George Rebane
President Obama posted what he vouched as his genuine Hawaii birth certificate the other day (here). The intent was to finally put to rest the innuendos, claims, and downright charges that he is not a ‘natural born American’. But given the image analysis tools broadly available today, along with a remarkable amount of well dispersed knowledge about image processing, the posted birth certificate raises more questions than it answers.
With some background in the theory and practice of image analysis, I found the arguments in this YouTube video illuminating and at the same time disturbing. The question that resonates in my brainbone is ‘why would anyone from the White House think that this image of the birth certificate would pass muster?’ This dust-devil just wants to become a tornado. You be the judge.
H/T for the email from a reader.
[4may2011 update] The White House presented birth certificate is now becoming laughable. The above image analysis was expended and explicated in this YouTube video. To accept the certificate as authentic now requires the suspension of disbelief usually attributed to religious fanatics. All that remains for the hard left to do is to just talk past this which does happen to be real evidence that the WH posted long form birth certificate is a doctored fake. H/T to a reader.
[15may2011 update] To bring the WH posted birth certificate issue to closure, I sent the following email to our Congressman Tom McClintock on 4 May 2011 with a copy to his chief of staff Igor Birman.
Hi Tom – I’m sure you’re aware of it by now, but the WH posted pdf of the President’s “scanned” birth certificate is a doctored fake. I pulled down the image myself, and viewed it in Adobe Acrobat Professional to confirm the analyses available on YouTube. My own post on the subject is here
http://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2011/05/the-birth-certificate-from-hell.html
I don’t know what the politics behind this fakery is or how it should be played, but I would like to know 1) any additional info you have on the posted birth certificate, and 2) what, if any, official reaction will you have toward this latest ‘proof’.
Thank you the great job, and for hanging in there for us,
George
And on 12 May 2011 I followed up with an email to Igor Birman that read –
Hi Igor – this birth certificate issue must really be one too hot to handle. I made no birther claim, only corroborated (in my capacity as a registered professional engineer in the relevant technologies) that the WH posted birth certificate pdf is a fake. If you don’t want to address that blatant fact, can you at least tell me what is the strategy of silence over this clumsy posting on the WH website? In short, if Tom believes it to be authentic, and that it settles the matter, then please tell us.
Thanks,
gjr
To these emails I received the following reply.
[16may2011 update] The subsequent exchange today between Igor Birman and me may put paid to the above developments.
Hi George:
First, please forgive the tardiness of my reply. Last week presented far more material than could be digested, so I am writing you back from a United A319 cruising at 38,000 feet over Ohio en route to California.
Our office never had the time to examine the birth certificate, so your findings concern me. You may have heard this before – we did have the time to send Brittan Specht to the Library of Congress to find the original newspaper bearing Obama's birth announcement in Honolulu. If the conspiracy to make him a natural-born citizen extends that far back, we are in more trouble than we realize.
The more important point for me is this: there is a finite amount of time between now and the election. We can either spend the next 17.5 months debating where Obama was born, or we can invest every moment of our time and every ounce of our energy into making a case against his reckless monetary policy, bungled bailouts, forcing Soviet-style healthcare on the country, wild spending, naked hostility to domestic energy production, etc. I can assure you that on the latter we have the rapt attention of almost every American. I don't know what percentage is paying attention to the former, but I can also assure you that it is a smaller figure. I am afraid that if we don't focus like a laser on the tangible consequences (present and future) of Obama's misadventures in the White House, we will allow him to skate on through into a second term.
Let me know what you think!
All the best,
-Igor
To which I replied –
Igor, thank you for the reply – well formed and to the point. With your permission, I would like to publish it and my response. In sum, I agree with your resource allocation decision in the face of ‘limited bandwidth’ that the congressman has at his disposal. My caveats on the issue are intended to be added arrows in Tom’s quiver should the appropriate occasion arise. I list them below –
- As pointed out by several other commentators, the Honolulu newspaper birth announcement is not a validation of anything per se. Newspapers don’t vet the accuracy of classified ads. Such ads have been placed regularly for decades, and for a number of reasons by people who think ahead. As concerned collectivist thinkers and activists, Obama’s parents most certainly had the ability and motive to think and act strategically in this manner. Many illegal entrants do so regularly.
- The posted birth certificate (pdf) is represented by the WH as definitive proof of Obama’s birth. Americans should take at its face value the WH declared objective, production pathway, and intended function of publishing this pdf in resolving the birth issue.
- Given #2, the FACT that the pdf is a modified document that could not have gone through the claimed production pathway – original paper document, file of scanned paper copy, conversion of file to pdf, posting pdf on WH website – makes the posted birth certificate a fake, and its representation to the American public a lie.
- None of this is proof, per se, that Obama’s birth situation violates the constitutional provision for the country’s presidency. But, at a minimum, it sustains the proposition that Obama has yet to offer proof that he does satisfy the Constitution. And the more, that for TBD reasons his administration (he?) has behaved fraudulently in the posting of the pdf.
- Any member of Congress can vet the authenticity of the pdf (for much less cost than sending someone to Honolulu to read newspaper archives) by asking a government funded unit such as the NSA or JPL to have their imaging experts look at the file for fifteen minutes, and report back on its purported authenticity viz its stated production pathway. Or simply hire one of a legion of available private technical consultants to do so (I have already done it pro bono). BTW, since we are dealing with a reproduced digital image, why the administration has not provided such accompanying bona fides is an additional mystery.
I hope this at least helps clarify my position on the matter. Thanks again, and let me know when you’re next in town or striking distance.
gjr
Finally, my error in implying that Congressman McClintock's office sent someone to Honolulu instead of to the Libraty of Congress in Washington DC.
rebanesruminations.com 
Leave a comment