Wednesday, July 09, 2008
Obama Certificate of Live Birth Forged?
So Kos aka Moulitsas goes out and gets [a copy of the Obama birth certificate]. One impressed commenter on the site asks Kos where he got it. He answers: "I asked the campaign. This 'journamalism [sic] thing actually works sometimes."
But why would a presidential campaign that has its own "Fight the Smears" website rely on a radical left-wing blog like Daily Kos to post its official documents, especially one as sensitive and controversial as a birth certificate? A few days later the Obama site would post a very low resolution, barely legible image -- it still is there on the site, with no reference to the one first posted at the Daily Kos.
Yet the service of Daily Kos to the Obama campaign raises some questions: Who in the campaign would be authorized to release a personal document of Barack Obama's birth certificate? Was it a paper document that they sent to Kos to scan, or did the Obama campaign scan the original and send it to Kos? If so, why not just post it on the Fight the Smears site? Or is there another possible source for the document? There is no documentation of the provenance of this image, from whom and why it was transmitted to Daily Kos, and in which format. None, that is, except for the say-so of Markos Moulitsas, who said he simply asked the Obama campaign for it.
"What you won't hear from this campaign or this party is the kind of politics that uses religion as a wedge," says Mr. Obama, while denouncing statements of him being a Muslim as a smear. Why is the presidential candidate who claims to be religiously inclusive is treating the word "Muslim" as an insult? Apparently, it is OK for Mr. Obama to be associated with terrorists like William Ayers or racists like Jeremiah Wright, but God forbid somebody would call him a Muslim! No, he won't stand for that kind of smear! We admit that most terrorists are Muslims, but most Muslims are not terrorists and the statement on Mr. Obama's website is insulting to hundreds of millions of people.
How could a man who discards his family heritage in favor of political expediency be even considered for presidency of the United States? Where are all the so-called "Islamic civil rights groups" like CAIR, MPAC, ISNA, MAS, etc. who are quick to defend every Islamic terrorist, but are silent when Muslims in general are being denigrated? Would Mr. Obama have the same reaction if someone claimed that he was raised as a Jew? We sincerely doubt that.
"In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans, for example, have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. They have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific reassurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction." Barack Obama, "The Audacity of Hope", page 261.
Well, the political winds did shift in an ugly direction. Is equating "Muslim" with "smear" Obama's idea of "stand[ing] with [Muslims]?
Muslims Against Sharia demand immediate removal of "SMEAR: Barack Obama is a Muslim" statement from the official Barack Obama's website as well as an apology for giving the word "Muslim" a negative connotation.
Obama changes "SMEAR: Barack Obama is a Muslim" to "SMEAR: Barack Obama is secretly a Muslim" as well as removes his pledge not to use religion as a wedge from site's header.
[David]: So Kos aka Moulitsas goes out and gets [a copy of the Obama birth certificate]. One impressed commenter on the site asks Kos where he got it. He answers: "I asked the campaign. This 'journamalism [sic] thing actually works sometimes."
But why would a presidential campaign that has its own "Fight the Smears" website rely on a radical left-wing blog like Daily Kos to post its official documents, especially one as sensitive and controversial as a birth certificate?
[Ray]: They didn't rely on Kos. They sent copies to other more prominent sites.
[David]: A few days later the Obama site would post a very low resolution, barely legible image -- it still is there on the site, with no reference to the one first posted at the Daily Kos.
[Ray]: There was no reference to any of the others who were given a copy either. The low resolution image that was used on the Obama 'Smears' site was reduced in size for one reason only - so it would FIT in the space provided on their web page. It would however have been a go idea to have made provision for viewing it at a larger size - and it still would be.
[David]: Yet the service of Daily Kos to the Obama campaign raises some questions: Who in the campaign would be authorized to release a personal document of Barack Obama's birth certificate?
[Ray]: Whoever was on deck. It was no big deal who put it up once Obama decided to provide it a few days AFTER he became the Presumptive Nominee. It would have all been irrelevant if he hadn't beaten Hillary.
[David]: Was it a paper document that they sent to Kos to scan, or did the Obama campaign scan the original and send it to Kos?
[Ray]: The image was sent out as a JPEG. It was 1.37MB in size and measured 11 x 8.5 inches (std paper size). Kos chopped off the empty 3 inches at the top - which took it down to 1MB. He then reduced the quality of the JEG (and therefore memory) so it became 0.5MB
[David]: If so, why not just post it on the Fight the Smears site?
[Ray]: The idea was to get the message out to a wide enough audience, and the 'Smears' site was not enough to achieve that.
[David]: Or is there another possible source for the document?
[Ray]: No, the document is genuine. Obama wants to go to the White House - not the Big house for fraud -- and it WOULD be fraud to give the wrong information to financial donors during his political campaign.
[David]: There is no documentation of the provenance of this image, from whom and why it was transmitted to Daily Kos, and in which format. None, that is, except for the say-so of Markos Moulitsas, who said he simply asked the Obama campaign for it.
[Ray]: Two key figures in the Obama campaign have indicated that the image is a genuine facsimile of the original document. It doesn't NEED any significant verification because the claim has been made and if anyone on the planet can prove the details in the certificate have been deliberately falsified - Obama gets jailed. it's that simple.
You realized you are reading an excerpt from another story, that those three paragraphs are selected from what is written by someone else, right?
So the [David] & [Ray] condescension is really uncalled for.
The questions asked are asked by those of another writer. They are only fair and just questions. Anyone should ask them of McCain if his birth cert was posing to be as specious as the ones "two key figures in the Obama campaign have indicated that the image is a genuine facsimile." Wow, there's a sentence open with enough wiggle room to drive semi-trucks through.
I'm happy to see your blog and that there are many peacful Muslims who are against Sharia Law and are voicing it on the internet.
I would intellectually and honestly debate you on a couple of item at the link you referenced. You noted that one of the Smears against Obama is that he was never raised as a Muslim. While this may technically be accurate, he did indeed study the Koran and attend Muslim indoctrination:
"n his autobiography, "Dreams From My Father," Obama briefly mentions Koranic study and describes his public school, which accepted students of all religions, as "a Muslim school."
"In the Muslim school, the teacher wrote to tell my mother that I made faces during Koranic studies," Obama wrote.
the above is from - http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-obamachildhood15-2007mar15,0,6230642.story
Also, his Christianity comes as a surprise to his half brother Malik and other family relatives he has in Kenya. Please see:
So, at best, we can only take him at his words, which in my opinion (and only my opinion) isn't very trustworthy at all.
I forgot to note, nowhere on my blog will you find any references to Muslims as "dirty" or as Obama as "dirty". Unless I slipped and used the term "dirty" as a euphemism for "corrupt" or "crooked." Nor have I ever written that all Muslims are terrorists. But so far, all terrorists have been Muslims. What's up with that?
For the purpose of our discussion it is irrelevant whether Obama was raised as a Muslim or not.
"nowhere on my blog will you find any references to Muslims as "dirty" or as Obama as "dirty"."
We never claimed you did. Apparently, you missed the point of our post.
"You realized you are reading an
excerpt from another story, that
those three paragraphs are selected
from what is written by someone
else, right? [...]
I realised about 2 hours later when I dropped in at the other blog.
The questions asked are asked by
those of another writer. They are
only fair and just questions.
Yes, and I simply provided the answers because I knew some of them were not generally known.
Anyone should ask them of
McCain if his birth cert was posing
to be as specious as the ones "two
key figures in the Obama campaign
have indicated that the image is a
genuine facsimile." Wow, there's a
sentence open with enough wiggle
room to drive semi-trucks
Both McCain and Obama have more than enough supporting evidence to confirm that they were born where their facsimile birth records indicate they were, so it would seem futile to keep questioning the authenticity of the document images on the web.
Ray - read the Israel Insider link again. There's plenty of skepticism about the legitimacy of Obama's birth certificate, or the one's he has purported to release as such. Just because you think there's enough supporting evidence out there doesn't mean everyone is going to agree with you. Please note, I do not - and have not written - that I expect others to agree with me. I am simply linking to what I think is a reasonable issue (that I too have written about in the past) posted at a site I consider fine and reputable.
The whole thing is total nonsense.
The whole thing is total nonsense.
Oh, I'm used to those left of center subjectively calling anything that doesn't fit their template as "nonsense". You could never let facts or questions get in the way of your beliefs.
[Ray]: The whole thing is total nonsense.
[David]: Oh, I'm used to those left of center subjectively calling anything that doesn't fit their template as "nonsense". You could never let facts or questions get in the way of your beliefs.
In my case, beliefs have very little to do with the issue. I know from my experience as a graphic reproducer since long before Photoshop was even thought of, that the Obama image has NOT been tampered with and that Jay's image is simply a copy of it with the text covered up. How do I know Jay did that? Because I can see the join marks to the very pixel where he copied/pasted segments of background image.
How do I know there was no tampering with the original image that was posted before Jay played his copy/paste joke with it? Because there are no signs of copy/paste on it (to create a blank template to work with) and also because it is impossible to create new "forged/replacement" text with a graphics program and reproduce the genuine looking effect that the Obama image has.
That 'effect' -- the thickness of the text, the distortion of the text by a laser printer and the jpeg artifacts, can only be obtained in one way - the way the Obama image was made - by starting with clean type - using exactly the same font then printing it on a high quality laser printer, then scanning it, then compressing the image drastically from about 16MB to 1.7MB, then re-compressing it from 1.7MB down to 0.5MB for KOS's image.
If that (or something very similar) WAS done, then a 2nd or 3rd rate 'forgery' could be achieved but close inspection would show where the "new" (now rough-looking) text was pasted in. There would also be tell-tale signs of that new 'clean' text having been laser-printed onto white paper - rather than a pre-printed light green background (which would be unavailable to any forger). That in turn would mean there would be a lack of the right coloured jpeg artifacts around the type.
Have a look at the two images (small and large versions) at the following 2 links
http://s355.photobucket.com/albums/r478/RayAus/?action=view¤t=FUZZY.gif and see what text looks like if it is typed directly onto a background green image in Photoshop. It doesn't look anything like the Obama certificate text [or any other text from the Hawaii Health Dept]. It is either 'stepped' for each pixel on curves, or it is 'greyed'. It is also too thin.
The bottom line is that none of those dubious experts on the net who claim they know HOW the supposed Obama forgery was produced, can actually do it themselves without it being easily detected. They've had a month already and produced nothing.
I re-read your comment here and again visited your blog. I completely mistook what you wrote in another manner. I thought you were challenging those who legitimately challenge Obama on his, let us call them, flip flops or significant reversals on what he previously claimed were firmly held beliefs.
I completely missed the point the first time. I concur his is a politician that will throw anyone under the bus for his own political gain.
While I agree it should not matter what his religion is - as it shouldn't have for Mitt Romney, a Mormon - what made Obama's history of Islam as a young child relevent is that he himself wrote about it in his book, and that his half-brother and other siblings in Kenya say they have always considered his faith as being a Muslim. And yes, I certainly concur with you that by him reacting to allegations of being a Muslim as if it were something dirty or disrespectful is objectionable and I understand why law abiding and peaceful Muslims would and could be offended by how Obama reacts. He becomes defensive.
I think we finally reached the same page, by dicussing it and making both our sides of this issue a bit more clear.
I'll post the screen shot of it from this blog somewhere else.
And by the way, I publish comments - or I may choose not to publish them - and respond (or not), to them on my timetable and my schedule. Nothing happened to your reply as you can see. But no one, except me, sets the rules at this blog.
Please by all means tell me where you are posting my material and commenting on it. I would love to read your blog. Why don't you have one - or at least why does clicking on your name lead nowhere?
Ray, are you someone who in the past left Anonymous comments that I never published? (Scroll to bottom of main page for comments policy).
Or are you someone who commented here in the past (Treehugger?, Clif?) who simply repeat talking point memos issued from Dem Central and, because those types of comments are so tiresome and redundant, I delete them without reading or publishing them? You sound similar to others that have trolled here a while, left talking point style comments and then eventually stopped commenting because they were anonymous, redundant and I ignored them.
Do you think I'm going to change my mind about the questionable birth certificates - actually, "Certification of Live Births" (not necessarily the same thing) - because "you say so"?
Bwa, bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
I bet you beleive Bush and Cheney planned and orchestrated all of 9/11 too. Look out Ray, there's an Illuminati memeber behind you!
Getting back to the supposed forgeries: The simplest way to tell if the Obama certificates are forgeries or not, is to look at them in Photoshop or a similar program and increase the contrast dramatically. There are no sudden changes of pattern with the real thing because there was co copy/paste of sections to block out any previous text.
Look at Polarik's second JPEG at the link below and you will see what it looks like where he did it; in fact it can be seen without any aids.
The standard of the alleged Birth Certificate I always return to is the one at the official Obama website.
Now, from what I published here...
...the issue also becomes the typewriter. From Doc Bulldog's blog:
"if you look closely, you will notice that the font is problematic in that the only typewriter available at that time which Mrs. Bulldog and I could think of that would be able to duplicate such a font is the IBM Selectric which was introduced on… Drum roll please…. July 23, 1961 - Obama was born August 4th, 1961 and the birth certificate featured on Obama’s website was filed on August 6th, 1961…
It seems odd to us that a Hospital in Hawaii would have had access to such a typewriter just a couple of weeks after its introduction…"
Now, seriously, Ray, who are you. Treehugger or Clif? Gotta be Treehugger, because you're writing is actually several grade levels above and beyond that of Clif. Are you Treehugger, Ray?
but WITHOUT the green pattern in the background.
That example in the above blog was photocopied ten years ago in 1998 from the original onto the coloured background.
IBM Selectric typewriters have got nothing to do with the issue at all. Obama's certified EXTRACT from his birth certificate was produced in 2007 on a PC and laser-printed onto pre-printed paper with a green background and black border.
Here is the latest assessment of the fraud - (not the Obama fraud, but the conspiracty fraud).
I believe the whole forgery of Obama's birth certificate is being conducted by The Illuminati and the World Headquarters of Dairy Queen's board of directors. It's a huge conspiracy. They want to elect someone who isn't a U.S. Citizen.
"Ray, the IBM Selectric certainly has much to do with the original birth certificate. To consider otherwise is "total nonsense."
What sort of strawman argument is that supposed to be - we're looking at Obama's 2007 certificate which was produced on a PC.
Anyway, here's the link that shoots down all your "forgery" nonsense:
Anyway, i'll just be a sec, I'm doing a screen capture of this message - together with my "non-message" that you were too chickenshit to print.
1) which comment did you leave that I did not publish. Please advise.
2) you're not entitled to a forum of your expression here, you are a guest at my blog. So even if I decided to not publish a comment you left, that simply means it's tough titties for you.
You're full of nonsense Ray. You're just a bullshitter.
You link to some site that alleges some "doctor" has, beyond any doubt, proven that the Obama birth certificate making the rounds on the web is legitimate. Oh, well, I guess closes debate on the subject in your mind. However, it doesn't convince everyone.
Please "screen capture" away. Knock yourself out.
Do I need to remind you (like a patronizing parent to an unruly child) that I publish what I write and I publish comments on a schedule that's convenient to me, not to you or anyone else.
If you don't think I publish the comments you leave here quickly enough, again, tough, saggy baggy, Michael Moore-sized man-titties to you.
You're one of the Americans Phil Gramm said is a whiner. Hold on, I'll see if I can find you some cheese.
WTF are you bothering with Ray?
Ray whats your problem? Why do you insist that whatever proof you link to is irrefutable? Who crowned you judge and jury of the birth certificate?
One question Ray, that Drake asked you and you didn't answer: was 9/11 an inside job pulled off by Bush and Cheney? Yes or no? If you answer yes, then why do you not believe the debunking done by Popular Mechanics?
Your point EC, in asking Ray about 9/11 is spot on. Although I didn't technically "ask" him, mine was more of a statement, but I will join you, EC in asking:
HEY RAY - yes or no - was 9/11 an inside job planned and orchestrated by Bush and Cheney?
He won't reply. I'm guessing we have heard the last from him. Good fucking riddance.
Spot on Arc.
Not surprising "Ray" refused to comment if he thought 9-11 was carried out by Bush/Cheney. His lack of response pretty much tells us what his answer is, doesn't it?
Ray, if you're checking in and not commenting, you are what you called me - a "chickenshit" - and you without a doubt are what Arc called you, "a wittle itty bitty liberal pussy."
accordance and compliance with Fair Use Section 107 U.S. Copyright Code.
All other images and content © 2005-2009 David Drake.
Not responsible for content contained at linked sites.
Policy on commenting:
- Anonymous comments have little chance of being published.
- Comments made on posts 60 days old or older have little chance of being published.
- Published comments do not necessarily reflect the views of this blog author.
- Discretion of publishing or rejecting submitted comments rests solely with the owner and creator of this blog.
- Comments that egregiously "plug" (i.e. advertise or promote) another site or blog will be rejected. This doesn't mean you cannot include a link to your story, blog or to another site, but don't go overboard.
- Profanity is not a disqualifying factor, but profane rants solely for purposes of profanity are unlikely to be published.
- The owner and creator of this blog is not liable or responsible for the opinions of those who comment.