Possible Forged Obama Birth Certificate? Can Forensics Help?

This issue has been in the news lately. Perhaps other members are curious, as I was, about the actual report (or whatever was available), as well as a link to the PDF in question. Here's what I've found

http//www.mcso.org/MultiMedia/PressRelease/Media%20Supplemental%20Report.pdf
(30 page technical report, file properties creation date of 7/14/2012)

and

http//www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf

If anyone is aware of additional technical links (e.g., an independent forensic analysis), please share?

Fwiw, I couldn't care less about the politics; I'm a Canadian. But this case is an interesting document authentication case and I'm surprised there isn't more discussion about it, purely from that standpoint.

Scott,

Whether we call it a counterfeit or forgery or just a fabricated document, any analysis has to start with a comparison with something genuine. The problem here is that this was a very simple investigation that could have been done without the aid of computer forensics.

If you were born in Hawaii or claimed to have been born in Hawaii, how would that claim had been properly investigated? I'm sure they have a printout someplace that would make it very easy. Let's say that you claimed to have been born in Hawaii but we suspect that you actually may have been born in Canada. We want to go further.

To put this in perspective, you have to go back to the 1960s (and well past that in many jurisdictions.) The practice was to photograph the original (remember this is an analog).

The original would be stored in a secure archive for a number of years. More importantly, common practice was to make two sets of microfilm, one to be retained locally and a second to the housed in a secure ideally fireproof location) .

These rolls of microfilm containing thousands of photographs of original documents. In this case thousands of photographs of birth certificates. The beauty of the system was/is that each document is tied down to a time line. The custodian of those birth certificates numbers each one chronologically. If a picture is out of chronological order, the investigator immediately sees an anomaly that requires an explanation.

Let's assume that the documents are all in proper numerical order. In most if not all, jurisdictions there would be a date-timestamp. It should also be tested for reasonableness. I say that because the machine that numbers the document might be different than the machine that prints the date and time stamp. In addition, birth certificates flow into the repository that houses them from different facilities. Because of that, the dates of birth and hour birth cannot be expected to flow without some noticeable glitches. However, the father a particular picture gets out of sequence, the closer it should be examined.

You have to remember that all of the infants whose names appear on both certificates will some day be adults who can be interviewed and checked out as to their bona fides. I say this because it is theoretically possible for a skilled operator to fabricate an entire roll of birth certificates. It would not be easy but it would be possible. Let's say for example that you wanted to put your birth certificate microfiche into such a reel. It would have to splice it in and be sure the numbers were in sequence or as close needed and you also have to make sure that the people whose birth certificates were adjacent to yours were real people who could be interviewed. In other words you couldn't put together such a fabrication with 50 closest friends. This would make the whole fabrication extremely difficult. Of course if you're splicing in microfiche you have to do a seamless job and do it with film that has the same chemical composition as 1964 film.

Unlike the fabricator, you as the investigator you have an easy job. You look at the film you look at the adjacent sequence numbers and dates and times and if nothing appears out of line you could say it's genuine. But what if your SUBJECTS birth certificate does not appear on the microfilm? Under the circumstances that's a real problem. An easy test that noone was permitted to run. Why?

If regular roll of microfilm looks OK, but you are still a doubter, you can look at the backup roll of microfilm. And of course you could always check "the original", but that is a lot easier to fabricate and when you think about it, that is what the WH proffered.

The point is that under the old system it was a piece of cake to check out a birth certificate, to see if it were genuine. There is nothing that precludes that type of examination today - except politics. In fact the only real issue is whether Obama's birth certificate is on the 1964 roll of microfilm.

Now, a digital document is being proffered. One thing we know at the outset is that while it might be a close approximation, it is not the original nor could it be called a forensic copy of the original. I'm not a document examiner, but I've never seen a document examiner who will say that a document of this type is fabricated without being able to compare it with an original.

If you were born in Hawaii and you requested a copy of your birth certificate, the microfilm would be used as a source. Although color film was used for many things in those days it was not used for microfilming documents it was just too expensive and too difficult to work with. You would have received a black and white copy.

With that in mind, I have to wonder why the document that was proffered by the White House had a green digital overlay. I don't know what color the hard copy original was. It may well have had green shading. Or someone might have taken it upon themselves to make it pretty. But as I say photographing the original is not the way it is normally done and certainly it does an end run around the rigid controls inherent in roll of microfilm.

Getting back to your original question - I don't see how any competent examination can be made of the document proffered by the White House. There we are starting with a digital production that we know by definition is different from the original. As I've tried to point out there are easy and reliable ways to verify a birth certificate. The fact that the White House has gone through such gyrations to make it difficult, makes it easy to understand why so many people suspect chicanery.

I'll even tie that to the president's failure to release his college transcripts. I don't think that's because he got bad grades. I assume in Canada that when a child is first enrolled in school his date and place of birth is recorded. That information follows him into high school and I would assume in the case of the president, into college. If so, that's a pretty good reason not to release his college transcripts.

Scott,

Whether we call it a counterfeit or forgery or just a fabricated document, any analysis has to start with a comparison with something genuine. The problem here is that this was a very simple investigation that could have been done without the aid of computer forensics.

If you were born in Hawaii or claimed to have been born in Hawaii, how would that claim had been properly investigated? I'm sure they have a printout someplace that would make it very easy. Let's say that you claimed to have been born in Hawaii but we suspect that you actually may have been born in Canada. We want to go further.

To put this in perspective, you have to go back to the 1960s (and well past that in many jurisdictions.) The practice was to photograph the original (remember this is an analog).

The original would be stored in a secure archive for a number of years. More importantly, common practice was to make two sets of microfilm, one to be retained locally and a second to the housed in a secure ideally fireproof location) .

These rolls of microfilm containing thousands of photographs of original documents. In this case thousands of photographs of birth certificates. The beauty of the system was/is that each document is tied down to a time line. The custodian of those birth certificates numbers each one chronologically. If a picture is out of chronological order, the investigator immediately sees an anomaly that requires an explanation.

Let's assume that the documents are all in proper numerical order. In most if not all, jurisdictions there would be a date-timestamp. It should also be tested for reasonableness. I say that because the machine that numbers the document might be different than the machine that prints the date and time stamp. In addition, birth certificates flow into the repository that houses them from different facilities. Because of that, the dates of birth and hour birth cannot be expected to flow without some noticeable glitches. However, the father a particular picture gets out of sequence, the closer it should be examined.

You have to remember that all of the infants whose names appear on both certificates will some day be adults who can be interviewed and checked out as to their bona fides. I say this because it is theoretically possible for a skilled operator to fabricate an entire roll of birth certificates. It would not be easy but it would be possible. Let's say for example that you wanted to put your birth certificate microfiche into such a reel. It would have to splice it in and be sure the numbers were in sequence or as close needed and you also have to make sure that the people whose birth certificates were adjacent to yours were real people who could be interviewed. In other words you couldn't put together such a fabrication with 50 closest friends. This would make the whole fabrication extremely difficult. Of course if you're splicing in microfiche you have to do a seamless job and do it with film that has the same chemical composition as 1964 film.

Unlike the fabricator, you as the investigator you have an easy job. You look at the film you look at the adjacent sequence numbers and dates and times and if nothing appears out of line you could say it's genuine. But what if your SUBJECTS birth certificate does not appear on the microfilm? Under the circumstances that's a real problem. An easy test that noone was permitted to run. Why?

If regular roll of microfilm looks OK, but you are still a doubter, you can look at the backup roll of microfilm. And of course you could always check "the original", but that is a lot easier to fabricate and when you think about it, that is what the WH proffered.

The point is that under the old system it was a piece of cake to check out a birth certificate, to see if it were genuine. There is nothing that precludes that type of examination today - except politics. In fact the only real issue is whether Obama's birth certificate is on the 1964 roll of microfilm.

Now, a digital document is being proffered. One thing we know at the outset is that while it might be a close approximation, it is not the original nor could it be called a forensic copy of the original. I'm not a document examiner, but I've never seen a document examiner who will say that a document of this type is fabricated without being able to compare it with an original.

If you were born in Hawaii and you requested a copy of your birth certificate, the microfilm would be used as a source. Although color film was used for many things in those days it was not used for microfilming documents it was just too expensive and too difficult to work with. You would have received a black and white copy.

With that in mind, I have to wonder why the document that was proffered by the White House had a green digital overlay. I don't know what color the hard copy original was. It may well have had green shading. Or someone might have taken it upon themselves to make it pretty. But as I say photographing the original is not the way it is normally done and certainly it does an end run around the rigid controls inherent in roll of microfilm.

Getting back to your original question - I don't see how any competent examination can be made of the document proffered by the White House. There we are starting with a digital production that we know by definition is different from the original. As I've tried to point out there are easy and reliable ways to verify a birth certificate. The fact that the White House has gone through such gyrations to make it difficult, makes it easy to understand why so many people suspect chicanery.

I'll even tie that to the president's failure to release his college transcripts. I don't think that's because he got bad grades. I assume in Canada that when a child is first enrolled in school his date and place of birth is recorded. That information follows him into high school and I would assume in the case of the president, into college. If so, that's a pretty good reason not to release his college transcripts.

You have to remember that all of the infants whose names appear on both certificates will some day be adults who can be interviewed and checked out as to their bona fides. I say this because it is theoretically possible for a skilled operator to fabricate an entire roll of birth certificates. It would not be easy but it would be possible. Let's say for example that you wanted to put your birth certificate microfiche into such a reel. It would have to splice it in and be sure the numbers were in sequence or as close needed and you also have to make sure that the people whose birth certificates were adjacent to yours were real people who could be interviewed. In other words you couldn't put together such a fabrication with 50 closest friends. This would make the whole fabrication extremely difficult. Of course if you're splicing in microfiche you have to do a seamless job and do it with film that has the same chemical composition as 1964 film.

Without - in any way - wanting to adhere to any theory and particularly to any "conspiracy theory" 😯 , I would presume that the President of the United States of America has the possibilities (meaning technical skills, resources, money and more widely "power") through FBI, CIA, NSA and/or whatever other Government agency to "forge" all Hawai microfilm rolls, wherever thay are stored, both "original" and "backup" copy, from (say) 1959 to 1963 in such a way that noone will ever be able to distinguish them from the original, either by doing a "good forgey job" or simply preventing to anyone else to access the originals for comparison or even simplier providing more forged "originals" for the comparison.
And, should this has happened roll , it is likely that it will come out in (maybe) 25 years from now
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declassification
more likely in 50 or even 75 years.
This thread will then become useful to some good guys on a historians' forum…. wink

jaclaz

As you know those reels are very long. The number 16,000 frames comes to mind. But as you say, it is not impossible. Two weak points

1. Finding 16,000 live people and making birth certificates for them and getting them not to talk.
2. Finding or fabricating the right 50 year old film.

As you know those reels are very long. The number 16,000 frames comes to mind. But as you say, it is not impossible. Two weak points

1. Finding 16,000 live people and making birth certificates for them and getting them not to talk.
2. Finding or fabricating the right 50 year old film.

I am clearly missing a point ? .
I can see clearly how there is a need for fabricating (or finding) the right 50 year old film, something that I would think not that difficult (not for you, me or 50 friends but for any of the most powerful Government agencies in the world), BTW something similar (find some "ordinary", not "microfilm" "vintage" film reel and making a fake video on it or claiming to have an original video) has been done, with a certain degree of success by a bunch of "ordinary guys", and the actual footage was *somewhat* less "credible" than whether a guy was born here or there
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_autopsy

But I fail to see the need for the 16,000 people (and BTW why they should be alive), I mean it is more easier to recreate (say) 15,999 frames exactly identical to the original ones and kill 😯 one of the people born on August 4 1961 (and - if needed - all his/her parents/relatives and friends ) or possibly - since we are in a pure *fantasy* realm, kill 😯 a few more people born on 3rd and/or 5th of August to have records in the right order.
If the forgery is well done the only way to disprove it would be someone coming out with either an original paper or a photograph of document 151-61-10641 BUT containing another name, in which case this latter evidence would be the one that would be called a "fake".
On the other hand, how many people were born in Honolulu in the first few days of August 1961?
Maybe someone was killed by accident or illness as a child and has not anymore parents/relatives alive, and it could be "impersonated", another idea already seen wink
http//www.imdb.com/title/tt0091203/quotes?qt=qt0337072

jaclaz

Whether we call it a counterfeit or forgery or just a fabricated document, any analysis has to start with a comparison with something genuine.

Alan, I think I understand your position, but I don't agree with it. Sure, it would be great to have an "original" roll of microfilm (or microfiche as the case may be), so that a direct comparison can be made with the WH PDF document. However, I believe useful analysis can still be performed in the absence of microfilm; it simply limits the conclusions that can be reached. We start with what we have.

Some years ago, I was asked to respond to an affidavit from opposing counsel's expert calling into question the authenticity of a printed email. The other expert, a PhD in computer science, described several features of the email as being unusual and unlikely, leading him to believe it was fabricated. I compared it to the output of Incredimail and found it matched (in form) perfectly. Neither of us had additional evidence that might have made a convincing case one way or the other – either the evidence being consistent with it having been sent, or not. All he had was a suspicion, and its bases were easily explained. Of course, whether or not it was fabricated tells us nothing as to the accuracy of its contents, which while of vital interest to the parties, was beyond the scope of our analysis. Judging that was really up to the trier of fact.

So…, I see similarities in the fact pattern. There's a file and an analyst has said it has characteristics that make him suspect that it's a composition and not a scan. I don't think it's unreasonable for forensic analysts to look closely at the report and the WH PDF file and see if we concur. If, for example, someone recognizes the characteristics of this PDF as being just like the output of some obscure scanning product/service, that would be of significant interest to those following the case. Or is there already widespread consensus that this PDF was composed instead of scanned? I'm just curious.

I found another couple of interesting links.

1) Snopes reports as "False" the following claim "Barack Obama's birth certificate is a forgery." Snopes says "a leading software expert says there's no doubt about its authenticity, and he dismisses claims of fraud as flat-out wrong."

http//www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/birthcertificate.asp

2) However, the "leading software expert" in the article they quoted felt he was misquoted and clarified his position

"I never thought that what I saw in the Birth Certificate PDF was a proof of its authenticity. For me, what I have seen does not prove that it is legit, nor that it is a fake, nor that there has been any tampering whatsoever. The title of the blog* does not represent my conclusion. It would be unprofessional and simplistic within my area of competence to come to a conclusion one way or the other."

* The post was titled "Expert No Doubt Obama's Birth Certificate Is Legit" (Note that Tremblay disavows this conclusion.)

http//www.proficiografik.com/2011/05/02/rectifications-regarding-obama-birth-certificate-pdf-validity-foxnews.html

In other words, Snopes "debunks" a claim based on an expert who takes no position one way or the other. Fascinating.

I found another couple of interesting links.
….

http//www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/birthcertificate.asp

….
Fascinating.

The Snopes link contain a "presumably authentic" birth certificate of someone born on August 5, 1961.
It is signed by the "informant" on August 7, 1961.
It is signed by the "attendant" on August 11, 1961.
Accepted by registry on August 11, 1961.
Document is 151-61-10637.

The Mr. Obama's certificate says he is born on August 4, 1961.
It is signed by the "informant" on August 7, 1961.
It is signed by the "attendant" on August 8, 1961.
Accepted by registry on August 8, 1961.
Document is 151-61-10641.

Since both documents are signed by the "informant" on August 7, 1961, it is well possible that this happened on the same day, earlier for the other person and later for Mr.Obama, independentlly from the date of birth.

But it would be interesting to know how exactly the procedure worked in Honolulu (and in 1961) as at first sight it looks "queer" that a document with a higher serial number is registered three days earlier than another one.
It is as well "strange" that two documents signed by the "informant" on the same day are signed by the "attendant" with three days difference, since we are talking about two documents only 4 numbers apart.

BUT, before anyone calls for conspiracy, I find it perfectly normal if the procedure is/was the following

• the parent or "informant" signs the form
• the MD or "attendant", as soon as he/she has some time, signs the form
• as soon as both signatures are present, the form is presented for registering, and it is filed/registered immediately

As a matter of fact I find it a (very indirect) sign of the authenticity, if it was a forgery, it would have been more likely that there would have been not such a slight (though perfectly possible) inconsistency.

jaclaz

As a matter of fact I find it a (very indirect) sign of the authenticity, if it was a forgery, it would have been more likely that there would have been not such a slight (though perfectly possible) inconsistency.

Agreed. I find nothing unusual about the chain of events as reported. There are lots of plausible explanations for the minor seeming discrepancies.

I'm really a lot more interested in the analysis of the PDF, and apparently, the presence of multiple layers within the PDF is expected behavior as a result of optimization, though that alone is insufficient to pronounce its authenticity with confidence. If else has experience with the nuances of optimization (e.g., the white halo around text, differences in text color, etc.), I'd be interested to hear about it, but somehow I doubt we're going to get much further. It would be one thing if the layers seemed have been created for the purpose of composition, but they don't, so I find the optimization explanation more persuasive at this point.