Well… it’s out.
So far all he offers are a bunch of circles and squares mapped out on the Obama COLB which he claims are “remnants” of what was originally printed on the COLB before it was made into the Obama COLB (even going so far as to claiming that he has been able to recover the name of the person the COLB originally belonged to!), yet as with his first “report,” all he offers are low resolution images making it impossible to see exactly what it is he is seeing that he’s claiming to be the “remnants.”
He says he’s attached a ZIP file with a full resolution image, but as I write this, several hours after it’s been published, said ZIP file is nowhere to be found. I thought TexasDarlin said she works around the clock at this stuff?
Not much to say at this point.
k
Koyaan's Weblog 
21 comments
Comments feed for this article
August 3, 2008 at 9:16 pm
patgund
Give him time, he’s still in the process of forging it……
August 3, 2008 at 9:38 pm
koyaan
patgund
Give him time, he’s still in the process of forging it……
Hehehe. Well it would be easy enough to tell if he’s altered anything in the image.
k
August 4, 2008 at 1:04 am
koyaan
Well, we’ve still got zip as far as the ZIP file is concerned.
But I have found some stuff to comment on.
He emphasizes in his report that what he’s done is something anyone can do and all they need are a pair of eyes. To this end he walks the reader through the procedure.
After telling them to change the hue and adjust the contrast, he says:
Once that part is done simply zoom in to 400% magnification and simply start to look around the existing border pattern.
This is the first comment that struck me. Why start to look around the existing border pattern? Well, because that’s where he wants people to focus their attention. It’s really nothing more than misdirection, which I’ll get to in a moment.
Next he says:
Towards the top of the border on the left hand side you will see the remnants of a very small vertical line.
Well, yes, there are some pixels there which give the impression of a vertical line. Calling it a “remnant” is quite a stretch.
What’s interesting is that the length of this “very small vertical line” is 8 exactly pixels. What makes this interesting is that the JPEG algorithm processes an image in 8 pixel by 8 pixel blocks.
So is this really a remnant of a line? Well, if it is, then using the same criteria, there are a number of other remnants of small vertical lines very near to the small vertical line that Techdude points out.
Why are these excluded?
The short answer is that they have to be excluded in order for Techdude to make his case.
Moving on:
Circle it and keep looking for more. On the far right side towards the top of the border you will see a stray red pixel just outside of the border towards the edge of the paper. Circle that one too.
Ah, the dreaded stray pixel!
Actually, whatever it was, it was bigger than a pixel and was large enough that it effected the entire 8 x 8 pixel cell during JPEG processing. But that’s beside the point.
Here’s where it really starts to get interesting:
Of course this could go on for an hour circling and drawing boxes so I will skip to what you should see once you have gone through the entire image – at least 100 mapped points consisting of various flaws such as remnants of previously deleted vertical and horizontal lines, stray pixels, and areas where the background hatch pattern has been smudged by a touch-up tool.
After presumably going through the whole image, and just as presumably being guided solely by the flaws themselves, he stops once he’s found 100 of them (he says “it gets a bit ridiculous to keep looking for more once you hit 100”). He then maps these 100 flaws on the image.
And miracle of miracles, every last one of them turns up precisely where they’re supposed to be, meaning precisely in the places the border and text of the Michele COLB would occupy once it’s overlaid on the Obama image.
Very interesting.
And interesting too that he only found remnants of “previously deleted” horizontal and vertical lines and apparently no remnants of any previously deleted angled lines. Given that the total length of all the angled lines greatly exceeds the total length of the straight, horizontal and vertical lines, one would expect the result to be the other way around; finding remnants of “previously deleted” angled lines and no remnants of straight, horizontal and vertical lines.
Yes, very interesting.
Well, since that tiny little dot near the upper right corner, what Techdude calls a “stray pixel,” is supposed to be a remnant of what was originally printed on the COLB, I thought I’d look the image over myself for other “stray pixels.”
I didn’t bother changing the hue and contrast to supposedly make things more visible. I simply used the untouched Obama COLB from FactCheck. I circled them in red, and while I also circled a few other weirdities, they were mostly dots.
When I was finished, it looked like it had the fucking measles.
obamameasles.jpg
As you can see, they’re all over the place and random in nature. I don’t know exactly how many circles there are, but it’s quite a few. And you’ll also note that most of them are in areas where there is no border or text corresponding to the Michele COLB.
How could Techdude have missed all of these? They’re clearly visible even without tweaking the image.
The answer of course is that he didn’t miss them. He excluded them. Why? Because again, they had to be. He was only looking for what he thought he could try and pass off as “remnants” in the areas of the border and text of the Michele COLB once it was overlaid on the Obama COLB.
I’ll talk about the remnants of the lines and text tomorrow. But let me just say right now that I’m of the opinion that Techdude’s report wasn’t an analysis, it was a fabrication.
k
August 4, 2008 at 6:31 am
rayinaus
And it is THAT sort of gibberish – and nothing else, that made you question the authenticity of Obaba’s COLB.
August 4, 2008 at 9:56 am
koyaan
And it is THAT sort of gibberish – and nothing else, that made you question the authenticity of Obaba’s COLB.
No, Ray, it wasn’t. Grow up.
k
August 4, 2008 at 10:51 am
rayinaus
If it wasn’t the ranting of Polaraik and Techdude, then where did you get the idea that Obama’s COLB was forged?
August 4, 2008 at 12:22 pm
koyaan
If it wasn’t the ranting of Polaraik and Techdude, then where did you get the idea that Obama’s COLB was forged?
I didn’t. Grow up.
k
August 4, 2008 at 12:54 pm
koyaan
Ok, moving on (by the way, the full resolution image of Techdude’s “remnant” map still hasn’t been made available).
Let’s start with the very first “remnant” Techdude points out which he labels number 1 in his map.
Here’s a blow up of the area.
remnant1a.jpg
I’ve added a grid to delineate the 8 x 8 pixel cells that the JPEG codec breaks the image down into for processing and surrounded it with a red rectangle so show exactly what Techdude is calling a remnant of the original printing on the COLB.
As you can see, it’s just some pixels within a single cell which give the appearance of a vertical line.
So the question is, what differentiates this group of pixels to those I’ve surrounded in blue rectangles here?
remnant1b.jpg
They’re also just some pixels which give the appearance of a vertical line. What makes them different? Why didn’t Techdude map them as well?
Well, because they weren’t where he wanted them to be. He could only point out “flaws” that would be located in the same areas as the border and text of the Michele COLB once it was overlaid on the Obama COLB. So he had to ignore all of the other “flaws” that can be found throughout the image.
And that’s how this whole thing was fabricated. Just cherry picking what you want, and ignoring all the rest. The image is so full of the exact same “flaws” that Techdude is claiming to be “remnants” that by cherry picking them you could say there was originally a picture of Mr. Magoo on it.
I’ll touch on some more later.
k
August 4, 2008 at 1:08 pm
patgund
“And that’s how this whole thing was fabricated. Just cherry picking what you want, and ignoring all the rest. The image is so full of the exact same “flaws” that Techdude is claiming to be “remnants” that by cherry picking them you could say there was originally a picture of Mr. Magoo on it.”
This is from the Code of Ethics of the The International Society of Forensic Computer Examiners, which “TechDude” claims to be a member of:
Under WILL:
“Maintain the utmost objectivity in all forensic examinations and accurately present findings.”
Under WONT:
“Withhold any evidence that would tend to distort the truth.”
I might be wrong, but wouldn’t “cherry picking” the data put him in violation of the Code of Ethics that a ISFCE member has sworn to follow……….
August 4, 2008 at 1:09 pm
patgund
Oh, and that code of ethics can be found at:
http://www.isfce.com/ethics-form.htm
August 4, 2008 at 2:13 pm
patgund
And Dr. Neal Krawetz weighs in…..
http://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/210-Bad-Science-How-Not-To-Do-Image-Analysis.html
August 4, 2008 at 2:19 pm
koyaan
Just finished reading it.
‘Nuff said. ;)
k
August 4, 2008 at 2:34 pm
patgund
*laugh!*
Oh, and TechDude is offering a trip to Vegas
http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/08/04/techdude-challenge-all-the-images-i-have-so-far/
August 4, 2008 at 4:17 pm
patgund
In regards to “TechDude’s” little challenge, who has “Maya Soetoro” in the pool as to the “mystery name” supposedly on the COLB.
Especially since “TexasDarlin” and Larry Johnson have BOTH commented on such.
August 4, 2008 at 5:29 pm
koyaan
Techdude’s challenge wasn’t simply to name the name. He also said you had to map it out on the image as he had, provide screen shots, etc. It’s all TexasDarlin can do just to upload images. Don’t see her mapping things out, doing screen shots, etc.
Who’s Larry Johnson?
k
August 4, 2008 at 5:30 pm
koyaan
Oh, nevermind. The NoQuarter guy.
k
August 4, 2008 at 6:26 pm
patgund
*Chuckle* TexasDarlin is claiming someone in comments duplicated “TechDude”.
And – surprise surprise – the mystery name is Maya Kassandra Soetoro
“KG // August 4, 2008 at 8:45 pm
Holy crap. I’ve just duplicated the effort. It’s Maya’s – Maya Kassandra Soetoro. Her name fits perfectly in the artifacts.
So Techdude can check me, the “Y” in Maya comes down into the “D” of “Child’s Name” right into the middle of the top straight line part of the “D”, and penetrates the “D” by four pixels.”
I think this is like a “magic dot” picture – the people who believe are seeing what they want to see.
August 4, 2008 at 6:48 pm
koyaan
I think this is like a “magic dot” picture – the people who believe are seeing what they want to see.
Exactly. I just replied to John Q over at Neal’s blog explaining why I think people are seeing what they’re claiming to see.
Oh, and by the way, I’ve yet to see Techdude give any plausible explanation as to how the original laser printing was removed.
k
August 4, 2008 at 11:47 pm
rayinaus
What about this for his expalnation:
The background under the characters AND the heaps of artifacts around them were seamlessly reconstructed in a way that cannot be seen via conventional methods or with the sophisticated “JPG Error Analyser” which normally picks up any recent changes quite easily THEN the forger constructed a sufficient number of tell-tale “outline marks” around where the characters had been.
August 5, 2008 at 12:06 am
patgund
Damn.
I hate being right.
But I was. “Techdude’s” exclusive – he supposedly found Obama sister’s name on the COLB, just like I expected he would
http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/08/05/breaking-sister-mayas-birth-certificate-used-to-forge-obamas/
Can these jackasses be MORE transparent in the crap they’re trying to claim?
August 5, 2008 at 6:41 pm
rayinaus
I’m just wondering if we could see his sister’s name in one of those star maps.