Over on TexasDarlin in the Birth Certificate: Obama, Soetoro, or Dunham? post, Polarik posts his claim that the DeCosta COLB was used as the template for creating the Kos COLB.
I tried posting a response to this illustrating why it’s pretty clear that the DeCosta COLB could not have been the template for the Kos COLB. However TexasDarlin did not allow this post to be made public.
What is TexasDarlin hiding? Why would she not want her readers to see a legitimate rebuttal to Polarik’s claims? One may only speculate. Is she actually an operative for the Obama campaign? Is it all just one big set-up? Fueling the fires of wild speculation so that when the time is right (say, just before the Democratic convention in August) the Obama campaign can disprove it all and in the process discredit all of the die-hard Hillary supporters?
Again, one may only speculate.
So for the record, here is my rebuttal to Polarik. Perhaps someone here can provide an answer as to why such a rebuttal was considered unfit for TexasDarlin’s readers:
Polarik
The Kos image depicts a full-sized COLB document that was placed flat against the scanner glass before copying.
The geneology COLB image (whose owner is pissed that people are using her mother’s COLB) depicts a less than full-size COLB document that was not placed flat against the scanner glass before copying.
The geneology COLB document appears to be shorter in the scanned image of it because its two large folds kept it from being stretched flat against the glass.
Meanwhile, the Kos COLB “document” has only one thin fold that apparently did not affect its height as shown in the scanned image of it.
How can one COLB, whose image height is measurably shorter than normal, be the mirror image of another COLB, whose image height is exactly normal?
Because it’s not the mirror image.
In spite of the DeCosta COLB not being laid quite flat when it was scanned, the height of its border is actually greater than the height of the Kos border.
Here is a composite image of the DeCosta image overlaid on the Kos image with the DeCosta image set to approximately 50% transparency:
As you can see, when the width of the two borders are matched, the height of the DeCosta border is greater than the height of the Kos image.
Also, the vertical alignment of the text gets worse and worse as you progress down the image, until it’s quite bad by the time you get to “OHSM 1.1…”
Further, the kerning in “STATE OF HAWAII” doesn’t match. W, A, I and I get progressively out of alignment.
And while up at the top “CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH” matches well, at the bottom, the “ANY ALTERATIONS…” in the DeCosta image is significantly wider than in the Kos image.
Interestingly, the same things holds true if you overlay the DeCosta COLB on the Smith COLB.
There is only one way that this could happen, and that is if a person created the Kos COLB image using the geneology COLB image as its “template.”
I don’t see how the DeCosta COLB could have been used as the “template” for the Kos COLB given that the borders don’t share the same aspect ratios, the kerning doesn’t match up in certain areas, the vertical alignment of the text isn’t consistent nor in one case is the width consistent.
Actually the Smith COLB is a closer mirror image to the Obama COLB than the DeCosta COLB.
The borders have virtually the same aspect ratios, the kerning isn’t off, the vertical alignment of the text is much closer, the “ANY ALTERATIONS…” match up, etc.
What are the chances that the DeCosta COLB was used as a template, but the forgers did such a lousy job overlaying the text on the DeCosta COLB that it actually ended up being a near perfect match for a completely different COLB?
k
Koyaan's Weblog 
29 comments
Comments feed for this article
July 31, 2008 at 8:50 am
rayinaus
Also, the vertical alignment of the text gets worse and worse as you progress down the image, until it’s quite bad by the time you get to “OHSM 1.1…
How would it look if the KOS version had the text at 101% of the COLB size (from “Child’s Name” downwards) — to compensate for the 99% at which it was actually made?
July 31, 2008 at 9:39 am
koyaan
Where does your 99% figure come from?
k
July 31, 2008 at 9:48 am
rayinaus
I’ve mentioned it before in several places. The 2007 COLB had the text reduced to 99% so it would fit with the new 2007 border.
July 31, 2008 at 9:59 am
koyaan
I’ve mentioned it before in several places. The 2007 COLB had the text reduced to 99% so it would fit with the new 2007 border.
And this seems to be speculation on your part. What proof do you have?
k
July 31, 2008 at 10:19 am
rayinaus
I’ve already shown you the perfect vertical line-up with only 0.2% variation sideway. Have you forgotten or don’t you want to believe what you see?
July 31, 2008 at 11:10 am
koyaan
It’s not a question of believing what one sees. Rather, it’s a question of whether or not what one sees is in fact indicative of the truth.
k
July 31, 2008 at 11:19 am
rayinaus
There’s nothing to argue about. The 2007 COLB text was in fact 99% of the normal size and no amount of word-smithing alters it.
July 31, 2008 at 12:21 pm
koyaan
First, what exactly is your reference for “normal” given that all we have to work with are IMAGES of COLBs, all from different sources?
Second, are you aware that the Obama COLB uses a different font from the Michele COLB? And since it’s not the same font, is it not inconceivable that the line spacing may be somewhat different, and that that’s what’s accounting for misalignment and not because the font size was changed?
I’m sorry, but I don’t yet see anything conclusive with respect to the size of the font having been changed.
k
July 31, 2008 at 3:52 pm
elliewyatt
k~
Ya got an overlay of Smith? I didn’t realize it was a better match. What year is Smith?
In the end, does it matter that Smith is a better match than DeCosta?
July 31, 2008 at 6:01 pm
koyaan
elliewyatt
Ya got an overlay of Smith? I didn’t realize it was a better match. What year is Smith?
Nothing already made. It’s kind of immaterial really, but if you’d like to see it, let me know and I’ll whip it up.
In the end, does it matter that Smith is a better match than DeCosta?
Only in the sense that Polarik’s claim is that the DeCosta image was used by the forgers as the template for the text when they made the Obama COLB.
My point, which addressed Polarik’s claim, was that a completely different COLB matched up better than the one he claims was used for the template.
Bottom line, because the DeCosta text doesn’t match up well with the Obama text (or the border for that matter), I don’t see that his claim holds any water.
Unless perhaps the forgers were blind. ;)
k
August 1, 2008 at 5:53 am
rayinaus
koyaan wrote:
And while up at the top “CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH” matches well, at the bottom, the “ANY ALTERATIONS…” in the DeCosta image is significantly wider than in the Kos image.
The narrower width of the KOS version for “ANY ALTERATIONS” is present because (like I keep saying) it was reduced to 99% in Hawaii when the template for the 2nd version of the 2007 Birth and Marriage certificates was made.
August 1, 2008 at 9:19 am
jackpee
I ran into a very similar situation on texasdarlin’s blog, too. I posted a rebuttal to her claim that Obama gained a dual citizenship of the US and Indonesia when he lived in Indonesia from the ages of roughly 5 to 9, which is impossible. Prior to 2006, Indonesia neither granted nor recognized dual citizenship. I posted all the relevant citations supporting this info from the Jakarta Press, but she won’t approve my comment. I put the whole thing up on my myspace blog and submitted it to Digg so it would be on public record. Check it out here, if you’re interested: http://digg.com/political_opinion/Texasdarlin_Obama_basher_can_t_take_the_heat
We can’t let her get away with disseminating this false propaganda and blocking any attempts to expose it as such. I think she’s one of those people that is so infuriated over Hillary not getting the nomination that she’d rather see McCain win. Either that, or she’s a Rush Limbaugh disciple claiming to be a Hillary supporter just to work the propaganda from an insider angle.
Thank you for posting your story here, Koyaan. I hope more people follow your cue and get their evidence out into the net if they’ve been censored.
August 1, 2008 at 6:44 pm
koyaan
rayinaus:
The narrower width of the KOS version for “ANY ALTERATIONS” is present because (like I keep saying) it was reduced to 99% in Hawaii when the template for the 2nd version of the 2007 Birth and Marriage certificates was made.
What are you talking about, Ray? The width of “ANY ALTERATIONS…” in the DeCosta image is wider than that in the Kos image by well more than 1%.
And what do you mean by the “2nd version of the 2007 Birth and Marraige certificates”? There is a 2007 COLB that was released just before Obama’s that’s identical to the 2008 Michele COLB.
So what are you saying? That they changed the design at some time in 2007, then changed it again around the time Obama’s was issued, and then some 10 months later changed it back again to what it was just before Obama’s was issued?
Also, you still haven’t remarked on the fact that the font is different in the Obama COLB and how that may relate to spacing issues with regard to the Michele COLB.
k
August 1, 2008 at 6:45 pm
koyaan
jackpee:
Thank you for posting your story here, Koyaan. I hope more people follow your cue and get their evidence out into the net if they’ve been censored.
You’re welcome. Though it should be noted that TexasDarlin’s blog IS hers to do with as she wishes and that no one else has any right to post there.
I just think it’s instructive what she allows and what she disallows.
k
August 2, 2008 at 12:28 am
rayinaus
koyaan wrote:
[Ray]: The narrower width of the KOS version for “ANY ALTERATIONS” is present because (like I keep saying) it was reduced to 99% in Hawaii when the template for the 2nd version of the 2007 Birth and Marriage certificates was made.
What are you talking about, Ray? The width of “ANY ALTERATIONS…” in the DeCosta image is wider than that in the Kos image by well more than 1%.
No it’s not. You’re only guessing. At some point it will pay to actually CHECK what I’ve been saying for weeks.
August 2, 2008 at 8:25 am
koyaan
No it’s not. You’re only guessing. At some point it will pay to actually CHECK what I’ve been saying for weeks.
No, I’m not guessing Ray.
When I match the widths of “ANY ALTERATIONS…” of Obama and DeCosta, then both the horizontal and vertical alignment of all the other text is way off.
And yet again you have not remarked on the fact that the font is different in the Obama COLB and how that may relate to spacing issues with regard to the Michele COLB.
k
August 2, 2008 at 9:43 am
rayinaus
koyaan wrote:
“When I match the widths of “ANY ALTERATIONS…” of Obama and DeCosta, then both the horizontal and vertical alignment of all the other text is way off.”
That is not what we were talking about. I said the KOS panel of “ANY ALTERATIONS” is 99% of normal size – which is why you see that difference between it an the DeCosta panel.
August 2, 2008 at 10:07 am
koyaan
That is not what we were talking about. I said the KOS panel of “ANY ALTERATIONS” is 99% of normal size – which is why you see that difference between it an the DeCosta panel.
And this just takes us back to another question you’ve ducked.
What’s your reference for “normal”?
k
August 2, 2008 at 11:07 am
rayinaus
Normal = all the font sizes and all the spacing in all the COLB’s except the 2nd version of 2007 – which was 99% of normal for all text from “Child’s Name” and below.
August 2, 2008 at 11:41 am
koyaan
And how exactly were you able to determine that given that the Obama COLB USES A DIFFERENT FONT!? (yet another question you have persistently dodged)
k
August 2, 2008 at 12:01 pm
rayinaus
Obama’s certificate hasn’t GOT a different font. It’s still a version of Arial.
August 2, 2008 at 12:14 pm
koyaan
Yes, it’s in the Arial family, but it’s NOT the same as used in the Michele COLB. It seems to be something between Arial and Ariel Narrow.
So now given that it’s not the same font, how are you able to determine that the spacing is due to scaling the font versus it being a different font?
k
August 2, 2008 at 1:53 pm
rayinaus
The font used in the KOS and all the other COLB’s is the same. It’s really only minimal tracking and/or kerning that’s different, but x-height, beard and line spacing is identical for any given font size – except as I keep saying, for the KOS version which was reduced to 99% for all the text from “Child’s Name” down.
August 2, 2008 at 1:58 pm
koyaan
The font used in the KOS and all the other COLB’s is the same. It’s really only minimal tracking and/or kerning that’s different…
No, Ray, it’s not.
Letters such as H are narrower, and letters such as C and O are more oblate.
It’s not the same font.
k
August 2, 2008 at 2:25 pm
rayinaus
No, those differences you’ve seen with a few characters (particularly the H) are just normal distortions caused by scanning and a course resolution.
August 2, 2008 at 2:34 pm
rayinaus
In the case of the “H” the graphics software has to decide whether the strongest coloured pixels are going to be placed to the left or right. That can make vertical strokes look out of place when the resolution is low.
August 2, 2008 at 2:37 pm
koyaan
No, those differences you’ve seen with a few characters (particularly the H) are just normal distortions caused by scanning and a course resolution.
Yet these same distortions by scanning and a course resolution that you say are responsible for significant differences in the text can’t account for the 1% difference you’ve been claiming was done by scaling the text?
k
August 2, 2008 at 2:41 pm
koyaan
rayinaus
In the case of the “H” the graphics software has to decide whether the strongest coloured pixels are going to be placed to the left or right. That can make vertical strokes look out of place when the resolution is low.
And it will do this consistently with all of the H’s? And also do it consistently with C’s, and O’, and N’s, etc. making them ALL narrower throughout the image?
k
August 2, 2008 at 3:04 pm
rayinaus
koyaan wrote:
“Yet these same distortions by scanning and a course resolution that you say are responsible for significant differences in the text can’t account for the 1% difference you’ve been claiming was done by scaling the text?
No, of course they can’t. I’ve already mentioned that the vertical spacing is identical and therefore tracking and kerning have no beraing on it, but you won’t ever believe it until you have a look at the KOS version the way I keep describing it — 99% of the whole panel from “Child’s Name” downwards.