Possible Forged Oba...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Possible Forged Obama Birth Certificate? Can Forensics Help?

21 Posts
8 Users
0 Likes
984 Views
(@sarasara)
Posts: 3
New Member
Topic starter
 

Hi Techs,

Leaving ALL politics aside I would be grateful if you could forensically examine the document enclosed here

(Selection of four of the many and varied technical videos on youtube dealing with the doc).

http//6aP8hE">www.youtube.com/watch?v=T86aP8hE

http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlUKqWqLTOI

http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlUKqWqLTOI

http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1Bfobwy7Hw

Also my question is Is it possible to identify individual artifacts in Adobe Illustrator and determine if those artifacts have been imported into the doc and perhaps even have a different http address? All your comments will be of interest.

Thanks,

sara

 
Posted : 07/05/2011 1:15 am
(@xennith)
Posts: 177
Estimable Member
 

Sure, I'll do it. But I dont work for free. Make me an offer.

 
Posted : 07/05/2011 1:31 am
(@sarasara)
Posts: 3
New Member
Topic starter
 

Sure, I'll do it. But I dont work for free. Make me an offer.

I ask everyone in the thread not to flame, abuse or politicise. This is purely a technical issue.

 
Posted : 07/05/2011 2:27 am
(@xennith)
Posts: 177
Estimable Member
 

Its not political to want to be paid for ones labours is it?

Nobody has any rights to my labour.

 
Posted : 07/05/2011 2:33 am
(@sarasara)
Posts: 3
New Member
Topic starter
 

Its not political to want to be paid for ones labours is it?

Nobody has any rights to my labour.

Then get a job this is a discussion forum

 
Posted : 07/05/2011 2:42 am
(@xennith)
Posts: 177
Estimable Member
 

I have a job, I am a forensic analyst. A bloody good one at that.

You want me to give you something for nothing, when will you liberals accept that you are not entitled to my money or my time. If you want me to do something then you pay me, this is how the free market works.

 
Posted : 07/05/2011 2:44 am
(@bithead)
Posts: 1206
Noble Member
 

Hi Techs,

Leaving ALL politics aside I would be grateful if you could forensically examine the document enclosed here

(Selection of four of the many and varied technical videos on youtube dealing with the doc).

http//6aP8hE">www.youtube.com/watch?v=T86aP8hE

http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlUKqWqLTOI

http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlUKqWqLTOI

http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1Bfobwy7Hw

Also my question is Is it possible to identify individual artifacts in Adobe Illustrator and determine if those artifacts have been imported into the doc and perhaps even have a different http address? All your comments will be of interest.

Thanks,

sara

I think the whole thing is silly, but I'll play along.

- There is nothing to examine other than some videos.
- Who knows what was done to the videos. They have been uploaded so they have been changed from the original. Examining the YouTube videos is even more pointless than examining the original videos.
- What document is there to examine? The original long form birth certificate?
- Where is the computer this document was allegedly created on?
- Do you even have access to the original? I am guessing not.

To your questions
Q. Is it possible to identify individual artifacts in Adobe Illustrator
A. Possible as long as you have the original document, computer, etc.

Q. and determine if those artifacts have been imported into the doc
A. Imported into which doc? An MS Word document? An Adobe Illustrator AI file? Something else?

Q. and perhaps even have a different http address?
A. Different than what http address?

If you were a paying client I would say save your money and put all this foolishness aside. If you like the current President vote for him again in a year and a half, if you do not like him what do you really think you can do in a year and a half? Overturn everything that has happened to date? Impeach him? Something else?

All right the fun is over.

 
Posted : 07/05/2011 5:09 am
(@twjolson)
Posts: 417
Honorable Member
 

Also my question is Is it possible to identify individual artifacts in Adobe Illustrator and determine if those artifacts have been imported into the doc and perhaps even have a different http address? All your comments will be of interest.

Why are you asking this? Your base assumption, that any analysis of any of the pictures of the birth certificate online would shed any light the original is severely flawed. At best, you could say that the video or image you analyzed was altered, and that says nothing about the original.

You say to not be political, but given the completely useless request, I can not help but wonder if you are preciously trying to troll others into a political flame war.

 
Posted : 07/05/2011 10:27 am
(@mscotgrove)
Posts: 938
Prominent Member
 

I think the last video is the least credible. I suspect that the scanner tried to match the closest font to what it saw. I am sure if you scanned a 1961 magazine you would get similar matches to modern fonts. Type setting in 60s was quite sophisticated. I have a thick book about 100 years old with pages of sample fonts.

As for the rest, there is no proof that nothing has been changed

 
Posted : 07/05/2011 2:38 pm
(@akaplan0qw9)
Posts: 69
Trusted Member
 

I believe that digital forensics will be able to do little to resolve the basic issue of the birth certificate.

One or two people who hold themselves out to be computer forensic examiners make a pretty good arguments that something happened to the document that does not seem normal.

However, I haven't seen any sort of a competent analysis that says that those alterations, were material to the substance of the document. Rather, there seems to be a consensus that such tinkering may have been an attempt to enhance the appearance and make it legible.

Normally, a document examination focuses upon a comparison between a known and questioned. In this case, all we know for sure is that we do not have a "known". We have a digital reproduction of something that purports to be the original.

I think too many are looking at this in the context of a recently produced document. That, in spite of the fact the original purports to be 50 years old.

I don't know if there were digitally produced documents 50 years ago. If there were, it certainly wasn't common practice.

I'm going to say that dirty word, "analog". I know that most on here believe in digital and put bread on the table working with digital. But we must admit that analog is the true representation and digital is at best a good estimate. One writer said, "As humans, we perceive the world in analog. Everything we see and hear is a continuous transmission of information to our senses. This continuous stream is what defines analog data. Digital information, on the other hand, estimates analog data using ones and zeros."

• In 1961 the procedure would have been to photograph the birth certificate and store it on microfilm . That was an analog presentation and the little squares we commonly refer to as pixels really didn't exist and if you put that film under a microscope you would see round Blobs that we referred to as grain.
• A second set of microfilm would have been stored at a remote location as insurance against loss by fire or other catastrophic event. Because storage space cost money the original birth certificate would have been destroyed.
• Color film and color processing was quite common but very expensive. I know of no jurisdiction that in 1961 routinely made color microfiche black and white was the norm. There is no reason to believe that records of the State of Hawaii were not maintained in a similar manner. The mere fact that the White House document appears in green, flags it as having been altered. But to what end? Probably, to make it look better. What
• Because the original document is no longer available we have to look to "the best evidence rule". In this instance the best evidence would be the microfilm. Now, there is the possibility that there was a routine conversion of the old analog records on microfilm to digital. I don't know if that happened in this case. I would hope that the original off-site microfilm was maintained. With the original microfilm we have the best of all worlds, a document locked on to a timeline both physically and sequentially. In other words if we had the microfilm we would see other births tied into it on the film and also see the health department sequence number that was given at that time. The questioned document should be there and all pieces of the puzzle should fit like a glove. The film should have no spices on it. Of course it's possible that a large section war an entire roll of microfilm was fabricated. That could easily be checked out by locating and interviewing the males (easier to locate than females) the males whose names appear on film near the Obama birth certificate.
• That's the way a proper investigation should be conducted. If all of the original microfilm has been destroyed, then and only then should we begin to look at the digital reproduction.

The thing to remember is that unless we start with the analog source (microfiche or less likely the original hard copy). We are starting with a digitally produced document. We are not starting with an original. At that juncture, it becomes a matter intent. Did the people who did the digital work intend to alter the document materially? Did they make material alterations?

The preponderance of examinations made by practitioners who used Adobe Illustrator seemed to say that the document had been altered. How significant is that? Remember they are starting with a digital document - a digital estimate of the original.

Although a number of analysis by Adobe Illustrator professionals all appear to the layman to be logical and scientifically based, the standard in Federal and many state courts as you know is "Daubert". Computer Forensic Examiners are quite familiar with Daubert and know the standard that must be met.

My guess is that the Adobe Illustrator examinations cannot pass muster under Daubert and as a consequence will be ruled inadmissible and labeled "junk science" by Obama supporters. I may be wrong, but I couldn't find any precedent for Adobe Illustrator being used as a forensic tool. (But, I didn't look very hard. That's lawyers work.)

The only relevant non Adobe Illustrator analysis that I've seen was conducted by an Israeli named Yona Flick who claims no expertise in the discipline. Obviously a professional document examiner is needed.
Commentary on Daubert (Why a real expert document examiner is needed.)
By requiring experts to provide relevant opinions grounded in reliable methodology, proponents of Daubert were satisfied that these standards would result in a fair and rational resolution of the scientific and technological issues which lie at the heart of product liability adjudication.[13]
Ironically, Daubert has not appeared to further the Federal Rules philosophy of admitting generally all relevant testimony, and specifically of relaxing the traditional barriers to 'opinion' testimony." The Daubert decision has instead been heralded by some political commentators as one of the most important Supreme Court decisions in imposing higher barriers for toxic tort and product liability cases, by allegedly reducing the volume of so-called junk science in the court room.
According to a 2002 RAND study, post Daubert, the percentage of expert testimony by scientists that was excluded from the courtroom significantly rose. This rise likely contributed to a doubling in successful motions for summary judgment in which 90% were against plaintiffs.[14] Beyond this study, there is little empirical evidence of the impact of Daubert. However, some critics argue that Daubert has disrupted the balance between plaintiffs and defendants, “The exclusion of expert testimony affects plaintiffs far more than defendants because plaintiffs may then not be able to meet their required burden of proof. Furthermore, there is little point in plaintiffs going to the expense of Daubert motions to exclude defendant’s experts until they know if their case will proceed. So if more experts are now being excluded, then Daubert has undoubtedly shifted the balance between plaintiffs and defendants and made it more difficult for plaintiffs to litigate successfully.”[3] Similarly, Daubert hearings can be subject to various abuses by attorneys attempting to bolster a weak case. These tactics can range from simply attempting to delay the case to driving up the costs of the litigation forcing settlement.[15]
A different pattern has emerged in criminal cases. In criminal cases, the prosecution has the burden of proof and uses a host of forensic science methods as evidence to prove their case. But, Daubert motions are rarely made by criminal defendants and when they do, they lose a majority of the challenges.[16][17] Some critics of the use of unreliable science in court argue that Daubert has had beneficial effects in civil litigation, but fails to address the underlying pathologies of the forensic science system that leads to dubious verdicts in criminal cases.[18]
Some commentators believe that Daubert caused judges to become—in the phrase used in former Chief Justice William Rehnquist’s dissent in Daubert—amateur scientists, many lacking the scientific literacy to effectively fulfill their role as gatekeeper of scientific evidence.[19] Although “science for judges” forums have emerged in the wake of Daubert in order to educate judges in a variety of scientific fields, many are still skeptical about the usefulness of the Daubert standard in discerning valid science.[20][21][22] The responsibility to assess scientific relevance has shifted from highly-trained expert witnesses to judges deficient in science education. The "Daubert" ruling furthermore admits the possible introduction of non-peer reviewed data and conclusions. This increasingly shifts the burden of scientific judgement onto judges who have not had an education which would enable them to properly evaluate such data.[23]
Pursuant to Rule 104(a), in Daubert the U.S. Supreme Court suggested that the following factors be considered[24]
1. Has the technique been tested in actual field conditions (and not just in a laboratory)? [e.g. fingerprinting has been extensively tested and verified not only in laboratory conditions, but even in actual criminal cases. So it is admissible. Polygraphy on the other hand has been well tested in laboratories but not so well tested in field conditions]
2. Has the technique been subject to peer review and publication?
3. What is the known or potential rate of error? Is it zero, or low enough to be close to zero?
4. Do standards exist for the control of the technique's operation? [e.g. the use of penile plethysmography for sex offender risk assessment is being used by different workers according to their own standards. Thus penile plethysmography does not meet Daubert criteria]
5. Has the technique been generally accepted within the relevant scientific community? [this test was earlier the only relevant criterion under Frye]
The Supreme Court explicitly cautioned that the Daubert list should not be regarded by judges as “a definitive checklist or test…” Yet in practice, judges have judged the admissibility of scientific evidence using the "Daubert factors" as a checklist; for example, the trial court judge in Kumho admitted to erroneously treating the factors as mandatory.
I don't argue that the Adobe Illustrator work does not have potential probative value. But it is only potential. Have any of those examinations proved that BHO was not born in the USA? If so, I haven't seen it. Right now, there is no evidence of a material alteration.
Make no mistake, if this thing ever gets legs it will end up in court (or in congress during an impeachment), if we don't have evidence that passes Daubert, we have nothing.
This is not a case for a computer forensics. It could all be resolved in about 20 minutes by looking at the official microfilm.

Alan M. Kaplan, ACE
Executive Director
Attorneys' Investigative Consultants
5841 E Charleston Blvd #230-140
Las Vegas, NV 89142
Phone 702-453-4500
Fax 702-438-8986
eMail AKaplan@LasVegasPI.com
http//www.lasvegaspi.com/
http//www.computerevidenceretrieval.com/
Nevada PI License # 220

 
Posted : 07/05/2011 4:27 pm
Page 1 / 3
Share: