100% Computer Generated Element on Obama Birth Certificate = Fraud

There is one “anomaly” on the birth certificate that is frequently mentioned, but has never been discussed. I think that’s because no one has any idea what to make of it. So it’s dismissed as “odd”. I’m going to tell why it’s more than “odd”. Because, I DO think I know what to make of it. It is a 100% computer generated element, and I can prove it step by step. If you want to see just the final comparison, skip to the bottom of the post. So what is this “anomaly”?


Very ODD scribble in the M.D. box

It’s the scribble in the M.D. box next to David Sinclair’s signature. I suppose we are to believe that this Doctor, who signed the certificate in such neat and elegant script, suddenly had some kind of seizure or pen malfunction that caused him to scribble all over – not just his own box, but the box above it, too. It’s not just a big black scrawled “X”, there appears to be something lighter colored under it, and several stray lines above it. It’s just too weird for me to dismiss without a second – or third look. It looks intentional and not at all natural.


High Resolution version of the FAKE computer generated “X”

So I decided to open the AP press version, which has a much higher resolution than the certificate with the green background  in Photoshop, because it is so much clearer and more detailed. This is what we see when we look at it zoomed in. Now this is looking very weird and very contrived. I dare you to write an “X” like this, right now. Pretend you’re filling out a form and need to mark a box. Is there ANY WAY that this is what you would do? I bet you can’t do it if you try. Because, it wasn’t done with a pen in 1961, or 2011, or EVER.

There are several other things wrong here, too.

  • For starters, the box itself is LARGER than all the other boxes. This is a  preprinted   form. The boxes should be the same size.
  • Second, is the very clear semicircle to the right of the center of the X. That is NOT a part of any natural hand drawn X.
  • There is also a lighter semicircle ABOVE the center of the “X” – not part of the “X”.
  • Also, the little lines above the X seem to start and stop on one side or the other of that big line. A natural scribble wouldn’t do that.

To me the whole “scribble” looked “manmade” i.e. computer generated, and it reeks of some kind of layering, and A LOT of graphic manipulation. I played around with the idea that parts of the signatures had been cut and pasted to make the “X”, but nothing fit those odd flares at the tips. I then decided to see if I could identify and/or recreate the base layer, which appears to be the lighter gray rounded area above the M.D. box. By adjusting the resolution in Photoshop, I decided that it most resembled a backwards “2”. To make a comparison, I typed a “2” next to the scribble, flipped it backward, and then started to run through the Photoshop fonts to see if I could find one that was a close match. I think I finally just ended up using Arial, but that’s not the important part now. The important part is what I saw when I used the font “segoe script”.


Note the flaring base on this number

And there it was. The base of the “2” appeared to match the swooping ends of the “X”. Just for fun, I erased the top of the two and dragged the base over to the original scribble and overlayed it. And to my absolute AMAZEMENT, with only a minor bit of rotating  and resizing, it matched the main parts of the “X” with 100% accuracy. This stunned me. Not only did the background of the scribble appear to be  two Arial “2” s, one gray and one black, but the main “X” was made of “2”s also. The scribble is a pile of “2”s. Before you tell me to get my tinfoil hat, just look at the 100% match – original and computer generated.


This is just down and dirty cut and paste with minimal reorientation and resizing – REMARKABLE MATCH, dontcha think? Mystery of the “X” solved, if you ask me. Here’s where the people who refuse to see the problems with this document will say, “Why would someone go to all that effort?” I can tell you what I think. Someone started with a blank certificate scanned into a graphics program, and they needed to add an “X” . They couldn’t just draw it in with a pen as there was no paper document. So they had to graphically design something that resembled handwriting. Pretty ingenious. I DO KNOW this “X’ was not made with a pen.  And I DO KNOW that this pile of “2”s is an irrefutable match. This “X” was computer generated. 

So with the “X” solved, I then turned my attention to the scribbles in the box above it. The more I looked at the scratches, the more I realized I KNEW what I was looking at. I was looking at FOUR MORE bases of segoe script “2”s – rotated and resized.

1comparioan2 copy

Again, this is just a quick cut and paste job – no real editing at this point – but the match is REMARKABLE. As to why they are there, I can only reference my own experience with Photoshop “drag and drop” elements and layering. A new element has to be dropped on the page from another page. If there are a lot of layers open, sometimes the element gets “misplaced”. Sometimes a layer that was hidden gets revealed by accident when another layer moves. It is complicated, but very possible for this type of error to occur when a lot of elements are being relocated in a GRAPHICS PROGRAM. It may also have been intentional.

1comparison3 copy

I have done a slight bit of erasing – I wasn’t trying to make it an exact match. My point wasn’t to duplicate the element exactly, the point was to show how easy it is to recreate the element just by cutting and pasting a whole pile of 2’s.  I know what “they” will say. “It’s just a coincidence.” Well, I think too many coincidences start to be a real Incidence. Nine times I was able to place the base of a segoe print “2” in positions to 100% match the original document. That stops being coincidence.


The one on the Right is the one I made today in Photoshop with Twos

On this comparison,  I printed the gray  example from above onto green bar paper, because that is how I believe the certificate was made, then I scanned it into the computer, which is what I think the White House did. It is the SAME as the original. This a fully computer generated element, as there is NO HANDWRITING involved in this scribble. As the whole certificate, in my opinion, is computer generated, the “X” had to be computer generated also. They couldn’t use real pen and ink, because there was no real paper certificate.  It was NOT copied directly from an old 1961 form. This “X’ doesn’t exist on any paper document prior to it’s creation in 2011.  It was MADE in a computer, as was the entire Obama Long Form Birth Certificate.



  1. The entire long-form was not made on a computer but was cobbled together on one from various original sources, and perhaps an invented one or two. The imagery of Obama’s mother’s affidavit in the Hawaiian DoH (converted by a clerk into a typed form) was microfilmed for backup and then later digitally copied, like all records during the switch to digital records back in the early 90s.
    All text imagery and signatures from original birth certificates was saved and all imagery of the paper they were typed on was deleted. That minimized the size of digital files back when memory was small and very expensive.
    With all text imagery then existing in the digital realm of office computers and central servers, it could be manipulated with desktop image-editing software, -text replaced, signature added, dates changed, etc.

    With that having been done, the result is that, as shown by a grid overlay, the text of Obama’s BC doesn’t match the resulting from normal straight-forward typing but instead shows the characteristics of text put in place by manual computer insertion that could not possibly match the perfection of the unchanging pattern of a typewriter.

    As for the “X”, it can’t be explained as a normal X but some might think it could be the result of a quickly made X using a fountain pen that was held to the paper while moving from one slash of the X to the other. That wouldn’t explain the scratch-like marks in the box above nor the gray elements.
    Your theory of twos overlapping is intriguing and visually plausible, but it may also be true that one could have simply used a drawing function of a image editing program to make a hand drawn X. That is not a rare feature. You draw with the mouse. That possibility should negate any necessity to have to resort to using characters to re-create a simple X (which isn’t simple in fact and appearance, -which shows that the drawing tool was NOT used.)

    Whatever the significance of the X is, it is far less significant than the smiling face, which simply can’t be assumed to be anything other than a covert signature of the forger after finishing his or her careful efforts of creating a credible fake. It’s a way for the ego to say to a trusted insider, look, I made this, and here’s my proof…look very, very close at the A and tell me what you see…”

    See my exposition “The Significance of the Smiling Face” at obama–nation.com

    • With regards to the “quickly made x with a fountain pen” – not possible. I’ve had dozens of people try. Try it yourself – can’t be done. The flares are all but impossible and the connector will be on the side not the bottom. Re: the drawing function, and I have a Wacom pen rather than a mouse for graphics, the line just lays on top of the layer – WAY too photoshopped in appearance. Again I quote you, because I think you’re correct- “can’t be assumed to be anything other than a covert signature of the forger after finishing his or her careful efforts of creating a credible fake. It’s a way for the ego to say to a trusted insider, look, I made this, and here’s my proof” – applies to the “X”, too.

  2. Here is an image of obama birth certificate with several items circles, and the explanation why they are reasons the experts who studied the document say it is a fake. Some say it is a lousy fake. There are links to a lot more reasons it has been declared a fake, obama using someone else’s Social Security number, and his having a fake Selective Service registration form. If you want the image emailed to you, go to the bottom right corner, click on the rectangle with the arrow in the upper right corner, click on email, and Yahoo will sent it to you. You can type the web sites into your browser.


    I put the image in Flickr, but I can’t get a copy of it unless I email it to myself. All of the free image sights seem to do it this way. It is their way of getting your email address, and you might get some junk mail from it.

    • Anybody who “studies” the PDF is not an “expert”. At best, they’re well-intentioned amateurs, with no clue what they’re doing. At worst, they’re con men, bilking people out of their money to support a phony “official law enforcement investigation” (free clue: do what Orly Taitz did, and ask the Maricopa County Attorney for the number of the case that the CCP is supposedly working, and what evidence they’ve logged in).
      Any real expert will tell you that the PDF is the equivalent of a courtroom sketch, or an old-fashioned wirephoto, intended to give you the general idea of what the actual document looks like, but sacrificing the fine details to save space.
      You can’t do a “detailed analysis” of it, because there are no details to analyze. It’s like “authenticating” a Monet based on a video someone took with a cheap webcam.

      • Do you know what we would do be to be ABLE to do a detailed analysis of the REAL DEAL? But we CAN’T – because no one is allowed to SEE the “REAL” BIRTH CERTIFICATE. All we have are the crummy digital versions the White House has allowed us to see – so we have to work with what we have. I’m sure that CSI would rather have a shoe than a footprint, but most criminals won’t hand over their shoes. Juries convict on trace evidence all the time.

  3. I can scan in my own legit birth certificate, open it in Illustrator or Photoshop, separate the image into 30 layers, draws ‘2s’ or pieces of ‘2s’ all over it, write “kiss my butt” on it, and none of that changes the fact that I have a legal copy of my birth certificate in hand.

    Until the actual paper/hard copy is examined, you are just uselessly spinning your wheels. And that’s what they want you to do. That’s exactly why this long form pdf was released…to distract you. From what? From the fact that the short form birth certificate was discovered to be lacking a legal “raised” seal.

    I am sorry but you are caught in their trap.

  4. Only birther “experts” have called Obama’s birth certificate forged, and they have not shown that they are even experts, much less fair and impartial. Those are two reasons why they are not believed by Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck or the National Review (or by Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan or Gingrich or Santorum or Huckabee).

    One proof that Obama’s birth certificate is not forged is Obama’s short-form birth certificate.

    Short-form birth certificates are created by a clerk reading the information from the document in the file, and filling out the computer form that generates the printed short-form birth certificate. The officials in Hawaii have confirmed that they sent a short-form to Obama. So, unless they are lying—and they were Republican officials–the only way that Obama’s birth certificate could have been forged was that it was forged in 2007 and slipped into the file just before the clerk looked at the file. That is not very likely, is it? And it is especially unlikely since at the time Obama was not even the candidate of the Democrats. He was still in the primaries at the time, and he was only a junior senator from Illinois.

    And birther sites have not shown you these real experts.

    Dr. Neil Krawetz, an imaging software analysis author and experienced examiner of questioned images, said:“The PDF released by the White House shows no sign of digital manipulation or alterations. I see nothing that appears to be suspicious.”

    Nathan Goulding with The National Review: “We have received several e-mails today calling into question the validity of the PDF that the White House released, namely that there are embedded layers in the document. There are now several other people on the case. We looked into it and dismissed it.… I’ve confirmed that scanning an image, converting it to a PDF, optimizing that PDF, and then opening it up in Illustrator, does in fact create layers similar to what is seen in the birth certificate PDF. You can try it yourself at home.”

    John Woodman, independent computer professional, who is a member of the Tea Party (who says that he hates Obama’s policies but found no evidence of forgery) said repeatedly in his book and in various articles on his Web site that the claims that Obama’s birth certificate was forged were unfounded.

    Ivan Zatkovich, who has testified in court as a technology expert, and consultant to WorldNetDaily:“All of the modifications to the PDF document that can be identified are consistent with someone enhancing the legibility of the document.” And, by the way, when WND received Zatkovich’s article that said that he found nothing wrong with Obama’s birth certificate, WordNDaily simply did not publish it.

    Jean-Claude Tremblay, a leading software trainer and Adobe-certified expert, who has years of experience working with and teaching Adobe Illustrator, said the layers cited by doubters are evidence of the use of common, off-the-shelf scanning software — not evidence of a forgery.“I have seen a lot of illustrator documents that come from photos and contain those kind of clippings—and it looks exactly like this,” he said.

    Birthers’ claim that Obama’s birth certificate is false is well understood to be caused by their own motives—they hate Obama and would like to harm him.

    And it is irrational (to say the very least) to think that Obama’s relatives had enough money (Obama’s grandfather was just a furniture salesman and his grandmother a low-level employee in a bank at the time; and his father came to Hawaii on a free flight) or crazy enough to spend LOTS of money on a long and expensive and risky (incidents of stillbirths were high at the time) overseas trip for their pregnant daughter—–when there were perfectly good hospitals in Honolulu, Hawaii.

    Also, the government of Kenya has said that it investigated the “born in Kenya” claim, and that it did not happen.

    And, BTW, birther sites have never had an reply to this:


    • You do realize that I am not talking about the layers? I agree the “layers” are irrelevant. What I am showing are things that are computer generated – not layers. The biggest challenge I will make to ALL of you, is sit down with a pen and TRY as hard as you can to make that X. I’ve asked dozens of people – it’s not possible. And FYI – the short form WAS released in 2007. http://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/born-in-the-usa/ Hmm, so it could have been “slipped into the file”. And if you think “they” weren’t planning ahead in 2007 – think again. As he claimed to be born in Kenya until 2007, the timing fits. He was not born in Kenya – that was his first lie. But this LFBC is a fake and if nothing else, it’s felony fraud. Don’t know why they’d risk that, but they did, and it’ll be interesting to find out someday – hopefully sooner than later. I don’t hate Obama, I hate what he is doing to this country.

      • They didn’t verify it.

        A.There was interesting exchange of letters in 2012, between the Secretary of State of Arizona and Alvin Onaka, the registrar who was responsible for stamping the Birth Certificate. The question asked of Registrar Alvin Onaka in writing was, “Additionally, please verify that the attached copy of the Certificate of Live Birth for Mr. Obama is a true and accurate representation of the original record in your files.” The answer was carefully avoidant, “Additionally, I verify that the information in the Copy of the Certification of Live Birth that you attached with your request matches the original record in our files.” Alvin Onaka is NOT verifying that the whitehouse.gov PDF is what they certified.”

        B. In 2008 Dr.Chiyome Fukino said she “found the original birth record, properly numbered, half typed and half handwritten, and signed by the doctor who delivered Obama, located in the files”. Hmmm…. Half handwritten… doesn’t sound like what we are presented with. I don’t think 2 signatures and 2 dates count as HALF.

        I’m not saying there isn’t a birth certificate in Hawaii – I’m saying THIS ISN’T IT and Hawaii is hiding behind the word “original”.

      • “B. In 2008 Dr.Chiyome Fukino said she ‘found the original birth record, properly numbered, half typed and half handwritten, and signed by the doctor who delivered Obama, located in the files’”
        Actually, no. It turns out that Fukino didn’t say that: an NBC reporter said that.
        Shame on me for not fact-checking it sooner: since I first heard it from Corporal Zullo, I should have known it was a lie.

      • I had the date wrong. In 2011 Michael Isikoff from NBC interviewed Dr. Fukino and reported, “…Fukino SAID, she wanted to inspect the files — and did so, taking with her the state official in charge of vital records. She found the original birth record, properly numbered, half typed and half handwritten, and signed by the doctor who delivered Obama, located in the files. So unless Isikoff is lying, she SAID this to him.

    • “Short-form birth certificates are created by a clerk reading the information from the document in the file, and filling out the computer form that generates the printed short-form birth certificate”
      Nope: that info is already in the computer database. The clerk just calls for it to be printed in COLB form.
      The LFBC would have to have been “slipped in” back in 1961, because Obama shows up in the computer-generated “Birth Index” for that year. Plus, the state generated a birth announcement that was printed in the newspapers at the time.

  5. Pingback: More Evidence of Computer Generated Fraud on Obama’s Birth Certificate Date Stamp | Accidental Patriot

    • I have read ALL their stuff, and even had some back and forth online conversations with some of the Xerox Workflow people. It absolutely DOES NOT explain these anomalies, and they did admit that to me. This has nothing to do with layers. The copier copied what it saw. I don’t care about layers and halos – which are the artifacts they are talking about. And once again, I will just ask you to TRY to make that X right now on paper – nothing to do with scanners or layers or anything – just us humans – NO ONE can WRITE that X.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s