Posted on 08/07/2013 6:29:11 PM PDT by Seizethecarp
The following image is a composite created by scanning the WH LFBC using Xerox WorkCentre 7655 upside down using the automatic feeder. The resulting file was opened in Preview, the image rotated 180 degrees and printed to PDF. The resulting PDF was opened in preview, the layers unlocked and moved to the side. In addition, a close up of the signature was ‘blown up’ to show how the background layer, not surprisingly, has filled in some of the white that resulted from the separation of the background and foreground layers.
Note how for example the signature block is fully separated.
(Excerpt) Read more at nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com ...
Right, this merry go around is all a theater of the absurd. All Obama had to do is submit his BC to any number of courts where suits have been filed against him.
People submit their genuine birth certificates as ID all the time to get driver licenses, or to the military during enlistment or any number of other places, but not Obama. It's idiotic and stupidity played at a national level that should be beyond belief.
Only one good reason why Obama has not is that he is lying his donkey, Marxist butt off.
YOU MUST BRING AN ORIGINAL OR CERTIFIED TRUE COPY OF THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS. NO COPIES.Your government-issued birth certificate, or valid US passport, or naturalization papers.
The ALL CAP are in the original.
“any other information that the applicant provides”
Twenty Questions
A BC attested “a complete and true copy” would show “late” or “amended” on it. The reason this has not been provided is that any amendment(s) would not stand scrutiny.
HRS §338-17 Late or altered certificate as evidence. The probative value of a “late” or “altered” certificate shall be determined by the judicial or administrative body or official before whom the certificate is offered as evidence.
What Hawaiian Deputy AG Jill Nagamine told Zullo during his brief meeting with her:
once they release a document, the recipient can do whatever he wants with it.
Which results in those Obama birf amendments coddled together to make a fake Obama birf certificate.
Hawaii here gives the green light to Obama that is tantamount to committing fraud.
It’s no wonder why the corrupt Hawaiian government has refused to verify either that Obama was born in Hawaii or that the long-form birth-certificate released by the White House on April 27, 2011, is an authentic document.
Noithing less than a verifiable and authentic Obama birf certificate or the original Microfiche will do at this point. Arpaio, as I recall, has said the same.
What Hawaiian Deputy AG Jill Nagamine told Zullo during his brief meeting with her:
once they release a document, the recipient can do whatever he wants with it.
Which results in those Obama birf amendments coddled together to make a fake Obama birf certificate.
Hawaii here gives the green light to Obama that is tantamount to committing fraud.
It’s no wonder why the corrupt Hawaiian government has refused to verify either that Obama was born in Hawaii or that the long-form birth-certificate released by the White House on April 27, 2011, is an authentic document.
Noithing less than a verifiable and authentic Obama birf certificate or the original Microfiche will do at this point. Arpaio, as I recall, has said the same.
The only people dancing are Obama, his legal team, and his sycophants.
The fraud is plainly obvious. You’re standing neck deep in a foaming manure pit telling me “jump in the water’s fine”. No thanks. The fraud is blatant.
NBC has replied to your comment (excerpted to exclude snark):
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2013/08/11/butterdezillion/
BZ: Why would they scan it on the Xerox and not save it until it was on a Mac? They didn’t do that with the tax return NBC cites. Of course, that tax return is the only one that mentions Xerox WorkCentre. If the Xerox does all scans in landscape orientation, then wouldn’t the tax form be sideways unless it was first previewed, rotated, and then saved – yielding a PDF producer other than the Xerox?
NBC: The Xerox scanner sends the document as an email. Since it was scanned up-side-down, the person who opened it on the Mac rotated it and saved it. If you look at the images at the PDF level, they are rotated in landscape format.
BZ:I knew something was screwy with the WH long-form file when I tried C&P-ing it into a Word document and it showed the haloes. I wanted to test whether the same thing happened with other documents scanned and posted at whitehouse.gov but my computers are giving me trouble again.
NBC: The haloes are interesting and I believe can be explained by the MRC process which separates the fore and background, encodes the foreground as a bitmap and the background as JPEG. The jpeg now has white holes were the text was and this bleeds through. Worse the jpeg gets subsampled to half the resolution, further bleeding white into the visible area.
“If the PDF was created on the Xerox WorkCentre, that should be what is listed as the PDF Producer, even if the PDF was emailed to a different computer. Just opening a document doesn’t change the program that created the document.”
No that’s not true. I know this because I took the 2010 tax return and looked at the metadata. The original file says the PDF producer was the Xerox. Then I open the PDF on a Mac and used Preview to save it as a PDF. Now the metadata says the PDF producer is a Mac and the application is Preview.
“Why did they treat the BC and COLB differently than they treated the tax forms? If the tax forms were gonna be fine going straight from the Xerox to being posted online, then why weren’t the long-form and COLB gonna be fine?”
We don’t know if the same person was involved it both postings. If the tax returns were sent to someone with a Windows based computer, there wouldn’t be the Preview effect. It’s also possible they open the taxes on a Mac but didn’t use the save as PDF feature. If I get a chance, I’ll play with the files and see what various settings on the Mac do.
NBC has replied to your comment (excerpted to exclude snark):
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2013/08/11/edge919/
Edge919: This paragraph pretty much sums it up. This falls under the “too good to be true” category. Follow the timing by overcomplicating the explanation, which is just intended to confuse enough people to create doubt about Zullo’s investigation. Even with the multiple blogposts worth of “explanations,” there’s a problem if there was ANY kind of manipulation after the original scan. And there’s a second problem when the layers and manipulations can be EASILY explained by the process of creating a PDF from a digitally fabricated documented, such as through InDesign and then converted to PDF. Nothing offered in the new explanations can rule that out.
NBC: True, nothing can rule out manipulations that mimic a Xerox WorkCentre, but that is not at issue right now. What I have shown is that the claim of forgery was based on what is known as argument from ignorance: we do not know how it could have happened so it must have been forger. What I have shown is how simple processes explain most if not all of the artifacts. This of course complicates any meaningful forgery claims.
“The fraud is plainly obvious.”
__
I beg your pardon? I thought we were discussing the legalities of Letters of Verification, and I believe I quoted the laws accurately.
If you believe I’m wrong, please tell me why. But retreating to an unsupported claim that “[t]he fraud is blatant” is nothing more than posturing, the position of someone who has nothing of substance to contribute.
Do you have a legal basis for rejecting the Letters of Verification? If so, don’t be shy, just speak up.
Otherwise, perhaps my description of your tactics as “dancing” may be too generous. I think “squirming” is more appropriate.
NBC has replied to your comment (excerpted to exclude snark):
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2013/08/11/mmaschin/
MMaschin: NBCs argument is easily shown to not be valid, because if that was the case, then the perfect place for this to have occurred is in the security background layer.
NBC: The security background layer is recognized as a colored background and is almost completely separated as such. Since it is compressed with JPEG, there are no JBIG2 artifacts.
MMaschin: That IS a contiguous, repeating pattern. Are we to believe that a computer process found two hand draw, ink on paper, and photocopied boxes similar enough to replace one with a copy of the other, but it did not find a pattern in the security pattern background? If what NBC says is true, then the compression occurred AFTER the image layers were separated, because if you look at the image as a whole the boxes are very different when you considered the content inside the boxes.
NBC: That is the whole point of Mixed Raster Compression, the colored background is compressed differently than the foreground ‘text’.
MMaschin: This means that even analyzing the background layer by itself, this compression algorithm was incapable of finding a repeatable pattern.
NBC: MRC does not look for repeatable patterns, it only happens when the foreground bitmaps are compressed.
MMaschin: What NBC is saying is not taking into consideration that this must be a systematic process, and not a logical one. If you say ‘this was done here’, it must hold true for the entire document, you can’t cherrypick
NBC: I am consistent in my hypothesis.
The image is scanned, and segmented into a background image and multiple foreground images. The background is JPEG compressed with relatively high quality reduction and then subsampled to half the resolution. The foreground bitmaps are JBIG2 compressed (which encodes repeating patterns).
What Zullo said about AZ SoS Ken Bennett looking for a way out.
“We have developed incontrovertible proof that the verification provided by the Hawaii Department of Health to Arizona’s secretary of state on May 22 really doesn’t verify anything of significance.”
and
“I knew when I met with Mr. Bennett last week in Phoenix, before we left for Hawaii, that he was desperately trying to get out of the political corner he had painted himself into.”
And again Zullo.
“Bennett obviously believed Obama was telling the truth. He was shocked when Hawaii didn’t immediately issue the verification. As it dragged on into weeks, Bennett became desperate to do whatever Hawaii asked to get what amounts to even this meaningless letter.”
- - - - - - -
As we see here, Bennett would have accepted any legalese BS or silly mumbo jumbo to show.
I don’t believe you have cited any specific statute. What specific statute?
Squirming? As in foot-dragging? As in questioning the manner in which Bennett does his job? As in making Bennett reword his requests? That kind of squirming?
Why should the background be treated differently than the foreground, if this is just a simple scan?
Bennett hadn't even seen Hawaii's response before announcing he had what he wanted. Wisch told him he sent the "verification letter". Bennett had his fig leaf which is all he cared about.
Secretary of State Ken Bennett said Tuesday evening that he has received an e-mail from officials in Hawaii, which he believes contains the information he sought to verify President Barack Obama's birth certificate.The cesspit of lies, corruption, and cowardice is incredible.Bennett said he had not actually opened the email as of 7 p.m. Tuesday, but was confident it contained the information he asked for.
http://www.azfamily.com/news/politics/Latest-on-bennett-152793135.html
Prominent Fogblower “Reality Check” is doing a major “happy dance” over NBC’s claimed findings and today he put up his own blog post (offensive Obot snark alert) which does, at least, include basic instructions on how to try to replicate NBC’s replication at home:
http://rcradioblog.wordpress.com/2013/08/11/xerox-for-dummies/
Begin REALITY CHECK blog excerpt:
You too can do this at home!
Well not exactly, unless you happen to have a Xerox WorkCentre sitting in the basement. Seriously, many offices have them. After reading some of NBC’s early postings on this I noticed that one of the office machines where I work was a Xerox 7535 WorkCentre.
I did my own test scans on the Xerox WorkCentre 7535. I printed copies of the LFBC then scanned them to email. I used the default settings for scanning to email – 300 dpi, color, and with the Edge Erase feature set at 0.1” all around. I downloaded an older version of Adobe Illustrator and opened the PDF. My jaw dropped. What I saw were almost identical layers to the ones in the White House LFBC. It was astounding.
I sent my file to NBC and he ran it through Preview and saved it as a PDF. Preview added the top level clipping mask that is seen in the White House LFBC.
My office doesn’t have a Xerox but I would like do verify the results. What can I do?
If you do not have access to a Xerox WorkCentre try asking a friend if their office has one. Of course explaining what you want them to do might raise some eyebrows. Another option is to try one of the big office supply outlets like OfficeMax, Office Depot or Staples. They sometimes have these machines available to the public for copying and scanning. You could either email yourself a copy or save it to a thumb drive. You can download an older version of Adobe Illustrator CS2 for free here or download a limited trial version of the latest version from Adobe.
If you do not have any access to the Xerox WorkCentre I am posting the PDF files here so that you can at least inspect them and run you own tests in Illustrator or other software.
This is the output of the Xerox 7535 scan of the printout of the LFBC:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B3N_1UB8M52jcE5FaHUtY3NSUFU/edit?pli=1
This is the same file opened and saved in Preview:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B3N_1UB8M52jQ0VXWEhybEwwblk/edit?pli=1
end REALITY CHECK blog post
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.