Debunking Birth Certificate Forgery Claims? Here’s How to Make Your Own Forgery!

. . . or, Garbage In — Garbage Out

Update July 20, 2011 — Lucas Smith defends his Mombasa Obama birth certificate, mailed now to the 112th Congress as well as all members of the 111th Congress. Because Post & E-Mail is now a subscription-only site, here is a view of the Lucas document.

THE FINAL DETERMINATION OF FORGERY IS BASED ON TWO ELEMENTS: 1) Debunkers can’t explain the several 90 degree rotations of imbedded artwork, impossible with Optimization, and; 2) There is no official state seal. All certified copies include a state seal. Perhaps it is missing as Hawaii would not allow misuse of their seal, a criminal offense.

In addition, isn’t it strange that there are two versions distributed? One is with security paper, and the other without . . . not possible if a certified copy printed directly on security paper!

The is NOT OCR.

If it was, the typewriter text would be searchable. See this very EXCELLENT YouTube on the subject . . .

Forensic Analysis:  Forensics is working backwards and proving evidence is, well, evidentiary. The White House published two birth certificate files, a PDF and a JPEG. The JPEG was plain and without security paper. However, a true certified copy would be scanned and printed directly on security paper, sometimes reduced in order to accomodate legals and state seals.

The very fact of two digital images suggests the document was forged. Following is a way to simulate a forged document/form printed on security paper.


Here is a shot of my Photoshop screen illustrating steps #3, #4, and #5.  To emphasize my point, putting the original Birth Certificate on a scanner/copier loaded with security paper would make a print of the form on the security pattern . . . all this wouldn’t be necessary.

  1. A Photoshop scan was made of a birth certificate in a binder in ‘document’ mode.
  2. The scan was switched from a binary bitmap to ‘grayscale’ or ‘RGB.’
  3. Using the ‘magic wand’ tool, the white paper background was ‘selected’ and deleted, revealing the transparent background layer.
  4. Only the ‘black’ text and lines remained. ‘Select All’ and copy, and then open a scan of security paper in Adobe Illustrator.
  5. ‘Paste’ the ‘copy’ of text and form lines onto the scan paper. Some letters may have been damaged or lost in the ‘magic wand’ selection process, so replace them using ‘copy’ and ‘paste.’ This is how you can get mixed ‘binary’ and ‘grayscale’ on the same image.
  6. Use scanner in grayscale or RGB mode to copy a real birth certificate and use the ‘select’ tool to copy essential dates stamps and seals. ‘Paste’ these onto fake birth certificate.
  7. Note: I used the ‘magic wand’ to make the Hi-Res Obama certificate open to paste over the security paper. Do this and add art elements from other birth certificates in Illustrator, and you will get what you see below.

Here is the image saved showing the official Obama birth certificate just all torn apart in Illustrator. Note . . . This is the image Jerome Corsi uses repeatedly in his updates on WorldNetDaily . . .

A Bit of Humor

I forwarded to Jerome Corsi the analysis of Vogt, owner of The Depository, an expert in document scanning and printing. His article today on WorldNetDaily reported the filing of a criminal complaint with the FBI. Note the juxtaposition of the Adobe ad . . . well, it made me laugh anyway.

I learned touch-typing on Underwood and Royal standards at age thirteen . . . and have  kept an Underwood in my big steel ‘Police Desk’ for occasional use. The springs  are fully adjusted for brisk operation, and the 40+ year old machine is kept  clean, covered and lubricated. I am trained in WORD on the Expert level, and in  Photoshop by a genius photographer and IT guy.

Kerning will not be found in isolated areas. Once you adjust ‘spacing’ in WORD, or use TypeFonts that  automatically space for a pleasing, natural effect, it will be evident throughout the document.


To best view the JPEG, enlarge it to 400%.

Use your ‘rectangular marquee’ tool to count/isolate pixels between the letters ‘ny’ in Kenya, and ‘ty’ in the  111ty and ty examples. I touch-typed ‘Kenya’ with strong, quick strokes on the ‘ny’ in order to create a 2 to 3 pixel overlap, or kerning, of the ‘n’ foot and the ‘y’ serif. That is a fully typed word. The ‘111ty’ was typed in normal, even rhythm, and your marquee tool will isolate 2-3 pixels  between the t and y. That is normal platen movement.

The final ‘ty’ was typed with index fingers of the left and right hand in a quick succession, straining the spring tension indexing of  the platen . . . recreating the expert’s ‘kerning’ in a mechanical typewriter . . . something he said was impossible. Using ‘hunt & peck’ fingers instead of touch-typing created an exaggerated ‘kerning’ effect of 4 pixels overlapping.

Caveate:  If one abuses a sharpening filter, or black and gray values, the pixels can be extended out from the original image and invalidate the analysis. (This may explain the ‘halo’ on the security paper printed birth certificate.) For this reason, I ignored the faintest pixels on the edge, so they didn’t contribute to kerning overlap.

There is no way to determine how poorly the Adobe PDF of the Web published birth certificate was filtered or compressed, but you can clearly see the delicate serif on my ‘8s’ which are almost obliterated on the PDF. Note also that the lower case ‘l’ and numeral ‘1’ are identical . . . another characteristic of the Underwood Standard, which had no ‘1’ key at all; you had to use lower case ‘l.’

I put a lot more faith in my presentation than the work of Ivan Zatkovich or Karl Denniger, as it is from original and uncompressed or filtered sources.

It would be nice and easy if we could simply prove forgery and settle Obama’s unconstitutional presidency, but it is embarrassing to be ‘proven’ fooled after being forced to base your analysis on such a poor ‘original’ that no court in the world would accept it as evidence. Orly Taitz is fighting on with her Social Security number fraud case . . . but the Citizen at Birth issue is the key, and the most difficult to overcome. Native-birth citizenship is so imbedded in the American psyche that it has created a cultural Collective Dissonance . . . in other words, you are fighting deeply seated ‘beliefs,’ armed only with reasoning and history. David versus Goliath is an apt analogy.

If WND took a POLL, I predict 13% will say the son of an illegal alien is eligible to the presidency, as long as he is born on U.S. soil!

That is the real issue, and related to illegal immigration and immigration reform, so we have the Hispanic political action groups to fight as well.

Do a 'right click' and 'save image as' and open in your Photoshop or Photoshop Elements imaging program

Actual keystrokes on a Standard Underwood, creating “impossible” kerning


Tags: , , , , , , , ,

11 Responses to “Debunking Birth Certificate Forgery Claims? Here’s How to Make Your Own Forgery!”

  1. arnash Says:

    Thanks for the revealing analysis, it saved me the time of looking into what seemed to be a very promising avenue of fraud finding. But, though the kerning “expose” seems like a great logical assumption, the devil is in the details, or the lack of truth that it couldn’t be produced by mechanical typewriters. Reality turns out to not always be what it seems it must be. But I’ve also arrived at a similar stage regarding Obama’s natural born citizenship status. I’ve come the the conclusion that a single American mother gives birth to a natural born citizen with no dual-citizenship if her child is born in the US and has no legal male parent. So if Obama wants to be considered to be a natural born citizen, he better start asserting that his parents were never actually married. Hide the marriage certificate! Hide the divorce decree! Ann Dunham was a single mother and her son inherited her natural born citizenship. That might work, but them being married….disqualifies him.

  2. paraleaglenm Says:

    Sorry, but a fatherless boy, a bastard, is stateless and without inheritance. Anyway, there always is a father . . . the removal of the father is what introduces law giving the mother’s nationality over to the child.

    This is contrary to modern thought, but mothers did not confer their maiden citizenship until 135 years after writing of Article II . . . we are forced to interpret Article II under the laws of those times.

  3. Dr. Conspiracy Says:

    Good catch on the distinctive “8”.

  4. The Magic M Says:

    > That might work, but them being married….disqualifies him.

    No, “natural born” has nothing to do with marriage. There is not one indication from the Founders’ days that points to them considering (legal) wedlock in that regard.
    In addition, Common Law (from which “natural born” flows, not from some writings by a Swiss philosopher) also does not care about marriage as long as the person is born on the soil.

    > a fatherless boy, a bastard, is stateless and without inheritance

    That opinion has no basis in US law.

    > the removal of the father is what introduces law giving the mother’s nationality over to the child

    And which law are you referring to here exactly? The one on your cereal box?
    Do you even know the 14th amendment? The parents’ nationality has *no* bearing at all?

    > we are forced to interpret Article II under the laws of those times

    No, we are not. You are ignoring the fact that the Constitution is always to be read as a whole, including its amendments.

    Do you even know Art. 6 of the Constitution?

    “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof […] shall be the supreme Law of the Land”

    So, contrary to what you birthers say, the Constitution is not alone in its position as “supreme law of the land”.

    > we are forced to interpret Article II under the laws of those times

    And nowhere does the Constitution say that its terms are only to be interpreted according to the laws at the time of its inception.

    So when the Constitution talks about “citizens”, we have to look at what the laws for being citizens were in 1787? With no regard as to what the laws say today?

    Well, welcome to the past, I say.

    • paraleaglenm Says:

      Look up ‘nullius fillius.’ The term ‘bastard’ is avoided by modern legal professionals, but in the time of our nation’s founding it was a real and terrible thing.

      Yes, both English and American law comment on the loss of legal parent status of the father, which is why laws protecting the maiden nationality of the mother were written in the first place in the 1920’s. Justice Ginsberg cited them as from the 1930’s, but she was inaccurate.

      No . . . misinterpretation of amendments and laws do not change the original meaning and intent of Article II’s ‘natural born citizen.’ That is not ‘implied repeal,’ but a Pandora’s Box of unintended consequences.

      In 1787, a free black man was a citizen and could own slaves, and there are those who did. It was the southern states that denied freedom and the vote. Women, however, were also not allowed to vote. The Minor vs Happersett case addressed the conundrum of women being citizens, yet not allowed to vote.

      We know why Article II’s natural born citizen requirement was included, and that was to prevent wealthy, politically motivated families from Europe (Prussia was discussed) from manipulating their royal line into the presidency. Only a child of two U.S. citizens, or in that time simply a U.S. citizen father, married . . . the child NOT a bastard . . . was free of foreign alienage. That is a natural born citizen, i.e., not requiring naturalization law to dealienage.

      Obama was born a bastard and, even worse, of a Marxist Muslim father of foreign alienage which the son followed by heritage and philosophy; proving the wisdom of the framers.

      Obama is a worthless fool with too much charm and power . . . he wrote nothing in the Harvard Law Review . . . his Street Organizing didn’t involve being an attorney, except for suing banks who refused to issue subprime loans . . . therefore, his main endeavour prior to political office contributed to our economic meltdown in 2008, which he blamed on Bush!

      Now, Obama claims illegal immigration improves the economy? I read that report from the a Hispanic ‘scholar’ from an ‘Americas’ foundation . . . utter hogwash. Current law . . . CURRENT LAW gives congress the power to limit immigration during high unemployment and recessions.

  5. paraleaglenm Says:

    Here is my latest ‘comment’ on attorney Mario Apuzzo’s website.

    While the first commercially successful electric typewriters entered the open market in 1961, they did not become the ‘standard’ until the 1970’s.

    In the 1960’s, most offices used the mechanical standard models such as the Royal and Underwood.

    The proof of a mechanical typewriter being used to write Obama’s WHBC, specifically the Underwood standard, are the unique ‘font’ of the numeral ‘8,’ the identical font of the numeral one and lower case ‘L,’ and miscarried Shifts on the capital letter. See ‘Oahu’ in space 6b and ‘Kansas’ in 16.

    As for the ‘kerning’ in ‘Kapiolani,’ the overlapping of the ‘ap’ and ‘an’ may just be the result of the poor image quality due to posting on the web. I enlarged the WH pdf file and the pixilation is horribly choppy. Also, the lack of ‘proportional’ spacing is evident throughout the typed BC . . .

    As to my experiment, I e-mailed you the actual 720 dpi file comparing the lack of ‘kerning’ in the steadily paced typing of ‘111ty’ and then a fast ‘ty’ typed four spaces away.

    Now, I have six-thousand fonts on CD-ROMs and can pull up all of the fonts emulating typewriters . . . but I can assure you now that they will not incorporate kerning, or proportional spacing.

    Nevertheless, my recommendation is to cease and desist analyzing a very poor digital file from the Internet, and instead concentrate on the fact that Obama is the son of a British citizen, and that native-born children of at least one alien parent is a citizen by ‘positive law,’ as you so aptly describe the necessity of applying naturalization law to such a birth, as opposed to the birth to two U.S. citizens.

    In addition, from the 1790 Act to SR511, ‘place of birth’ is not a contributing factor to presidential eligibility . . . that is a major distinction.

  6. Ericka Says:

    Hello! I simply want to offer you a big thumbs up for the excellent info you’ve got right here on this post. I am returning to your web site for more soon.

    • paraleaglenm Says:

      There is a lot of research here and arguments. If one wants to save a lot of time, study Calvin’s Case by Lord Coke (1600s). It is misinterpreted justifying ‘jus soli’ as a basic principle of citizenship at birth, a mistake made even by James Madison in the Case of Mr. Smith. Jus Soli is a feudal concept, but the father allegiance superseded the power of a king over all in his dominion. The father’s allegiance has always been the natural flow, not who owned the land.

      From 1790 to 1898, under both U.S. and British statute, a child born of a British subject on U.S. soil was a British subject. There was no dual citizenship . . . the statutory power of a mother to convey her maiden citizenship did not become law until the 1920s. You had to have a U.S. citizen father for a child to be a U.S. citizen.

      The 14th Amendment is not a mandate for jus soli. Its preamble came directly out of that of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which mentioned born in the U.S., but with a caveat that the father had no ‘subjection to any foreign power.’ Jurisdiction of local law is different from National Jurisdiction, one giving police powers to local authorities, but determination of nationality is out of international law and should be in harmony, not in conflict, with our own federal laws.

  7. arnash Says:

    The warped thinking of the obamunists requires them to entirely ignore the wording of the Civil Rights Act since it cripples their claim that 14th Amendment subjection is essentially any old kind of government authority, -as if that even needed to be state, -as it foreigners would otherwise not be subject to our laws, -as if the already pre-existing rights of foreign diplomats needed to be inserted into U.S. citizenship law when it was universally governed by treaty and the law of nations., -as if it was only aimed at them and Indians, and no others.
    The “not subject to any…” decapitates all of their claims as to what the words of the amendment mean because it cannot be argued that foreigners who have not renounced their citizenship are not subject to their own government, as if they were stateless.
    But equally important is this statement: “From 1790 to 1898, under both U.S. and British statute, a child born of a British subject on U.S. soil was a British subject.”
    I’d sure like to read the wording of those statutes to parse the way they were chosen, -whether to express jus sanguinis as national policy by implication, or merely as positive law for the unusual circumstance of birth abroad.
    I’ve demonstrated that the mention of children of Americans born abroad in naturalization acts is not an exercise of plenary power regarding their citizenship, but served solely to protect their natural born citizenship from ignorant boneheads working at the ports of entry who might do to natural born citizens what was done to Wong Kim Ark. Yet that simply and easily obvious fact cannot be allowed into Mario Apuzzo’s thinking because if nullifies his stance that the 1790 Act misspoke or erred and that all subsequent Congresses are the ones who got it right, while the founders and framers all got it wrong.
    He must maintain that fiction because it is necessary to support the fiction that the founders, who wrote it, actually believed the opposite, -that those American children were not in fact natural born Americans as they declared them to be? Talk about holding illogical and contradictory views!

  8. paraleaglenm Says:

    I think you mean some of the links and references in the footnotes. Just a little formatting problem transferring from Word to WordPress …

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: