Friday, March 16, 2012

Obama's Birth Certificate - Layers of Deception?

If you watch the following video, which has many cousins on YouTube, you will see a clear argument that there are issues with Obama's supposed release of his long form birth certificate.

There have been a number of attempts to explain this effect. Nathan Goulding at NRO postulates that it was scanned with OCR software turned on. I have read others say that this could be an artifact of other software that was used to shrink the file size. I really don't know what the truth is, and neither do you, unless you have seen the actual piece of paper yourself. Here is what one commenter, Rob, posted on the controversy, which accurately sums up the issue.

I think we’re all missing the point, here: We still haven’t seen an original copy of Obama’s birth certificate. We’ve seen a layered version of it. So, the evidence of layers cannot prove that it was purposely doctored – why does that matter? What’s important is that we have not seen an actual, authentic copy which can only be acceptable in an un-layered image format like a .JPG.

A layered file like a PDF, PSD, etc.. CAN never and SHOULD never be accepted as an authentic copy of an important piece of paper by virtue of the fact it is mechanically altered the minute it is saved. Only an un-layered, scanned .JPG image can suffice as proof of the original birth certificate.

In short, we have no more proof of Obama’s original birth certificate than we did prior to the morning of the 27th. We should demand an single-scanned, un-layered image.

WE HAVE NO PROOF. That is what is disturbing about this President. He has carefully hidden facts about his past with media complicity. We have no records of his college grades, we can't read his college papers, and we don't know much about his 1981 trip abroad to Indonesia and Pakistan. The secrecy has a purpose; it might be as benign as preventing embarrassment or as malignant as the Manchurian Candidate. We don't know because of the secrecy. That the press is willing to be complicit is also a key point. It is also the point of this video in which Joe Pollak takes down CNN, and they hardly have the wits to understand their complicity:


  1. So long, farewell, and thanks for all the fish...

  2. Transcript of Sheriff Arpaio is a fake

  3. Why are you still beating this dead horse?

    1. The suits were dismissed by the Supreme Court of the United States. So the Feds say no.
    2. The director of Hawaii’s Department of Health confirmed Oct. 31 that Obama was born in Honolulu. So the state says no.
    3. Others claim to have seen the original document

    Move on.

  4. The birth anouncements are not proof he was born in Hawaii. No hospital is mentioned and it is Obama's grandmothers address. He could have been born anywhere in the world, and the proud grandma could have posted the anouncment. Too bad all BOs US relatives are now dead. His fathers side is still living in Kenya, or illigeally in the US.

  5. To my readers and commenters:

    I am not asserting that Obama is constitutionally ineligible to be President. I am asserting that he has failed to provide an explanation for the fact that his "long form birth certificate" can not be authenticated by technical means. That means his much ballyhooed release in in fact bunk. It is another example of him taking credit for something that can not be ascertained reasonably, jobs saved or created being another example. Further, a complicit press has not asked the White House any tough questions about the technical background used to render the form. For example, if I were a member of the White House press corps I would ask the following. "What is Todd Park's explanation for the fact that the released portable document format file of the President's long form birth certificate contains multiple layers, which is unusual for a scanned document?" (Todd Park is the Federal CTO.) I might also ask why the administration believed that this was an appropriate format to display information whose veracity had been previously called into question, given that the ISO 32000-1:2008 standard does not specify a process for converting paper documents to electronic format. I know a number of possible answers to those questions. A follow on question might be, "Given that no standard is currently adequate to authenticate such rendering, does the Attorney General have a position about the validity of the use of portable document format in legal proceedings?" The government's current position might be considerably weakened, but would in the long run be strengthened, if such questioning took place. Instead, we are left with a side show where people who show that the birth certificate can not be validated are called names. I am not taking a position on whether or not some information on the birth certificate was changed. I am only stating with certainty that Obama's release did not settle the issue, whether or not he would like to think so.

    Kelly, in my professional life I have a dispute brewing regarding a certain software vendor's willingness to meet certain technical security standards that involves the ISO standard discussed above, as well the intersection of mobile code and cryptographic certification of forms. This issue is related to that. It is helpful, in my view, to highlight the complexities of modern technology to make the point about the need for these standards and the need for further work. We need a framework of authentication and non-repudiation surrounding digital transactions that are based on electronic forms.

    One of the legitimate functions of the federal government is to set standards in an impartial way. This area needs more work. My other issue is that Obama just gets to put out unverifiable trash that goes unchallenged. I am seeking to create an atmosphere of accountability by my questions.