaii governor
Says Democratic senator must make request to obtain original document
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: October 26, 2008
9:54 pm Eastern
By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
Gov. Linda Lingle, R-Hawaii
[Moderator's edit: The pasted article has been removed due to copyright infringement. Please refer to the hyperlink cited in this posting. -lk]
The medical field is not like the government. Doctors cannot release my medical information without my permission. However, if I give permission then they can release it.
In contrast, government records are different: They cannot release the records without a court order or formal investigation. Period. It isn't that the governor does not want to release the COLB -- "want" has nothing to do with it. The governor cannot release the record.
We see similar restriction with government employees abusing their positions to look up tax records on Obama, Palin, and "Joe the Plumber". Government employees are not permitted to look up records without a formal investigation. Period.
Here's another example: as a regular person, I can request a background check and criminal record check for anyone in the United States. In many states, you just need to provide the name of the person to look up and a small service fee. However, an FBI agent cannot legally perform this same check without a formal investigation. Even if they do the request from home, through a public service, and while off duty, they can be arrested for violating Federal laws.
There is no conspiracy here. These rules are in place to prevent governmental abuse of citizens.