You knew I had pocket rockets, right? How often have you seen me come up with something on The Ticker without a fairly-decent set of evidence behind what I had to say?
It's time to call the curtain on this game and then go back to economics.
Find me one typewriter in the world, anywhere, that can perform kerning and I will believe this "certificate" is real.
For the uninitiated, "kerning" is the process of manipulating the spacing of letters to make the appearance more pleasing. Here's an example from this Ticker itself:
This process, of course, requires that you know what the next letter is. With a computer this is pretty easy, since the computer can retroactively go back and adjust, and it also can typeset the current letter with knowledge of what the previous one was.
A typewriter, on the other hand, is a mechanical device. It does not know what the next letter is that you will type, nor does it know what the last letter was that you typed. It thus has a typeface that always leaves physical space between the boundary of each character and the impression. It has to, lest letters run together and look like utter crap.
Typesetters (offset printing machines and similar) perform kerning - in fact, it's part of typesetting. But typewriters do not, cannot, and never have.
This, of course, is why the typed Birth Certificate has kerned text in it.
Oh, and before you say "that's an artifact of what the White House did with their automated process", here's the same thing on the AP copy, which is a simple picture scanned in, with no post-processing of materiality I can detect and no layers.
Incidentally this is not the only example, as I show in the video.
To refute this point you must come up with a typewriter that contains a flux capacitor and thus is capable of accurately predicting the future.
I'm sure there will be people who argue some sort of explanation (e.g. "sloppy carriage") for these results. But at the end of the day, here's the point: Exactly how many of these "explanations" have to line up in this way for everything to be on the up-and-up with this document? Each of these explanations that has been proffered - tab stops, damage to the background, the low number of layers from automated processing that just happen to all be on things that would be important to change if you were forging something, the appearance of kerning, misalignment of certain fields .vs. others, checkboxes that happen to be PIXEL identical yet are allegedly reduced by a program from a scan (and not from a "copy and paste" and more - has a probability associated with it as having happened by random chance, assuming no human malfeasance.
How many of these random probability events have to fall exactly the right way for the explanation that everything is on the up and up to be valid?
Let's put some numbers to this. Assume that each of the oddities identified has a 1 in 4 chance of happening by random odds. That's probably being generous, but we'll go there. Let's further assume that we can easily identify ten of these low-probability but possible anomalies.
Then we can determine the odds of these probabilities "stacking" using simple exponential math: 0.25 ^ 10 = 0.000001. That's a one in a million chance.
If you can find just one more similar anomaly, the odds drop to 0.0000002, or about 1 in 20 million. And if you can find one more, the odds are approximately the same as correctly identifying one random person in the United States population.
Remember, in 1961 nobody knew this person was anyone but a random half-black baby. There was absolutely nothing remarkable about him that would distinguish him from the other kids born in Hawaii - or anywhere else - that year. There was no reason for his birth certificate to be made any more "pretty" than any other kid's, or for any sort of special treatment. Nobody knew, absent a time machine, that this person would be President in 2008.
What are the odds, folks, that it would all line up as the Obama supports claim by simple random chance?
Now about that forensic analysis we should have done on the alleged document that allegedly is in the files at the Hawaii Registrar's office in order to see if it's really 50ish years old..... This is the only way we are going to get the truth. Will the American people, Congress, or someone (e.g. a judge) demand defensible truth on this topic? We damn well should.
(I think that's my pot in the center of the table. Would you help me push the rather-large pile of chips over here please?)
PS: This is exactly how Dan Rather got caught - typography that was impossible to produce using the alleged tool the "document" was created with.
Where We Are, Where We're Heading (2013) - The annual 2013 Ticker
The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.
NO MATERIAL HERE CONSTITUTES "INVESTMENT ADVICE" NOR IS IT A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY OR SELL ANY FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO STOCKS, OPTIONS, BONDS OR FUTURES.
The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.
Looking for "The Best of Market Ticker"? Check out Ticker Classics.
Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.
The Market Ticker content may be reproduced or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media or for commercial use.
Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.