Two new videos explode the Cold Case Posse forgery myths

I just completed and published my second YouTube video in the series titled ‘President Obama’s Birth Certificate is not a forgery.

Part I:

Part II:

 

Coming soon will be Part III, “All about halos”.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Birthers, Mike Zullo, Xerox and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

258 Responses to Two new videos explode the Cold Case Posse forgery myths

  1. NOT FUCKED UP says:

    Hey asshole WANKER! don’t shut your Blogradio show down… it’s a positive proof that you and yours are TOTALLY fucked up with fack analysis.
    FUCK YOU and your commie sincophants who haven’t a fucking clue on what is going in with AMERICA”S FREEDOMS… you DUMB FUCK
    Get LOST dumb fuck and KEEP YOUR BLOG SHOW ONLINE so that the WORLD can laught ast your STUPID ass … along with laughing at your DUMB FUCK phony Drs… you have on your dumb fuck show
    We here in the WANKA destroy audience will shoot you in the ASSS with facts.
    BT! dumb fuck YOUR VIDEOS SERVE TO PROVE HOW FUCKING STUPID YOU ARE … you dumb FUCK I have more to say but what I have to say will be on other BLOGS and will contain subjects HOW A DUM FUCK RC can’t analyze any FUCKING evidence with any amount of technical knowledge or skills to do so.

    YOU DUMB FUCK … DO NOT END YOU BLOGTALKRADIO SHOW so that we can shove your STUPIDITY of facts up YOUR stinking COMMIE ass

  2. Hermitian says:

    Readers seeking the truth can find it at the original Reality Check Radio Blog here:

    http://www.realitycheckradio.com/

    You’ll find no slight of hand — just the facts.

    And they are simple enough for Children.

    The answer to your question 1.

    The presence or absence of the YCbCr label in the extracted JPEG depends on the extraction tool used to extract the JPEG. I have applied at least a dozen tools and the results are that a few show your JPEG label in the place that you three Amigos have stated is exclusive to Xerox, at least two find the same label in the JFIF header, and the rest do not show the label at all.

    There is no one “right’ way to extract the JPEG.

    • Jim says:

      Hermie: “There is no one “right’ way to extract the JPEG.”

      BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!! That statement right there shows you have no idea how computers work. Yes, there is a “right” way, the “wrong” way will not give you an image. How ignorant.

    • First, I have no connection at all with the link you posted. Second, there is a a right way and a wrong way to extract a compressed file. The right way preserves all the information the other does not.

      You are making progress though. So now that you figured out the YCbCr tag is there in both the Xerox scans and the Preview resaved version of Xerox scans and in the LFBC pdf at Whitehouse.gov what conclusion would you naturally draw from that?

      • Hermitian says:

        My Conclusion:

        That Xerox would not place a comment in a JPEG which might or might not be extracted with the JPEG. Instead they would have placed it in the scan to E-mail PDF file. After all, Xerox doesn’t own JPEG or the YCbCr colorspace but you claim that they do own the PDF creation software. Duh!!! Some things are just intuitively obvious.

        And then there’s the strange finding that the YCbCr label is visible in the PDF after the Preview print to PDF step but not in the Xerox scan to PDF file. Evidently this difference is because Preview removed the Flate compression from the JPEG that was purportedly applied by the Xerox. Xerox would certainly be aware of this and thus it makes no sense for Xerox to place the label comment in the JPEG and then Flate compress the PDF and hence make it invisible. The Flate comp step only delivered 2.2% compression.

        By the way — you need to post a link to the Preview saved PDF file along with a clarification of when you used the autorotate tool and when you didn’t.

        • That Xerox would not place a comment in a JPEG which might or might not be extracted with the JPEG. Instead they would have placed it in the scan to E-mail PDF file. After all, Xerox doesn’t own JPEG or the YCbCr colorspace but you claim that they do own the PDF creation software. Duh!!! Some things are just intuitively obvious.

          That is such stupidity one can cut it with a knife. Why don’t you find that comment string in any other JPG before making such a stupid statement.

          • Hermitian says:

            Reality Check says:

            January 31, 2014 at 7:31 pm

            “”Hermitian

            “”That Xerox would not place a comment in a JPEG which might or might not be extracted with the JPEG. Instead they would have placed it in the scan to E-mail PDF file. After all, Xerox doesn’t own JPEG or the YCbCr colorspace but you claim that they do own the PDF creation software. Duh!!! Some things are just intuitively obvious.””

            “That is such stupidity one can cut it with a knife. Why don’t you find that comment string in any other JPG before making such a stupid statement.”

            Proof that the YCbCr label is not unique to Xerox is now in hand. I am posting a link for an availble document (available on the internet) which was not created by a Xerox but has the YCbCr label.

            See: http://www.nerc.com/pa/comp/CE/Enforcement%20Actions%20DL/FinalFiled_NOP_NOC-226.pdf

            This PDF document is 49 pages. It contains many layers.

            A search of the document for the YCbCr label returned two instances of the comment.

            The document was created using Microsoft Word (Windows) and converted to PDF using Acrobat PDFMaker 9.0 for Word.

            There is no indication that the document was ever touched by a Xerox or by MAC OS Preview.

            Not only does this PDF file contain the YCbCr label but also the Quantization and Huffman tables are identical to those of the Obama LFCOLB.

            I will be writing a short report tomorrow which I will post on Scribd.

            The METADATA from the new PDF document is provided below.

            ||||
            ||||
            ||||
            ||||
            ||||Acrobat PDFMaker 9.0 for Word||||
            ||||2014-03-03T18:00:27-05:00||||
            ||||2009-12-30T13:30:33-05:00||||
            ||||2014-01-13T12:45:58-05:00||||
            ||||Acrobat Distiller 9.0.0 (Windows)||||
            ||||application/pdf||||
            ||||
            ||||
            ||||Joe Emde||||
            ||||
            ||||
            ||||
            ||||
            ||||Notice of Alleged Violation and Sanction||||
            ||||
            ||||
            ||||uuid:8cdfbacc-880b-4c53-911e-b9fa3f5b4119||||
            ||||uuid:04ce8e63-cd44-40d4-9440-267ac1fb3f08||||
            ||||
            ||||
            ||||3||||
            ||||
            ||||
            ||||NERC||||
            ||||D:20091230183022||||
            ||||PDF-XChange Viewer;2.5.211.0;Jun 17 2013;09:19:35;D:20140303180027-05’00’||||
            ||||
            ||||
            ||||

            The new reality is that there is now absolutely no proof that the Obama LCOLB was created on a Xerox.

            RC: That statement is so stupid I don’t know if it is worth responding. The new reality is the same os the old reality; the Xerox theory remains unchallenged. You found a single file that part of which may or may not have been a Xerox scan. You ignore all the other factors that point to the Xerox as the source. we have pointed at the artifacts of MRC and JBIG2 compression multiple times. ]

        • John says:

          Hermitian,

          If RC wants to really put forward a compelling case, he needs forget about the 3rd video on halos. Instead, he should use the Ah’Nee Birth Certificate released by Orly Taitz and scan that one. Remember, Hermitian, RC is using Obama’s BC as the control document to the very document he trying to test, so all of RC’s experiment is a complete strawman. The Ah’Nee birth certificate is the closest thing we have to a Hawaii Long Form Birth Certificate that is a pdf scan that isn’t Obama’s and we know is valid. (I don’t care what other birthers think, but I trust the Ah’Nee birth certificate to be completely valid.) It now remains to be seen if a scan of the Ah’Nee birth certificate using the same process RC has described for Obama’s BC will produce 9 layers, white halos, and allow the date and signature stamps to be moved among other things. It would be a great experiment to do and I really wish I had access to a Xerox WorkCenter. Hey, RC could even do it and then say a birther told him to do it.

          • John

            I already set the conditions for you. You just have to post a working link to that call between Zullo and Rep. Woodall you claimed was public.

          • Hermitian says:

            I agree that all the Ah’nee BCs are excellent copies — much better than all of Obama’s. Maybe it’s because they were all created by scanning the original documents on a Canon iR-ADV 8105 instead of a Xerox.

            • Now Hermie, that is complete nonsense. Have you actually looked at the Ah’Nee certificate? The basket weave barely shows, it is chopped off at the edge of the form, the resolution is low, and no seal is visible.

              What do you have against Xerox WorkCentre’s Hermie? It is actually quite a good scanner. The MRC compression really helps when I am scanning a huge document to email.

              • Hermitian says:

                Now Hermie, that is complete nonsense. Have you actually looked at the Ah’Nee certificate? The basket weave barely shows, it is chopped off at the edge of the form, the resolution is low, and no seal is visible.

                I have examined both her long and short forms. I have excellent PDF images of both.

                • I am talking about the image Taitz published. That is the only unredacted version that I have seen. By the way, I printed the Ahnee certificate and scanned it on a Xerox WorkCentre to PDF last week. You will never guess what I found. 😉

                • Hermitian says:

                  I am talking about the image Taitz published. That is the only unredacted version that I have seen.

                  Why am I not surprised. You’ve never had the right stuff. Lousy research = lousy results !!!

                • That is from the guy who completely and utter botched an affidavit filed in the Mississippi case. (I am being kind and not accusing you of lying but just plain stupidity.) Hermie you were spanked so many times at NBC’s blog your rump must be raw by now. You are a glutton for punishment aren’t you?

                • Hermitian says:

                  That is from the guy who completely and utter botched an affidavit filed in the Mississippi case.

                  That doesn’t even come close to being as silly as my crap. The operative word here is daffydavit. My POS was posted on Scribd last summer. I know a dog turd could be posted on SCRIBD but I was hoping you would be impressed. You three Amigos don’t have a dog turd like I do. Nor have you posted anything as remotely moronic as mine.

                  I are all still waiting for Obama’s Mississippi attorneys to produce something completely stupid like I did. I suspect I might be waiting a long time.

                  [RC: Hermie’s comments are now being filtered through the Reality Check Reality Filter for clarity.]

                • Hermie:

                  You got destroyed by NBC and WKV when you tried to defend your daffydavit over at NBC’s blog. You have conveniently blocked it from your memory haven’t you? The Mississippi attorneys are not going to produce anything other than a motion to sanction Taitz and recover costs for answering Taitz boatload of crap including your worthless and false daffydavit.

                  I am not producing an affidavit. I am not a moron Birther like you who thinks daffydavits are magic. My research stands on its own and it destroys what you try to pass for evidence.

                  Now go away Hermie until you answer the questions I posted. I put you back on moderation.

            • Hermitian says:

              “”Hermitian says:

              “”February 4, 2014 at 4:35 pm

              “”I agree that all the Ah’nee BCs are excellent copies — much better than all of Obama’s. Maybe it’s because they were all created by scanning the original documents on a Canon iR-ADV 8105 instead of a Xerox.””

              “RC

              “Notice how Hermie has now completely boxed himself in with the Ah’Nee certificate. If he admits a Canon copier/scanner/printer can create a green background out of nothing then the Xerox artifacts are even less remarkable.”

              Obot Logic…

              Hermitian posted that the Ah’nee copies were created on a Canon iR-ADV 8105 work center.

              RC calls that an admission.

              You Figure…

              [RC: When you deceive and obfuscate it can come back to bite you can’t it? ;)]

          • Still waiting John/James……

  3. Hektor says:

    Great job on the second video RC.

  4. gsgs says:

    give a link to the definition of “daffydavit”

    • It is a term coined by posters at the Fogbow to describe the worthless affidavits that Birthers like Henry Blake, Doug Vogt, and Mike Zullo have filed in various cases. It is a combination of the words “daffy” + “affidavit”.

      • Should I go ahead and beat Jim Youngblood about the head and shoulders concerning his lousy assumptions about your latest experiment, or are you keen on doing it?

        • Have at him. I am having fun with Hermie right now.

          • Hermitian says:

            There are many differences between the Ah’nee long form copy and the Obama LFCOLB. I’ll mention two which RC didn’t catch. The page size of the 2-sided certified copy of the Johanna long form is 5.5 in. x 8.5 in. (i.e.1/2 legal size). I have a PDF image of this certificate and it consists of three layers. The form layer is 150 PPI x 150 PPI and the text layer is 300 PPI x 300 PPI.

            I also have a PDF image of another 2-sided certified copy of a different Hawaii long-form certificate of live birth and it too is 5.5 in. x 8.5 in. page size.

            From this I conclude that 2-sided certified copies of Hawaii long-form certificates of live birth are produced on this 1/2 letter page size.

            I also possess a PDF copy of a 1-sided certified copy of a Hawaii long-form certificate of live birth. This larger image is 11. in. x 8.5 in page size.

            These PDF images were purportedly scanned to PDF images.

            The image quality of all these PDF copies is superior to the Obama LFCOLB PDF image.

            • The Ah’Nee BC is from 1995 when Hawaii was still copying originals full size on safety paper at full size. The Obama LFBC was reduced to about 75% when printed on a sheet of green security paper. The differences mean nothing and you are bringing up for what reason? Both were certified copies.

              I only see one layer and a clipping mask in the Ah’Nee PDF posted at Orly’s site. There is no “text” layer ion the AH’Nee PDF file just as there is no OCR in the Obama LFBC PDF.

              I was looking at a jpg version. There are three layers in the PDF of the front page. There is a JPG with the form and green background. Another monochrome layer has most of the document text. The third is almost empty except for the pencil marks. In other words Canon is using MRC compression that works almost identically to the way Xerox works. Garrett Papit and the CCP claimed that no MRC compression algorithm does this. Now we see it on both the Canon and the Xerox. This is just more proof the CCP “experts” didn’t have a clue.

              I wouldn’t make much of the file size. The green background on the Ah’Nee certificate has almost no detail compared with the Obama LFBC. I suspect the compression in the JPG layer on the Ah’Nee Certificate can therefore be much greater. My Xerox scan of the An’Nee certificate was also smaller than the Obama LFBC scan.

              To my eye the Ah’Nee certificate is an inferior image when compared to the Obama LFBC. We also do not know the chain of custody of the Ah’Nee file like we do the Obama PDF. Was the Ah’Nee a scan of an original or a color copy that was scanned? For whatever reason the security paper is very washed out on the AH’Nee certificate.

              • Hermitian says:

                The Ah’Nee BC is from 1995 when Hawaii was still copying originals full size on safety paper at full size.

                Then how do you explain the two copies that I possess which are both 2-sided and 1/2 letter size ? [Two copies of what? The Ah’Nee certificate? The Ah’Nee certificate posted at Taitz blog was larger than Obama and appeared to have been copied full size. That is all I was saying.]

                You’re going to claim that someone went to the trouble to convert the Ah’nee LFCOLB from 1-sided full letter size to a 2-sided LFCOLB at 1/2 letter size with the seal and registrar’s stamps on the backside ? I never said that at all. The PDF posted at Taitz blog is a two page copy with the form on one page and the seal and stamp on the second page. I assumed that was because the seal and date stamp were on the back. If they were on the from it is odd that the PDF was done that way.]

                And then maybe you could explain how they would have moved the stamps and the raised seal impression from the front of the 1-sided copy to the back of the 2-sided copy. [If you have a better image than the one Orly had why don’t you post it. Are you saying the two page PDF posted at Taitz blog is really two sections of the front side?]

                However, I do have a full-size (11. in x 8.5 in.) copy of another Hawaii LFCOLB which is 1-sided. This copy was created in 2011 (the same year as Obama’s). But it doesn’t look anything like his. For example, It does not have the “TXE” version of the Onaka stamp or the script A with the funny face.

                Did you ever show how your Xerox pal created these two anomalies ?

                [The TXE is an optical illusion and disappears in the AP JPG. It appears on another BC image that was recently posted at Free Republic. Do you claim Hawaii only has one stamp?]

                I didn’t think so.

                • I have one for you to explain Hermie. When I open the Ah’Nee PDF in Adobe Illustrator and turn off the black text layer the green background layer appears behind where the letters were. How can that happen if this a scan of a real paper document? Using your BIL (Birther Ignoramus Logic) wouldn’t that be proof that the document was a forgery? Does the Canon have x-ray vision and see the green paper behind the letters? How can that happen? I await you answer.

                • Hermitian says:

                  Reality Check says:

                  February 19, 2014 at 9:57 am

                  I have one for you to explain Hermie. When I open the Ah’Nee PDF in Adobe Illustrator and turn off the black text layer the green background layer appears behind where the letters were. How can that happen if this a scan of a real paper document? Using your BIL (Birther Ignoramus Logic) wouldn’t that be proof that the document was a forgery? Does the Canon have x-ray vision and see the green paper behind the letters? How can that happen? I await you answer.

                  I’m surprised you asked. You Obots have been claiming that your Xerox forger has X-Ray vision all along. So why wouldn’t the Canon also have this same capability ?

                  [No, let me correct you on that Hermie. It is the Birthers who have made the claim all along that a scanner that produced the LFBC PDF would have to have x-ray vision. Check out Mark Gillar’s videos.

                  Caught in your own web of deceit again there poor Hermie. I knew that one would stump you and I was right. :lol:]

                • Poor Hermie, we have the wonderful genuine Ah’Nee certificate scanned to a PDF on the fantastic Canon and he can’t explain one little anomaly? I think we need another daffydavit from Hermie on this.

                • Hermitian says:

                  Reality Check says:

                  February 19, 2014 at 1:14 pm

                  Poor Hermie, we have the wonderful genuine Ah’Nee certificate scanned to a PDF on the fantastic Canon and he can’t explain one little anomaly? I think we need another daffydavit from Hermie on this.

                  “We” don’t have anything man !!!

                  I know what PDF images of HDOH certified copies that I possess and where I acquired them.

                  I don’t know what PDF images you are holding or from whom you obtained them. I do know that Mr. C. has provided some of your images in the past. If that’s who supplied the Ah’nee PDF, then all bets are off.

                  If you are claiming the presence of light-Green background image underneath the edges of Green-Black text characters then you’ll just have to convince your readers that you have the right stuff to back up your claim. In other words, you claimed it — you prove it.

                  However, I know from my own work that every PDF image of the Obama LFCOLB that I have examined (including the AH’nee certificates) has multiple overlapping colored objects. That goes for all of the Obama LFCOLB PDF images released by the White House and the many PDF Obot images that were created by scanning color printouts of the WH released PDF images. The latter color images were the ones created by RC and NBC on a Xerox.

                  So, given the fact that overlapping colored objects are the norm on all of these PDF images, what’s the big deal about the Ah’nee PDF images also having some of these same overlapping colored objects ? After all, you Obots have claimed that MRC optimization was applied to all of these PDF images to reduce PDF file size.

                  RC has emphasized that his Ah’nee PDF image was created on a Canon work center equipped with MRC image optimizing software. So why all of a sudden is he surprised that the image would have overlapping colored objects when all the Obama LFCOLB PDF images have them?

                  I also know that the certified copies produced by the HDOD are Black toner applied to Green basket-weave security paper. The original typed text, printed text, form lines, handwritten script and stamp impressions are all reproduced in Black toner. Except for Black, the only color in these copies is the Green background. The Black toner of these reproduced original elements covers the Green paper.

                  Additionally, because I didn’t create any of these MRC optimized PDF images, then I have no particular obligation to explain to RC how the various overlapping colored objects were created in his PDF images,

          • Jim says:

            You know RC, in all Hermie’s arguments against your tests and your conclusions and him trying to blow you outta the water, Hermie’s actually proved the most important point that’s been missing…you can’t tell the authenticity of a document using a PDF posted on the web. If you parse all his stuff down, he’s the best witness against the CCP experts.

          • You know RC, in all Hermie’s arguments against your tests and your conclusions and him trying to blow you outta the water, Hermie’s actually proved the most important point that’s been missing…you can’t tell the authenticity of a document using a PDF posted on the web. If you parse all his stuff down, he’s the best witness against the CCP experts.

            Good point Jim. I believe that the Ah’Nee certificate is picture of a real paper BC just as is Obama’s. I can play the same silly game and poke holes (pun intended) in the AH’Nee PDF however. I have been completely honest about how I ran the tests using real paper documents and the results are exactly as I have shown them to be.

            At this point I have no idea what point Hermie is trying to make. He has been desperately trying to find something wrong with the Xerox/Preview workflow for the LFBC and has failed miserably. He got frustrated and accused NBC and me of lying a while back.

            He and the other Birther faux experts are scared to death to actually repeat the tests. I think Garrett Papit may have tried. We know he was messing around with a Xerox WorkCentre and could not get it to scan to a network. I suspect if they ran any tests at all they figured out the news was very bad for them. You can tell from the silence that they don’t have an answer. Their problem is you cannot change math and physics.

          • Hektor says:

            But that’s the thing. Assuming that the presence of X in a pdf A is sufficient for to conclude that said pdf A is forged then every pdf that has X must be forged. If we find a pdf B that has X but isn’t forged, then one cannot use the presence of X in A to determine if A has been forged. It cannot be a sign of forgery in A but not a sign of forgery in B.

            A methodology for determining a forgery has to be testable. It also has to make accurate predictions for both fake documents and real ones. Birthers don’t grasp this because their methodologies, such as they are, involve examining a particular document and looking for anomalies that they can use to declare it a “forgery.”

            • That is correct Hektor. John (JY) has been begging me to scan the Ah’Nee BC for weeks so I asked him to set the parameters for a “successful” test. In other words if I saw ABC anomalies that also existed in the Obama BC then that would prove that the Obama BC not forged. He of course would not do that. As expected when I did the test he claimed that wasn’t enough.

              Hermie is doing the same thing. Now he claims that we have to explain optical illusions like the TXE as a compression anomaly. Of course it is only in the sense that 150 ppi resolution makes the illusion appear more pronounced.

              The common theme among all the daffydavits and reports issued by Birther experts is “I see these anomalies and from my experience with completely unrelated fields I judge them to be signs of forgery. I provide not a single clue as to how the document was made, who did it, why in the world they made a forgery this way, and ignore the great preponderance of evidence that when the issuing authority vouches for the document it is genuine.”

  5. gsgs says:

    there is nothing magic about Ahnee’s document. Any similar form should be good to examine the
    algorithm. But it should be the same resolution and colors and appearance as Obama’s and
    preferrably not have lossy jpg or pdf compression. Scanning at several slightly different positions and orientations would also be useful since the assignment to 8×8 or 16×16 pixel blocks plays a role. Ultimatively just get the commented source code from Xerox

  6. I will post the Ah’Nee scan later. I agree there is nothing magic about it. It is just another combination of text and lines on a light color background. It is completely expected the code would parse the image in a similar fashion.

    However, Xeorx is never going to give anyone its source code. Why would they do that?

  7. Notice how Hermie has now completely boxed himself in with the Ah’Nee certificate. If he admits a Canon copier/scanner/printer can create a green background out of nothing then the Xerox artifacts are even less remarkable. His alternative is to declare the Ah’Nee certificate that he has held up as a genuine example to be a forgery.

    Is it a coincidence that Herm rhymes with squirm? I think not.

    • Hermie gave up and went into complete lie his ass off mode. I am not surprised.

      I ask again Hermie. Can you explain the anomalies in the Ah’Nee BC PDF?

      • Hermitian says:

        RC

        “February 19, 2014 at 9:28 pm

        “Hermie gave up and went into complete lie his ass off mode. I am not surprised.

        I ask again Hermie. Can you explain the anomalies in the Ah’Nee BC PDF?”

        Translation of Obotese… I blocked Hermitian’s last three lengthy posts so that I could post that he had given up. After that I continued to lie my Obot b… off.

  8. gsgs says:

    I think the compression of Obama’s pdf was not very good – they could easily have saved ~100KB without loss of quality.. But it’s still much better quality/resolution than the Ahnee pdf

    • The WorkCentres have settings to balance image quality vs. file size. We don’t know where it was set on when the person in the White House performed the scan.

    • Hermitian says:

      gsgs says:

      February 23, 2014 at 1:48 am

      I think the compression of Obama’s pdf was not very good – they could easily have saved ~100KB without loss of quality.. But it’s still much better quality/resolution than the Ahnee pdf

      Very sharp observation gsgs ! I proved it by applying WinZip to a JPEG that I extracted from NBC’s Xerox 7535 scan to PDF and reduced the JPEG filesize by 40%. WinZip is one of the few compression filters which can compress DCT compressed images.

  9. gsgs says:

    dont use daffywords when you pretend to be doing serious analysis

  10. Hermitian says:

    As expected, RC’s comment editor ate most of the METADATA. I will post a PDF report on Scribd tomorrow.

    In the mean time the readers can download the PDF and read the File Info.

    No wonder RC and NBC both refused to seek confirmation from Xerox that the YCbCr is exclusive to Xerox Workcenters.

    But then RC and NBC don’t really know how to search for the right stuff. Instead they just make it up as they go.

    [RC: Again you fail to back up baseless accusations of lying and chicanery and wonder why I will not approve your comments Hermie. As you can see from WKV’s comment this is another example of you doing incomplete research and jumping to wrong conclusions. The point we have made is that the YCBCR comment tag is in every scan known to have originated on a Xerox WorkCentre. The fact that you found it in a single file that may or may not have been touched by a Xerox WorkCentre is irrelevant. How many tens or hundreds of files did you look through before you found that one? Now it turns out it probably was from a Xerox WorkCentre scan. ]

    Real scientists never do that… [RC: Oh the irony.]

  11. Hermie tried to post a couple of comments here. He thinks he has a great new find. However, since he chose to call me a liar for about the 5th time with no evidence I trashed them.

    Edit: Since Kevin analyzed Hermitian’s find I allowed his comments. My patience with Hermie is running out. He keeps mistaking his own incompetent research and bias as dishonesty by others. No more instances of that sort will be tolerated.]

    • W. Kevin Vicklund says:

      Yeah, he found a PDF that was, upon examination, compiled from several files, one of which was a two page color scan that looks just like a Xerox WorkStation and has the YCbCr comment (he’s misinterpreting the metadata to mean that everything in the file was created by Adobe PDFMaker for Word). Here’s my response:

      1) Once again, you borked the download. A number of the dates in the metadata you posted are not found in the online version, plus one line (PDF-XChange Viewer;2.5.211.0;Jun 17 2013;09:19:35;D:20140303180027-05’00’) can’t be found at all. Looks like you downloaded it at 6:00 pm EST last night. This is not an inclusive listing of the metadata changes.

      2) This file has been assembled from several different electronic files. The main body was written in Word and converted to PDF with Adobe PDFMaker for Word. Appendix A has two color pages (12-13 of the overall file), and appear to be scanned images. These pages in fact correspond with the two YCbCr comments you found. Page 1 consists of 1 background JPG (base format, not JFIF) [Object 701], 9 foreground JBIG2 [Objects 692-700], with the CTM instructions found in Object 702. Page 2 consists of 1 background JPG (base format, not JFIF) [Object 711], 7 foreground JBIG2 [Objects 704-710], with the CTM instructions found in Object 712. Note that these have classic signs of the Xerox Workstation scans: multiple single color foreground text, “xray” background under white text, speckle objects, form lines in the background (though many are thick enough to be in the foreground), text that touches form lines left in the background, rotated images. In Appendix B, pages 1-15 and 17 are converted (poorly) from an electronic file (the conversion adds lots of erroneous spaces, but the text is vector, not raster), while page 16 is obviously scanned. Appendix A-1 is scanned, with a JBIG2 filter using DeviceGray colorspace, and has a red text header. Appendix A-2 is similar, without the header. Appendix A-3 is an electronic document (looks like it is created the same way as the main body). Attachment c is also an electronic document.

      3) When combining multiple documents, there are three ways for the metadata to be created. One is to preserve the individual metadata for each piece – this obviously didn’t happen here, and is rarely done except inside of the components (eg, in a JFIF). The second is to create metadata from scratch, preserving none of the original metadata – it appears this is not the case here. The third is to preserve the metadata of the first file, updating the modification dates and producer metadata, and dropping the metadata from the additional files – which is what happened here. Thus, the metadata can’t be used in a composite file to prove the creators of the individual parts.

      4) The Xerox claim does not rest on exclusivity of the comment, but exclusivity still hasn’t been disproven.

  12. surelochomes says:

    RC You remind me of bagdad bob. He was also blind to reality. The facts you ignore are that Obama Sr. was of the Negro race. The forger was 20 years ahead of his time when he used African for race. As you probably know, or may not, An African in 1961 could have been white or black but at that time African was not allowed to be used as a race per Federal policy. Also, the misspelled “the” shown as “txe” was intentional by the forger. This is the only known example of a misspelled official seal.

    • gorefan says:

      That’s not true, Butterdezillion a poster at Free Republic and a birther has posted images from another Hawaiian BC that was issued in May, 2011 that also appears to say “TXE”.

      The Hawaii DOH says that they let parents enter whatever they wanted for race. In Kenya in 1961, blacks were classified by race as African and whites were classified as European. The Ah’Nee birth certificate from August, 1961 list her mother’s race as Hawaiian/Chinese/Korean even though Korean is not on the list of official races by the Federal government.

      Apparently you are the one who is blind to reality.

    • Both the “African race” and “TXE” have been explained many times. Actually, another BC was posted recently at Freep recently that had the “TXE”. The so called “TXE” anomaly disappears when you look at the AP JPG photo of the BC. You can see the word is really “THE” with some excess inking:

      You obviously have not read my blog where I showed that the “African race” nonsense claim went down like the Titanic:
      Birther claim about Obama’s father’s race goes down with the Titanic

      Now if surelochomes wants to keep pushing debunked lies I can’t stop him of course. I think they call it willful ignorance.

      • NBC says:

        Why is it that the ‘birther’ is often so negligent or ignorant of the facts? So easily fooled by others…

        • johnsr richardson says:

          RC- Adobe illustrator clearly shows the BC is layered. My computer science teacher at GRCC, in just 5 minutes showed me twenty mistakes in digitally altered letters. Thousands of professionals all over the world attest to the BC being the worst forgery they have ever seen. Just the fact that “TXE” and the smiley face on the A in Alvin clearly exist for all to see, proves this is a forgery. With only a forged birth certificate to prove birth in the USA, we still don’t know where he was born or who his parents are. Plus, the most sealed personal documents in US presidential history.

          [RC: Holy mother of god just how stupid can you be? I took a paper document, a printout of the LFBC, let me repeat that in all caps which you Birthers seem to like, A PAPER DOCUMENT, and scanned it to PDF on a Xerox WorkCentre AND THE PDF HAD NINE LAYERS WHEN I OPENED IT IN ADOBE ILLUSTRATOR. What an idgit. ]

          • NBC says:

            Of course it is layered, as is the one I made by scanning using a Xerox work centre. Exactly the same layers, even the same quantization matrices and comments.
            The TXE has been shown to exist on other birth certificates as well and the smiley face, remember the face on mars?

            And no his documents are no more sealed than previous presidents.

            So ignorance again raises its ugly head… Thanks for supporting my statement.

            • surelochomes says:

              I didn’t say you have a ugly head nor support your false statements. You cannot explain the smiley face that was obviously put there to raise a false flag. Paul Irey, with a career that spans 50 years in type specialties’ analyzed a Hawaiian BC dated Aug 23, 1961. His forensic results were that the forged document was poorly done and has many different variations of the same letter. Even a Obot can see that there are at least three different lower case “e”s used in Obamas’ BC and only one on the comparison BC. Note, the fact that there is no smiley face or “txe” on a real BC which is dated just two weeks after Obamas’ supposed birth there. . Also note that you can see the seal impressions on a real document. Who and what are the credentials of your type expert? Hopefully not Kevin because if he took a big dump, he would disappear. Ha Ha

              • W. Kevin Vicklund says:

                I take it you’ve never used a ballpoint pen.

                • surelochomes says:

                  what’s your point got to do with type poorly spaced, not vertically constant, inconsistent clarity and shade, and don’t forget the smiley face that voids the documents certification.

                • W. Kevin Vicklund says:

                  Ballpoint pens are notorious for getting pieces of lint stuck on the end, creating a streaky glob near the beginning of the first stroke, until the lint falls off. Often looks like smiley faces or frowny faces.

              • NBC says:

                Take any Hawaiian Birth Certificate and apply the same level of compression and you will notice as well the variability in letters found. Paul Irey’s analysis has been rebutted and addressed by others, so you may want to familiarize yourself. The TXE is present on a birth certificate which was made available by Miki Booth.

                Your so called ‘experts’ have been found wanting by the courts my friend. We however have many smart people who have done a far more careful analysis. Look how the ‘Cold Case Posse’ ‘experts’ missed the Xerox workflow… The problem I see here is that many of these ‘experts’ lack sufficient common sense to properly do ‘experiments’.

                Read how Paul Irey backtracked on some of his claims after being confronted by John Woodman:

                http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/12/paul-irey-backtracks/

                Irey’s testimony was allowed by the Indiana Judge with no success.

                Judge Malihi ruled

                At the hearing, Plaintiffs presented the testimony of eight witnesses 2 and seven exhibits in support of their position. (Exs. P-1 through P-7.) When considering the testimony and exhibits, this Court applies the same rules of evidence that apply to civil non jury cases in superior court. Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. 616-1-2-.18(1)—(9). The weight to be given to any evidence shall be determined by the Court based upon its reliability and probative value. Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. 616-1-2-.18(10).The Court finds the testimony of the witnesses, as well as the exhibits tendered, to
                be of little, if any, probative value, and thus wholly insufficient to support Plaintiffs’ allegations.

                Ms. Taitz attempted to solicit expert testimony from several of the witnesses without qualifying or tendering the witnesses as experts.See Stephens v. State, 219 Ga. App. 881 (1996) (the unqualified testimony of the witness was not competent evidence).

              • NBC says:

                Judge Reid, Indiana

                18. Mr. Irey, over the objections of State Defendants, was found to be an expert in type-setting only and was accepted as an expert on that topic only. See also Hannan v. Pest Control Services, Inc., 734 N.E.2d 674, 679 (Ind. Ct. App, 2000) (an “expert in one field of expertise cannot offer opinions in other fields absent a requisite showing of competency in that other field”), Further, Plaintiffs offered no evidence about the methodology purportedly used by Mr. Irey, nor did Plaintiffs offer any evidence that the principles upon which he was testifying are reliable or used by others in the field or peer reviewed in any way, shape, or form. See Ind. .4* R. Evid. 702(b) (expert testimony only admissible where the proponent demonstrates that the “scientific principles upon which the expert testimony rests are reliable”); Steward v. State, 652 N.E.2d 490, 498 (Ind. 1995). See also Hannan v. Pest Control Services, Inc., 734 N.E.2d 674, 679 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (an “expert in one field of expertise cannot offer opinions in other fields absent a requisite showing of competency in that other field”).

                19. No witness presented by Plaintiffs was qualified as an expert in the field of document authentication
                20. No witness presented by Plaintiffs was qualified to provide an expert opinion as, to whether what was purportedly downloaded from the White House web-site is a forgery.

                and

                7 At most, Mr. Irey’s admissible testimony is that he reviewed a copy of what had been downloaded from the White House site and that within that single document he noticed differences between the sizes of some of the letters, differences of spacing between some of the letters, and a white “haloing” around certain letters. It is unclear whether “expert” testimony was needed for such observations. All other testimony provided by Mr. Irey, however, is hearsay, irrelevant, not based on personal knowledge, and not scientifically reliable; thus, it is inadmissible. Ind. R. Evid. 401, 402, 602, 702(b), 802, 805. As for the demonstrative summaries he presented, again, these were admitted for a limited purpose and do not prove that the Certificate of Live Birth is a forgery or that President Obama is not constitutionally qualified for office.

                Who needs experts 🙂

                • surelochomes says:

                  I bet you guys would be fun to have around a roaring camp fire. No one could touch you except last years’ liar of the year. The undocumented alien in the WH. Ha Ha . Anyways, the good news is Harry Bounells’ SS number will finally be retired.. Thanks to Judge Hollander, Obama will be ordered to stop using Bounells’ SS number. Obama was not able to get his own without a real BC so he had to use the CT one belonging to Bounell , until he got caught using it in 2009 to file his income tax. If you’re curious about Bounell, look him up in the 1940 US census. His and Obamas SS # are listed for all to see. Don’t you love to look at “TXE”, smiley faces. poorly done stamps, four variations of a typed lower case “e”, Two different heights of a lower case “n”. I do, because as a retired deputy sheriff I know the lies and mistakes will eventually be his downfall,

                • NBC says:

                  Good luck in your fantasies my friend. Judge Hollander will grant judgment to the IRS.

                  The end.

                  There is no evidence that President Obama ever used anyone else’s SSN. I am sorry to hear that you dislike our President so much that you are allowing this kind of poor logic and ‘argument’ to continue to disappoint you.

                  As to Bounel, people have located Boynel’s (yes that was the name of the 1940 person) SSN and it does not match President Obama’s.

                  Now what?

                  And you wonder why we are having so much fun..

              • Northland10 says:

                W. Kevin Vicklund: Ballpoint pens are notorious for getting pieces of lint stuck on the end, creating a streaky glob near the beginning of the first stroke, until the lint falls off. Often looks like smiley faces or frowny faces.

                Stamps are even more notorious since the pad or other device to ink the stamp are made of cloth material. It also does not take long to get dried ink and such in even the best of stamps.

              • W. Kevin Vicklund says:

                Oh, indeed. I use stamps professionally (licensed engineer) as well as carving them as part of a hobby (Japanese calligraphy – I use a sealstone to sign all my poems).

        • johnsr richardson says:

          JOHN S RICHARDS

  13. Jim says:

    surelochomes says:”Anyways, the good news is Harry Bounells’ SS number will finally be retired.”

    Considering that the SSA has no records for a Harry Bounell…that will be kind of difficult. BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

  14. Hermitian says:

    The three Amigos (NBC, WKV and RC) have repeatedly claimed that the White House released Obama LFCOLB PDF image was created by a digital scanning process Moreover, they claim that this was accomplished by a person using a White House Xerox 7655 Xerox WorkCenter and a normal workflow.

    However, the proposed Xerox workflow was reverse-engineered (by the three Obots) starting from the WH released Obama LFCOLB PDF image. In other words the Obots started with the White House released PDF file and worked backwards to develop their Xerox workflow. Their proposed workflow requires that the Xerox PDF file be opened and re-saved within MAC OS Preview. The Obots have carefully avoided the fact that the WH PDF image contains no direct evidence of a Xerox forger. Their explanation is that the Xerox MetaData was removed by Preview. But this would also be the case if a human created the PDF image by a digital cut and paste operation using MAC OS Photoshop or Illustrator.

    The Obot’s efforts culminated in their claim that the PDF image was created by a digital scan of a certified copy of the Obama LFCOLB on a Xerox 7655 workcenter.
    [The Obot efforts consisted of trial scans (of a color printout of the WH released LFCOLB PDF image) on several Xerox workcenters.]

    However, the three Amigos are so sure of their proposed workflow that they have never released a single PDF file from any trial scans from a Xerox 7655. Instead, they have collectively released a grand total of two PDF files (that they claim) were created on a Xerox 7535 workcenter.

    NBC published only printouts from trial scans of a color printout of the WH LFCOLB PDF image done on a Xerox 7655. These published results revealed that the JPEG quantization tables extracted from the JPEG produced by the Xerox 7655 were different from the JPEG quantization tables that he had previously obtained from trial scans on the Xerox 7535. NBC never released any LFCOLB PDF files or printouts from scans from a Xerox 7655 which contained the same JPEG quantization tables as the Xerox 7535.

    The two released PDF images (both from the Xerox 7535) have the same page size and offsets. These page dimensions do not match the same dimensions from the WH released LFCOLB PDF image. I was the first to point out this fact and also raised many questions surrounding this difference. Conveniently, the Obots blame this difference on the Preview print to PDF step. Their claim is that Preview cropped the page size. However, as I have pointed out multiple times, the dimensions of the WH released PDF page size are the minimum dimensions consistent with a nominal 8.5 in x 11.0 in page size together with image layer boundary alignments which all satisfy the 8 x 8 MOD 0 condition. The Obot claim (that Preview reset the page size and offsets to these particular values) is highly improbable. The reason is that Preview would have had to reduce the total number of pixels. Graphics programs avoid this like the plague.

    Interestingly, NBC completely abandoned the Xerox 7655 shortly after he posted his printouts of the different quantization tables for the 7655 and 7535. No LFCOLB PDF files from the Xerox 7655 were ever released by the three Amigos.

    • Just what the hell is a “Xerox forger”? NBC hasn’t abandoned anything to my knowledge.

      NBC and I have published enough to make our case to anyone not hopelessly biased. By the way,where is Reed Hayes’ report?

      • Jim says:

        Hey Hermie! Still waiting on the CCP investigation into the Xerox workcentres. Where is it. Surely their crack team of experts (BWAHAHAHAHAHA, sorry couldn’t say that with a straight face) have run their testing and are ready to document all the reasons that it couldn’t be as NBC and RC have shown. That’s what NBC and RC did when faced with the CCP report, not waste time guessing, but go out and prove it. That’s what a REAL investigator does, eliminate possibilities until you’re left with a single conclusion. Of course, faux investigations just make crap up and hope nobody notices. So which is it Hermie, a CCP investigation or crap? Since there is no report refuting NBC’s findings, the country will go with crap. BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

    • W. Kevin Vicklund says:

      We may not have direct evidence of Xerox involvement, but we do have very strong circumstantial evidence (of the “smoking gun” variety). And has been noted before, everything is consistent with forgery. Which is why you can only prove (legal sense) forgery if you eliminate all other explanations.

      The two released PDF images (both from the Xerox 7535) have the same page size and offsets. These page dimensions do not match the same dimensions from the WH released LFCOLB PDF image. I was the first to point out this fact and also raised many questions surrounding this difference.

      These questions have been answered. See comment below.

      Conveniently, the Obots blame this difference on the Preview print to PDF step. Their claim is that Preview cropped the page size.

      WRONG. This has never been claimed. The difference had previously been incorrectly explained as due to the detectable rotation in the file, but the correct explanation was noted a few months ago: the 7535 uses a 16 x 16 MOD 0 @ 150 PPI criteria for it’s minimum page size.

      However, as I have pointed out multiple times, the dimensions of the WH released PDF page size are the minimum dimensions consistent with a nominal 8.5 in x 11.0 in page size together with image layer boundary alignments which all satisfy the 8 x 8 MOD 0 condition. The Obot claim (that Preview reset the page size and offsets to these particular values) is highly improbable. The reason is that Preview would have had to reduce the total number of pixels. Graphics programs avoid this like the plague.

      As noted, the page size of the LFCOLB does not satisfy the 8 x 8 MOD 0 @150 PPI criteria. However, the image layer boundaries in the LFCOLB and the 7535 files (and the 7655 files, for that matter) do meet 8 x 8 MOD 0 @ 150 PPI. More importantly, they meet the 16 x 16 MOD 0 @ 300 PPI criteria, which is their native resolution. And Preview has never played any role in this particular issue.

      The only thing Preview did that modified the appearance is that it added a clipping mask. A clipping mask does not remove pixels, it simply doesn’t display them. It does not change the image size, or the page size.

      • Hermitian says:

        The rectangular object boundaries of the nine image layers of the Obama LFCOLB PDF image do not all satisfy the 16 x 16 MOD 0 condition at 300 PPI x 300 PPI. Only four of the nine layers satisfy this condition. These four are: Mostly Text, Onaka Signature, Onaka Date, and Reg. Gen. Date.

        I recall that NBC also claimed boundary alignments for 600 PPI x 600 PPI but he never released the files. I don’t recall any posted images with 600 PPI x 600 PPI resolution.

        So where’s your proof?

      • NBC says:

        We may not have direct evidence of Xerox involvement, but we do have very strong circumstantial evidence (of the “smoking gun” variety). And has been noted before, everything is consistent with forgery. Which is why you can only prove (legal sense) forgery if you eliminate all other explanations.

        Hermitian is still not very familiar with the scientific method. So far he has been totally unable to rebut any of our findings.

  15. Hermitian says:

    A salient difference between all of the Xerox/Preview PDF images and the WH released Obama LFCOLB PDF image is that the page dimensions of the WH LFCOLB PDF image are the minimum values for a nominal 8.5 in. x 11.0 in. page which also satisfy the 8 x 8 MOD 0 condition for 150 PPI pixel resolution. To the contrary, the Preview modified Xerox images are not minimum page size. This indicates that the background layer of the WH LFCOLB PDF image first existed as a JPEG optimized image with optimum dimensions for a nominal 8.5 in. x 11.0 in page. None of the Preview print to PDF images from the Obot 7535 trial scans satisfy the same minimum page size condition.

    • W. Kevin Vicklund says:

      the page dimensions of the WH LFCOLB PDF image are the minimum values for a nominal 8.5 in. x 11.0 in. page which also satisfy the 8 x 8 MOD 0 condition for 150 PPI pixel resolution.

      This is a false statement, which I have previously corrected you on. Which means you are lying. The dimensions of the JPEG background image are 1276 x 1652 @ 150 PPI. Neither of these dimensions satisfy an 8 MOD 0 condition at that resolution. Nor are they simply the smallest dimension of an 8.5 x 11 page @ 150 PPI.

      I will give Hermie credit, however. There is a consistent difference in minimum page size between 7655 machines (including files found on the internet and files I have received from clients) and 7535 machines (including files found on the internet). The 7655 machines meet the 16 x 16 MOD 0 criteria at 600 PPI, while the 7535 machines meet the 16 x 16 MOD 0 criteria at 150 PPI. This difference is of forensic value, as it can eliminate potential WorkCentre models if we were inclined to narrow the field.

      • Hermitian says:

        WKV

        “”the page dimensions of the WH LFCOLB PDF image are the minimum values for a nominal 8.5 in. x 11.0 in. page which also satisfy the 8 x 8 MOD 0 condition for 150 PPI pixel resolution.””

        This is a false statement, which I have previously corrected you on. Which means you are lying. The dimensions of the JPEG background image are 1276 x 1652 @ 150 PPI. Neither of these dimensions satisfy an 8 MOD 0 condition at that resolution. Nor are they simply the smallest dimension of an 8.5 x 11 page @ 150 PPI.

        Oops ! I meant 300 x 300 PPI instead of 150 x 150 PPI.

        Resolution = 300 PPI X 300 PPI / 8 X 8 Blocks
        Top and Right Sides Obey 8 MOD 0
        Left and Bottom Sides Align with Grid Lines
        (and also Touch Pixels)

        Layer N (x,y)(w,h)(x+w,y)((x+w)/8,y/8)

        1 (0,0) (2552,3304) (2552,0) (319,0) Background
        2 (373,880) (1819,1454) (2192,880) (274,110) Mostly Text
        3 (1270,2848) (778,199) (2048,2848) (256,356) Onaka Signature
        4 (710,2928) (274,42)(984,2928) (123,366) Onaka Date
        5 (1836,2160) (228,123) (2064,2160) (258,270) Reg. Gen. Date
        6 (432,2240) (216,47) (648,2240) (81,280) Loc. Reg. Date
        7 (1458,1960) (70,34) (1528,1960) (191,245) Non
        8 (735,2528) (217,243) (952,2528) (119,316) Bottom Speckle
        9 (1050,32) (142,132) (1192,32) (149,4) Top Speckle

        See: http://www.scribd.com/doc/189706644/Analysis-of-Rectangular-Object-Boundaries

        Thus all the layers (including the background) satisfy the 8 x 8 MOD 0 condition at 300 PPI x 300 PPI pixel resolution. This suggests that the background layer was first created as a JPEG compressed image of resolution 300 PPI x 300 PPI.

        Evidence of this is present in the WH LFCOLB PDF image. The image is offset by 1/2 a pixel ( @150 PPI) relative to a grid of 150 PPI x 150 PPI when the composite PDF image is initially opened in Illustrator with its original offsets. The pixel images are offset relative to the screen grid by 1/2 pixel in the horizontal direction. It is necessary to refine the grid to 300 PPI x 300 PPI before the vertical sides of the 150 PPI x 150 PPI pixels align with the grid. This evidence was found by my examination of the signature pixels at 6400 % Zoom.

        The page size of the Xerox scan to PDF files is 1664 x 1280 (@150 PPI)
        The page size of the Obama LFCOLB PDF background image is 1652 x 1276 (@150 PPI).

        Consequently, in order for the Obot workflow to have created the Obama LFCOLB PDF image, Preview would have had to reduce the page size from 1664 x 1280 to 1652 x 1276. Because the size of pixels is the same for both, then Preview would have had to remove pixels to crop the image to the minimum size.

        • W. Kevin Vicklund says:

          This suggests that the background layer was first created as a JPEG compressed image of resolution 300 PPI x 300 PPI.

          Possibly. Certainly that is the minimum resolution it could have been created at. It may also have been created at 600 x 600 (the maximum scanning resolution) with an MCU of 16 x 16, and then downsampled during the MRC split. There’s really no way to tell without Xerox letting us know.

          This evidence was found by my examination of the signature pixels at 6400 % Zoom.

          It kinda helped that it had been already determined several times before that, including by gsgs.

          The page size of the Xerox scan to PDF files is 1664 x 1280 (@150 PPI)
          The page size of the Obama LFCOLB PDF background image is 1652 x 1276 (@150 PPI).

          Except that is not true of all Xerox scan to pdf files. In particular, every verified 7655 scan to pdf of a letter-sized page has a background image that is 1652 x 1276 (@150 PPI). I would not be surprised to find that other older models are similar.

          Consequently, in order for the Obot workflow to have created the Obama LFCOLB PDF image, Preview would have had to reduce the page size from 1664 x 1280 to 1652 x 1276. Because the size of pixels is the same for both, then Preview would have had to remove pixels to crop the image to the minimum size.

          It wouldn’t have to remove pixels if it was a Xerox 7655, since the size for that is 1652 x 1276 – the same as the LFBC.

  16. Hermitian says:

    Reality Check says:

    March 28, 2014 at 10:21 am

    Just what the hell is a “Xerox forger”? NBC hasn’t abandoned anything to my knowledge.

    Roxy is your Xerox forger. You even posted her picture.

    • NBC says:

      Yep, Roxy is a lovely ‘forger’. She has been shown to be quite able to reconstruct all the artifacts found in the Whitehouse PDF.

  17. Hermitian says:

    RC bloviates

    NBC and I have published enough to make our case to anyone not hopelessly biased.

    Nope! You Obots chose the Xerox 7655 as the forger but haven’t released any PDFs created on a 7655. So what are you hiding?

    • NBC says:

      Are you unable to repeat the work flow? We have identified all the aspects and provided all the necessary data. You whine that you do not have all the data, causing you to ignore the facts presented.
      You are totally unable to rebut. Let that be known.

      Thanks again for helping us in rebutting the PDF forgery claims Hermitian. Without your ‘expert’ assistance, the case would not have been that simple.

  18. Hermitian says:

    WKV

    “I will give Hermie credit, however. There is a consistent difference in minimum page size between 7655 machines (including files found on the internet and files I have received from clients) and 7535 machines (including files found on the internet). The 7655 machines meet the 16 x 16 MOD 0 criteria at 600 PPI, while the 7535 machines meet the 16 x 16 MOD 0 criteria at 150 PPI. This difference is of forensic value, as it can eliminate potential WorkCentre models if we were inclined to narrow the field.”

    There’s no way for this to be true. You will have to prove this claim.

    Both Xerox scan to PDF images (NBC and RC) from the two PDF files that they released are 1664 x 1280.

    I recently acquired a PDF file which indicated (in its Metadata) that it was created and produced on a Xerox 7545. This image size is also 1664 x 1280. The page offsets are also the same for these three Xerox Workcenters.

    So what is the page size of the Xerox 7655? I bet that it’s the same as the Xerox 7535 and 7545.

    • W. Kevin Vicklund says:

      So what is the page size of the Xerox 7655?

      1652 x 1276

    • W. Kevin Vicklund says:

      Don’t believe me? Check out the President’s and Vice President’s 2010 tax returns, each made on a Xerox 7655. You can find them here

      What’s the page size?

      • Hermitian says:

        RC’s misuse of the “PILEBUTTS” document !!!

        In Part II of his treatise “Driving the final nail into the Cold Case Posse “investigation” coffin” RC posted a clip of the “PILEBUTTS” document title as an example of the “text HALO” effect. This clip was proffered as proof that “text HALOS” are a natural product of scanning a paper document on a Xerox Workcenter with MRC compression turned on.

        However, RC’s post is a poor example of “HALOS” because the entire title “PILEBUTTS” was not lifted from the background to the text layer but rather remained with the background. (Only five letters from the word “NEWSLETTER” were lifted along with the line of Blue text underneath that word.

        Actually the text object located immediately underneath the title box (on page 1) is a better example of “text HALOS” resulting from MRC segmentation. Nearly all of the text in this adjacent box was lifted to its text layer.

        I hereby challenge RC (and his two sidekicks NBC and WKV) to prove that the “PILEBUTTS” document was created using a workflow which consisted of a single scan (to PDF) of a paper document by means of a Xerox 7545 Workcenter.

        • Agreed, the “Newsletter” and the “Business Managers Report” are examples of MRC compression halos. The fringes around “PILEBUTTS” are most likely a JPG compression artifact since it is in the same layer as the blue background unless they were on the paper copy that was scanned. However the apostrophe was in another layer and has a nice halo around it.

          Unlike you, Hermie, I am honest and own up to my mistakes.

          I hereby challenge RC (and his two sidekicks NBC and WKV) to prove that the “PILEBUTTS” document was created using a workflow which consisted of a single scan (to PDF) of a paper document by means of a Xerox 7545 Workcenter.

          Well the PDF producer in the meta data is “Xerox WorkCentre 7545”. It was given the Xerox default file name of “Sanned-from-Xerox-mulitfunction-device001.pdf”. It opens in landscape mode in Adobe Illustrator just like most Xerox WorkCentre scans I have opened. It contains similar layers to other Xerox scanned documents. All the evidence indicates someone scanned a copy of a newsletter on a Xerox WorkCentre 7545 and posted the pdf file on the internet.

          • W. Kevin Vicklund says:

            Though you didn’t actually make a mistake, as all you said was “The former is a scan of a Pile Drivers Union news letter. It displays clear examples of halo effects in the header:”

            You never claimed that all or even a majority of the header showed the halo effect. In fact, your wording would generally lead a person to expect that only parts of the header would show the effect. Even Hermie admits that part of the header shows the halo effects.

          • Hermitian says:

            Wong !

            Pages 2 and 3 of “PILEBUTTS” are totally unlike the Obama LFCOLB PDF image. The difference is that the mostly image layers on pages 2 and t3 are masked (and painted) opposite to the non-background layers in the LFCOLB PDF.

            The main text layers on pages 2 and 3 have masked text and painted background. (The background of both text layers is opaque and painted with near-White color.) The near-White color regions are not masked. This is opposite to the painting (and masking) of each Image Mask layer in the Obama LFCOLB PDF file. In these non-background layers of the LFCOLB, each pixel of the text characters and the White speckles are painted. The background of each of these eight layers is masked.

            The “PILEBUTTS” document has both types of Image Masks in the same document.

            So what’s your workflow for this one?

            • W. Kevin Vicklund says:

              As far as the algorithm is concerned, it’s the same thing. The algorithm doesn’t detect text, it detects contiguous areas of similar color. How many times do I have to explain this to you, moron?

              • NBC says:

                If the past is any indication, you may have to remind Hermitian of this a few more times.

                • Hermitian says:

                  Before you three Amigos break an arm pounding each other on the back let me explain the facts to you.

                  I have in my possession a multipage color PDF document with a full-page-size JPEG image on each page, each containing the YCbCr label. Each page also contains multiple 1-Bit monochrome Image Mask layers. The MetaData extracted from this PDF file is as follows:

                  |||
                  ||
                  ||
                  ||
                  ||2014-01-27T14:41:35Z||
                  ||Preview||
                  ||2014-01-27T14:41:35Z||
                  ||Mac OS X 10.7.5 Quartz PDFContext||
                  ||
                  ||
                  ||************************||
                  ||
                  ||
                  ||
                  ||
                  ||Scanned from a Xerox multifunction device001-2||
                  ||
                  ||
                  ||
                  ||
                  ||

                  The Quantization Tables extracted from any one of the JPEG background images are as follows:

                  DQT dqt[0]:

                  9 12 12 15 15 15 18 18
                  18 18 23 22 21 22 23 28
                  27 25 25 27 28 36 33 31
                  30 31 33 36 49 42 39 38
                  38 39 42 49 55 47 44 43
                  44 47 55 60 52 50 50 52
                  60 67 59 59 59 67 76 69
                  69 76 90 82 90 107 107 146

                  DQT dqt[1]:

                  10 13 13 16 16 16 19 19
                  19 19 24 23 22 23 24 30
                  28 27 27 28 30 38 36 33
                  32 33 36 38 53 46 42 40
                  40 42 46 53 60 50 48 47
                  48 50 60 65 56 54 54 56
                  65 73 64 64 64 73 83 76
                  76 83 98 90 98 118 118 162

                  These two tables are identical to the Quantization Tables that NBC posted for the Xerox 7655.

                  See: http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2013/07/26/xerox-7655-additional-experiments/

                  However, NBC has not posted any files from his many trial scans carried out on the Xerox 7655.

                  Every JPEG image in this new document has these same Quantization Tables. Moreover, the Huffman Tables for each JPEG are identical to those extracted from the background JPEG image of the Obama LFCOLB PDF image.

                  The dimensions of all pages are identical. However, the width and height dimensions of each page are both larger than the corresponding dimensions of the Obama LFCOLB.

                  I will post a link to this document after NBC has released his favorite scan to PDF file from the Xerox 7655.

              • Hermitian says:

                WKV

                “As far as the algorithm is concerned, it’s the same thing. The algorithm doesn’t detect text, it detects contiguous areas of similar color. How many times do I have to explain this to you, moron?”

                So what you are claiming is that the same algorithm detects the presence of text on the printed paper original and in some cases creates an Image Mask has the text painted and the background masked but other times detects other text on the same printed paper original and creates an Image Mask layer where the text is masked and the background is painted?

                And just exactly how does this single algorithm decide which type of Image Mask to create for each text character?

                Take your time…And while you are pondering your answer why don’t you turn off the background layer on pages 2 and 3 and then come back and tell us what happened?

                • W. Kevin Vicklund says:

                  So what you are claiming is that the same algorithm detects the presence of text

                  NO! IT DOESN’T DETECT TEXT!

                  Once again, you gibbering incompetent, it detects areas of very similar color in close proximity. If there is a lot of blobs of nearly identical color on a field of variable color or gradient, it will pull the blobs -be they text, splotches circles, squares, or thick lines- onto a foreground layer. If there’s a bunch of different color blobs on a near-uniform field smaller than the page, it will pull the field onto a foreground layer. More complex situations can cause interesting results, of course, as the algorithm has to determine which gets pulled into the foreground. In the case of page 2 and 3, there is a blue border, inside of which is both blue and black text and several small images. The algorithm detected a large field of near-white, surrounded by a thin, somewhat variable colored line (mostly due to jpeg artifacts) with a bunch of small blobs having several different colors and several larger blobs made up of several colors.

                • Hermitian says:

                  W. Kevin Vicklund

                  in response to Hermitian:

                  “”So what you are claiming is that the same algorithm detects the presence of text on the printed paper original and in some cases creates an Image Mask has the text painted and the background masked but other times detects other text on the same printed paper original and creates an Image Mask layer where […]””

                  “”So what you are claiming is that the same algorithm detects the presence of text””

                  “NO! IT DOESN’T DETECT TEXT!”

                  “Once again, you gibbering incompetent, it detects areas of very similar color in close proximity. If there is a lot of blobs of nearly identical color on a field of variable color or gradient, it will pull the blobs -be they text, splotches circles, squares, or thick lines- onto a foreground layer. If there’s a bunch of different color blobs on a near-uniform field smaller than the page, it will pull the field onto a foreground layer. More complex situations can cause interesting results, of course, as the algorithm has to determine which gets pulled into the foreground. In the case of page 2 and 3, there is a blue border, inside of which is both blue and black text and several small images. The algorithm detected a large field of near-white, surrounded by a thin, somewhat variable colored line (mostly due to jpeg artifacts) with a bunch of small blobs having several different colors and several larger blobs made up of several colors.

                  [RC: Personal attack deleted.]

                • W. Kevin Vicklund says:

                  Hermie is now demanding I explain why paper is white.

                • Hermitian says:

                  WKV

                  W. Kevin Vicklund commented on Two new videos explode the Cold Case Posse forgery myths.

                  Hermie is now demanding I explain why paper is white.

                  Just let it go Ace ! Otherwise You might break your brain trying to wrap it around the “PILEBUTTS” PDF images.

                  You are the only guy I know who is looking for paper in a digital file.

                • W. Kevin Vicklund says:

                  You’re the one who can’t wrap his brain around the fact that this is a scan of something printed on white paper. Or do you not understand that the PDF Page object (what Illustrator calls the Artboard) is white?

                • Hermitian says:

                  WKV

                  “You’re the one who can’t wrap his brain around the fact that this is a scan of something printed on white paper. Or do you not understand that the PDF Page object (what Illustrator calls the Artboard) is white?”

                  Actually, everything on the Image Mask layer (except for the text) is painted near-White. The region of text is a mask (not painted) so then the assembled colors of the text are in fact one and the same the colors of the dark background layer underneath the text. Consequently, if the background underneath the text was White Halos, then the text would be White. Since the background of pages 2 and 3 of the “PILEBUTTS” document is instead a dark-Gray color (i.e. no White Halos) then the text is dark-Gray in color. If one examines the text at 6400% zoom the background pixels are visible and the color appears to be variable. However, the single color assigned to the background of the Image Mask is also assigned to the text so (as a result) the entire Image Mask layer has the assigned color value K = 0.39%. The two largest Image Mask layers have this same color value.

                  If you turn off the background layer on page 2 or 3 then the entire image disappears (except for the two small text objects at the bottom edge of the page). Except for this text, the entire page appears White. However, the rectangular Image Mask objects are actually bi-color. The background region of each Image Mask is near-White (K = 0.39%) but the text is pure white (the color of the Artboard). If you then select the Image Masks and move them off the Artboard then the text becomes a uniform dark-Gray color. I believe that this dark-Gray color is set internally in Illustrator because it’s not the same color as my screen background (K = 63.53%). This color is actually not pure Gray. If you move an Image Mask partially off the Artboard, then only the text that is outside the Artboard turns to dark-Gray.

                  So if we assume your scenario, then the “PILEBUTTS” document was created by scanning a White-Background paper document.

                  In that case, the obvious questions are:

                  1. What was the source of the dark Gray background layers.

                  2. And why would the small multicolor images of the divers remain with the background?

                  3. And how does the MRC algorithm know “a priori” to create one type of Image Mask on one page and a different type of Image Mask on another?

                • W. Kevin Vicklund says:

                  Actually, everything on the Image Mask layer (except for the text) is painted near-White.

                  Well, yes. That’s because paper is white. The large Image Mask layer is an image of the portion of the paper bounded by the blue border, not an image of the text. An image of white paper is supposed to be near-White. The text and images is instead left in the background.

                  The region of text is a mask (not painted) so then the assembled colors of the text are in fact one and the same the colors of the dark background layer underneath the text. Consequently, if the background underneath the text was White Halos, then the text would be White. Since the background of pages 2 and 3 of the “PILEBUTTS” document is instead a dark-Gray color (i.e. no White Halos) then the text is dark-Gray in color. If one examines the text at 6400% zoom the background pixels are visible and the color appears to be variable.

                  The text was left in the background, forming the basis for the background image. I’ll explain this in detail in response to your first numbered question. I will note that because the text is in the background, there is nothing underneath it. Again, reiterating that the Image Mask layers are not the text, but images of the paper.

                  However, the single color assigned to the background of the Image Mask is also assigned to the text so (as a result) the entire Image Mask layer has the assigned color value K = 0.39%. The two largest Image Mask layers have this same color value.

                  Yes, this is how Image Mask layers work (well, one way they can be used). The entire layer is assigned a color, and then the color is painted onto the Page object wherever the layer isn’t masked. (You can also do this with more complex images, say for example colored stripes, and the color of that region is assigned even where it is masked). Again, the Image Mask layers are images of the paper, not the text.

                  If you turn off the background layer on page 2 or 3 then the entire image disappears (except for the two small text objects at the bottom edge of the page). Except for this text, the entire page appears White. However, the rectangular Image Mask objects are actually bi-color. The background region of each Image Mask is near-White (K = 0.39%) but the text is pure white (the color of the Artboard).

                  Yes, paper is rarely pure white. Where the Image Mask layer is masked (which occurs where text and images are located in the original), you can see the pure white of the Page object (what Illustrator calls an Artboard) when the background layer is turned off. Yet again, the Image Mask layers are images of the paper, not the text or graphics.

                  If you then select the Image Masks and move them off the Artboard then the text becomes a uniform dark-Gray color. I believe that this dark-Gray color is set internally in Illustrator because it’s not the same color as my screen background (K = 63.53%). This color is actually not pure Gray. If you move an Image Mask partially off the Artboard, then only the text that is outside the Artboard turns to dark-Gray.

                  This is an Illustrator thing. Also, previously stated reminder about Image Mask layers being images of paper, not text.

                  So if we assume your scenario, then the “PILEBUTTS” document was created by scanning a White-Background paper document.
                  In that case, the obvious questions are:

                  [flexes fingers]

                  1. What was the source of the dark Gray background layers.

                  The text and other graphics left in the background when the image of the paper was raised to the foreground Image Mask layer. As we have previously determined, when the Image Mask layer is a dark color and the background is a light color, a halo is created (which may not be all that visible if the background is sufficiently light), but when the Image Mask layer is a light color and the background is dark, the area of the background covered by the Image Mask is changed to the color at the edge of the visible background. I have not actually looked at the background, but I predict that while most of it is the dark-grey of the majority of the text, there are streaks of blue near where the text is blue, the blue border has some sort of collision with the dark-grey of the text, and the small graphic images have their colors streaking away when they aren’t outlined in near black (such as the diving helmet on page 3) as well as having dark areas where the white is on the final image.

                  2. And why would the small multicolor images of the divers remain with the background?

                  Because they are not the same color as the paper, which was given the priority (being the largest area smaller than the whole page with a single color). The edges of those images must therefore be part of the background. That still leaves the internal colors. The red and blue of the diver on page 2 are apparently too small or not consistent enough for the algorithm to bother making them a foreground layer, and most of the diving helm on page 3 is a circular gradient, which precludes it from being considered a single color. The grille of the helm, however, is large enough and consistent enough to be placed on a foreground Image Mask layer of its own.

                  Remember, the Image Mask layers are used by the Xerox as single color layers. So a multi-color image will not be lifted en masse to a foreground layer. They are supposed to be left in the background.

                  3. And how does the MRC algorithm know “a priori” to create one type of Image Mask on one page and a different type of Image Mask on another?

                  They aren’t different types of Image Masks – you keep making this mistake. The algorithm simply looks for the largest group of near-identical contiguous pixels (or pixels in close proximity) that is smaller than the page, assigns them all to an Image Mask layer of a single color, then finds the next largest group that doesn’t touch pixels from the previous group(s). And continues until a minimum size is reached.

                  Because of the blue border, the white of the paper inside the border was the largest discrete block of pixels of the same color while still being smaller than the overall page. The black of the text was smaller both in terms of rectangular boundaries and number of pixels, and so lost out to the white. It also may have been less consistent in color.

                • Hermitian says:

                  Well, yes. That’s because paper is white. The large Image Mask layer is an image of the portion of the paper bounded by the blue border, not an image of the text. An image of white paper is supposed to be near-White. The text and images is instead left in the background.

                  There he goes again lying his ass off. I’ll have to give him credit for being a loyal Obot. He sticks with his story hoping that if he repeats it long enough then some idiot will believe him.

                  Then how do you account for the thousands of Black text on White background scanned images where image segmentation lifted the Black text off the White Background?

                  So your single MRC algorithm sometimes lifts the Black text to a layer that is transparent except for the text and sometimes the same algorithm leaves all of the Black text on the background and places a blank near-White page over all the text and creates out of whole cloth a third dark-Gray background layer? And in both cases, the text layer nearly covers the entire page.

                  If the readers want to see this scanning magic in one document then compare page 1 of the “PILEBUTTS” document to pages 2 and 3 in Illustrator. And then come back and explain how this document was created by a one-pass scan of a paper document.

                  Don’t worry about Vicklund. You can rest assured that he will stick to his “it’s all about the color differences on the scanned paper copy” work of fiction. (Vicklund claims that his magic algorithm can turn White paper into mottled dark Gray).

                  But then there’s those tiny little multicolor “divers” who are entirely stuck on those dark-Gray background layers (of unknown origin). And each of these little critters has huge color differences. And, on top of that, they all have Black outlines.

                  And then I have some prime swamp land in Florida to sell you after you have bought into Vicklund’s bogus story.

                • W. Kevin Vicklund says:

                  Then how do you account for the thousands of Black text on White background scanned images where image segmentation lifted the Black text off the White Background?

                  You mean all those files where the white background of the paper extends unbounded to the edge of the page, thus not meeting the criteria of smaller than the page?

                  (Vicklund claims that his magic algorithm can turn White paper into mottled dark Gray)

                  Or blue, or brown, or green, etc. My favorite was the one that had black and orange stripes. Looked like a tiger. I’m simply reporting what we’ve found, with my interpretation of how the algorithm works. I’m not an employee of Xerox or any of their third party vendors. If you don’t like my explanations, ask Xerox.

                  For real fun, take a look at what happens on the pages with pictures. Or see what’s going on in page 8.

                  But in the end, Hermie is demanding I prove that random files from the internet aren’t forgeries.

                • Hermitian says:

                  WKV

                  You mean all those files where the white background of the paper extends unbounded to the edge of the page, thus not meeting the criteria of smaller than the page?

                  (Vicklund claims that his magic algorithm can turn White paper into mottled dark Gray)

                  Or blue, or brown, or green, etc. My favorite was the one that had black and orange stripes. Looked like a tiger. I’m simply reporting what we’ve found, with my interpretation of how the algorithm works. I’m not an employee of Xerox or any of their third party vendors. If you don’t like my explanations, ask Xerox.

                  So now you claim that your magic only works if the text block doesn’t entirely cover the page? Dude ! The text never covers the entire page.

                • W. Kevin Vicklund says:

                  See the area of white inside the blue border? Is that area of white smaller than, equal to, or larger than the page? Do not include the white outside of the blue border.

                  Now, on a page without a border, is the area of white smaller than, equal to, or larger than the page?

                  [and by area, I’m referring to the rectangular boundaries]

                • Hermitian says:

                  WKV

                  “”So now you claim that your magic only works if the text block doesn’t entirely cover the page? Dude ! The text never covers the entire page.””

                  See the area of white inside the blue border? Is that area of white smaller than, equal to, or larger than the page? Do not include the white outside of the blue border.

                  Now, on a page without a border, is the area of white smaller than, equal to, or larger than the page?

                  [and by area, I’m referring to the rectangular boundaries]

                  The Blue borders on pages 2 and 3 were created by the same methodology as the text. The Blue border on a White background is not in any aspects different from any Black form box on a White background. Yet you claim that the Xerox algorithm (based on color difference alone) created both the mostly White Image Mask and the dark background layer required to achieve the Blue border.

                  Now the Obama LFCOLB PDF image has a border around the certificate portion (not at all unlike the Blue border on pages 2 and 3 of the “PILEBUTTS” newsletter). But the Xerox algorithm did not create a light-Green Image Mask layer and a dark-Gray background layer to create a dark border around the certificate. Nor did it do likewise for most of the text within this border.

                  But yet you insist that the same Xerox algorithm can do either (or both) in a single scan of a paper document without any human intervention and based on color difference alone.

                • W. Kevin Vicklund says:

                  The green is highly mottled, and thus is not eligible to be placed on an Image Mask Layer. And is Hermie actually implying that it is impossible that the thin blue border was on the original document? The algorithm doesn’t create visible dark colored borders – they have to already be there.

                  It’s really not that difficult.

                • Hermitian says:

                  WKV

                  The green is highly mottled, and thus is not eligible to be placed on an Image Mask Layer. And is Hermie actually implying that it is impossible that the thin blue border was on the original document?

                  To the contrary, I made the point that the Blue border (at the pixel level) is not that different from the border of the certificate portion of the Obama LFCOLB. At 6400% zoom, the Blue line is no more mottled than the black form lines on the LFCOLB. In the case of the Blue border every pixel of the feature is contained within the dark background. Assuming that the original paper document was White background then this white background was not painted onto the background layer but instead was painted onto an Image Mask layer. To the contrary, the light-Green background of the LFCOLB was painted onto the background layer. The Black border pixels were painted partially on the light-Green background layer and partially onto the transparent mostly text Image Mask layer. The problem with this scenario is that the dark background (which is entirely inside the Blue border) would have to be created entirely by the algorithm from only the color information provided by the dark text and Blue lines on the White background.

                • W. Kevin Vicklund says:

                  Yes, what’s the problem? Something has to go where the white of the paper was removed.

                • Hermitian says:

                  WKV

                  “Yes, what’s the problem? Something has to go where the white of the paper was removed.”

                  That’s the problem. Where does the code get the “something”. This would have to be the dark, mottled colors that are assigned to the background?

                  So you are claiming that it just makes all that dark stuff up out of thin air? Maybe it’s “dark matter”.

                  If not, then we are back to XRAY vision. The mottled dark gray was really under the White paper and your magic algorithm read the dark pattern through a sheet of White paper.

                  Or else it really does just make stuff up…

                  And if the original paper document being scanned is plain white paper with dark text and multicolored colored figures (i.e. tiny divers) why does the algorithm lift the white background at all ?

                  Why wouldn’t the MRC just produce a near-White JPEG background, an Image Mask (like the LFCOLB mostly text layer) which paints near-Black text and masks everything else within the text box and small multicoror JPEG images for the divers? Or else combine the JPEGs of the divers with the near-White background JPEG.

              • gsgs says:

                ahh, you too. I also saw it from gorefan now, 2 people that I appreciated.
                The last sentence doesn’t add anything useful.Replace it with just “again” or such

            • Northland10 says:

              Hermitian says: Wong !

              Hey Freud, your slip is showing.

        • W. Kevin Vicklund says:

          And Hermie, having been thoroughly defeated on all points, has devolved into the “prove everything on the internet is not a forgery!” argument – the last refuge of the defeated internet warrior.

      • Hermitian says:

        WKV

        “”So what is the page size of the Xerox 7655?””

        “1652 x 1276”

        “Don’t believe me? Check out the President’s and Vice President’s 2010 tax returns, each made on a Xerox 7655. You can find them here”

        http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/04/18/president-obama-and-vice-president-biden-s-tax-returns-and-tax-receipts

        That’s odd because NBC posted that the page size of the Xerxo 7655 is

        1656 x 1280.

        See: http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2013/07/26/xerox-7655-additional-experiments/

        That size is larger than the page size of the White House released Obama LFCOLB and Obama and Biden tax records.

        And we know that the page size of the Xerox 7535 and 7545 is

        1664 x 1280.

        Notice that the 7655/7545 and 7535 all satisfy the 8 MOD 0 condition at 150 PPI x 150 PPI. (The W and H dimensions of these three Xerox Workcenters are all divisible by 8 an integer number of times with zero remainder.)

        However, to the contrary the page size of all the WH released Obama documents do not satisfy the 8 MOD 0 criteria. The Obama documents are all 1652 x 1276.

        Having an integer number of 8 x 8 blocks of pixels is consistent with DCT compression of full-page JPEG images.

        The Obama documents are shorter by 1-1/2 block (12 px) on the long side and 1/2 block (4 px) on the short size compared to the three Xerox machines.

        • W. Kevin Vicklund says:

          1656 is not the same as 1664, and 1664 is too large for minimum at 8 x 8 Mod 0. Also, 1656 x 1280 is within the standard tolerances for paper size; it represents an error of 0.2%. And the President’s and Vice President’s tax forms are still 1652 x 1276, a fact you refuse to acknowledge.

          • NBC says:

            Hermitian refusing to accept facts? Now that is something totally unexpected 😉

          • Hermitian says:

            WKV””That’s odd because NBC posted that the page size of the Xerxo 7655 is 1656 x 1280. See: http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2013/07/26/xerox-7655-additional-experiments/ That size is larger than the page size of the White House released Obama LFCOLB and Obama and Biden tax records. And we know that the page size of the Xerox 7535 and 7545 is 1664 […]””

            “1656 is not the same as 1664, and 1664 is too large for minimum at 8 x 8 Mod 0. Also, 1656 x 1280 is within the standard tolerances for paper size; it represents an error of 0.2%. And the President’s and Vice President’s tax forms are still 1652 x 1276, a fact you refuse to acknowledge.”

            1652 < 1656 < 1664
            and
            1276 < 1280

            So the WH LFCOLB page is smaller than the page size of either the 7655, 7545 or 7535.

            I haven't refused to acknowledge the page dimensions of the WH released documents. The problem is that you refuse to acknowledge the correct page dimensions for the Xerox 7655.

            The question isn't about the dimensional precision of the paper but rather missing pixels in the WH LFCOLB page dimensions. Graphics programs don't drop pixels unless the operator commands it.

            The page dimensions of the WH LFCOLB are minimum for 300 PPI x 300 PPI but are not minimum for 150 PPI x 150 PPI which is the actual pixel resolution of the JPEG.

            The page size for the 7655 and for the 7545/7535 are an integer number of 8 x 8 blocks at 150 PPI x 150 PPI. I haven't found a Xerox yet that doesn't satisfy this integer block condition.

  19. Hermitian says:

    RC’s comment editor still eats mostly Metadata. Amazon’s forums never do that…It must be rocket science !!!

    • W. Kevin Vicklund says:

      He didn’t block it, nimwit, it’s buried in the middle of a comment thread.

      And it proves nothing, especially since you haven’t provided any info about the page size.

      • I have Hermie on permanent moderation because he accused me of lying more than once. I get around to approving them when I get around to it.

      • Hermitian says:

        WKV

        “”The interested readers can find my post from last night here: http://www.amazon.com/sensible-examination-Obama-LFCOLB-file/forum/Fx3O0GUS5OOQ7GV/Tx1R9VV7LL35QA2/1?_encoding=UTF8&asin=1936488299&cdMSG=addedToThread&cdSort=newest&newContentID=Mx2F0YJ5O9C4N8X&newContentNum=2332#CustomerDiscussionsNRPB

        “”RC promptly blocked this one because it proves that the Xerox 7655 could not be the forger.””

        “He didn’t block it, nimwit, it’s buried in the middle of a comment thread.

        “And it proves nothing, especially since you haven’t provided any info about the page size.”

        I gave enough info that you should be able to figure it out.

        Too bad you lied about the page size of the Xerox 7655.

        Naughty Naughty Obot !!!

        • W. Kevin Vicklund says:

          Okay, I predict that you found an 11 x 17 scan.

          • Hermitian says:

            W. Kevin Vicklund commented on Two new videos explode the Cold Case Posse forgery myths.

            in response to Hermitian:

            “”I gave enough info that you should be able to figure it out. Too bad you lied about the page size of the Xerox 7655. Naughty Naughty Obot !!!””

            “Okay, I predict that you found an 11 x 17 scan.”

            Nope the new document is nominal letter size.

            You and your sidekick NBC ought to get your facts straightened out.

            My previous post:

            That’s odd because NBC posted that the page size of the Xerxo 7655 is

            1656 x 1280.

            See: http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2013/07/26/xerox-7655-additional-experiments/


            I’ll save you the trouble of looking it up.

            USDWH7655-000.jpg 1656 x 1280 24bit n/a N 307502 “YCbCr”
            USDWH7655Rotated-000.jpg 1656 x 1280 24bit n/a N 307502 “YCbCr”
            RSUPWH7655-000.jpg 1656 x 1280 24bit n/a N 306274 “YCbCr”

            Now NBC’s page size of 1656 x 1280 for the Xerox 7655 is different from the smaller page size of 1652 x 1276 that WKV claims for the 7655.

            Of course Vicklund would falsely claim the smaller page dimensions because his bogus numbers match all of the Obama documents. You figure…

            But the fact is that neither of the three Amigos has ever released a Xerox 7655 scan to PDF file of a print out of the Obama LFCOLB PDF image. In fact they have never released a color scan of anything from the 7655.

            The problem for Roxy is that her page size is too big. Thus a human operator is required to remove the missing pixels in Preview.

            But then my new document which was also created with Preview has no missing pixels !!!

            So why are all of the WH released documents missing edge pixels?

            I wonder what information was digitally removed by the Preview operator?

            • W. Kevin Vicklund says:

              So why are all of the WH released documents missing edge pixels?

              Because they were scanned on the same machine. Which, according to the metadata on the tax returns, is a 7655. Boy, that was easy.

              • Hermitian says:

                W. Kevin Vicklund

                in response to Hermitian:

                “”Nope the new document is nominal letter size. You and your sidekick NBC ought to get your facts straightened out. My previous post: That’s odd because NBC posted that the page size of the Xerxo 7655 is 1656 x 1280. See: http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2013/07/26/xerox-7655-additional-experiments/ ” I’ll save you the trouble of looking it up. USDWH7655-000.jpg 1656 x […]””

                “So why are all of the WH released documents missing edge pixels?”

                “Because they were scanned on the same machine. Which, according to the metadata on the tax returns, is a 7655. Boy, that was easy.”

                Then maybe you could explain why NBC’s three scans done on the 7655 were all 1656 x 1280.

                Or would you rather keep lying your ass off?

                • W. Kevin Vicklund says:

                  Any number of reasons: the page was at the large end of the standard tolerances, the setting he used was different from the one the White House used and forced a larger size, the document feeder consistently fed the page slightly crooked (this was a problem we had with our old copier – all the copies and scans were noticeably crooked when using the ADF), there was a firmware difference. And that doesn’t even exhaust the possibilities.

                • This is why I am growing weary of Hermie’s nonstop line of straw men. In his demented world either every little anomaly must be explained to his satisfaction or a human forger is involved. It is ridiculous, dishonest, and annoying. Also, most of Hermie’s anomalies turn out to be his errors. He is typical of what the Birthers have to offer.

                • Hermitian says:

                  RC

                  “This is why I am growing weary of Hermie’s nonstop line of straw men. In his demented world either every little anomaly must be explained to his satisfaction or a human forger is involved. It is ridiculous, dishonest, and annoying. Also, most of Hermie’s anomalies turn out to be his errors. He is typical of what the Birthers have to offer.”

                  So I made an error by posting NBC’s results from his three trial scans with different orientations and feed directions on the Xerox 7655?

                  USDWH7655-000.jpg 1656 x 1280 24bit n/a N 307502 “YCbCr”
                  USDWH7655Rotated-000.jpg 1656 x 1280 24bit n/a N 307502 “YCbCr”
                  RSUPWH7655-000.jpg 1656 x 1280 24bit n/a N 306274 “YCbCr”

                  So how do you explain his results of three out of three for 1656 x 1280. And, by the way, these same page dimensions are also produced by the Xerox 7775. Also, the 7655 and 7775 have identical Quantization tables which are both different from the two Quantization tables extracted from the Obama LFCOLB JPEG.

                  So neither of these two Xerox models could not have created the Obama LFCOLB PDF image.

                • Hermitian says:

                  W. Kevin Vicklund

                  in response to Hermitian:

                  “”Then maybe you could explain why NBC’s three scans done on the 7655 were all 1656 x 1280. Or would you rather keep lying your ass off?””

                  “Any number of reasons: the page was at the large end of the standard tolerances, the setting he used was different from the one the White House used and forced a larger size, the document feeder consistently fed the page slightly crooked (this was a problem we had with our old copier – all the copies and scans were noticeably crooked when using the ADF), there was a firmware difference. And that doesn’t even exhaust the possibilities.”

                  [RC: Personal attack deleted.]

              • NBC says:

                Simple logic and reasoning

                • Hermitian says:

                  NBC

                  “Simple logic and reasoning”

                  So you are saying that Vicklund is right and you are wrong? You could clear this up by releasing one of your three PDFs.

                  USDWH7655-000.jpg 1656 x 1280 24bit n/a N 307502 “YCbCr”
                  USDWH7655Rotated-000.jpg 1656 x 1280 24bit n/a N 307502 “YCbCr”
                  RSUPWH7655-000.jpg 1656 x 1280 24bit n/a N 306274 “YCbCr”

                  Takes your pick !!!

                  Anyway, I already had the right page dimensions for the 7655 …

                  But it sure is fun watching the three Amigos self destruct.

                  Oops! I meant the three Amigos and Roxy…

                  Doofus !!!

                • NBC says:

                  Poor Hermitian he now confuses JPG and PDF. And I have no reason to hold your hands my dear. I have provided all the relevant information and you still cannot rebut the simple facts.

                  Thanks again for being such a great contributor to the demise of the CCP’s forgery claims. History may remember you for that part.

                • Hermitian says:

                  NBC

                  Poor Hermitian he now confuses JPG and PDF. And I have no reason to hold your hands my dear. I have provided all the relevant information and you still cannot rebut the simple facts.

                  My comment was directed to the new color PDF about which I posted. Because this file was created with Preview, the YCbCr label is visible in the PDF (as is the entire JPEG). However, I did extract all the JPEGs to verify that they all contained the YCbCr and the different Quantization tables from the Obama LFCOLB. I did the extractions with two different tools to verify the results.

                  I also extracted the Image Mask layers as .pbm bitmaps.

                  You haven’t released any PDFs from your 7655 trials and the Obama tax records are LinearGray rather than RGB.

                  The different page size and Quantization Tables rule out the Xerox 7565 as the creator of the Obama LFCOLB PDF image.

                  Your claim that the different Quantization Tables were caused by out of date 7655 firmware does not square with the fact that the Xerox 7775 also has the same Quantization Tables.

                  See: http://www.office.xerox.com/multifunction-printer/color-multifunction/workcentre-7755-7765-7775/miss-enus.html

                • Hermitian says:

                  NBC

                  “That’s your problem my friend, your tools versus your unfamiliarity with the vast amount of information hidden within the raw document, information which you were unable to access or comprehend fully until someone who did have the skills, pointed them out to you.”

                  Actually I just completed the creation of a type P3 .ppm image of the background layer of the Obama LFCOLB. This bitmap image file contains the decimal color values (three per pixel) W pixels per row and H rows in the bitmap file. From this one file one can directly read the color numbers of each pixel in the background image. Photoshop CC also renders both type P6 (binary) .ppm and P3 (decimal) .ppm bitmaps. I compared the color numbers for P3 and P6 and they are identical. I compared the color numbers from the .ppm to the color numbers of the background layer in the LFCOLB PDF. These values were measured for the same pixel for the .ppm and .pdf images in Adobe Photoshop CC.

                  The color values (read on many pixels) were always within 1 (out of a maximum value of 255).

                  I also did a color number comparison between the extracted .jpg and the .pdf. There was often a difference of 2 for a single color value for a maximum value of 255. The measured RGB color numbers from the JPEG do not track the RGB color numbers of the .pdf as accurately as do the RGB color numbers of the .ppm. This color error for the .jpg is likely caused by the RGB to YCbCr conversion and the color compression leading to loss of information.

                • Hermitian says:

                  NBC

                  “That’s your problem my friend, your tools versus your unfamiliarity with the vast amount of information hidden within the raw document, information which you were unable to access or comprehend fully until someone who did have the skills, pointed them out to you.”

                  Actually I just completed the creation of a type P3 .ppm image of the background layer of the Obama LFCOLB. This bitmap image file contains the decimal color values (three per pixel) W pixels per row and H rows in the bitmap file. From this one file one can directly read the color numbers of each pixel in the background image. Photoshop CC also renders both type P6 (binary) .ppm and P3 (decimal) .ppm bitmaps. I compared the color numbers for P3 and P6 and they are identical. I compared the color numbers from the .ppm to the color numbers of the background layer in the LFCOLB PDF. These values were measured for the same pixel for the .ppm and .pdf images in Adobe Photoshop CC.

                  The color values (read on many pixels) were always within 1 (out of a maximum value of 255).

                  I also did a color number comparison between the extracted .jpg and the .pdf. There was often a difference of 2 for a single color value for a maximum value of 255. The measured RGB color numbers from the JPEG do not track the RGB color numbers of the .pdf as accurately as do the RGB color numbers of the .ppm. This color error for the .jpg is likely caused by the RGB to YCbCr conversion and the color compression.

                • W. Kevin Vicklund says:

                  Indeed. Not even complex reasoning.

              • NBC says:

                Hermitian: I did the extractions with two different tools to verify the results.

                Finally you are getting somewhere. Remember how a few months, years ago, you could not even perform such a simple task? But if I remember correctly you were struggling with FlateDecode.

                I am glad you have finally discovered how Xerox PDF’s indeed add the YCbCr comment to the embedded tiff/jpeg

                Slow but steady progress.

                • Hermitian says:

                  NBC

                  “”Hermitian: I did the extractions with two different tools to verify the results.””

                  “Finally you are getting somewhere. Remember how a few months, years ago, you could not even perform such a simple task? But if I remember correctly you were struggling with FlateDecode”

                  I’ve been extracting type P1 and type P4 Black and White .pbm bitmaps of the Image Mask layers every since I first used Photoshop and illustrator. These 1-Bit layers are all Flate compressed in the Obama LFCOLB PDF image file. Also you must have missed my post where I reported that the Flate compression reduced the file size of the DCT compressed JPEG file by only 2%.

                  One benefit of the type P1 .pbm file format is that the B&W images can be viewed directly (as zeros and ones) by opening the type P1 .pbm files in a text editor.

                  I also extract type P3 and type P6 .ppm color bitmaps of the background layers. As I just reported, the color accuracy of these .ppm bitmaps is superior to that of your JPEG.

                  Of course you don’t have a clue about these .pbm files from way back because you are stuck on JPEG. In fact my examination of the mostly text layers for pages 2 and 3 of the “PILEBUTTS” document showed that the zeros and ones were reversed in my extracted type P1 .pbm of each mostly text layer. Whereas, the painted text is zeros and the mask is ones in the Image Masks of the Obama LFCOLB PDF, the text is ones and the background is zeros in the large Image Mask layers on pages 2 and 3 of the “PILEBUTTS” document. My pixel-level examinations of its different Image Masks and miniature images revealed that it’s very unlikely that the “PILEBUTTS” document was created by scanning a paper document only once.

                  You see you can get much more forensic evidence from these fundamental image files than from a DCT compressed JPEG. When’s the last time that you extracted the color of an image pixel from your precious JPEG? I can directly read the three RGB color values for any pixel in my type P3 .ppm image file when opened in a text editor. Sometimes more forensic information can be gleaned from the B & W image (constructed with zeros and ones) than from the rendered, pixelated image. Like the “smiley face” and the “TXE” in Onaka’s stamps.

                  Too bad you’ve “moved on”. How does it feel to have already blown your one chance to do a pixel-level forensic analysis of the WH LFCOLB?

                • NBC says:

                  Too bad you’ve “moved on”. How does it feel to have already blown your one chance to do a pixel-level forensic analysis of the WH LFCOLB

                  ROTFL, you so funny. A pixel level forensic analysis… Wow… You are really onto something. Sadly you never really found the YCbCr even for some time it was pointed out to you.

                  So many missed forensic markers… Not the best effort my friend…

                  You are always fun my friend, not just because of your somewhat sloppy research, but also because of the level of denial.

                  Thanks for playing, without you the rebuttal of the CCP would not have been that straightforward.

                • Hermitian says:

                  NBC

                  “So many missed forensic markers… Not the best effort my friend…”

                  I have uncovered more than enough forensic markers to rule out your Xerox forger. Too bad your Roxy/Roxie just doesn’t have the right stuff.

                  Of course we already know that Obots are not capable of sifting evidence provided by others which debunks their story line.

                • NBC says:

                  have uncovered more than enough forensic markers to rule out your Xerox forger.

                  ROTFL, you are still living a in world of self delusion my friend. So far you have done NOTHING to rebut the case.

                  And stop projecting my friend.

                • Hermitian says:

                  NBC

                  ROTFL, you are still living a in world of self delusion my friend. So far you have done NOTHING to rebut the case.

                  I’ll let the readers that for themselves…

                • NBC says:

                  I’ll let the readers that for themselves…

                  Yes, because you have no response to this as all my findings stand as strong now as they stood a year ago. In spite of your ‘efforts’.

                  You muttered and sputtered about the YCbCr comment not being there and other irrlevant issues, but you have never refuted my findings.

                  Instead you have chosen to look at other irrelevant aspects.

                  That my friend is self evident to any reader.

                • Hermitian says:

                  NBC

                  “You muttered and sputtered about the YCbCr comment not being there and other irrlevant issues, but you have never refuted my findings.”

                  And you never proved exclusivity to Xerox. So you totally missed CIP1.5 and the Asian documents with the YCbCr label?

                  Chinese PDF

                  2013-12-12T09:27:32+08:00
                  CIP1.5
                  2013-12-12T09:27:32+08:00
                  CIP1.5

                  All of the many 1-Bit layers in this Chinese PDF were CCITTFax compressed.

                  I also posted a Japanese document with identical characteristics.

                  FatWire was purchased in 2011 by Oracle. Good luck getting your verification of the YCbCr out of Xerox.

                • NBC says:

                  I do not need to get verification of YCbCr from xerox, I already know that Xerox includes the comment tag.

                • Hermitian says:

                  NBC

                  I do not need to get verification of YCbCr from xerox, I already know that Xerox includes the comment tag.

                  Well OK ! if junk science suits you. But Xerox likely gets their software from a third party. Xerox uses ABBYY Fine Reader for their OCR. The same ABBYY engine 2.0 also does MRC compression.

                  See: http://www.abbyy.com/ocr_sdk_embedded/pdf_mrc/

                  I think you are just stuck on Xerox.

                • NBC says:

                  But Xerox likely gets their software from a third party. Xerox uses ABBYY Fine Reader for their OCR.

                  Likely? Hmmm that’s too bad that all you have is speculation and as to ABBYY that’s OCR. For goodness sake my friend, stop confusing these issues.

                  You really have no idea about how to rebut a hypothesis?

                • Hermitian says:

                  NBC

                  Likely? Hmmm that’s too bad that all you have is speculation and as to ABBYY that’s OCR. For goodness sake my friend, stop confusing these issues.

                  You really have no idea about how to rebut a hypothesis?

                  Nope! OCR + MRC
                  And I even provided the link. Look who’s confused !!!

                  http://www.abbyy.com/ocr_sdk_embedded/pdf_mrc/

                  [RC: Personal attack removed.]

                • NBC says:

                  I have no idea why you bring up Abbyy, it’s provided as an OCR add on.

                  Really my friend….
                  It is NOT used by Xerox for the purpose of scanning, but rather a post processing option.

                • Hermitian says:

                  NBC

                  I have no idea why you bring up Abbyy, it’s provided as an OCR add on.

                  Really my friend….
                  It is NOT used by Xerox for the purpose of scanning, but rather a post processing option.

                  Nope! ABBYY does OCR on the fly. You’re living in the past Dude. The same ABBYY engine 2.0 now also does MRC.

                • NBC says:

                  You are not very familiar with how the Xerox Workcentre works now do you?

                  Furthermore ABBYY MRC and PDF does not look anything like the Xerox created PDF’s.

                  You are perhaps not understanding my argument, probably because you are not too familiar with Xerox Work Centres. They are typically not connected to the computer of the person who scans but rather allow you to email the scan to your computer where it can then be post-processed. As far as I can remember, the Xerox workflow does not include OCR, so this is not very relevant.

                  Yes, ABBYY does OCR directly from attached scanners, and they do MRC, but neither observation has any relevance.

                • Hermitian says:

                  NBC

                  “You are perhaps not understanding my argument, probably because you are not too familiar with Xerox Work Centres. They are typically not connected to the computer of the person who scans but rather allow you to email the scan to your computer where it can then be post-processed. As far as I can remember, the Xerox workflow does not include OCR, so this is not very relevant.”

                  I’m sure you’re right Dude. Xerox just throws in their Xerox Scan to PC Desktop™ software in case the customer has some other brand of MFP.

                  And you are wrong about the OCR too.

                • NBC says:

                  I’m sure you’re right Dude. Xerox just throws in their Xerox Scan to PC Desktop™ software in case the customer has some other brand of MFP.

                  Funny how Hermie keeps focusing on a situation different from the Xerox Workcentre workflow.

                  Fascinating

                • NBC says:

                  Perhaps I am stuck on Xerox but it remains the best explanation given all the evidence.

                • Hermitian says:

                  NBC

                  Perhaps I am stuck on Xerox but it remains the best explanation given all the evidence.

                  Nope! Photoshop + human forger is a better explanation. All the images are created as 72 PPI x 72 PPI bitmaps and then individually placed in Illustrator. Then he just stripped out the Adobe Metadata in Preview. All done in MAC OSX.

                  Slick !

                • That is so stupid that it leaves me breathless. What the hell are you smoking moron? How the hell did you ever earn a PhD at Bumfuck Tennessee State?

                • Hermitian says:

                  RC

                  “That is so stupid that it leaves me breathless. What the hell are you hell are you smoking moron?”

                  I don’t smoke. We know that a Progressive can’t recognize conflicts between facts. And we know that facts are as hard as diamonds.

                  How’s your video on HALOS going Dude? Please Please Please – Pretty Please include lots of stuff from the “PILEBUTTS” document. It’s got those new kind of text layers (that we have never seen before) which can’t have White Halos under the text.

                  And NBC is saying that you know where the missing pixels are.

                  Do the math !

                  1664 – 1652 = 12

                  1280 – 1276 = 4

                  12 x 1664 = 19,968

                  4 x 1280 = 5120

                  19,968 + 5120 = 25,088

                  Whew! Now that’s a lot of missing pixels !!!

                • Hermie can’t even do simple math correctly. He can’t even calculate the difference in the area of two rectangles.

                  1664 x 1280 = 2,129,920
                  1652 x 1276 = 2,107,952
                  2,129,920 – 2,107,952 = 21,968

                  Do you want me to put that in an affidavit? And no, the pixels aren’t missing.

                  The difference in the two areas is 1%. This area is outside the boundary of an 8.5 x 11 inch page and is removed by the Edge Erase function any way.

                • NBC says:

                  Nope! Photoshop + human forger is a better explanation.

                  Not really since it is an ad hoc claim with no supporting evidence other than well, the forger made it look like a xerox workflow.

                  Sorry my friend but again you show that you do not really understand how to address a scientific hypothesis or how to present a competing one.

                  To claim that a forger could mimick a xerox workflow is of course a red herring, the question is, can a regular workflow explain the artifacts that people insist were evidence of a forgery and if the answer is yes, then you need to present more information than just claiming such.

                  The simple fact is that I can repeat the experiment to show that all these artifacts are created in a xerox workflow. You claim with no further evidence that a human forger is a better explanation.

                  You need to do more than that.

                • Hermitian says:

                  NBC

                  “The simple fact is that I can repeat the experiment to show that all these artifacts are created in a xerox workflow. You claim with no further evidence that a human forger is a better explanation.”

                  “Artifacts” aren’t the real deal Dude ! Close only counts in Horseshoes ans Hand Grenades. I’ve picked off your Xerox soldiers one by one and now you are down to just the 7535 which has thousands of missing pixels. I wonder what incriminating information was revealed in those many missing pixels?

                  And Fox news is reporting this morning that one of our dead shot snipers just picked off five Taliban with one bullet at 1000 yards..

                  One thing is for sure — you don’t have a clue about the special capabilities of Photoshop. But we know that Mr. C does because he produced his “one off” masterpiece entitled “Obama Long Form RECONSTRUCTION” way back in 2009. You know Mr. C — He’s that computer guy who sold special-purpose software for churning out birth certificates. And Mr. C supplied the Green basket-weave security paper and the White-background AP copy to RC. Maybe there are actually four Amigos instead of three. Could Mr. C be the go-to guy for birth certificates for Democrat candidates?

                • NBC says:

                  I’ve picked off your Xerox soldiers one by one and now you are down to just the 7535 which has thousands of missing pixels.

                  ROTFL, keep telling that to yourself… I love to observe you struggling with the facts.
                  And the facts are that all the artifacts have been explained by a simple Xerox work flow.

                  And you have done nothing to rebut this.

                  As to Dr C, his ‘forgery’ looks nothing like the WH PDF. Only superficially simple…

                  Poor Hermitian…

                  Keep up the good work my friend and keep making foolish speculations.

                • NBC says:

                  And one does not prove exclusivity, one eliminates. Really my friend… Even if Xerox is not unique, the combination of features strongly support a Xerox scenario and the data are in fact consistent with such a workflow.

                  Basic scientific hypothesis forming… Give it a try my friend. As to your pdf’s I have no idea what you are talking about.

                  Are you still telling me that in your attempts to rebut the xerox workflow you still do not have access to such a machine.

                  Wow.

                • Hermitian says:

                  NBC

                  “Even if Xerox is not unique, the combination of features strongly support a Xerox scenario and the data are in fact consistent with such a workflow.”

                  Then you shouldn’t have a problem with releasing your 7655 PDF files.

                • NBC says:

                  Why? I have provided my evidence and arguments. The 7655 documents have no relevance and if you believe that I am misrepresenting something then you are free to repeat the experiments.

                  Sorry my friend, if you want to rebut you have to do better than have others do the work for you.

                • Hermitian says:

                  NBC

                  “Why? I have provided my evidence and arguments. The 7655 documents have no relevance and if you believe that I am misrepresenting something then you are free to repeat the experiments.”

                  Every scientist must provide his data to prove his claim. You are certainly no exception.

                  [RC: Gibberish removed. Hermie can’t seem put together a rational thought. ]

                • NBC says:

                  Every scientist must provide his data to prove his claim. You are certainly no exception.

                  I provided the data, I provided the approach used and I provided all the materials necessary to repeat the experiments. RC managed to follow the instructions, this is not rocket science. Science is not about the data but about the repeatability of the experiment.

                  The data were presented, just not in the format preferred by you.

                • Hermitian says:

                  NBC

                  I provided the data, I provided the approach used and I provided all the materials necessary to repeat the experiments. RC managed to follow the instructions, this is not rocket science. Science is not about the data but about the repeatability of the experiment.

                  The data were presented, just not in the format preferred by you.

                  I thought that Mr. C supplied the Green safety paper and the White-background AP copy to RC.

                  I wonder why NBC buried all of his 7655 scans?

                  Given all of my reported evidence (proving that the 7655 couldn’t have done the deed) you would think that NBC would defend his pal? Nope! Instead he threw his Roxy right under the bus and passed the ball to RC. But RC didn’t repeat the experiments of NBC on the 7655. Instead RC did all of his trial scans on the Xerox 7535. You would think that DARPA would have every Xerox known to man !

                  And the Obots claim that the 7655 is the model of Xerox Workcenter that was in the White House back in 2011.

                  Is all of this beginning to make sense?

                  ROTFL…

                • NBC says:

                  Is all of this beginning to make sense?

                  Perhaps not to you but that sets quite a low standard.

                • johnsr richardson says:

                  Nothing you have said has debunked the fact this is a forgery. Nobody has debunked the fact that most of the typed letters have kerning. The typewriters  of that time could not kern. No one has debunked the “txe”. And please don’t tell me about the one in 2011 that was done on purpose by a Obot. in Hawaii. Plus , the perfect smiley face didn’t just happen because of lint. There is uneven letter heights, widths, spacing, and rotated letters (such as the e’s). Your debunking reminds me of the flat earth believers. You say the earth is flat, and everyone else is wrong and stupid because you debunked their round earth theory.  JOHN S RICHARDSON 

                • NBC says:

                  Nobody has debunked the fact that most of the typed letters have kerning.

                  No kerning. And the ‘smiley face’ That’s funny… So you ignore the known facts and are now claiming that the underlying document is a fake.

                  Care to provide some examples and compare with known documents that were typed as well?

                  Or are you just blindly following what others want you to believe?

                • What a moron. Why don’t you actually address some of the facts presented? Oh wait you can’t can you?

                • johnsr richardson says:

                  JOHN S RICHARDSON

                • johnsr richardson says:

                   JOHN S RICHARDSON

                • johnsr richardson says:

                   JOHN S RICHARDSON

    • I didn’t block anything. I have you on permanent moderation because you accused me of lying without proof. I approve your comments when I get around to it.

      • Hermitian says:

        NBC

        “I approve your comments when I get around to it.”

        So what’s the new Obot game now that the mighty Roxy has struck out?

        Are you three Amigos ready to admit that Preview deleted the missing edge pixels on the Obama documents?

        If so, then I wonder why Preview didn’t delete any edge pixels from the pages of my newly found PDF document?

          • NBC says:

            Not exactly the words I would ha chosen but yes, he is not very smart. Is he still trying to argue his case on Amazon after his claims were totally destroyed on other sites? Fascinating.
            Hermitian has not only managed to impeach himself as an ‘expert’ but he continues to struggle. Quite enjoyable really.

            • I must have missed the part where Hermitian explained how the WH LFBC couldn’t have been scanned on a Xerox WorkCentre and resaved in Preview since such a process produces all the anomalies that the Birthers claimed were iron-clad proof of forgery. I must have missed that.

              • NBC says:

                Well, at least he has finally been able to locate the YCbCr signature in the JPEG. It’s about time… He is trying and even learning some skills.

                • Hermitian says:

                  NBC

                  “Well, at least he has finally been able to locate the YCbCr signature in the JPEG. It’s about time… He is trying and even learning some skills.”

                  Finding the comment “YCbCr” by a “Search” in the PDF is not exactly rocket science.

                • NBC says:

                  And yet you could not do this. Fascinating that the evidence remained totally hidden in plain sight to our ‘expert’ until someone pointed it out to him. And even then, he continued to claim that it was not there, that I was somehow lying.
                  So if it is not exactly rocket science, then how come you failed utterly?

                  You are so much fun my dear. Not much of an opponent, but fun nevertheless..

              • Hermitian says:

                RC

                I must have missed the part where Hermitian explained how the WH LFBC couldn’t have been scanned on a Xerox WorkCentre and resaved in Preview since such a process produces all the anomalies that the Birthers claimed were iron-clad proof of forgery. I must have missed that.

                Except for those missing edge pixels and the failure to meet the 8 MOD 0 at 150 PPI x 150 PPI.

                Your Xerox 7535 scan to PDF images are 1664 x 1280 page size.

                The Obama LFCOLB PDF page size is 1652 x 1276.

                The 1664 x 1280 would initially meet the 8 MOD 0 at 150 PPI x 150 PPI but would not after the page size is reduced to 1652 x 1276.

                Your Roxy needs a human forger to remove the missing edge pixels.

              • Jim says:

                NBC says: “He is trying and even learning some skills.”

                Yeah, skills that will probably be out-of-date with the next version release of the software. I’m still rolling around laughing my ass off at the idiotic “layers are a sign of forgery” claim. These idiots don’t understand that EVERYTHING is stored the same way on computers, as a series of binary numbers, and the viewing SOFTWARE is the thing that reads it and creates the layers using computer standards created years ago. Hermie needs to take a few basic computer classes, THEN he might learn something.

                • Hermitian says:

                  Just plain JIM

                  NBC says: “He is trying and even learning some skills.”

                  Yeah, skills that will probably be out-of-date with the next version release of the software.

                  Hardly, I have a current license for Adobe Creative Cloud which includes real-time access to all the latest Adobe Apps. The last release had content creation and unembed.

      • Northland10 says:

        I see no reason to get around to approving his comments.

        • Hermitian says:

          Northland10

          I see no reason to get around to approving his comments.

          Translation: Hermitian is destroying the Obot Xerox forger scenario so let’s shut him down.

          • NBC says:

            Keep telling yourself that even though you have yet to rebut much anything. Hermitian, your delusions are fascinating but they are as irrelevant and illogical as were your claims about forgery in the first place. It did not take much effort by me and Vicklund to expose them as based on lack of sufficient understanding of the tools used.

            As far as ‘destroying the Xerox’ forgery scenario, you have yet to do anything in that area.

            But of course, that will never stop you from believing otherwise. While most of us have moved on, you appear to be stuck here. At least, it is an opportunity to educate you on the facts, which are that none of the evidences I have presented in support of the workflow have yet been rebutted by you.
            Instead you keep moving the goal posts to new, irrelevant ‘arguments’.

            Good job my friend, and quite entertaining.

            • Hermitian says:

              NBC

              “While most of us have moved on.”

              Too bad your Xerox forger claim is now totally debunked. By the way…Who over at the FogBow called you off the 7655? You dropped it like the plague.

              • Too bad your Xerox forger claim is now totally debunked.

                Exactly what have you debunked? Let’s look at what I listed a long time ago that is explained by the Xerox WorkCentre work flow in my articled titled Xerox for Dummies:

                  The existence of one JPEG layer and multiple single color monochrome masks.
                  The separation of the document into a background JPEG layer with the green security basket weave pattern, the form lines, and pieces of text.
                  The separation of most of the text into another monochrome layer.
                  Separate monochrome layers for the date stamp and Alvin Onaka’s seal.
                  The rotation and scaling of the layers
                  The creation of pixel for pixel identical letters and shapes.
                  The ability to open the document in Adobe Illustrator and move around objects separately.
                  Existence of a background color layer at 150 dpi resolution and monochrome layers at 300 dpi.
                  The white border and the top level clipping mask.
                  White holes in the background layer where text was lifted.
                  The white halo compression artifacts.
                • Hermitian says:

                  Exactly what have you debunked? let’s look at what I listed a long time ago that is explained by the Xerox WorkCentre work flow in my articled titled Xerox for Dummies:

                  The existence of one JPEG layer and multiple single color monochrome masks.
                  The separation of the document into a background JPEG layer with the green security basket weave pattern, the form lines, and pieces of text.
                  The separation of most of the text into another monochrome layer.
                  Separate monochrome layers for the date stamp and Alvin Onaka’s seal.
                  The rotation and scaling of the layers
                  The creation of pixel for pixel identical letters and shapes.
                  The ability to open the document in Adobe Illustrator and move around objects separately.
                  Existence of a background color layer at 150 dpi resolution and monochrome layers at 300 dpi.
                  The white border and the top level clipping mask.
                  White holes in the background layer where text was lifted.
                  The white halo compression artifacts.

                  The only PDF images are W = 1652 px x 1276 px that are (thus far) available were all issued by the White House.

                  I have searched the internet and have found exactly zero Xerox Workcenters that produce this same page size.

                  Thus your first job is to find a Xerox Workcenter that creates this page size.

                  We know that the 7655 (or 7775) could not have created the LFCOLB because they have JPEG Quantization Tables that are different from the Quantization Tables found in the LFCOLB JPEG. The page size is also different.

                  The page sizes of every Xerox that I have found that scans nominal 8.5 in x 11.0 inch pages in the American market has a page size that satisfies the 8 MOD 0 condition at 150 PPI x 150 PPI. Thus if one divides the W and H dimensions of the page by 8 then an integer number must result

                  The page dimensions of the White House documents do not satisfy the 8 MOD 0 condition at 150 PPI x 150 PPI.

                  I’m not aware that the White House has a “one off” Xerox.

              • NBC says:

                Too bad your Xerox forger claim is now totally debunked. By the way…Who over at the FogBow called you off the 7655? You dropped it like the plague.

                ROTFL, you are living in a world of delusion my friend. All aspects of the Xerox work flow remain solid. I am not sure about your 7655 question. It’s one of the Xerox Work Centre devices and we know one is owned by the White House as it was used to scan the vice-president’s tax return forms.

                I have not dropped the argument, as you can see here

                The certified copy of the Long Form Birth Certificate on file with the Department of Health of Hawaii was placed upside down in the feeder of a Xerox WorkCentre (most likely a 7655). The e-mail workflow was chosen and the recipient selected. The default values were used and the scan button was pressed.

                You are not very good at doing research now are you?

                • Hermitian says:

                  NBC

                  ROTFL, you are living in a world of delusion my friend. All aspects of the Xerox work flow remain solid. I am not sure about your 7655 question

                  By all means…let’s make sure you understand the 7655 question. You reported that you carried out three trial scans on a 7655 using different feed orientations and methods. You reported the page dimensions from you trials as follows:

                  JPEG Information

                  USDWH7655-000.jpg 1656 x 1280 24bit n/a N 307502 “YCbCr”
                  USDWH7655Rotated-000.jpg 1656 x 1280 24bit n/a N 307502 “YCbCr”
                  RSUPWH7655-000.jpg 1656 x 1280 24bit n/a N 306274 “YCbCr”

                  Now the page dimensions of all the White House released documents are W = 1652, H = 1276. Under your work flow, these pixels could only have been manually removed by the Preview operator.

                  However, the 7655 issue is now moot because we know that the 7655 and the 7775 have identical Quantization tables which are different from those of the White House documents. Therefore neither the Xerox 7655 or 7775 could have created the WH documents.

                  Additionally, we know that the page dimensions of the Xerox 7535 and 7545 are W = 1664 px x 1280 px. Because the dimensions of the WH documents are W = 1652 px x 1276 px we know that pixels would again have to be removed. Thus exactly 12 pixels would be removed from W direction and 4 pixels would be removed from H direction. If the preview operator did this to remove an edge label, that would have been an act of forgery. If no information was removed, then it would be an act of alteration of a certifying document.

                • NBC says:

                  Under your work flow, these pixels could only have been manually removed by the Preview operator.

                  Nope, and preview does not manually remove anything.

                  You are not very good at this now are you.

                • Hermitian says:

                  NBC

                  Nope, and preview does not manually remove anything.

                  So your Xerox pal ate the missing pixels?

                • NBC says:

                  So your Xerox pal ate the missing pixels?

                  Nope. But keep trying as there is a very reasonable explanation, and in fact, it was already provided to you by Vicklund. Not that you would recognize it as such but I will give you a chance to redeem yourself.

                • Hermitian says:

                  NBC

                  in response to Hermitian:

                  “”So your Xerox pal ate the missing pixels?””

                  “”So your Xerox pal ate the missing pixels?””

                  Nope. But keep trying as there is a very reasonable explanation, and in fact, it was already provided to you by Vicklund. Not that you would recognize it as such but I will give you a chance to redeem yourself.

                  So Vicklund ate the missing pixels?

                  I see ….

                • NBC says:

                  Still trying I see, which is good. B for effort, but F for accuracy.

                  Poor Hermitian and now RC has pwned him by releasing a document that meets Hermitian’s ‘requirements’. Of course, Hermie could also have downloaded the Tax Return PDF from the WH.

                  Doing proper research starts with a proper mindset. Let me know if I can help

                • NBC says:

                  What missing pixels… Maybe you should check out the 2012 tax return that was posted on the WH or the latest RC research.

                  I cannot believe that someone, without access to the device, can make claims about what the device can and cannot do.

                  The appeal to ignorance once again exposes a limited understanding of the scientific method.

                  Time for Hermitian to go into hiding again after having been punked for the umptieth time.

                  And that’s why we love you my friend.

              • You know I would love to hear Hermie’s current explanation of how a human forger actually put together files that look like these. On the other hand maybe I wouldn’t …….

                • Hermitian says:

                  RC

                  You three Amigos haven’t moved the ball one foot since NBC posted this last July.

                  “WH-LFBC and the embedded JPEG

                  “Posted on July 25, 2013 by NBC

                  “The White House PDF of President Obama’s Long Form birth certificate, contains a DCTDecode encoded embedded stream, which in simple language means: A jpeg.

                  “Simple tools allow you to extract the jpeg and with the right jpeg tools, it is possible to detect the following features:
                  1.The jpeg is rotated 90 degrees counter clockwise
                  2.The jpeg dimensions are 1652×1276 pixels
                  3.The jpeg does not contain any metadata or exif of XIFF data
                  4.The jpeg does contain a single comment tage “YCbCr”
                  5.The jpeg contains Quantization matrices
                  6.The jpeg is encoded in a 4-2-2 format where for each 4 8×8 bit blocks of “Y” data there is one 8×8 block of Cb and one block of Cr data
                  7.The jpeg is highly compressed (~47.48% quality)

                  “These observations are all important when one tries to establish the possible origin of the jpeg. The lack of any metadata indicating who or what created the jpeg is at odds with the jpeg being created by Adobe tools as they typically add a lot of metadata information. Of course, the metadata could have been stripped.

                  “Now lets look at the WH 7535 jpeg, which is the jpeg extracted from the PDF created on a Xerox WorkCentre 7355
                  1.The jpeg is rotated 90 degrees counter clockwise
                  2.The jpeg dimensions are 1652×1276 1664 x 1280 pixels
                  3.The jpeg does not contain any metadata or exif of XIFF data (identical to the WH LFBC PDF)
                  4.The jpeg does contain a single comment tage “YCbCr” (Identical to the WH LFBC PDF)
                  5.The jpeg contains Quantization matrices (identical to the WH LFBC PDF)
                  6.The jpeg is encoded in a 4-2-2 format where for each 4 8×8 bit blocks of “Y” data there is one 8×8 block of Cb and one block of Cr data (identical to the WH LFBC PDF)
                  7.The jpeg is highly compressed (~47.48% quality) (identical to the WH LFBC PDF)

                  “The Details

                  “1. the width is larger than the height WH LFBC is rotated counter clockwise, Xerox document clockwise

                  Ho Hum !!!

            • NBC says:

              Hermitian: “1. the width is larger than the height WH LFBC is rotated counter clockwise, Xerox document clockwise

              Which is why the document was likely scanned upside down, which matches also the alignment data and explains why the document was opened and saved in Preview.

              Simple logic.

              Again you are focusing on minor details that are trivially and consistently explained.

              It’s called the scientific method. you may have heard of it?

              • Hermitian says:

                NBC

                The wrong Quantization Tables and page size are not trivial issues.

                You could quickly clear this up by releasing one of your 7655 PDFs…

                I’ll even provide the file names.

                USDWH7655-000.jpg 1656 x 1280 24bit n/a N 307502 “YCbCr”
                USDWH7655Rotated-000.jpg 1656 x 1280 24bit n/a N 307502 “YCbCr”
                RSUPWH7655-000.jpg 1656 x 1280 24bit n/a N 306274 “YCbCr”

                So “takes” your pick !!!

                What ! You really don’t have one in color?

                • NBC says:

                  I have shown how the Quantization Table is likely an artifact of the firmware as the 7533 shows the same quantization table. Page size has just been resolved by RC. You are again punked and pwned by your appeal to ignorance.

                  Not bad for a single day of ‘work’ and fun with Hermie…

                • Hermitian says:

                  NBC

                  I have shown how the Quantization Table is likely an artifact of the firmware as the 7533 shows the same quantization table.

                  I think you are just making that firmware excuse up. I have shown that the 7655 and the 7775 use the same Quantization and Huffman Tables. There’s no way that Xerox would supply firmware (that you claim was out of date in 2011) on a $31,000 Xerox 7775 Workcenter that you can purchase today. I have a PDF file that was created on a 7775 which has the same tables as the 7655.

                • NBC says:

                  So we have different Xerox Work Centers that have different quantization tables. I am not sure what you are trying to argue here other than that I showed that the 7655 work centre did not have the same Quantization tables however that the 7355 does.

                  The Quantization Matrices do not match the WH LFBC, and the WH Tax matrices but this can be explained by realizing that the scanner is not using the up-to-date firmware as it scans to PDF 1.4 not PDF 1.5 as found in the WH Tax form PDF.

                  The 7655 xerox work centre used to scan the tax forms at the White House matched.

                  That’s all that we need to know.

                • Hermitian says:

                  NBC

                  “The 7655 xerox work centre used to scan the tax forms at the White House matched.” Wrong! T
                  [RC: More gibberish from Hermitian that adds nothing to the conversation. ]

  20. NBC says:

    Hardly, I have a current license for Adobe Creative Cloud which includes real-time access to all the latest Adobe Apps. The last release had content creation and unembed.

    That’s your problem my friend, your tools versus your unfamiliarity with the vast amount of information hidden within the raw document, information which you were unable to access or comprehend fully until someone who did have the skills, pointed them out to you.

    Having an Adobe Cloud license does not make one an expert my friend.

    • Jim says:

      I’m still waiting on him to explain why layers are signs of forgery when as a cloud expert he’d know that you can turn layers on and off. Which means that Adobe expects and programs for layers. Which means that layers are a standard for displaying PDF’s. Well Hermie, what’s your answer to that? If you admit layers are NOT a sign of forgery, then you’re admitting that the CCP analysis is fatally flawed. If you continue to claim that layers are a sign of forgery, then you’re claiming that the forger is Adobe. Which is it Hermie?

      • NBC says:

        Layers may or may not be evidence of forgery. Since the CCP overlooked the fact that software may create layers (MRC for example), their conclusions were completely wrong.

        Hermitian has ignored the evidence and is now ‘arguing’ minor little questions, ignoring having to admit to the self-evident.

        He is so much fun

        • Jim says:

          Sorry, layers in and of itself do not mean any kind of forgery has happened. Data is NOT stored in layers. It is stored as a flat file. The software interprets it as layers because of the standards for reading and displaying images…such as MRC compression. I guess the simplest way to show this is to create and save a word file and then open it in notepad. Notepad cannot interpret what is being loaded because it wasn’t programmed to recognize it. If the software is programmed to recognize and accept data and then display it with layers, then layers cannot be a sign of forgery, it’s just a computer standard set up to make it more efficient…which anyone who started internet using a phone modem understands why after sitting there and watching pics load. Now, I could tell you how to tell if there was forgery of an image, but then I’d have to blow up Hermie’s computer. 😀

          • Hermitian says:

            JIMBO

            “Data is NOT stored in layers. It is stored as a flat file.”

            Data is stored in different formats. For Example, text characters can be either vector or bitmap. If you create a typed document in Word and then import it to Illustrator it first loads as a vector object. (The fonts are vector if they were previously vector in Word). The font can then be scaled, rotated, translated etc..

            You can see that the font is vector by scaling it (up to 6400 %) and you will see that the edges are smooth (no jaggies). If you then invoke Object/rasterize the vector fonts are converted to bitmap fonts which are embedded. The embedded “type object” appears in the Links list.

            If you again zoom in you will find that the font edges are now jagged whenver the font segments are curved. A new feature available in Illustrator CC is the unembed command. If this command is executed, then the text reverts back to vector and a linked .psd file is created and saved to disk. The embedded object changes to a linked external object in the link list. One can then apply the trace command to the text object to remove the jaggies.

            So the form of data is in the eye of the beholder.

        • Hermitian says:

          NBC

          “Layers may or may not be evidence of forgery. Since the CCP overlooked the fact that software may create layers (MRC for example), their conclusions were completely wrong.”That’s a lie !!!
          The CCP showed results of their study of different compression algorithms in a press conference. They showed Illustrator images having many more layers that the Obama LFCOLB. Also Zebest described PDF layers (and their PDF code) in detail in her various reports.

          • NBC says:

            So how did they miss such an obvious candidate as an enterprise/small business machine like Xerox?

            Mara Zebest wrote:


            Layers: A normal scan is a flat file and does not contain multiple layers. The Obama PDF contains 9 layers and grouped to a clipping mask layer

            and

            The layers in Obama’s PDF clearly display
            a decision-making process that would be present with image manipulation.

            Zullo even claimed that

            The theories set forth in Mr. Woodman’s book were thoroughly tested by investigators and found to be nothing more than pure speculation and supposition. The investigators concluded Mr. Woodman’s work was nothing more than conjecture without any evidentiary proof that his theories could be supported.

            ROTFL… If they only had done their homework. Sorry Hermie..

            • Hermitian says:

              NBC

              “If they only had done their homework.”

              They did ! You just are stuck on Xerox and therefore are blind to everything else. Mara Zebest has issued a least three reports on the Obama LFCOLB. You have issued none — just a whole lot of disconnected printouts. Nobody, including yourself, have a clue as to what it all adds up to.

              Let me help you with the addition. It all adds up to nothing of significance.

              Zebest thoroughly covered layers (8-bit and 1-bit) in her third report. She also provided an easily understandable discussion of MRC. You just didn’t like her version of MRC. That’s probably because it’s far superior to Xerox’s version.

              I highly recommend all of her reports to your readers. Especially Report 3 (if they are interested in the layers in Obama’s LFCOLB).

              “REPORT 3
              BARACK OBAMA: LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE:
              Bitmap Layer and Color Attributes
              by Mara Zebest”

              Happy Reading !!!

              In the mean time, NBC can look for a Xerox that produces W = 1652 px ; H = 1276 px page dimensions. [RC: You mean like the ones I just posted? 😆 ]

              And this elusive Xerox also has to have the same Quantization and Huffman Tables as the Obama LFCOLB JPEG.

              And Vicklund says that it has to be one that doesn’t detect text — just colors.

              ROTFL…

              • NBC says:

                You have issued none — just a whole lot of disconnected printouts. Nobody, including yourself, have a clue as to what it all adds up to.

                ROTFL, there is that projecting again.

                Of course, your statement is simply wrong as I have outlined all the examples of items that were claimed to be evidence of forgery and shown how these artifacts are found in a simple xerox workflow.

                The problem is not that I am too focused on the Xerox work flow but rather that those who should have focused on pursuing their research should have spent more time on pursuing the promising directions outlined by Woodman and ignored by the CCP.

                And Vicklund is correct, it does not detect text, just colors. Geez, you are not very familiar with MRC-like compression? Sigh… Zebest had all the evidence that MRC was a strong candidate but somehow they failed to pursue where the evidence was leading.

                As I have shown and you have failed to rebut, there are a list of artifacts that were claimed to be evidence of forgery which are now shown to be evidence of a Xerox work flow. And in fact, there are artifacts, not detected by the ‘researchers’ that further strengthen this finding.

                And no, I have not written ‘reports’ but I am not an expert either, so why should I write reports when I provide all the necessary evidence and logic and steps to reproduce my work.

                The CCP appears to have tried to get a Xerox work centre to work but have since then gone silent on this.

                Hoping that it will go away…

  21. Hermitian says:

    NBC

    What missing pixels… Maybe you should check out the 2012 tax return that was posted on the WH or the latest RC research.

    1664 – 1652 = 12

    1280 – 1276 = 4

    Those missing pixels…

    And if I were you, I would be searching like Hell to find them…

    [RC: Personal childish attack removed.]

  22. NBC says:

    Why do you say they are missing? Sigh…

    • Hermie’s straw men have all expired so he is grasping at straws now.

      • Hermitian says:

        RC

        Why do you say they are missing? Sigh…

        Because they are not present in the WH LFCOLB PDF image but they are present in your Xerox 7535 scan to PDF.

        1664 – 1652 = 12

        1280 – 1276 =4

        So where did they go?

        You are the one who is claiming that your Xerox Buddy created the Obama LFCOLB.

        Close only counts in Horseshoes and hand grenades.

  23. Hermitian says:

    NBC

    “Of course, Hermie could also have downloaded the Tax Return PDF from the WH.”

    I did download it ! The .jpg comment on page 1 is graylinear not “YCbCr” and the Quantization and Huffman Tables are different from the Obama LFCOLB PDF image.

    So it proves exactly what about the LFCOLB?

    We already know that the 7655 also has the wrong Quantization Tables.

  24. NBC says:

    Why wouldn’t the MRC just produce a near-White JPEG background, an Image Mask (like the LFCOLB mostly text layer) which paints near-Black text and masks everything else within the text box and small multicoror JPEG images for the divers? Or else combine the JPEGs of the divers with the near-White background JPEG.

    There are various reasons: One: it reduces the amount of halos, two: since the background is invisible, the MRC algorithm can apply any pattern that helps improve compression.

    You are asking why when you are continuously doubting facts. You may want to understand the why but that does not deny the fact that MRC does this.

    If you only were able to take your curiosity/ignorance to the next level and properly research the answer…

    But no worries, we are here to help

    • Hermitian says:

      NBC

      “You are asking why when you are continuously doubting facts. You may want to understand the why but that does not deny the fact that MRC does this”.

      Except that you three Amigos have provided no evidence that the “PILEBUTTS” document was created by a single scan of a paper document.

      All pages of this document are very similar in appearance. Generally each page is plain White background with dark text and multicolored images and/or photographs. Nevertheless, the White paper image is lifted on some pages and not on others. The same is true for the text. Generally, when the White background is lifted the text is not. Conversely, when the background is not lifted, the text is lifted. An exception is page 1 where both outcomes occur on the same page.

      The title box on page 1 contains three lines of text. These are all Blue in color. These lines of Blue text are contained within a Blue rectangle (the vertical sides of which coincide with the left and right margin lines). This Blue rectangle consists of four thin, Blue lines, the pixels of which are entirely contained within the pixels of the background image. The background image is full-page size, and is mostly near-white except for two pale-Blue swaths, one immediately below the title box and the other near the bottom of the page. Importantly, the size of the font of each line of text within the Blue title box decreases from the top line to the bottom. The top line of text “PILEBUTTS”, the five letters “NEW___TT__” of the word “NEWSLETTER” which comprises the middle line and the letters “es” and five small marks in the bottom line all remain with the background image. The remainer of the text in these three lines is lifted with a common rectangular Image Mask object.

      Examination of the object boundaries on page 1 revealed that these three lines of Blue text share a common smaller rectangular object boundary. This object is contained entirely within the aforementioned larger Blue rectangle and is the minimum size which can contain the three lines of blue text. The remaining text of the three blue lines is lifted to the object defined by this close-fitting rectangle.

      An attempt to measure the color numbers for each of the three Blue lines was only partially successful. The color numbers for all three lines measured R = 7, G = 71, B = 142. However, that was because the lifted object is an Image Mask and therefore its color is uniform. And because the small rectanglular object also covers the text that remains with the background, the color numbers for the non-lifted text reads the same constant color numbers as the lifted text. In order to read the color values of this non-lifted text the lifted object must first be deleted from the layer stack.

      In sharp contrast to the title box, most of the text within the rectangular Image Mask object immediately below the title box was lifted. Most of the text on page 1 is Haloed.

  25. roxy7655 says:

    ALFRED E NEUMAN

    Am I playing this game correctly? Humans are such a puzzlement.

Leave a Reply (Please see the RC Radio Blog comment policy). Your first comment will be moderated

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s