Dr. Ron Pollard Fake
Dr. Ron Pollard August 13, 2011 at 11:44 pm (Quote) #
Dr. Conspiracy: ” Then perhaps you would be willing to share this “when and why” information. I am also confused by another point. You seem to be admitting in your comment here that the COLB the White House published on April 27 came from the Snopes.com server. If that is the case, what is all that material in the WND article (which I presume came from you) about the hits from Snopes.com to your Photobucket account in April? If Snopes linked to their own server, how does that translate to hits on your Photobucket site?”
Dr. Ron Pollard’s response:
I know it sounds confusing because it is confusing. First of all, there is some confusion between “creating an image from an existing one to prove its provenance” and “recreating an image forgery from scratch to prove that it was done in that way.”
I did both, but not at the same time.
OK, pull up a chair and grab a beer because this is going to be a long post.
Let me start by telling you the bottom line first:
The Obama Campaign, and later the Obama Administration, never made any image scans nor did they distribute to others any image scans they made. On the contrary, the images they posted and distributed came from outside sources – one of which was me.
Now, here’s the history:
On June 12, 2008, at 8:42am EDT, Markos Moulitsas posts the very first image of Obama’s COLB on his Daily Kos blog. He did not say from where it came or who sent it to him. If you review all 648 comments left on his blog, you will not see him saying anything about the campaign sending it to him. That was an assumption reached by a few of his members. the only thing he did say was “The journalism thing worked” but that response had to do with the journalist who sent him the image, and as good journalists never divulge their sources.
Markos said that he “trimmed the scan in case anyone wants to debunk it based on the size of a Hawaiian birth certificate.” That was a red flag. Why would he trim the most sought-after image in political history and risk damaging its authenticity? Continuing, later that day, in the afternoon, Fight The Smears officially launched (although it was still a part of my.barackobama.com) and posted a PDF, called BO_Birth_Certificate.pdf, with what looked like a reduced copy of the same COLB image shown on the Daily Kos AFTER Markos had trimmed it.
In other words, it was NOT an original scan image. Another red flag.
If the Obama Campaign had the COLB since 2007, made a “digital scan” of it in 2008, and then sent out copies to Factcheck and Politifact as the factcheckers claimed, then why are they using Markos’ image? [the trimmed version rather than the original full-page version] It even had the same name!
I decided to create a JPG image from the PDF and put it on my Photobucket account. I believe that Snopes first posted their :The COLB is a forgery” story on June 22, 2008 and posted the link to my image.
I originally had saved it at 100% quality.
To see if, in fact, the Obama Campaign had used the image that Markos trimmed, and also to see if his image was a trimmed version of the full-page scan that appeared on Factcheck, June 16, I took the full-page image, trimmed it exactly as Markos had done, going from a 2550 x 3300px image to one that was 2427 x 2369px – an odd size I thought until I finally figured out why it was trimmed in that way.
Then, from the Kos replica, I reduced it to 1024 x 1000 – a proportional reduction – and compared it to the image I made from the PDF. It matched perfectly.
Markos had used an unknown image editor to reduce it to approximately 44% quality. It still had the Exif data identical to Factcheck’s image, proving further evidence that they had copies of the same image. I saved my replica at 44% in Irfanview.
This is the image that is about 111k, 33,000 colors, saved in Irfanview at quality 44, etc.
Snopes was now linking to this revised image.
Right after the election, I decided that i was going to switch that image with a “forgery” i made – although it was not a true forgery yet or even a good one because I had copied the border directly from the Obama COLB and had used a cut-and-paste of the background from Michele’s COLB to make the “security paper.”
It would take me another year to figure out how the border and the “security paper” was made.
On or about November 6, 2008, I uploaded the image to Photobucket as BO_Birth_Certificate.jpg after moving the existing file to a private folder. However, Photobucket had renamed my revised image with random letters. Apparently, they instituted a policy of uploading only alphanumeric filenames, and mine had those underscores.
Panic set in because i had already severed the link to the prior image that I moved to another folder. By the time I figured out wha happened to the image I uploaded, and changed its name to BO_Birth_Certificate.jpg, about 15 minutes had gone by.
For the next few days, I checked the Snopes story and my stats to see if the link was still there. It was but the visits had immediately tanked. It took about two months before it was back up to where it was.
Then, as closely as I can figure it, on or around November 16, Snopes had removed my link from their main page with one of their own to a file named birth.jpg This was still my FTS replica, however.
.The order here is important to remember because when I did make a true forgery from scratch, one that uses nothing from any Obama image, I followed the same steps:
Forge the Factcheck image, trim it to make the forged Kos image, and reduce it to make the forged FTS image. This is how it was done, folks.
Now, the reason why Snopes copied my replica image to their server was because of the downtime to Photobucket while I was doing the switch.
I have since learned to swap images from folder to folder as opposed to uploading a replacement. Even so, i held off on posting the tilted forgery until February-March of this year.
To recap, my replica is now Snopes “birth.jpg” and it has remained there until Snopes replaced it on August 2 or 3rd after the WND article.
THAT is my image that the WH copied.
Is it a forgery? Not exactly. Is it a fake? Not at all. It all depends on your point of view. I created a replica of the FTS image I saw in the PDF to prove that FTS never had a legitimate image of their own.
The findings are what is important and the fact that I made them.
I mentioned this fact repeatedly ever since: that the Obama Campaign copied Markos’ trimmed image instead of making one of their own.
But, it is also only the first part of the story. Now is where the true forgery comes into play and how I figured out from whom FTS got their 2nd image (also in my book).
Although Snopes had changed the link on their main page, the link to my image on my Photobucket account was still on the message boards and that is when I decided to replace it with a true forgery, one I created from scratch in November 2009.
In early May 2010, i released my first video on how I constructed this forgery, and it is a variant of this true forgery that has been on my Photobucket account until February of this year when i decided to replace it with a lousy forgery to see if anyone would now notice that they had been linking to an illegitimate image all along.
The first one I made was apparently too good as nobody noticed it. I did not get that many views on the forgery reconstruction video, either. Because of the prior incident on Photobucket when I swapped images, I held off replacing it all throughout 2010 and it was only in late February 2011 that I posted it – but this time I uploaded it directly to a private folder instead of the main public one, and did a simultaneous renaming of both files (or as close to simultaneous as a person can get).
Then April 27th rolls around, but I had not seen the link to Snopes yet. Now that i did, I’m kicking myself for doing that lousy forgery swap. After 6,000 people had viewed it on or after April 27, I could not swap it back without someone noticing.
Maybe i should have, given all of the confusion over the tilted version.
Three months go by after everyone has gone gaga over the long-form. I chose to stay on the sidelines – one BC forgery was enough for me.
Then, I downloaded the PDF of the b&w COLB from the White House site and saw the link to Snopes and to my replica. I’m sure that what I said above will be reported differently and taken out-of-context
But, I’ll summarize it for posterity’s sake:
The WH copied an image off of the Snopes website. That image is one I created from the Factcheck image to make a replica of the Kos image and then from the Kos replica to make a replica of the FTS image that briefly appeared in a PDF posted on June 12, 2008 – only to be replaced by FTS on the next day.
The only JPGs of Obama’s COLB having the dimensions, 1024 x 1000 pixels, are the ones I originally made. If any others exist, such as the one on Snopes, it is because they were copied from mine.
The End (I hope).
Radio (?) interview: MRS. RONDEAU: One of the things that fascinated me about your research was the recent statement on your video that Janice Okubo’s Certification of Live Birth was used to create Obama’s. What made you come to that conclusion?
Dr. Pollard: (Laughs) That’s something I reveal in my book, but I can tell you that it came to me after re-discovering that the COLB image was the product of at least two COLBs. I say “re-discovering” because in the process of reverse-engineering the COLB, I confirmed that the border was made separately from the rest of the COLB. Not only was the border separate from the background, but the background was also separate from the text, and vice-versa. I also hypothesized that none of the COLBs used belonged to Obama because Hawaii refused to confirm that they produced one, and my analyses of Factcheck’s photos confirmed that Obama’s COLB only exists as a fabrication. I decided to reverse-engineer the COLB to determine the steps taken to produce it and then to follow those steps in recreating the actual forgery. None of this was easy at all. People who think it’s a horrible forgery have no idea how hard it was, although they would get a sense of it by watching the videos I made. It took six intensive months to figure out how to reproduce this thing.
Someone on the inside of the DOH provided the security paper and also the Seal. The Seal looks genuine but it is defective – if you look at the “N,” there is no crosspiece. It looks like two “I’s. ” The fact that Factcheck deliberately cropped it out of the photos on the reverse side should convince people that the Seal shown on the back is not the same one shown on the front.
As for who is the mole in the DOH, I had suspected Fukino of being such, but I said, “It has to be Fukino or Okubo, because they’re the only ones who have spoken for the Health Department.” Of course, Alvin Onaka has to be involved in this, but he has remained silent.
MRS. RONDEAU: You may have read a few months ago that The Post & Email received records of some emails between employees of the Hawaii Health Department which indicated that they had been “checking people out” on the internet before they decided whether or not they’d answer them.
DR. POLLARD: Hawaii has circled the wagons and no one is getting in. They are looking for ways to shoot down public inquiries any way they can. I had called Onaka back in October 2008 and posed as a genealogist. They were tight-lipped back then as well. The only way I got any information was to not talk about Obama. I wanted to find out about COLBs, what things mean, and…will somebody stop with this “Date Accepted” vs. “Date Filed”? The answer to that is plain and simple, and I’ve said it a million times, and people keep going back to it. So that was one question I asked him, and then I asked him at the end, “Is it true that Janice Okubo confirmed that you produced Obama’s COLB?” and he said, “No. No one has confirmed that.”
Early on, I knew that someone else’s COLB had been used for everything below the first fold line. There’s something else, too, because people were approaching it as if this was a terrible forgery, and at some point, I realized, “No, this is actually a very cleverly-designed thing, designed to frustrate people.” It intentionally has one fold in it, which does not exist in the real world. But there’s another reason why, and that is because the second fold goes right across the father’s name, either above it or below it or right through it, and the forger had to use an unfolded COLB. The only place to get an unfolded COLB is in Hawaii.
MRS. RONDEAU: Why do you think the officials in Hawaii appear to be protecting Obama? Are they protecting themselves, him or both?
DR. POLLARD: They’re protecting a lot of people. Obama must have something on Fukino. Or, it could just be a matter of money. Are you familiar with Neil Abercrombie?
MRS. RONDEAU: Yes. He was a U.S. representative from Hawaii and is now running for Governor.
DR. POLLARD: He’s been doing a lot to get monies for native Hawaiians by getting them declared a “tribe.” By doing that, they would be treated as a separate entity and be able to negotiate with the federal government. We’re talking about a lot of money and a lot of land on which they would receive kickbacks. I think a couple of things are going on: One, there may be blackmail because there are people in Hawaii who maybe had parents who never were naturalized. They brought in a lot of immigrants from Asia to work on the plantations and not everyone went on to be naturalized. I have heard from several sources that when they became a state, they started making citizens out of all the people who went there as immigrants, but who never bothered to go through the cumbersome naturalization process. Why? Federal money, that’s why. When the Civil Rights Bill of 1964 was passed, Hawaii’s welfare rolls swelled accordingly. In 1961, they had four different types of birth certificates. You know about those, right?
MRS. RONDEAU: Yes, I do. I believe in 1982 they added a fifth way to get one.
DR. POLLARD: Yes, they did. What I know from other people is that Obama was never born in any hospital anyplace in Hawaii.
Fifteen days after Obama is born, Stanley Ann takes him to Seattle where she starts college classes and does not return to Hawaii until after Obama Sr. has already left. So, the story about his father leaving him after two years is garbage – yet, he’s gotten away with it.
JoZeppy August 16, 2011 at 10:56 am (Quote) #
Dr. Ron Pollard: Of course I would survive a Daubert hearing. Nobody knows more about real and fake Hawaiian birth certificates than I do, including the people who make them.
Do your research. The courts decided awhile ago that an expert witness does not need to be a “forensics” anything. People who have specialized knowledge and training are considered as expert witnesses, or did you not watch the Casey Anthony trial?
You are truely delusional. You would be laughed out of any court. You are correct in that you do not need to be a “‘forensics’ anything” to testify as an expert , but you must demonstrate that you have knowledge beyond what the jury has, or could obtain, through experience, training, or education, How many real Hawaiian birth certificates have you even held? [only the Hawaiian clerks have that experience, no one else] How many times have you been called upon to professionally review a Hawaiian birth certificate? [seriously? No one is called upon for that] What is your formal training in examining Hawaiian birth certificates? [there is no such training] What is your professional experience in examining these documents? [what documents? There isn't one, just a computer-generated image] How many peer reviewed articles have you written on the subject? [No one has written any on the subject] How many times have you testified in court on the subject? [ in what trials? the ones that have never happened?] Just because you fancy yourself an expert, [in his knowledge and experience] and that the courts do try to be generally liberal in allowing expert testimony, doesn’t mean they will allow any crackpot that stewed up a theory in his mom’s basement to testify. [now who's off the logic reservation?] And I don’t have to rely on Court TV to know this. Some of us have professional experience on getting expert testimony admitted, or limited. It would take an attorney on the level of Orly to fail to have you completely excluded as an expert. [expert in what? in your delusional misconstruence of what his area of expertise is? it's foolish to compare this situation to one involving science since it isn't about scientific proof but about knowledge obtained from experience, hence the whole rant about typical experts misses the point entirely because nothing about this is typical]
And on top of that, even assuming by some miracle, you did manage to get qualified as an expert, your expert report, would also be subject to the Daubert standard, which includes; have your theories been published and subject to peer review, known error rates, and degree to which the theory and technique is generally accepted by a relevant scientific community? You’re a crackpot. You wouldn’t stand a chance. ["generally accepted??? are you nuts? this is not some established field of science or technology. how many presidents have faced a trial involving the veracity of the digital image that purports to be from a scan of an actual paper document? None, fool. this is uncharted territory, no one has ever testified about such an issue nor published a paper on it. what world are you living in?]
JoZeppy August 16, 2011 at 1:04 pm (Quote) #
charo: I thought we were talking about computer forensics (I may be using the incorrect terminology) and how specifically the Hawaiian birth certificates were made. That seems to be a fairly new field.
It would be a bogus field. One cannot just create a field, and then purport to be an expert in it, because no one else is doing it. ["create"? who's claiming he created a field? faked digital images are irrelevant to fake IDs, one needs physical fakes. professional forgers know about that area of expertise but how many of them would be willing to testify in court and provide credentials that would put them behind bars for decades?]
One can be an expert in Hawaiian birth certificates, [really? where does one acquire such expertise except by working for the very people who stand by the fake image (to a non-legally binding degree) and are responsible for the Hawaiian end of the cover-up because they want to protect their fearless fellow socialist leader]
one can be an expert as a forensic document examiner, [there's no document to examine!]
one can also be an expert in computer forensics, or even more generally a computer expert that can testify generally on the details of a pdf document (of even experts on pdfs).
There are many different angles one can look at to qualify an expert here. If there was an actual need, I suppose at some point a person with general qualifications as an expert could narrow their expertise to be computer experts with a specified ability of examining pdfs of Hawaiian birth certificates.
But when an offered expert doesn’t have the skill set, experience or training to even do the broader field, how exactly can he narrow his expertise? [that is a stupid assumption. one can be an expert in brake repair without being an expert in general auto repair, one can be an expert in brain surgery without being an "expert" in general medicine involving multiple fields]
There’s a bush that everyone seems to be beating around, and that is the authenticity of the source from which TheDailyKos obtained their image. From what I’ve read, it has not been credibly linked to Obama, Hawaii, nor the Obama campaign, so why is there any presumption as to its authenticity? I see carts being put in front of horses here. If there is no attestation as to the source of the original image, then how can one presume that the subsequent images are any more authentic than the questionable original from which they are derived? Then the White House joins in by “sharing with the public” the image of the true authentic Hawaiian COLB by linking to or displaying the unauthenticated mysterious original? Once there exists an unauthenticated image in the public domain, no print of it can be taken as being anything other than a print of an image that is from an unknown source. That is definitely not any form of certification in anyone’s book. The fact that someone at the Pro-Obama COLB hosting sites says that they got their image from the campaign is about as certifiable as asking a criminal suspect to validate his own alibi. Their word is not the word of an independent unbiased observer. What they said would be no different whether they were telling the truth or telling a lie, and there’s no way to discern which it is.
Also, why no discussion of how Dr. Pollard created a forgery from scratch? That seems rather significant. While I’m on that subject, I created a fake of my own, thinking there must be a half dozen or more that might be a year or more older than my johnny-come-lately version, but now I’m seriously wondering if that is true after all, since I’ve never seen a mention nor link to anything like what I made. Here’s the URL: http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v77/arnash/obama_files/Obama fake COLB.jpg
If that doesn’t work for some reason (blank spaces) then just visit the page it’s on, which also contains my extensive graphics expose of the long form BC, at http://photobucket.com/obama_bc
I think you totally missed the point that he was trying to make. He was mostly interested in demonstrating that instead of the White House being in possession of a real hard-copy from Hawaii that they could themselves easily scan, or photograph and post on the WH website, they instead resorted to linking to or obtaining an outside version that had no certified attestation behind it, whose origin was not something they could prove. If they were the creators of the first image that DailyKos mysteriously obtained, then why was that never publicly made known? There would be no reason to hide that fact, unless it weren’t factual.