The following text partially indicates how details are technically acquired:
OUR QUESTION I S THIS : IF THERE IS A REAL, VALID BIRTH DOCUMENT THEN WHY DOES OBAMA NOT PRODUCE IT AND PUT THE WHOLE MATTER TO REST?
THIS IS AN INDICATOR FOR US THAT SOMETHING IS VERY WRONG SOMEWHERE AND OBAMA IS HIDING IT.
Is he hiding damaging items of his background and family? Or the fact that he is NOT, or does NOT qualify as a NATURAL born American and CANNOT legally be President.
And is delaying the truth, hoping it will be too late to disqualify him when it finally does surface, thus creating a precedent of a NON-natural born American being elected as president.
JPG files can contain a lot of information about the nature of the image -- and even information not related at all to the image.
Beginning with the 24th byte in a JPG file, one can embed information hidden from view...except, of course, when you look at it with a hex editor.
For example, I have a JPG of an old map. Looking inside the file, I found the author or copyright owner of the image, "Lead Technologies, Inc."
I opened both the image posted on the Daily Kos and the image on the "Smears" websites in a hex editor.
Inside, I saw information indicating that both had taken a trip through Photoshop land.
As per Buckhead's revelation, inside the Kos image, one can see that the image was produced by Adobe Photoshop CS3, on a Mac running OS 2.0, and saved at 8:43am on June 12th -- around the same date it was posted online.
When I took a look inside the JPG posted on Obama's "Smears" website, I saw, beginning with byte #24, the word, "Ducky," who I assume is the author of this altered file.
And, yes, I also saw the word, "Adobe," beginning at byte#43, but I did not see which Adobe product was used.
If you look inside the Kos image, beginning at byte #24, you can see the word, "Exif," the image format supported by almost all digital cameras.
What typically follows, "Exif," is the information about the shutter speed, flash condition, focal length, and other characteristics about the photo image.
WTF? Was the Daily Kos image originally taken from a digital camera file, modified in Photoshop CS3 running under Mac OS 2.0, and subsequently saved on June 12, 2008 at 8:42am?
Or, does Photoshop add Exif information? I could not find any Photoshop information or Exif information in the nonphoto image files I've saved with Photoshop.
I analyzed the Kos image using an EXIF Reader. Here is what it found:
Filename : BO_Birth_Certificate.jpg
JFIF_APP1 : Exif
Main Information Orientation : left-hand side
XResolution : 300/1
YResolution : 300/1
ResolutionUnit : Inch
Software : Adobe Photoshop CS3 Macintosh
DateTime : 2008:06:12 08:42:36
ExifInfoOffset : 164
ColorSpace : Uncalibrated
ExifImageWidth : 2427
ExifImageHeight : 2369
At a bare minimum, we know that the infamous black rectangle obscuring the Certificate Number was made by a graphics program.
With the Exif information, we can say, with a great degree of confidence, that \Adobe Photoshop was used to alter this image.
NOW...what else was done to the image while it was in Photoshop?
For that, I refer you to all of my prior posts.
Knowing that the image definitely took a trip through Photoshop land serves to reinforce my assertions about the other parts of the image -- namelt, that they, too, represent graphical alterations.
Covering up the Certificate Number DOES NOT REQUIRE THE USE OF PHOTOSHOP. If I was scanning the same document, all I would need to do is to cut out a small piece of black paper and hold it in place with non-permanent Scotch tape.
But, there is no way that the black rectangle we see on these images was produced by covering the number up with black paper. It could only have been done by a graphics program -- which turned out to be Adobe Photoshop CS3.
And, since that little bit of skullduggery -- modifying the document image with Photoshop -- counts as an "alteration," big-time.
In other words, the Kos and Obama's website have tried to portray an "invalid certificate" as being valid.
According to our legal system, that is tantamount to "fraud," and no amount of logical reasoning can account for it.
Some skeptics argue that if this was truly a fraud, that the Clinton camp would have picked up on it.
Maybe, if it had been released while Hillary was still running. But, the fact remains that Obama and his campaign organizers posted this image only AFTER June 10th, or long after Hillary conceded.
We've all noticed the date stamp in the image that either was produced by the ink bleeding through the paper, or was produced by being illuminated from behind by the scanner/copier.
Some skeptics claim that the embossed seal and signature stamps on the reverse side somehow avoided being seen from the front side. No way.
At a very least, that part of the paper where an embossed seal would be made, would be seen as distorted in some way under magnification. No such distortion was seen.
Ergo, the most that can be said of this image is that it is not a full copy of a certified document -- that 3/4 of it is missing by virtue of no folds shown in that part or any evidence that an embossed seal had been applied.
If it walks like a duck, swins like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it must be a Photochopped chicken. ;-)