Main Menu

Tag Archives | Paul Irey

Light fuse and run away: Paul Irey finds another “anomaly”

Paul Irey once more proffers a bogus argument that Obama’s birth certificate is a forgery, and then leaves the country.

In what he calls an “incomplete study,” Paul Irey, amateur birther image sleuth,  professional typewriter user, and newly minted American expatriate1, has pointed out yet another “anomaly” in Obama’s long form birth certificate that he thinks may be the “best yet.” Irey says:

… I feel that this particular evidence is impossible to refute.

Irey’s argument, in a nutshell, is that comparing Obama’s birth certificate to another example seems to indicate that the security paper pattern on one is a different size than the security paper pattern on the other. For your reference, here is the image Irey made to show his observation (click to enlarge):

The Hawaii Department of Health does not routinely issue birth certificates like the long form supplied to President Obama any more. It requires a special waiver. The “Alan” certificate was reportedly printed in 1998, and it was almost certainly made prior to the Department of Health adopting its 2001 policy to stop issuing photocopied certificates. That means 13 years elapsed between the creation of the two certificates, which hardly qualifies as “from the same period” as Irey describes it. I am not suggesting that the security paper changed in those 13 years because while possible, it is to my mind unlikely; however, the method of photocopying the book onto the paper, the copy machine and its settings are very likely to have changed.

Irey doesn’t actually explain his reasons, why he thinks the security paper in the two images should be the same. It looks like Irey did what I would have done for a first pass, “calibrate” by resizing the images to match up the printed text. If one does that (and I tested it myself), the Obama security paper basket weave pattern does appear smaller than that on the Alan certificate, and I get a result just like what Irey presents. That calibration method is valid if and only if the text used for calibration is the same size on both certificates. It turns out that it isn’t.

Doug Vogt states in Point 5 of his Washington State lawsuit affidavit, that the Obama certificate was reduced to 87.5% size before printing onto the security paper. The Alan certificate was also reduced before printing. I discovered this by taking a sheet of Simpson Design Secure™ paper, the paper that I believe is used by Hawaii to print birth certificates, and simply typing on it. I then scanned that text and adjusted the Alan certificate’s text to the same size. The pattern on the security paper in the Alan certificate appeared much larger than the real typewritten example, showing that the Alan certificate printing was reduced. How much? To get a number, I took the size of the clip of the Alan certificate I was using to match text. The width of the clip was 2774 pixels. Next, I reduced the size of the clip so that its security paper background matched that of the real typewriting on security paper scan, and the clip width became 1926. That is, the Alan image by my calculation was reduced to roughly 70% size before it was printed on security paper.

So naturally when you shrink Obama’s certificate down to match the smaller text of the Alan certificate. the pattern on the security paper background gets shrunk too—what we see in the Irey figure.

Irey doesn’t say how he calibrated his images, but it is clear that the text size ended up being the same for both. Since the Alan certificate was printed smaller than the Obama certificate, we should not expect the background security paper to match when shrunk to make the text the same size.

I haven’t done all the work there is to do on this, specifically trying to use the difference in printing size to see if the security paper background enlargement exactly matches what it should be based on my calculations. I only showed that it changed in the right direction. A thorough job would also verify Vogt’s number for Obama’s certificate.


1For more on Irey leaving the country, see my article: “Disgusted birther leaves country.”

Disgusted birther leaves country

Paul Irey (pictured right) knows how to use a typewriter, but not so much how typewritten documents are converted into electronic documents through scanning and image processing. His biased pseudo-expert analysis of Barack Obama’s birth certificate and other documents has been foundational in several birther lawsuits, such as those by Douglas Vogt and Orly Taitz. Most recently he has weighed in on behalf of Chris Strunk in the ongoing attempt to revive his 2012 suit against the New York Board of elections. (Nothing Irey could say can remedy Stunk’s lack of standing.)

Charles Kerchner has published an email from Irey in which he says [italics replaced by underscores]:

Meanwhile I am leaving the country to reside elsewhere.  I may stay out of the country regardless of the outcome of my efforts … as our national problems are not all caused by this present usurper … that to me seem impossible to solve … mainly due to the tightly controlled media that prevents information such as I have described here from ever reaching you.  Fear is not the reason for my leaving.  It is disgust with the amazing amount of corruption and disregard for our constitution … and the likelihood of serious “fundamental” changes in the future.

One has to note with irony the fact that the “information” that Irey says is suppressed is being discussed right now on this Internet web site.

I had the opportunity to talk to Irey when he appeared on the RC Radio show way back in 2011. I found him a sincere fellow who was totally unable to see straight when it came to looking at evidence about Obama. He said he knew Obama’s birth certificate was a fake before he even looked at it!

I suspect that reinforcement from folks like Strunk, Vogt, Kerchner and perhaps rightwing nut job web sites, trying to outdo each other in exaggeration of their imagined usurpation of the US presidency, has gotten Irey so worked up that he’s actually leaving the country. If he’s leaving for negative reasons, then I feel sorry for him.

One of the great insights in my life is “it’s not about me.” That principle guides me away from making grand symbolic statements, such as leaving when some people don’t act the way I think they should. The proper response is to engage those I disagree with and work to change things. Irey has the right to his politics and his view on how the country ought to run, even though I think he is 100% wrong on some of his conclusions about President Obama. Irey’s leaving the country isn’t going to change anything, and is a futile gesture.

Taitz: new twist on old Obama copyright story

It was last January when Orly came up with this document anomaly, if you could call it that. Obama’s copyright application for Dreams from My Father has the letters “U S A” in place of the author’s year born. The year of birth is not applicable because US Copyright law doesn’t consider the birth and death dates of US authors (while it is relevant for  most foreign authors). I debunked it then in my article, “Taitz continues to baffle.”

Taitz is back with the same story again, citing Paul Irey as her authority on copyright applications. Only this time, Irey states that the certificate of copyright from the US Registrar of Copyrights is itself a forgery, and probably made for the purpose of hiding “Kenya” as Obama’s place of birth on the original, and done by the same forger who forged Obama’s birth certificate.

Does the Registrar of Copyrights have a Xerox WorkCentre too? I suppose it’s possible.

While Irey doesn’t name the forger, he narrows it down a bit by saying:

I predict the forger may disappear soon because just like Fuddy … she is in the same situation now.

Given that Paul Irey works closely with Doug Vogt, we have a pretty good idea who Irey means (I won’t mention the name, but you know who the innocent bystander in Vogt’s suit is).

Obots offer witness protection to embattled birthers

Whatcha Gonna Do When They Come for You?

First, the title is just kidding. Obots don’t have any authority to offer anything in the way of protection to birthers. I’m just a retired guy who blogs. What I wanted to mention was two recent items where birthers are being singled out by other birthers as criminals.

The first is the obvious Douglas Vogt unsealed affidavit that charges Birther Princess Miki Booth with being part of the group forging Obama’s birth certificate. Some birthers were happy to take that and run with it.

The second is the charge from Carl Gallups that Douglas Vogt said things that were untrue in his unsealed affidavit before the U. S. Supreme Court. Gallups is right, by the way.

Meanwhile one wonders how many more birthers are going to get on the “Zullo is just stringing us on” bandwagon. That sentiment certainly has Carl Gallups upset.

Birthers have never gotten along that well because the prominent birthers want to be leaders, and you can’t have everybody being a leader. Conspiracy theorists are by nature lone researchers and they do not take kindly to competing theories. The messiest example was of course the lawsuit between several birthers, including Orly Taitz, Lisa Liberi and Phil Berg. Then just yesterday we had that whiny rant from Carl Gallups declaring Mike Zullo (and Gallups as his sole spokesperson) the only one who has accomplished anything for the birther movement, calling the rest “jealous.”

Conspiracy theories tend to develop factions—just look at all the Kennedy Assassination theories, or the LIH v. MIH factions for 9/11. Birthers are no different. Their theories include:

  • Obama was born in Kenya
  • Obama was born in Hawaii fathered by Frank Marshall Davis
  • Obama was fathered by Malcolm X
  • Obama isn’t related to the Dunhams
  • Obama was born in Hawaii to Ann Dunham and Barack Obama Sr. but ineligible anyway
  • Hawaii is/is not in on it
  • Nancy Owens forged the birth certificate
  • Miki Booth and friend forged the birth certificate

Continue Reading →

Forensically speaking

I was reading Douglas Vogt’s petition to the Supreme Court and noticed this sentence (presumably ghost-written by Montgomery Blair Sibley).

Attached to the Notice of Commission was Vogt’s publicly-available, 95 page affidavit in which he demonstrated forensically the existence of twenty (20) separate points of forgery in the Certificate of Live Birth (“COLB”) of Barack Hussein Obama, II (“Obama”).

Forensics is a science, the scientific method of gathering and examining information about the past, a discipline that to my knowledge Vogt has never practiced nor received training in. Vogt’s affidavit doesn’t cite any published works on forensic science, nor does he allude to having any background whatsoever in questioned document examination. He is a self-made expert. Indeed Vogt expresses disdain for the forensic certification, characterizing it as meaningless at Birther Report:

Paul Irey and myself have over 83 years experience in the graphics/type and scanner business. A forensic document examiner takes a course over the internet, pays $800 and 98% of them pass and get the certificate. I had to send my chapter on evidence of computer manipulation to the Arizona Sheriffs office who sent it to Reed Hayes so he would learn more about Photoshop and how Adobe created the JBIG2 compression layer. He did not know it. He is a hand writing expert and worse yet he only worked from the PDF copy that there was no chain of custody. He is NOT an expert on type and what Paul and I covered in my affidavits.

It serves Vogt’s purpose to make sweeping generalized aspersions about document examiners and their qualifications, because Vogt himself has no such qualifications. It is true that there are forensic certification diploma mills, but the organization certifying Reed Hayes is not one of them, nor is the American Board of Forensic Document Examiners that requires, for example, an undergraduate degree plus two years of full-time training at an accredited forensic laboratory and current employment in the field, and in order to apply to take oral, written and practical certification tests, must provide references from three certified examiners. In short, Douglas Vogt could not become ABFDE certified.

Vogt himself seems to have been completely unaware of JBIG2 compression until the anti-birthers told him about it (it is completely absent from his earlier reports) and he certainly has no “chain of custody” associated with his puttering around. Given that Obama’s birth certificate appears to the first document Vogt has ever examined “forensically,” I would think it fair to call him a “beginner” rather than an “expert.”

The reason that Vogt is not an expert, and the reason he is not qualified to make the claims he does is:

  • Vogt uses no recognized methodology: he makes it up as he goes along
  • Vogt cites no recognized authority
  • Vogt doesn’t look at evidence objectively, discarding, for example, any published birth certificate that contradicts his numbering theories
  • Vogt freely misrepresents regulations and statutes to try to prove false statements.
  • Vogt has no prior experience in examining forgeries.
  • Vogt has never even taken so much as a single course in forensic document science.

Judge Malihi, an administrative law judge in Georgia, summed it up in his decision in the case of Farrar v. Obama, speaking of Douglas Vogt and Felicito Papa:

neither witness was properly qualified or tendered as an expert in birth records, forged documents or document manipulation

As for Paul Irey, he said that he was certain Obama’s birth certificate was fake before he looked at and was just trying to justify that belief–he lacks scientific objectivity. Here’s a section from the transcript of Irey’s appearance on Reality Check Radio:

Irey: … I started to study it, knowing it had to be a forgery, and just looking for what I could find.
Foggy: You knew it was a forgery before you started studying it?…
Irey: Yes, yes. I knew it was a forgery.
Foggy: How’d you know that?
Irey: I had information from a government worker who had a friend at one of the agencies who come back to me after we had a big debate during the time Obama had been, uh, announced for office [inaudible] legitimacy, where’s the birth certificate? We were talking about that way back when, and he debated with me. Went down to his agency and advised me that, uh, that I was right basically. That there was no birth certificate in the records. But his agency was not going to, uh, do anything about it more or less. So I kind of went in with his background. It sort of converted his attitude. I could tell how his attitude changed after that, because he was no longer supporting Obama. I was supporting Colin Powell….
Foggy: I’m not asking you to identify the guy, but can you tell us like what agency? Was it an intelligency agency? I mean can you give us a hint?
Irey: Yes, I can. It was the Secret Service.
Foggy: OK
Irey: As you know, the Secret Service is, one of their responsibilities is to vet. …

Of course, the Secret Service doesn’t vet presidential candidates, and there is no reason that they would have a birth certificate in their files for any of them.

Irey’s analysis consists primarily of blown up copies of typewritten text. Irey claims 57 years experience in typesetting, but nothing in his report is about typesetting; it is about typewriters, and Irey describes his typewriter experience as: I’m also four years experience in typing with a typewriter (Taitz v. Elections Commission testimony). Irey also says that he used Photoshop from the beginning, but the best Irey could hope to  do with such expertise would be to show that the White House PDF could have been created by Photoshop, not that it wasn’t created by something else, like a Xerox WorkCentre 7655. (I should add that no birther has ever produced a fake birth certificate using Photoshop that has all of the characteristics of Obama’s certificate.) Irey has no experience with the electronic format of a PDF so as to find any unique signature of Photoshop.

Vogt’s Supreme Court petition will be denied.

Birther fallback on Obama’s PDF

Doc and abastract

Dr. Conspiracy considers latest birther image analysis

Besides the PDF does not have a chain of custudy (sic). The reporters (sic) copy does. His birth certificate is still a forgery with at least 19 points of forgery on just the reorters (sic) copy.

– Doug Vogt (comment at Native Born Citizen blog)

It’s interesting that Vogt admits that the Guthrie photos have a chain of custody, because they do. They went straight from the Hawaii Department of Heath to the White House press briefing in the custody of Obama’s attorneys, officers of the court. It’s interesting because Vogt once said: “There was no paper copy with a seal presented to the US Public therefore none to examine by anyone!” (Guthrie herself said that she felt the raised seal).

In most discussions birthers have largely ignored the Guthrie photos since they undermine their main position, that no paper document with a raised seal existed. It would take a book-length article to go into all the inane things the birthers have claimed about the PDF, but now that birther marks of forgery on the PDF have been shown to be simply workflow with standard office equipment (no surprise), the Guthrie photos have come to the front, and the pseudo-scientific typography fantasies of Vogt and Irey have become the fallback position.

The Guthrie photos are ideal for birther purposes because they are fuzzy and of low resolution, taken in less-than-ideal circumstances by a cell phone camera. It is well-documented that humans see things in fuzzy images that aren’t there. So what are these “19 points of forgery” in a document that Vogt used to deny existed? I don’t know the 19, but I found 25 points of a general nature in a list by Vogt at Conservative News and Views. Following, I’ll address the ones from the list that actually refer in any way to the Guthrie photos1, my comments in bold face.

  1. Birth certificate number out of sequence. This is simply not true. See my article.
  2. No evidence of raised seal. This is simply and obviously not true. Guthrie’s photo shows the seal, albeit dimly, and she herself said that the had felt it. You can easily see the seal yourself in contrast-enhanced photos.
  3. Several points about type are raised that have been discussed in detail on this blog, but are too complicated to include in this survey article. Suffice it to say that Vogt and Irey are mistaken. Watch the video.
  4. The age of Obama Sr. is wrong. Obama Sr. used different dates of birth in different contexts, not just on the birth certificate. This is not any evidence of forgery.
  5. “The certificate gives Obama’s race as ‘African.’ In those days, a clerk would say ‘Negro’ or ‘Black.’ No one ever used ‘African.’ No one even used ‘African-American’ until the Seventies.” This is simply not true. First “African” is the race of Obama’s father, and the race of the father is self-reported by the parent, not what a clerk says. Second the 1961 keying instructions specifically mention what to key if a parent responds “African American.” The claim is ludicrous. See my article.
  6. Shows cropping. The PDF conversion process in the Xerox WorkCentre machine that scanned the document as a PDF does a cropping function called “Edge Erase.” The Guthrie photo is of the original, and so not cropped.

I don’t know what the “19 points of forgery in the reporters document” are precisely, but from what I can tell, it’s a combination of birthers making stuff up (like the “African” race entry) or imagining things, such as the “rotated ‘e’” in “Male.” And of course, they just ignore most of the time the higher resolution AP image that is inconvenient for their position. Despite reports the contrary, birthers have no clothes.

Continue Reading →