Was Obama's Certificate of Birth Photoshopped?

Originally posted by AnOldFriend
All i did was select a clean area of the green pattern and then just dropped it over the text that was there. Of course i lined it up so that it fits and then i put the text over that. very simple job. And i am sure whoever may have falsified this doc would go about it the same way. The clone tool would not work very well and whiting it out with the brush would just be tedious and would be way to obvious.

If this doc was falsified i would have to say it was done at the agency that supplied it.

You're overlooking the most important point!

We know that the document was edited in photoshop. That is a fact.

What you're overlooking is that whoever did this job had to deal with the three steps:

1. scanning the original certificate into the computer,
2. editing the image in photoshop, and
3. saving the image and uploading to the internet.

Now here is the PROBLEM!

If the image was scanned with a different dpi and bit depth than how it was saved, the digital artifacts would appear.

Anything you or I attempt to do in terms of editing the jpg now isn't the same as the process that the Obama camp used.

I hate to say it, but I know this too well. I have my own business and have kiped an image here and there, but had to meticulously replace the text in the exact same areas to produce the same overall look.

Once finished, it looked great on the page, couldn't tell much of anything. Zooming in though with Fireworks etc., you can see the exact same affect as the Obama CoB. I didn't care, because how often do people zoom in on an image to that level if at all? Not often.

I couldn't replace the whole image with a new cloned background like AnOldfriend, because I wanted the original text positioning. If I were to load another copy of the image separately, and then use the text from that image as a guide to positioning, it wouldn't be nearly as precise. Especially in relation to the other text and margins.


[edit on 16-6-2008 by jetxnet]

reply to post by jamie83


Do you know anything about the BC no. other then it is on a bc? I tried to find exactly what it is but i couldn't come up with anything. Perhaps it could be used to steal his identity or something along those line.

And dont you think they could just falsify that too while they are at it?

Originally posted by AnOldFriend
I most certainly would, however I would want it as close to a "real" certificate as possible. The best way to get rid of anything like text in this image is the way i did it and I am sure that if they did edit it to this extreme they would have done it the same way.

Why does the text have to line up to the original precisely anyway? As long as it is close on your editing job nobody would be any the wiser. And you couldn't compare it to anything because I am sure no other person in the world has this exact same info.

Hello!!! You guys a missing a big piece of this!

They had a hard copy certificate they had to scan first. We're just working with the saved version after it's been scanned, edited, and saved again.

The artifacts would be produced if the scan resolution differed from the resolution used during the editing and saving.

reply to post by jetxnet


Well lets see that document you made. Would go a long way in proving what you say is true. I don't know alot about all the technical mumbojumbo that goes into creating an image. However there was another graphic designer here that says otherwise.

Originally posted by AnOldFriend

Do you know anything about the BC no. other then it is on a bc? I tried to find exactly what it is but i couldn't come up with anything. Perhaps it could be used to steal his identity or something along those line.

And dont you think they could just falsify that too while they are at it?

I can't imagine how the certificate number could be used for identity theft. You can't steal somebody's identity with a number that isn't used for anything. It's not like you could get a credit card by giving the number on your Cert. of Birth.

BUT YOU HIT THE JACKPOT!

You asked a great question, why wouldn't they have faked a cert. no.? Why? Because they couldn't risk giving out a number that would allow anybody to trace this Certificate of Birth backwards.

Meaning, if this was really Obama's CoB, then people could conceivably use the Cert. no. to get a copy of the *real*, unedited CoB. And if they used somebody else's CoB, they couldn't risk giving out the Cert. No. because somebody might be able to trace the CoB back to the *real* person whose CoB was used.

And they couldn't just make up a Cert. No. because they would be risking having the fake Cert. No. traced to some random person, or be discovered to be a fake Cert. No.

[edit on 16-6-2008 by jamie83]

Dude, when I get time already. I'm a bit burned out at the computer the way it is (I am a programming and network engineer). This is not an excuse, but is true.

It means i'll have to reload Fireworks and Crack it etc.

Why don't you do it, you seem to out these things quickly. Just do as I stated, replace the original text in the same positions.

In other words, create a new CoB with fictiious information.

reply to post by jamie83


I really doubt that even if you had the number the agency that supplied this to Obama probably wouldn't give you any information anyway. But it is a but curios why they black it out, if i were to launch a theory it would be about that not the rest of the doc. But alas i know not what the number is/could be used for.

reply to post by jetxnet


How exactly would I create a new one without fake info? And What would the point be in going over something with the same thing that is already there?

Originally posted by AnOldFriend
reply to post by jamie83

 

I really doubt that even if you had the number the agency that supplied this to Obama probably wouldn't give you any information anyway. But it is a but curios why they black it out, if i were to launch a theory it would be about that not the rest of the doc. But alas i know not what the number is/could be used for.

Yes, the blacked out Cert. No. is a bit of a mystery. But I think if you knew the right person at the Hawaii Dept. of Records you might get a copy of the CoB.

Let's say i'm the Obama camp and came to you knowing you were good with graphics (and an Obama supporter) and said, we'll pay you x amount of $ to produce a digital birth certificate. Someone in our staff has a relative born there in Hawaii and we have their cert and has been scanned. All you have to do is replace the text.

AnOldFriend, create a new CoB with fictious information using our scanned image. We want to look just like the orignial but with the new info. Make sure to block out the tracking ID number too.

reply to post by jamie83


That is true but that person would be in some very serious trouble quite soon after it was released. I am sure there system has some sort of log that would display who when and where the info was accessed.

reply to post by jetxnet


Ok and i showed you how it was most probably done if indeed it was. I cant recreate it. However when you get the chance i would love to see your go at it.

Originally posted by AnOldFriend
reply to post by jamie83

 

That is true but that person would be in some very serious trouble quite soon after it was released. I am sure there system has some sort of log that would display who when and where the info was accessed.

True, and I'm sure anybody who tried to steal the identity of Obama would also be caught and punished pretty severely.

So that said, why black out the cert. no.??? I have no clue why they didn't want people knowing the Cert. no.

Why can't you? Are you afraid it will show the pixilization of replacing the text? You replaced the text, but using a whole new drop-in of the background.

Replace the text in the same positions using the existing background of the image and we'll zoom in and see if we can't see some pixilization distortion from the graphics editor pixel calculation algorithm.

I'm fried, not from ATS, but will see if I can't show you soon.

reply to post by jamie83


I agree, the blacking out of the number is a bit suspicious. perhaps you can get the answer here.

[email protected]



Jet, I dont understand what your saying. You want me to find the exact same font and go over the old text exactly with the same info? What would that prove?

LoL..

This is never going to end.

Ok fine.. continue on with this bullcrap.


You only look like fools.


You can lead a fool to reason... but you cannot make them see it.

Read the article below, it states what I too believe, that Obama was born in Kenya. Barack Senior took Barack's Mom back to Africa with him because he was an economist for the Kenyan government (after going to school in the US). They went back before Obama was born. Obama's early years were in Kenya. Obama's Mom was a missionary there.

www.associatedcontent.com...

Hmmm, well I'll first admit that I did not read the entire thread, and thought it best not to, so that I would share my opinion about the OP without being influenced by all the previous responses.

Now I work with scanned images ALOT in my line of work (involves heavy interaction with document management software), and I can tell you from first impression what you're seeing with those artifacts is created by a compression or quantization pattern that is being run in low quality mode. Basically what these quantization matrices do is break the image across a block, and then break that block into many other blocks attempting to compress the image and use "repeated blocks" to save space by referencing 1 block many times across an image. If you're feeling adventurous, Microsoft has a nice PDF on how this works with ONE type of vector based quantization pattern here:
research.microsoft.com...
(Please note, this PDF is from one of MS's research employees)

So anyway, the point of that whole mess is that the type of artifacting you're seeing is exactly as planned. The user wanted to post that image on the web and probably had to meet size constraints. Because of that, they chose a lesser quality algorithm to make the file smaller. Smaller file size = larger blocks of sample size, so there's less "samples" of the original image. When those blocks have a piece of a letter in them, they tend to throw the color value for the entire block off. Then we see this as mis-colored "boxes" around the print. It's a real PITA when you're trying to reproduce a document accurately and you're dealing with such a loose standard like JPEG, you see this all the time around borders of objects with a background near them that's not one solid color.

This should prove that just because we see it in the document, that isn't 100% proof that it was modified. Anytime that document is saved as a JPEG in a lower quality, those artifacts are bound to show up, and with each progressive copy and re-sampling, the problem becomes more pronounced and obvious.

Originally posted by jetxnet
Read the article below, it states what I too believe, that Obama was born in Kenya. Barack Senior took Barack's Mom back to Africa with him because he was an economist for the Kenyan government (after going to school in the US). They went back before Obama was born. Obama's early years were in Kenya. Obama's Mom was a missionary there.

www.associatedcontent.com...

That is not an ARTICLE by a real Journalist who has resources to investigate at their disposal ...

It reads like something you WROTE yourself...

In fact it is basically a FORUM post in Article formatl.

It it not Journalism .. just half baked bullfeces strained from the Freeprepublics of the world..

My god.. World Net Daily is a more legitimate source then that drivel...





[edit on 16-6-2008 by SavageHenry]