Victoria Nicks

Another computer software expert is questioning the validity of the Obama birth document released by the White House.

Victoria Nicks, who holds both a Bachelor’s and a Master’s Degree in Information Technology, argues that the presence of “differently sized pixels” in the image released to the public April 27 by the White House indicates that it’s not “an exact duplicate of an original document scan.”

In a piece on the Decoded Science website, she also points out that there are “misaligned pixels” throughout the document.

Get the New York Times best-seller “Where’s the Birth Certificate? The Case that Barack Obama Is Not Eligible to be President,” by Jerome Corsi.

“The fact that there are different-sized pixels throughout the document indicates, without a doubt, that the document has been altered from its original state,” she writes.

Image from the Obama birth document released by the White House April 27

While Nicks is not willing to state that the Obama document is a forgery, others graphics experts have come to that conclusion.

Nicks says it’s possible that the alteration is solely the result of a standard optimization process, but it’s clear that the document is not an exact copy of an original birth certificate.

She says that while most of the Obama document is composed of larger pixels, the layer of pixels that can be removed from the document using the software program Adobe Illustrator is made up of much smaller pixels.

In a sample, she demonstrates that pixels in some of the text areas are one-quarter the size of the background pixels.

The sample below is taken from the upper portion of the “AR” in “BARACK.”

Sample from the upper portion of the “AR” in “BARACK” showing the difference in pixel size

The smaller pixels are present only in the main text layer and the halo around the text layer, she explains.

Read what other experts have said on the subject of Obama’s birth certificate image and its authenticity.

She notes the grid-lines of an image taken from the underside of the “A” in BARACK, with grid-lines added to clarify pixel boundaries.

Grid-lines show evidence of manipulation

The smaller pixels fit perfectly into the larger-sized pixels, she points out.

“This is indicative of computer manipulation, perhaps part of the optimization process, rather than editing by human hands,” she writes.

Some portions of the text, however, do not align, as can be seen in the image below.

Some portions of the text do not align

As WND reported, Adobe software specialist Mara Zebest also found inconsistencies in the pixels and bitmap text that display throughout the image of the Obama document.

In a detailed analysis, the nationally recognized computer expert – who has served as contributing author and technical editor for more than 100 books on Adobe and Microsoft software – concluded the Obama long-form birth-certificate image released by the White House is fraudulent.

Nicks, however, takes issue with Zebest’s contention that the lack of “chromatic aberration” in the document mean the document is a forgery.

Chromatic aberration is the color fringe that appears along the lines of sharply contrasting colors in an image produced by a color scanner. It’s the result of the refraction of the bright light used during the scanning process.

Nicks argues that while many scanners leave a color fringe, current technology allows contemporary models to provide an accurate image, with no chromatic aberration.

“If the White House were willing to release the model of scanner used to scan the birth certificate, it would be possible to debunk this claim with no doubt whatsoever,” Nicks said. “Without the exact model of scanner used, we can not specifically refute the claim as pertaining to the President’s birth certificate scan.”

Zebest asserts the PDF file released by the White House contains “evidence of manipulation suggesting that one or more forgers utilized existing Hawaiian birth certificates to assemble fraudulently for Barack Obama a document the president presented to the world as authentic.”

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.