WorldNetDaily’s crack Adobe Expert says that Obama’s long-form birth certificate PDF file was created in Adobe Photoshop. Thanks to Mara Zebest, we now have proof of its origins.
Ms Zebest’s “final analysis” is itself a PDF document. Thanks to a suggestion from a commenter here named John, I opened Zebest’s PDF document with Microsoft Word 2007 and found proof that images in her file were indeed created in Adobe Photoshop. Here’s what I found:
Screen shot of Zebest "full analysis" PDF document.
And it was finished off by Adobe InDesign:
Mara Zebest "full analysis" creator
So, thanks to Mara Zebest, we know what a PDF created by Adobe Photoshop looks like. Now all we need do is compare this to Obama’s White House PDF of the long form (can you stand the excitement?) and all will be revealed!
Creator segment from White House birth certificate PDF
There was narry a “photoshop” or an “InDesign” or even an “Adobe” in there, just this Mac OS X thingy. Now explain why none of those WorldNetDaily “experts” looked inside the document, instead of just saying they were sure, when they weren’t.
So I guess Obama’s long form PDF wasn’t created by Photoshop and now we have proof! Thanks Mara!
It’s like shooting fish in a barrel.
— Dr. Conspiracy
Update:
Rather than make a new article, I’ll include here the image that WorldNewDaily doesn’t want you to see. This is the internal information from the White House PDF as shown by Adobe Acrobat 9:
Obama White House long form PDF advanced properties
This underscores the fact that the PDF was not created by Adobe Photoshop or Illustrator. Someone better acquainted with the Mac can comment, but as I understand it, the document is scanned, viewed in Preview (see illustration) and then saved as a PDF.
shooting fish in a barrel is illegal in BirferStan, you can bash them with a bat but no shooting, so please correct your comment as follows “it’s like stealing candy from babies”. or “it’s easy to get blind dates at the braille institue”
The Mythbuster’s episode about shooting fish in a barrel is classic. Proved to be easier than you’d think!
To be more accurate, the CreatorTool fields in Zebest’s PDF indicate the “Figures” were from Photoshop CS5, her author photo is from Photoshop CS2 (it doesn’t just look dated, it IS dated!), and the layout was done in InDesign CS5. The PDF itself was exported from InDesign CS5.
This isn’t an airtight refuation of Zebest; rather than being a direct export from an Adobe product (which it isn’t), the WH PDF could have been created with Adobe products and then opened and resaved in other software, altering the tags … or Adobe products used to create a hard copy, which was then scanned on a Mac with QuartzPDF …. but it does definitely illuminate that she isn’t all that WND cracked her up to be.
Having looked at it again, from the poisoned well opening (“Merely viewing the LFBC in Acrobat reader … is enough to reveal a myriad of image tempering evidence.”) to the end, it’s merely a coaching document. Internally inconsistent stuff-and-fluff. I was really hoping to find the promised forensic analysis 😛
Why go to that much trouble, Doc? Double-click the BC to load it in your favorite PDF viewer, the click File-Properties. There’s the line right there: MAC OS X…. (well, at least in MY favorite PDF viewer). Zebest could borrow a line from Douglas Adams: “Don’t know why I didn’t think of that. Guess our minds must be too highly trained.”
MY favorite line from Zebest’s presentation was the last. Paraphrasing: “I checked with all my colleagues and I couldn’t find anyone in my industry who didn’t think it was a fake.” She needs to stop writing those Adobe books and get out more.
Why would anyone who cared at all about her professional reputation throw it all away for this?
Over at Badfiction, they’ve done the research on Zebest….she turned up years ago at all sorts of birfoony sites, writing letters disparaging Obama and pissed that Dear Hillary didn’t get the nomination!….he has all of her posts lined up. What a maroon. She’s so in the tank and anything but an unbiased observer. Will they ever learn……once it’s on the internets, it’s there for anyone to find.
Thanks. I’ve updated the article. Obviously you know more about PDFs than both I and WND’s experts put together.
Here’s Zebest’s page on the Patriot Action Network:
http://www.patriotactionnetwork.com/profile/mzebest
where she says:
and these at PUMAPac
and
I already did that article.
Vroomfondel and Majikthise, two of my favourite characters. 😉
So Zebest fits into a pattern I’ve noticed and am puzzled by: people who 1) claim to have been Hillary Clinton supporters and 2) have a range of political opinions the complete opposite of any of Clinton’s.
As Dr. C notes above, Zebest is on the Patriot Action Network and is concerned about “Illegal Alien Amnesty & Open Borders, Globalism, Socialism, Tax Increases, Judicial Activism, Gun Control, Social Liberalism”. Why would someone with those concerns want Clinton to be President?
It’s gotten to the point that I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone who calls themselves a PUMA but has political opinions that agree in any way with Clinton’s.
Nah, Adobe’s aoftware leaves a nice comment trail. Not surprising since they originated the format. Everyone else’s software works a bit differently. On the face of it, the lack of comments in the WH PDF suggests it just “passed through” one application without any tinkering any additions or tinkering. Suggests, not “proves”!
or tinkering or additions. Or tinkering. It’s early LOL
Which I used recently to great effect(*) just today over at FreeRepublic. Thanks.
(*)”Great effect” here meaning all I heard was crickets. Any time that denizen of pompous rodomontades goes silent, you know you’ve hit a nerve.
Cheap attempt to establish some cred / mask their affiliations. Actually, I too recall several older women I know personally saying they would vote for Hillary despite a myriad of political differences, simply because (it seems) they identified with her age / gender / demeanor. To this day, they tend to refer to Obama as “nobama”, and are still carrying a flame for the woman wronged. This may explain some of Palin/Bachmann appeal? Younger women I know detested Hillary. Age wins over gender?
I admit I voted for Obama because he was most like me, ultimately, I was OK with his positions, I got the feeling McCain would say anything to please a crowd, and Obama made the less-questionable choice of running mate. The self-identification was most important.
All that to say, these “Hillaryites” may not be completely full of it.
This is an interesting point. I think, however, that part of it is simply that some of these people hate Obama so much that they must oppose anything he is in favor of. I liken this to the Libya thing – regardless of its actual legality, the Republicans criticizing Obama for it would be 100% in favor of George Bush had done it (something McCain pointed out a few days ago). Their position depends not on actual favor or disfavor but simply base on the like or dislike of the person taking the position.
Dr. Kate, too, originally was a PUMA. But once Obama won the primary she (and likely Zebest) hated him so much that anything he stood for had to be evil even if 99% of those positions are identical to those Hillary Clinton would have proposed. She’s against them for Obama, not for ideology or honest disagreement.
This, IMO, is also why they claim every document he’s EVER PRODUCED “has” to be a forgery in their eyes, despite them saying that his place of birth is irrelevant. Even giving him that tiny amount of credit is more than they can stomach. Whatever he does, aaa, or claims, they feel must be evil and insidious, because HE did it, rearsless of wether or not they’d support it were it done by Hillary Clinton. They can’t bear to agree with him on anything, therefore the certificates must be forgeries.
Why Microsoft Word 2007? Oh the new meme is that there is something in the header saying Derek’s PDF so somehow they come up and claim that the document was forged by Derek Douglas who is Special Assistant to the President on Urban Affairs
> It’s gotten to the point that I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone who calls themselves a PUMA but has political opinions that agree in any way with Clinton’s.
Obviously there will be some birthers who simply claim to be PUMAs to defend against the imagined “you’re just another right-winger” attack (“imagined” because they just think they’re being attacked for being right-wing, not for being complete idiots) – they think if they can answer “but I supported Hillary!”, that would take that sting away.
Just like many of them claim they would vote for a black Republican candidate to deflect being called racists.
None of that however means they actually would support Hillary or a black candidate. It’s just lip service.
Just like they think that those who say Obama is legally and lawfully the President must all be left wingers. I ask them how do you gauge where people fall on the political spectrum if they haven’t told you their social or economic views.
Dr. Conspiracy,
I’m confused. Not a single adobe expert has stated that the new White House Documents are true unmolested originals, and the expert on Fox news claims that he was misquoted when they say he had. Now your claiming that you have confirmed that this document is original and doesn’t have any evidence of forgery? Alternatively, are you just saying that other people are making up that it is photoshopped?
BTW, how goes your FOIA search for documents on Stanley Ann?
It does say Derek’s PDF. I’m not sure what that item in the document actually means where it appears. Acobe Acrobat doesn’t show it anywhere in any of its properties.
But why Microsoft Word 2007? Why not the new one? Why not 2003? Have they tried it in different versions? It doesn’t show in the new version of word.
Supposing I took a random piece of paper off my desk, say this printer status page, then scanned it using Adobe Photoshop Elements 6.0. Then I uploaded the scanned printer status page to my web space and linked to it from here. Wouldn’t the data show this as being created in Photoshop? How would that disprove the authenticity of the printer status page?
Pete,
A REAL forensics expert will NEVER say something is “true” or “false” it is all about the balance of probabilities.
What we have had a REAL forensic experts state that they see nothing that would suggest to them the elements of the document are in any way inconsistent with the handling process.
In any case IT IS TOTALLY IRRELEVANT.
The PDF is NOT a legal document, the original certified copy is and this has a full provenance and the originator, the Government of Hswai’i stands by the truthfullness and validity of the original certified copy.
Pete, No one says, or could say, that this or any similar document file was original and untampered with. I don’t say that either.
What the Fox News expert Mr. Tremblay really said, and what Dr. Neil Krawetz said was that they found no signs of tampering. What I say is that the analysis of tampering put forward by birthers is faulty and that the PDF was not directly created by Adobe Photoshop or Illustrator, contrary to birther claims.
This doesn’t prove that the document is an accurate copy of what the State of Hawaii issued (although I would say what’s on the State of Hawaii web site does prove it), but it raises serious doubts about the so-called experts that WorldNetDaily trots out — people who pontificate beyond their qualifications, and whose objectivity is invalidated by their prior crank and birther statements.
See:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/05/real-imaging-expert-looks-at-the-long-form/ – Krawetz
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/06/wnd-confirms-expert-finds-no-problem-with-obama-certificate-image/ – Tremblay
Obama has spent millions to keep his history hidden. socialist!!
[Marshman, I deleted your other comment supporting Cain for president because it’s off topic for this website. We only deal with fringe views about Barack Obama. A general discussion of candidates, including support for or opposition to Obama, is off limits. Doc.]
Because no real expert could legitimately make that claim. The only way to unequivocally confirm that the White House documents are “true unmolested originals” is to analyze them side-by-side with the actual birth certificate in Hawaii. Obviously, no one is in a position to do that. Those claims have all been made by people who are not qualified to do so.
However, Hawaii’s Department of Health has confirmed that the document released by the White House is an accurate copy of the original. That’s good enough for me. From the Hawaii DOH website:
On April 27, 2011 President Barack Obama posted a certified copy of his original Certificate of Live Birth.
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/obama.html
While no certified forensics documents examiner is going to go so far as to declare that the images on the Internet are genuine copies, the fact is that no such examiner has seen any evidence that the Internet images are forgeries.
In order to view it, you have to select US ASCII encoding. In Word 2007 one is prompted to select the encoding when the file is opened. I have Word 2010 on another machine, but I don’t doubt that it will show with the proper settings.
I kind of like this statement by Krawetz
.
“Before I begin, I need to point out two critical items for this evaluation. First, digital document analysis can detect manipulation, but it cannot determine whether the original subject is authentic. The authenticity can only be determined by the State of Hawaii, and they already said that it is authentic.”
.
is it clear enough for a birther?
It doesn’t show up in MS Word 2010, even when US ASCII character set is selected. Doesn’t mean much, the interpretation of comments is up to the software, and Word 2010 is vastly differently than Word 2007 and its predecessors. It reads PDFs differently.
It does still identify the most pertinent info in the closing markup: created in Preview, produced by Quartz. “Derek” didn’t bother with Adobe.
Doc, where is Mara’s report does she say the PDF was created using Adobe products? It is my understanding that Mara claims the image was created by Adobe but the PDF encoding was indeed created using a Mac product. Are you sure you are not misleading your readers again Doc?
[“Keep in mind that I believe the certificate image was compiled and created in Photoshop.” Mara Zebek. Page 7 of the “full analysis”.
Rather than having an “understanding” why don’t you read the thing and see for yourself? It doesn’t say anything about encoding on a Mac. You’re so a waste of time. Doc.]
Looking at the file in a Hex editor, one finds:
0a c4 e5 f2 e5 eb a7 f3 a0 d0 c4 c6 0aat position 9 in the file. Removing the high order bit for 7-bit ASCII encoding gives:
0a 44 65 72 65 6b 27 73 20 50 44 46 0awhich according to a standard ASCII chart is:
LF D e r e k ETB s SP P D F LFSo whether some version of Word shows it or not, it’s there.
LF is the Line Feed chacter and ETB is the End of Text Block.
The string in Hex 25 C4 E5 F2 E5 EB A7 F3 A0 D0 C4 C6
All of these are extended ASCII except for 0x25 which is %
%
I printed a document to pdf using a Mac and found the same signature
What am I missing?
So this may be some ‘hidden message’ but it is found in all Mac generated pdf files as far as I can tell..
He’s not doing a very good job then, since we all know the apparenlty disqualifying fact that his father was not a U.S. citizen at the time of President Obama’s birth. You’d think that in a reality where Obama was covering up his past, AND a U.S. President required two citizen parents, that the coverup would do better and not do stupid things like, say, publishing it in a book.
I did a google search using ’ÂÚÂÎßÛ pdf kind:pdf and found plenty of files with these strings.
In Windows the string shows as %Äåòåë§ó ÐÄÆ
Wow, Doc, thanks for going to the next level to prove it’s there, just interpreted differently! Nice confirmation. Wouldn’t get this level of analysis at a birther site. Would be either denial or spin.
I wonder if John is still following this.
So we now know that the hex string is inserted by the Quartz PDF converter on the Macintosh and that when the high bits are stripped it shows Derek s PDF
Hilarious… Now will we hear the experts retract their statements or is this once again going to be ignored…
I’ve noticed that a lot of PDFs on my hard drive, but not all have a tag like this one
%PDF-1.7
%bcOS
Where ‘derek’ is. Its probably some kind of program marker. We would have to get another pdf from a scan made from a mac with the quark program to see if its the same for all documents made with it.
Yeah, that confounding contradiction was quite apparent early on to anyone who had to listen to a PUMA try to explain themselves. Of these types of PUMAs, I’m only left with one of two conclusions for their motivations – racism (and/) or sexism.
Some folks at a gut level just didn’t want to see a person of color have a meteoric rise of success, surpassing others who’ve been part of the political scene for years. The PUMA blogs (and early proto-PUMA posts) showed a disturbing level of comments with such a meme.
The sexism PUMA lot was the most evident on display – many clear comments showing that for whatever reason, they identified/personalized that it was time for the ultimate glass ceiling to be broken by a woman, and anything less than a woman president was somehow robbing them of their rights and dues. ODS fomented in their minds once the male Obama became a serious threat to their entitlement of having the first woman president.
There is nothing wrong with personally identifying with a candidate on various levels. I would say that is quite typical and normal.
The difference is those that become over-obsessed and overly project themselves onto a candidate. Those folks have now crossed the line from mere comfort-level identification, relatability, and/or pride into creepy cult-level idol worship territory.
Excellent point!
I have looked at various print to pdf files on a Mac and they all have the PDF-1.3 marker and the ‘derek’ high bit set comment.
Mac running OS/X 10.6.7
John will just continue to bury his head in the sand and ignore this. He’s nothing but a slaving birther follower and he only repeats the same talking points cut/paste from the birther leaders he slavishly follows.
He never listens to any of the info that proves his rhetoric wrong and he never learns. He’s an intentionally blind sheep who will just shut his eyes and plug his ears if you try to give him real answers and then pop back up weeks later parrotting the same tired and long debunked nonsense. He’s incapable of learning.
So its probably a little joke or personal marker left by a programmer. End of consipiracy! 🙂
Seriously how obsessed do you have to be to go through the pdf with a fine tooth comb like this?
You both have made very good points with good examples of other clear PUMA motivations out there. (As with everything, you can’t generalize a group with the same goal to all having the same motivation). Comments on PUMA blogs provided many clear examples of both motivations that you’ve added. Add those motivations to the racism & sexism factors and you’ve now covered probably the bulk of the PUMAs.
I would say that examining the PUMAs and their ODS is very relevant (and possibly even crucial) to understanding both the movement of Birtherism as well as the conspiracy mind/motivation models that Dr. C. is looking into, as a lot of Birtherism started with the PUMAs and many of those PUMAs are now Birthers today. That evolution in their thinking during that time in history is a great window into ascertaining their motivations and how their ODS evolved over time.
You are mistaken, as there is NO actual evidence that backs up the long debunked lie you’ve just stated. You’ve been duped if you believe this and need to reflect upon doing more fact-checking into the sources that spoon you such lies.
“Derek” is Derek Noonburg, developer of the open source xpdf program. See http://www.foolabs.com/xpdf/ — which was designed to allow the reading & viewing of PDF documents without Adobe. xpdf was created to run on OS/2 as well as several other non-MS formats, such as Unix.
So it appears that rather than re-invent the wheel, the developers of the Mac Preview application must have chosen to incorporate xpdf with appropriate credit to Derek.
Collaborative research is beautiful. People educating each other. Wish all sites could do the same.
Here’s more on the great software conspiracy:
Derek Noonburg’s work was incorporated into a collaborative, open source program called CUPS — (“Common Unix Printing System”) as far back as the 1990’s. Apple was using CUPS since 2002, and purchased CUPS in 2007. See http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/07/07/12/apple_acquires_cups_modular_printing_software.html and http://www.opensource.apple.com/source/cups/cups-86/README.txt?txt (under “Legal Stuff”)
Jerome Corsi is quoted as saying in a email:
Corsi has been “close” for a couple of weeks, I think. And of course we know the first name is “Mike.” 😉
Good ol’e Corsi, always a promissory note… Just wait… Any time soon now…
At times, I wonder how many PUMAs may have been followers of Rush’s Operation Chaos, given their opinions that are an anathema to much of Hillary’s political views.
At one point Mara Zebest accused Clinton of using Alinsky tactics.
Let me guess, this email is dated after he already named “Mike”? Since agreeing with reality is convenient in this case, he incorporates it into his gospel? If this email predates “Mike”, then I apologize.
What was Mike’s last name again … ?
Dr. Conspiracy,
I have noticed, both on WND and in other news sites, that the person on Fox news that they quoted as validity that the long form was not altered, he has stated that he was misquoted. Also, to my knowledge, this is the ONLY person whom was quoted as having said it isn’t a tampered image. Thus, there is no verification of non-tampering. However, it’s like proving a negative.
I’m looking for facts that back that the Obama long form Birth Certificate is NOT a forgery. There are already volumes of evidence that it is a digital image construct, not the least of which is the smiley face on the front ‘A’ of Alvin Onaka’s signature. There is a profound paucity of proof of authenticity that I can find for this particular document; No statement by DoH of original content. No allowing people to get copy of original document which is now public. No released transaction history. No statement by the Hawaiian DoH that they released said document. I’m looking for support, not hearsay, which provides a chain of evidence that this isn’t some grand forgery or desperate lie, for this document.
Best way to kill conspiracy theory is with forthright facts. So I am asking everyone here for evidence that confirms that this is a ‘true and correct’ document. Specifically, I’m not looking for hearsay evidence or biased political websites analysis (JBJD has stated that political websites can lie without legal recourse such as Factcheck), just hard facts of authenticity that can be verified by anyone. The state of Hawaii and DoH has a legal obligation to verify this document as original, if it is, with no double talk about records on file. I’m looking for that verification that the document is original and the proof of purchase (copy of receipt). Simple, and should settle the issue for me and I’m very skeptical about authenticity.
Thanks everyone for your prior posting that you can’t prove the document (since digital) is true and original. Unfortunately, you can provide evidence that it is a fraud much simpler than verification. I also agree that the political motivations are clouding the reality of the research, on both sides. I have decided to attempt to open my mind and look for evidence that my previous conclusions are wrong, and ask everyone else to do the same. There should be an easy to follow chain of evidence to follow for this document, since the controversy has reached the highest level of government.
You should have stopped with that paragraph. Go back and read and understand what Mr. Tremblay said. “In my humble opinion, what I see about how the PDF is built does not prove any unusual falsification. If there was tampering, we must look elsewhere and not how the PDF was constructed.”
He also said “Now if you analyze the various resolutions of the images in the Obama’s Birth Certificate PDF in either Acrobat or Illustrator you will discover that they are mostly different; this is usually the result of such optimization of scanned document.”
He said that the layers in the PDF file appear to be the result of optimization software and not what would be typical if the file were intentionally digitally constructed. What else do you want him to say as an expert? Real experts don’t make stupid statements such as “This is definitely a forgery”.
Hawaii issued a statement saying THEY PRODUCED THE DOCUMENT. None of the so called “experts” HAVE EVER SUCCESSFULLY IDENTIFIED EVEN ONE SINGLE FORGERY.
Reality Check,
Many have already stated that the layering is suspect, and many more have stated that it’s not consistent with ‘optimization’ process. Real experts do say that documents have been tampered with, ie forgery. You are wrong about your statement. One opinion of an digital online document, will never prove it’s real. There has to be a chain of evidence. No rational person would dispute this. There is a chain of evidence, custody, and confirmation, the dispute ends.
I have been able to identify this from the state of hawaii governor’s office.
http://hawaii.gov/gov/newsroom/press-releases/hawaii-health-department-grants-president-obamas-request-for-certified-copies-of-long-form-birth-certificate
There are attachments saying that they produced a true and original copy. I just want to know now if they have or will verify that the document on the White House website is that ‘true and original document’. Thus, at lease now I have been able to verify that there was a copy made at the Hawaii DoH. I am unable to verify that the White House released an unaltered version of a document. Anybody got a statement that verifies that this is an unaltered copy of what they released?
So “pete”, do tell,
The DoH of Hawai’i has said they have released the forms
That there were two forms so issued
Said forms were created and certified by the DoH in the view and personal supervision of the DoH’s Director
That said forms show and demonstrate all the information ALREADY released is good and valid
That said documents were handed over to the Presidents personal lawyer,
Said lawyer hand carried them back to the White House
Said documents were imaged AND photo-copied
Said original documents were shown to the WH Press Corps AND they were both handled by and photographed by members of the press
Copies were given to the press corp
So what part gives raise to concern muppet?
They linked to the White House website PDF. If it was a forgery, why would they do that?
Also to date no real experts have come forward to declare the PDF to be a forgery.
Only people who claim to be experts.
Quantity doesn’t always imply quality. Are Irey and Vogt among those “experts”?
The president of American Society of Questioned Document Examiners (ASQDE), Linton Mohammed, said om my radio show that no real document examiner would use the word “forgery” in a determination. Forgery is a legal term not a term used by document forensics experts.
In other news:
Over at Mario’s House, he is learning not to depend on the realiblity of other self proclaimed experts such as private investigators.
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7466841558189356289&postID=1645691066860046359&page=1&token=1309571879905
Look at the end of the comments.
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/News_Release_Birth_Certificate_042711.pdf
Bovril,
I am trying to go through this process from a fresh start. The Hawaii DoH has said they copied the documents and the copies were given to Perkins Cole lawyers representing Obama. This is fact. You clearly agree to this portion of the chain of evidence.
The last parts you mention: “said lawyer hand carried them to the white house” and “said documents were imaged AND photo-copied” and “said original documents were shown to the WH press Corps” is NOT proven yet. The White house has said this, not the Hawaii DoH, to the best of my knowledge.
If you have an Hawaiian DoH representative on the record saying they witnessed these events please add the evidence to this search.
Pete
Reality Check and others,
I am not trying to prove it’s a forgery. I’m trying to prove a chain of custody for the document. Anything on the web, any image, can be altered, every document ‘expert’ says this. So chain of custody of the records, and verification, will prove they are unaltered originals.
People are making a assumption that the documents delivered and those released are identical. I am trying to find irrefutable evidence from the Hawaii DoH that this is the case. I already have chain of custody established that the documents were made and delivered to Perkins Cole in Hawaii. Looking for independent verification of accuracy of long form document recieved by Perkins Cole and those released.
From the DOH website:
“On April 27, 2011 President Barack Obama posted a certified copy of his original Certificate of Live Birth.”
They then link to the White House website.
Wow! Common sense. Isn’t it amazing? 😉
As far as eligibility is concerned, the ONLY thing of relevance is the INFORMATION contained in the document, NOT the document itself. The HI DOH and two governors of HI have attested that he was born in Honolulu on 8/4/61. That’s ALL that matters.
Pop quiz: What link is provided on the State of Hawaii’s own web site? I will not do your work for you.
Pete, you don’t have to prove a chain of custody…
And we’re not talking about the PDF of the document. We’re talking about the original document.
Read the Federal Rules of Evidence, specifically FRE 902, which is the rule that states the authenticity of things such as Birth Certificates. Basically, it says that we don’t need to provide a chain of evidence, if we were to ever actually submit this in any legal court. We don’t have to call anybody from the Hawaii Department of Health. We don’t have to submit any more evidence of authenticity. It is presumed authentic.
Gorefan, Reality Check, Sef
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/obama.html
Got the website, the DoH. They make the statement that “Obama released a certified copy of a birth certificate”. PLEASE CAREFULLY NOTE THEY DO NOT CLAIM THAT THE COPY MATCHES WHAT THEY CREATED OR ORIGINAL DATA. Seriously, I’m not making assumptions with this I’m not looking for word parsing or ‘look over here’. I’m looking for confirmation by DoH officials that the White House copy matches what they have and is a true and accurate record. They have not done that, read carefully.
dunstvangeet,
I am not a lawyer, cannot argue with federal rules of evidence. However, all we got is a PDF document. I’m just trying to get confirmation that the PDF released for public viewing matches the identical original record that the DoH copied and gave to Perkins Cole representatives. My quest is not centered around where he was born, only proving the documents released match the originals produced by Hawaiian DoH. I have lots of assumptions made by many, but only evidence thus far is a refusal by the Hawaiian DoH to confirm it’s authenticity to WND.
Sorry if I’m upsetting anyone. I think that it would have been better for the Hawaiian DoH to release the documents directly, since they had an official request to do so, and it would have eliminated any questions about ‘alterations’. I’m just trying to eliminate the notion that the document has been altered, by tracing the PDF to it’s source release and confirming it’s accuracy.
So I ask again, and I’m being very specific because of to many assumptions. Does anyone have a DoH quoted official confirming the PDF as accurate of the copy delivered to Perkins Cole by the DoH?
“… or any certified authority, but i’m going to anyway.”
aka
lalalalalaicanthearyou …
Why don’t you stick with one thread? I replied on the other one that the DoH never said “We refuse to confirm the authenticity of the brith certificate.” They said “we don’t talk to lying assholes like WND.” (paraphrased).
What does the stamp say?
Pete, please tell us how you escaped. http://www.theonion.com/articles/30-years-of-mans-life-disappear-in-mysterious-kans,2444/
Hahahahahahahahaha that has got to be the funnest thing I read today.
You are such a phony.
You put quotes around a statement that you made up and have the gall to say it is what the DOH said.
The DOH website says the President posted “a certified copy of his original Certificate of Live Birth.”
And then they linked directly to the White House
The problem is that the DOH is populated with normal, rational, intelligent people who don’t think like conspiracy nuts.
That has been the problem almost from the start, the DOH under estimated the level of crazy that unfortunately exists in the country today
Ooops, I used a bad word to describe WND and got caught in Doc’s filter. Mea culpa.
So what else does…
“On April 27, 2011 President Barack Obama posted a certified copy of his original Certificate of Live Birth.”
…mean? Who certified it as a copy? The Hawaiin DOH did. Therefore who is certifying its a copy of the original data? The HDOH.
Birthers are beyond silly sometimes.
That’s really asinine.
If you were called by a blog that headlined your statement that you had found the birth records with the headline “HAWAII GOVERNOR CANT FIND BIRTH CERTIFICATE,” You would be slamming the phone down on them too.
Sorry that was a part quoted from Pete, not majority will, above. *embarrassed*
It sure didn’t sound like me! 😉
(no sweat)
Anyone who cites WorldNetDaily in an affirmative fashion is by definition not seeking the truth.
Pete has gone way beyond “demanding confirmation of confirmation”.
For a moment let’s enter into the spirit of his anal nitpicking to further highlight the absurdity of his position.
Common sense aspects of the content of WH and HDOH websites and statements tell us it is stone cold certain that HDOH are obviously satisfied that the document content is essentially the same as the content of the document they issued.
However it would be just as impossible for the HDOH to know for certain from analysis of the scanned image whether anyone “tampered” with it in any way during the scanning process as it is for any forensic expert to know for certain.
For example it would be beyond the ability of HDOH to say from examination of a scanned image whether tampering of a nature that didn’t change the essential meaning of a single word or letter in the document definitely had not occurred.
Pete seems to be a very confused individual who hasn’t really thought this through….or it is nc1 back with us but now on an acid trip.
And the only thing the HDOH cares about is the document’s information content, not whether a bit got changed from xffffff to xfefefe.
sed -e ‘s/bit/pixel/’
From the Oval Office live:
“My fellow Americans, I’d like to take a moment to apologize for one of my staff who evidently has moved pixels around on the scan of my birth certificate. No information was altered. It was just a silly, impractical joke from a staffer trying to win a five dollar bet that those known as birthers are as gullible and obsessively anxious, suspicious, obnoxious and mistrustful as they appear to be. [The President pulls out a five dollar bill and hands it to an outstretched arm.] Thank you. Good night and God bless America.”
And ……….
From WildNutDaily: President Obama today REFUSED to deny that he is a reptilian shape shifter.
And when the Hawaii Department of Health confirns the obvious, Pete, you’ll admit the President is a natural born citizen and vote for him, right? Or will you have another question?
The HDOH provided a paper which is good enough for a court. It was good enough for Les Kinsolving. Why do you have more questions?
So funny, so true! They’d say it wasn’t “very Presidential” of him …. LOL
I just posted this elsewhere, and thought it might be helpful here. It was written in response to a Zebest fan, but applies to all birther “PDF experts”. Any suggestions / corrections greatly appreciated.
______________________________________
The saddest part about WND’s “experts” …. is that finding where one should begin an examination at only requires the ability to read. All PDFs contain some level of markup, the amount of detail provided varies from one creating application to another. Some software encodes some or nearly all of the markup, some software doesn’t bother to retain anything beyond the basic details that a PDF must contain. If you can read, you can quickly determine the PDF standard the document conforms to, what application compiled it, what engine was used in processing, and what software produced it. Sometimes much more.
In PDFs created by Adobe products, the level of detail, saved in plainly read ASCII (meaning if you have simple text editor, you can read it), is amazing. For instance, with Zebest’s PDF, you can see that all of her figures were brought in from Photoshop CS5 and the layout was created in Indesign CS5, and find a bevy of details on those image files. Her author photo, for instance, was shot with a Canon Powershot G2 at 2:29pm PT, Aug 11th, 2005, and the original pixel dimensions were 3156×2269, and it was last modified by Photoshop CS2. ALL of the cameras settings are recorded if anyone is interested. The PDF as a whole was compiled by Indesign CS5 and produced with Adobe PDF Library 9.9. The various objects were compressed with Flate, DCT, and ASCII85.
If the White House PDF had been created with a combination of Photoshop and Illustrator, it would be in the markup. Illustrator can save to and edit PDF files. But if that was the case with the WH LFBC PDF, you’d see markup chock full of Illustrator references … and they’re not there. If any of the graphical objects had been edited in Photoshop and placed into Illustrator, the verbose Adobe markup would note that. Also not found. No mention of any other editing software is found.
The markup in the WH PDF has nothing in common with Adobe’s markup. It doesn’t even use the same character set. It does say the file was created by Preview and processed by QuartzPDF Context on a Mac running OS 10.6.7. The bitmap objects were compressed with Flate, and the background with DCT. None of the document’s objects are noted as having been created by any other application. Preview can open Illustrator files (AI and PDF are nearly interchangeable), and it can save PDF files. But would it dump all of the markup referring to any other software in the process?*
All of the birther experts I have come across are looking at the image, and speculating, and playing with their mice. None are performing any test to back up their conclusions. C’mon, test your various hypotheses, recreate the file by some other means, and graduate to a theory. The markup tells you that at some point, no matter how the image itself was created, it passed through Preview on a Mac. So, show us; you claim forgery, prove it wasn’t simply scanned and save by Preview. Create a file, open it, save it in Preview, and upload your results. Let’s see the markup.
And don’t stupidly suggest you could create a hard copy by whatever means, and then scan that with Preview; birthers are saying the layering and bitmapping are proof themselves of fraud. If you create a hard copy that matched the PDF, scan that into Preview, and manage to get Preview to reproduce what you’re obsessing over …. you just disproved your thesis, by demonstrating that creating these layers and bitmap objects is possible with Preview.
I disagree with Curt about the use of JBIG2, it isn’t noted in the markup. It’s all Flate, except for the background. Flate selects from several algorithms, and leaves open the possibility of leaving images uncompressed. The duplicate characters? The typewritten capitals are only 25-30 pixels high, and reduced to 1-bit depth. At that resolution and complete lack of color depth, identical renderings will occur. At a low-enough resolution, every instance of every character would be identical at 1-bit depth, depending how they aligned with the pixel grid.
Finally, one could go so far as to recreate the context supposedly used to create the WH PDF–same scanner, same settings, same OS, ad nauseum–to “prove” the file could have been created as simply as: scan, save for web, upload**. Or, you could take all available imagery into consideration, and decide for yourself: “Where these images created from the PDF?” If they weren’t, then the PDF could be a complete fabrication, and it wouldn’t matter, as all the information presented matches that in the other images. If you believe that these other images and copies were created from the PDF, then start with the PDF and recreate them. I wish you luck.
Thanks to the other images and copies out there, the PDF, and all the obsession over it, is irrelevant. A red herring. It’s only contribution to birtherism, has been to keep the birthers chasing their tails in an increasingly embarrassing fashion.
* I’m not sure whether it would or wouldn’t, I do not keep a Mac at home. If any birthers out there are passionate enough to perform this test, or to translate the encoding of the file in a search for “hidden” Adobe tags …. well, I say go for it!
** A great test, but some pieces are unknown, and it wouldn’t be good enough for the irrationals anyway.
Excellent post, J. Potter! 🙂
Most of what I know about creating PDF documents has been learned from reading posts here, but J. Potter really seems to have nailed it. Well done!
I have added a link to this comment on the Featured Comments page.
Sorry, but all we have proof of is that the final copy of the PDF was generated by Quartz PDFContext via the ‘print to pdf’ option in Mac Preview. That neither proves nor disproves that the document was manipulated digitally after release by the HDOH and before opening in Preview. In fact, we can all agree that it was manipulated, the only question is was it by a pdf optimization routine or by human edits? It’s nearly impossible to prove that one way or the other at this point.
I find it funny that Dr. Conspiracy discounts the opinions of the experts that have come forward on the basis of them being partisan. So, let me get this straight….I should trust a partisan non-expert over a partisan expert? I think you should think that line of logic through before attacking opinions based on political leanings. Let’s stick to the facts.
In response to J. Potter…that was a good post, but to answer your question…yes, I believe the Quartz PDFContext creation utility would dump the Adobe markup. I also don’t have a Mac, but plan to test this sometime next week on a Mac. I did testing on PC using Adobe products and cute pdf editor, which also utilizes ‘print to pdf’ functionality like Quartz and the more robust Adobe markup was lost each time…even when you ‘print to pdf’ directly from Illustrator…the robust markup is lost. Printing from Illustrator does leave one metadata tag listing ‘Illustrator’ as the producing app. The question is, would opening a layered file, created in Adobe, in Mac Preview still list the Adobe breadcrumb? I plan to test this too, but my hunch is no it won’t retain it. At the point that it’s been opened in Illustrator, you’d see Quartz as the creator and Preview as the producer. Hence, a document that was manually edited in Adobe could theoretically be opened in Preview and converted to PDF via Quartz, still retain it’s layers, and not have any traces of Adobe metadata.
*Edit*
My next to last sentence above should read “At the point that it’s been opened in PREVIEW”.
I put Illustrator by mistake..doh!
I’ve also been testing the optimization functionality in Adobe for a couple weeks now and can’t find any combination of settings and/or input images that result in layering that is nearly as orderly as the WH PDF. Sure, it does create layering and even converts some portions of the image to binary, creates clipping masks that are resized and rotated, yada, yada, yada..but I can’t find any scenario where you have 9 layers that are so logically seperated. Usually you just get one layer, if it’s set to high quality, or 50+ layers if it’s set to save space. And when the text is seperated from the background layer, it’s not nearly as clean as you see on the WH PDF. I’d honestly like to see a reasonable example if anyone has one.
I also wanted to address the HDOH verification of Obama’s BC. I won’t argue semantics, because their statement does seem to claim that what we see is the original…but I do agree with Pete that they stop just short. Now, maybe it’s anal nitpicking as one of your more enlightened posters suggested, maybe not…who knows. But this is the same HDOH who claimed that they can’t release a copy of the long-form and who have been quoted as saying that it was at least partially handwritten. So either they are confused or are being disingenuous…either way, I’m not taking it to the bank. How about they release the original for forensic analysis? Wouldn’t that just make the birthers look stupid? Why not let it happen?
And what of Kapiolani? They have a copy with more details, yet they won’t even confirm it’s there…that doesn’t seem strange to anyone. Wouldn’t some kind administrator there make a statement saying they have a doc for BHO? Why all the tight lips?
Yes, it is just anal nitpicking by you. That and perhaps an inability to read thoroughly. Why don’t you try re-reading the ENTIRE HDOH statements and their FAQ which explain things as clearly as possible. Unless of course your own desire to desperately wish there was something wrong is so strong it is blinding you from being able to read clearly.
They are consistent and quite clear in not only verifying the document but explaining that they normally DO NOT give out the LFBC. They clearly explain that this was a SPECIAL EXCEPTION made for the President and that the NORMAL and STANDARD form is the COLB. Yes, that very document which the POTUS released in 2008.
You are reaching out of some weird desperation and grasping for things that aren’t there. Your skepticism is nothing but being in a state of denial. Finally, the birthers already look stupid and always have. They don’t need any help in that department.
Why don’t you educate yourself on privacy laws, such as HIPAA. It is not strange because that is STANDARD POLICY. Don’t take my word for it, call them yourself. *sheesh* Seriously, call these sources yourself before you go online and make foolish statements. …Unless the real reason you won’t is because deep down you know better and are just afraid to hear officials tell you the truth. Look, you can be unhappy with the President and that he was elected all you want. Nothing wrong with that. Why the need to make yourself look bad by spouting foolish and easily checked bunk?
Well perhaps if you stopped trying to use Adobe software and used the Mac software that the White House used to make the PDF you might get better results. 🙄
Why would you think Kapi’olani has a copy? It was 50 years ago. They might have a line in a birth registry somewhere, but a birth certificate?
The half handwritten statement is not that mysterious if you are aware of two things.
1) The BCs given to the parents are only a portion of the data collected at birth. They contain most of the demographic information but little if any of the medical information. By the way, this medical information is still protected by privacy laws.
2) The second thing to consider is that “A nurse or clerk in the hospital fills in the certificate form and gets the mother to sign it. Then the attending physician enters certain medical data and affixes his signature. Finally, the hospitals sends the completed certificate to the local registrar.” Vital Records in Hawaii, Hawaii Medical Journal, VOL.15, No. 2-November-December, 1955.
Did the doctor type the medical infornation or fill it out by hand?
Historical note: We are now fairly certain that the Obama birth certificate was scanned by a Xerox 7655 WorkCentre to PDF. Public records show the White House has the machine, the same one used to scan Obama’s tax returns.
The Xerox Machines use mixed raster content compression that pretty much explains all the artifacts of interest. It used JBIG compression. J. Potter in his analysis points out that the compression is FLATE, not JBIG. This is because the machine-generated PDF was opened on a Mac, rotated 180 degrees and then saved. The Mac software doesn’t support JBIG which is why that compression method doesn’t appear in the final version. The Mac software also loses the metadata that would otherwise have identified the Xerox simply.
Experiments with the Xerox produce results very much like the Obama PDF.