Today Barack Obama held a press conference to announce the release of his birth certificate. It’s caused so much controversy since before he was even elected. Attorney Phil Berg has been investigating this for years, Jerome Corsi has a book coming out next month on the topic and investigative reporter Wayne Madsen has been digging deep about Obama’s backgrounds including his many connections to the CIA and inconsistencies about his college enrollments and travels in the middle east.
I had a feeling that something was about to happen since the news networks have been covering this heavily lately. Many others have been covering this issue, yet the networks didn’t pay it any mind until Donald Trump started up on his soap box. I personally feel there is enough other serious problems with Obama’s background that are easier to prove. The fact that Obama’s name was changed when he was adopted by Lolo Soetoro and moved to Indonesia is a serious issue on its own. There is no record of Obama’s name being changed back to Obama. His social security number is supposed to have originated from Connecticut for mysterious reasons. And in case those weren’t strange enough there are serious problems with his selective service card.
Today we’re going to focus on the document just released. My background is in photography and graphic design and I’ve worked at a rather high level in the industry for many years. I’ve worked on international ads for some of the most recognizable brands in the world. I’m pretty humble so I don’t like to claim expertise in anything because there’s always someone smarter, but I do feel that my analysis is worthy on this topic or I wouldn’t offer it. Please look at the images below for a detailed walkthrough of the problems. I’ll try my best to explain them in simplistic terms.
TECHNICAL INTRO: The long form document released today was in the .PDF format. That is a format created by the Adobe corporation for the sophisticated sharing of certain types of documents. The PDF format is special because it preserves text and compressed graphics. In more technical terms it preserves vector and raster graphics. It is also special because it can preserve the editing abilities for users who have Adobe applications like Illustrator, InDesign and Photoshop. You could export your whole document as a .JPG which will compress everything uniformly and place the same level of compression on everything, making it all blocky and pixelated when you zoom into it, this would have been my choice if I was going to make a fake. You can also export your document directly into a .PDF which will preserve all text as a vector graphic and compress all other raster graphics to make them very small in size to make it easy to send over the internet. A vector graphic is infinitely zoomable because it uses boundaries to describe fields of color instead of pixels which is used by raster graphics. An example of raster graphics would be a photo; when you zoom into it very tightly it becomes pixelated and blocky.
First, if you haven’t seen it, here is the “birth certificate“. Next, when I opened the program in photoshop I noticed that I could zoom in really tightly and I saw many flaws. So many in fact that I didn’t know where to begin. First, you can see that the level of compression on the background green hatching is different than the text.
The text on this portion is clearly strange, including the name Barack. All the letters in that portion are vectorized graphics except for the R which looks pixelated. I don’t know why. Secondly, there is a white faded ghost around all the text and black lines of this document, again I don’t know why. It would appear that this document was pieced together from multiple sources to get it to say what they needed. To show how simple it is to create a fake, I went through my library to find a typewriter style font that has a similar appearance to this one. I don’t have the exact match but I have a pretty close one.
Next, I used a filter on a duplicate to show a similar effect to the pixelated R.
Next I took issue with the background of the document. It is a green and white cross hatching water mark to prevent forgery. I went through my families birth certificates and found my son’s who was born in 1996. As it turns out, his has the exact same watermark background. Here is a small version of the whole document so you can see what it looks like and a close up to show the background.
You can see in the example below that I’ve cropped in to a handwriting sample in the Registrar box. This shows both a sample of the watermark and what a real printing of the form and signature would look like. The properties of the scanned form are completely different from what the White House has provided.
Here is a crop of the city of Boston’s seal. Keep this in mind, you’ll need to compare it to the seal on the Obama document.
As a comparison, I looked at another birth certificate from 1968 to see the differences. You’ll see how simple it is in comparison.
Next I took a second look at the certificate of live birth that was released a couple years ago. The first thing I noticed was that the green background watermark was exactly the same.
I’m confused by this document for a number of reasons. First, it has similar graphical problems on the document that show that the compression of the text is different from the watermark and it also contains a white glow around the text. There seems to be either a noise filter applied to the text, or it was transferred from another low resolution source file.
Let’s look at the seal from the certificate of live birth. You can see that it doesn’t look normal right away. It has white ghosting around all the text and graphics. This is called fringing and it happens when you silhouette an image and transpose it onto another. A skilled graphic artist can remove it, but it’s not easy for someone less experienced. This is clearly done by an amateur.
In addition, the font is Arial, which is a computer font created in 1981. How could that font be used on this form? It does indicate in the lower left that it is a revision from November of 2001, but why? Don’t they have an original?
Here’s an example I created to show how easy it is to transfer someone’s signature from one document to another. First I took a sticky note with a sample on it and used a quick, and incorrect, way to transfer it. I then cleaned up the edges leaving some of the fringing in place and then took out the color saturation. It still came out looking better then the White House’s version.
Lastly, and this is most startling, I opened the document in Adobe Illustrator and it revealed that person who exported the document did so directly from Illustrator and maintained the layers in tact! This is a shocking revelation that needs to be explained by the White House. You can see in the screenshots below that the layers palette on the right shows many active layers and I display how the elements can be turned on and off at will and even moved around the page!
This image shows how I could select the letters from the word “Non”. The E was part of a different group. I think they tried to make the “Non” faded to appear like an improperly inked letter grouping from a typewriter.
In this image I just turned off the layer that contains the signature of the State Registrar. It reveals a layer of white ghosting beneath it. I do not understand this or know the purpose of it.I am very confused by this but I can say with certainty that there are major problems with this document. It’s almost as if someone from inside the White House is trying to send a message to tell everyone that this is a fake. Either that, or they are as stupid as they seem.
In closing, I am ashamed of our president for getting on the podium today and say that “he has better things to do with his time” than answer our questions. Mr. President, you work for us, and you will answer all of our questions because it’s your responsibility and it’s the decent thing to do.
I heard a commentator say that she felt the seal and held the document today at the White House. If that’s true, why was this fake put online? Once again, more questions than answers.