Forgery from the White House looks likely

Now, here is an odd thing.

There are people – possibly a bit loony – who say that President Obama was not born in the USA, and is therefore not eligible to be US President. In order to staunch these claims, Obama’s people last year put a copy of his long form birth certificate onto the White House website.

Now, some more serious people are starting to say that, well, this thing is a forgery. That is not to say, of course, that Obama was born outside the USA, merely that someone may have been a bit over-enthusiastic about providing the proof.

On 27th April 2011, Alex Jones put out a show in which he interviewed a Photoshop geek, who explained in detail how it could be shown – pretty easily it was said – that the document was created in Photoshop, because the Photoshop layers were still there to be seen, because the numerals used were modern fonts which did not exist in the 1960’s, and so on.  This is available on YouTube.

Also on 27th April, Karl Denninger put up a detailed video on Youtube showing in detail how it is clear that the White House document is a forgery, by reference both to differences between the green “safety paper” background in different parts of the document, which shows that the background was copied in by more than one Photoshop operation, and also because there is the chromatic aberration to be expected from a scan in some parts of the document, but not in others. In particular, he shows that the final digit on the stamped number on the top right was added artificially, by computer process.

On 28th April 2011, Kurt Nimmo wrote a piece on came to the same conclusion by reference to “artifacts”. He explained

Artifacts are created as the result of lossy compression techniques. So-called “lossy” compression is a data encoding method which compresses data by discarding or losing some of it in order to reduce image file size.

On 29th April 2011 Ivan Zatkovich, who is an expert in these matters, produced an expert’s report, which concluded that the document had been tampered with, presumably by someone in the White House.

All of the modifications to the PDF document that can be identified are consistent with someone enhancing the legibility of the document. It is possible that in addition to enhancing the legibility of the document that the content of the document was also changed. There is no specific evidence of how or why that content would have been changed, but the evidence clearly indicates that the document was changed.

On 16th May 2011, PPSimmons put up a Youtube video illustrating that, unlike authentic Hawaiian birth certificates of the time, the White House document uses kerning, i.e. the modern technique of spacing characters which was not invented in 1961.

On 5th September 2011, Aaron Klein is, who is  WND’s senior staff reporter and Jerusalem bureau chief, put out some material which suggests why the forgery might have been needed, namely that Obama was adopted by his Indonesian step father, which in turn means that Obama’s original birth certificate would have been destroyed some 40 years ago:

Obama’s American mother, Ann Dunham, separated from her first husband, Barack Obama Sr., in 1963 when the president was 2 years old. Dunham and Obama Sr. are reported to have later divorced.

In Hawaii, Dunham married Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian, in 1965 and moved to Indonesia in October 1967.

Divorce documents filed in Hawaii on Aug. 20, 1980, refer to Obama as the “child” of both Soetoro and Dunham, indicating a possible adoption in the U.S.

 If an adoption occurred, it could affect the birth certificate. In the United States, when an adoption takes place, a birth certificate generated at birth is replaced by a birth certificate that references the adoptive parents as the actual parents.

On 1st March, Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Ariz., said that he and his investigators have evidence that President Obama’s birth certificate is a forgery.

On 2nd March, CBS5 News ran a story, including an interview with lead investigator Mike Zullo, saying that whilst they starting off expecting to find the document was genuine, in fact they encountered clear evidence demonstrating that the document is a forgery, created by computer.  In particular, he showed that the green background to the document was clearly added after the text.

On 22nd March, Christopher Monckton asserted on the radio that the certificate put forward by the White house is “plainly a forgery”, and gave some reasons why he was so sure:

“It appears in layers on the screen in such a way you can remove quite separately each of the individual dates,” Monckton said. “You use Adobe Illustrator and each of the individual dates is in its own separate layer. This thing has been fabricated. Sheriff [Joe] Arpaio of Arizona has had a team on this for six months. And he has now gone public and said there’s something very desperately wrong with this and of course nobody is saying anything because the entire electorate has been fooled.”

“I’m no birther, don’t get me wrong,” Monckton said. “I haven’t a clue where Obama was born and I wouldn’t want to entreat into the private grief behind investigating. But the point is, is what he has done on the White House website is he has put up a document which he is plainly a forgery and I would regard that as a very serious matter.”

On the same day Diana West put out a piece entitled Why the silence about Obama’s historic scam? suggesting that that the document is a forgery.  Diana West is a serious journalist, who (per Wiki) writes for papers like the New York Journal and the Washington Post, and looks like the first serous crack in the wall whereby the US press has – until now – closed ranks on this issue.

Even odder, the White House still has the PDF here, on its website. Now, unless the world has suddenly gone flat, this – for an image-manipulation geek – is like putting up a Word document, such that all you have do is enable the Track Changes feature, and the trail of fabrication shows up as plain as the nose on your face.  And in looking at this issue, I have not come across a shred of evidence in the internet that there is anything specific that can be said by way of answer to the various “smoking guns” which point to the forgery. Apart from the general cry of “Heresy!”

Maybe Obama was born in Hawaii, USA, and hence is eligible to be President. Maybe he wasn’t. I don’t know, and I do not think this of itself really matters all that much.  What does matter is that he, or his people, seem to be prepared to indulge in forgery in order to mislead people. And if a President is prepared to do that, well, he probably should not be President.



Filed under Politics

3 responses to “Forgery from the White House looks likely

  1. ronjkerr

    Very interesting and I take your point that you are interested in the forgery, not where he was born.
    However, if it is a forgery intended to hide the fact he was not born in the USA, the conspiracy is wider then just this document as the Honolulu Advertiser and the Star Bulletin both record the August 4th, 1961 birth of Barack Obama.

  2. Keith Gaston

    This is interesting and an impressive level of detail …..up to a point. It may be true that some kind of manipulation has taken place but ultimately so what? B.O.’s Chicago Southside background and self-made success is authentic and about a American as it gets . The thing is (a) most Obama deniers are plainly in need of psychiatric care (b) there is only one grown up candidate in the US election , even if I struggle even to comprehend both the level and trajectory of US Govt Debt (c) Romney has obviously escaped from the set of Thunderbirds (d) he is relatively sane compared to Santorum (f) where’s ‘e’ ? (e) ahh there it is. .Regards + best wishes to all, K.R.G.

  3. Pingback: The Slow Sound of Advancing Drums | phenell

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s