What’s wrong with the long-form birth certificate

Leonard D. writes:

I think we’ve corresponded long enough for you to know that I am very skeptical.

I read some of the most recent skepticism about Obama’s supposed official long form birth certificate, and, being curious, I explored it. And I have to say, the thing stinks. I now believe it was tampered with at least, perhaps completely forged.

Here’s a list of things anyone can easily verify in the PDF as is currently available at whitehouse.gov: see for yourself. (You must have Acroread to view it.) Click that link. Now the thing either loads into your browser via a plugin, or it loads into Acroread externally. Either way, there should be a zoom factor control, which you can set to 200 percent, 400 percent, or 800 percent to zoom in, to see the anomalies in the document.

1) Check out the B in “OBAMA,” in box 1c (child’s last name), and in box 8 (Full name of father). These two Bs are exactly the same. Identical to the last pixel. This is highly, highly improbable. (For comparison, look at the various other letters. It is helpful to open the document twice in two different windows to compare pairs of letters at high zoom.)

2) Inspect the date found in boxes 20 and 22. Presumably this was the same stamp applied twice. However, the ink is sometimes green, and sometimes black. Not only that, but the green ink in 22 is also found on the form’s text “Date Accepted by … “; the “Date A” is green, while the rest is black. Also note that the green and black letters in the supposedly stamped text changed between the stamping of 20 and 22. (And skipping ahead, the video I recommend below shows that the green letters are their own layer, that is, they were added over the underlying document.)

3) Check out the ink color in 17a. The text is “None,” supposedly typewritten. But the “Non” is green, and the “e” is black. Perhaps they changed the ribbon, typed three letters, and changed it back? (No, again this is a separate layer.)

4) Check out the pixelation in 18a, the signature of Ann Obama. Note that the “Stanley,” “Ann,” and “D” in “Dunham” are scanned with many pixel values. Whereas the “unham” (in Dunham) and “Obama” are purely black and white; there are no pixels of any other values.

5) Also observe that the pixelation differs in some of the typewritten text. For example, in box 11, in “Kenya,” the “K” is greyscale, but the “enya” is black and white. In 13, the “S” in “Stanley” is greyscale.

Finally, let me refer to something that one cannot easily check. This requires Adobe Illustrator, which I don’t have. But if you watch this video, created by a man named Albert Renshaw, you’ll see that the layers in the document (which were known very soon after it was released, but supposedly caused by OCR), correspond to the anomalies above. Or at least some of them do—I have not found any complete listing of what is there. Renshaw also made some followups responding to challenges people have made to him. Basically they are saying Illustrator can automatically do the stuff in 2, 3, 4, and 5, and he is showing that it doesn’t. (Of course, it is possible that Hawaii did not use Illustrator to process the image.)

So what should we believe? Could these things have been caused somehow by OCR or any other automatic processing? I highly doubt it. And especially not (1); that is simply impossible for any automatic process. This thing is at least partly forged. Is there any underlying document at all?

The things I mention above and a few other anomalies are picked over in this document. It was written by a man named Douglas Vogt, who appears to be something of an expert in document imaging systems. Unfortunately, he starts out weak; I don’t agree with him that the text slant is an issue. But worth reading anyway.

Leonard adds:

I note that there are other conservative sites starting to probe this issue. Although in none of them that a quick google search gets do I find the clear fraud of the duplicated “B” in “OBAMA” highlighted. (Douglas Vogt certainly mentions it, but as one thing among others.) The duplication is important because unlike the (many) other signs of tampering, there is simply no way that any electronic processing could generate it. The others, hard to say for certain. I think that would be an important addition to the narrative, and I hope you have the power to inject it.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at June 07, 2011 01:40 PM | Send

Email entry

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):