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.
“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.”
The problem is that Zullo claimed that his experts ruled out the work flow that NBC claims to have proved was possible. If NBC’s claims are true then Zullo cannot claim to have proved that a hard copy of the LFBC image was NEVER scanned and must have been forged.
Zullo has a very high bar to get to proof beyond a reasonable doubt that criminal forgery has been committed.
There remain many questions about the LFBC image including whether it could have been produced on a circa 1961 typewriter.
Zullo has a 300+ page document claiming proofs of criminal forgery and only one portion pertains to pdf copying issues, although Zullo has presented the pdf issue in the most sensational manner, especially to the sheriffs when he was showing them how Onaka’s signature block could be moved around. Now NBC claims that this can be replicated and put up a pdf supposedly proving it.
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.