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 ...
“Ask NBC to duplicate Obama’s long form PDF birth certificate in precise detail with ALL of the exact anomalies including the smiley face in Alvin Onaka’s name as well as the ‘TXE’ in the registrars stamp.”
NBC has already declined to attempt to replicate the smiley face and TXE as he does not regard those to be likely Xerox software/copier anomalies.
NBC cannot duplicate Barry’s LFBC in precise detail because the original hard copy, if it existed, is not available to NBC. Thus NBC had to obtain other hard copies and attempt to replicate the specific anomalies individually.
Mike Zullo CANNOT claim to have proved criminal forgery beyond a reasonable doubt and that Barry’s WH LFBC pdf was NEVER a hard copy based on claims that specific features CANNOT be replicated IF NBC has successfully replicated each of those features, as he claims.
Zullo may have a pile of additional evidence of a forgery, but as to the specific list NBC claims to have debunked, either NBC’s work can be replicated or it can’t.
As I’ve said, showing that Xerox can do these things now is a far cry from proving that they would have done those things on their own in April of 2011. As others have noted, this “discovery” path seems mighty convenient and timely, especially given that these phenomena have supposedly been occuring for close to 10 years without anybody noticing or feeling any impact.
I don’t think NBC has the actual hard copy. But NBC only has access to them from a search on the internet.
You can find these type of PDFs by Googling “scanned from a Xerox multifunction device001.pdf”. The default name that Xerox gives to PDFs.
There are now four PDFs not related to the WH LFBC that exhibit all the characteristics of the LFBC PDF.
http://www.ssunaa.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Scanned-from-a-Xerox-multifunction-device001.pdf
http://atmuseum.org/1983_exhibit_pdfs/Scanned%20from%20a%20Xerox%20multifunction%20device001.pdf
I can’t believe you have fallen for these bogus claims by the opposition. NBC has not debunked Mike Zullo’s evidence backed by Reed Hayes, a certified forensic handwriting and computer-document examiner, who has written a 40 page report of all things wrong with the document. NBC has no professional credentials to back his claims up.
Maybe tomorrow he’ll have an even newer PDF that really, really, really proves something. What a joke.
“I can’t believe you have fallen for these bogus claims by the opposition.”
__
That’s a good one, CCPS. Say what you like about NBC, at least he has laid out the details of what he has done.
Your only recourse at this point is to whine that he hasn’t debunked a report that no one has yet seen.
“I can’t believe you have fallen for these bogus claims by the opposition.”
I haven’t “fallen” for anything! I am simply reporting a detailed falsifiable claim that refutes many of Zullo’s claims. The claims are either true or they are not. I take no position.
Zullo has not made public the Hayes report, so we don’t know whether it even addresses or contradicts any of the specific claims made by NBC. I believe it is premature to affirm Hayes’s report until I see and examine it myself!
“Trust but verify” applies to Zullo, too, IMO. Zullo has a good case for keeping his evidence secret because it is part of a criminal charge of forgery, but only up to a point.
In a criminal case the defense gets to cross-examine the prosecution experts and bring in their own evidence. While NBC may not have forensic document credentials, if his research can be replicated by document experts hired by Barry’s legal team, then those experts can testify to their conclusions and attempt to rebut Zullo’s evidence.
“As I’ve said, showing that Xerox can do these things now is a far cry from proving that they would have done those things on their own in April of 2011.”
What the industry-standard MRC process does during compression appears to me to be well documented for over a decade and the Xerox duplication issues are well-documented prior to 2011 on a whole family of Xerox copiers. I seriously doubt that the Xerox MRC software has changed since April 2011.
NBC has not claimed nor has he demonstrated any knowledge of Xerox equipment software code manipulation and his results could NOT be replicated and would be easily exposed as bogus if he had done anything like that.
I don’t see anyone refuting NBC’s claims that he has gotten the replication results he shows in detail on his blog using the Xerox and workflow he lays out.
At least some Staple’s Copy Centers use Xerox WorkCentre 7535 copiers. Should be fairly easy to try and replicate the test.
NBC isn’t the one who would be doing the manipulation. He would simply be the means for a supposedly-10-year-old problem to all of a sudden come to light.
How many complaints has Xerox gotten on this issue in the past 10 years? As David Kriesel said, these errors could be deadly. These machines are common enough that if they had been doing these things for the past 10 years there would be numerous audits that should have failed but didn’t, numerous blueprints that shouldn’t have worked to build real live, safe bridges, buildings, etc.... yet they did. Etc.
This started out being something that only happens when you use the low-quality settings. Then when the questions came up as to why they used low-quality settings to copy the long-form, the phenomena suddenly became much more widespread, including (eventually) even the default and higher-quality settings so that on those machines these errors should have been happening ALL THE TIME. For the last 10 years. Yet the 6’s and 9’s on Obama’s long-form are not substituted, and Xerox has received how many complaints on this in the last 10 years? These phenomena are supposedly so common - and yet Kriesel was so surprised that he thought somebody was playing a joke on him when somebody said the copies he made had errors.
I claim that planet FogBlower is made of blue stinky cheese prove me wrong.
NBC hasn’t claimed to have replicated number substitution.
He has reported a workflow that replicates numerous anomalies that Zullo’s experts claimed couldn’t be replicated. The anomalies are explained by long-standing MRC processes, so no speculation or conspiracy is needed to explain them that I can see.
At the link below are what NBC is claiming to be his “confirmation documents” and itemization of the anomalies/features that replicate ones in the WH LFBC pdf:
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/xerox-workflow/confirmation-documents/
1.Savannah State PDF Multiple monochrome foreground layers, 150/300 ppi images, JPEG encoded background, JPEG comment, JPEG quantization matrix, 8 bit alignments, x-ray, JBIG2 identical objects
2.Job Links PDF Multiple monochrome foreground layers, 150/300 ppi images, JPEG encoded background, JPEG comment, JPEG quantization matrix, 8 bit alignments, x-ray, JBIG2 identical objects
3.Lowry PDF Multiple monochrome foreground layers, 150/300 ppi images, JPEG encoded background, JPEG comment, JPEG quantization matrix, 8 bit alignments, halos, x-ray, JBIG2 identical objects
Snopes will post something....
Then - its proven wrong....in Fogbow land...
As far as you know has anyone ever created a PDF version of the LFBC that has the characteristics of these files?
I know that you can create a facsimile by cutting and pasting in Adobe Photoshop but will it have the 8-bit layer and the multiple 1-bit layers? Will they be scaled and rotated in the same way?
“As far as you know has anyone ever created a PDF version of the LFBC that has the characteristics of these files?”
I don’t claim to be able to evaluate pdf files in any way. On this thread I have only tried to facilitate airing-out the competing claims as accurately as possible.
Zullo asked for anyone to come forward who could replicate the things in the pdf that his experts said could not be replicated. I must leave it to others to assess the competing claims.
Zullo needs to focus on solid evidence and pull back from any claims that fail to be substantiated. Otherwise his credibility will suffer, as Orly’s did after she put the Bomford BC into a court filing before it was checked out.
“I don’t claim to be able to evaluate pdf files in any way.”
I understand - but what I’m asking is can someone starting from scratch, create a LFBC that has all the properties of the WH LFBC PDF by just using Adobe Photoshop?
I’m wondering how hard is it to duplicate the anomalies using Photoshop?
“I claim that planet FogBlower is made of blue stinky cheese prove me wrong.”
__
So, let’s see. On the one hand we’ve got NBC’s detailed report of the documents he’s found that seem to meet the Zullo challenge.
And on the other we’ve got the sterling example of facts and logic that you’ve just presented.
Remind us — how did that Birther Summit work out for you, Dean?
“...what I’m asking is can someone starting from scratch, create a LFBC that has all the properties of the WH LFBC PDF by just using Adobe Photoshop?
“I’m wondering how hard is it to duplicate the anomalies using Photoshop?”
I am not a Photoshop user or expert.
However, it would seem to me that any computer file composed ultimately of binary code could be forged.
The WH pdf is a “mess” with multiple fragmented layers, some black and white and some in color and some with different resolution. It would be masochistic for a forger to create it from scratch, IMO.
An easier approach for a forger would be to make a copy of a genuine 1961 LFBC and then open the 1-bit layer(s) and sculpt/modify just those to get the desired results. The duplicate shapes (squares and letters) were seen by many “experts” (prior to NBC’s claimed replications) to be proof that this is what was done, i.e. start with a copy of a genuine BC and then make touch-up modifications to change names, dates, stamps, signatures.
The problem with that approach though is it doesn’t explain why some letters of the box labels are on one layer and other letters on another. For example, box 6c Name of Hospital or Institution. If you zoom in the letters that are touching horizontal line. They are on the green background layer. All the line art is on the background layer. Why was it separated?
“The problem with that approach though is it doesn’t explain why some letters of the box labels are on one layer and other letters on another.”
NBC has claimed that his Xerox workflow replicates that effect with some seemingly black text being placed by the MRC compression software on the JPEG background color layer and other text being placed on multiple black-and-white layers.
Below the link is the summary of NBC’s claims as of this moment.
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/xerox-workflow/the-xerox-workcentre-workflow-successes/
The Xerox WorkCentre Workflow Successes
The workflow at this moment successfully explains the following features:
You can click on the red status to see more information
1.Status Strong – The existence of a single JPEG layer (color) containing mostly the background and multiple monochrome bit masks containing mostly text (MRC Compression). Xerox, WH LFBC, Category A.The ability to open the document in Adobe Illustrator and move around objects separately. Xerox, WH LFBC, Category
B.Separate monochrome layers for the date stamp and Alvin Onaka’s seal. Xerox, WH LFBC, Category
C.Existence of a background color layer at 150 ppi resolution and monochrome layers at 300 ppi. Xerox, WH LFBC, Category
D.Scaling of the layers (48% and 24%). Xerox, WH LFBC, Category
2.Status Strong – Images are rotated 90 degrees clockwise. Xerox, WH LFBC
3.The creation of pixel for pixel identical letters and shapes via JBIG2. Xerox, WH LFBC, Category
4.Status Solid – The white border. Xerox, WH LFBC, Category
5.Status Perfect – The double clipping mask. Xerox, WH LFBC, Category
6.White holes in the background layer where text was lifted (x-ray). Xerox, WH LFBC, Category
7.Status Strong – The PDF contains an embedded JPEG which contains a JPEG comment ‘YCbCr’. Xerox, WH LFBC, Category
8.Status Strong – The PDF contains an embedded JPEG which contains identical quantization matrices. Xerox, WH LFBC, Category.
9.Status Strong – The alignment of two sides of the foreground images with 8 bit boundaries in a 300 ppi layer. Xerox, WH LFBC, Category [note 1]
10.Status Strong – The alignment of two sides of the foreground images touching the internal objects. Xerox, WH LFBC, Category[note 1]
11.Status Solid – Speckled blocks
12.Status Solid – Producer, Creator [Added 081513]
13.Status Solid - Raw PDF data matches. Xerox, WH LFBC [Added 081513] [note 1]
Note 1: These were never mentioned before as far as I can tell.
Still not well enough explained to my satisfaction
1.Status Uncertain – Halos (in progress) Category
Not Addressed by Workflow
1.Claims of forgery of the original documents the Department of Health sent to the White House, or the document on file with the DOH of HI.
2.Irregularities in type face (Link1, Link2 and Link3)
3.“African” race ( Link1 , Link2 ,Category )
4.The distorted character in the signature stamp
5.‘Smiley Face’
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.