Friday, June 29, 2012

"It's like eating peanuts!"

My titular exclamation is what Diana West said in a radio interview with Frank Gaffney, when she described her interest in the Eligibility Issue.

After spending a few disparate hours reading from various blogs and among hundreds of comments reflecting innumerable angles on this issue by sundry civilians in the blogosphere, I can see what Diana means.  Not every one may be consumed with interest in this issue -- particularly not, of course, those ideologically inclined Obamawards -- but if you begin with an inkling of curiosity about it, and you dive into it, as I did, you may get hooked as if on crack (or peanuts).

If you want to plunge in the deep end, there's no better place to go than the "Butterdezillion" blog (don't ask me why she calls it that).

Less radical and traumatic than that, you can always see my recent article that helps break in the novice.

For a comprehensive source of articles and investigators who have tackled this issue, see this page published by World Net Daily, which includes this lengthy list of various individuals -- many of them holding various political offices from mayors to senators -- who remain skeptical or at least puzzled as to why Obama has refused to show his actual hard copy birth certificate and submit it for an unremarkable procedure of verification (hat tip to Diana West).

And to give you a small sample of what I have been wading through, consider the following (but remember, there are many more quotes -- both substantive and worthile, as well as repetitive and specious -- which I cannot provide out of sheer limitations of time and space) from the Gateway Pundit:

On the long form certificate of live birth issued by the White House in April of last year:


I am an Adobe Certified Expert in photoshop, and also use Adobe Illustrator on a daily basis for almost 20 years. I’m also a college level instructor in both.

I can tell you this document is NOT a scan of an existing physical document. If opened in Illustrator, it shows a number of clipping masks and layers, areas blocked out to be replaced with different content. 

This is clearly a doctored image.

If it were simply a scan of an existing document, it would have a single layer, also called a “flattened” image, not multiple layers with separate pixels.

This reminds me of the fake memos indicating GW Bush didn’t fulfill his service in the armed forces. On the surface, both are fairly good pieces of art, but neither artist is technically astute enough to understand the underlying technology and make it pass muster.

The fake memos were typeset with a proportionally spaced font in a Word processor or desktop publishing program, not composed on a fixed-width typewriter. 1960′s typewriters were mechanical devices and each letter takes up a single, fixed width of space. Proportionally spaced fonts were first used in the 1980′s in comuterized typesetting equipment, and made popular in the late 1980′s with the advent of Pagemaker, the Apple Macitosh, the Apple Laserwriter, and Adobe Postscript printer description language. Not hiring an artist smart enough to understand this cost Dan Rather his job at Communist Broadcast System News.


The reason for all the layers and apparent p-shop work is actually right out in the open: Director of the Hawaii Dept. of Health, one “Loretta Fuddy”, said the image is a “computer-generated certified copy produced outside their usual policies.

In other words, the photoshop work was done by the HDOH.

Question is, if the original BC exists, why go to all the trouble with P-shop? Why not just *photograph the original* and release a photocopy?

The most likely answer is that the original contains something different on it that would prove acutely embarrassing to Obama and company. Hard to guess what that might be, but one thing certain is that 

Obama was absolutely determined not to let the voters see the original.


As far as the birth certificate, I don’t understand why the forgery. But it is a forgery.

 I professionally work with imaging and scanning technologies – I engineer them – and there is nothing genuine about the recently released birth certificate. There is no scanning technology that exists that would produce the PDF he presented to the world. It is as much a forgery as a $3 bill. In fact you don’t have to have my expertise to see it – just load it in Acrobat and zoom in.

It shocks me that he would release this shoddy work. He could have had them print it out and scan it in and it would be all over – no way to really tell either way. But instead, he released the PDF file created most likely by Adobe Illustrator.

PDF is not like image format simply containing pixel data. A 680 page document explains the format specifications for PDF version 1.3, which his birth certificate file states it is. It has data in it that explains what version of PDF, what objects to draw, where to draw them, how to draw them and in what order to draw them. And this document is full of picture objects.

The document he presented has instructions to draw numerous objects on top of each other that if viewed each result one by one, you’d see this document being built. These objects are artifacts of editing. A scanned image would have just one object: the whole image.

If I were hiring him for any administrative job, judging merely from this birth certificate, I would wonder what if any competencies he has.


In 1961 the BC forms were typed on a manual typewriter that was set for a left margin and tabbed to the form being filled in. Most documents were designed for tabbed typing, which is of course only sensible. I’ve done this many times.

With the Nordyke BCs we see that items, 1,6,8,10, 13,15 of the inserted information that’s typed is presented with a clean vertical left margin. The additional filled-in information is evenly spaced vertically in the provided fields.

On the recent Obama LFC we see that the left margin is not vertical and the information inserted into the same fields is high, low, moved to the right and all over the place, so to speak.

It appears that a person who may have altered this form was not familiar with old typewriters and forms and was not aware of this. Therefore, these discrepancies, raise a red flag.

Expert forensic examiners of course will have to study the offered document to be able to state if this doc is altered or not. So far, things don’t look too promising that this is an authentic unaltered document.

I’m not a total expert on document authentication but I am very well acquainted with old forms and manual typewriters. In my Navy days I filled in hundreds of similar forms and I always set the tab and margin to FIT the form.


Then there's this one important sub-topic among many -- the question of whether Obama's certificate reflects the theft of someone else's birth certificate who died one day old in the same Hawaiian hospital on the same date of his putative birth (August 4, 1961).  This website has perhaps one of the best introductions to this sub-topic. Also see this synopsis on the same topic.

No comments: