A Chronology of Forgery & Deceit

HOW A CRUDE FORGERY WAS PASSED OFF AS AUTHENTIC TO GET AN UNKNOWN ELECTED AS PRESIDENT OF THE USA

by John Charlton

(Jan. 27, 2010) — Most know that there are doubts about Obama’s Birth Certificate or eligibility to be President of the United States, but few are aware of how his supporters passed off an obvious forgery of a Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth and used cleverly crafted quotes of apparent authorities to establish its authenticity for the purpose of committing election fraud upon the entire nation.

The notion that it is a forgery continues to be squashed by the Main Stream Media. Consider the transcript from Chris Matthews’s “Hardball” program from last night during his interview of J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ), who is challenging John McCain for the U.S. Senate seat in Arizona (note that Matthews is attempting to belittle McCain’s opponent):

Matthews asked Hayworth: “Are you as far right as the birthers?” Are you one of those who believes that the president should have to prove that he’s a citizen of the United States and not an illegal immigrant? Are you that far right?”

“Well, gosh, we all had to bring our birth certificates to show we were who we said we were and we were the age we said we were to play football in youth sports,” Hayworth responded matter-of-factly. “Shouldn’t we know exactly that anyone who wants to run for public office is a natural born citizen of the United States and is who they say they are?”

Matthews referred back to some of Hayworth’s past statements. “I’m reading your letter that says the president should go back and get his birth certificate from the governor of Hawaii,” said Matthews, who then added: “I’m just asking, do you stand by this letter?”

“Yeah, sure,” Hayworth responded.

“Should the governor of Hawaii produce evidence that the president is one of us, an American?” Matthews asked. “Do you think that’s a worthy pastime for the governor of Hawaii right now?”

“No, I — look: I’m just saying the president should come forward with the information, that’s all,” said Hayworth. “Why should we depend on the governor of Hawaii?” (Source & Video)

That Matthews should ridicule such a common-sense request is absurd on its face; but his approach is pure Alinksy-esque tactics.

However, what the Main Stream Media doesn’t want you to remember or recognize is that the highly flaunted electronic image of the COLB which the Obama campaign puts forth to defend his claims to be eligible for office was recognized as a forgery from the beginning.

This is the little-known chronology of forgery and deceit which this article will highlight for the sake of national security.

June 2008

In June of 2008, public interest in and doubt concerning Obama’s claims to be a U.S. Citizen resulted in a flurry of Internet activity over demands to see documented evidence of such claims.

In early June, supporters of Obama began to display their ability to use image editing software to create plausibly authentic birth certificates.

After about a week of experimentation, they began to forge birth certificates for Obama citing places of birth such as Alaska and Korea (cf. Israel Insider‘s report of June 24, 2008).  Then a few days later, the famous COLB which Obama and his supporters have used to support his personal claims and candidacy for president appeared at the Daily KOS website (high resolution image of COLB c/o Israel Insider).  The Israel Insider wrote in its report:

The image became increasingly suspect with Israel Insider’s revelation that variations of the certificate image were posted on the Photobucket image aggregation website — including one listing the location of Obama’s birth as Antarctica, one with the certificate supposedly issued by the government of North Korea, and another including a purported photo of baby Barack — one of which has a “photo taken” time-stamp just two minutes before the article and accompanying image were posted on the left-wing Daily KOS blog.

Israel Insider was one of the first news agencies to cover the story of the forgery.  In an unsigned report dated June 21, 2008, Israel Insider wrote:

In response to mounting media questions about the failure of the Barack Obama presidential campaign to produce the presumptive Democratic nominee’s birth certificate, an official spokesman of the campaign has endorsed as genuine the image of a document purporting to be his “birth certificate.” But some who have examined that image in high resolution claim inconsistencies and irregularities which suggest that the purported document is a forgery. Its high profile use by the campaign, they claim, suggests an attempt to conceal the truth of Obama’s birth circumstances and citizenship qualifications from the American people.

The nearly immediate acceptance of the forgery by the Obama campaign signifies that these Obama supporters who were experimenting with document forgery were acting with the implicit approval of the campaign.

One of the early reporters to work with the Obama campaign to establish the authenticity of the forgery in the eyes of the public was Amy Hollyfield of the St. Petersburg Times. Writing on June 18, 2008, she said:

To verify we did have the correct document, we contacted the Hawaii Department of Health, which maintains such records.

“It’s a valid Hawaii state birth certificate,” spokesman Janice Okubo said after we e-mailed her our copy.

Okubo said a copy of the birth certificate was requested this month, but she wouldn’t specify by whom. But as we know from our attempts to get one in April, Hawaii law states that only family members can access such records.

In emails to other citizens, Okubo would completely undo this interpretation; denying to the Israeli Insider on June 26, 2008, that she had seen the original Obama certificate, and thus could even authenticate the online image, which electronic image the Department of Health did not release.  Note she did not even authenticate the information on the electronic image of a COLB; she merely said the document’s form was apparently that of a Hawaiian COLB, which of course it is, to the untrained eye.  Hollyfield’s parsing of the Okubo comment and her paper’s promoting of Hollyfield’s enlargement of its significance all point to motivation to make Obama’s alleged COLB appear authentic in the eyes of the public.

Campaign of Misinformation Mobilized to Defend Forgery

A reduced version of the infamous forged jpg image COLB for "Barack Hussein Obama II."

However, it was precisely at this time the coordinated manipulation of information began to show itself in regard to Obama’s birth certificate.  Because whereas the denial of Okubo of having seen the original and of having released the electronic image was published by the Israel Insider, it was not reproduced by major media outlets, which instead highlighted and repeated Amy Hollyfield’s parsing of the Okubo claims.  The St. Petersburg Times report, however, remains an authoritative record that the image was released by the campaign, since the image which appears in the report  bears the caption: “[Courtesy of the Obama campaign]” (at least as of the time of this report).

Omitted in the reports were the claims of the Israel Insider in their June 24, 2008 report that a 2003 COLB belonging to a Patricia DeCosta contained a field which the Obama COLB lacked:  the all-important “accepted by Registrar”; and the criticism that agency leveled against the Obama COLB genuineness on grounds that it lack proper accompanying marks of authentication:

So if he were registered as being born in Hawaii, Barack Obama — because only he or another member of his immediate family could by law request a “Certification of Live Birth” — must have a certified paper copy, with embossed stamp and seal, or he could request one. But what his campaign has put forward as genuine, according to the senior spokesman in the relevant department of the State of Hawaii, is not in fact a certified copy. It is not valid.

Whereas the uncertified Obama document provides the date “filed by registrar”, the certified DeCosta document provides the date “accepted by the registrar.” The difference between filing an application for a Certification of Live Birth and having it accepted may be key here.

The Obama campaign, however, continues to flaunt the unstamped, unsealed, uncertified document — notably in very low resolution — on its “Fight the Smears” website, with campaign officials vowing that it’s authentic, sending the image around as “proof” to reporters, and inviting supporters to refer to it as they battle against supposed distortions and calumnies against their candidate. However, the campaign refuses to produce an authentic original birth certificate from the year of Obama’s birth, or even a paper version with seal and signature of the “Certification of Live Birth.” Nor has it even published an electronic copy with the requisite embossed seal and signature.

Subsequent research by citizen-investigators has found that “accepted by Registrar” was the common terminology used to indicate that the claimed or submitted facts of a birth were accepted by the State Registrar of Vital Statistics as being credible.  “Filed by Registrar” meant simply that the claims had been made and had not been verified.

In the same report, the Israeli Insider opined that the reason for the forgery was that Obama was not born in the U.S. and thus was not even a U.S. Citizen or that he was not a natural born citizen. Most damming of all, in their June 21 report, they cited the claims made by the Obama Campaign through its “Fight the Smears” website, which in debunking what Obama’s campaign considered “lies,” openly claimed he was a natural born citizen (and thus eligible for the presidency):

Lie: Obama Is Not a Natural Born Citizen

Truth: Senator Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961, after it became a state on August 21st, 1959. Obama became a citizen at birth under the first section of the 14th Amendment  “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….”

The problem with this explanation is that not all those who are U.S. citizens under the 14th Amendment are natural born citizens because the U.S. Supreme Court, in its ruling, Minor vs. Happersett, years after the 14th Amendment became part of the U.S. Constitution, said that to know what a “natural born citizen” is, one had to have recourse to sources outside the Constitution — an evident denial that the 14th Amendment defined such.  Indeed, those born on U.S. soil of a foreign parent were always recognized to be under the jurisdiction of a foreign power; moreover, a “natural born citizen” has always been defined by the U.S. Supreme Court to be “one born in the country to parents who are citizens.”  Neither of these conditions prevailed for Obama, according to his claimed birth facts, since Barrack Obama Senior was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies in 1961, when Obama claims to have been born. Indeed, Obama Junior is still a British citizen.

On June 26, 2008, Pamela Geller summarized much of the Israel Insider reports in a post entitled, “Such a Liar: Obama’s Fake Birth Certificate,” which she published at her blog, Atlas Shrugs.  Her introduction was prophetic:

O-liar will merely say he had nothing to do with KOS releasing the fake doc but we know what a BOLD FACE LIE that is because KOS would rather chew off his arm than do anything to hurt the hate America candidate. My question is this …… does it matter? Even if he’s mom is American born, “Research has since uncovered the law, in force at the time of Obama’s birth, that were he to have been born in another country, his young American mother’s youth extended time abroad would not suffice to make him a “natural born citizen.” Even if he were naturalized later — and there is no evidence that he was — he would not be eligible to run for the office of president .”

If he is hiding the doc, what is he hiding?  C’mon….. give it up Obamendacity. I can’t people the Clintonostra did not uncover such a bombshell.

In fact the original KOS image would later disappear from the net, as well as the Fight the Smears website.  Factcheck.org, another Obama disinformation network, would later join the fracas in an attempt to uphold the authenticity of the image, using claims of two “experts” who had no credentials whatsoever according to The Obama File.

July of 2008

On July 20, 2008, Pamela Geller published an exclusive report, detailing the research of a citizen who went by the nick, “TechDude”.  In that report numerous images were shown, explaining how the Obama COLB image was a forgery and how it appears to have been produced by someone using Photoshop software on a MacIntosh computer.  That report concluded thus:

There are two obvious scenarios used to create the image that can be ascertained from evidence. Either a real COLB was scanned into Photoshop and digitally edited or a real COLB was first scanned to obtain the graphic layout then blanked by soaking the document in solvent to remove the toner. After rescanning the blank page to a separate image the graphics from the previously obtained scan could then be easily applied to the blank scan after some editing and rebuilding. It would also explain why date stamp bleeds through the paper and the various bits of toner located around the image as well as the remnants of the previous location of a security border.

So as I have been saying repeatedly since I first compared the KOS images to the Decosta image using the same tests and measurements – the image is a horrible forgery.

Like the work of Polarik, TechDude’s analysis was ignored by the Main Stream Media in 2008 and heavily attacked by Obama supporters in the winter and spring of 2009. Attorneys Philip Berg (in  summer of 2008-2009) and Orly Taitz (late 2008-2009) would be among those who would champion the cause of disseminating information regarding the forged COLB. In October 2009, Attorney Leo Donofrio would sue the Secretary of State in New Jersey on the grounds that Obama, McCain and Roger Calero, a candidate admittedly born in Nicaragua, were not natural born citizens and therefore should not be allowed on the ballot for president.  His was the first lawsuit to avoid entirely the question of the forgery in lieu of a direct attack citing the claims of Obama to a father who was a foreigner. Attorney Mario Apuzzo in 2009 would file a case against Obama and Congress using both lines of attack.

The New Truth

It is interesting to note what Geller herself reported on July 14, 2008, that Wikipedia immediately joined the Obama campaign action by altering its article on Obama, replacing mention of “Obama Jr.” with “Obama II” based on the forged COLB:

Wikipedia used to have “Obama, Jr.” and now has changed to “Obama II” in the wake of the COLB. (hat tip Larwyn). Over at JOM

Is there anything in Obama’s books? I notice that the NYT back in 1990 referred to both father and son as simply “Barack Obama.”

An excerpt from a noteworthy 2007 Obama speech:

There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Alabama, because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born. So don’t tell me I don’t have a claim on Selma, Alabama. Don’t tell me I’m not coming home to Selma, Alabama.

I wonder what news organization was the first to use “Jr.” and whether there is any use of “II,” by the press or Obama, prior to the COLB.

The irony of what Geller found is this:  that Obama in 2007 claimed his name was “Barack Obama Jr.”, but after the release of the forgery, Wikipedia forgot that and claimed his name was “Barack Hussein Obama II”.

From henceforth, the forgery would become, in the eyes of Obama supporters, in the eyes of the Main Stream Media, and in the eyes of many politicians, the historical truth; but the actual history and truth of it being a forgery would be tacitly omitted from all further mention.

Welcome to George Orwell’s 1984!

One Democrat is so sure of the revised history that he intends to make believe  it is a litmus test of political credentials for his Republican opponents, according to James Taranto of the Wall Street JournalAndrea Shea King, who hosts a popular internet Radio program quoted Taranto in her email missive this morning:

Menendez, who is from New Jersey, plans to “distribute a memo Tuesday advising Democratic campaign managers to frame their opponents early–and to drive a wedge between moderate voters and tea-party-style conservatives”:

The memo urges Democratic candidates to force their opponents to answer a series of questions:

“Do you believe that Barack Obama is a U.S. citizen? . . .”

If a Republican candidate says no to any of the questions, the memo says Democrats should “make their primary opponent or conservative activists know it. This will cause them to take heat from their primary opponents and could likely provoke a flip-flop, as it already has several times with Mark Kirk in Illinois.”

If you want to read the rest of the questions, click through to the link atop this item. We truncated the list because the first item is absolutely jaw-dropping. Are we given to understand that the Democrats intend to run for office by raising questions about Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president?

That has got to be the most brilliant campaign strategy since Michael Dukakis and Max Cleland raised questions about their own patriotism.

So if you hear any Democrat using such a litmus test, just hand him a copy of “A Chronology of Forgery & Deceit” and ask him, “If Obama was born in Hawaii or was eligible for office, why go to such lengths to defend a forgery and refuse to show original documents for the next two years?  Moreover, are you not concerned that the evidence cited in this article indicates that Obama has not only refused for two years to show a real document to the public, but even refused to do this to his most ardent supporters? How can you expect, therfore, that “belief” in his place of birth be a litmus test of political correctness?  How about the documents, or are you in favor of politicians who don’t want to show supporting documentation for what they claim?”

See Andrea Shea King’s article for a political analysis of why the Democrats believe pushing the birth issue is a way to separate the Tea Partiers from the GOP.

44 Responses to "A Chronology of Forgery & Deceit"

  1. Pingback: Hawaii Attorney General’s Office Refuses to Corroborate Obama’s Birth Certificate « Reboot The Republic

  2. Pingback: HI Attorney General’s office refuses to corroborate Obama’s HI Birth « Socialism is not the Answer

  3. Pingback: | NwoDaily.com

  4. Pingback: Obamanomics – Natural Born Citizen – Gov. Jindal – Glenn Beck Hypocrisy – Commander Kerchner – Iran – Israel – Anti-Missile Systems – The BOPAC Report « “The BOPAC Report” & Larry Sincl

  5. Mike   Sunday, January 31, 2010 at 11:07 AM

    Another formal, legal declaration:

    http://www.therightsideoflife.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/executedsandralinesdeclaration_1.pdf

    “After my review and based on my years of experience, I can state with certainty that the COLB presented on the internet by the various groups, which include the “Daily Kos,” the Obama Campaign, “Factcheck.org” and others cannot be relied upon as genuine. ”

    I apologize for the seperate posts. Please combine or summerize if appropriate.

  6. Mike   Sunday, January 31, 2010 at 10:58 AM

    Additional, formal analysis in legal form:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/17324284/Anonymous-Digitable-Expert-Declaration-Signed

  7. Mike   Sunday, January 31, 2010 at 10:09 AM

    Absolutely great work.

    Here is a source for what appears to the original photo prior to the removal of EXIF data and recompression from 1,286,932 bytes to 214,276 bytes.

    http://24ahead.com/images/birth_certificate_3.jpg

    This may help blunt any rebuttal that the recompression done by Factcheck blurred or hid the seal. The only material difference I can find is that the larger photo shows 99,708 unique colors and the recompressed photo shows 79,924 unique colors so some fine color difference was lost during the recompression. This is as measured by IrfanView freeware.

  8. ksdb   Sunday, January 31, 2010 at 9:46 AM

    I can see someone making a 12 hour mistake setting the time on their camera, but not a five month mistake on the date. Notice that none of these pictures shows the entire backside of the document in question so that you can see that it is from the same document (since the lettering on the front would show through a little bit). Second, it’s not the same document that was originally scanned and e-mailed about by Tommy Vietor. The document paper in the photos has a wider margin outside the certificate border than the original scan, which clearly shows the edge of the paper. Somehow the paper grew in the Fact Check photos. One or both were forged. BTW, the location of the photo shoot is thought to be in Obama’s campaign headquarters in Chicago.

    On a side note: check out the butterdezilliion blog where the adminstrative rules are posted from the DOH. In it is a very clear rule that says the DOH can issue non-certified copies of birth certificates to anyone who requests one. IOW, the state has all along been able to legally issue a copy of the original certificate. Second, the rules suggest that the certificate numbers are issued by the state at the point when a birth is accepted by the registrar. If so, then there’s no way that Obama could have a higher certificate number than the Nordyke Twins, whose certificates were accepted by the registrar three days after his.

  9. ksdb   Sunday, January 31, 2010 at 9:31 AM

    This is standard language that was adopted around 2003 … all states are supposed to have started using that language on their birth records.

  10. John Charlton   Saturday, January 30, 2010 at 6:26 AM

    I would ad, that when dealing with the question of the authentication of a document, in itself, or via an image, when internal evidence damns the authenticity of a document, the examination of external evidence is not necessary, and importantly not always useful, because that too can be contrived, whether it be background setting or exif data.

  11. Deutchman   Saturday, January 30, 2010 at 12:36 AM

    The question was puzzling. But I think your answer is brilliant, Mr. Charlton. I really appreciate your sucinct analysis and want to thank you again for publishing this Post and Email.

  12. syc1959   Friday, January 29, 2010 at 5:36 PM

    Mr Carlton;
    I have done a three part ‘Prove it to yourself” on the Obama COLB fogery.

    I agree that the FC #2 document has no Seal. Also note that the SEAL in FC #3 is not consistent with the SEAL close-up images off FC.

    http://nobarack08.wordpress.com/2009/12/02/prove-it-to-yourself-so-easy-anyone-can-do-it/
    http://nobarack08.wordpress.com/2009/12/08/prove-it-to-yourself-%e2%80%93-so-easy-anyone-can-do-it-pt-2/
    http://nobarack08.wordpress.com/2009/12/13/prove-it-to-yourself-pt-3/

    I have also documented the different versions of the DailyKos, Fight the Smears [FTS], and FactCheck forgeries and the original templates that were used. I also have the e-mails from the State of Hawaii, concerning the SEAL. I also prove that the ‘date stamp’ is not an actual stamp but was layered onto the blank template and is the same on all the forgeries. and provide the evidence.

  13. frank   Friday, January 29, 2010 at 4:07 PM

    There is another Constitutional provision that blocks Obama from the Presidency: …”only those who could be admitted to citizenship AT THE TIME THE CONSTITUTION WAS ADOPTED”….

    Obama’s citizenship is dependant entirely upon the 14th. Amendment, which conferred a privileged ipso-facto “federal” citizenship and statutory civil rights (Civil Rights Act of 1863) upon the freed slaves and the subsequent non-“Posterity” Americans, those whom the Founding Fathers deliberately excluded from the original “host” political community.

    The language of the 14th. Amendment – “citizens of the United States (of Congress) and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” contradistinguishes them from the pre-14th. Amendment citizen of one of the common-law States that made up the union, and in whom the Creator derived unalienable rights founded in nature (not in statute) were applicable. There was intended a barrier between the citizens and their common-law State governments which protected their rights, and the general government which exercised an “international law” authority, the two being incompatible.

    There was no 14th. Amendment AT THE TIME THE CONSTITUTION WAS ADOPTED, consequently Obama could not have been admitted to citizenship at this point in time. He most likely would have been a slave. He is not part of the “Posterity” by whom, and for whom, the country was originally founded.

    Last I heard, this has never been amended out of the Constitution and is still valid law.

    ——————

    Mr. Charlton replies: While the point you make about the law is correct, a son of slaves could not be president before the 14th amendment, and then only if a natural born citizen (which in the case of most childen of former slaves would not be difficult), not all blacks were slaves, and the USA never importet slaves from Kenya. So hypothetically we’d have to consider a historical circumstance that would be difficult to contemplate, because if slaverey was not abolished in the USA, Obama Sr. would probably never have come here to study, but gone instead to the UK; and thus never encountered Stanley Ann Dunham.

  14. Mike   Friday, January 29, 2010 at 2:01 PM

    Again, the ‘inches’ value from the EXIF data is the default value for cameras.

    http://www.awaresystems.be/imaging/tiff/tifftags/privateifd/exif/focalplaneresolutionunit.html

    TIFF Tag FocalPlaneResolutionUnit
    IFD Exif
    Code 41488 (hex 0xA210)
    Name FocalPlaneResolutionUnit
    Type SHORT
    Count 1
    Default 2 (inch)

    And it matches my sample of personal digital photos.

    Sun angles and further analysis on the time offset are beyond me.

    I did add another photo to the photobucket gallery that shows features from right corner that indicate to me that the room is relatively modern call center or very open half height cube environment.
    —————–

    Mr. Charlton replies: The time of day local time can be calculated with exactness. We know the distance between camera and target, roughly, we can see the shadow of the photo-taker. The sun has to be no higher in the sky than 11 o clock, perhaps more like 10 o’clock….if the date is correct on the photo image, then let us ask if daylight savings time had ended yet that year…it certainly looks like morning, and the camera has a 12 hour error on its internal clock.

    If it is a call center (I do not see any cubicle divisions) perhaps it is a local campaign headquarters of Obama for America.

    Circumstantial evidence that the COLB is a forgery is this: if your guy is running for president, and you have his BC in hand, everyone in the office stops working, gets to gether and watches the photoshoot; you get a professoinal and you make a day of it. The guy answering the phone in the background and these 2 individuals who make a sloppy shoot, show that the document in hand is not but a forgery, and no one in that office takes it seriously.

  15. John Charlton   Friday, January 29, 2010 at 1:19 PM

    Sam I am not so convinced about the race classification, because the COLBs issued by HI since at least 2001 are printed by a laser printer on blank paper, and the printer prints the datasets in the database, and racial categories in a database are numeric but coded to certain words, so when the race classifications changed, the words in that field would change. No one is claiming the COLB is from 1961, but the fact that he does not show the original, which might bear the word “Negro” might be part of his reverse racist motivation.

  16. Mike   Friday, January 29, 2010 at 12:16 PM

    I think the ‘inches’ is standard. Please dont focus on it.

    The shooting mode of the pictures was full auto as indicated in this entry:

    Easy shooting mode – Full Auto

    So these were point and shoot amature snapshot style photos. Again, no sign of ‘professional work’ here. The time difference may be easily explained assuming this is someones camera from home (likely). Most people don’t want to take the time to fully set up their camera when they buy it. But it you like to date your photos with the date stamp you will take the time to set the date in the camera. You can set time but most people do not want the time stamp in their picture. Most home cameras do not have a correct time setting. I have also seen where the built-in setting is usally based on local manufacturing time – i.e. Japan, so its 12 to 14 hours off if the consumer does not change it.

    I have always found the background of the hand held photo interesting. It is a somewhat large call center setup. Open landscape, tile carpet (make it easy to replace in pieces if stained or worn), half height cubes, Steelecase office furniture. Look at the guy on the right of the photo. He is on the phone at his cube. He is not watching this supposedly special photo session at all.

    I took another look at the hand held photo and no matter what I can not find the seal in that photo. I believe you may be seeing the document during its final creation with the last step adding the raised seal. The hand held photo may be the shot before that happens.

    ———————

    Mr. Charlton replies: Until we know the facts, we should not discount anything, including inches. As for the time stamp being off; if it was set to Japan, then 10-12 hours off, and the angle of the sun (a morning sun), how many hours ahead of us is Japan?

    Also, I am not convinced that is a vest being worn by the one holding the forgery: because the same person seems to be wearing a stretch, knit white material on the left upper arm, of the kind women’s blouses are made, or at least like a Izod polo shirt, which is not the kind of shirt you wear under a vest: so I do not think it is a vest at all: if you look at the seam work the cloth seems to have a spongy filling, however so light, but men’s vests are very subtle and light to fit under the dress jacket. So I am convinced its not a vest. I am also convinced, Mike, that if you are a man, you have never worn 3 piece suit or you would have noticed.

    As for the scene being a call center, I do not see enough info for that. the guy seemingly on the phone in the background is sitting in what looks more like a meeting area, than a call center; the setting is not sufficiently organized for work. He is wearing a light dress shirt, and there seems to be the reflection of florescent ceiling lighting in the glass infront of him, but that glass seems to be of a bookcase with many books–that glass cannot be window, because there is daylight ostensibly falling on the forgery…so its not a call center at all, but an office of some kind.

    Now what is that above the upper left arm of the one holding the photo: it looks like a stainless steal counter or something like that with a sink, or are those handles handles to a filing cabinet, and what are those bottles or vials to the far left, salt and pepper? Its all rather odd.

    And what do we know about real COLBs, do they have that extra paper at the top?

    The individual holding the forgery has a left index finger with a cuticle problem, as if they had slammed a door upon it and the nail grew back within the last 6 months. Who slams a door upon their left hand’s index finger, I ask you…?

    And what is that strange item, skin colored at the bottom to the left of the hand? Another hand moving quickly…seems impossible due to the speed of the camera; wouldn’t they just take another photo..and why put that shadow there or allow it to be there…? To cover the non existent seal, or because they have never taken a photo before and know how to avoid getting shadows in your photo.

    Finally the person with the camera also seems to be sleeveless…so we are talking about a hot office. The daylight seems to be morning, and on a day with high cloud cover, but lightly so, because there is sunlight but its not to strong or in clear.

  17. Mike   Friday, January 29, 2010 at 9:12 AM

    Camera used:

    http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=183&modelid=14905

    This is a consumer family camera. Nothing that any type of professional or investigative person would use – IMHO. I think the pictures were taken with someones home camera.

    Finally, once again the road to additional information goes back to Hawaii. DOH could never validate or invalidate the document based on a picture. No one really could for certain. But DOH could clarify – was a COLB issued on or around June 6, 2007? – the date stamped on the document. If the answer is ‘yes’. Then that answer would not rule out authenticity. But the DOH says no COLB was issued on or around June 6, 2007 then that would basically verifty these as pictures and scans of a fake document.

    ———————

    Mr. Charlton replies: Okubo was asked by Phil at The Right Side of Life about whether she could or could not confirm that such a colb was issued. She did not confirm. However, the retention schedules for the HI Department of Health call for trashing receipts of purchases and other such timely documentation within a year of request. Whether they have such data on their database, is something I am sure everyone would want to know. However, just because a COLB was issued on that day, does not mean it was a COLB issued for Obama. Okubo has confirmed that the Vital Statistics Office issues 2000+ documents a day — remember Hawais not just a populous state, a lot of folks move to the mainlaind and so there is a high volumne of document requests from them too.

    As regards the camera, why would anyone have their camera set to inches and yet to a time zone 6-8 hours ahead of solar time in the place the photo was taken?

    If it is not a professional camera, it could be that the owner purchased it and never set the clock to local time. I would assume the clock is set to Greenwich mean time, when new, but this needs to be checked. If so, then the image might have been taken 6-8 time zones west of Greenwich England (NYC is 5, Chicago is 6, LA is 8)…that would make sense…

    As for 3 piece suits, who wears those anymore, but lawyers…so ostensibly if my assumptions are correct, we need to look for a lawfirm from Chicago to LA.

  18. Mike   Friday, January 29, 2010 at 9:03 AM

    Link to full size original picture. Note that photobucket free accounts limit file size during upload so the ones I posted there have been compressed during upload.

    http://24ahead.com/images/birth_certificate_3.jpg

    Article related to above:

    http://24ahead.com/blog/archives/008065.html

  19. Mike   Friday, January 29, 2010 at 9:01 AM

    More background

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2086586/posts

  20. Mike   Friday, January 29, 2010 at 9:00 AM

    My follow up post was flagged as spammy so here are individual posts with more background.

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2094426/posts

  21. Mike   Thursday, January 28, 2010 at 11:11 PM

    Photos at:

    http://s974.photobucket.com/albums/ae227/BCFCphotos/

    2 of the FC photos uploaded. One has the seal (#2) and the other is the hand held one without the seal. You can see that the 3D seal clearly comes through in non-hand held photo in all the photos. There is simply no sign of any kind of a 3D seal in the hand-held photo. Even with edge detection and gamma correction intensified. I am not a professional photographer but a semi-pro enthusiast who works with 100s of digital photos on a regular basis. These techniques are simple and repeatable by people. The software used is IRFANVIEW, a freeware package. Only edge detection and gamma correction settings were used to analyze the photos. The key point is that even with the shadow of the arm covering the area where the seal should be the seal should still show under ED and intensified gamma correction. It simply does not.

    Also a version of the handheld with decription of call center elements in background is included. It includes half wall, likely steelcase, cubes. Steelcase chair, tile-style carpet. If Factcheck has a call center like this – I am impressed.

    Here is the actual EXIF data from the hand held photo. It is the only photo that I have EXIF data for. All my others are post-scrub photos with no EXIF data and have been recompressed to smaller scale or lower bpi. Canon Powershot A570 is the camera. It is a high level, non-SLR camera. The time is interesting. 10:22 p.m. But the photos is clearly daylight. So time is off. Factcheck says the date was wrong because of ‘battery failure’. I have owned various Canon cameras over a number of years. Yet has an interal battery failed or lost complete power and reset.

    Make – Canon
    Model – Canon PowerShot A570 IS
    XResolution – 180
    YResolution – 180
    ResolutionUnit – Inch
    DateTime – 2008:03:12 22:41:37
    YCbCrPositioning – Centered
    ExifOffset – 268
    CustomRendered – Normal process
    ExposureMode – Auto
    White Balance – Auto
    DigitalZoomRatio – 1.00 x
    SceneCaptureType – Standard
    ExposureTime – 1/60 seconds
    FNumber – 4.00
    ISOSpeedRatings – 80
    ExifVersion – 0220
    DateTimeOriginal – 2008:03:12 22:41:37
    DateTimeDigitized – 2008:03:12 22:41:37
    ComponentsConfiguration – YCbCr
    CompressedBitsPerPixel – 3 (bits/pixel)
    ShutterSpeedValue – 1/60 seconds
    ApertureValue – F 4.00
    ExposureBiasValue – 0.00
    MaxApertureValue – F 2.59
    MeteringMode – Multi-segment
    Flash – Flash not fired, auto mode
    FocalLength – 5.80 mm
    UserComment –
    FlashPixVersion – 0100
    ColorSpace – sRGB
    ExifImageWidth – 2304
    ExifImageHeight – 3072
    FocalPlaneXResolution – 13633.14
    FocalPlaneYResolution – 13653.33
    FocalPlaneResolutionUnit – Inch
    SensingMethod – One-chip color area sensor
    FileSource – Other

    Maker Note (Vendor): –
    Macro mode – Macro
    Self timer – Off
    Quality – Fine
    Flash mode – Auto + red-eye reduction
    Sequence mode – Single or Timer
    Focus mode – Single
    Image size – Large
    Easy shooting mode – Full Auto
    Digital zoom – None
    Contrast – Normal
    Saturation – Normal
    Sharpness – Normal
    ISO Value – Auto
    Metering mode – Evaluative
    Focus type – Close-Up
    AF point selected –
    Exposure mode – Easy shooting
    Focal length – 5800 – 23200 mm (1000 mm)
    Flash activity –
    Flash details –
    Focus mode 2 – Single
    White Balance – Auto
    Sequence number – 0
    Flash bias – 0 EV
    Subject Distance – 41
    Image Type – IMG:PowerShot A570 IS JPEG
    Firmware Version – Firmware Version 1.01
    Image Number – 1000717
    Owner Name –

    Thumbnail: –
    Compression – 6 (JPG)
    XResolution – 180
    YResolution – 180
    ResolutionUnit – Inch
    JpegIFOffset – 3444
    JpegIFByteCount – 3804

    —————–

    Mr. Charlton replies: Mike, you are turning this thread into a “You Investigate!” Column…I like it….

    Now all you image / photography buffs, what can we infer from this EXIF data about the culprits?

    For example if the time stamp of 10:22 PM is not off, but there is daylight in the background (could it not be studio light from a wide spectrum light source?), does that mean they brought in a photographer from over seas to take photos of the forgery? If the photos were taken at Factcheck HQ in Philadelphia in the spring, then that camera came from what time zone(s)?

    Note the camera was set to inches…what time zones still use inches…or was it a camera from the USA taking fotos of a forgery in another place. HI is 6 hours behind NYC, but that does not seem time enough difference.

    Furthermore, what would have sparked a photo session on March 12th, 2008?

  22. C. Scott   Thursday, January 28, 2010 at 6:08 PM

    Res.Dunham has hinted that he won’t stick around. The so called SOTU speach last night was really a good bye speech. He is now a lame duck, the Dems are going to Blago him, or leak some damaging info.
    I was never more embarrassed for my country than I was last night. This guy is an incompetent fool.
    Attacking SCOTUS in mob fashion like that, SHAME!

  23. Mike   Thursday, January 28, 2010 at 1:23 PM

    BTW, I have the original photo referenced above. It has the EXIF data that has since been removed on all the sites. It is also a large file over 1 MB in size. So it is very likely the original, out of the camera photo with no additional jpg compressions or manipulations.

    —————

    Mr. Charlton replies: Please post it a photobucket or some other such sharing site, and then post the link here, so that we can all get a copy….

  24. Mike   Thursday, January 28, 2010 at 1:14 PM

    Thanks for noting that the later Daily KOS article was about a different one than their June 12th one.

    As for the Factcheck pictures. I went back to them and found that you are correct in that the photo that is held up to the light does NOT have the the stamp. I thought it was just hidden by the shadow but various methods of detecting 3D parts of a digital photo indicate no seal. It should be in the shadow of the arm. And even though the photo is slightly out of focus the seal should show up somehow. A technique is to apply ‘edge detection’ on the base photo and then take the Gamma value way up. That should expose any 3D feature in the picture. The seal is simply not there in that photo.

    BTW, in that photo you can see some other things. The holder is wearing a vest to a 3 piece suit. That would be unusual if the photos were taken in August as Factcheck claims. Also, the room is a large open landscape call center with Steelecase furniture. Does not sound like Factcheck offices.

  25. Jon   Thursday, January 28, 2010 at 12:02 PM

    Great reporting as usual and if only we can get this reporting at the national level. Most of the public never see these details but the impact on whether Obama is eligibile to hold office is a hot button for the Democrats to make his citizenship a main issue in targeting Republicans, tea party supporters, etc. Recent polls showing only around 50% of the public accepting Obama as eligible for president spells major trouble down the road unless Obama and thugs can stop the birther movement.

  26. yo   Thursday, January 28, 2010 at 7:31 AM

    I don’t know why the forger used “filed” instead of “accepted”.

    Was it a slip up, or some way to try and avoid legal liability.

  27. TexomaEd   Thursday, January 28, 2010 at 2:22 AM

    I like Jindal. He could run again for Governor or be a multi-term US Senator from Louisiana or even serve in the Cabinet — he just can’t be President or VP.

  28. clue by four   Thursday, January 28, 2010 at 12:19 AM

    I didn’t realize Jindal was not a natural born citizen. Those who support
    him running will have to be educated.
    Obama will quit, he won’t resign. One day he’ll just not show up for work.

  29. TexomaEd   Wednesday, January 27, 2010 at 9:57 PM

    That is a good response. I would then ask this question, which no one in the media will ask: How can the status at birth of a natural born citizen of the United States of America be governed by the laws of Great Britain? The basis of this question comes from Obama’s website where admits that the 1948 British Nationality Act governed the status of Obama Senior’s children.

    I would not count on the Republicans. They have a rising star by the name of Jindal who could run in 2012. Jindal is not a natural born citizen. He was born in Louisiana to parents who were Indian citizens at the time of his birth. Like Obama, Jindal was a dual citizen at birth.

  30. 12th Generation AMERICAN   Wednesday, January 27, 2010 at 7:19 PM

    Thanks John! Looks like I missed that one.

  31. lman   Wednesday, January 27, 2010 at 3:41 PM

    See exactly how this forgery was created. Watch one get created – indentical – in just 5 minutes. The title is “Digital Forgery in Five”:
    http://69.84.25.250/blogger/video.aspx

  32. plain jane   Wednesday, January 27, 2010 at 1:08 PM

    good one…wish I had thought of that as a comeback.

  33. Mike   Wednesday, January 27, 2010 at 12:26 PM

    There are 2 versions of the ‘Internet COLB’. The photoshopped, scanned, poorly faked ‘Daily KOS’ version and the series of photos of a document held in peoples hand and on a desk posted by Factcheck. The Daily KOS version is an admitted forgery, hoax, etc.

    See here:

    Original posting:
    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/12/11012/6168/320/534616

    Explaination that it is an intentional forgery/hoax:
    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/7/5/15947/95667/125/547039

    So the ‘scanned’ images are forgeries! Hoaxes, etc. They are not real, even the originator freely admits it.

    That leaves the Factcheck photos.

    They have all sorts of problems. EXIF data that shows they were taken months before Factcheck says they were. Then EXIF data was removed and photos reposted. No verifiable history of the document. The Hawaii officials will not confirm that even COULD be authentic base on timing.

    Other than Gibbs flip comment in a response last year, no one in power has directly acknowledged these photos as real documents. Plausible denability?

    Who would KNOW some of use here? Back to Hawaii – they KNOW if a real, valid COLB was issued in 2007 or 2008. Those records exist. IF it was verified that a COLB was issued on or around the date stamped on the Factcheck documents that could at least verify THE POSSIBILITY that the Factcheck document COULD be authentic. IF it is verified that NO COLB was every issued in that timeframe, that would PROVE, without a doubt that the document is a forgery. Then, all the ‘Internet COLBs’ would be disproven and there could be a new discussion on the subject with new demands.

    One other thing. Even an authentic 100% valid COLB would not guarantee resolving the nbC issue of jus soli. Ask any adapted person. COLBs are for legal purposes and are legal instruments. The are not necessarily a replay of actual events since originals can be sealed and new documents drawn up – as is standard practice for adoptions. So getting states to provide and validate COLBs or BCs, etc is a great step – but it does not guarantee meeting the jus soli requirement of an natural born Citizen.
    —————-

    Mr. Charlton replies: The Kos links you send quite surprised me, because I never heard that Kos admitted to the forgery. However upon closer inspection those links have nothing to do with the Kos Image, only with some third-party who made other forgeries.

    The Kos Image post dated known forgeries on the net. So its immaterial if a forger or someone fooling around claiming not to forge, admits to the forgery of other images than the one in question.

    Both the Kos Image and the Factcheck images lacked the seals. So there is no doubt they are both forgeries. Even Okubo said the seals had to appear, not not all so clearly.

    If the DeCosta 2003 Colb was authentic, then the 2007 Colb of Obama is shown to be a forgery again, because the DeCosta bears the data field “accepted by Registrar” and since the form was only changed in Oct of 2008, the 2007 should have the same field, which it does not: it has instead “filed by Registrar”..that is, if we believe that the fields remains unchanged. Note the title of the fields are printed with the data of the fields; the original paper is otherwise blank.

  34. Sam Sewell   Wednesday, January 27, 2010 at 11:34 AM

    Hayworth: Obama ‘Should Come Forward’ With His Birth Certificate (VIDEO)
    http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2010/01/hayworth-obama-should-come-forward-with.html

    Why aren’t the polls on the birth certificate issue 100% in favor of AKA Obama practicing the virtue of full disclosure? It makes sense that supporters of AKA Obama would want the issue settled along with everyone else. I guess there is a significant portion of the population who are opposed to releasing the birth certificate because they are afraid of what it will reveal. I would conclude that those opposed to releasing all of Obama’s history are frightened of the truth just like AKA Obama.

    If you are not suspicious of a man who hides his history I have a bridge in the desert I want to sell you. If you are unwilling to call for an investigation of a man who attempts to sell you a bridge in the desert I have some beach front property in Florida at the intersection of I75 and Florida # 29 that I want you to buy. If you place a down payment on a contract for the bridge in the desert and the beach front property in the swamp I would conclude that you voted for Obama.

    In 1961, the Public Health Services, U. S Department of Health, Education and Welfare, National Center for Health Statistics, National Vital Statistics Division published the “Vital Statistics of the United StatesHere is a blank copy of the Standard Certificate of Live Birth. This is the information being hidden by Obama.
    http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/07/blank-birth-certificate-form-aka-obama.html

    Plus read the article that is included with the blank copy.

    Somehow, you know its coming. That OMG moment is just around the corner. You can feel the inescapable reality creeping up on you. Something will leak. Someone will spill the beans.

    “For nothing is hid that shall not be made manifest, nor anything secret that shall not be known and come to light.” Luke 8:17

    Obama “I have nothing to hide but I’m hiding it.” http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/04/aka-obama-fans-all-together-now-say-omg.html

  35. Pingback: Chris Matthews: Fair and Balanced or Partisan Hack and DNC Water Boy? « Dancing Czars

  36. tminu   Wednesday, January 27, 2010 at 11:25 AM

    Right on plain jane, that’s why they keep harping on citizen to divert from natural born citizen.

    Whenever a bot “proves” he’s a citizen, I thank them then, for proving he’s also ineligible, since NO statutory citizen can EVER be a natural born citizen!

  37. ELmo   Wednesday, January 27, 2010 at 11:14 AM

    Check MATE!

    ELmo

  38. ELmo   Wednesday, January 27, 2010 at 11:11 AM

    WELL NOW – How about that Mr Fung !!
    ELmo

  39. 12th Generation AMERICAN   Wednesday, January 27, 2010 at 10:10 AM

    What is the story on this:

    http://media.photobucket.com/image/birth+certificate+obama/missnry/SeptBirthCertificateLarge.jpg?o=22

    ——————-

    Mr. Charlton replies: That’s the Blaine document, which has never been authenticated, nor has the one distributing it on the net even claimed it was authentic, or responded to inquiries about it, as far as I know. Perhaps it was only an expression of free speech.

  40. plain jane   Wednesday, January 27, 2010 at 9:15 AM

    If the democratic campaign is to be focused on asking the question “Is BHO a citizen?”, the responds should be “It is not whether he is a citizen, it is whether he is a natural born citizen, born in the US of two citizen parents. This BHO has stated is not the case so it is for him to prove not for us to answer.” I hope the republican party gets on the offense.

  41. yo   Wednesday, January 27, 2010 at 9:07 AM

    I think you’ve hit upon something with your comment about the dems unwittingly bringing up the birth cert in their campaigns.

    Turning the rhetoric around on them is one of the things that could be key in our getting public traction. Let’s find ways to use their rhetoric to our advantage.

  42. syc1959   Wednesday, January 27, 2010 at 8:20 AM

    The issue that is scaring the main sleaze media, Obot supporteres like ‘tingles’ the Marxist Matthews, Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, and others is very simple. The dem’s are going to lose in Nov and then the issue is going to be brought up big time.
    It will not go away, and what will they do, when Obama is out’ed as the illegal undocumented alien that he is.
    There is no way, that Obama is a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ as required by the Constitution. He has a foreign father and that alone disqualifies him, regardless of where he was born.

  43. C. Scott   Wednesday, January 27, 2010 at 7:36 AM

    I don’t normally watch Chris M, but happened to see this last night. It did strike me odd that he would bring it up.
    If the State run media wants to keep bringing up the fact that Obama is not legally qualified for the office, more power to them. More people will start asking questions and find out they were lied to by Obama.
    —————–

    Mr. Charlton replies: Any calm, rational person, watching that interview would think that Matthews had lost it, because his question is laughable, and it is absurd that he should be taking it so seriously.

    The force of Righteousness is on the side of those who question Obama’s story, because there is nothing to back that story up, whatsoever; except Obama’s credibility, and yet as president he has shown himself to be an inveterate, continuous liar on every issue; when you add to this the overwhelming political tidal wave that resulted in Ted Kennedey’s citadel of power falling to the Republicans, you can see and read raw, palpable fear in the faces of apparatchiks like Matthews; they keep denying the truth, but their consciences have convicted them as guilty. A liar knows he is one, and is always weakened by that knowlege.

    I think the Obama story and support will beging to erode very quickly as the Brown victory sinks in, and that you will start seeing resignations in the MSM and in Obama’s inner circle as they flee the ship that is headed for the minefield of the Nov. elections.

    Once it becomes unteneable, the powers that be will ask Obama to voluntarily resign so as to save the Democratic Party; he will refuse, but in desperation of being rejected, I predict he will commit suicide, because he has an extremely unstable pschological makeup. (That’s my opinion, not my hope: I much prefer he repents, and confesses his fraud, and then resigns.)

  44. Pingback: A Chronology of Forgery & Deceit « Socialism is not the Answer

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.