* The Obama Paradox: odyssey of lies * By Pixel Patriot *
A blogger by the name of TerryK posted an article on her blog Thursday Dec. 30th titled Et tu, White House Seal and in it reveals she has just made the startling discovery that the seal on a letter purportedly sent to Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women and Children by the putative President Barack Obama appears to be incised in a full-view photograph yet appears to have a raised seal in a close-up photograph based on this online report by WND
'Birth hospital': Letter for real
New images of 'Obama document' at center of eligibility controversy
Posted: July 16, 2009
9:10 pm Eastern
By Joe Kovacs
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
The significance of the letter is that Obama states in what seems to be an official White House document the assertion that Kapi'olani Medical Center is “the place of my birth” of which he adds his personal signature.
The document is dated January 24, 2009.
According to the WND report, FBI and United States Secret Service said the matter could potentially lead to criminal prosecution if the letter is determined to be fraudulent.
TerryK claims the features for shadows and highlights in the large photograph are contradictory to what should be observed if it were a raised seal which can clearly be seen in the close-up view:
“[UPDATE 2: Based on the full view of the letter (above), the strongest lighting is coming from the left. There should be no shadows on the left of the seal’s features if it’s raised. The raised features would be highlighted from that direction. Instead there are shadows on the left of the emblem's details.
It’s pretty clear it is not a raised seal. Those shadows are within the incised areas of the seal's features.”
She also observes a variance in color for the paper bearing the seals in question:
“[UPDATE 3: It does appear that the full view version of the letter may be on a white sheet of paper while the close-up was taken from an off-white or cream colored stock with a visible tooth (cotton fibers). So strange...]”
TerryK solicited the opinion of others on this paradox. After having read numerous of TerryK’s previous investigative reports on seals I was confident she was on to something so I set about to investigate an area of the document she had not discussed in order to quell my own curiosity. I also believed that if additional discrepancies or evidence for fraud existed it would further bolster TerryK’s claims.
I will now give an account of the methodical approach I used in my efforts along with results and summary.
The first thing I did was analyze the lighting used to create the photographs and observe its effects on the document.
1. SHADOW ORIENTATION
The wide shot doesn’t appear to have been taken with a camera flash for several reasons. There is a light source generating a highlight on the left side of the image being more pronounced on the table due to the sheen of the polyurethane finish on the surface of the wood, however it does not cover the entire length of the document from which I would conclude it is a more focused light source and not dispersed as widely as a camera flash. I also see a higher amount of contrast at the bottom of the document as opposed to what I would expect if a camera flash were used. Further I would note that if a camera flash had been used at that distance, you would expect much less shadows to be exhibited on the document if any. Since the document is on a table the photographer would have had to have been leaning over it from above, that is why the camera would have had to have been in such close proximity to the subject of the image. It doesn’t appear to be a copy stand, those typically have more uniform lighting and a black matte finish surface.
Based on the possibility of multiple light sources from points of origin unknown at this time including reflected light I will accede to TerryK’s analysis of the seal.
Then I observed the characteristics of the paper stock as displayed in the separate photographs used to create the document in question and compared the variances between them.
2. PAPER
I concur completely that the paper in the images in the WND article appear to be of different weight, texture and color.
I spent a lot of time studying the letterhead itself isolated from the seal. The more I compared them at varying sizes, resolutions and angles; the differences between them became more apparent. Because of my experience working with 3D models in orthographic perspectives, it was easy for me to detect this anomaly.
3. TEXT
Using TerryK’s cropped & enlarged close-up image from the WND full view photo which I will refer to here for this analysis as IMAGE A:
(not the shadow enhanced one she created)
I compared that to the close-up image from WND which I will refer to as IMAGE B:
Using Photoshop, I placed IMAGE A on a base layer at 600 dpi maintaining the original image dimensions of 633 pixW x 600 pixH. Then I placed a layer of the color blue for contrast at full saturation r0,g0,b255 directly above it fully opaque using the overlay filter. Then I placed IMAGE B into a new layer directly above that. I inverted COLOR of IMAGE B and set the opacity of the layer to 52% allowing for a high contrast comparison of both images simultaneously. From there I did a skew and perspective transform of IMAGE B so that the text were exactly aligned lengthwise. The result reveals text of differing weight.
However, IMAGE A also clearly exhibits the letter H (which appears 3 times in the top row of letters) to generate a differential in weight from each side of the letter in different ways. The right side of the letter H in the word THE is broader than on the left. The left side of the letter H in the word HOUSE is broader than on the right.
This can’t be explained away by a curvature in the paper because the rest of the text would follow or conform to this same displacement.
Regardless of the origin of the differential to the weight of the font for the same character in multiple instances on the same row on the same page; the letterhead in IMAGE B does NOT MATCH the letterhead in IMAGE A.
In summary, my analysis appears to corroborate TerryK’s claim that the images are not from the same document. The obvious discrepancies between the letterhead text in the two photographs are evident. Any additional analysis by others to corroborate these findings is welcome.
TerryK has now asked WND for a retraction on its claim in their article:
“WND makes the claim that the raised seal close-up is a photo of the seal on the full version of the letter displayed. It is not, please retract that claim.”
I agree with TerryK that WND needs to disclose how it obtained the three photgraphs for its article. This new analysis gives substantial credence to the probability that two different photographs of the purported same document have enough discrepancies that only one conclusion can be surmised and that one of them is a fraud and submitted in an overt act to defraud.
When you consider this new development in light of the historical documented facts about this letter, a disturbing picture of deceit becomes even more clear:
“Hospital after hospital in Honolulu all have NO RECORD of Obama or mother ever being there… All of these were called or visited from November 20 – December 2nd 2008. It is confirmed, OBAMA was not born in any hospital in Honolulu County!”
Now let’s compare this to the FACT that Obama’s own website states he was born at Queen’s Medical Center and in his own words recorded here in a report by UPI “Obama described his birth at Queen’s Medical Center in Hawaii Aug. 4th, 1961, to a white woman from Kansas and a father of Luo ethnicity from Nyanza Province in Kenya”
Because the newly elected governor of Hawaii Neil Abercrombie has sought to disparage and ridicule the “birthers” touting his desire to silence them by proving Obama is eligible, why doesn’t he ask the Kapi'olani Medical Center to make this letter available for review and scrutiny to the national press corps along with a copy of Obama’s long form birth certificate? Not a COLB or Certification of Live Birth. They are not the same thing.
Finally, the assertion by the FBI that the U.S. Secret Service would have jurisdiction to investigate fraud perpetrated by the President when they are simultaneously tasked with protecting him seems a bit incongruous at best and troubling at worst. “We the People” are seriously concerned that the agencies tasked with investigating criminal matters of such great significance might be subverting their oath to the Constitution over political pressure. We find no solace from the disturbing reality that this pressure is so great that an 18 year Army officer with an exemplary record was sent to prison at Ft. Leavenworth for defending his oath to the Constitution by simply asking a question, is Barack Obama eligible to be President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief.
Let us heed the warnings for which history shows us that the consequences of our actions can never be divided from the facts of their origins.
Facts impart truth.
Truth is empirical.
“Able Danger” reminds us that the "WALL OF SEPARATION" between intelligence and law enforcement agencies "specifically contributed to Mohamed Atta's ability to come and go as he pleased, building the teams that would kill almost 3,000 Americans."
We can’t win for losing.
Pixel Patriot
January 1st, 2011
0 comments:
Post a Comment