The Obama Paradox

8/8/2019 The Obama Paradox

1/8

By Pixel Patriot

January 1st, 2011

A blogger by the name of TerryK posted an article on her blog Thursday Dec. 30 th titled

Est tu, White House Sealhttp://obamasgarden.wordpress.com/2010/12/30/est_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 WNDhttp://www.wnd.com/?pageId=104146

'Birth hospital': Letter for real

New images of 'Obama document' at center of eligibility controversyPosted: 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.
http://obamasgarden.wordpress.com/2010/12/30/est_tu_white_house_seal/http://obamasgarden.wordpress.com/2010/12/30/est_tu_white_house_seal/http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=104146http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=104146http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=104146http://obamasgarden.wordpress.com/2010/12/30/est_tu_white_house_seal/


2/8


3/8

[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 seals features if its

raised. The raised features would be highlighted from that direction. Instead there are

shadows on the left of the emblem's details.

Its 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

TerryKs previous investigative reports on seals I was confident she was on to somethingso I set about to investigate anarea 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 TerryKs 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 doesnt 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 thewood, 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 Iwould expect if a camera flash were used. Further I would note that if a camera flash had


4/8

2. PAPERI 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 Icompared them at varying sizes, resolutions and angles; the differences between them

became more apparent. Because of my experience working with 3D models inorthographic perspectives, it was easy for me to detect this anomaly.

3. TEXT

Using TerryKs cropped & enlarged close-up image from the WND full view photowhich I will refer to here for this analysis as IMAGE A:


5/8

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 forcontrast at full saturation r0,g0,b255 directly above it fully opaque using the overlayfilter. 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 perspectivetransform of IMAGE B so that the text were exactly aligned lengthwise. The result

reveals text of differing weight


6/8

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 differentways. 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 cant be explained away by a curvature in the paper because the rest of the textwould follow or conform to this same displacement.


7/8

In summary, my analysis appears to corroborate TerryKs claim that the images are not

from the same document. The obvious discrepancies between the letterhead text in thetwo 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 thatonly 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!http://www.earthfrisk.com/blog/?p=135

Now lets compare this to the FACT that Obamas own website states he was born at

Queens Medical Center

http://www.theobamafile.com/_eligibility/Hospitals.htm
http://www.earthfrisk.com/blog/?p=135http://www.earthfrisk.com/blog/?p=135http://www.theobamafile.com/_eligibility/Hospitals.htmhttp://www.theobamafile.com/_eligibility/Hospitals.htmhttp://www.theobamafile.com/_eligibility/Hospitals.htmhttp://www.earthfrisk.com/blog/?p=135


8/8

Finally, the assertion by the FBI that the U.S. Secret Service would have jurisdiction toinvestigate 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 ofsuch 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 thatan 18 year Army officer with an exemplary record was sent to prison at Ft. Leavenworthfor 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 actionscan 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 cant win for losing.

January 1st, 2011

Documents

The Obama Paradox