[Wurlitzer]

Based upon 26 years involved directly in pre-press operations both film based and electronic, I can attest with 100% certainly that the site you posted has it wrong and this document is a complete poorly done forgery.. A person with just one year of experience would be able to spot all the edits.

Even without everything they tried to disprove (which they did not) I based my assessment on edits completely different.

I downloaded the document right from the White House site and the very first thing after opening it in Adobe Illustrator was over 25 layers of edits. Now a few layers might be expected for re-sizing and maybe adjusting the brightness or contrast level. So maybe 2 or 3 layers would not be unusual.

Looking at items like the signature which when enlarged will show a dark center line and as you look to the edges of a REAL pen/pencil line you would expect to see pixels get progressively lighter.

This was NOT the case in this forgery. There were partial segments of the signature which looked normal but the majority of the signature was solid black which is an obvious manual edit by a very lazy person. They simply picked black as the color then tried to make the signature look like what they wanted. The line was solid black with no gradual graying of the pixels. Just in this case it is 100% fake.

If anyone doubts what I am saying just sign your name in pen/pencil on paper then look at the line under enlargement. You will easily see how the pen/pencil line is never fully solid from center to the edges.

There were also letters typed which suffered from a similar problem. A typed letter will have less of a soft transition from solid black to transparent but you can easily see some numbers/characters were just solid black which again is a manual edit by a very lazy and unprofessional operator. These edits, to an untrained eye simply look like they were typed on a different machine. They were manually edited 100% certainty.

[Jayster]

This is from Mara:

One more posting and I'll leave you alone... still no email and I have to run some errands. Hopefully the email will come while I'm out. The poster named Wurlitzer is correct on a lot of points... but to be absolutely technically correct... Wurlitzer needs to watch how he references colors in the document. It may seem trivial but my recent report explains why the colors are also important evidence as to why the document is forged... I wrote the following posting to address this idea for Wurlitzer: To Wurlitzer:

"This was NOT the case in this forgery. There were partial segments of the signature which looked normal but the majority of the signature was solid black which is an obvious manual edit by a very lazy person. They simply picked black as the color then tried to make the signature look like what they wanted. The line was solid black with no gradual graying of the pixels. Just in this case it is 100% fake."

I understand the point Wurlitzer is making and overall... he's correct... but it's technically incorrect to refer to any of the colors in Obama's PDF file as "black"... there is black in the first 8 layers due to the fact that they are 1-bit ImageMask true layers... read the article and the report for further explanation on that point... but for the observer... the color is deceptive and no visible black exists (most text is a dark greenish color - not pure grayscale black). This is important and significant evidence to tampering on a higher level. Again... the current report explains all of this.