|
Secure Computing: Sec-CHacker Factor Commentary on Computing and Security |
Home Blog |
|
|
Secure Computing: Sec-CHacker Factor Commentary on Computing and Security |
Home Blog |
Bad Science: How Not To Do Image Analysis Part IITuesday, November 25. 2008
Understanding image analysis is very important. Otherwise, you cannot tell fact from fiction. Equally important is the need to understand how not to do image analysis. Otherwise charlatans may try to pull a fast one over you.
In my previous blog entry, "Bad Science: How Not To Do Image Analysis", I debunked the work of an anonymous troll who called himself "TechDude". TechDude used a sample biased, false data, and artifacts created by his own tools to conclude that the Obama certificate of live birth (COLB) was fake. TechDude also used false credentials (he impersonated another person) in order to sound authoritative. Following my public critique of his report and outing of the impersonation, TechDude vanished. Even his strongest supporter, "Texas Darlin", pulled all of TechDude's reports from her blog. TechDude was a fraud and used bad science to support a false conspiracy. Today, there is only one person who continues to propagate the "COLB is fake" conspiracy. He calls himself "Ron Polarik" (an anonymous pseudonym -- not his real name), and he also uses bad science to support his claims. His latest report, Polarik's final report: Obama's 'Born' Conspiracy is accompanied by a YouTube video. (Since he keeps restricting access to it and moving it around, I am making a copy available here. He has also moved his blog report, so here's the updated link.) Moot PointBefore I begin evaluating Polarik's claims, I would like to point out that the entire claim -- that Obama was not born in Hawaii -- is false. Representatives from the State of Hawaii have repeatedly authenticated Obama's COLB.
Hawaii confirmed that Obama has a real birth certificate from Hawaii. Regardless of whether the document on the web is real or tampered, the argument is moot; an authentic document exists. Thus, the conspiracy has no basis. Now, given that Hawaii confirms it, why would they release a fake COLB when they could just as easily release a new one? (Occam's Razor: it is easier to just release the real one.) Polarik's ClaimsOn Polarik's blog and video, he makes four key claims about the COLB. Claim #1: The Pixel Problem Polarik claims that a zoom-up of the letters contains off-color pixels that do not belong. For example, zooming in shows gray dots in the middle of the black letters. He claims that this means that the letters were replaced.  There are actually many problems here. First, the highest copy quality of the COLB contains no instances of the word "BIRTH" that looks like this. Every instance has that green thatched background around the letters. In fact, the green thatched background is visible in every copy of the COLB. Thus, Polarik has tampered with the data in order to remove the green thatched background. Second, along with the missing green from outside the letters, Polarik claims that there should be a green thatched pattern within the letters ("O", "B", etc. have internal areas that should contain green). If you look at the child's name on the big image, you can clearly see the thatch in the letters "C", "O", "B", and "A". However, the green thatch is not as clear as the rest of the image. This happens because the image is at a very low quality: JPEG uses a lossy compression algorithm that drops off low contrast colors and preserves high contrast. The black text on light background is preserved, but the pale green thatch on light green paper blends together when combined with the high-contrast black lettering. Third, the loss of the green background when scanned is intentional. Security paper, such as the green thatched background, is designed to distort when scanned. That's a security measure. Thus, even if Polarik had not tampered with the image, removing the green from around the letters, the thatch background should not be crisp. Fourth, the colored pixels within the solid black lettering is fully expected from a scanned document. Scanners are not perfect. They introduce noise into the image. So let's do a scanner test... The biggest COLB online is 2550x3300 pixels. At 300dpi, that is 8.5"x11" (a full sheet of paper). I scanned in a portion of a Newsweek article at 300dpi. The portion that I selected contains text at various sizes and thicknesses. Looking at the paper version, it all looks uniform and black. However, the scanned image (full color, no enhancements, scanned on an HP Scanjet 3570c) shows that the black text contains a variety of colors.  And zoomed in to 400%:  The areas of text that should be all black are not uniformly black. Combining these "non-black" areas with the JPEG lossy compression (which uses 8x8 blocks) yields square patches that are different dark colors. These look like the exact same artifacts that Polarik claims indicate a forgery. Polarik is wrong -- they are nothing more than scanner artifacts. On Claim #1, Polarik has manipulated the data, forgot about the purpose of security paper, ignored the image quality, and incorrectly determined that scanner artifacts are signs of a forgery. Claim #2: Different Borders Polarik claims that the border looks different from other examples of Hawaii's birth certificate. In particular, he says that it looks blurry. We don't know the history of the actual image (was this a scan converted to JPEG, resaved as another JPEG, etc.). What we do know is that the image is at a very low quality, and JPEG loses fine details when saved at a low quality. In the video, Polarik continues to say that the blurriness is because one border was applied on top of another. (This is a fun argument because it is so stupid.) There are many ways to paste one item on top of another. The most common is "overwrite" -- the new border replaces the old one. Then comes "selection" -- imaging selecting the black thatched background and not selecting all of the middle parts -- that can be very hard with an image like this. When pasting one thatch onto another, you should see a consistent shadow or a herringbone pattern. Yet, neither is present. Finally, there is "merge". Merge could make it blurry, but would also introduce the shadow or herringbone pattern, which are not present. Polarik incorrectly concludes that the border was added to the image. However, I and other analysts have been unable to identify any sign of digital manipulation. Hawaii (and every other state) uses a variety of forgery deterrents and regularly change the deterrents. A very fine black-thatched border, like the light green thatched background, should not scan correctly. Depending on the scanner, it may appear blurred or bi-tonal or contain a different patterned than the one found on the paper. Thus, the dark, blurry background is more likely due to the security paper and not due to manipulation. (Some of the other scans of Hawaiian birth certificates appear bi-tonal -- a dark, wide thatch with a light gray thatch inside.) Then again, without a copy of the official document and a list of the various and ever-changing security methods employed by Hawaii, any visual analysis of "it looks wrong" is nothing more than speculation. Of course, borders could be added to a fake document, printed, and then scanned in and I would not be able to detect it. But that isn't what Polarik is claiming happened. He says that they were added to the digital image. That claim is not supported by the image compression level, color scheme, and other artifacts. On Claim #2, Polarik is both wrong, and not in a position to validate even if he were right. Claim #3: "The missing seal" and "The missing fold" Polarik claims that the online COLB is missing the official seal and folds. I don't know what to say here except "Polarik is wrong". He seems to not mind hyperfocusing on pixels in the text, but ignores the pixels that disprove his conclusion. This isn't just "selection bias", this is intentional ignorance. Here is a section of the large online document. I have only cropped the image -- no color enhancement and no scaling. The section comes from the lower middle of the page. The green thatched background normally appears without any other background. However, above the date stamp on the paper is a round area of horizontal lines that go through the green thatch. This is the official seal. If you mouse-over the image below, you will see an enhanced image: I applied an edge detection algorithm that shows the horizontal lines in white.  Polarik says that you should be able to see the embossed pattern on the scanned image without image enhancement. The quality of the seal's appearance depends on the scanner and image quality. Remember: the seal is not a change in color; it is a change in texture that the scanner may not capture well. In this case, I see it above, but I use enhancement to make it easier to see. Polarik refuses to acknowledge the seal because admitting it exists would damage his claim. Polarik also claims that the second fold is missing. In this regard, I must admit that I do not see the second fold. However, I have scanned many pieces of folded paper and not seen folds (scanners pick up color, not texture). What I do see in the COLB is evidence suggesting a fold. Follow the right edge of the right border down the page. It has a slight lean inward, meaning it is crooked. At about a third of the way from the bottom, the border changes direction, bending outward. It changes direction where the second fold should be located. And since the green thatched pattern does not show any breaks or separations, it is very unlikely that this is a paste or splice. Claim #4: The Fact Check Forgery Polarik claims the border and seal do not match the form from 2007 or 2008. He forgot to mention that the bottom corner says "11/01" meaning it is the 2001 form, and not either 2007 or 2008. There is a difference between "real" and "authentic". Digital image analysis can tell if an image has been manipulated, but not if the original source was authentic. In fact, any analysis based strictly on the online image cannot be used to validate the authenticity of the border. The only one who can say whether the border and document are authentic is the state of Hawaii. And Hawaii has been saying that the accusation of a false COLB is "pretty ridiculous." As far back as 15-Aug-2008, they have said that the COLB image is "a valid Hawaii state birth certificate". Since Polarik has never claimed to be an expert in Hawaiian birth certificates, I'm going to have to go with the State's opinion here and conclude that Polarik is wrong. Polarik's Changing BackgroundSo none of Polarik's claims hold up to inspection. What about Polarik's credentials? I mean, TechDude had some really impressive credentials... until it was discovered that he was a fraud and claiming credentials that he didn't have. Polarik continually says that the name "Ron Polarik" is not his real name. It is a pseudonym. He says he fears threats from Obama supporters. This claim reminds me of Ashley Todd -- the campaign worker who claimed to have been beaten up by an Obama supporter, but that turned out to be a hoax. My real name is Neal Krawetz and I stand behind my analysis. Polarik, on the other hand, stands behind anonymity. Trolls frequently add to their backgrounds in order to sound more impressive. As expected, Polarik has altered his background credentials. Four months ago, he described himself as: I've been working with computers, printers, and typewriters for over 20 years, and given a set of printed letters, I can discern what kind of device made them. Printer output is quite different from the text created by a graphics program, and even if a document looks "official," it may not be. In the recent video, he describes himself as: I'm Dr. Ron Polarik. I have a Ph.D. in Instructional Media. And my expertise is in computer graphics and the use of computer peripherals, such as printers and scanners, to input digital images into the computer. I've done a lot of work with reading web pages, where image size and image quality are very important. I'm fully qualified to spot inconsistencies and anomalies in images, especially digital images, given my expertise. So let's see...
Polarik's findings are not supported by the data. He has manipulated evidence, selectively ignored facts, and overlooked obvious findings. He has made over-reaching and gross assumptions, which vary from baseless to provable inaccurate. Moreover, he claims vague credentials that are unsupported by his work. I have serious doubts about Polarik having a Ph.D., but he sure has a lot of BS. |
SearchCalendarCategoriesPopular PostsLinksImages
Photoshop Disasters Food In Real Life Worth1000 CG Society Awkward Family Photos Oh No They Didn't Security Internet Storm Center Security Focus CyberSpeak Cybercrime Blogs Fergie's Tech Blog Xenon's Isotopia James Carrion Mark Shuttleworth Obama Conspiracies Barackryphal Unnecessary "Quotes" |
se
Thanks. The voice isn't very clear when he says it. (Vocal morphing + slurring words). So this means he claims that a degree in educational materials makes him an expert in digital image forensics.
I have little use for anyone who scrambles their face and doesn't present his credentials when making such charges.
But I also have to question the President elect who refuses to present the birth certificate to the public. My questions on Obama's validity as a Presidential candidate - now elect - were never based on "Dr Polarik".
I feel these are legitimate questions and we'll see if the SCOTUS feels the same way tomorrow. Other then that it is a dead issue.
The main reason I chimed in here was to comment on your mentioning of the superior Dr. Science show which used to be heard on NPR. What a brilliant satire that show was.
"Fire is hot.
I am hot.
Therefore I'm on fire."
Genius!
His PhD is now in "Instructional Systems" and a Masters Degree in Educational Research, Design, and Testing.
Go check out Phil Berg's interview. Even if obama was "natural born" as he claims, he LOST it because he was registered indonesian & at the time, indonesia did NOT provide DUAL citizenship. also, obama went to pakistan in the 80s when it was ILLEGAL for AMERICANS to be there.
Very telling....
First, I cannot find any authoritative reference to Obama spending millions on three lawfirms. However, it does not sounds unrealistic. You should see how much George W. Bush has spent. Between Gitmo, the stock market, undivested oil interests, Iraq, and Afghanistan... I bet the amount is close the a Billion.
Back to Obama: There is nothing fishy about retaining multiple law firms. Every President has faced swarms of lawsuits -- nearly all are baseless, but any idiot can file a suit. In fact, there is no law against filing thousands of baseless suits. (And I'm not talking about the COLB right now.) Obama hired these lawyers to handle ALL of his problems for the next four years. Suits for hiding UFO information, suits about ruining the economy, suits about illegitimate children (every celebrity gets these -- even the ones who don't sleep around), and more.
If you won the lottery, you would hire one or more accountants. If you are a celebrity, you hire lawyers. And the POTUS is a very big celebrity.
Second, let's pretend that he hired them only because of the COLB conspiracy. If someone sues you, the first thing you do is retain a lawyer. There have been dozens of COLB suits filed -- and every single one that has reached a judge has been thrown out as baseless. Yet, these were filed. As a reaction to being sued, Obama retained attorneys. Multiple suits = multiple attorneys. And if you can afford the best, you hire the best. Assuming Obama only hired these attorneys for the COLB conspiracy, it is clearly a reaction to being sued. Again, nothing fishy.
With regards to Phil Berg: he has a history of being fined for filing baseless claims and acting inappropriately, and his COLB cases have been tossed out of court. I wouldn't give anything he says any merit.
Finally, you are propagating a number of false myths about citizenship and Pakistan. I strongly encourage you to read this summary blog:
http://www.yestodemocracy.com/yes_to_democracy_no_to_pu/2009/01/like-ants-really-dumb-ants-bergcolb-update.html
Regarding “TechDude” and “Dr. Polarik,” I agree with many of your points, not because of your credentials but because when I read their respective analyses, I punched holes in them right and left and I’m merely a professional graphic artist.
And I agree with you that “Polarik’s” style does not resemble that of a Ph.D. in the least, though for other reasons than those that you noted. For example, he completely failed to present his position in a logically sequential fashion, oftentimes jumping from one point to another, for no apparent reason, only to return to his original point. Moreover, his spelling and his syntax are deplorable, as well as his proclivity to take cheap shots where a simple statement of his findings would have done the job.
But I disagree with your statement, “I would like to point out that the entire claim — that Obama was not born in Hawaii — is false. . .” None of the sources you cited provided evidence to support their statements, and many of the articles confused a COLB for a birth certificate. Indeed, if we are supposed to believe these people when they claim to have confirmed the authenticity of Obama’s birth certificate, then we must conclude that they violated the very HIPPA laws that prohibit them from releasing to the public Obama’s Hawaiian birth certificate. That is, if he has one.
Furthermore, I will not challenge you on your findings vis-à-vis the many examinations of the JPG COLB; however I will challenge you on the reason for this controversy, as well as a reason why we have so many questions surrounding the COLB — i.e. Obama has consistently refused to produce a certified copy of his original birth certificate, which states the place of his birth and is signed by the attending physician. To quote you, “Now . . . why would they release a fake COLB when they could just as easily release a new one? (Occam’s Razor: it is easier to just release the real one.)”
Put another way, why would he release a COLB when it is at best a second-rate substitute for the real thing? Occam’s Razor: it’s easier to release an image of a certified copy of his birth certificate than a COLB that actually raises more questions than it answers. For example, everyone agrees that the COLB was modified from its original state in order to be uploaded to the web. However, if you read the fine print at the bottom of the COLB, you’ll see the words, “ANY ALTERATIONS INVALIDATE THIS CERTIFICATE,” printed in bold uppercase letters. This means that, because the image is just that — an image that was modified for the Internet — it is “INVALID” (emphasis original). This is ONE BIG BOLD reason that Obama should release a certified copy of his original and it gives persons such as me reason to scratch my head.
Bottom line: this entire controversy is not about forged COLBs or Obama’s real place of birth. This controversy is about Obama’s eligibility to hold the office of POTUS according to the terms of the US Constitution. In short, does he meet the “natural born citizen” clause of Article II Section I? And as a Harvard-trained constitutional attorney, I would think that he is smart enough to know that a duplicated image of COLB with the words “ANY ALTERATIONS INVALIDATE THIS CERTIFICATE” at the bottom of the image would not satisfy a court of law, let alone the founding fathers.
I will decline your challenge since I am not in a position to authenticate the document; I can only identify if the image has been manipulated, not that the source was authentic.
For authenticity, I rely on the word of the experience of Hawaii's Health Department Director and Registrar of Vital Statistics, who both claim that an authentic document exists. (See the 31-Oct-2008 reference.) Also, if Obama failed his security clearance (which includes validating nationality), then he would have been dragged before Congress. (I'm not a legal scholar, but I believe remediation falls to Congress after the election.)
In addition, if the Obama COLB conspiracy had any validity, I would have fully expected the GOP to use it as an attack point. They already called Obama a terrorist, gang member (remember the knuckle bump?), socialist, and more. However, they never attacked his eligibility.
Similarly, the conspiracy that McCain did not have all of the naturalization paperwork completed was not brought up by the Democrats. The conspiracy is that McCain was born in Panama, but lacked all of the required documents. Unlike the Obama conspiracy, Snopes was unable to resolve McCain's eligibility. (http://www.snopes.com/politics/mccain/citizen.asp and http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp) However, this issue is moot since McCain did not win the election.
I firmly believe McCain is a natural born citizen by virtue of his parents' citizenship.
I applaud your ability to have a well-stated, rational argument. It places you far above most of the people (Polarik) I've seen in this argument. I'll try to live up to your standard myself.
>Put another way, why would he release a COLB when it is at best a second-rate substitute for the real thing?
Perhaps Mr Obama, like I, does not have "the real thing" in his posession. All I have to prove my own existence is certified reissue documents from the state where I was born. My original is lost somewhere. Last time I got a re-issue from my state, it was a poor photocopy with a spiffy embossed stamp saying it was legit. I haven't requested a new one in years, but I expect my state has gone the way of Hawaii, in issuing a fresh printout with the necessary info, and a certifying embossed stamp.
>ANY ALTERATIONS INVALIDATE THIS CERTIFICATE
I don't believe Mr Obama is trying to use the altered Internet copy for any of the purposes that a real BC/COLB document is required. He's using it to demonstrate to skeptics that he does have such a document. I doubt if he went to get a passport he would present the modified (and therefore invalid) copy. He'd be using the original which is still valid. The reasons for altering the Internet COLB have been explained already, and I don't believe they are nefarious (overly cautious, perhaps, but I can't blame the guy). So, in summary, the altered (blacked out) Internet COLB is invalid, but not in any fashion that a JPEG of the unaltered COLB would have been valid in. Only the paper copy of the COLB with the embossed seal is valid for purposes requiring a BC/COLB document. ANY Internet copy is immediately invalid, so the blacked-out copy is no more or less valid/invalid because it is blacked out. So this is entirely a moot point.
Chris made a similar argument to yours, floating the possibility that Obama does not posses an original. In response, I quoted Alan Keyes’ lawsuit where he quoted an anecdote about the birth certificate from Obama’s book Dreams From My Father. It should be somewhere in this thread.
Regarding the COLB, my point was, and remains, that if Obama scanned in a certified copy of his original birth certificate and made it available to the public in the same manner that he distributed the worthless COLB, people such as myself would have no cause to raise questions about his birth certificate. Let me remind you, however, that producing a birth certificate documenting an Hawaiian birth would not remedy Obama’s problems — it would be the beginning of sorrows because the question does not hang on his place of birth; the question hangs on his eligibility to hold the office of POTUS according to the terms of the US Constitution, which requires him to be a “natural born citizen.” And the moment he answers one question about his citizenship, consistency would obligate him to answer all the questions, such as “Did you ever renounce your US citizenship to obtain a passport to Pakistan?” etc.
Obama’s ducking this issue for a reason, and I seriously doubt it has anything to do with computer forensics or change we can believe in.
Coupled with the constant parsing of offical statments that ignore contradictions in the theory of conspiracy and there really is just a bunk of kooks that will never give up.
The claim the somehow the state of HI has an original BC from another country is absurd and it is never explained how or why they have it.
The list of demonstrably false claims being repeated by the colbers is staggering in what it show about the intelligence and honesty of these people
They are, however, restricted by Hawaiian law, specifically §338-18 Disclosure of records: http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0018.htm
"Obama has consistently refused to produce a certified copy of his original birth certificate, which states the place of his birth and is signed by the attending physician."
I applied for a certified copy of my birth certificate from my home state (not Hawaii). It contained pretty much the information on the COLB Obama presented (in fact, a little less).
When I requested one with more complete information (i.e., the stuff Obama's COLB is "missing"), I was told that the certified copy I was supplied is sufficient for any legal purpose, and that the details I was requesting were not available on any document issued by the state.
"As a handwriting analyst, I can say with some certainty, that two people wrote on this record book."
[Moderator's comment: I found the reference for you: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2061455/posts?q=1&;page=201#220 -Loris Kim]
"My PhD is in Instructional Media and Experimental Psychology (dual major)." ~Polarik
[Moderator's note: The reference is http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/09/09/mccain-palin-score-in-the-sunshine-state/#comment-10811
Do people really get doctorates in "Experimental Psychology"? Better yet -- do any doctorial programs have dual majors? -Loris Kim]
I understand that the point of your post is to debunk Polarik’s claims and that this blog does specifically speak to legal technicalities so much as it addresses computer forensics. However, if you read carefully the two articles that cited, you’ll see that both imply Obama’s Hawaiian birth, but neither explicitly quotes an Hawaiian authority to that effect, and if words have meaning, then I cannot attribute statements to them that they did not affirm.
This, by the way, contradicts your theory that assumed Obama underwent some sort of security clearance. We had to wait until five days before the election before an authority (not an election authority either) said boo about his birth certificate, but as Keyes pointed out in his suit, no one has stepped forward to confirm that Obama was born in Hawaii and the only person who has stepped forward at all is his grandmother, who claimed that she witnessed his birth in Kenya.
The argument that says the GOP would have pursued this matter if it had legs is an argument from silence, and I believe it gives the GOP too much credit. No one in the GOP discovered Obama’s long-lost NPR interviews where he lamented that the Warren Court didn’t go far enough because it failed to address the issue of redistribution of wealth, and no one in the GOP discovered that Obama ran as a Socialist in the ’90s. These discoveries all took place at the hands of bloggers. So I can’t get on board arguments that assume competence on the part of Republicans.
Again, Obama has not produced a certified copy of his original birth certificate and he has continually dodged the issue. As it stands, two suits have made their way to SCOTUS. I’m sure you’re familiar with the Berg suit. An attorney named Donofrio has appealed to the Supremes and he argues that neither Obama nor McCain meets the constitutional requirements:
http://www.blogtext.org/naturalborncitizen/
The issue is not moot to anyone who believes in the rule of law, which I hope includes SCOTUS. If Obama usurps the US Constitution, as could be the case, then we as a nation are in a world of hurt. The ramifications could lead anywhere.
These facts compel me to ask the same question: If Occam’s Razor says that a certified original of Obama’s birth certificate bearing the name of the hospital where he was born as well as the signature of the doctor who attended the birth would put an end to this controversy, then why hasn’t Obama produced the document? I believe it’s a fair question that can be asked in a reasonable way without anyone resorting to the word “conspiracy,” and I believe it’s an honest question that deserves an honest answer.
Thanks so much for your hospitality.
>If Occam’s Razor says that a certified original of Obama’s birth certificate bearing the name of the hospital where he was born as well as the signature of the doctor who attended the birth would put an end to this controversy, then why hasn’t Obama produced the document?
I think that is a reasonable question. And, I think our friend Occam suggests the answer -- he (like I and many other legit citizens) doesn't have it. But, as I explained above, that's not a damning circumstance. The COLB is Hawaii's replacement for that circumstance. Hawaii is putting their authority on that document stating that according to Hawaii's standards, he's a legit citizen.
I don't know if Mr Obama (or I) could request a fresh copy of our "vault" copies of our BCs. I haven't tried. I expect as president-elect they could probably make it happen for him if he asked.
Certified copies of original 'long form' certificates ARE available in Hawaii. In fact, they are specifically indicated by the Hawaii Homeland Dept. as being preferable and superior to the computer-generated CertificatION.
Neither Obama nor his campaign has ever said the the original long-form does not exist or is not obtainable. State officials have acknowleged its existence, and they produce such copies all the time for persons born in Hawaii needing the long form version.
When such a long 'form version' is easily available and commonly produced for benefits in Hawaii, how is Obama's refusal to release this version in order to confirm elegibility as US President "not a damning circumstance"?
Certified copies of original 'long form' certificates ARE available in Hawaii. In fact, they are specifically indicated by the Hawaii Homeland Dept. as being preferable and superior to the computer-generated CertificatION.
First, show me where it says that "long form" certificates are available.
I seem to recall that Hawaii said they stopped providing photostatic copies back in 2002.
Second, they don't say it's "preferable and superior," only that it simply doesn't have the information that they need on it.
When you're applying for Hawaiian Homelands, you're having to prove your Hawaiian ancestry. And the Certificate of Live Birth includes the birthplaces of the mother and the father.
That's why they want it. Not because the Certification of Live Birth is inferior or somehow "less official."
When such a long 'form version' is easily available and commonly produced for benefits in Hawaii, how is Obama's refusal to release this version in order to confirm elegibility as US President "not a damning circumstance"?
Show me where on Hawaii's form for requesting a copy of one's birth record where you can request a photostatic copy in lieu of the computer printed Certification of Live Birth.
se
In response to my question, you answer, “I think that is a reasonable question. And, I think our friend Occam suggests the answer — he (like I and many other legit citizens) doesn’t have it. But, as I explained above, that’s not a damning circumstance. The COLB is Hawaii’s replacement for that circumstance. Hawaii is putting their authority on that document stating that according to Hawaii’s standards, he’s a legit citizen.”
Let me reply to you by quoting directly from Alan Keyes’ lawsuit, which states, “From August 21, 2008, for over two months, Senator Obama has refused to provide his original birth certificate, even though, in his book, Dreams of My Father, page 26, he states, ‘. . . I found the article folded between my birth certificate and old immunization records. . .’ which shows that he clearly has his birth certificate, or that he lied in his book. Particularly telling is the fact that not one single person has come forward, not a doctor, not a nurse, not a hospital administrator, nor anyone else, to state that he or she was present during this birth, except for Obama’s paternal grandmother, who affirmed that she ‘was in the delivery room in Kenya when he was born Aug. 4, 1961.’” (“Keyes vs. Bowen,” page 14)
http://www.floppingaces.net/final_writ_keyes_v_bowen.pdf
Occam’s Razor has sharp edges that cut close. Personally, I believe that the longer Obama lets this question linger, the greater the likelihood that he knows with drop-dead certainty that he does not qualify as a “natural born citizen” to hold the office of POTUS, pursuant to the terms of the US Constitution, and I think that Occam’s Razor would agree.
Way off topic, but I just saw this:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/11/why_the_barack_obama_birth_cer.html
No one from the state of HI has confirmed the COLB on BHO's site (and at FactCheck). In fact, one representative from the state of HI said: “I don’t know that it’s possible for us to even say beyond a doubt what the image on the site represents.”
And, in their announcement a few days before the election, the state of HI only confirmed that BHO's cert is on file. They didn't confirm the one on his site or at FactCheck.
Anyone who says there's definitive proof that BHO was born in HI is lying. Details on all that here:
http://24ahead.com/blog/archives/008184.html
Note that wishful thinking or the statements of BHO or organizations that receive money from the same source as BHO received money are not definitive proof.
I thought I would provide a link to a post I recently made which has links to the fact-checking sites and articles relating to the birth certificate controversy. The background of the leaders of this conspiracy theory are beyond questionable. I don't mean to troll, but I think it might address some of the non-forgery related questions that some of your commenters here have. http://centerleft.info/?p=37
Thank you for such a great analysis. I hope you won't mind if I link to your articles on my post as well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1spPrzvYWRI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8b_usFyLHQ
[Moderator's note: The above two videos are not fact and not official statements. Nor do they provide any supporting evidence. They are one person's biased opinion being presented as if it were fact. It is not provable evidence. Followups to this thread are unrelated to image analysis and should be posted in another forum. -Loris Kim]
James David Manning has also said that any black man who hasn't been in prison can't be trusted.
I would take anything he said with a couple salt shakers worth of salt.
I will defer to your expertise on image analysis, since I know nothing about the subject.
However, early in your piece, you made the following flat statement: "Before I begin evaluating Polarik's claims, I would like to point out that the entire claim -- that Obama was not born in Hawaii -- is false." Unlike your critique of the image analysis, that statement was based on NO data other than the statement of a couple of Democrats, in one of the most reliably Democratic states in the union, who said "Oh sure, Obama has a birth certificate. We saw it.". That may work to certify his eligibility to serve as president under the Constitution, but it sure as heck wouldn't have gotten me anywhere except the exit if I had tried a similar trick when I applied for social security. Those ladies wanted to see PAPER.
You are a scientist and are accustomed to working with data.
The question at hand is not whether a document that appeared on the internet had been photoshopped, but whether Obama is qualified under the Constitution to be president.
Here is (are? I can never decide.) some relevant data.
There are numerous law suits around the country challenging his eligibility. ALL have demanded that he show documented proof of eligibility. A long form certificate would do that. None has been forthcoming. Most or all of them have also cited a video clip of his paternal grandmother in which she claims to have witnessed his birth. In Kenya. Additional facts cited are his public school records in Indonesia, where Indonesian citizenship was required for attendance, and his visit to Pakistan as an adult at a time when US passport holders were not allowed to travel to Pakistan. This implies that he traveled as a citizen of another country, presumably Indonesia, on a passport from that country.
Another data point is Obama's response to the suits.
Instead of sending a nice letter to Hawaii's records department explaining his problem and asking that either original hard copies of the relevant forms be made available for inspection or that they run off a few certified hard copies of the forms (for a nominal fee of course) and send them to him so he could provide them as required, Obama lawyered up.
At last count, he (reportedly) has three law FIRMS-not individual lawyers-FIRMS going all out to ensure that NO documents relative to his birth ever see the light of day. He has already taken one all the way to the Supreme Court. It is currently pending. His legal team has been able to have several of the suits dismissed, not on their merits but by having the court to rule that the plaintiffs did not have standing. NO requested documents have ever been submitted to the courts in ANY of the suits. Three law firms DO NOT come cheap.
An additional data point. Obama interrupted his campaign to travel to Hawaii to visit his dying grandmother. He reportedly spend an hour or so with her. The rest of his time in Hawaii was spent coordinating the non-release of his birth records with Hawaiian authorities.
Based on the above data, which explanation of Obama's response to the suits would seem more reasonable?
1. I am too busy running a campaign (now preparing to be sworn in) to be bothered with coming up with a birth certificate so I'll just spend millions of dollars in legal fees to avoid the hassle.
Or
2. There is something related to my birth that would cause me REAL problems if revealed, so I am going to fight to the death to ensure that it is never revealed.
Bob Ludwick
I question only one of your assertions: "at a time when US passport holders were not allowed to travel to Pakistan."
I have seen this claim many times, and have asked well over a dozen posters if they have any backup to this assertion. I can find NO such information on a "travel ban" for Americans.
On June 14, 1981, the New York Times published an article on travel to Pakistan entitled "LAHORE, A SURVIVOR WITH A BITTERSWEET HISTORY" by Barbara Crossette, Assistant News Editor.
She writes, "Tourists can obtain a free, 30-day visa (necessary for Americans) at border crossings and airports" and describes, sights to see, transportation, hotels, restaurants, that mosques may be visited by non-Muslims any day but Friday, that liquor was available in hotel rooms. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0DE2DA1338F937A25755C0A967948260&sec=travel&spon=&pagewanted=1
While none of this proves that Obama did NOT travel on an Indonesian passport, neither has there been any proof or backup that Americans or non-Muslims were banned from traveling to Pakistan.
3) "I see no reason to give ammo to people who will categorically refuse to believe any evidence provided them"
Berg's lawsuit was full of hidden "when did you stop beating your wife" type questions, as is most of the cookie-cutter clone copy lawsuits based on Berg's. It's not surprising Obama wouldn't provide that information - and neither did McCain when HE was sued as well claiming he wasn't a citizen.
- Analysis by TechDude, who has been discredited and exposed as an impostor and fraud.
- Analysis by Polarik, who has been discredited and exposed as a fraud.
- Alleged analysis by an unnamed "anonymous" third party. This work has not been make public, as far as I know.
Berg's only standing complaint is that he does not believe what is his shown is real. He seems to forget that:
(1) There is no evidence that it is fake. Berg's two identifiable "experts" have both been exposed as frauds and their analysis is nothing more than works of fiction. (See my two blog entries on How Not To Do Image Analysis for reference.)
(2) He -- specifically Berg -- has no reason to be shown any official documents. Berg is not on the POTUS validation board. The document is a personal document, and even the President gets a right to privacy.
(3) Berg conveniently forgets that a COLB is not required. All that is required is some kind of proof of natural-born citizenship, not necessarily a COLB. Along with #2, Obama needs to provide it to the validation committee, but not to Berg.
Bergs previous court case was dismissed because of jurisdiction -- he filed it in the wrong court. (Reference: http://news.justia.com/cases/featured/pennsylvania/paedce/2:2008cv04083/281573/) Berg then escalated it to the Supreme Court. I fully expect the Supreme Court to either rule against Berg, or to bounce it back down to the lower court since the lower courts have not had the opportunity to rule based on the correct jurisdiction.
Then again, I'm not a lawyer.
So why hasn't Obama responded? There have been repeated mentions that Obama's lack of response suggests that he is hiding something.
However, notice how Obama ran his campaign. McCain started immediately with the attack ads. Obama didn't really start attack ads until after Biden came on board, and even then, he rarely attacked.
Instead, when facing false accusations, Obama seems to make one public statement addressing the accusations, then ignores further bogus claims. Obama seems to refuse to drop down to the level of the attackers. I'm actually really impressed at his restraint -- McCain had a lot of really easy low-hanging fruit, and Obama didn't bother attacking.
The result of this restraint has been very interesting. Rather than appearing weak, Obama appears stronger. In contrast, the attackers appear weaker.
What we now have are (1) officials who are saying that Obama meets the requirements, (2) Obama's opposition who never questioned his eligibility, (3) two debunked "experts" who were actually frauds, and (4) one attorney with a long history of escalating false accusations through the courts. (http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/05D0679P.pdf and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillip_J._Berg)
Even if you don't have access to the evidence or real/fake COLB, ask yourself: which is more credible -- the word of officials and real subject-matter experts, or the word of one nutjob who employs faux experts?
Berg's order is a real legal education on the issue of "standing".
"Most or all of them have also cited a video clip of his paternal grandmother in which she claims to have witnessed his birth."
In fact, no such video clip appears to actually exist. There is a video in which she calls Obama "a son of this village," but that comment is both ambiguous and referring to the wrong place; The accusation is that Obama was born in Mombasa, not Kogelo. There is also an audio tape in which two Anabaptist preachers claim they are conducting an interview with Sarah Obama, but nowhere on the tape does she ever say she was present for his birth. Only the preachers make that claim.
So... it appears your "relevant data" is not data at all. It is mere rumor. There are other similar lapses in the rest of your post, but my point is made.
The entire "Obama is a foreigner" thing is driven by unsupported Internet rumor and nothing else. Even the attention paid to the posted images of Obama's COLB (as if Internet images are what the courts would ask to see) are symptomatic of the vacuum of real evidence to support the claim.
How could you possibly know that?
As for the "smoking grandmother tape", read the transcript carefully. She says she was there when he was born, and if you read back, the last person who was named was "her son", not "her grandson". And then confirms "when Obama was born". Sarah Obama was the stepmother of the president elect's father, Barack Obama, Sr. and could reasonably have been present when our president elect's father was born.
There's no evidence that there was any trip to Kenya. And I'm willing to bet that the Kenyan birth certificate image for "Barry Muhammad Karl Marx Adolf Hither Benedict Arnold bin Laden" is a fake.
It would be nice if Hawaiian officials would say something a little more specific, but I suspect that they are doing their best under the law.
While Hawaii confirms it has an Obama birth certificate on file, the particular links provided in your article do not conclusively show that the birth took place in Hawaii because it possible for Hawaii residents to register their children born outside of the state (§338-17.8 Certificates for children born out of State)
You seem to have missed this part:
[L 1982, c 182, §1]
That statute didn't exist until 1982.
se
Obama’s COLB states “ANY ALTERATIONS INVALIDATE THIS CERTIFICATE.”
Obama altered (duplicated and resized) his COLB to fit on his website.
Therefore, Obama’s COLB is INVALID.
This controversy will not end until SCOTUS compels Obama to come clean.
I respectfully disagree about it being worthless. Since Obama cannot realistically provide every person in the United States an original copy of his COLB, he did the next best thing: made a copy of the document public.
Of course, this opened him up to claims of releasing a faux document. However, all claims that it has been digitally manipulated have been debunked.
Image analysis can identify whether the document has been manipulated, but not whether the original document used to create the image was authentic. Then again, authenticity only needs to be confirmed to the small group responsible for validating Obama's background.
Having said that, representatives from Hawaii have previously and repeatedly confirmed that (1) the image looks like a valid document, and (2) an authentic document exists.
The whole thing comes down to trust. Do you trust that the people performing the validation have done it correctly? Do you trust that the State of Hawaii is providing valid information?
There are people who do not trust the information that they have been shown. However, they have provided no verifiable information to support their distrust. They have provided fictional analysis (TechDude and Polarik), baseless opinions, and unverified statements. (Remember: Berg cited TechDude and Polarik as experts.)
This whole conspiracy (or scandal, depending on how you lean), continues to go in circles around very little factual information and a lot of false or unproven information.
Going back to the level of trust... Many of the people who do not trust the information shown want to perform the validation by themselves. However, as shown in this blog's comments about various legal document citations, few people have the background and knowledge to authenticate the document. (Even I cannot authenticate it. I can only demonstrate that it shows no signs of digital manipulation.) For these people, no amount of information will convince them; they do not believe what they are told by the authorities who can authenticate the document, and they lack the background to authenticate it themselves.
Usually I am skeptical and pessimistic. However, in this case I am willing to trust in those better qualified. Authorities from the State of Hawaii have indicated that Obama has the appropriate birth history to be POTUS. Similarly, Obama already went through background checks that required validation of his birth certificate. I trust that the checks were performed correctly -- since I, myself, am not qualified to perform those checks.
I am not looking for more citations of unvalidated claims, citations from parts of legal documents, or pointers to other records that I cannot validate. I am asking for someone to prove to me that Janice Okubo, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, and Alvin Onaka did not speak authoritatively. Don't try to show me that they are wrong -- I'm not in a position to validate their findings. Instead, show me that they are not authorities, not in a position to know, or that they were not authorized to speak on behalf of the State of Hawaii. If you make me doubt the authorities, then I will be required to doubt the authorities' findings. Right now, I trust the authorities who say that Obama has the appropriate birthright -- thus, that he is authenticated. I also trust my own image analysis which says that the online document shows no sign of digital manipulation; thus, no evidence yet of a forgery.
You state, “The whole thing comes down to trust. Do you trust that the people performing the validation have done it correctly? Do you trust that the State of Hawaii is providing valid information?”
I disagree with this conclusion because it misses the point of the controversy (by the way, I do not believe this controversy is a “conspiracy,” though I believe Obama’s response to it has been nothing short of scandalous; nevertheless, I believe it remains a controversy). The point of this controversy has nothing to do with Obama’s COLB, though his COLB has served as an effective red herring since he released it. The question that started this controversy is quite simple: “Does Barack Hussein Obama qualify to hold the office of POTUS according to the terms of Article II Section I of the US Constitution? More specifically, Is Barack Obama a ‘natural born citizen’?” And neither Obama’s COLB nor his original birth certificate will answer this question completely, because of his competing citizenships in Kenya and Indonesia — one of them by birth and the other by possibly renouncing his US citizenship, if he ever had it.
Moreover, the facts of this case are as simple as the question that needs resolution:
1. Obama was born somewhere, but no one knows with certainty where — perhaps Hawaii, perhaps Kenya, perhaps somewhere else — and a Hawaiian COLB is too uncertain and ambiguous to cast definitive light on the place and circumstances of his birth (see http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/11/why_the_barack_obama_birth_cer.html)
2. No authority — including any legal authority in Hawaii (contra your assertion) or any US election authority — has ever stated unambiguously, “Barack Obama was born in Hawaii and the information on his COLB corresponds point for point to the information on his birth certificate.” Even worse, Obama — a Harvard-trained constitutional attorney as well as a professor of constitutional law — has pushed this controversy into the US legal system because of his obfuscation and obstinacy. He should have ditched this problem the day after he announced his candidacy.
3. Obama concedes that he was a citizen, by birth, of Kenya, and documentation from his childhood, signed by his stepfather, indicates that Indonesia naturalized him. These two facts, and any additional unknown facts that may arise because of them, raise serious questions about Obama’s his qualification to hold the office of POTUS. For example, if we assume that he enjoyed “natural born” citizenship in the US from birth, we do not know if he ever renounced his US citizenship at any time in his past. But we cannot assume his “natural born” citizenship because we have no incontrovertible proof, such as a certified copy of his original birth certificate, signed by his mother and the attending physician, stating the place of birth, etc., to establish it. To be sure, Obama’s Indonesian documentation contains more vital details about the man than his COLB.
4. Obama traveled as a child and as an adult to Indonesia, Pakistan, and Kenya — but we don’t know what country issued his passport(s).
5. Obama’s lawyers petitioned the court to dismiss the Berg suit (and the others for all I know) rather than answer the complaint(s) with incontrovertible proof to relieve the concerns of those of us who believe that he has an affirmative moral obligation, if not a legal obligation, to resolve this question before he takes office.
6. SCOTUS has never defined “natural born citizen.”
These six facts — and they are facts — raise a boatload of questions, each question begetting even more questions, regarding Obama’s “natural born” citizenship, if he ever possessed it, as well as his qualification to hold the office of POTUS. You are free to take Obama at his word, just as I am free to doubt his word. However, according to Dr. Edwin Vieira, whose credentials are quite intimidating, the burden of proof rests on Obama, and right now he has proved nothing:
http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin84.htm
I am aware that some people will read these facts and conclude that I believe in some kind of “conspiracy theory,” but I believe they belong to a conspiracy of idiots who couldn’t follow an argument if you marked it with breadcrumbs. The questions surrounding Obama’s citizenship are honest questions that deserve honest answers, and I believe that anything less is high-handed defiance of the US Constitution as well as a stiff middle finger to the American people.
Obviously it's a different world now, but it's a maybe.
I was painting with a broad brush. The line of inquiry regarding Obama’s travels to Indonesia involves much more than a mere passport. The question revolves around how he obtained Indonesian citizenship and if he renounced his US citizenship in the process, assuming he had it.
Do you believe that’s a fair line of inquiry?
But if he had become an Indonesian citizen, US law would have protected his US citizenship until he grew up and made a choice for himself (a very rough paraphrase of the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952).
Sooooo.... based on the Constitution, it would make our entire government "illegitimate" and with no authority to rule over the people. So based on the Law of our great land, they will have put themselves "out of business" so to speak.
It is an amazing time we are living in.
As the good news of the prophecy states:
"It is TIME for Thee, Lord, to work: for they have made void Thy law....Therefore I esteem
all Thy precepts [principles] concerning ALL things to be right; and I hate every false way."
Psalms 119:126,128
Time for a "new world order" indeed!
Blessings,
ariel144
Now that is just REAL interesting to me. You figure they would have gotten around to this by now.
Tomorrow is the big day at SCOTUS. We'll see if 4 of the 9 decide to look at this one.
I realize that you may never see this response, but I just saw the post myself and am taking the time to answer it. If you don’t respond, I hope everyone will realize that it has been a while since you posted and will not look at any failure to respond to this post in a negative light.
On Nov 30, 2008, you stated in your post:
6. SCOTUS has never defined “natural born citizen.”
Perhaps you have just never read a Supreme Court Opinion for yourself. You might try reading one that was handed down in 1898. That was 110 years before you posted the statement above.
In *U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark*, the Supreme Court held that a person who was born on American soil of two alien parents is a citizen of the United States, at birth.
Here is the link to that Opinion:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=169&invol=649
In that opinion, you will find the following paragraphs. The first paragraph frames the question and the following paragraphs provide the opinion of the court.:
The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who at the time of his birth are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution: 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.'
I. In construing any act of legislation, whether a statute enacted by the legislature, or a constitution established by the people as the supreme law of the land, regard is to be had, not only to all parts of the act itself, and of any former act of the same lawmaking power, of which the act in question is an amendment, but also to the condition and to the history [169 U.S. 649, 654] of the law as previously existing, and in the light of which the new act must be read and interpreted.
The constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words 'citizen of the United States' and 'natural-born citizen of the United States.' By the original constitution, every representative in congress is required to have been 'seven years a citizen of the United States,' and every senator to have been 'nine years a citizen of the United States'; and 'no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of president.' Article 2, 1. The fourteenth article of amendment, besides declaring that 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside,' also declares that 'no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.' And the fifteenth article of amendment declares that 'the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, or by any state, on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.'
The constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that 'all persons born r naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.' Amend. art. 14. In this, as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422 , 5 S. Sup. Ct. 935; Boyd v. U. S., 116 U.S. 616, 624 , 625 S., 6 Sup. Ct. 524; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465 , 8 Sup. Ct. 564. The language of the constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. 1 Kent, Comm. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. U. S., 91 U.S. 270 , 274. [169 U.S. 649, 655] In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the fourteenth amendment now in question, said: 'The constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.' And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision. 21 Wall. 167.
In Smith v. Alabama, Mr. Justice Matthews, delivering the judgment of the court, said: 'There is no common law of the United States, in the sense of a national customary law, distinct from the common law of England as adopted by the several states each for itself, applied as its local law, and subject to such alteration as may be provided by its own statutes.' 'There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.' 124 U.S. 478 , 8 Sup. Ct. 569.
II. The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance-also called 'ligealty,' 'obedience,' 'faith,' or 'power'-of the king. The principle embraced all persons born within the king's allegiance, and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual,-as expressed in the maxim, 'Protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem,'-and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance; but were predicable of aliens in amity, so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens, were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the king's dominions, were not natural-born subjects, because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the king.
I will skip the next few paragraphs, but you may view the entire decision by following the URL that I have provided. The opinion picks up as follows:
It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.
To summarize what was stated in that opinion, when the Constitution is silent regarding the meaning of its words, then their meaning must be interpreted in the light of the common law. The term ‘natural born citizen’ is one of those instances where the Constitution is silent on the meaning. Because of that, the Common Law meaning at the time of the adoption of the Constitution must be looked to in order to provide the intended meaning.
As the court said above, the common law basis for the meaning of ‘natural born citizen’ was that *every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born*.
The above opinion clearly establishes that a person born on U.S. soil, and under the jurisdiction of the United States is a natural born citizen*, regardless of the citizenship of the parents.
What this decision does not address is whether a person who was born on foreign soil may be considered a ‘natural born citizen’ even if they are born of citizen parents, but it is quite clear with regard to a person who was born on US soil.
By the way….
Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution states:
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.*
A COLB that is issued by the State of Hawaii is a ‘public record’ under this article of the Constitution. The information on that COLB fulfills all the requirements for ‘Birth Certificates’ that are contained in CFR 22, Section 51.42, which was created pursuant to Title 22 of the US CODE. I certainly hope that you do not intend to give this clause of the Constitution the ‘stiff middle finger’.
You state, “The whole thing comes down to trust."
I would trust a US Senator over someone who won't even give his right name.
There is only one way to know that, and that is if Obama allows people to pull his vault copy from Hawaiian records. Why Obama wouldn't spend 10 bucks to show his Vault Cert is beyond me, and it's his own fault all these speculations have taken place.
Perhaps they are deserved. It is certainly interesting that Grandma Obama says Barack was born in Kenya, and it is more interesting that Obama continues spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to fight discovery of his vaultcert than actually release it.
Something smells bad about his actions.
Which makes me wonder why he had to have an additional one created during the time John McCain's birth was being questioned (2007).
However, his foray into legal arguements and points of law are simply opinion of a non-expert. To me that shows a bit of bias.
Also, IMMensaMind caught this gem that I noticed as well:
Krawetz starts his analysis with a flat out untrue statement: Hawaiian officials DID NOT validate Obama's COLB. They did one thing, and one thing only: they attested that Obama has a vault copy birth certificate in their possession. That's it
I think IMMensaMind is right. So, in the article Krawetz makes an erroneous statement in an area in which he is not an expert. His conclusion is not supported by the statments of Hawaii officials, who (it seems to me) parsed their words carefully as to not verify the specifics on the vault copy, they simpyl say there is one.
Now, Krawetz may be 100% right about his technical analysis, but his legal and politcal and logic can be questioned.
Just food for thought
If that is his real name and if he really does have a PhD, then why isn't his dissertation available at UMI?
http://disexpress.umi.com/dxweb
Every accredited university submits their dissertations to UMI for cataloging.
Every accredited PhD program requires a dissertation. Other, non-theoretical and non-philosophical doctoral programs may not required a dissertation, but the degree that Polarik claims to have requires a dissertation.
Nobody with the last name "Polarik" has a dissertation on file. But a lot of people named "Krawetz" have dissertations on file, including Neal.
Hey Polarik: if you have a PhD then where is your dissertation?
Polarik is now claiming that "Ron Polarik" is his real name.
Where, specifically, is he claiming this?
se
Looks like Polarik posted his comment elsewhere...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2139124/posts?q=1&;page=51#64
Polarik says:
Ron is my real first name, and Polarik is what I got from my Father's real last name.
I don't know if this means that he normally does not use his father's name, or if he is now claiming that Polarik is his real name. Western societies pass down the father's name as a surname, but that isn't the case in other regions. Also, adoption, name changes, etc. are also common. However, this certainly appears to be a claim that "Polarik" is his real surname.
As an aside, Polarik did try to post that same comment on my site, but it was banned because it broke the Code of Conduct listed above the comment entry form.
- He attempted to post name calling. (He spends more sentences insulting me that addressing the findings.)
- He posted to the wrong blog entry. (He posted his comment to my "Firestarter" image analysis blog entry. I think he just scrolled to the bottom of the page and clicked on the first comment link he saw.)
And as a note to mike: cool link. I thought UMI was only a paid service.
In a typical hospital there are probably 100 people who have access to medical records (Medical Records dept, Billing dept, and IS staff for starters). Medical records typically stay around forever - it's the "Cradle to Grave" philosophy.
Despite HIPAA regulations, medical records do get leaked.
I find it utterly amazing that none have surfaced.
First, nobody has shown that the online COLB is a forgery. Polarik tried, but failed. His arguments do not hold up to inspection, and neither do his credentials. As Mike asked, where is Polarik's dissertation?
Second, there has been a lot of speculation about the authenticity. However, the state of Hawaii has declared that the a legitimate birth certificate exists. Nobody has tried to dispute the state's claim.
Here is a great summary of the claims and facts (thanks Xenon for the pointer):
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-obama-ad-03-dec03,0,3124041.story
Third, "ms" asked why nobody has leaked a copy of the birth report. Here's something to ask yourself if you were in that kind of position: is it worth losing your job over? Remember, people who looked up Obama's tax, car, and phone records have already been fired for violating privacy rights. Same for people who looked up records about McCain, Palin, and Joe the Plumber. Would you want to risk being fired just to show that Obama is a viable candidate to be POTUS?
Please ask yourself:
If you made between $10 and $13 per hour, which is what many clerks make, would you consider it?
How much would the medical records be worth?
When magazines are willing to pay $$$ millions for baby pictures - I'm willing to hazard a guess that medical records pertaining to President-elect Obama's birth would be worth at least a couple of million dollars.
That amount would be a lot of temptation for most people, particularly those at the lower end of the payscale.
Most records have been digitized - even those decades old are available.
The original paper copies should also be easy to locate.
There is a systematic filing system involved with medical records and their storage. It wouldn't be that difficult to go right to them.
Besides those people I have already mentioned - security, maintenance, and cleaning people also have access to most areas of hospitals. None of these positions pay well.
Yes, I find it utterly remarkable that no records have surfaced.
First, with regards to Polarik, he has made some serious claims without any evidence to back it up. His research is fraudulent and his background is unverifiable. Obama says he was born in Hawaii -- where does Polarik say he got his degree from? That's right -- Polarik doesn't say.
While you may consider Obama's actions to be questionable, you should aim that same skepticism at Polarik and the other people who are promoting the Obama COLB conspiracy. When they say that something is illegal, they should explicitly cite the law. When they say information was not provided, they should look beyond their own forums at places where it has already been provided, and when they claim to be experts, they should back that up with more than vigorous hand-waving.
Second, you really need to look up the law and requirements to be POTUS. Polarik and his ilk are flooding forums with provably false information. For example:
1. The term "natural born" has not been clearly defined by the courts.
2. You don't lose your US citizenship simply by visiting -- or even living in -- a foreign country. The term "expatriate" refers to any US citizen living outside of the United States. However, expatriates are still citizens and still patriotic.
3. Nowhere does any law say that a "birth certificate" must be provided. Instead, other forms of proof are acceptable. Since Hawaii has confirmed that they hold a record for Obama AND Hawaii recognizes him as a natural born citizen, that is good enough to be authenticated.
4. Nowhere does it say that the presidential candidates must make their private citizenship information public. The information must be provided to the government for verification, but it is still personal information, FOIA exempt (Freedom of Information Act), and not required to be made public. Moreover, in this day and age of rampant identity theft, would you want your personal records made public? Considering that Obama will be the first techno-literate president, I suspect that he is very aware about the risks from identity theft.
5. You wrote, "For the sake of Peace and Harmony Obama....SHOW your ORIGINAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE!" This is called "peer pressure". Do you want a president who caves to peer-pressure from the vocal minority, or do you want someone who makes educated decisions. Obama is not an idiot: he responded to the initial query. When TechDude and Polarik said the JPEG was fake, Obama ignored it -- there is not much more he can do to convince close-minded people. Meanwhile, I have shown that every claim of a forgery made by TechDude and Polarik are false. I went further to show that TechDude was an impostor, and Polarik has equally dubious qualifications.
6. Polarik and his supporters have tried to label me as a "lefty" and an "Obama supporter". However, you should read what I have actually written. Nowhere do I say that I support Obama. Instead, I am simply addressing the facts. If the same type of personal attack based on lies and deceit was made against McCain, Clinton, or anyone else, I would be equally offended and vocal. For me, it is not about politics -- it is about truth. The truth is: Texas Darlin, TechDude, Polarik, and their supporters have repeatedly lied to you.
Virtually every statement made by Polarik, Texas Darlin, and their brethren is nothing more than misinformation designed to confuse and irk people who are too lazy to look up the facts, or who want to believe there is something amiss.
Ignorance disgusts me. And the malicious misinformation being propagated, including libel and slander, are criminal acts.
http://polarik.blogtownhall.com/2008/11/22/obamas_born_conspiracy_obamas_bogus_birth_certificate_exposed%21.thtml
The idea that a person can look at the artifacts of compression and tell that an image has been altered is plausible, but it would have to be obvious that the alteration was made. Just because there are a small number of pixels 'that should not be there' does not mean that any alteration has been made. The scanning process itself is an electronic process and just like any electronic process, is subject to noise. That noise will manifest itself in many ways, and one of those ways is through the introduction of random pixels in the overall image. In other words,’ pixels that should not be there’.
There are of, course, a number of ways that alterations can be spotted in an image, even when the image work itself is acceptable. A case in point is the image that was purported to be John McCain’s Colon Birth Certificate from 1936.
The image of this certificate can be found here:
http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/McCain-SurreplyEx-7-21-08.pdf
This is an obvious fake and it should not take a person who knows what to look for any longer than a minute to spot and verify the giveaway. It does not even take pixel analyses, or any other kind of normal image analyses to be able to see that it is a fake.
I will not bother to state the obvious reason that this is a fake, because it is really somewhat funny listening to people who claim to be experts try to expound on their little theories that are miles off the mark. Besides, why give some amateur that little extra insight into forging that they would get if they knew why this is such an obvious fake.
You wrote:
I have worked on enough digital images to know that anything can be done digitally and if the person doing the work is sufficiently skilled then they can create an image that can defy any analyses for alteration. In those cases, the only way to determine if a document has been altered is to compare it to the original.
Speaking in general, and not just about the COLB:
The original is not always available. However, you don't need the original in order to evaluate whether an image has been modified.
While it is easy to create a fake, it takes serious skill to create a realistic fake. By applying a battery of tests, one can determine whether an image is real, computer generated, or digitally modified. My own test suite contains more than two dozen different tests.
- A real picture may fail one or two tests (false negatives), but won't fail every test.
- A computer generated image should fail most tests, but may pass some tests (false positives).
- A digital enhancement should have portions that pass (real), and areas that fail (manipulated). For enhanced computer generated images, there should be portions that fail differently than the rest of the picture.
While there are different confident levels (per test and in summary), the general cases are pretty easy to distinguish. In the case of the high-quality COLB, it easily passes every test. The black bar (digital addition to cover a number in the top corner) was the only manipulation, and it is clearly a digital addition.
On very rare occasions I come across images that are computer generated but pass every test. So far, the three CG images were all created by extremely talented artists. Two of the pictures were created by the same artist, and he spend over TWO YEARS working on the renderings. The third person spent more than a year on his picture.
There are three things needed to create a realistic forgery that will easily pass every test. First, you need the tools. "Photoshop" is usually not enough. If you don't have a suite of graphics tools, then I'll likely catch your forgery. Second, you need the skill. An average artists with all the right tools won't be able to make a perfect forgery. You need an exceptional artists. Finally, you need time. An exceptional artist with all the right tools cannot make a perfect forgery in a day. The fastest that I have seen anyone make a perfect forgery was a year. But let's assume the person works full-time on it -- then I think it could possibly be done 1-3 months.
Let me re-emphasize that that extremely talented artists are extremely rare. The CG Society hosts works by many professional graphic artists. A large number of these people create photo-realistic images. Yet so far, only two people have been "extremely talented" to the point that they can easily pass every test and be misclassified as real. And both people spent years on their best works.
The idea that a person can look at the artifacts of compression and tell that an image has been altered is plausible, but it would have to be obvious that the alteration was made. Just because there are a small number of pixels 'that should not be there' does not mean that any alteration has been made. The scanning process itself is an electronic process and just like any electronic process, is subject to noise. That noise will manifest itself in many ways, and one of those ways is through the introduction of random pixels in the overall image. In other words,’ pixels that should not be there’.
Don't forget that modifications alter noise patterns. Even JPEG artifacts from saves alter the image. Less obvious are the influences from defective CCD/CMOS elements, shifts in the color selection and high-frequency noise patterns. Simply applying "random noise" to a picture will not make it look real.
While a single pixel change may go undetected, altering text or a border is a significant change that will not go unnoticed. In the case of Polarik's manipulated data, the modifications attributed to Polarik are easy to identify.
Finally, it is worthwhile to reiterate that the entire argument about Obama not being from Hawaii is moot. Officials in Hawaii have authenticated the information. Moreover, nobody has dared to question the Hawaiian officials, nor provided any evidence to even suggest that the officials are incorrect. This is different than the Iranian elections because Iran left lots of reasons to indicate election fraud and question the results.
First, my post was not meant to disparage you or your work. My only motive was to point out that a skilled person could do pretty much whatever they wanted to do and get away with it. Unless you compared the digital image to the original image you would have no way to determine if the digital image had been altered.
I believe that you are in agreement with me on that point based on what you said about the works that you have seen pass all of your image tests. You said that those works were produced by very talented artists, and that they took the time to do it right.
In my case, I will start with an uncompressed TIFF image. That TIFF image is then converted to a ‘Picture Publisher Professional’ file, which is also uncompressed, but allows me to work with images as objects. That file is where I will perform whatever edits that I wish to perform on that image. The image is never converted to a JPG until all of the editing work is completed. I also take great pains with any masking work that I do. The mask is extremely important whether I am masking to create an object to be transferred to another image, or masking to alter a part of an image. In fact, the mask is the most important part of image editing. If the time is taken to make a high quality mask then it will show in a high quality photographic image.
The point is that all of the editing is done on an uncompressed image. The image is only reduced to a JPG once, and you can go blind looking for clues as to the authenticity of the image through the compression artifacts before you will find anything in those artifacts that will tell you ‘is it real or is it altered’.
As to Polarik, in my view he is a rank amateur. Someone who has any expertise in image manipulation would never start with a JPG image if they truly want to create a quality image. Anyone who based their analyses of an image on the assumption that the original image was a JPG will be looking for out of place compression artifacts when the only out of place artifact will be his own understanding of digital imagery.
As to the image that I posted of McCain’s purported Colon Birth Certificate, the evidence of its authenticity is plain to see. You just have to know what you are looking for.
The State of Hawaii has certified that the birth record exists in their archives. The COLB that I have seen contains all the information that it is required to contain in order for the Department of State to accept it and issue a Passport. Those requirements are contained in CFR 22 Section 51.42 as follows:
(a) Primary evidence of birth in the United States A person born in the United States generally must submit a birth certificate. The birth certificate must show the full name of the applicant, the applicant’s place and date of birth, the full name of the parent(s), and must be signed by the official custodian of birth records, bear the seal of the issuing office, and show a filing date within one year of the date of birth.
That COLB meets all the requirements. You can even look at images of the seal if you want by going here:
http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_2.jpg (The front view)
http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg (Another front view)
http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_1.jpg (Close-up of the raised seal)
http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_7.jpg (Close-up of the raised seal and signature of the State Registrar)
I will follow the Constitution on this one. In Article IV Section 1 the guidance in this regard is clear:
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
The State of Hawaii should be given ‘Full Faith and Credit’ for their own records in this matter.
My apologies for the multiple posts that I have made here since your reply, but I just looked over your presentation ‘A Picture’s Worth’ that is posted on the BlackHat site. I am very impressed with the expertise that is represented by that presentation. However, I have been aware of many of the problems associated with the use of JPG images for a while myself. That is why I prefer to work with uncompressed images.
I would rather work with film and transparency images, and am especially fond of KodaChrome slides. Not many film emulsions can equal the low grain images that may be obtained from a KodaChrome 25 slide. There are also very few films that can match the color stability of KodaChrome film over time.
I am also aware of the EXIF information that is found in JPG images, and understand the points that you made in your presentation concerning them. The Picture Publisher software that I use for image editing does not allow me to edit or save the EXIF information if I do attempt to modify an image that was taken with a digital camera. That does not mean that I cannot create new EXIF information for that file. All I need to do is create a program using Microsoft Visual Studio (Software Development, not image development), and I can change the EXIF information contained in a JPG file to my hearts content. I could even provide the EXIF information that could make most people believe that one of my scanned and modified KodaChrome images was actually taken with a digital camera if I really wanted to do that. I don’t.
Do I believe that there are many people who could create an image that could pass all of your tests? No, I don’t believe that. I don’t even know if I could create an image that could pass some of the analyses that your test battery performs. Perhaps if I had spent my whole life devoted to nothing but imagery, I might have the skills to do that.
However, there are people who have devoted their lives to image manipulation techniques and it is those skilled people that I speak of when I said that they could have their way if they wanted to.
I hope that you realize that the point that I was trying to make in my previous posts does not necessarily contravene any of your expertise. Believe me, I understand enough about imagery to be impressed by what I saw in the presentation that you provided to BlackHat.
If I did have a question concerning the authenticity of a JPG image I would certainly bring that image to you before I would take it to the likes of Polarik. At least I would be relying on expertise and not exploitation.
You will have to go to his page and follow along for this. The web page that I am referring to is:
http://polarik.blogtownhall.com/2008/11/22/obamas_born_conspiracy_obamas_bogus_birth_certificate_exposed%21.thtml
When you get their do a ‘Find’ (Ctrl-F) on that page for the following text:
Unlike the paper on which they are printed
The full paragraph that your browser will find will read as follows:
Unlike the paper on which they are printed, the position of letters can only vary on two dimensions: left and right and up and down. We can see in the scan image, allegedly made from the same document in the photos, that the lines of text are parallel to the top and bottom borders, and that the orientation of the letters in the text are placed parallel to the sides of the borders. Therefore, if one were to draw a straight horizontal line along the bottom of all the letters in a text string, as well as to draw a line perpendicular to this baseline, right next to (or through) the vertical stroke of one of these letters. "E," "F," "H," "I," "K," "L," "R," or "T", these two lines should also run parallel to the borders (either the inside edge or the outside one):
Below that text is an image of the folded COLB that Polarik is going to refer to in his argument. You will note that he has even gone to the trouble of placing lines on that image so that he can make a point about ‘perspective’ in that image.
It is followed by three more paragraphs that read:
When looking at photo #5, the center portion (middle 1/3) of the COLB is facing towards the camera, the top 1/3 is folded back and away from the camera, and the bottom 1/3 is folded forward and towards the camera. Since the top 1/3 and bottom 1/3 are folded by approximately the same amount, then their surfaces would also be parallel to each other. This means that the lines of text on both the top 1/3 and the bottom 1/3 will be wider at the base, the closer it is to the camera, and narrower at the top the further away it is from the camera.
These angles and perspective are the critical features of a document bent, turned and folded in different directions. So, when I discovered that the printed lines of text (and objects like the Seal and stamps) do not appear at all like they should, then something was deliberately done to either the document, to the photo of the document, or both, that speaks directly to the way the COLB document was artificially constructed.
I am still scratching my head on this one because I am still trying to figure out what his argument actually is. It would seem that he is making some point that the text does not conform to the perspective that it should conform to, given the overall image.
Does he have any understanding of perspective? The image that I see conforms to the expected perspective of the overall image completely. It is obvious that the text in the image conforms to the perspective anchor of the green thatched background. The fact that the indicated text is not perpendicular to the edge of the document (as shown by the lines he has inserted) only means that you are viewing the document in a non-flat perspective.
You can experiment with an sheet of paper that has printed words on it. All you have to do is fold the paper in the same manner as the image of the COLB. Place that paper on the floor so that the folds provide two or three inches of vertical depth, and use your own digital camera to take a picture of that document. Remember that the camera will close-focus better on that document if the lens focal length is minimal, in other words, wide angle. If you are even close to using the same lens focal length and viewing angle (slightly to the right of the document and reasonably straight overhead) when you take the picture, you will get a picture with a perspective that reasonably matches the perspective in the picture of the COLB.
You can check the image on your monitor with a simple ruler. Just line the edge of the ruler with a line of text in the document. When you look at where the edge of the paper crosses that ruler there will be no doubt that the edge of the COLB should not be perpendicular to the line of the text, as Polarik claims it should be.
You don’t even need a PHD in photography to understand perspective, and the argument made by Polarik regarding the perspective of the COLB image is nothing more than an obfuscation of reality.
I have no idea why he removed his work, but I feel compelled to elaborate a little more on the comment that I posted yesterday concerning *perspective*.
I chastised Polarik for his apparent lack of understanding about the concept of perspective in the arguments he made concerning image # 5 of the COLB that is posted at FactCheck.org. That image may be found at this link:
http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg
On the web page at Polarik’s site that is now gone, Polarik took several paragraphs to discuss how the perspective of that image was all wrong, and that it was a clear indicator to him that the image had been doctored.
The text from that page is preserved in my last post so I will not repost it here.
What I can no longer link to on that page is the image of that COLB that contained the lines that he discussed verbally in his text (see post #22 above). There were horizontal lines that traversed the top and bottom of the certificate number in the image, as well as horizontal lines that traversed the folds in the image, as well as a few of the other lines of text in that image.
There were also vertical lines that were place perpendicular to those horizontal lines, and he states that those perpendicular vertical lines should run parallel to at least one border of the document.
The type of perspective that would be represented by those perpendicular lines is called ‘two-point’ perspective. It is the type of perspective that one would usually find in a mechanical drawing where the point of origin for the viewer is not directly perpendicular to either the X, Y or Z axis of the drawing. This type of perspective can be referred to as a ‘flat’ perspective. It represents what a viewer would see if they were viewing from a position that was an infinite distance from the object using a lens with an infinite focal length.
In a drawing, or image, that conforms to this ‘two-point’ perspective, the argument posted by Polarik would be valid. The problem is that when the viewer is located close to an object, that ‘two-point’ perspective view is no longer valid. When the viewer is no longer at an infinite distance from the object, the perspective changes to ‘three-point’ perspective.
In ‘three-point’ perspective, the straight horizontal and vertical lines will no longer be viewed as ‘flat’ by the observer, but will instead begin to appear as curves to that observer. The closer that the observer is to the object being viewed, the less flat and more curved those straight horizontal and vertical lines of the object will appear to the observer.
In photography, different lens focal lengths will provide different angles of view. If you take a picture of an object from different distances, you can maintain the object’s size within frame at those different distances by uses lenses with different focal lengths. If the camera views the object from great distances, a longer focal length lens will allow that object to appear at a certain apparent size at the focal plane (film) of the camera. If the camera is viewing the object from shorter distances, the focal length of the lens must be shortened in order to keep that image of the object the same apparent size at the focal plane of the camera. That shorter focal length lens is known as a wide-angle lens and the linger length lens is known as a telephoto lens.
Most photographers are familiar with wide-angle and telephoto lenses, and the effect that they will have on the perspective of the image being recorded by the camera. This change in perspective can become extremely pronounced with very short focal length lenses. An example is an image taken with a ‘fish-eye’ lens, as shown in the following link:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b8/Fish_eye_lens.jpg
In this image, the curvature effect is very pronounced.
In Polarik’s discussion of the perspective problems that he saw in the image of that COLB, he never mentioned anywhere that the use of a wide-angle lens would cause the straight lines on that image to appear curved as they do in the image he was analyzing. To provide that information would go against his argument, because the use of a wide-angle lens would completely explain the perspective problems that he saw and was trying to portray as evidence of tampering.
Before going any further, there is an obvious question that must be asked here, and that is Why would a person use a wide-angle lens to take the picture of the COLB that is provided by FactCheck.org?
The answer is very simple. The use of a wide-angle lens does a few other things for the photographer besides changing the perspective. The first thing that it does is allow the camera to maintain focus on the object at a closer distance to that object. The wide-angle lens also improves the Depth of Field. The Depth of Field of a lens can be explained technically by delving into ‘circles of confusion’, but there is no reason to get into a highly technical explanation here. Simply put, the Depth of Field is the range of focus that a lens will provide. For example, if a lens has a depth of field of two feet and it is focused to a distance of five feet, anything in that image that is between four feet and six feet from the camera will be in acceptable focus. There are two primary ways that the depth of field can be increased with any given lens. One way is to reduce the aperture (increase the F-Stop), and the other is to reduce the focal length.
When you are taking a picture of something that has depth (a partially folded sheet of paper for instance) and you want to keep the entire image within acceptable focus, you would want to use a wide-angle lens. That appears to be exactly what the FactCheck.org photographer did to obtain that image.
Why would a person who holds a PHD fail to include that information in his published analyses?
The answer to that question is unknown, because there could be any number of reasons why this information was omitted. It might have been inadvertent or it might have been the result of an ignorance of the physics of optics. It could also have been intentional. I cannot say what the reason was. I can only say that, in my view, it certainly does speak to the credibility of that person that omitted that information in their extensive analyses of that COLB.
http://obamacrimes.com/thebirthcertificate5.html
So that the image that I discussed may be easily identified, here is a link to that image (with the lines that Polarik placed on the image to show the perspective) on that site:
http://obamacrimes.com/birth_certificate_5-lines3sm.jpg
His actual discussion about perspective begins on that page with the words:
Feature #4: a shot to the midsection
You will note that at no point does Polarik even mention that the use of a wide angle lens will cause the perspective distortions that he is pointing out as evidence of alterations.
Go to his ‘analyses’ of the Obama COLB that can be found at the ‘obamacrimes’ web site:
http://obamacrimes.com/thebirthcertificate.html
Down near the bottom of that page he compares a section of the Obama COLB to a ‘real’ COLB that he calls ‘Dan’s COLB’.
Before I go further, I must point out a minor error in Polarik’s written analyses that means very little but must be mentioned in order to avoid confusion. He shows two sets of images in this comparison. The first set of images just contains the word ‘Birth’ and the next set contains the words ‘Hour of Birth’.
Although he states that these ‘Hour of Birth’ images are enlarged 5 times, we can all agree that he meant that the ‘Birth’ images above these were the ones that were actually enlarged 5 times (We all get disjointed at times and forget where we were, and it seems that this was one of those times for Polarik. This will not be held against him, but it must be pointed out to avoid any confusion here).
As to that ‘Birth’ image, Polarik does state the following concerning it”:
Take a look at the area between the letters in the Obama COLB: very little, if any, hint of green from the background. Plenty of grey and white pixels instead -- exactly the pattern that would result from replacing the existing text with other text.
When the two images of the word ‘Birth’ are compared, it is obvious that the image of the Obama COLB have lost some of the detail for the background thatch in the vicinity that immediately surrounds the characters.
Each of these images may be opened in a separate window, and if that is done, a better quality image is available. The image of the word ‘Birth’ from the Obama COLB has an image dimension of 500 x 219 pixels with a file size of 12,011 bytes. The image from ‘Dan’s’ COLB is the same dimension size in pixels but only has a file size of 9,043 bytes. Based on this, it would be understandable to assume that there is actually more pixel information in the Obama COLB image that there is in the Dan COLB image. They both are images of areas that encompass the same physical size and contain the same number of pixels, so one would assume that the image that comprised the most bytes had more information in it per pixel.
Let’s test this assumption. To make it easier to test this, let’s go to the images that were not enlarged. Those un-enlarged images are the two images that follow that contain the words ‘Hour of Birth’ in them.
Polarik claims that the image that was taken from Dan’s COLB was scanned at the same resolution and with the same amount of file compression as the image from the Obama COLB.
Get the properties for each of those images (right click –> Properties).
For the Obama ‘Hour of Birth’ image, the properties will show a file size of 8,025 bytes, and the image dimensions are 250 x 116 pixels. For the Dan ‘Hour of Birth’ image, the properties will show a file size of 6,417 bytes, and the image dimensions are 250 x 106 pixels.
What does that information tell us about the images?
Well, if they were scanned in at 300 dpi, the actual size of the images would be .83 x .39 for the Obama COLB image, and .83 x .35 for the Dan COLB image. From that we can tell just how many bytes of information are provided for each square inch of image area. In the case of the Obama image, there is .83 x .39 = .3237 sq in of image area, and the number of bytes per square inch would be 8,025 / .3237 = 24,791. For the Dan image. There is .83 x .35 = .2906 sq in of image area, and the bytes per square inch of image area would be 6,417 / .2906 = 22,081.
It would seem that the Obama COLB actually does contain more information per square inch than the Dan COLB, because the Obama image contains 24,791 bytes of information for every 22,081 bytes contained in the Dan image. If that is the case, Polarik’s analyses would be correct, providing that both images represents the same resolution and the same amount of file compression, and that neither image was altered by Polarik.
Did Polarik alter the image of the Obama COLB?
I cannot see that he did. We will have to compare the partial image that he uses in this comparison with the FactCheck image that he took it from. That image can be found at:
http://factcheck.org/imagefiles/Ask%20FactCheck%20Images/Obama%20Birth%20Certificate/BO%20Birth%20Certificate.jpg
There is one thing that needs to be noted about this image. Nowhere in the Polarik Document does he attribute this image to the FactCheck image that is available online. In fact, the source of the Obama images that were used in the number of comparisons like this that he makes are never revealed by him. The fact that he does not state where the image that he uses actually came from is just another commentary on his methods. When the ‘Hour of Birth’ image that he claims to have taken from Obama’s COLB is compared to this image from FactCheck.org, it appears to be his source image for those comparisons.
The full Obama COLB images that he posts at the beginning of his ‘analyses’ are all lower resolution images than this image. In fact, Polarik himself makes a point to state that the original image from the FTS site was 1024 x 1000 pixels, and that it was replaced by an image that was only 585 x 575 pixels.
Let’s take a look at that FactCheck image that is linked to above. If you look at the image from FactCheck.org, you should notice that it can be displayed in two different sizes in your web browser. While the low resolution image is in view, note that your mouse cursor is a Plus magnifier icon. Place that mouse icon over the ‘Hour of Birth’ in that image and left-click your mouse. The image will change to a higher resolution (and larger) image. When it is displaying the higher resolution, compare the ‘Hour of Birth’ image there to the ‘Hour of Birth’ image at the bottom of Polarik’s web page. You will note that the image from the FactCheck ‘zoomed’ page matches the image posted as part of that comparison being made on Polarik’s page. It can be seen that Polarik did not alter that image. He just neglected to tell anyone where he got the image.
What about the resolution and the amount of file compression?
If you look at the properties of the high-resolution FactCheck image (right-click -> properties), you will see that the high resolution image has a file size of 1,437,382 Bytes, and the dimensions are 2550 x 3300 pixels. (why would Polarik fail to mention this after deriding the image sizs earlier). The image size is 8.5 in x 11 in, or 93.5 square inches.
If you divide the number of bytes in the file size by the number of square inches you will have the average number of bytes of information that represents a square inch of that image. 1,437,382 / 93.5 = 15,373. Wait a minute. Didn’t we just determine a few minutes ago that the information per square inch of the ‘Hour of Birth’ image that Polarik displayed at the bottom of his page was 24,791?
Yes, we did. The problem is that the image he used never contained more than 15,373 bytes per square inch, so even though the image he posted seemed to contain more, it never could have contained more information that its actual source contained.
How about the ‘Hour of Birth’ image of Dan’s COLB. We determined that, if that image was scanned in at 300 dpi, then the image that Polarik posted contained 22,081 bytes of information per square inch of image. Although that would have been a little less than the 24,791 bytes of information per square inch that the Polarik posted Obama image contained, it is actually much greater than the 15,373 bytes per square inch than the original source that he used for the Obama ‘Hour of Birth’ contained.
This is a major discrepancy. Remember, Polarik claims that the image that was taken from Dan’s COLB was scanned at the same resolution and with the same amount of file compression as the image from the Obama COLB.
That statement is totally devoid of truth.
Of course. Polarik does finally state on the next page of his analyses ( http://obamacrimes.com/thebirthcertificate2.html ) that he found the higher resolution image of the Obama COLB at the FactCheck site, though he actually says of the higher resolution FactCheck Image on that page:
Most surprising of all, however, was the Factcheck image. Although it had a higher color count, the Factcheck image, when cropped like the Daily Kos image, was the same size as the Daily Kos image and used the same amount of memory. However, its compression level was more than five times greater than the Daily Kos image…
His statement there was inaccurate too.
If you crop a large portion of the image out of a file, you will get a smaller file, but the image that remains will still have the same compression ratio. Polarik made a point to show that the Daily Kos image had a file size of 547K and would use 16.46 MB of memory. That image was compressed to 3% of the file size that the original image would have taken. He also made a point to show that the FactCheck image had a files size 1437K and would have used 24.08 MB of memory. That image is compressed to 6% of the file size that would have been taken up by the uncompressed image. Those are the figures from Polarik’s table on that page.
Before I go any further, I want to make note of something here. You would think that if Polarik did actually earn a PHD, he would be careful to use the appropriate terminology when referring to file size and memory size, etc. Instead, he mixes his units in a way that is very confusing.
The IEEE recognizes that the suffixes KB and MB are to be used to denote the byte count in standard decimal format, while the suffixes KiB and MiB are to be used when the byte count is referenced in binary multiple format. In the binary multiple format, 1 KiB = 2^10 = 1,024 bytes. In addition, using the binary multiple format, 1 MiB = 2^20 = 1,048,576 bytes. Polarik is using the suffix ‘MB’ when the suffix ‘MiB’ should be used. A person who has earned their PHD is unlikely to use the improper units’ designation but it appears that he has clearly used the wrong units’ designation here.
To demonstrate this, let’s look at the file sizes and memory requirements that he posted.
Polarik said that the FactCheck image had a file size of 1437K and a memory size of 24.08 MB. The actual file size is 1,437,382 bytes, which is 1437 KB. He looses no points there. The amount of memory that the file will require will depend on the pixel dimensions and the color depth. This image has the dimensions shown of 2550 x 3300 pixels and a 24-bit color depth (3 bytes per pixel). The calculated memory size would be 2550 x 3300 x 3 = 25,245,000 bytes = 25.245 MB = 24.0755 KiB. He stated that the memory required would be 24.08 MB so it is obvious that he used the wrong units here and points will be taken off his overall grade for that.
With that point made, let’s go back to his statement concerning the compression level of that the FactCheck image. He said that when the FactCheck image is cropped like the Daily Kos image, that the FactCheck image is the same size as the Daily Kos Image and uses the same amount of memory. He then said ’ However, its compression level was more than five times greater than the Daily Kos image, and almost as compressed as the Politifact image, that is less than 1/4 its size.
Lets think about this for just one moment. When you crop from an image, all that happens is that a portion of the image is removed. If you crop half of the original image away, then half of the original image will remain. The amount of memory that is required to display the image that remains will be reduced by half and so will the file size. The compression level is NOT going to change. Polarik’s assertion that the compression level would change by a factor of greater than 10 (from 6% to >.6%) is also completely devoid of truth.
In my previous post, I discussed ‘Dr’ Polarik’s lack of understanding about ‘perspective’. He seems oblivious to the fact that the use of a wide-angle lens could cause a distortion in the perspective of an image. In fact, his own words from the last page of his analyses were Whatever perspective was created by angling the COLB object in three dimensions, that same perspective should be discernible across the entire COLB image.
The above statement by Polarik is devoid of truth.
A quick look at the picture that I linked to in that earlier post of an image taken using a ‘fish eye’ lens will make that point clear. The perspective that is provided by any point of that ‘fish eye’ image will not be duplicated by any other part of that ‘fish eye’ image. Imagine what an image that COLB would look like if a ‘fish eye’ lens were used to take the picture, no matter where the center of the image was located.. Would the perspective viewed from the upper right corner of that image match the perspective viewed from anywhere else in that picture? No, it would not.
It is important to understand that the assertions about perspective that Polarik makes in his analyses are devoid of truth. The reason that it is important is that throughout his analyses, Polarik relies on two-point (flat) perspective to make comparisons between the images of the partially folded COLB that were taken with a camera (to show the depth) and images of various COLBs that were scanned using a flatbed scanner.
The images that were scanned with a scanner will have two-point perspective. That is the nature of the beast when using a flatbed scanner. The images taken with a camera have a three-point perspective. There will be a noticeable curve to straight lines because of this, and the wider the angle of the lens, the more noticeable the curve. Don’t take my word for it. Try your own little experiment.
If you have any software available that can produce an image, create an image of a rectangle that goes to close to the edges of a standard sheet of paper. Print it out, and then use your digital camera to take a picture of it. Use the widest angle of your camera’s zoom lens when you take that picture and if you have close focus capability, use that too. You want to take the picture with the camera close enough to the paper to be able to see this effect.
Once you have that picture taken, display it on your computer monitor and check that rectangle. Are the lines straight or curved?
Now, use a flatbed scanner to scan that printed piece of paper that you just took a picture of. View it on your computer and look at how straight the lines are compared to the image from the camera. Ask yourself this question. Can you ever overlay the two images and have then match?
You can’t, can you?
This is what Polarik is asking you to believe that you can do when you compare images from a flatbed scanner to mages taken with a wide-angle camera lens.
Of course those images are not going to match.
Polarik’s analysis of the Obama COLB has so many flaws in it that it should be obvious to anyone that he is a charlatan. The only question becomes what his motives are. I cannot speak for his motives, but I can say that his analysis is completely contemptuous of the principles of good Science.
http://barackryphal.blogspot.com/2009/07/meet-ronald-jay-polland.html
Maybe, you like to discuss it here?
Why you show ELA, LG, and PCA images in all of your image analyses, but none for Obama's birth certificate?
Where are your images??
Someone said that you cannot tell if an image has been faked without comparing it to an original?
Who here has actually done that?
I've been addressing some family matters recently. (The doctor says everything is fine again, thanks for asking.)
To answer your questions:
- Where are the ELA, LG, and PCA for the Obama COLB?
I generated them, but they were not noteworthy. If there was any indication of manipulation, then I would have posted them. However, there is no indication of manipulations. It isn't worth the bandwidth to post pictures that show no sign of digital manipulation.
- You also wrote: "Someone said that you cannot tell if an image has been faked without comparing it to an original?"
That is certainly NOT true. If there is no match, then you can rule out the hypothesis. But if there is a match, then the result is inconclusive.
These tests are similar to a DNA or blood test. With a blood test, you can say "The unknown suspect has B+ blood." Then you can test the known suspect's blood. If his blood type is not B+, then you can immediately rule him out. However, if he matches, then his guilt is inconclusive. With DNA, there is a much slimmer chance of having a false-positive. However, it can still happen. With DNA, it is up to the courts to decide whether a match in the given situation is "beyond a reasonable doubt".
With image analysis, the hypothesis is that the image is real. If the tests indicate manipulation, then I could rule out a real image. However, if there is no indication of manipulation, then it only means that I could not detect any manipulation.
With regards to comparing it to the original: The question becomes, what is the original?
I could compare it with the document that was scanned in, assuming I had access, and determine whether it came from the same source or not. This is useful to identify the source, but would not convince the birthers that the document is real. I mean, "so what" -- there was a piece of paper that was scanned in...
As I've previously mentioned, there is a difference between "real" and "authentic". I can determine that the document is real and unmanipulation (beyond the black bar at the top that covers the ID number). However, I am not an expert on Hawaiian birth certificates, so I am not qualified to determine that the document is authentic. As with Polarik, TechDude, and the other so-called experts who have been identified as frauds, they also wouldn't be able to authenticate a real COLB if it were handed to them.
So who could authenticate the document? That would be the state of Hawaii. And they have repeatedly said that a real document exists, the real document is authentic, and the real document looks like one that is online. Moreover, the courts have upheld this finding (and they even fined that nutcase lawyer Orly Taitz for repeatedly filing frivolous lawsuits). Since I am not qualified to authenticate a COLB, I'll trust the findings of the state (Hawaii) and the courts.
So what am I qualified to do? I can evaluate the image and see if there is any digital manipulation as claimed by TechDude, Polarik, and similar fraudulent experts. Those fake experts are wrong: there is no sign of digital manipulation in the COLB put out by Obama's team.
And, it s because of your level of expertise and throughness that I find your answers so peculiar.
You started this topic about science and what makes for good science versus bad. But,this is not science:
"I generated them, but they were not noteworthy. If there was any indication of manipulation, then I would have posted them. However, there is no indication of manipulations. It isn't worth the bandwidth to post pictures that show no sign of digital manipulation."
You would not let someone else get away with this statement. You would nail him to a tree for withholding evidence, right?
You showed an ELA of a children's sketch that was not manipulated. Are you saying that the most talked about image is not worth at least as much as a child sketch?
If these analyses are unremarkable, then what is the harm in posting them?
I read your statement about having an original image or object with which to compare. I should not have said, "original," as in the same document, because an image of a document does not prove that the document shown in it is real.
You said, "if there is no indication of manipulation, then it only means that I could not detect any manipulation."
So, you would agree that your failure to find manipulation does not rule out someone else finding evidence of manipulation using different methods than yours?
Besides reading your reports, I also read Polarik's. He has two real COLBs that he has scanned and photographed hundreds of times, so you are wrong when you said that he could not "authenticate a real COLB if it were handed to him," because that is exactly what he did.
And, he is the only person who has done that.
The paper COLBs use the same, exact paper, whether it was prited in 2001 all thru 2009. The paper is exactly the same. If you don't have a real COLB to scan and photograph, then you would not be able to say what it should or should not look like when it has been scanned.
Maybe the blotches you saw were caused by the security paper messing up after scanning?
I mean no offense when I ask this.
I don't think the images are worth linking to on my blog, nor worthwhile to update this blog entry.
You can see the images at:
http://picasaweb.google.com/hackerfactor/ObamaBirthCertificate
The Luminance Gradient, PCA, and color density were uploaded back in 2008. I just uploaded the error level analysis.
With the ELA, nothing stands out as odd. The high contrast areas (dark letters on light background) have a higher error potential than the rest of the document because they are high contrast. However, nothing stands out as unexpected or abnormal. In particular, all letters and logos are at the same error level, so no text was digitally modified (as claimed by Polarik and TechDude). The red/purple background is an artifact created by Photoshop -- but this only means that Photoshop was used to save the image (as denoted in the image's meta data). Since many people use Photoshop to access their scanners (and to download images from their cameras), the use is not unexpected and not an indication of manipulation.
You said that you only looked at the image posted on the Daily Kos, but why do I also see the Factcheck image, too?
Why did you run ELA only on the Factcheck image?
I see that you ran your tests on 500 x 512 images because they were quicker to do.
Would the results be the same on a full-size image?
One last question.
Even though the image is small, I can clearly see the orange streaks that outline the border.
On the PCA, I can also see a bright white outline along the inside and outside of the border.
So, give me a good reason why this not a clear sign that the border was added last?
I take that to mean that the border was added last. There is no other explanation.
I have looked at all of the Obama scan image and compared them to other, known scan images, and the text on these known scan images look nothing like the Obama scan image.
You got Polarik's theory all wrong.
Go back to his first blog post, which was June 13, 2008, and you read the title: "Was OBama's Birht Certificate Manufactured?"
He said then, and has continued to say, that the Obama birth certificate is a composite image.
He is talking about separate layers here, and nothing about direct tampering with the text on a single image.
He said that this certificate image was put together from other certificate images.
He said that the border came from a separate image and was the last layer.
That is why your ELA shows the orange outline.
You see, what you have done here is not science at all. It is no different than any other agenda to smear Polarik.
You are clearly mistaken.
First off, you wrote:
I see that you ran your tests on 500 x 512 images because they were quicker to do.
I analyzed a variety of images that were all derived from the same source. The largest image (and one I paid most attention to since it was the highest quality) is 2550x3300. The second image (pre-cropped) is 618x800, and the smallest (a reduced quality version of the 2550x3300 image) is 585x575. None are 500x512.
Your remaining arguments show a lack of understanding of the analysis approach. Please re-read what I wrote.
With regards to the COLB. The courts have repeatedly upheld that an authentic COLB exists. Only Orly Taitz continues to promote the conspiracy, and she was recently fined by the courts for abuse of the judicial process and contempt of court. And of course, Phil Berg -- who has a history of filing frivolous lawsuits.
Moreover, the only technical analysis that indicate a digital forgery are from TechDude (an impersonator and fraud) and Polarik. Polarik was recently outed and identified as a fraud who has no background in image analysis.
http://www.the-peoples-forum.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=13394
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/07/ron-polarik-identified/
The question really comes down to an understanding of trust. Who do you trust? The options are:
(1) The State of Hawaii, US Courts, Congress, a variety of independent fact check organizations, and an established expert in digital image analysis -- all who say that there is no indication that the COLB is fraudulent nor any indication of a conspiracy to make a fake document appear real. To reiterate: the online COLB shows no indication of digital manipulation beyond the black censor line at the top. And the other groups have validated the authenticity of the document.
OR:
(2) Two proven frauds and two attorneys who have a history of abusing the court system. These are the people pushing the conspiracy that the COLB is fictitious.