Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Obama LFBC Report Final Draft

Obama LFBC Report Final Draft

|Views: 16|Likes:
Published by Chad Whitehead
A report that shows the exact problems with Obama's forged birth certificate.
A report that shows the exact problems with Obama's forged birth certificate.

More info:

Categories:Types, Research
Published by: Chad Whitehead on May 13, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





by Mara Zebest 
Introduction Basics
Merely viewing the Long Form birth certicate in Acrobat reader—without any special sotware—is enough to reveal a myriad o image tampering evidence. What do you look or?
Figure 1
is an example o a scanned image viewed in Photoshop.Notice that the Layers palette displays one layer which deaultsto the name
. A one layered le is also reerred to as a
attened image
(more on layers later).Scanned images will have a consistent
Anyinconsistencies in noise or grain would be a strong telltale sign o tampering. Obama’s long orm certicate document shows a clearinconsistency o noise in various locations. Let’s examine a scannedimage to get an understanding o what is meant by the termnoise—which is more easily seen at high zoom levels. Figure 1shows the sample zoom areas o ocus—to get a closer look.
Noise and Antialiasing
So what is noise? At the normal zoom level (100%) shown inFigure 1, there seems to be the normal transitions o color tonesand shadows. For example, “Sample area one” appears to have asolid black area o hair near the ace. Conversely, “Sample area two”(also shown in Figure 1) appears to have a solid white or o-whitearea.However, when you zoom in closer as seen in
Figure 2
(or areaone) and peek ahead to Figure 3 (or area two), you can easilyview consistent
which is apparent in the slight variations o color rom neighboring pixels. This is the natural noise level orthis image, and it is
throughout the image. I necessary,zoom in or a closer look at Figure 2, and you can clearly see theconsistent noise in the black tones as well.Also notice the transition o pixel colors that occur when colors o contrast bump up next to each other—such as the edge o the aceagainst the dark hair color. This is reerred to as
whichoers a smooth line o transition and gives the appearance o asmooth line (to the eye) when viewed at the normal zoom level o 100% (in Figure 1). Without antialiasing, the edges appear jaggedor
Noise v No Noise
Beore applying this concept to Obama’s PDF certicate le,I would like to make another point using the same exampleimage.
Figure 3
shows a pixel that is sampled to match one o the o-white colors within the image: Using a paint brush tool (inPhotoshop), a streak o the sample color was drawn across theimage area.Notice that a component added digitally to animage
does not contain
. All neighboring pixelsor the sample paint stroke in Figure 3 is solid incolor with no variation—not even the
o variations.In order to avoid detection when editingan image, an experienced proessional willattempt to mimic the noise to match thedocument. There are many methods, butthe most common method would be to add
 to the painted area via the
menu provided inPhotoshop (shown in the menu gure to the let).
Figure 3:
Solid digital paint stroke added to image
Sample pixel colorPaint stroke with sample color
Figure 2:
Sample area zoom and noise becomes apparent
Figure 1:
Photo Image at 100% Zoom Level
Layers panel revealsone layerSample area oneSample area two
Page 3 of 12
Scanner Chromatic Aberration
 The previous sections discussed noise and antialiasing in reerenceto a scanned photo, but what about scanned text? Figure 4 showsa sample section o scanned text. The
Figure 4
insert shows thesample text at normal zoom level—
The Anniversary Series
—lookslike ordinary black text. The majority o Figure 4 zooms into acouple o text characters or a closer look at 1400% zoom level.Clearly a similar consistency in noise and antialiasing can be seenat the higher zoom level. Additionally, notice a pattern in theantialiasing transitional colors: The bottom or let edges o the text(as it transitions into the white background) are red-ish color valuesin this example, similarly there are consistently blue-ish colorvalues around the top and right edges o transitions. This is typical,quite normal and is reerred to as
chromatic aberration
—causedwhen dierent wavelengths o light are reracted dierently as itgoes through a lens or prism during the scanning process.
Applying Foundational Basics
Now let’s examine some sample areas o Obama’s Long FormCerticate in Acrobat. Again, no need or special image editingsotware at this point, just an understanding o what to look or.Let’s start by mentioning that there is no evidence o chromaticaberration anywhere in the document—this is not normal andneither is the white halo surrounding the text—both pointsindicates image tampering (more on the halo later).
Figure 5
clearly displays numerous inconsistencies o 
—also indicators o image tampering. A normaldocument—scanned and saved as a PDF—would not display theseinconsistencies
unless digitally altered 
and compiled.It should be noted, that these inconsistencies alone reute theargument oating around that the layers can be explained byusing OCR (Optical Character Recognition) sotware. OCR sotwarewould not generate an inconsistency in noise and aliasing. Not tomention, the ethical implications o using OCR sotware—whichis to allow or the capability to
edit text 
in a scanned document.So why would you choose to use OCR sotware when scanning anofcial document that is
intended to be edited or altered?
Figure 6
oers more inconsistency examples as ollows:
Bitmap text versus antialiasing text—notice the
 X checkbox in question
compared to the
Xcheckbox in question
—major inconsistency.
Additionally, the checkboxes are slightly dierent widths andpositioned dierently (pixels o checkbox on the bottom-rightoverlap line pixels below). It’s almost as i the boxes werecopied and pasted and manually positioned.
Some letter characters are identical (pixel or pixel), almost likethey were copied and pasted (and then moved into position).Example, the lowercase “i” in the word
to therst “i” in
. There are many similar identical instances asthere are dissimilar typesetting examples o dierent onts—both suggesting compilation o a document digitally.
Irregular typesetting spacing which is not consistent withproportional spacing used by computers or monospacingused by typewriters in 1961—but
consistent with copy andpasting and moving letters around. Example: The word “Yes”which has too much space between “Y” and “e” and not enoughspace between “e” and “s”.
Figure 5:
PDF LFCB viewed in Acrobat at 1200% zoom level
Noise inconsistency inbackground patternNoise inconsistency in lineNoise inconsistency in text aswell as inconsistency in aliasing
Figure 4:
Scanned text and chromatic aberration
Figure 6:
Evidence o ont typesetting inconsistencies
Inconsistent checkbox sizes,aliasing and proximity to the lineFont inconsistencies—seri atbottom o one “d” and not otherAnother shit rom solidbitmap to antialiasingIdentical letters that suggestduplication such as with letter i

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->