Paul Irey Doesn’t Like Us. We Are Not Shedding Tears.

In our post “Dear Birthers: Grasping at Straws Hurts the Conservative Cause,” we showed how the work and analysis of a “Paul Irey,” an “expert in typography” as proclaimed by World Net Daily was somewhat shoddy, to say the least. The quality of the work of Mr. Irey was not the main focus of our piece. The focus was that “birthers” – those who continue to claim that Obama is not an American citizen and or his birth certificates are not “real” – are a distraction to the main issues of the upcoming presidential campaign and election. We believe, and stated, that the vast majority of the country have made up their minds about the “birther” issue and as such, it is a distraction to other more compelling issues that resonate with voters.

We were therefore surprised and somewhat shocked when a comment left on the post was made by the aforementioned Paul Irey.

We thought we had given Mr. Irey’s work a pretty thorough, albeit “light” bashing in the original post, but apparently he was not satisfied. That is not surprising. One thing that we have noticed over the years is that conspiracy theorists have a thought process that relies more on perception rather than reality. For example, a conspiracy theorist will say, “Look at ‘A’!” as support for his theory. When “A” is de-bunked, the conspiracy theorist will respond with “but look at ‘B’!” After debunking “B,” the conspiracy theorist will say, “Ah! But look at ‘C’!” When “C” is debunked also, they will return to “A” or a variation of “A.” After awhile, with all the permutations of the debunked theories they maintain are legitimate, a person is tired of the battle and simply says “whatever.” The conspiracy theorist will then say “you need to look at all the evidence!” even though you have discredited all of the evidence.

One person described this type of thought pattern as “roaches after the lights come on.” It is a weird name, but at the same time, it makes the point that if you kill one roach in your home, there are others – more in fact – because the roaches are able to reproduce faster than you can kill them. You may end up killing them to the point where they are out of your home, but they never go away. They never accept defeat. They will never listen to rational thought.

Such is the thought patterns often exhibited by conspiracy theorists such as “birthers.”

Our intention, therefore, is not to convince Irey of anything. We know that will not happen. Our intention is to show you the evidence that his analysis was sloppy, that his expertise is not in applicable areas relevant to this discussion, and his conclusions are wrong.

We’ll let you make the decision.

We apologize for the length of this post. Because of the nature of the topic, we know it will be long. It will also be technical and on many levels boring and as dry as button dust.

Part I – The Credentials.

According to the World Net Daily article, Irey is an “expert.” That sounds great until you read that he is an expert in typography. Typography, or rather a typographer, is a printer. It is one who sets up a press and then prints something. Such a skill was certainly viable and needed in the past. Today’s computerized graphic and desktop publishing programs have somewhat reduced the level of interaction between the printer and the designer, but that does not lessen Irey’s experience in typography. We’ll mention how much experience and how the depth of his relevant typographical knowledge is displayed later in this piece, but for now, we are willing to say that Irey’s experience in typography extends 50 years.

However, typography is not the issue in discovering or investigating whether the Obama birth certificates are forged or not. The Obama documents were not printed. They were typed. To accurately know or view what may or may not be happening with the birth certificates, one should know about typewriters, typewriter ribbons, the mechanics of a typewriter, etc.

As Irey himself says, his knowledge of typewriters is highly limited:

So my claim to understand this process actually comes from my 4 years in the Air Force from 1955 to the end of 1988 (sic). I was typing at the office headquarters directly under commanding officers of the several Air force groups I was assigned to and in those years produced a lot of typewritten documents.

So out of his 50 year career, Irey used a typewriter for 4 years. Hardly a glowing resume on the subject. Even so, using something is not the same thing as understanding the process that takes place when a key on a typewriter is pressed. A person who has been driving a car for 4 years is not a certified mechanic. In fact, most people who drive a car don’t know how it works other than to put gas in it and turn the ignition (or push a button in some modern cars.) Using a typewriter is not the same as understanding how it functions, its strengths and its weaknesses.

Irey is quick to point out that he has purchased some expensive equipment in his life. Once again, as we shall see, purchasing and using the equipment competently are two different things.

Irey states:

I am totally familiar with currant scanning and consider myself an expert in Adobe software … having used Adobe Photoshop since it was a beta test in Dec. of 1989

Yet in a later reply, he says

But since I made these studies I have learned of a method to export the PDF to tiff …

The ability to convert a PDF file directly to a .tif file (a graphic format) – especially a one page document as is the birth certificate – has been around for some time – certainly more than 5 years. A “workaround” has been available since the mid 1990’s, yet Irey says this is a new method to him.

Lastly in the Credentials area, we have Irey’s first response to us:

This is bogus … you are bogus. You are rowing a sinking boat. Swim before you drown fool.

Obama is toast … and the “Birthers” were right all along. It is you who is wrong. Got more? Bring it on. I prefer presidents who don’t lie and spend our tax dollars trying to hide their birth certificate that he couldn’t show us until it was forged recently. I like presidents who show us the birth certificate from both the dept. of health and the hospital damn fast or get the hell out of the White House. Apparently all that is OK with you as long as you agree with his politics. A Republican would never have gotten your so called technical support when Bush was lied about with a letter typed on a recent typewriter instead of one from the era. Rather was busted … and your gang is now busted also.

What is important about this statement is that Irey never took the time (it would have taken all of 30 seconds) to find that we here at Raised on Hoecakes are not supporters of Obama. We could be wrong, but we believe the only time that we have written on a decision from the Obama administration with which we agreed can be found in our March 9, 2011 post Even a Blind Squirrel Finds a Nut Sometimes. In that post, we agreed with the Obama administration’s decision to push back the implementation of “Real ID” requirements as we believe them to be an un-Constitutional mandate on the states and an infringement on the rights of people to conduct business and seek redress of grievances with the government.

(All he had to do was read the “Who I Am” page where he would have read:)

I am against the policies and politics of the current President, one Barack Obama. To some, this means that I am a racist, but since they already thought that because of where I live, I am not sure that they aren’t piling on.

Irey was so upset at the expose we had done on his “analysis,” he immediately concluded that we here at Raised on Hoecakes were Obama supporters. He apparently further believed that the intention of our original post on this issue was to discredit “birthers,” when in fact it was a plea that as we enter into the election season and campaigns, for the birthers to stop continually raising the question of the birth certificate as the controversy is settled in the minds of the vast majority of the people. Continually beating the “dead birther horse” hurts conservatives as we are seen as being aligned with conspiracy theorists. That was, is, and forever will remain the major point of the article.

Irey did not see that, nor did he see that we are not supporters of Obama. This is a pattern in Irey’s analysis. He makes an assumption, and then looks to support that assumption. Irey never goes deeper into understanding something that might be contrary to his perception.

Such a lack of depth in research on the simple matter of “Who I Am” is repeated by Irey in his analysis of the Obama birth certificate. Despite clear, obvious and more ration reasons for the disparities he sees and in some ways manufactures, he believes his answer is the only answer.

He was wrong about us and he is wrong about the birth certificate.

It is clear that when Irey formulates a belief, he looks for evidence to support that belief (to the exclusion of all other ideas), rather than the evidence leading him to a conclusion.

It is something that no true, un-biased “expert” would ever do.

Part II – The Document.

There are three “versions” of the long birth certificate that are germane to the discussion of the birth certificate authenticity and ultimately, Irey’s analysis.. The first is the original. We do not have access to the original document as it is sealed by the laws of the state of Hawaii.

The second version is a COPY of the original, seen below.

Last but not least is a copy of the copy – a black and white copy that was given to reporters when the White House announced it was releasing the birth certificate. A digital image is found below:

As a general rule of thumb, when examining a document, if the original is not available, one wants the earliest copy or iteration of the document. A copy is not as good as an original. A copy of the copy of the original is not as good as the original, or the first copy for that matter.

Below is line 6a taken from both documents:

Notice how in just one iteration, the characters are starting to change:

  • The width or “weight” of the “H” in Honolulu is heavier in the green copy.
  • The “n” appears closed on the green copy, but not the second version.
  • The “serif” at the top of the first “l” appears to be tilting upward but appears level on the second version. (The “serif” is the little stroke at the top and bottom of letters. In this case, if the “l” were the beginning of the game of “hangman,” we are talking about where one would attach the “noose.”)
  • The second “l” in the green copy is even with the “u’s” to either side. On the white copy, it appears to be “above the line.”
  • The last “u” on the white copy is developing a “droopy chin,” that is not evident on the green copy.
  • There are other examples within the word “Honolulu” (which was chosen at random) where the letters do not match.

    In fact, if you look at the white copy, you will see that apparently the two “u’s” are not identical, but they are on the green copy. The same thing holds for the two “l’s.” On the green copy, they are identical. On the white copy, they are not identical.

    The point we are making here is that the further iterations from the original document one gets, the more “graphic creep” starts to be seen. Just the act of making a copy of something will introduce small errors into the copy.

    The “graphic creep,” sometimes called “ghosts,” shadows,” or “crap that appears on the paper” is important because Irey bases his conclusion that the birth certificate is a forgery on the differences in the letters within the document itself. As we already have seen, just the mere copying of the document introduces such “shadows” and “ghosts.”

    As an “expert,” one would think Irey would be aware of this, but he discards the degradation issue between copies by saying:

    It’s not my fault that the White House would not make a better scan.

    We agree that it is not his fault for quality of the scan given to him. Yet because Irey is basing his analysis and conclusions on what he knows is a scan of less than optimum quality, it is his responsibility for the conclusions he draws based on a scan he knows is not good enough for the analysis he performs.

    However, even after receiving the copy of the copy of the original document, Irey does something even more astounding.

    He scans the copy.

    The “expert” who should know and recognize the degradation that occurs when copies are made, makes a scan of the copy of the copy of the original.

    Part III – The Scan.

    Of the scan of the copy of the copy of the original, Irey says,

    What I used was the Associated Press version that was a direct scan at 150 dpi of the copy machine copies given out at the White House press conference

    “DPI” stands for “dots per inch. In the scanning and printing world, the higher the dpi, the better the image. Irey claims that 150 dpi is “more than adequate.” If he were going to use the image in its scanned dimensions, 150 dpi would not be acceptable. But remember, Irey is not using the image at the same dimensions. He is blowing the image up to allegedly make comparisons and an “analysis” of the typefaces.

    Furthermore, the resolution of 150 dpi is below that of a fax machine, which scans at a rate of 200 dpi. Irey’s scan resolution is below that of a fax machine.

    To illustrate, we took the name “Irey” and typed it into an image using a standard 12 point font into a image with the resolution of 150 dpi. We then blew that image up to the size given in the WND article that cites Mr. Ierey as an expert. This is the result:

    See how the image is blurry? See how it is pixelated?

    This is from a pristine, digital image source. Expanding or blowing up the perfect image gives the type of distortion and pixelation that we initially mentioned in our rebuttal to Mr. Irey’s work.

    The distortion would be worse with an image that was scanned previously or copied. Further degradation of the crispness of the image would occur when a black and white cope of an image with a color background and was used as the basis of the low-res scan.

    To illustrate the difference, here is the same name, typed with the same font and same size with a 9600 dpi resolution and then blown up:

    The difference is clear to see when the source image is pristine. Irey’s analysis is on a document that is three times removed from the original – each iteration adding more and more error when compared to the original.

    One other thing should be noted about Irey’s claim that a 150 dpi “is good enough to see different typewritten styles at least.” In his business as a typographer, one would hope that Irey would want to print the best and sharpest images possible. No one – and we mean no one – would ever accept a 150 dpi image for printing. Professional printers all want a resolution that is 900 dpi or higher. Most want 1200 dpi. Irey, as a professional printer, would not accept such a low resolution image for printing. Yet he expects us to accept a resolution that is one-eighth the quality when discussing the important issue of a faked birth certificate. Why would that be? Why would his work in a professional setting require one thing and yet when acting as an “expert,” he says that one-eighth of the quality is “good enough?”

    Again we remind you that Irey uses a scan is one-eighth the quality of a document that, and as we have already shown, already has copy induced shadows and ghosts. Why would 1200 dpi be required for a pristine image and 150 dpi be acceptable for an image that is no where close to pristine?

    Part IV – the “Blow-Ups”

    When an image is “blown up,” expanded or enlarged, the computer uses a bit of mathematics – an algorithm – to determine the color of the pixels as the image is expanded. What the algorithm does is take the color values of a pixel and of the pixels that surround it to determine an “intermediate color” that allows the image to expand and still be somewhat crisp and clear.

    With black and white images, as we are dealing with from Irey’s analysis, this process can best be demonstrated by the following.

    The red lines represent a what the computer “sees” when looking at a dot as in “dot per inch.” One square is equal to one “dot.” Obviously the more dpi you have, the smaller the grid pattern but for now that is not a worry.

    Column 1 is full of black. Each grid square or dot is black. Column 2 has only 25% black in the square. The remaining 75% is white. Column 3 is 50% black and 50% white. Finally, column 4 is 75% black and 25% white.

    When the image is expanded or enlarged, The algorithm looks at the percentage of white and black and comes up with a value for the color in the expanded grid.

    That algorithm results in the following:

    Because column 1 was 100% black, it remains 100% black when expanded. Column 2 started out as 25% black and is now what is referred to as “25% gray.” Column 3 started as 50% black and becomes a 50% gray. Column 4 started as 75% black and is now a 75% gray.

    Why did we take you down that boring path of technical details? We want you to understand the process.

    We want you to understand how this, which is part of Irey’s “proof,” happened:

    Remember the image that results when the 150 dpi scan of Irey is enlarged? This image resulted:

    Contrast the enlarged “Irey” image with the image he says indicates that there are different typesets being used. Notice anything? Rather, notice what is mostly missing in the image Irey says proves his case?

    If you said “shades of gray,” you win a prize. Irey’s expanded letters are missing the vast amount of blurring that would occur and as we demonstrated, did occur. There is some “blue-ish grey” tones around the letters, but that is a result of Irey cutting the letters from the original background and pasting them onto a pure white background. There is not nearly the range of grays one would see if the image had been left alone.

    So where did the greys go? As we said, some remain, but not nearly the amount that should be there.

    Easy. Irey manipulated the expanded image. Irey took the expanded black and white image with grays and then adjusted the contrast. This is what results when we do the same with our blurry “Irey” image with the intermediate grays:

    Notice what has happened. Not only have the grays disappeared, but the smoothness is gone. The letters have bumps and valleys on them – just as Irey’s “proof” letters do.

    How adjusting the contrast does this is simple. The computer once again uses an algorithm as the contrast is adjusted. For black and white images, as we are dealing with here, the computer shifts the anything from a 1% gray to a 50% towards the color white. For 50% grays to 99% grays, the color moves to black.

    Because you can have varying “levels” of black in a square or dot before enlargement right next to each other, you may have a square that upon expansion will have a 40% gray sitting nest to a square with a 60% gray. When the contrast is adjusted higher, the 40% gray becomes white and the 60% gray becomes black. The result is the hills and valleys you see.

    This becomes compounded when one realized that in a scanned image, you may have one stroke of a letter that barely fills up a square. In the same scan, you may have the same letter whose stroke fills up 51% of the square. When the image is expanded and the contrast adjusted, you can have a edge whose gray now is white and another square one a different letter whose square is totally black.

    The result is the same letter on various parts of the document will show as different “weights” or thicknesses. Some letters will grow and others will shrink, which is exactly what happened during Irey’s “analysis.” Those different weights and thicknesses to Irey “prove” the birth certificate is a forgery. Irey claims there is no other way to explain the differences in letters within the birth certificate. As we have just shown, there are good, legitimate reasons for the differences. Irey would know there are other reasons for the differences in the typestyles if he had more knowledge of the way the digital images are handled or if he had less of a bias to “prove” something the evidence does not support.

    As we said earlier, Irey claims to have purchased expensive equipment and programs. That is all fine and dandy. Using that equipment and being knowledgeable in graphics programs is a different matter.

    Irey’s “proof,” his claim of being an “expert” and his conclusions are beginning to fall like a house of cards.

    Part V – The Original Printer:The Typewriter.

    It is difficult to look at desktop publishing now and compare it to the typewriter that was used to produce birth certificates in the early 1960’s. When we type a letter or document today, the letters are crisp and clear on our computer screens. That crispness is reproduced on paper by laser printers or inkjet printers whose capabilities would astound a clerk in 1961. However, without a discussion of the typewriter, this analysis would be incomplete.

    As most people know, the typewriter was invented over 100 years ago and has remained fundamentally unchanged since that time. A typewriter imprints an image of a letter or symbol on paper by having a typebar with a reverse image of the letter or symbol cast on it striking a colored ribbon which was in front of the paper. The striking of the typebar on the ribbon would leave an imprint of the letter or symbol on the paper.

    Ribbons in 1961, were generally made of an ink impregnated fabric. When the ribbon was new and “fresh out of the box,” the letters and symbols produced were the clearest. Because of the nature of a cast letter striking fabric ribbon, the result was never as clear as today’s laser and inkjet printers. The fibers of the ribbon would leave faint “ghosts” around the letters.

    (One can see a similar effect by tracing an image onto a piece of paper using carbon paper. The lines and arcs on the paper produced by the carbon paper will not be as crisp and clear as the original. This is due to the fact that a pen, pencil or stylus cannot make a “clean” impression on the carbon paper. There will always be a slight ghost on the lines and arcs from the slight pressure applied to the carbon paper from the sides of the pen, pencil or stylus point.)

    On the typewriter, the fibers and ink itself from ribbon would often clog the letters and symbols on the typebar while being used. It was not uncommon to see letters such as an “o,” “a,” “e,” “b,” etc., with a “cloud” in the closed loops of the letters as that is where the fibers and ink would build up. The space between the top of the letter “i” and the dot over the “i” was susceptible to being clogged as well. Clerks and secretaries of the time would fight this by sometimes picking at the fibers with a pin, brushing the letters on the typebars with a brush to clean them out or applying a chemical solution to the typebars which would loosen the clog, which could then be wiped away with a cloth.

    All this is somewhat mundane and boring until you realize that the very act of typing onto a document left the aforementioned “ghosts” and “clouds” within the typed document. This is relevant due to the fact that as the letters on the original are slightly fuzzy, any analysis that fails to take that into account is doomed to fail.

    The image of the ribbon to the right shows a fairly standard ribbon of the early 1960’s. When the ribbon was removed from the packing and placed onto the typewriter, one spool containing the fresh ribbon was placed on the left side of the typewriter while the other spool – the empty and “pickup spool” was placed on the right. As the typewriter was used, the pickup spool would pull the ribbon through the striking area of the typebar. This insured the typebar wasn’t hitting on the ribbon in the same spot. When the length of ribbon ran out, a small “reverse mechanism” would be engaged and the direction of the ribbon would be reversed. Thus, the pick-up spool which now had the entire length of the ribbon on it, would change directions and the feeder spool on the other side of the typewriter would become the pick-up spool, pulling the ribbon back through the striking area in the opposite direction.

    Once again, we apologize for the mundane and somewhat technical aspect of this, but we want to be thorough.

    The relevance of this aspect of the operation of the typewriter is shown in the image below:

    The image represents the actual ribbon and the effects of the typebar striking it, and transferring the ink to the paper.

    Imagine if you will that the first time the ribbon goes through the striking area, the typist hits the “t” key, imprinting the letter “t” onto the page. (The red is only for illustration purposes. In the real world, the letter would appear black as that is the color of the ribbon.) When the ribbon has spooled out and is reversed, assume the typist types the letter “o” just about the time the area on the ribbon where the “t” was typed earlier. We’ve illustrated this for discussion purposes by having on the left of the image the “t” being over-struck by the letter “o.” However, the density of the available ink on the ribbon in that area is not the same as when the ribbon was new and going by the striking area for the first time. Consequently, as there is less ink, letters were often not as dark when typed on a ribbon that was passing through the striking area for a second time. If the letters lined up as we illustrate, you would get a slight “graying” of the overlapped area instead of the dark black of the first pass of the ribbon.

    This is important when one realizes that Irey is scanning a black and white image. Even if the “grayed” area is not totally visible to the human eye on the original, the scans and copying will bring these areas to light. You can see it here on the letter “H:”

    How does Irey account for the misshapen “H” with the green background? He doesn’t. And that is a problem.

    We can and do account for it. The “gap” in the right hand down stroke of the “H” is from a lack of ink.

    Furthermore, as you can see, the “H” on the green background appears to be different from that of “H” on the white background. Irey does not address how they became different. He only addresses how on his scanned copy of a copy the letters are different in comparison to other letters on the page. As we have shown, the typewriter could and did produce different “qualities” of letters on the same page.

    Irey never addresses this nor considers it. In failing to take into account how the original document was made and also failing to take into account the differences in typed letters in the original, Irey’s analysis cannot be complete or for that matter, accurate.

    Irey did not examine the impact of how the typewriter affects the original and in a response, states:

    I claim that a secretary who used a manual typewriter back in the 50′s would be the best judge of those issues having seen everything the old typewrites could do with slipping paper … carriages … ribbons …. dirt … water … jamming …. etc.

    So my claim to understand this process actually comes from my 4 years in the Air Force from 1955 to the end of 1988 (sic). I was typing at the office headquarters directly under commanding officers of the several Air force groups I was assigned to and in those years produced a lot of typewritten documents.

    Clearly Irey does not understand that process for he fails to address the issues of how the original document was made and how it impacts his analysis.

    Part VI – The Twin Two’s

    On the birth certificate, there are two “2’s:” one in box 5b, which asks the hour of the birth, and box 10, which asks the age of the father.

    Irey repeatedly asked us how the 2 could be so different:

    What is important to the evidence is when my character comparisons show a distinct change of appearance such as those two number 2′s … one is wide and one is narrow yet both are sharp. if you are going to suggest that both number 2′s came from the same metal stamp-like character striking a ribbon to make an impression of paper yet one is narrow … then you must provide a reason for that effect … because both are sharp and no smear is evident.

    Let’s examine the “twin 2’s.”

    The image below is a comparison of the 2’s that are found on the document. Unlike Irey, we kept them in their “natural habitat.”

    First, notice that in the green background, the 2’s are identical. There is no difference. There is slight blurring as we said there would be from the ribbon and the typewriter. If you are skeptical, as was another staff member here at Raised on Hoecakes, here are the “2’s” stacked on each other:

    But now compare the 2’s on the white background. They appear to be different 2’s. The “swoopy tail” of the one on the left has flattened out. In fact, it has flattened out when compared to the green background image. The 2 on the right seems to be more narrow than its brother on the left and more importantly, than the 2 on the green background above it.

    The “twin 2’s,” upon which Irey relies so heavily to prove that the typestyles on the birth certificate are not the same, prove something totally different: They prove, as we said earlier, that copies, copies of copies and scans of copies of copies introduce small, but detectable differences between the document being copied and the copy itself.

    For Irey’s theory to be correct – that the different typestyles prove that different typewriters or letters were cut and pasted into the birth certificate – someone would have had to change typestyles between the time the first green copy of the document was made and the time the copy of that document was released – not when the document was originally produced. In that there is no logical, practical or demonstrable evidence that this occurred, the only inescapable, incontrovertible, indisputable answer is that Irey is wrong. What also is clearly evident is that Irey’s conclusions on the differences between the “2’s” are based on errors he introduced into the analysis.

    Part VII – Irey’s Conclusions.

    In the World Net Daily article, Irey says:

    “My analysis proves beyond a doubt that it would be impossible for the different letters that appear in the Obama birth certificate to have been typed by one typewriter,” Irey told WND.

    “Typewriters in 1961 could not change the size and shape of a letter on the fly like that,” he said. “This document is definitely a forgery.”

    To support his conclusion, Irey uses the images we have shown above plus this one:

    We are far more than doubtful.

    To recap, Irey has no expertise in the area of the images he manipulates. While we accept, for the time being, his “expertise” in typography, it is clear that his knowledge of computer imaging is lacking to be called an “expert.” Examples of this are:

  • using an image that is a scan of a copy of a copy.
  • using a low resolution scan.
  • failing to address what he now would consider the typeface and weight differences between the “green” birth certificate image and the copy he used to perform his analysis.
  • failing to address what he now would consider the typeface and weight differences between the “green” birth certificate image and the scan of the copy he used to perform his analysis.
  • failing to address how the low resolution scan and the interpolation of black and white pixels when enlarged would affect the image being analyzed.
  • failing to disclose how he had manipulated the image to get greater differences in typefaces and weight.
  • failing to address the impact of the typewriter technology of the day impacts the image analysis.
  • Irey addresses none of these issues except for the quality, or lack thereof, of the copy of the birth certificate he used. Even then, as we noted, Irey blamed someone else for his failure to address the issue and attempt to correct it.

    To show just how badly Irey has manufactured his “conclusions,” we ask that you examine the word “Student.” Irey uses the word “Student” to illustrate what he considers the difference in letters:

    He says that the difference in the two “t’s” supports the theory that a different typewriter was used.

    What he doesn’t answer is “why? Why use different letters as he claims? If one is going to copy a single letter for use in a word from another document, why not copy the entire word from another document?”

    It is much more difficult to line up a single letter with others than it is to place a complete word into a box on a form. Does Irey believe that “Student” was not an occupation that was ever put on a birth certificate?

    Occam’s Razor comes into play here. Is it more likely that someone cut and pasted singular letters on a document to form the word “Student?” Or would a person have pasted an entire word?

    Furthermore, if someone were going to cut and paste different letters, why wouldn’t they use the same letter repeatedly as opposed to getting another letter to cut and paste? Why wouldn’t one use the same letter “t” thoughout the document if they were cutting and pasting? The only time you would go “off the document” to get a letter to cut and paste would be when that letter was not already in the document. Yet Irey would have you believe that someone went out, then cut and pasted a letter into the document – 22 times for the letter “a” alone.

    Irey’s reliance, in part, on the example of the word “Student” shows the fallacy in his position. Cutting and pasting a mass of individual letters into a document doesn’t make any sense.

    And as we previously noted, Irey’s reliance on the “twin 2’s” not only do not support his contention, they actually show the fallacy in Irey’s argument and at the same time, heavily damage Irey’s credibility.

    But there is something else we wish to point out. In our comment section we asked Irey to identify the typefaces and weights of the letters that were used. After all, if he is claiming that the typefaces and weights throughout the document are different, for a “typographical expert” it would be easy to show the different typefaces, the family members of a certain typeface or at the very least, the varying weights.

    Irey responded with:

    ….. then maybe I could tell you the actual name of the type style. I did not bother with that identification because it is not important to the evidence.

    Remember, Irey is making the claim that the typestyles are different. That is the basis for his conclusion that the document is forged. Yet he believes that not establishing the typestyle or weights used is “not important.” What Irey dismisses is crucial because without a control typestyle, one cannot compare what the typestyle would look like given the iterations from the original and the digital manipulation the Irey has subjected the image to.

    For a 50 year career in “typography,” the fact that Irey did not identify the typesets and weights is more than troubling. If he could, he would because it is crucial to examining the evidence and his conclusions. The fact that he did not damages his claim of being an “expert.”

    Part VIII – Our Conclusions.

    We here at Raised on Hoecakes did not want this fight. We did not want our mailbox to be flooded with hateful, attacking and threatening emails. However, for right or wrong, that is where we are now.

    We wrote a post on the idea that the birther issue was a distraction. To support that idea, we used the work of Paul Irey to demonstrate the lack of quality analysis that is often used to buttress the birther claim that Obama’s birth certificate is a forgery. “Birthers,” like all conspiracy theorists, are more concerned with a conclusion that agrees with them, rather than actually examining the “evidence” someone uses to come to that agreeable conclusion.

    Irey’s conclusion that the birth certificate rests on one of two theories. First is the idea that somehow a different typeface was used on different sections on the birth certificate. According to Irey, this means that at some point in time, a different typewriter was used to fill in different sections of the birth certificate. As we have shown, Irey’s claim that a different typeface was used on different sections means the typewriter change took place between the time the green copy of the birth certificate was made, and the time the second, black and white copy was made from the green birth certificate. Just typing his position is difficult because it is so ludicrous, laughable and without a shred of support that it is difficult to type while laughing so hard.

    His second position would be that someone cut and pasted different letters from different documents onto ….. onto….. onto…. something. Irey really wants you to believe that it makes sense that someone actually went and found 22 examples of the letter “a,” 8 different examples of the letter “t,” 5 “y’s,” and two each of “A,” “E,” “H,” “l,” “K,” and commas. He never explains why anyone would do this. He never explains why, once one had a certain letter to use, they would not use the same letter over and over as needed. He never addressed the fact that the differences he sees are attributable to his actions.

    Irey’s conclusions have no support.

    His house of cards has collapsed.

    We will not back down given the overwhelming evidence that Irey’s “expert conclusion” has enough issues, holes, and deceptions to drive a tractor-trailer though. His work is sloppy. His knowledge of the subject of digital images is lacking. His lack of disclosure on the effect of increasing the contrast on the letters is deceptive.

    We don’t know about other birthers who have looked at the image of the birth certificate. We don’t know their conclusions nor do we care to at this time.

    We do know that Irey’s analysis and conclusions are not based on any careful, scientific, or “expert” knowledge.

    And we have proven it.

    18 Responses to “Paul Irey Doesn’t Like Us. We Are Not Shedding Tears.”

    1. Robert says:

      Interesting…No comments?

    2. Robert says:

      AAfterwit? What would you be hiding with that kind of name? Who are you to pick Paul Irey apart? What are your credentials?

    3. sfw010 says:

      The fine detailed white BC was handed out at the press conference and was on the whitehouse website for a few short hours before being replaced with the green one. By comparison the green copy has distorted digitized lettering. Your analysis is for that reason alone faulty. The white one can still be found here:
      If you beleive the green BC is the original, then where did the white one come from and why does it have better overall detail?

      • AAfterwit says:

        A better question is “what purpose does the green background serve?”

        When you know the answer to that, you have the answers to the rest of your questions.

    4. sfw010 says:

      I have a theory about the green background. If you take the white copy from the link above into paintshop pro for example, and dial down the contrast, you will see the short form BC shining throught from behind. What’s a copy of the shorform BC doing there? I beleive the green was added to cover that over. I also speculate that the green copy lettering was distorted to cover over the many differences found in the white copy. But I think the basic observations must be kept simple to get more people interested. The details can come later. Few people even know about these 2 versions.

      • AAfterwit says:

        If you dial down the contrast, you see the watermark of the paper, which is exactly what you should be seeing if the document was real.

        The ghost image you are talking about adds to the credibility of the document being real, not the other way around.

    5. sfw010 says:

      So which one are you saying is the real one?

      • AAfterwit says:

        Neither is the “real” one. They are both copies. The green one is the more “correct” one as it is a closer representation because it shows the security paper on which birth certificates were printed.

        States used and still use paper that is difficult to copy. You see the effects on both copies. When a color copy is made, the black type starts to “blend” with the green security features. That way you cannot make a copy of the paper and fake a birth certificate.

        The black and white copy, is just that – a black and white copy. The green security features when copied for all intents and purposes disappear. That is because states didn’t want people to make a black and white copy and then colorize the green security features back in,

        When you lower the contrast on the black and white copy, you an start to see the security stuff come back in on the left side of the page where the book was bent to make the copy. That is because the when the copy was made, the green shifted a little more toward the black side of the spectrum.

        But you can see the security feature come back, albeit in black and white.

        The paper is doing exactly what it is supposed to be doing. It is making it difficult to copy or reproduce the birth certificate. That is why copies were generally “certified” by the state as being a legal copy.

        I don’t have an opinion on the birth certificate issue other than I believe it is a distraction from real issues that people in this country care about. What I have noticed on a lot of sites that question the birth certificate that much of it is sloppy work. People make the claim that something can “only be because the birth certificate is a fake,” when in fact other ways of the same errors can creep in naturally.

        Notice here that in the post to which you are responding I never say that the birth certificate presented by the White House is real, but rather the work done by one individual who concluded the birth certificate was fake was not accurate, scholarly and somewhat deceptive.

        Where that takes people after that, I don’t know.

    6. sfw010 says:

      I have appreciated our discussion. While I tend not to agree with your conclusions, I can only hope that some interest is taken in the media. Not likely I know. To that end, I have written a letter to the HI DOH asking specifically the kind of paper used for the 2 copies given to the whitehouse lawyer. It will be interesting to see the response. From there I can move forward.

      • AAfterwit says:

        I can tell you what Hawaii will say.

        Dear sir,
        The paper was 20# white copy paper.
        Thank you.

        The question isn’t what paper was given out, it is what paper was used on the original birth certificate. Copies of that were made. Copy paper is usually 20# white paper.

        That’s the answer.

    7. Robert says:

      Spam removed

      • AAfterwit says:

        Sorry Robert, we are no longer allowing spam on this subject.

        Especially such a ridiculous article as the one you linked to.

        • Robert says:

          Yeah right. Because it came from WND, it’s spam. If it had come from Snopes, it wouldn’t have been spam, would it?

          ‘Ridiculous article’ is your “opinion”. Not hard to see your bias though, as always.

          • AAfterwit says:

            That’s the difference between logical people and people of your ilk, Robert. Logical people actually read things and verify them. You look at things that you agree with and think they must be right.

            The article you linked to was nothing but propaganda and bad propaganda at that. Its premise is so ridiculous that one wonders why anyone would every believe that WND and Corsi are serious.

            The link was deleted not because of where it came from, but the lack of credible content.

    8. Robert says:

      Propaganda? Have you verified that Joseph M. Newcomer is wrong? Apparently, he wasn’t wrong about Dan Rather, was he?

      How about the Fox News expert denial?

      I’ve always thought you were a hard-headed, opinionated, die-hard Obama supporter but that’s changing some. My guess (now) is you have a deep hatred for Jerome Corsi.

      Obviously, you think you’re smarter and more logical than others. You think being ‘anonymous’ is cool and somehow gives you credibility.

      You’re just a cowardly cheap-shot artist!

      • AAfterwit says:

        Clearly you have not read the article, Robert. That is how propaganda works. It takes simple points and makes them into something huge.

        As for the link on the “denial,” we will have a post on that tomorrow, where we once again expose that you and some birthers only care about the “conclusion,” and not any supporting facts. That is how you work.

        This is not a case of anyone being smarter, this is simply a case where you and others are ignorant of how illogical, silly and inconsistent your own “proofs” are.

        You are scared to look at what is actually said.

        • Robert says:

          I DID the read the article.

          The difference is the conclusion you come to and the overbearing arrogance you display in EVERY matter. You’re right and everybody else is wrong! Just plain RUDE, you are.

          I’m positive I’m not the first to call you out on this and most likely why you choose to hide behind this “anonymity fascade”

          Continue to stand behind the gaggle of lies and phony/falsified/forged documents that is Obama’s history. Your prerogative!

          • AAfterwit says:

            The difference is, Robert, that the article is based on a demonstrable false headline.

            If you can’t see that, I am sorry.

            It is the same type of headline that Trembley says was false from the FoxNews Blog. Now Corsi uses the same tactic, and you go ga-ga over it.

            Clearly you didn’t read the article with any type of objective manner. That is on you, not me.

            You continue to make claims against me that are demonstrably false.

            We are done with this thread and with you.

    9. […] that has been our experience so far with people in the “birther” movement. Since our last article on the subject addressing just one issue and one “conclusion,” we have had people stop […]