Main Menu

Barack Obama’s Birth Certificate is a Forgery – Part 2

Continued from: Barack Obama’s Birth Certificate is a Forgery – Part 1.

Theory: Two individuals describing themselves as experts in document analysis showed various features in the scanned images of Barack Obama’s Certification of Live Birth that they claim indicate manipulation of the document beyond cropping and resizing.

Analysis: The analyses were performed by persons identifying themselves as TechDude and Dr. Ron Polarik. The TechDude article was presented on a web site named AtlasShrugs.com. It was subsequently asserted that the resume TechDude presented was stolen from another person. At present, the TechDude article remains at FINAL REPORT ON OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFIFCATE FORGERY  CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE IN. A detailed point by point commentary on the TechDude report appears in the article: Bad Science: How Not To Do Image Analysis. Even the “no friend of Obama” Israel Insider declares TechDude “so much hot air“. The short version is that the TechDude technical analysis is discredited by friends and foes alike, including Ron Polarik.

TechDude disappeared from many Obama conspiracy theory web sites after his stolen credentials problem was exposed, but Dr. Ron Polarik is still widely cited. His article is Dr. Ron Polarik’s Final Analysis of the Obama Birth CertificateObama’s Born Conspiracy: Obama’s bogus birth certificate exposed! [caution, due to poor web design, this page takes forever to load] and he has a video on YouTube. “Ron Polarik” is not a real name according to posts on other blogs claiming to be by him.  I have found problems with the images attributed to Obama in Polarik’s article, that they don’t match the real Obama images. Polarik said:

To validate my findings that the text in this COLB document image was the result of graphic alternations, and not a result of any printer or scanner artifacts, I made over 700 test scans and images using an actual paper COLB and different scanners that were subjected to different combinations of scanning and image parameters. I was finally able to replicate the Kos image so closely that other image experts thought it was the same Kos image, and not my “clone.”

Even a casual look at Polarik’s images show extreme differences in color, saturation and sharpness. Then Polarik says that his pixels are different from Obama’s. Well yes they are since he used a different scanner under different light with different software and settings. A detailed point by point commentary on Polarik’s article is: Bad Science: How Not To Do Image Analysis Part II. The short version is that the Rod Polarik technical analysis has been discredited.

A further short bit of Polarik fakery is reported by SluggoJD on the Top 10 Bad Guys blog.

An additional objection to the close-up photos of the certificate on FactCheck.org is that the image of the Hawaii state seal is identical on the front and back of the certificate, but should be a mirror image. The images to view are back and front. A careful visual inspection reveals that the images are indeed mirror images. Look at the innermost concentric circle around the central image and observe the relative widths of the left and right sides.

You would think that if the Obama birth certificate were a demonstrable forgery than at least one person willing to give their name would do the analysis and stand behind it. A document expert, Sanda Lines, has stated in an affidavit that is is not possible to determine whether an image on the Internet is genuine.

There is a joke claim by Jay McKinnon that he was the one that forged Obama’s certificate.

For further proof of the authenticity of the document, check out the following video:

Print Friendly

, , , , , ,

3 Responses to Barack Obama’s Birth Certificate is a Forgery – Part 2

  1. avatar
    Lamarr01 November 10, 2009 at 11:11 pm #

    I played with the COLB one afternoon with a trial version of Photoshop. The basic idea of editing is there are layers. The safety check of the print stock is the background layer. The printed letters are a foreground layer.

    The person who edited the document typed the corrections on the background layer. It looked like she took an ink eraser and erased the old letters and typed over the top of it.

    This left white space in the holes in the “O” so she took the dabbing tool and tried to paint the safety check back in. At regular magnification it looks pretty good. At a higher magnification it looks like a sloppy forgery.

  2. avatar
    Jez November 11, 2009 at 2:19 am #

    When you save a graphic from Photoshop for publishing on the web, the layers are not preserved.
    Shoots a hole in that theory, doesn’t it.

  3. avatar
    angellique June 3, 2010 at 3:18 pm #

    If the President of the United States were going to forge his birth certificate he’d at least be able to obtain the paper on which to print it as opposed to erasing info from someone else’s

    Give the guy some credit, he is, afterall, the smartest president we’ve had. I’ve done better jobs on a typewriter with white-out in the 80′s than the one you’re implying he did.

    Lamarr01: I played with the COLB one afternoon with a trial version of Photoshop. The basic idea of editing is there are layers. The safety check of the print stock is the background layer. The printed letters are a foreground layer. The person who edited the document typed the corrections on the background layer. It looked like she took an ink eraser and erased the old letters and typed over the top of it.This left white space in the holes in the “O” so she took the dabbing tool and tried to paint the safety check back in. At regular magnification it looks pretty good. At a higher magnification it looks like a sloppy forgery.

99999 00000
?????????