A picture is worth a thousand words.

[chrismb]

They couldn't even get the "Official" rubber stamp right.

Obama's stamp.




stamp on the March 15, 2011, birth certificate copy


What does this mean? "The" is spelled correctly on March 15, 2011, but by April 25th, it is either spelled incorrectly or it has been replaced with a new term. (Presumably a file format.) Did they break out a NEW rubber stamp for the special occasion of Obama's birth record? You would have thought they would have made sure it was spelled correctly.

I can't wait to see if the next long form birth certificate contains the "the" or "txe" designation. Wouldn't it be funny if Obama's is the only one?

I would swear these two prints are the same stamp, and, not only that, also stamped by the same person.

(TXE??? WTF? This is just a lump of ink that has distorted the print of the letter!)

What struck me was the consistency of the signature! But I just realised that the signature is part of the rubber stamp!!

[Diogenes]

They couldn't even get the "Official" rubber stamp right.

Obama's stamp.




stamp on the March 15, 2011, birth certificate copy

(TXE??? WTF? This is just a lump of ink that has distorted the print of the letter!)

What struck me was the consistency of the signature! But I just realised that the signature is part of the rubber stamp!!

Obviously not important enougx to worry about for txe President's documents. Some people migxt regard it as sxoddy, but it seems pretty typical for txe work produced by laid back Xawaiian bureaucrats. It's not like txey could expend the effort necessary to clear txe blob and print anotxer document. It's only going to be looked at by a couple of people, rigxt?

Of COURSE I trust txese bureaucrats witx deciding txe President's legitimacy! We Certainly do not need to see txe document txey keep telling us we aren't allowed to see. Txey are all obviously constitutional Scxolars who only lack txe ability to master a rubber stamp. Txey are competent in every otxer way.

[chrismb]

Don't be daft! It is a rubber pad. It's not a computer! The rubber can twist, either on the pad or the paper, and whatever causes it to twist will then drop away.

Those two prints were definitely made by the same rubber stamp. No question in my mind.

The thing you are missing is that (presuming the image is a faithful reproduction) the top one obviously wasn't made on the background paper that is suggested in the picture. But the stamps are from the same rubber stamp.

[chrismb]

If I wasn't the innocent fellow that I am, I'd have suggested that the funny 'TXE' instead of 'THE' is a distraction technique to get people talking about the wrong defect of the reproduction at the top, and distract them from the obvious defect.

Very cunning... if I were to believe such a thing!

[bcglorf]

If I wasn't the innocent fellow that I am, I'd have suggested that the funny 'TXE' instead of 'THE' is a distraction technique to get people talking about the wrong defect of the reproduction at the top, and distract them from the obvious defect.

Very cunning... if I were to believe such a thing!

Now you've gone and done it...

[chrismb]

Well, it's pretty obvious that stamp wasn't made on that background, isn't it!?

...'ang on, there are some serious looking guys in black suits outside, knocking, must be the Jehovah's witnesses again. Back in a minute....

[Skipjack]

So someone goes through an elaborate scam to fake the presidents (!) birth certificate and bribing everyone and everything involved to make sure it stays that way, but then does not bother to correct a mistake in a stamp? To me this defectious stamp is proof that it is real.

[seedload]

Well, it's pretty obvious that stamp wasn't made on that background, isn't it!?

White outline is a PDF compression/layer artifact.

Yes, same stamp, obviously. Anyone who would think differently probably has never used a rubber stamp before.

[MSimon]

Well, it's pretty obvious that stamp wasn't made on that background, isn't it!?

White outline is a PDF compression/layer artifact.

Yes, same stamp, obviously. Anyone who would think differently probably has never used a rubber stamp before.

Could you show other examples? It really doesn't look like the stamp was on the document but is rather a computer (possibly with some human help) overlay.

Or to put it another way: the pdf is not a copy of the document.

BTW I have no dog in this fight. I'm going after Obama on other grounds. I don't even blog birther stuff any more.

[D Tibbets]

Already mentioned is the artifacts that may have been produced by the PDF alogrhythm. Also, comparing the two pictures, it is obvious that the top one has been digitally sharpened or possibly unsharp masked. Such 'halo' artifacts are common when the image is sharpened too much, especially where there are sudden changes of lumninance or color information.
It means nothing about the document, except that at some point when the image was in processes (either by the original provider , or any number of photo editors in the pipe line. This is after all a copy of a copy of a copy...

And of course, the tone between the two images are different also. This does not imply different paper, only that somewhere in the chain someone used a different white balance in their copying, processing.

That is why the signature (even if rubber stamped) is required. This peticular iteration of an earlier image, even if it is exactly alike, is not a true legal copy of a preceding document unless it is attested to be so by a notery public, registrar, etc.
If you wish to attack the authenticity of such a authenticated copy you need to attact the person who signed the document as much as any discrepencies you find or imagine.

So far this thread has had two separate photos presented as one, a crop of a birth certificate that was obviously not BO's (different month of birth that is obvious when the full BO cirtificate is viewed) without stipulating such and leading a few people to wonder what the significance between two different years typed on the form was in regards to BO. Then throwing in some completely irrelevant photos of some known black men, with the " playfull" implication that this somehow might imply adoption or that BO's father might be anyone, even one of these black activists.

If you look hard enough , especially if you falsify data, anyone can satisfy their claims.

Starting the thread by saying that you accept the birth cirtificate, and that you are thus a honest and unbiased guy, is a gimmick to legitimize subsequent - but, what about ...

Dan Tibbets

[Diogenes]

Don't be daft! It is a rubber pad. It's not a computer! The rubber can twist, either on the pad or the paper, and whatever causes it to twist will then drop away.

Those two prints were definitely made by the same rubber stamp. No question in my mind.

The thing you are missing is that (presuming the image is a faithful reproduction) the top one obviously wasn't made on the background paper that is suggested in the picture. But the stamps are from the same rubber stamp.

I am being daft by suggesting that they should have thrown away the botched copy (assuming you are right) and printed and stamped another?

Had *I* printed out a document that Millions of people were going to look at, (some with great scrutiny) I would have made sure that it didn't have such a stupid mistake. I would have considered it a poor reflection on my department to have released such an important document without performing the minimum of due diligence.

How much does a new piece of paper, and a little bit of ink cost?

[Diogenes]

If I wasn't the innocent fellow that I am, I'd have suggested that the funny 'TXE' instead of 'THE' is a distraction technique to get people talking about the wrong defect of the reproduction at the top, and distract them from the obvious defect.

Very cunning... if I were to believe such a thing!

It could be a plan, or it could just be incompetence. My experience with various Local, State, and National Governments is that they are rife with incompetence, so that would be my first guess.

"Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity."

[seedload]

Well, it's pretty obvious that stamp wasn't made on that background, isn't it!?

White outline is a PDF compression/layer artifact.

Yes, same stamp, obviously. Anyone who would think differently probably has never used a rubber stamp before.

Could you show other examples? It really doesn't look like the stamp was on the document but is rather a computer (possibly with some human help) overlay.

Or to put it another way: the pdf is not a copy of the document.

BTW I have no dog in this fight. I'm going after Obama on other grounds. I don't even blog birther stuff any more.

The same layer argument was used when the short form Obama document was produced. The halo around the lettering was questioned and again it was a PDF artifact. Yes, the PDF is not the document - it is a PDF (compressed) copy of the document. Also questioned was, where are the folds and where is the raised seal. All among the same arguments posted here about the certified copy of the original, scanned to a PDF and distributed.

http://factcheck.org/2008/08/born-in-the-usa/

Funny, the stamp for that one had many more ink distribution problems than the stamp used on the latest certified copy.

Anyway, I know something about digital compression algorithms but not a lot about PDF specifically. All I know about PDF is what I have read on this subject and the fact that it is consistent with what I know about other compression algorithms. That is enough for me.

One wonders why the Obama camp would have such a good fake stamp for the fake short form birth certificate and not just reuse it on the fake long form one? Why throw out the fake stamp and replace it with one that is misspelled with an X? Why use the stamp on the first fake directly, as evidenced by the fact check photos, and then for the long form fake, digitally impose the stamp badly enough to forget to take away some white pixels. No, sorry, sometimes the simple explanation, that this is real, is the right one.

regards

For reference, same white outline on this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... Hawaii.jpg

and if you go to the fact check site, you see photos of it.

[seedload]

If I wasn't the innocent fellow that I am, I'd have suggested that the funny 'TXE' instead of 'THE' is a distraction technique to get people talking about the wrong defect of the reproduction at the top, and distract them from the obvious defect.

Very cunning... if I were to believe such a thing!

It could be a plan, or it could just be incompetence. My experience with various Local, State, and National Governments is that they are rife with incompetence, so that would be my first guess.

If it is a state official mistake, they would have had to have been stupid enough to produce a new stamp (other than the one they usually use) with a misspelled 'THE' on it just so they could badly stamp the certificate.

Alternately, it could be part of the Obama camp forgery, which would mean that the Obama camp had to produce a new fake stamp to use other than the one they used on the short form, shown here:

http://factcheck.org/Images/image/birth ... cate_9.jpg

"Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity."

Exactly why birthers are not necessarily racists.

[Diogenes]

So someone goes through an elaborate scam to fake the presidents (!) birth certificate and bribing everyone and everything involved to make sure it stays that way, but then does not bother to correct a mistake in a stamp? To me this defectious stamp is proof that it is real.

It is real in the same way that anything which exists is real. Whether or not it is an accurate reproduction of the original is the actual issue. In any case, real or not, it is at the very least a Testament to the incompetence of the Hawaiian bureaucrats which allowed such a mistake to get out of their office.

Apart from that, we are led to believe that this was copied from some sort of record on file, and printed on the green hash paper. Were this to be the case, one would expect that the paper would be of a uniform green hash pattern all across it's surface. It would be anomalous to see a white area on such a uniform green hash pattern, yet that is exactly what we see.



Why on earth would these white spaces be part of the White House document? Surely it didn't come from Hawaii like this.