I have written on this before, and have been skeptical of the controversy over Obama's birth certificate. And, while many have spent a lot of effort on this topic, I still have to say that I just cannot believe that Obama would run were there a certificate, or any public records, which proved him ineligible. It is simply too difficult, after the fact, to sanitize public records tot hat degree. Especially as Obama was born in the pre-comnputer days,t here are certainly multiple copies, including perhaps paper, certainly microfilm/microfiche and probably several different computer copies as systems were implemented, upgraded and changed. Not to mention tape backups of computer data. If he were ineligible, it would simply be an insurmountable obstacle to remove all those records to a degree sufficient to prevent discovery.

However, as the topic continues to come up, I figure I should deal with it one last time. I have already addressed some of the points raised by Townhall's own Polarik, so this time will look at an alternate site. Atlas Shrugs has a quite lengthy post about how the matter was handled by FactCheck.org. It is an interesting piece, and, though I don't agree with the basic premise that the birth certificate is a smoking gun, it does show to some degree how FactCheck tends to take a rather partisan stand on topics relating to Obama.

What is even more interesting from my perspective are the technical pages linked from that article.

This essay is quite lengthy, quite detailed, and yet, I think it overlooks one simple fact. Not all image manipulation is sinister. In looking at the inconsistencies it points out, from the strangely blurred border to the off center image, I can think of one simple explanation. Someone opened the image and ran a substandard "sharpen" filter on it. In fact, event he "weak line" box can be explained if the filter was run on a clipped area rather than the whole. Or if a second filter was applied. For that matter, anyone who has ever used photoshop carelessly knows sometimes you end up clipping the wrong region and having to manually "repaste" it, which can create such soft images.

Now, I am not saying this is the only possibility. It is possible Obama forged the document. But I have to say I think someone is grasping at straws. The image may show some signs of irregularities, but I am willing to bet if you took 100 documents on line and checked them with this much attention, many of them would. First, JPEGs are not a precise image reproduction, as this investigator rightly says, but that is only part of the story. Many image manipulation programs have a preferred, lossless format for internal representation. So, when working with JPEGs, they will convert to say targa, GIF, lossless TIFF, or simple RGB bitmap, make the changes, and then convert back. So, even if we could show that a scanner would not produce Obama's image, there is quite a possibility someone else loaded it into an image program, rescaled, sharped, whatever, and then saved, which would cause the encryption to be quite different than the original scanner encryption.

And if as an amateur I can think up this many explanations, I am sure professionals can think up many, many more.

But to return to my point, there is a simple explanation here. As someone once pointed out about the IRS, if an auditor looks at a return, he will find a problem. Likewise, if the police suspect someone of wrongdoing, odds are good, given enough investigation they will find something suspicious about him or his associates. Or those "whole body scans" which were in vogue for a while, they inevitably found small masses on everyone, just because every body is slightly irregular*.

It is simply a function of intense scrutiny that slight irregularities are found. The original allegations planted the seed, and then the minute investigation did the rest. Once you pay enough attention to an imperfect reproduction, you will find problems. It is inevitable.

But I am sure many will disagree. The atmosphere is right for people to believe anything at all alleged about Obama. But I simply cannot believe he would run knowing that a simple clerk in the department of vital statistics (or whatever Hawaii calls their version) could end his political career. He may be foolish in some regards, but I can't believe anyone is that stupid.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

* A more depressing example are all the many "irregularities" truthers find about the physical evidence recovered at ground zero, or the irregularities in the procedures of the investigation. All they prove is that investigations aren't carried out perfectly, and the that the myriad irregularities of the real world prevent physical processes from running with the perfection of theory. But in some ways, the same is true of the Obama borth certificate. It does not match control images, but that may be simply because of differences in hardware or software, or perhaps steps about which we are unaware (such as sharpening, or color correction, or even rescaling of the image).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

UPDATE

Apparently Hotair has found a copy of the birth announcement form Hawaii, which makes a lot of this rather moot. On the other hand, there appear to be at least initial filings in a lawsuit to compel Obama to turn over his birth certificate. I would warn readers, however, despite the rumors circulating, as far as I can tell, there is no ruling, the documents you see are from the plaintiff, not the court.

With what I have seen, and what I know about image encryption (and, though not a forensic examiner, I did write code for a long time, including code for faxes to convert web pages to TIFF images, and convert CIELAB to RGB, so I know a little about the topic), I am standing by my original conclusion that common sense argues this is a lot of fuss over nothing. I may be proved wrong, and if I am I will be the first to admit it, but for now, I stand by my conclusions.

(For those who doubt my willingness to admit mistakes, read the update on this post or this one or this one. I have no problem saying "oops, my mistake". Would that politicians were so willing.)

UPDATE II

By the way, I do like Hotair's conclusion enough to reproduce it:

Let’s stop chasing absurd conspiracy theories that make it more difficult to win the real arguments in this election.  Stick to Obama’s absurd theories on national security, his radical political allies, and his disastrous economic policies that will make these past few weeks seem like a breeze.  He’s the wrong man for the job, but still an American.

It is similar to my own conclusions when arguing against pursuing this birth certificate controversy, or the rumors that Obama is a stealth Moslem:

And so, I have to say the same thing I said when some raised the possibility that Obama was a Moslem. Or when others speculated that because he might be seen as an apostate by Moslems we should not vote for him. In dealing with Obama we need to be fair. There is no need to sink to the level of the DailyKos, DemocraticUnderground, Huff'n'Puff post and other "Bushitler"/"Chimpy McFlyboy" sites. There are many, many substantive grounds on which to oppose Obama***. I know, I have written about them over and over again. And with so much material with which to criticize, there is just no need to raise such claims.

However, I would add one other point. Not only does it distract us from the real issues, but it makes us look ridiculous. Saying Obama is not a citizen, or that he is a plant by Osama bin Ladin, or that he is the antichrist, all make us look utterly insane, and just gives credence to the charges that conservatives are out of touch.

I am not a Christian, so take that into account when evaluating my opinion, but really, is Obama important enough to be the antichrist/ the antichrist is supposed to be Satan's version of Jesus, does Obama even measure up? I'm sorry, but getting an A+ in high school debate, having a white smile, being able to read a teleprompter and work your way through corrupt machine politics is nowhere near the evil analogue of Jesus. He is an annoyance, he amy be dangerous if elected, but he is no more the antichrist than Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton.

But, as I said, I am a Jew, so take that for what it's worth.