Skeptic » eSkeptic » May 11, 2011

The Skeptics Society & Skeptic magazine




Help us to preserve the Sharktooth Hill Bonebed

This is a special request from Donald Prothero and Teresa LeVelle, your Skeptics Society geology tour leader and coordinator.

We have learned that the world-famous Sharktooth Hill Bonebed fossil locality northwest of Bakersfield, one of the richest and most important sites in the world, is in danger of being sold off to commercial collectors. If this happens, the dealers will excavate it for only the commercially valuable fossils and destroy all the scientific information from the hundreds of sharks, as well as whales and seals and other marine mammals that come from these deposits.

The owner of this land, Bob Ernst (who was a good friend of ours), passed away several years ago suddenly without leaving a will, and his widow is now selling off the fossil-rich property to the highest bidder. Already a lot of important specimens have been sold in auction (including some that were already in a museum collection), and now the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County is trying to buy one of the most important parcels of Ernst’s property to hold as a scientific preserve (imagine the Page Museum at La Brea Tar Pits, but for marine life). If the museum can raise another $25,000–30,000, they will buy the land. If we collect more than what they need for the land purchase, it will be applied to Phase II of the project, building a visitor’s center. The goal is to preserve the site, while allowing access to schools and non-profit educational groups to help collect the less scientifically significant shark teeth and whale bones. Just imagine that you had been one of the donors who assisted with the acquisition of the La Brea Tar Pits. This is just that type of a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.

If you would like to make a tax-deductible contribution toward the cause of preserving this legendary locality, please let us know. We must move quickly before the land is sold off and locked away from the public. Dr. John Long of the Natural History Museum has pledged to give a personal tour of the locality, after its purchase, to anyone who donates $2000 or more. You can contact Donald Prothero (Prothero@oxy.edu ) or John Long (jlong@nhm.org ) for more information. Don’t let this opportunity to preserve such an important place for science pass you by. Please help!

Thank you,
Donald Prothero and Teresa LeVelle

Poso Creek Quarry (photo by Larry Barnes, Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County)

click image to enlarge

Sharktooth Hill Quarry (photo by Larry Barnes, Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County)

click image to enlarge

Sharktooth Hill Quarry (photo by Larry Barnes, Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County)

click image to enlarge


CALL FOR SUBMISSIONS
Announcing upcoming Skeptics Mix Tape 2011
to be curated by Desiree Schell of Skeptically Speaking

Desiree Schell Portrait by Marc Julien Objois

DESIREE SCHELL
photo by Marc Julien Objois

We are pleased to announce the Fall 2011 sequel to our popular Skeptics Mix Tape 2009 and to reveal the curator for the sequel, Desiree Schell (of Skeptically Speaking fame).

The Skeptics Mix Tape is a light-hearted outreach project that gives away selected songs of science and skepticism — what Phil Plait’s Bad Astronomy hailed as “Music to appreciate reality to!” — completely free. This use of the songs is donated by the artists, and the Skeptics Society charges nothing.

The first Skeptics Mix Tape featured twelve artists, including geek-rock superstar Jonathan Coulton, Hard ’n Phirm (the duo of Nerdist Chris Hardwick & Mike Phirman), and acclaimed indy band Artichoke. Canadian artists Dirty Dishes and Coco Love Alcorn recorded tracks especially for the project (with Alcorn’s “Thinking Cap” a completely new song).

READ MORE about this project


The Latest Episode of Mr. Deity

WATCH THIS EPISODE | DONATE | NEWSLETTER | FACEBOOK | MrDeity.com


About this week’s feature article

In this week’s eSkeptic, we present Pat Linse’s debunking of the alleged fraud on Obama’s long form birth certificate.

Pat Linse is the Co-publisher and Art Director of Skeptic magazine. She is the creator of Junior Skeptic, and wrote many of the early issues. She remains its Editor in Chief. She is the Producer for (and contributor to) several Junior Skeptic-based book projects in development. Pat is an award-winning artist with experience in film and advertising.

SUBSCRIBE to Skeptic magazine for more great articles like this one.

Share this eSkeptic with friends online.
Click the + for more sharing options.



Layers of Confusion: Alleged Fraud on Obama’s Long Form Birth Certificate

Pat’s Maxim: Anything that’s not understood
becomes evidence for conspiracy.

Less than 24 hours after Obama released his long form birth certificate, born-again birthers jumped on the Internet with video “proof” that it was a forgery. Several of these videos show the certificate being processed in two graphic arts programs—Adobe Acrobat and Adobe Illustrator—to reveal dozens of hidden layers in the certificate that supposedly preserved changes made to the original document.
(See this video and this video).

In addition to being separated on individual layers, the supposed changes on the document are identified by anomalies in color, light v. dark tone, and soft blended edges v. sharply pixilated edges. The videos of the birth certificate layers being clicked on and off to a conspiratorial narration of “That’s faked!” … “Obviously faked!” … “Fake! Fake! Fake!” make for compelling viewing.

comparison A

Closeups of the various faked areas called out in one of the videos. These tonal differences were more exaggerated in the video, but I left them as they were in the downloaded Obama certificate.

But even the conspiracy promoters themselves seem dumbfounded by the blatant nature of the alleged fraud and the odd bits of words and numbers that seemed, according to their theories, to have been changed. They consider the anomalies so obvious, sloppy, and “poorly done” that they suspect that the ease by which they have been discovered is also part of the plot. Are the anomalies a “stroke of genius” on the part of a reluctant forger to signal to the outside world that the birth certificate he has been forced to alter is bogus? Did the Obama Administration release an obvious fraud to keep the birther movement alive and draw attention away from more important issues? Or are the powers that be simply thumbing their nose at the American public in an egregious show of disrespect?

There is in fact another explanation besides deliberate fraud for the layers, and the tone and edge anomalies found in the birth certificate.

Graphic Software Sharpening

The first thing anyone looking carefully at the downloaded birth certificate document might notice is the white halo around each of the words on the Obama document. (B.) These are the result of a software manipulation known as “sharpening.” Evidence of sharpening is not evidence of fraud, however. It is a default setting on many scanners and is probably done as a matter of course to increase the readability of the document.

figure B: sharpening

Evidence of sharpening is not evidence of fraud.

Computer sharpening software can not really sharpen an image—it just gives the appearance that the image is sharper by selecting places where two different tones meet and exaggerating the differences between them.

figure C: sharpening

Notice on our example of a sharpened photo (above) how a white halo now accents the side of the face (red arrows) and how highlights (green arrows) and dark areas (blue arrow) have been exaggerated. This accounts for some of the tonal differences between letters on the Obama long form. The sharpening software has made some dark areas darker and some light areas lighter. Sharpening can also exaggerate color differences.

Adobe Optimizing and Optical Character Recognition Software

Ironically, the very Adobe software that the conspiracy theorists used to “reveal” the hidden layers and anomalies is what is actually creating them.

The birth certificates used in this article are both PDF files. There are many kinds and qualities of PDFs, and Adobe has developed some amazing software to help convert one kind to another. Perhaps you have a lengthily document that is only type—you can make a low resolution PDF that will create an easily emailable small file size. But suppose your document has photos that will be unreadable in low resolution—you can use an Adobe software feature called “Optimization” to both reduce your file size but still keep some picture quality. Optimization software has to analyze the image it has been given in order to know what information to keep and what to compress, and the record of this process is recorded in newly generated “layers.”

Another software conversion that generates layers is an ingenious software known as Optical Character Recognition or OCR.

figure D: pixels

Figure D: pixels

The long form birth certificate file is made of pixels, little squares familiar to anyone who has ever enlarged a photograph on their computer screen, or downloaded a disappointingly low resolution document from the Internet. When seen in closeup, letter forms on this kind of file are clumps of square boxes of different tones (see Figure D, right). When reduced to a tiny size, the eye averages out the tone difference and reads it as a hard-edged letter or number. But most importantly, type on this kind of PDF is essentially only a picture of type. You can’t select and copy sentences from this kind of PDF like you can from a word processing file, and you can’t key stroke in new letters from your keyboard.

Adobe’s Optical Character Recognition software can convert pictures of letters back into real editable type. OCR software is blazingly fast and accurate when converting simple pages of text if the fonts are sharp, clear, and square to the page. But the software has to work a little harder when it  takes on a complex document like the Obama long form birth certificate with its background pattern, boxes and lines, and fonts of different tones, shapes and sizes tilted every which way. The program will even take a crack at converting the handwriting. One way the software handles this complexity is by splitting the document up into layers for analysis.

While we can not know exactly what the video makers did to process their copies of the Obama long form birth certificate, an easy way to test the hypothesis that computer processing is creating the layers is to pick a one-layer PDF similar to the file the White House released and run it through the same Adobe programs. (There are a lot of setting options for both OCR and optimization. I will use the manufacturers default settings.) Will new layers be generated? Will tone and edge differences be altered? Our test file will be the one-layer Certificate of Birth released by Donald Trump in PDF format.

figure F: layers and links generated

A comparison of the layers generated by the Trump Certificate of Birth under different computer treatments. Download a larger version of the above image.

Above is a comparison of the layers generated by the Trump Certificate of Birth under different computer treatments. Opening the unmanipulated PDF in Adobe Illustrator reveals minimal layering (1). If I open it in Adobe Acrobat and hit the OCR box, and then bring it into illustrator more than a dozen new layers appear (2). If I go back to the unaltered file, and this time ask Adobe to optimize it, and open it in Illustrator I get well over 100 layers. These layers are not a record of forgery—they are a record of what the software did to try to “read” the graphic elements of the file. Download a larger version of the above image to see more detail.

Both operations also produce differences in density and sharpness of pixel edge. Optimizing tends to sharpen the edges while OCR tends to soften them—at least when the default settings are used. (See Figures G and H below)

figure G

Figure G: comparison of image quality before and after optical character recognition software is used and PDF optimization is applied

figure H

Figure H: contrast increases as a result of the optimization process, which compresses the file size and reduces the image quality

How I would have forged the document

When Michael Shermer first emailed me a link to the layers conspiracy video, I was immediately suspicious of the use of Adobe Illustrator. My first thought as an illustrator was: “Adobe Illustrator is a terrible program to use for that kind of forgery!” Illustrator is what is known as a “vector” program. Its graphic elements are created by mathematical formulas, and it’s best suited for precision line work: graphs, charts, hard-edged flat color design, perfectly smooth gradients, and ornate lettering treatments. It makes crisp, flawless, clean, infinitely high resolution images—hardly the program to use if you are intent on matching a document from the era of the manual typewriter where your changes would have to be dirtied up to match the original.

If I were forging lettering from messy older document that had been scanned and converted to pixels, I’d choose Adobe Photoshop—a “paint” program. As its name implies, it’s for manipulating the pixels of digital photos. In Photoshop I could duplicate all the original irregularities and imperfections of the pixilated typewriter letters with a simple copy/duplicate technique. I could bring the letters up very large on my screen, and jostle a few individual pixels a bit to alter each letter just enough to hide the fact that it was duplicated. I could also be sure by using a slightly altered copy that the pixels defining the edges of the letters would match the original exactly should someone enlarge the document. And instead of the dozens of unnecessary and time consuming layers shown in the conspiracy videos I could make do with just one extra temporary layer to line words up to match the spacing of letters to the original. You can eat soup with a fork, but a spoon is better.


Steven Schlozman photo by Ruta Nonacs
mouse altered with Thylacine gene

Free download art
by Jeff Zornow

(click image to download 8×10)

The Zombie Autopsies

This week on MonsterTalk, we interview Harvard medical doctor Steven Schlozman, author of The Zombie Autopsies and get inside the walking dead to discuss a plausible mechanism for the zombie apocalypse. It took a lot of guts, but in this episode we discuss:

  • How did a doctor become
    interested in zombies?
  • What can zombies teach us
    about neurology?
  • Which is scarier:
    infection or cannibalism?
  • Why don’t zombies have sex?
  • What’s the best way to slice a brain?
  • What do brains taste like?
  • Plus much, much more!


Everyone Welcome

Don’t miss this rare opportunity to hear four of the world’s leading Skeptics discuss their experiences fighting irrationality and promoting science (and what you can do to help)!

EVERYONE WELCOME
Learn more & order tickets

Student Scholarships

Full-time college or high school students can apply for a scholarship to attend the Symposium on Saturday, June 25, 2011. Breakfast, lunch and dinner are included; travel and lodging are not included. For high school student scholarship winners, we’ll also cover the entry fee for one chaperone per group of ten students.

STUDENT SCHOLARSHIPS
Download the application


Lecture this Sunday

Donald Prothero
Catastrophes! Earthquakes, Tsunamis, Tornadoes, and Other Earth-Shattering Disasters

with Dr. Donald Prothero
Sunday, May 15, 2011 at 2 pm
Baxter Lecture Hall

DEVASTATING NATURAL DISASTERS HAVE PROFOUNDLY SHAPED HUMAN HISTORY, leaving us with a respect for the mighty power of the earth — and a humbling view of our future. Paleontologist and geologist Donald R. Prothero tells the harrowing human stories behind these catastrophic events:

  • The New Madrid, Missouri, earthquakes of 1811–1812 that caused
    church bells to ring in Boston
  • The 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami that killed more than 230,000 people
  • The massive volcanic eruptions of Krakatau, Mount Tambora, Mount Vesuvius, Mount St. Helens, and Nevado del Ruiz.

His clear explanations of the forces that caused these disasters accompany gut-wrenching accounts of terrifying human experiences and a staggering loss of life. Floods that wash out whole regions, earthquakes that level a single country, hurricanes that destroy everything in their path — all remind us of how little control we have over the natural world. Order the book on which this lecture is based from Amazon.com.

Ticket information

Tickets are first come first served at the door. Seating is limited. $8 for Skeptics Society members and the JPL/Caltech community, $10 for nonmembers. Your admission fee is a donation that pays for our lecture expenses.

Can’t Make it to Our Lectures?
Get them on DVD!

Many of you would love to be able to make it to our lectures at Caltech, but cannot. And, many of you may not realize that we record almost all of our lectures and sell them on CD and DVD through our online store.

ORDER past lectures on DVD

161 Comments »

161 Comments

  1. nick humphrey says:

    why wouldnt the whitehouse just scan obama’s birth certificate and post the resulting image file? a super high resolution scanned image would be hard to fake i would think.

    • M Blackburn says:

      “why wouldnt the whitehouse just scan obama’s birth certificate”?

      In all likelihood that is exactly what they did. Problem is that many common scanners save the scan as a PDF. Since that is a common format on the web, the bureaucrats probably didn’t think anything of it. Had they chose any other file format, they probably would have saved themselves a lot of grief.

      There would still be some that would claim it’s a forgery though. The best thing would be to post an affidavit from an unimpeachable examiner of the document.

  2. Raquel Baranow says:

    Wish I could be at Dr. Prothero’s lecture. I went online to look for Tsunami maps for Los Angeles and found some that show Tsunami inundation areas at about the 15-foot level, which seems impractical (shouldn’t they be a little higher?). I was wondering if anyone has studied alluvial soils in the Los Angeles basin to determine if large Tsunamis have ever hit LA?

    Here’s a really neat map showing alluvial soils indicating changes in the Mississippi river where the Ohio river meets around Cairo, IL.
    http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/05/08/weekinreview/FLOODmap.html

  3. John says:

    Why are you skeptical of those who challenge the birth certificate and not skeptical of the politicians who presented it.

  4. Dr.Sidethink says:

    The White House could fake it so as to be undetectable by any technology not exceeding theirs.

    Plotsters seldom deserve this degree of attention.
    A fundament of their worldview is that questioning of their viewpoint is, in itself, proof the the questioners are part of the “CON”
    Everyone really knows that it’s the DARO sending rays about !!

    Dr. S
    aka
    Pope Bobby II
    69th Clench of the Stark Fist of Removal
    43rd Reformed Church of the Subgenius
    ( Heresy and Schism required by Subgenius dogma)

    • gouchout says:

      “69th Clench of the Stark Fist of Removal” – excellent. Bob is the one true prophet. We all need more Slack

  5. John says:

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/05/09/internet-engineer-obamas-long-form-birth-certificate-a-forgery/
    “Additionally, if you zoom in using Acrobat with your browser on a lot of the text, you’ll notice that it appears jagged and a single color. That’s not original. A pen doesn’t write in a single color; as you write lighter, the color is lighter; as you press harder, it’s darker than everything else. So writing in pen is not a single solid color, and when it scanned, anti-aliased, which means that the square pixels on the edges fade to make it appear smooth. Most of the text in the document including a large portion of the signatures is just a single blotch of color. The likely explanation is that someone just drew them in using a tool similar to “pencil” in Adobe Photoshop.”

    The fact that the “unham Obama” is solidly one color shows that it was drawn on the computer by someone (and not by Obama’s mom).

  6. Oozoid says:

    Not EVERYTHING that is not understood becomes evidence for conspiracy – some gets dismissed as ‘supernatural’.

  7. John says:

    Now that we see that the mom’s signature has been tampered with, we should be skeptical of this “Certificate of Live Birth”.
    That is what being skeptical is all about – right?

  8. Andrew says:

    @John –

    Did you actually read this article? Image optimization adjusts colors. I would EXPECT it to convert such regions of an almost-identical color to an identical one, as that results in a dramatic reduction in file-size.

  9. John says:

    @Andrew.
    Can you explain why the image optimization that you are imagining, would convert the “unham Obama” part to one solid color but not the “Ann D” part which is multi-colored?

    Also you are missing the point about the different pressure:
    “A pen doesn’t write in a single color; as you write lighter, the color is lighter; as you press harder, it’s darker than everything else. So writing in pen is not a single solid color,”

    It is clear that the “unham Obama” part was not handwritten by Obama’s mom.

    • M Blackburn says:

      The people advocating this nonsense either don’t the PDF format very well or are preying on the ignorance of people like you who don’t know it very well.

      There is no rhyme nor reason – beyond computer interpretation of individual pixels – as to how a scan is parsed to PDF. In early versions of Acrobat, I’ve seen PDFs generated from original files cut right through individual letters of typeset text. Nothing that any of these conspiracy idiots are showing is at all unusual.

      Good grief, the reason a signature could be broken into parts in a PDF are multitude. It could have been imperfections in the paper giving Acrobat a different background reference. It could have been a difference in tone due to ink flow, it could even have been a smudge on the glass of the scanner! Nothing is clear here except that people are jumping to unfounded conclusions.

  10. John says:

    “It could have been imperfections in the paper giving Acrobat a different background reference. It could have been a difference in tone due to ink flow, it could even have been a smudge on the glass of the scanner!”

    It is odd how skeptics can make up stories just like everybody else.
    Why even pretend to be skeptics?

    Take a look at the “Ann D” and the “unham Obama” and with a straight face tell us they came from the same scan.

  11. John says:

    Check here for the official document on the government website:
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf

    Zoom in to 1,200%.

    Check out the signature in box 18a.

  12. Nyx says:

    @john, I think it’s important to equate skepticism with critical thinking, not knee jerk denialism.

    Pat’s technique is a good one. Rather than argue about what a scanned document does or doesn’t show, just look at several.

    I just pulled out a recent set of scanned receipts that I submitted with a business expense report. Using your logic, I’ve apparently forged a portion of the price on a Burger King receipt. Sadly for me, I seem to have altered the cents portion and not the dollars portion. What was I thinking?! (poster’s note: I didn’t alter the receipt, but it has uneven darks and lights–dare I say unnaturally uneven darks and lights–in the subtotal.)

    So I went ahead and scanned a recent check stub and my birth certificate, both of which have those odd official paper patterned backgrounds. I get very similar results as the Obama birth certificate, but nothing as cool as half a signature one way vs the other. Though ironically, the word “ORIGINAL” looks totally faked in (poster’s note: It wasn’t).

    So I guess I’d encourage you to do the same thing. The Obama cert is 8x10in at 300dpi with a final weight of about 380K. The process of putting a scanned document into these specs does some odd things with the text, esp when you zoom to 1200%. I again vote with Pat that evidence of sharpening is not evidence of fraud.

  13. John says:

    Nyx:
    “.. but nothing as cool as half a signature one way vs the other.”

    When you get that impossible result let us know.
    Till then we can use common sense that an impossible result is impossible.
    But tampering with the signature is absolutely possible.

  14. Nyx says:

    I’m honestly curious, what possible significance do you perceive it would have if the signature were altered?

  15. John says:

    It is a felony to forge a signature.
    The President has knowingly allowed a felony to be done on his behalf.
    Is that enough for starters?

  16. John says:

    People here think that it is inconceivable that the signature could have been forged.
    Did you think what Nixon did was inconceivable?
    I am old enough to remember that.

  17. Nyx says:

    I’m also old enough to remember Nixon, but that’s just misdirection and not any sort of badge of honor anyway. I don’t think you know what people here think, you haven’t stopped to ask.

  18. John says:

    This is simple.
    Someone can just present us with a handwritten signature that produces the result we see in the “unham Obama” part.
    Show us a handwritten signature and the pdf of it with the pdf signature in totally solid color, and aliased.
    Show us the scan settings you used.
    And also show us a signature that magically produces both the types we see in the Obama mom signature.

  19. Nyx says:

    Please read Pat’s article again. She’s done a great job of explaining how artifacts are easily introduced into scanned documents. So you can repeat the experiment with your own scanned docs and see what you get. We don’t need to show you, I think you can do it yourself.

  20. John says:

    It cannot be done.
    Enough with the excuses.

  21. John says:

    When the truth is allowed to come out this will be bigger than Watergate.
    We are just seeing the tip of the iceberg.
    And the complete unraveling can begin with something like the absolute proof that the mom’s signature has been forged.
    From there the whole house of cards will come tumbling down in spite of the massive efforts that are currently being made to contain this.

    My request stands:
    Someone can just present us with a handwritten signature that produces the result we see in the “unham Obama” part.
    Show us a handwritten signature and the pdf of it with the pdf signature in totally solid color, and aliased.
    Show us the scan settings you used.
    And also show us a signature that magically produces both of the types we see in the Obama mom signature.

  22. paper_thin_conspiracy says:

    Also, show us the birth video, and the placenta, and a sworn statement from the doctor that he indeed delivered a half-black baby that will someday be president.

  23. John says:

    Concerning paper_thin_conspiracy – we see the silliness people start up when confronted with facts they do not wish to acknowledge.
    And these facts are quite significant. A forged signature on the “Certificate of Live Birth” that the White House released.

    • Tired of Conspiracy theorists says:

      I have a decent amount of ability when it comes to photoshop and illustrator and this is bull I could forge a perfect fake document at least to a non-expert. Do you really think if they were going to forge a document as important as one providing proof that the president was born in this country, that they wouldn’t have created a perfect forgery? Seriously, pull your head out of the dark places it’s buried in. Scan a complex document multiple times and no matter what software/hardware you use, it will look different each time and you will get all kinds of strange abnormalities. Oh and stop telling others to prove it to you, you can create this effect and many others depending on scanner used, settings in both software and hardware, as well as the type of imaging software used. Seriously get a clue.

  24. John says:

    I wonder if someone will shortly try calling me a “racist”. That is another old scam that people try.
    There are a whole bunch of tricks that people try – I am familiar with all of them.

    But this is more interesting:
    Someone can just present us with a handwritten signature that produces the result we see in the “unham Obama” part.
    Show us a handwritten signature and the pdf of it with the pdf signature in totally solid color, and aliased.
    Show us the scan settings you used.
    And also show us a signature that magically produces both the types we see in the Obama mom signature.

    • christine says:

      I won’t call you a racist, but you are ridiculous. I think you mistook this for Alex Jones’ website.

  25. Nyx says:

    You’ll have to take that up with the administration, not us. So stop already.

  26. John says:

    Anyone can present the signature info if they can. It does not need to be the “administration”.

  27. Nyx says:

    We’re not here to do your work for you. Again, Pat Linse has a very nice write up on the how artifacts are introduced into scanned documents that, for me at least, meshed well with my past experience with digitized docs. I, for one, took some time and looked at a couple of scanned docs I already had and scanned a few others and got similar enough results that no red flags went off. You need to spend more time doing your own research and not just spinning conspiracies. But most especially since you’re the one with the wild claim, the burden of proof rests with you.

  28. The Count says:

    Look at the line below her signature, where “Signature” and “ttendant” are dark and sharp and “of A” is blurred. What about the darker, sharper “e” in the word “None” in the line above the signature? On one side, the “1” in “AUG – 8 1961” is darker; on the other , the “19” and “1” are both darker. On line 7e, the “X” is blurry, as are, supposedly, all handwritten letters, but it’s clearly typewritten.
    I’m not convinced that the odd inconsistencies on this compressed, lossy document are there because it’s an altered copy. As much as I’ve worked with OCR and graphics editing since the late 70s, it doesn’t surprise me. I am a bit annoyed that a file of this poor quality was put forward, since it invites exactly this sort of speculation, and frankly gives me pause as well. They should have done better, especially after waiting for so long to release it.

  29. seth says:

    all i found. doesn’t seem to back up the proof that pat linse gives. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7s9StxsFllY&feature=player_embedded

  30. John says:

    You are quite right seth.

  31. John says:

    Hello “The Count”.
    I present to you the same request:
    Please present us with a handwritten signature that produces the result we see in the “unham Obama” part.
    Show us a handwritten signature and the pdf of it with the pdf signature in totally solid color, and aliased.
    Show us the scan settings you used.
    And also show us a signature that magically produces both the types we see in the Obama mom signature.

  32. John says:

    Nyx you said earlier:
    “.. but nothing as cool as half a signature one way vs the other.”
    But now you say you got “similar enough results.”

    You did not get similar enough results, because you did not get the result that matters.
    The result that shows this to be a forgery.

  33. Nyx says:

    hi John–I didn’t spend a lot of time on the exercise and probably won’t. Again, it’s not my job to present you with proof of anything as it’s neither my birth certificate or conspiracy.

    But I hear what you’re saying and have to encourage you to work to get to the crux of the matter with the people who possess the truth, not haranguing us. This isn’t one of those conspiracies that’s shrouded by the mists of time. In all sincerity I’d encourage you and your compatriots to mount a grassroots campaign to lobby your congressional representatives to have them ask to see the physical document. They’re not expert forgery detectors, but neither are you or we. But if I understand the crux of your argument it’s that ultimately you believe that no physical, or at least real, document exists. If the physical document is produced in as ham-handed a fashion as you assert this digital one is, then verifying the existence of it would be an important step. We can’t do that for you though. Best, Nyx.

  34. John says:

    Nyx.
    I am not saying “no physical, or at least real, document exists”.
    I am pointing out that the signature has been forged.
    And that is a felony.

    If you wish to stop considering the significance of that, then that is your call.

  35. Nyx says:

    I’m not a lawyer, but no, I don’t think it would constitute a felony. The document has no legal significance in terms of it being submitted for any specific legal purpose, therefore changing something on it would invalidate it as a legal document but wouldn’t be a crime per se.

  36. Nyx says:

    Plus if you want to prove if the sig has been forged (and I’m not agreeing it has been) you need to see the original doc. The PDF scan of a document it not itself the doc.

    • clear-thinker says:

      Thank you, Nyx. Nobody can determine the authenticity of a document from a scan of it. Forensic experts would have to examine the document itself. But people would continue to believe what they want to believe no matter what proof they were presented with. It’s not racism, it’s partisan politics of the kind dirty enough to employ racism.

  37. John says:

    Nyx is slowly talking himself/herself into accepting the forged signature and rationalizing that it may not be a felony.
    It is only a forged signature on what the White House has posted publicly as the authentic Obama Certificate of Birth.

    Nyx, why even pretend you are a “skeptic”? Just say you are a partisan.

  38. John says:

    Do you see “clear-thinker’s” sly, backhand reference to racism.
    Just as I was warning about.
    That is why I went to the trouble to mention it earlier. It is despicable tactic.

  39. Bjørn says:

    John does have a good point; skepticism should go both ways, as is laid down in generally accepted do’s and don’ts in science, and stated in the “Baloney Detection Kit”. What this article shows, is that there are alternative, and probable, explanations to anomalities in the scanned document, as opposed to the explanations claimed by “birthers”. Following up on Johns request for skepticism, this also can be applied to Donald Trump’s birth certificate. I.e., it could be a fraud. Maybe he is originally a french folk singer from Marseilles. Could be. Could explain his hairdo. But not very likely.

  40. John says:

    Bjorn, you are ignoring that the signature has been forged.

  41. John says:

    I present the same request:
    Please present us with a handwritten signature that produces the result we see in the “unham Obama” part.
    Show us a handwritten signature and the pdf of it with the pdf signature in totally solid color, and aliased.
    Show us the scan settings you used.
    And also show us a signature that magically produces both of the types we see in the Obama mom signature.

    Till someone does, we are quite right to be skeptical of the Obama “Certificate of Live Birth”.

  42. John says:

    This is http://www.skeptic.com .
    We would expect to see a consistent skeptical attitude. But we see an intriguing phenomena. There is skepticism toward some things and credulity toward other things.
    In other words, just the same reaction we see among the population in general.

    • gouchout says:

      I love the way you keep repeating your points, as if you were having a verbal conversation. It is enough to make your point once – everyone can read you know.
      Have you ever heard the saying “swallowing a camel, but straining on a gnat” before? Or heard of Occam’s Razor? There’s a Wikipedia article on it – you might find it worth reading.

  43. John says:

    Given that a handwritten signature cannot produce a single-colored, aliased pdf signature, Occam’s Razor dictates that the signature has been tampered with.

    It is a fact that politicians are sometimes dishonest. This is just one more such occasion.

  44. danR says:

    .
    “Given that a handwritten signature cannot produce a single-colored, aliased pdf signature…”

    The first word of the above assertion. As the apocryphal repairman once said:

    “There’s your trouble right there, lady.”
    .

  45. John says:

    danR
    You seem not to have read the articles in the links that seth and I posted earlier. I recommend them to you.

    And

    Please present us with a handwritten signature that produces the result we see in the “unham Obama” part.
    Show us a handwritten signature and the pdf of it with the pdf signature in totally solid color, and aliased.
    Show us the scan settings you used.
    And also show us a signature that magically produces both of the types we see in the Obama mom signature.

  46. John says:

    Check out this link:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Yc8OzKvODo&feature=related
    Especially from 10:30 to the end.

    • Skeptic webmaster says:

      John, I think this will make much more sense to you once you actually do the experiment yourself and get the same results as seen in the Obama certificate PDF. Simply follow these steps: Scan a document that contains a background color and a signature. Save it as a PDF. Open the PDF in Acrobat Pro and select “Optimize Scanned PDF” from the Document menu. Save the optimized PDF as a PDF in Acorbat Pro. Open that optimized PDF in Illustrator. You will see various layers and linked images in their respective palettes, some of which contain anti-aliased parts and some of which contain solid black parts. You will also see that the parts of the signature that Acrobat can easily optimize (i.e. compress or reduce in file size) will come out completely black. The parts that Acrobat has trouble distinguishing from the background detail will come out aliased. The two types of image you’re seeing are normal and expected from the optimization process. They are simply the result of Acrobat doing its job of optimizing the areas that it can and leaving the areas that it can’t.

  47. John says:

    Hi webmaster.
    I read with great interest your post.
    Nobody has been able to accomplish what you are talking about, including Pat.

    Please present us with a handwritten signature that produces the result we see in the “unham Obama” part.
    Show us a handwritten signature and the pdf of it with the pdf signature in totally solid color, and aliased.
    Show us the scan settings you used.
    And also show us a signature that magically produces both of the types we see in the Obama mom signature.

    • Skeptic webmaster says:

      John, if Pat produced her optimized PDF created from Trump’s certificate, why do you think that would be any more convincing than Obama’s optimized PDF — since both PDFs contain the same type of images in question? My guess is you’d call fraud on any document we produce. If Obama can fake it, so can we. Hence, several people have recommended you perform the experiment yourself as it will likely be the only way you are convinced that someone isn’t trying to fool you.

      Aside from providing the optimized PDF of Trump’s certificate, we have given you everything you’ve asked for. The scan settings are of little consequence. It’s the optimization that produces the various image types in question. However, scanning at 300 dpi will produce a high-quality, flat image, which is a good place to start. Optimizing that scan to a PDF will produce the results in question.

      What Pat did was show screenshots of her optimized PDF, and evidence of both aliased and anti-aliased parts of the same signature are visible in those screenshots. If you do this experiment yourself, you will see that you can separate the anti-aliased layers from the black layers in the same handwritten portions.

      Again, you will only be convinced if you are able to produce the results you seek. Then, you will know it can be done. There is no need to continue to post your request over and over again.

      Part of being a skeptic and a critical thinker involves doing experiments on your own rather than expecting others to do the experiments for you. You will likely feel much better having proved the outcome yourself.

    • Skeptic webmaster says:

      Here’s the link Pat provided to Trump’s single layer PDF. Optimize this following my instructions and you will produce the result you seek.

  48. John says:

    Just look at the Trump signature zoomed.
    You will see that it is multi-colored and anti-aliased.
    Just like the Ann D Part.
    It is proof of what I am saying.

    Please show how to produces the result we see in the “unham Obama” part.

  49. Skeptic webmaster says:

    Are you looking at the zoomed version in the screenshot or the optimized PDF that you created yourself? If you look at the optimized PDF you create yourself, you will see that the anti-aliased parts exist on different layers than the solid black parts of the signature: two completely separate optimization results for various parts of the same words. In Pat’s screenshot, you’re seeing both layers on top of one another. But, in Illustrator, you can separate the solid black text from the anti-aliased part and see how optimization treats various parts of a written word. The parts of the hard writing that are most solid in an original document are easier for Acrobat to optimize into solid black in a PDF. Handwritten marks that are more faint or where a pen is pressed more lightly will more than likely not get optimized into solid black during optimization.

  50. John says:

    I have not gotten this result. Neither have any others who I have discussed this with.
    Have you gotten this result?
    One signature that produces some letters as multi-colored and anti-aliased and some other letters (of that same signature) as single-colored and aliased?
    If you have produced that result, please present it to us.

  51. Skeptic webmaster says:

    Yes. We have produced that result. Not only do the handwritten portions contain both anti-aliased and solid black (on separate layers), but the parts of the document that are not handwritten (i.e. machine printed) also contain both types of rendering. If both machine printed parts as well as handwritten parts of a page get optimized into both solid black and anti-aliased parts (on separate layers), then it is illogical to argue that the handwritten parts are the forged parts, unless you also argue that the machine printed parts of the form have also been forged.

  52. John says:

    Please show us a handwritten signature that produces both anti-aliased and MULTI-COLORED letters and also aliased and SINGLE-COLORED letters.
    Do not forget the color part.
    Please show us that. That would be great since nobody else has been able to do that.
    Tell us what settings you used.

    • Skeptic webmaster says:

      We did provide examples of handwriting with both multi-colored (anti-aliased) parts and single-colored (solid black) parts. See Figures G and H above. You will see in the top portion of Figure H, for example, close-ups of original handwriting. In the bottom portion of Figure H, you can see the same bit of handwriting after optimization and it clearly contains both solid black parts as well as multi-colored, anti-aliased parts. It’s an absolutely clear example of what you’re asking for. The setting we used to produce this result was, as I’ve said before, “Optimize scanned PDF” in Acrobat Pro.

  53. John says:

    Take a look at the Ann D” part of the mom’s signature. Each letter is multi-colored (shades of green) and anti-aliased. Take a look at the “unham Obama” part. Each letter is single-colored and aliased.
    That is what I am talking about.
    The optimized Figure H is just showing dark pieces (pixels) WITHIN a multi-colored (multi-shades) section.
    I hope that is clear now.
    Please show us a signature (one signature) that produces a result like we see in the mom’s signature on the Obama birth certificate.

    • Skeptic webmaster says:

      This fact is clear: optimization produces both solid black parts and anti-aliased parts depending on how legible the handwriting is to the optimization software. It really makes no difference whether the solid black parts appear within a signature (as in Pat’s optimization of Trump’s certificate) or only on the right half of a signature (in Obama’s certificate). Your argument doesn’t prove fraud for the simple reason that we know that those solid black parts are commonly produced during the optimization process; they don’t require a human to have placed them there.

      Those solid black marks showed up automatically within handwriting on Pat’s optimized version of Trump’s certificate. They were not placed there by a human. They were created by the optimization process. Left, right, middle — doesn’t matter.

      If those solid black marks couldn’t be produced by optimization, then you might have something. But, that still wouldn’t prove forgery. In that case, we’d need to investigate further by examining the original document as has been suggested already. Perhaps if we saw the original, we could see how the quality of the first part of Ann’s signature might have been more difficult to optimize into solid black text than the right side of that signature. We can see this on the Trump certificate in Pat’s before and after screenshots.

      It could take a long time to reproduce a signature that fits the left-right variability that you wish to reproduce. Time would likely be better spent figuring out how to get your hands on the original Obama certificate.

  54. John says:

    I accept that you cannot produce the result we see in Obama’s mom’s signature. NOBODY CAN. And the videos explain why. A human signature always contains different pressure within the letters – producing the multi-colored and anti-aliased effect.
    Why you have to make up this elaborate story is beyond me. It fools nobody.
    If you are going to do that, then just say like M Blackburn, that perhaps there was a smudge on the glass of the scanner!

    It is obvious you have not listened to the videos I posted.

  55. John says:

    The simple fact is that no human signature can produce the single-color, aliased pdf result we see in “unham Obama”.
    The signature has been tampered with.

    • Skeptic webmaster says:

      John — no one has said that a human signature on an original document looks like what we see in some parts of an optimized PDF. However, software can (and does) produce those single-color, solid black parts within and around text (handwritten or otherwise) when PDFs are optimized.

      Optimization produces those kinds of solid black marks.

      Let me repeat that: optimization produces those kinds of solid black marks. There is absolutely no disputing this point. You may not like it, but, it’s true. And it is not evidence of forgery.

  56. John says:

    Here is my request to anyone who wishes to try:
    Please present us with a handwritten signature that produces the result we see in the “unham Obama” part.
    Show us a handwritten signature and the pdf of it with the pdf signature in totally solid color, and aliased.
    Show us the scan settings you used.
    And also show us a signature that magically produces both of the types we see in the Obama mom signature.

  57. John says:

    Optimization does not produce letters from a handwritten signature that are completely single colored and aliased like “unham Obama”.
    If you think so, please show us a signature that does that.
    Any signature. Please go ahead.

    People should zoom in on the “unham Obama” to see what the result actually looks like.

  58. John says:

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/05/09/internet-engineer-obamas-long-form-birth-certificate-a-forgery/

    “Additionally, if you zoom in using Acrobat with your browser on a lot of the text, [like “unham Obama] you’ll notice that it appears jagged [aliased] and a single color. That’s not original [handwriting]. A pen doesn’t write in a single color; as you write lighter, the color is lighter; as you press harder, it’s darker than everything else. So writing in pen is not a single solid color, and when it scanned, [it is] anti-aliased, which means that the square pixels on the edges fade to make it appear smooth. Most of the text in the document including a large portion of the signatures is just a single blotch of color. The likely explanation is that someone just drew them in using a tool similar to “pencil” in Adobe Photoshop.”

  59. John says:

    Is it possible to look at this objectively I wonder?
    Is there anyone who disputes what James Colby says in the quote I posted above from:
    http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/05/09/internet-engineer-obamas-long-form-birth-certificate-a-forgery/

    Is what he is saying correct about the appearance of scanned signatures?
    If you think it is not correct, please explain why.

  60. DMC says:

    Not sure why people even bother engaging people like ‘John’. Reason, logic and measured explanations will do no good — tinfoil hat conspiracy nuts will simply dismiss and label anything as part of the ‘plot’. There’s no point really, plus he seems to just like the sound of his own online voice by the looks of his post count (and repetitive remarks)

  61. John says:

    It looks like DMC has not disputed what James Colby has said.

  62. John says:

    This is interesting:
    http://www.websiteoptimization.com/speed/tweak/pdf/
    “Note that optimizing a signed document will invalidate its signature.”

    Can anyone explain why the White House would optimize the “Certificate of Live Birth” which invalidates the signature?

    • Skeptic webmaster says:

      Optimization changes the look of an original document, as has been clearly demonstrated (turning part of a signature into solid black marks). Printing it out and expecting it to pass as an original would be absurd. However, scanning a document doesn’t make the original document suddenly vanish; the original would still contain a valid signature.

      You’d never scan your own birth certificate, optimize it to PDF, print it out, take it to your local passport issuing office and expect it to be accepted, would you? (Passport applications clearly state that original documents are required.)

      It’s not like Obama is applying for a passport or something like that. He’s simply showing us a document in an easily downloadable format. In this case, signature invalidation through PDF optimization is completely irrelevant.

  63. Taper says:

    I try not to feed trolls, but I do need to respond to this:

    When WebsiteOptimization.com states that optimizing a signed document will invalidate its signature, they are not referring to a written signature in the document. They are referring to a feature of Adobe Acrobat that lets you “Sign” the file.

    This is a cryptographic term — the process involves computing a large number based on the contents of the file and the code key of the person signing. If he or she then sends it to another person, that person can verify that a) the sender really is the person who signed the file, and b) the person sending the file signed _this_ file. If you optimize the document, the file content changes, and the signature would no longer match.

    (More details on how this works are available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_signature . It’s important to note that PDF signing is not usually a signature in the legal sense; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_signature for details.)

    In no sense does PDF optimization invalidate a written signature on a scanned document.

  64. John says:

    Funny, no matter what the White House does, it is just fine with the people here.
    I guess they are not skeptical of politicians.

  65. John says:

    Well people are actually here. Good.
    Does anyone dispute what James Colby said?
    If nobody is willing to dispute it and explain why, we are left to conclude that the Mom’s signature on the Obama “Certificate of Live Birth” has been tampered with.

    Oh and can anyone present us with a handwritten signature that produces the result we see in the “unham Obama” part?
    Show us a handwritten signature and the pdf of it with the pdf signature in totally solid color, and aliased.
    Show us the scan settings you used.
    And also show us a signature that magically produces both of the types we see in the Obama mom signature.

  66. John says:

    Skeptic webmaster:
    “You’d never scan your own birth certificate, optimize it to PDF, print it out, take it to your local passport issuing office and expect it to be accepted, would you?”

    And yet Obama scanned his own birth certificate and optimized it to PDF and expects us to accept it.

    What a joke. Do you get it?

    • Skeptic webmaster says:

      I wasn’t making a funny, but I might at some point, so pay attention.

      Since you won’t accept a PDF, perhaps Obama could fax his birth certificate to you. Nope. That won’t do. One could easily tamper with a fax. What about a photocopy? Nah. Same problem. Scan to jpeg? Surely no one could tamper with a jpeg!

      Oh, I get it now. You must be thinking that Obama should mail his original long form birth certificate to each and every one of us (one person at a time, of course, since there is only one original to go ’round). Who should get to gaze upon it first, do you think? I’ve got an idea! Why don’t you give Obama a call and see if you can be first on his list!? When you’re done scrutinizing it, you can mail it to the next person on the list until everyone (who won’t be satisfied until they’ve seen the original document) has had a chance to see it (and call it a fake too).

      That’s much better than an optimized PDF.

  67. John says:

    We can see how people, like “Skeptic webmaster”, start to say silly things when there is something they do not want to acknowledge.

    Skeptic webmaster, would you please present us with a handwritten signature that produces the result we see in the “unham Obama” part.
    Show us a handwritten signature and the pdf of it with the pdf signature in totally solid color, and aliased. Show us the scan settings you used.

    Please show us your web mastery.

  68. Jeff G says:

    I’m amazed that in all this conversation nobody has pointed out the obvious: no one as powerful as the president would create only a digital forgery of such a hotly contested document. Think about it. Someone already mentioned Occam’s Razor. Along those lines, the simplest thing to do (as a forger) would be to recreate a blank hard copy of a long-form Hawaiian birth certificate, have people forge the signatures, then scan it in and present it to the world. If a former law professor was going to fool the world, he’d make sure it was done far more competently than the conspiracy theorists are claiming.

    Also, the reason why nobody here is bothering to try to reproduce the different aliasing and color variations in a scan is because we all know it would be a waste of time. Since these “birthers” examine the evidence with the bias the Obama is lying, they will always find it unsatisfactory. Any anomaly, no matter how many different explanations there may be for it, automatically points to his duplicity. This is what separates their skepticism from our skepticism.

    The preponderance of evidence (even before the release of the long-form) supports the much simpler probability that he was born in Hawaii. Rather than trying to prove a negative (he wasn’t born here), why don’t these “concerned citizens” prove the positive claim that he was born in Kenya? I’ll tell you why: because they can’t. I’ve seen the “evidence” they’ve presented, and it frankly does not hold up to objective scrutiny. The only option they have left is to try to tear down the other side’s evidence. It would be funny if I didn’t know these people lined up at the ballot box.

  69. John says:

    I have not been making any claim about whether Obama was born in Hawaii or not.
    My claim is that the “Certificate of Live Birth” posted by the White House has been tampered with.
    Specifically the mom’s signature has been tampered with.

  70. John says:

    Jeff G has said;
    “Also, the reason why nobody here is bothering to try to reproduce the different aliasing and color variations in a scan is because we all know it would be a waste of time. Since these “birthers” examine the evidence with the bias the Obama is lying, they will always find it unsatisfactory.”.

    I am not asking people to produce “color variations”. I am asking anyone to present any signature that produces the effect we see with “unham Obama” in the pdf.
    The “unham Obama” is one single color and aliased.

    To say that no result will be satisfactory, is a very poor excuse.

  71. Steve says:

    -How do you know the pen she was using didn’t run out of ink and she used a different pen for the rest of her name? Ive done that in the real world before.
    -I do not have the software for manipulation mentioned on this page (and thus cannot provide you what you ask) but what I do have access to are old scanned documents such as deed and mortgages from the 1970s. I looked at some of those and noticed that a few had artifacts similar to the bizarre mom’s signature on BO birth certificate.
    -Why would the mom’s name be forged, and poorly?
    -Even if tampered with, you would have to do some more digging to determine if a fraud was committed and then by whom. If it did happen, it may have happened without the prez’s knowledge.
    -John, I would agree that you ask a somewhat valid question (over and over and over again), but what makes you’re inquiry drift from healthy skepticism to downright conspiracy is one little line you wrote:
    “When the truth is allowed to come out this will be bigger than Watergate.”
    You have no proof for that other than a crappy signature that may or may not have been modified and if so by persons unknown…or do you?
    John, please provide us with your proof that this will result in an event greater than Watergate. Please provide additional proof other than rambling links to some conspiracy nut’s web page where people post how Obama will ship in 1 million African insurgents to help him take over America (Oh yeah, I followed one of your dandy lil links). This needs to be proof supported by actual real media outlets (hey Ill even say Fox would be good enough) or supporting documentation such as government clerk links, public documents, or academic historical archives.

  72. John says:

    Indeed, what I am asking is a valid question.
    Can anyone please present us with a handwritten signature that produces the result we see in the “unham Obama” part?
    Show us a handwritten signature and the pdf of it with the pdf signature in totally solid color, and aliased. Show us the scan settings you used.

  73. Steve says:

    John, please provide us with your proof that this will result in an event greater than Watergate. Please provide additional proof other than rambling links to some conspiracy nut’s web page. This needs to be proof supported by actual real media outlets or supporting documentation such as government clerk links, public documents, or academic historical archives.

  74. John says:

    Steve, I appreciate your questions.
    But I will not be distracted from the main issue. The main issue is that the mom’s signature has been tampered with.
    You have said that you do not have access to the software to deal with the request I have made (repeatedly).
    Could you encourage those others here who do, to respond to my request please?
    Others here have certainly implied they have the expertise.

  75. Steve says:

    John, you are asking others to recreate a random occurrence caused by digital image editing software. The original article talks about creating similar images. I and others have discussed viewing scanned signatures that have similar images. I even mentioned a possibility of how BO’s mom may have used two pens in a plausible scenario. The evidence is there, you simply refuse to accept anything but an exact replication, like burning toast and it looking like the Virgin Mary twice in a row. The burden is not on others to disprove the forgery; it is for you to prove the forgery. Please, fill free to create an exactly similar image and post your links for your perfect recreation of this forgery.
    You can insist on repeating your question, but the burden of proof is on you. YOU have to recreate the fake imagery, not others to recreate it from a real signature. BTW, if you notice, the width of the signature pen varies somewhat, indicating this wasn’t a simple digital pen drawing.
    And I’ll even concede that altering may have occurred (although only to argue the point and so you quit repeating yourself) and thus must ask, yet again (and assume it has been tampered with)
    John, please provide us with your proof that this will result in an event greater than Watergate. Please provide additional proof other than rambling links to some conspiracy nut’s web page. This needs to be proof supported by actual real media outlets or supporting documentation such as government clerk links, public documents, or academic historical archives.
    (See, copy and paste is fun).

  76. John says:

    Steve:
    “BTW, if you notice, the width of the signature pen varies somewhat, indicating this wasn’t a simple digital pen drawing.”.

    That issue occurred to me as well, so I did a simple test that anyone can do with the “Paint” program.
    Select the “Brush” option and select the specific brush option that produces that effect.
    In my version of Paint, it is the top row, second one in.

    • John says:

      Steve focuses on the unimportant in an attempt to distract from the important. The mom’s signature has been tampered with. That is a serious crime. Focus on that.

  77. John says:

    Steve seems to be echoing a point that was made earlier by someone.
    The point you are making is that we need to know more than just that the mom’s signature was tampered with.
    My point is that it is a crime to forge a signature on a document like this. It is not necessary to elaborate more details. Tampering with the signature is itself a crime.
    And a very serious one.

  78. Steve says:

    John, please provide us with your proof that this will result in an event greater than Watergate. Please provide additional proof other than rambling links to some conspiracy nut’s web page. This needs to be proof supported by actual real media outlets or supporting documentation such as government clerk links, public documents, or academic historical archives.

  79. John says:

    I am focusing on the mom’s signature.
    Nobody here has disputed what James Colby said (in what I posted earlier) and nobody has shown how a scan could produce a single-colored, aliased effect like we see in “unham Obama”.

  80. Passerby says:

    First visit to this website, first comment here, and I believe the first website I’ve commented on that requires you to put in your email address for the post to go through, even if said address is hidden.

    Anyway!

    John. You keep asserting that the signature is fraudulent. As such, shouldn’t you be taking after the issue with more drive than repeatedly pasting the same question into the comments box on a skeptics website?

    Try anything and everything, to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the signature is a fraud. Attempt to duplicate the graphical artefacts from the pdf yourself. Petition the White house for an ultra-high resolution .tiff scan of the original document. Yes, it may be the most bloated image format possible, but there’s virtually no compression, so artefacts won’t show up as much.

    Pretend you’re going to court to prove your point. The evidence you have demonstrated thus far would get you laughed out in minutes. Attempt to fake a signature in the way you claim to check the plausibility of the American government doing the same. Talk to lawyers, graphic designers, people with experience with the issue at hand.

    Basically, picture yourself attempting to convince the world that your point, your claim, is the truth. Take it seriously. Gather hard, indisputable evidence. Don’t depend on others to do it for you.

    For the record, I’m Australian, and find all this crap surrounding the president’s birth certificate to be quiet humorous, in a stupidly-sad sort of way

  81. John says:

    Passerby, this is not the only place I raise these issues. And I do take this seriously.

    Passerby, could you please present us with a handwritten signature that produces the result we see in the “unham Obama” part?
    Show us a handwritten signature and the pdf of it with the pdf signature in totally solid color, and aliased. Show us the scan settings you used.
    That would be great.

  82. John says:

    Well “passerby” seems to have passed by.
    But not after leaving the ludicrous, drive-by insult that:
    “The evidence you have demonstrated thus far would get you laughed out in minutes.”

    If anyone disputes the evidence that the mom’s signature has been tampered with, just present us with any signature that produces the aliased, single-color result we see in the “unham Obama” part.
    People here have implied their expertise in this area. Should be no problem.

  83. Andy Odell says:

    WOW! This has certainly led to a lively and lengthy discussion about how various Adobe products work. But I have another question, along very different lines. If we take the PDF file as altered compared to the original, what exactly do those alterations imply? Why were they done?

    For example, in space 22 (Date accepted by Reg. General) the 6 of 1961 seems to be of different quality, and in a different layer than the other digits. This would imply that the Date accepted was at least one decade different than the other dates on the PDF, while these other dates were not disputed. How could this possibly be the case? The only possibility would be that the 6 replaces a 6. The two dates above it (boxes 18b and 19b) agree with a year of 61, and don’t look altered. Further, in box 20, the same date is required and stamped, and it looks like the 1 is different from the other digits. All this clearly argues that these are artifacts of processing rather than falsifications.

    And as for the signature, why would that being altered make any difference? Why would someone alter it? The only reason I can think of is, perhaps the parents didn’t use the last name, and changing the signature to look so would ‘cover up’ the impression that the parents weren’t married. But no one disputes that boxes 8 and 13 are unaltered, so this point is moot.

    Bottom line, even if all the parts that are claimed to be altered in fact are altered, what difference does it make? I haven’t heard anyone claim this is not a birth certificate, from the (then territory) of Hawaii, for the man who is now in the President’s office, or that his parents aren’t the people listed on the certificate. So, my question is, WHAT WAS ON the original that has been altered here, that would be so shocking to any of us? And, why would anyone go to all this trouble to sloppily alter a document in ways that don’t matter?

  84. John says:

    Yes, and why has Obama make efforts for over two years to make sure the information was not made public?
    By the way it is not a “birth certificate”. It is a “certificate of live birth”.

    Andy Odell, have you been able to re-produce the effects that we see on the Obama certificate? The single color, aliased “unham Obama”? I have Adobe Acrobat and have tried the different options including optimization. No luck. Nobody else I have asked has been able to do it either.

  85. John says:

    Andy Odell:
    “And as for the signature, why would that being altered make any difference?”

    If it has been altered it is a felony. A felony either committed by Obama or agreed to by Obama. He presented the certificate live to the world saying that it was authentic.

  86. John says:

    I wonder if people’s political leanings may be influencing their thinking.
    If Bush had presented a document that had an altered signature would people be saying:
    “And as for the signature, why would that being altered make any difference?”

  87. Jeff G. says:

    John:
    “I wonder if people’s political leanings may be influencing their thinking.”

    Yeah, why do all those liberals have to think objectively? It begs the question of whether or not people’s political leanings are the impetus behind the ceaseless torrent of criticisms leveled at the president (including this birth certificate lunacy).

  88. John says:

    Jeff G, could you please present us with a handwritten signature that produces the result we see in the “unham Obama” part?
    Show us a handwritten signature and the pdf of it with the pdf signature in totally solid color, and aliased. Show us the scan settings you used.
    That would be great.

    Or will you just leave like all the rest?

  89. Steve says:

    Here is someone I think that shares John’s political persuasion going over not just the image editing stuff, but some related things regarding the birth certificate.

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2711660/posts

    Assuming this still isn’t enough for John, all I can say is “Good luck” with the conspiracy proving. You will not ever get what you are asking for in such a way as to be satisfied.

  90. John says:

    Hello Steve.
    I read the article. It does not address the issue I have been raising about the mom’s signature.
    If you think it does address it, please copy and paste that part from the article.

    Also Steve, could you please present us with a handwritten signature that produces the result we see in the “unham Obama” part?
    Show us a handwritten signature and the pdf of it with the pdf signature in totally solid color, and aliased. Show us the scan settings you used.
    That would be great.

  91. Steve says:

    Part 5 John. Plain as day, not quite sure how you missed that. In case you have connection issues, I shall post the information here:

    “5. It has layers! That means it’s a fraud!

    This is IMO the most difficult of the objections raised to date. When I first saw that particular news, I thought, “Wow!”

    However, according to Freeper GunRunner, Adobe Acrobat (when used with certain settings) runs Optical Character Recognition and separates a scanned image into layers. As GunRunner explains:

    “When you scan something into a PDF, Acrobat scans the text into different layers and makes the text searchable.”

    “You can deactivate it when you scan something into a PDF, but whoever scanned it obviously forgot to turn it off, and now because of this we will be treated to many more years of wild conspiracy theories, all because some government employee made a rookie mistake. ”

    A good clue about the nature of these layers is found in all of the little stray letters left behind. Virtually every kind of visual element that you or I would consider a cohesive whole is split up.

    “None” is split into “Non” and “e.” The “D” splits off of “Dunham.” The bottom signature is split up, too. Both date stamps at bottom are split into different layers, though in different places. The “R” is split out of “BARACK.” In the tiny print you can catch split-out bits of words. “add” “Co”

    All of this speaks to a machine driven process, not something that a human being has designed from elements cut and pasted together.

    Or, to put it another way: It would take a LOT of time for a human being to split an image up in this way and then reassemble it into the image we see. And there would be no reason to do it that way. Why spend 50 hours cutting a document into all kinds of crazy little pieces?

    Especially if you were trying to create a forgery? Just doesn’t make any sense that way.

    Freeper reegs also CONFIRMED that this happens, by first printing the PDF as supplied by the White House, then re-scanning it into a new PDF.

    He found that the scanning process DID separate the PDF into layers. Interestingly, it appears to have separated out the middle “R” in BARACK out just as in the original layered PDF:

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2711500/posts?page=46#33

    See there about the Dunham thingy you KEEP TALKING ABOUT. And this is from a very Conservative website thus reducing your partisan question to a non sequiter. And John, Ive already told you I dont have the software, so your asking me is moot and childish.

    And so I ask again, referring to YOUR OWN WORDS:
    Please provide us with your proof that this will result in an event greater than Watergate. Please provide additional proof other than rambling links to some conspiracy nut’s web page. This needs to be proof supported by actual real media outlets or supporting documentation such as government clerk links, public documents, or academic historical archives.

  92. John says:

    Steve, are you trying to trick us all?
    Nothing in what you have referenced explains the “unham Obama” tampering.

    Why not just be honest and admit that.

  93. Steve says:

    Now you are just being willingly ignorant. He explicitly mentions the D breaking apart from Dunham during the software processing, then ANOTHER Freeper then posts a link on how he ran it through a scanner and got the R in Barack seperated out in a similar manner. At this point every argument you have made has been trounced and you are simply claiming you cannot see the forest for the trees.
    The only person trying to trick anyone is you and, honestly, it is only working on yourself and your other tin foil hat bearers. There is a plausible, duplicatable, simplistic reason for this to be a true certificate. The forgery claims not only fail Occams Razor, they fail Occams Blunt Butter Knife. The logical leaps and hurdles you must traverse to believe this is a forgery defy the odds more than a lottery ticket.
    I dont know, or care, if you are racist, but you obviously hate Obama for whatever reason, likely political in nature. Im not too fond of him either. But at this point you are clinging to the cliff of conspiracy by your fingernails and offer ABSOLUTELY NO OTHER EVIDENCE. Offer something else, anything else that backs up your claim. A motive, a claim from Hawai’i that this is a forgery, ANYTHING. Even claiming it was a forgery makes no sense. Why would a forger alter the mother’s name? It wouldn’t make a difference on his citizenship.
    Why don’t you? Simple, you cannot.
    Nor, likely, will it make a difference. You will stick to these claims no matter what because you are afraid to face the reality that someone you dont like actually got popularly elected against someone you did like. Conspiracies are very comforting and self continuing without and despite outside information; see truthers, Holocaust deniers, moon landing hoaxers, etc. Shermer has written about these guys countless times and this website is dedicated to encourage free and skeptical and reasonable thought.
    You are beyond reason.

  94. John says:

    Ah, the slur that I “hate Obama”. And all the rest of the slurs, along with a cunning, indirect reference to racism.
    It always seems to come to this kind of desperate attack.
    Why do we see that so often? Why are people afraid to discuss the issue itself and have to resort to personal attack?
    Do you not see it? Wake up!
    Your unspoken bias is so evident to anyone looking at this objectively.

    The only way to understand this is for you to think, if Bush had presented a document with a tampered signature. Would you be making excuses like this in that case?
    Think about it.

  95. Steve says:

    <>
    Actually, it doesnt matter for a logical argument. If Hitler said 1+1 = 2, I would have to agree with him. You obviously have a beef with Obama. Fine, join the millions of others who dislike him as well. I dont really like him, hes an ass in my opinion, but dont try and pretend your own biases arent driving the conspiracy. Keep playing the vicitm card if you want, but noone is going to believe you are simply an honest guy just asking a legitimate question. You have an ulterior motive, and it shows.

    <>
    I see this all the time, but this isnt one of those cases. Whether you are pro or anti Obama has no bearing on the “proof” of forgery you have presented. Unfortunately, too often this card is played when people, for example, raise issues about Israeli policy or other hot button issue. Facts are facts, and it doesn’t matter who presents them.

    <>
    Umm, we have been, for ALOT of posts. We have reduced the forgery argument to so much illogical rubble, yet still you champion it. Once again, resorting to the victim card does not change the fact that not only are you wrong, you are very wrong, and even completely utterly wrong.

    <>
    Yes, I see with my eyes and I try to see with eyes uclouded by biases. You cannot.

    <>
    I dare someone else to point out how I have been unobjective.

    <>
    Yes, I would. And I didn’t like him either. My reverse question to you is this: Did you see Bush’s birth certificate?

  96. John says:

    By the way Steve, I dont know, or care, if you are racist. Or if you a still wearing a tin-foil hat.

    See how that sly game is played.

    It is hard for you to see this, since you are so heavily identified with yourself and your belief in your rightness.
    But just notice how you feel, if those kinds of tactics are used against you.

  97. Steve says:

    Actually, your statements dont bother me at all. If I was truly frothing at the mouth and screaming about how ‘I know’ and how can ‘Noone else see?!’ I might take offense. As is, I still leave the ball in your court. Show your proof. Prove it. To yourself and to others. You can claim all you want up is down but you have the evidence before you and repetitions of a question that has been answered repeatedly and claims that you are a victim get you nowehere. If you have this amazing proof that this is a huge conspiracy show it. Your forgery argument has zero merit.

    So, enlighten us. I love conspiracy theories.

    Problem is, they often are crap.

  98. John says:

    Steve, could you please present us with a handwritten signature that produces the result we see in the “unham Obama” part?
    Show us a handwritten signature and the pdf of it with the pdf signature in totally solid color, and aliased. Show us the scan settings you used.
    That would be great.

    Nobody has yet been able to do this.

  99. Steve says:

    Wow, right back to it. It has been shown to be entirely possible. Even by people that might share your political spectrum John. I could no more prove to you that water is wet than that this document is likely not a forgery.

    Please provide us with your proof that this will result in an event greater than Watergate. Please provide additional proof other than rambling links to some conspiracy nut’s web page. This needs to be proof supported by actual real media outlets or supporting documentation such as government clerk links, public documents, or academic historical archives.

  100. Steve says:

    Keep jumping up and down and repeating yourself, but that wont change the fact you are not only wrong, but willfully ignorant of the evidence in front of you.

  101. John says:

    Can anyone present us with a handwritten signature that produces the result we see in the “unham Obama” part?
    Show us a handwritten signature and the pdf of it with the pdf signature in totally solid color, and aliased. Show us the scan settings you used.
    That would be great.
    Nobody has yet been able to do that.

    It is interesting that Pat Linse, who wrote the article that started this discussion, has not produced what I am asking for.

  102. Steve says:

    John,
    Please provide us with your proof that this will result in an event greater than Watergate. Please provide additional proof other than rambling links to some conspiracy nut’s web page. This needs to be proof supported by actual real media outlets or supporting documentation such as government clerk links, public documents, or academic historical archives.

  103. John says:

    Steve wants to move the discussion to something else.
    And that is because nobody (not even Pat Linse) can counter the evidence about the mom’s signature tampering.

    But that tampering does not bother people here. So be it.
    But don’t call yourselves “skeptics”, since you are just the same as everyone else who has a bias you do not want to acknowledge.

  104. Steve says:

    John,
    There is no evidence of tampering. You have no proof of tampering. Everything you have claimed has been countered by people using plausible methods to create similar artifacts. Even Freepers are claiming they can recreate these images by simply scanning a document. I have said it before, and I will say it again, you have to prove that a forgery happened. You would need to show some kind of proof that this occurred. Since there are numerous examples here of how it could occur you should try and come up with alternate pieces of evidence to support your forgery claim. If you have additional information which you seem to have hinted at but have yet to reveal, than just maybe you might have an argument. As is, scanned artifacts just like the “unham Obama” section can be reproduced by accident.

  105. John says:

    Please provide the reference link for the claim that the “unham Obama” section can be reproduced by accident.
    And copy and paste the relevant material from that reference.
    That would be great.

  106. Steve says:

    John,
    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2711500/posts?page=33#33
    The post on Wednesday, April 27, 2011 8:39:34 PM by reegs:

    “The PDF layer issue is a dead end. I’ve verified it myself. I printed the PDF as supplied by the White House. At my place of work, we have copiers that can scan a document, save it as a PDF and email it to yourself. After scanning the print out and sending it to myself as a PDF, I opened the PDF in Adobe Illustrator.
    As you can see from the image below, the scanning software DID seperate elements as can be seen by the Illustrator handles. These would be picked up as separate layers. I was able to move these elements including the black type. Moving the type did leave a white area beneath it.”

    What he is saying is that the scanning software CAN break down words, even cohesive letters in the middle of words and save them as separate layers. Now go back and read what the article said about how letters, EVEN handwriting, once saved to different layers will “produce differences in density and sharpness of pixel edge”. He then shows how the Trump birth certificate produced similar items.

    Can anyone exactly recreate what you are asking for? Maybe, but its random. Can we recreate something similar? Absolutely.

    A very reasonable counterpoint has been raised to your question. Now, you can do the following to further support your forgery claim:
    1) Recreate something very similar using forgery methods or find where another forgery has occurred that looked like this
    2) Provide supporting documentation that this might be a forgery from other sources
    3) Provide a reasonable motive for this all to occur.

    Tit for tat arguments create an impasse, so I would suggest you address at least two of the three above. Three would seal the deal even better.

    Now…get to it!

  107. John says:

    Steve posted:
    “Can anyone exactly recreate what you are asking for? Maybe, but its random. Can we recreate something similar? Absolutely.”

    Note that the “unham Obama” is aliased and single-color.
    You say that you can absolutely recreate something similar. Please present a signature* that produces “something similar” to the aliased, single-color- “unham Obama”.
    That would be great!
    Nobody has done that yet. Nobody has even tried.

    * Please note that it must come from a signature.

  108. Steve says:

    Ummm, you did see the scanned optimized Trump signature image above (specifically the capital T) that is both ALIASED AND SINGLE COLOR? Are you blind? How does that slide by the old logic radar? Do you even know what “aliased” means?
    It is aliased, it is single colored, and depending on how the rest of the signature was interpreted by the scanner, part of the signature may have been optimized differently, including a single letter from a word.

  109. John says:

    The Trump signature is non-aliased, multiple color. (The opposite of the “unham Obama”.)
    Perhaps that is the problem. People do not know what aliased, single-color means.
    Take a look at the “unham Obama” in the “Certificate of live birth. That is what aliased, single-color looks like.

  110. Steve says:

    It is aliased and single color.

    Read:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliasing

    Or even better:

    http://www.adobe.com/designcenter/photoshopelements/articles/concept_aliasing.html

    The light color is from the odd way the sig was written (I think they crossed back over the ‘T’ twice), but the optimization pulled out the single color lines and interpreted the voids as solid color void shapes.
    The “D” in Dunham on Obama’s is anti-aliased and multi color, the “unham” is the opposite.

  111. Steve says:

    Do realize, at this point, the only thing you are arguing is that Adobe will NOT scan and optimize a signature as aliased and single color.

  112. John says:

    Steve posted:
    “The “D” in Dunham on Obama’s is anti-aliased and multi color, the “unham” is the opposite.”

    And not only the “unham” but the “Obama” is also aliased and single-color. That is what I have been pointing out.
    Can anyone take a signature and produce that aliased, single-color effect?

    By the way, I have not been talking about other things and am now just talking about the signature. I was never talking about other things. That is just a dishonest spin that Steve is trying to slip by us.

  113. Steve says:

    John,
    It has been shown that Adobe can pull letters out of words and place them in separate layers (Freepers).
    This article explains how different layers are interpreted and optimized by Adobe differently. Some are single color, some are multi color. Look at the compared images above.
    It has been shown that Adobe will turn some signatures aliased and single color (This article above on the Trump signature). I also know this happens from looking at old scanned signatures. You can keep saying it wont, but how about you email Adobe and ask them if their software will do this when scanning a signature. I could but I don’t think you would believe me if I posted the response.

    ‘Can anyone take a signature and produce that aliased, single-color effect? ‘
    Yes, it is shown here. Plus, you could go look at some scanned documents and see a similar effect.

    Who is this “us” you are speaking about? You keep making it sound like I’m talking to a group. You are the only person here who keeps arguing this is a forgery.

  114. Steve says:

    I wish to thank you John, as well. Thanks to your conspiracy rants, I now have a much better well researched understanding of how Adobe works with scanned signatures and older documents.

  115. Steve says:

    I also wish to apologize John. I thought your issue was the one part of the signature was one way and not the other.

    Wow, just wow. I never in a million years thought the issue was just whether a signature could be optimized as aliased and single color. I have seen this a ton of times. Just go and Google for images of scanned signatures.
    Here’s some signatures:
    http://www.e-signature.com/en/tech_en.htm
    http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/docs/bancoult-d3a.html
    http://www.andypellew.org/

  116. John says:

    Steve posted:
    “It has been shown that Adobe will turn some signatures aliased and single color (This article above on the Trump signature).”

    The Trump signature above shows the opposite. How many times do we need to go over that?
    If producing an aliased, single color effect from a signature is so simple, why has nobody here done it?

    Your distractions are going nowhere.
    But I am getting tired of pointing out your dishonesty.
    Produce the effect yourself or stop posting. You are wasting our time.

    P.S. The examples you have given were not from original handwriting. If they were, show us the original handwriting. You can see yourself what the effect of original hand writing is – it is the “Ann D” part of the signature.
    How many times do we need to go over this?

  117. Steve says:

    >‘How many times do we need to go over that?’
    Until you stop pretending it’s not aliased.

    >‘If producing an aliased, single color effect from a signature is so simple, why has nobody here done it?’
    It’s been done here, it was done on the links I posted, it’s done all over John, it’s rather common. Whoever told you scanned handwriting NEVER shows up as aliased and single color is either an idiot or a liar. Go to ANY posted legal documents and you will see it. It might not be on EVERY scanned signature, but it does pop up.
    Tyr this link:
    http://roamdallaspropertyrecords.com/ailis/search.do?searchType=1&searchable=Name%2CInstrument%2CRECDATE%2CDESIGSTATUS%2CPartyRole%2CIndexType%2CDocType%2CBook%2CPage%2CLot%2CBlock%2CCityBlock%2CMapBook%2CMapPage%2CMapInstrumentNumber%2CSubdivision%2CCityTown%2CFreeform%2CLocation&indexName=dallasclerkopr&templateName=&q=smith
    It’s the link to the Dallas County records office. Click on the “View Image” button to the right and look at a few signatures. Guess what? Yep, aliased and single color. But, these are likely forgeries too, right?
    >‘But I am getting tired of pointing out your dishonesty.’
    Spoken like a true conspiracy theorist when provided factual information that rebukes their ridiculous claims.

    >‘Produce the effect yourself or stop posting.’
    First, I don’t have a scanner. But, at this point, would it matter? You would claim I faked it.
    > You are wasting our time.
    Actually, I feel this is time spent wisely to knock down walls of ignorance and advance human understanding. You however, are certainly wasting your time and making yourself appear as a truly ignorant human being.
    >’P.S. The examples you have given were not from original handwriting. If they were, show us the original handwriting.’
    Those were posted online I found by using Google. One was a legal document, so you might want to let those guys know that it was obviously a forgery on their affidavit. How do I show you the original handwriting? Explain how other than by scanning it, and if it produces the result, what then? Should someone mail it to you?

    >How many times do we need to go over this?
    Until you stop pretending it’s not aliased.

    The truly sad thing is that with just a little bit of effort, you could find all this information by yourself. But you don’t want that, because you know you are right, reality and the truth be damned, and even if you have to lie to yourself, it’s worth it for the greater good.

  118. John says:

    Steve, talking to you is a waste of time. You will say anything to distract from the truth.

    If anyone can present a handwritten signature that produces an aliased, single color effect like we see in the “unham Obama” please do so.

    I have Adobe Acrobat and tried – no success. Nothing was even close.
    I have asked others- no success.
    Nobody here (not even Pat Linse) has been able to do it.

  119. Steve says:

    Did you even try the Dallas County clerk records? If not, why dont you stop claiming that its impossible.

    BTW, its not just Adobe that produces these artifacts. Scanning any document could produce them. Adobe is what made the layer weirdness that is actually what most birthers froth at the mouth over. Your argument isnt even at that level.

    I like the conspiracy theorist jab about the “truth”. By” truth”, you or course mean, by “your belief in whatever crazy thing you believe in”.

  120. Steve says:

    I also like your claim that no one else saying anything means they cannot do what you want. Actually, most haved moved on from your insanity and are on to more important business. I simply stay for the ambiance and if nothing else, for the popcorn.

  121. John says:

    We see that Steve has nothing to contribute.

    Perhaps someone else can present a signature that can produce an aliased, single-color effect like we see in “unham Obama”.
    Nobody has been able to do that yet.
    Not even Pat Linse who began this whole discussion.

  122. Steve says:

    Just like claiming the moon landing is a hoax but more topical. It has been shown a jillion times John. At this point you are simply lying, to yourself and on this webpage.

  123. John says:

    See the interesting tactic that Steve is using. It is as old as the hills.
    He makes a ridiculous association between what he disagrees with (ie. what I am saying) and some old hoax (moon landing hoax).
    I am familiar with every trick.

    Why do people have to use these tricks?
    It is the only way they can deal with info they do not want to acknowledge.
    And yet each time they think that the trick is fresh and new.

  124. Steve says:

    John,
    Have you gone to the the Dallas County Clerks page? Yes or No?

  125. John says:

    Steve tries another old trick. Why does he trot them out – one by one.
    The tactic here is that somehow he pretends he can impose an obligation on me, and I have to respond.
    What a laugh.

    Can anyone take a handwritten signature and produce the aliased, single-color effect we see in “unham Obama”?
    How about you, Pat Linse? You started this discussion.

  126. Steve says:

    John,
    The Dallas County Clerk has ample evidence of aliased single color original signatures.
    Did you view them, YES OR NO?

    If you are unwilling to even look at evidence this by itself proves you do not want to view anything that may counter your politically motivated conspiracy theories. Either put up or shut up.
    Did you look at the Dallas County Clerk scans?
    Yes or No John. its pretty simple.

  127. Steve says:

    “somehow he pretends he can impose an obligation on me, and I have to respond.”

    Wow, the irony is so, sooooo rich.

  128. John says:

    Steve does not seem to understand that we cannot just look at a document and the signature on it and come to any conclusion, unless we know how the the document was created.
    That is why I have asked for someone (anyone) to actually take a handwritten signature and generate the effect we see in the “unham Obama” and tell us the settings they used.

    If it is a simple matter to produce the aliased, single-color effect we see in “unham Obama”, then go ahead and produce it. And tell us the settings you used. But nobody has.

    People here do everything else except duplicate the result, for us all to see.

  129. Steve says:

    John,
    Legal documents like deeds and mortgages require an original signature. In fact, the job of a Clerk is to compile this data in one place and make sure original signatures are on them. Most clerks are also notaries. Ergo, a scanned document from a Clerks office for official legal documentation will be scanned from an original signature.
    You are trying your best to claim these are not signatures, but they are, and they fulfill your request for a scanned original signature aliased single color.
    Thus, once AGAIN:
    Please provide us with your proof that this will result in an event greater than Watergate. Please provide additional proof other than rambling links to some conspiracy nut’s web page. This needs to be proof supported by actual real media outlets or supporting documentation such as government clerk links, public documents, or academic historical archives.

  130. John says:

    Looking at the County Clerk’s signatures why are none of them (or any part of them) anti-aliased and multi-colored like the “Ann D” part of the mom’s signature on Obama’s birth certificate?

  131. Steve says:

    Actually, some of them are. It really depends on the ink, scanner, paper, etc. The separated elements are an element of processing the certificate in Adobe Illustrator as the Freepers pointed out in my links above.

    But thats beside the point, you specifically claimed earlier that
    “That is what I have been pointing out.
    Can anyone take a signature and produce that aliased, single-color effect?”

    You JUST claimed “why are none of them (or any part of them) anti-aliased and multi-colored like the “Ann D” part “, indicating you affirm that the rest are alaised and single color.

    By your own admission and criteria, your argument for forgery has been disproven.

  132. John says:

    As I have said – we do not know the history of the scanning etc of the County Clerk.
    If you know it please tell us.
    Was it scanned as a bitmap? Was it scanned as a pdf?
    Was it optimized? Was it put through OCR?
    You do not know. That is why we cannot learn from it.
    How many times do we need to go over this?

  133. Steve says:

    But all of that does not matter because we do not know how Obama’s birth certificate was scanned.
    The visual artifacts on his scanned certificate are probable and repeatable artifacts. You have now seen how anti aliased and aliased signatures can show up from scans.
    You have been shown how Adobe Illustrator in an effort to optimize will pull out letters in words seemingly at random.
    With no other evidence (which I have asked you multiple times to present but so far has been lacking) you must assume that the certificate is an original.

    So, at this point, your claim for proof of “aliased single color unham” has been recreated. Now you are trying to change your tune. The proof you asked for has been presented. If you had any other issues, you should have brought them up before, but you did not. You waited until what you were sure could not be disproved was disproven and now you are reshaping your argument.

    Shame on you John. This is CLASSIC conspiracy theory. Once a seemingly insurmountable argument is disproven, the conspiracy theorist changes the argument to something different in an effort to not be proven wrong.
    You are wrong, John. You are wrong.

  134. Steve says:

    John,
    Once AGAIN:
    Please provide us with your proof that this will result in an event greater than Watergate. Please provide additional proof other than rambling links to some conspiracy nut’s web page. This needs to be proof supported by actual real media outlets or supporting documentation such as government clerk links, public documents, or academic historical archives.

  135. Steve says:

    >How many times do we need to go over this?

    Umm, this is the first time you have brought this up.

  136. John says:

    I repeat my questions:
    As I have said – we do not know the history of the scanning etc of the County Clerk.
    If you know it please tell us.
    Was it scanned as a bitmap? Was it scanned as a pdf?
    Was it optimized? Was it put through OCR?
    You do not know. That is why we cannot learn from it.
    How many times do we need to go over this?

    Can someone take a handwritten signature and produce the aliased, single-color effect like we see in the “unham Obama”?
    Looking at other documents when we do not know the history of those documents is not any help.
    But if you can duplicate the effect, then we can settle this issue.
    But not even Pat Linse has been able to do that.

  137. Steve says:

    Wow, after having been proven wrong and even admitting that what you see is what you see, you go right back to the previous claim.
    You are lying to yourself. You will accept no proof that counters your politically motivated conspiracy. If you went back in time and saw Obama’s mother signing the form you would want even more proof. Nothing will change this until you admit that maybe there is no conspiracy and Obama was born in Hawai’i. You are so full of vile and rage against the President that it has clouded every last bit of logical processing you have.
    But as long as you continue your ranting posts, I will continue to counter you. At this point, countering anything you say is pointless, so future posts may either be direct counters to ignorant and illogical statements you make, or simple demands for your “further proof of conspiracy”.

  138. John says:

    Steve is pretending not to get it.
    Anyone else interested in contributing?
    Perhaps Pat Linse could provide a handwritten signature that produces an aliased, single-color effect like we see in the “unham Obama”.

    If nobody can duplicate the effect, then we can conclude that the signature has been tampered with.

  139. Steve says:

    All of your requests have been fulfilled, but now you change what you want. You are a conspiracy nut who wishes to willingly remain ignorant and no amount of evidence will dissuade you. This is obviously not a forgery despite your darnedest efforts. Next time, you might want to not simply trust some guy on the internet who posts a video “proving” what you want to hear.

    Please provide us with your proof that this will result in an event greater than Watergate. Please provide additional proof other than rambling links to some conspiracy nut’s web page. This needs to be proof supported by actual real media outlets or supporting documentation such as government clerk links, public documents, or academic historical archives.

  140. John says:

    Well not much point in posting here since nobody can provide the simple evidence that I have been requesting.
    And listening to Steve’s run around and excuses is getting tiresome.

  141. Steve says:

    John,
    You have been shown what you asked for, but you decided to move the goal posts. Not my fault that your logic was beyond faulty. At this point its like the scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail where the Black Knight keeps fighting.

    Your arguments have been crushed and you have not even once provided anything else to help your argument other than complaining that the evidence shown is not enough.

  142. homosaps says:

    Please explain the unarguable different fonts. Please explain the small capital “M” in P.M. etc. There are multiple internet citations and analysis of this observation. Google ’em and rebut. The different fonts can not be explained by any history of simple document processing.

    Cheers,

  143. Steve says:

    You’re seriously asking why there is a typo? For real? On a document produced from back in the age when documents were typed on typewriters? You are right, I have NO reasonable explanation for a typo. None. There is NO WAY a typo could exist on a document. Or that someone noticed a form was not completed fully, and used another typewriter to fix it. None. No way. I have been proven so wrong. Guess I’ll vote for Romney when I get a copy of his birth certificate.

  144. Mrs. C. says:

    I once had a guy like John at my house who thought that if he said the same thing over and over, but louder each time, that eventually I would say “You’re absolutely brilliant and I believe everything you say now”. Eventually I handed him a bag of tomatoes from my garden and asked him to never come back. It was very effective.

Get eSkeptic

Science in your inbox every Wednesday!

eSkeptic delivers great articles, videos, podcasts, reviews, event announcements, and more to your inbox once a week.

Sign me up!

Donate to Skeptic

Please support the work of the Skeptics Society. Make the world a more rational place and help us defend the role of science in society.

FREE Video Series

Science Based Medicine vs. Alternative Medicine

Science Based Medicine vs. Alternative Medicine

Understanding the difference could save your life! In this superb 10-part video lecture series, Harriet Hall, M.D., contrasts science-based medicine with so-called “complementary and alternative” methods. The lectures each range from 32 to 45 minutes.

FREE PDF Download

Top 10 Myths of Terrorism

Is Terrorism an Existential Threat?

This free booklet reveals 10 myths that explain why terrorism is not a threat to our way of life or our survival.

FREE PDF Download

The Top 10 Weirdest Things

The Top Ten Strangest Beliefs

Michael Shermer has compiled a list of the top 10 strangest beliefs that he has encountered in his quarter century as a professional skeptic.

FREE PDF Download

Reality Check: How Science Deniers Threaten Our Future (paperback cover)

Who believes them? Why? How can you tell if they’re true?

What is a conspiracy theory, why do people believe in them, and why do they tend to proliferate? Why does belief in one conspiracy correlate to belief in others? What are the triggers of belief, and how does group identity factor into it? How can one tell the difference between a true conspiracy and a false one?

FREE PDF Download

The Science Behind Why People See Ghosts

The Science Behind Why People See Ghosts

Do you know someone who has had a mind altering experience? If so, you know how compelling they can be. They are one of the foundations of widespread belief in the paranormal. But as skeptics are well aware, accepting them as reality can be dangerous…

FREE PDF Download

Top 10 Myths About Evolution

Top 10 Myths About Evolution (and how we know it really happened)

If humans came from apes, why aren’t apes evolving into humans? Find out in this pamphlet!

FREE PDF Download

Learn to be a Psychic in 10 Easy Lessons

Learn to do Psychic “Cold Reading” in 10
Easy Lessons

Psychic readings and fortunetelling are an ancient art — a combination of acting and psychological manipulation.

Copyright © 1992–2017. All rights reserved. The Skeptics Society | P.O. Box 338 | Altadena, CA, 91001 | 1-626-794-3119. Privacy Policy.