The junk document analysts have returned with another t-shirt to advertise their claims.
WorldNetDaily’s Jerome Corsi presents an article, Expert: Obama doc is ‘proof’ — of fraud, featuring one Paul Irey who claims to have 40 years experience in typography. Corsi dies not explain why a commercial printer knows anything about typewriters beyond the average old guy like me, but nevertheless makes a big deal that under high magnification, the letters on scanned second-generation photocopies of Obama’s long-form birth certificate are not identical to each other. He concludes:
…the Obama birth certificate released by the White House is a cut-and-paste composite created by using different parts of presumably authentic birth certificates that had been typed in Hawaii in 1961 on different typewriters.
Irey isn’t saying that the typeface is different in different letters on the certificate, but that the individual letters are not exactly the same, suggesting different typewriters. However, the images he presents are 5th-generation digital images at best. A used typewriter ribbon is not uniform in density, nor does a human typist use the same stroke on every letter. We know that the Hawaii Department of Health made a copy of the original form, then the White House photocopied it for the Press, then the press scanned it, so we have scan, print, scan, convert from color to black & white, print and scan.
Being a commercial printer, Irey appears to expect that characters are reproduced precisely in position, and at high quality. He appears to have no clue about 1961 government-issue manual typewriters. Looking at Irey’s image, I see what I would anticipate seeing, a multi-generation copy of a typewritten document. Maybe I’m more experienced looking at enlarged images of old documents than the average Joe, but I don’t see how this WND article would convince anybody.
The question, then, is whether the variation between letters is normal given the human and mechanical variation of the machine and the limitations on the imaging technology used, or whether multiple typewriters (or images from multiple typewriters) is indicated. If someone were to try to prove what Irey asserts, they should compare the results of the Obama certificate with similar examples from other period documents, photocopied twice and scanned. They the results should be presented in a double-blind study. Irey does none of that.
Irey has claimed that the Obama certificate is a composite document made from many original documents (why would anyone do that when they could simply use a real typewriter?) but he refuses to identify any of the typewriters involved. I haven’t identified the typewriter yet, but this one is close–but not exact.
For comparison, I took my own birth certificate which is copied onto security paper, like the Obama long form, and then scanned it at 1200 dpi. Here are three examples of the letter “D” that show as much or more variation as what Irey found in the Obama form.
But then again, my father’s name is misspelled which means my BC is an illegal fraud anyway.