Oh look! “NBC” is following our little discussion here and has already complimented and responded to butterdezillion!
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2013/08/10/butterdezillion-some-good-questions/
begin NBC post
From the FreeRepublic we receive some good feedback from a poster named Butterdezilion.
Butterdezilion: If the Xerox machine is substituting exact replicas every time a certain “blob” (such as a box) appears, then that should happen with every box, every letter, etc. If the Xerox is switching 6’s for 8’s then where are those numbers switched around in the White House PDF?
A good question but as I have shown and found out, the Mixed Raster Compression is all but exact as it appears to be extremely sensitive to small variations. I have seen examples with anywhere from 4 to 17 foreground images. The same for JBIG2, it is based on how similar the two blobs, such as a box are, and in the samples I have, I have found JBIG2 to fail to capture the boxes, but it does capture other letters.
Butterdezilion If NBC scanned in the White House document which is a print-out of a document that ALREADY had these effects within it, then the real test would be whether the scan he comes up with is DIFFERENT than the White House PDF, not whether it is the same.
Exactly, it is not perfectly the same, or otherwise there would be reasons to doubt my findings. But the scan shows evidence of all the artifacts I mentioned, other than the halo effect which was of course already present in my ‘original’
Butterdezilion: If scanning the White House document using the Xerox machine under these conditions results in a PDF that hasn’t been manipulated by the Xerox (different than the document that was scanned in), it would actually CONTRADICT the theory that the Xerox made the anomalies in the actual content of the White House image.
The Xerox scanner does not ‘know’ that the document it scans used to have layers in it, and therefor it reproduces as best as it can the Mixed Raster Compression it is instructed to use by the default workflow. This results in similar but not perfect matches.
Even having access to the original Long Form Birth Certificate would not fully replicate the PDF provided by the WH, however I have now shown that the following features are captured
1.Separation into a jpeg background and multiple monochrome foregrounds
2.Alignment of two boundaries with 8×8 bit offsets
3.Alignment of two boundaries with internal object
4.Downsampling the background to 150 DPI
5.Downsampling the foregrounds to 300 DPI
6.Saving the JPEG with a quality factor of 47.48% with specific Quantization Matrix
7.Embedding a YCbCr comment into the generated JPEG
8.JBIG2 compression
9.Preview created clipping mask
10.Images are all in landscape direction requiring 90 degree ccw rotations
11.The JPEG contains the same JPEG comment YCbCr
12.The JPEG contains the same quantization matrix
13.Full or almost full separation of the date and signature stamp
14.Speckled foreground bitmap
What I have yet to explain includes:
Halos Although I believe the workflow provides us with plenty of hints there and preliminary experiments are looking promising. It’s just that I am working through the list somewhat methodically, often repeating experiments based on the feedback from others like RC, Goregan, Vicklund and our friend Hermitian.
Is that it? Just the Halos? Did I miss something? Surely there are more artifacts that were claimed to be evidence of a forgery and which can be explained through the workflow I propose?
end NBC post
Per NBC:
“Is that it? Just the Halos? Did I miss something? Surely there are more artifacts that were claimed to be evidence of a forgery and which can be explained through the workflow I propose?”
Perhaps NBC will respond to thecodont’s question and comment #155...
“I am not an expert on this, but would Xerox be using a grayscale (8 bit) to black and white (2-bit) conversion for scans of these text images? Grayscale, of course, provides more information for further processing. You would have to have multiple scans of 8-bit to 2-bit of the same test image and then examine the results under a magnifying glass.”
What comes out of the machine is not a legal entity.
What goes in is.
The original, actual document is of consequence. Some the out out put of a machines.
This whole thing is a distraction. Any and all digital ‘documents’ are not. That is - they are not documents.
Hawaii official have committed felonies as have WH officials.
Fraud is fraud.
I’m wasting way too much time, looking at PDF’s posted at whitehouse.gov. The tax return that was posted to the whitehouse.gov website in April of 2011 is the only time I can ever find Xerox mentioned. All the other times it’s either Mac OS or a verson of Adobe for the PDF Producer and/or Application.
The long-form and short-form BC’s that are posted on the internet are different from all the other documents in that the PDF was produced on a Mac.
And the 2011-posted tax return that NBC cites is different from all other tax returns posted, in that the “Properties” section mentions the Xerox for both the PDF Producer and the Application, rather than an Adobe version for PDF Producer and/or Application.
That’s looking at all the apparently-scanned documents I can find posted on whitehouse.gov from 2009 to 2013; the one in 2011 is the anomaly. If the White House uses the Xerox WorkCentre, then the scanned documents should all show that for the PDF Producer and Application - unless something was done differently so that the properties show different PDF creators. IOW, if the tax return scan showing Xerox WorkCentre as the PDF producer is the way the properties appear on a normal Xerox WorkCentre scan, then what we know is that the long-form, short-form, and all the other tax returns were done some way besides the normal scan.