HT: Shinky Amberstains for pointing out that, like on the Whitehouse PDF, the date stamp layer, is enclosed within the larger layer and still separated, because of its color difference. See, with the help of others, we can resolve the remaining few minor mysteries as well…
Okay. I printed out the Whitehouse PDF and scanned it back in. While the color was strangely blueish, there were some interesting components when looking at the layers. First of all there were only 5 layers.
The scan is rotated clock-wise but I bet I can change that depending on the orientation of the input. Needless to say, we see all the identifying markers. Incomplete separation of the information into the background and foreground, multiple foreground layers. It’s not perfect but it’s good enough to be able to reject most of the Cold Case Posse’s findings.
Background JPEG Layer
Main Text Monochrome Bitmap
Signature Block Layer
Date Stamp 1
Embedded Date Stamp 2
Native and Natural Born Citizenship Explored 
Are the text layers pure black or gray scaled?
How about copying the AP copy onto some kind of patterned colored paper and running it on the Xerox? And then through Preview.
Colored using sc…
Of course you got fewer layers, the white dot layers would not show up on the new scan. So that’s two less right there.
How about halos?
Halos are in the ‘original’ but they can be explained by the JPEG separation I believe. Will do some further experiments in this area but things look quite upbeat…
It is not perfect but it shows a lot of the features that had eluded us so far.
I see what should be halos!
This is fantastic work. It answers the questions about layers and grayscale and MRC. I’m sure the birthers will complain that it is not exact but duplicate of the LFBC. Or that it doesn’t explain every artifact.
Give me some time… 🙂
But the major challenge has been met…
Poor Zullo… Anyone willing to tell him 🙂
As I’ve read your articles over the last week, I could see birther argument. ‘All these tables of images only describe the layers, they don’t tell us how the layers got there.’
But this is almost exactly what Zullo and Zebest have been challenging everyone to produce. It is absolutely amazing.
Congratulations to you and Mr. Vicklund.
I also now have the bleeding of colors into the JPEG layer and a vague halo, and characters which look different from the original computer font used.
If you think you have the proof, Mike Zullo certainly welcomes you or anyone who with a single scanner can reproduce all of the identifying anomalies in Obama’s BC.
“It’s not perfect but it’s good enough to be able to reject most of the Cold Case Posse’s findings.”
Close but no cigar. Close only counts in Horse shows and hand gredades.
Of course, we forget to mention a very important detail;
Obots are unfamiliar with all of the details and evidence of the CCP. Therefore, it is really impossible to reject what is NOT KNOWN.
Poor John, it will take him some time to recover from this horrifying wakeup call.. The Logn Form PDF shows no evidence of forgery after all…
I thought he would be happy…
“Obots are unfamiliar with all of the details and evidence of the CCP. ”
You are wrong – almost everything else hinges on the LFBC being a fake. If the CCP experts were wrong about how software makes the artifacts seen in the PDF, then it is impossible to accept any of their findings. Screwing up something as fundamental as the PDF analysis shows them to be non-experts.
And if the LFBC is not a forgery, there is no reason for him to steal a Social Security Number from someone born in 1890.
And the walls come tumbling down
The LFBC PDF’s anomalies should be easy to reproduce given standard office equipment. Congratulations will be if you can do it. Of course, you’ll have to find a device that can turn “negro” into “african.”
Why? African was a common term used by people from Kenya. You do know that race is self reported? For example in the 1961 Kenyan census, the race reported included ‘African’. Finding negro would have been rather disturbing given Obama’s father’s origin and the nature of Stanley Ann’s upbringing and openness to races.
As I have shown, it is rather trivial to reproduce the artifacts that led the CCP to jump to conclusions of fraud.
Love it how people are so unable to look at the evidence.
Hawaii let parents choose how to enter their race, then coded the BCs into categories statistics.
“Negro” only referred to American blacks. In Kenya, African blacks were “African”, whites were “Europeans”. Here’s a 1961 travel guide: http://www.scribd.com/doc/54152116/AFRICA-A-Z Note the races. Here’s the 1962 Kenyan census: http://www.hist.umn.edu/~rmccaa/IPUMSI/CensusForms/Africa/ke1962ef_kenya_enumeration_forms.en.pdf Note the races: “Race.- Write European, Arab, Somali, or African, etc. Asians must write Indian or Pakistan”
From the coding instructions for birth certificates in 1961 — http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/07/the-1961-vital-statistics-instruction-manual-well-ill-be-damned/ “If the racial entry is “C,” “Col.,” “Black,” “Brown,” or “A.A,” “Afro-American,” and the birthplace is the United States, consider the parent’s race as Negro [for the purposes of determining the child’s race]. If the birthplace of parent is not in the United States code as other nonwhite.” Notice that there were many ways to identify the race of a black person, not just one.
Congratulations NBC! . I hope you continue and get all remaining artifacts debunked. I’m excited to see how the birther crowd processes this..
Great work, W4. God I love the Reality-Based Community.
Arpaio and Zullo made good faith presentations. Their “findings” were that there is probable cause to believe forgery and fraud had been committed.
Your work can have no impact on the MCCCP findings.
The matter can, however, be cleared up quickly and easily by the prez. His intransigence shows his smallness, and meanness, and most significantly, his profound bad faith. I trust you will keep wasting your time in defense of his childishness.
I am not a fan of the title of this post and the sarcastic use of the word “forgery”. Birthers have no ability to comprehend sarcasm and will think that someone actually used a Xerox copier/scanner to generate a birth certificate from scratch. Great work on this and I am really looking forward to the show tonight.
Of course it won’t but it should. The president provided us will all the relevant data and the CCP was quick to jump to the conclusion that the document showed evidence of fraud.
Now they should at least reconsider their findigns.
No probable cause of forgery and fraud, not in the past but certainly not now. They never got close to anything that would survive scrutiny under probable cause. As to ‘good faith’… You and I may disagree there…
It’s easy to blame the victim here, who has provided all that is necessary to establish his birth on soil, and thus his eligibility to be our President, but when it comes to hasty claims of fraud, where the case is so weak and the contrary evidence so strong, then I have to wonder, who is playing childish games here.
Lysander Spooner – “Arpaio and Zullo made good faith presentations.’
So you have no problems with a “criminal” investigation that ignored evidence and withheld exculpatory evidence.
I bet you were a big fan of Mike Nifong too.
The African reference is quite interesting. If is self-reported then the prudent thing to do is try to get ahold of Obama Sr. college records or any documentation to asks for race and check. Is it “black” or “african”.
Interesting note about the coding manual on the Hawaii birth certificates. In reference to parent birth places, how is the coding specified in reference if someone was born in Kenya?
Actually in the Obama Sr. Immigration file, Obama Sr. is NOT referred to as “African” under race when his University of Hawaii immigration forms are filled out. The race is identified as “Kenya”. A little inconsistent there as is Obama Sr.’s birthdate of June 18, 1936. It appears most if not all documents around the 1961 time period show his birthdate to be June 18, 1934 EXCEPT his birth certificate which lists June 18, 1936. Again another inconstistency in the the birth certificate.
John – Let us know when you find something.
“other nonwhite”
Sorry I meant the age of 25 which indicate a bithdate in 1936 not 1934.
Ooh, the idiots are flocking. They’re flocking idiots. And “john” is in the lead, all of them harping on already-debunked nonsense, pitifully triumphant that they’ve proven how “small and mean” the President is… while he goes on being a good President and they go on being tiny, insignificant zeroes.
My favorite realization is that after BHO leaves office, the “truth” they think will cone out will never materialize, and their grandchildren will some day be embarassed to learn that we Obama supporters were right all along and upheld democracy and order, while they go down in history as hate-deluded anarchists, traitors and fools.
Are you lazy or what?
ROTFL… Sure, his father lied about his age.. So what?
Getting a bit desperate now that the CCP is without clothes
What else can they do now that their holy grail of the forged birth certificate has been debunked…
Hilarious.
On his F1 Obama Sr mentions as the country of his citizenship: Africa
Poor John
Analyzing a computer file is folly. If you want to be productive then go to Hawaii and ask to see the one and only ORIGINAL LFBC. Also try to get a half-sheet of the security paper and run a test from paper to PDF. But, get this, when Obama’s LFBC turned 50, it became an “Official State of Hawaii Historic Property” allowing an official photo of it to be sold as a “photo of the ORIGINAL LFBC.” Wouldn’t you love to show that in your blog?
Well, it certainly was a folly when the CCP did it but of course, now that I have shown they confused algorithmic artifacts with a forger.
We already have seen the one and only LFBC which shows our President born on US soil.
Bummer…
BR – “But, get this, when Obama’s LFBC turned 50, it became an “Official State of Hawaii Historic Property” allowing an official photo of it to be sold as a “photo of the ORIGINAL LFBC.”
IIRC, it is 75 years before it is open to the public.
BR – “Analyzing a computer file is folly.”
Just about everything the birthers have done for the past five years can be described as folly.
According to HAWAII ADMINISTRATIVE RULES
TITLE 13
DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES
SUBTITLE 8, HAWAII HISTORIC PLACES REVIEW BOARD
CHAPTER 198
THE HAWAII AND NATIONAL REGISTERS OF HISTORIC PLACES PROGRAMS
“Historic property” means any building, structure, object, district, area, or site, including underwater site, that is significant in the history, architecture, archaeology, or culture of this State, its communities, or the nation
Perhaps you could strengthen your argument a little?
Gosh, you are lazy and you have no done your homework…
Flunk!
“Records of events that occurred more than 75 years prior to the current year can be ordered by persons working on genealogy projects. Since genealogy requests are not considered urgent, they are not processed as priority requests.”
http://health.hawaii.gov/vitalrecords/
BR is not very good at logic and reason, and as it seems now, research as well…
Sigh… It’s not that the internet does not provide one with all the tools to become an informed person…
BR, what is holding you back?
ouch… 25 more years. it will kill our friend when he hears of this…
Great work, W4. God I love the Reality-Based Community.
Just the facts, man.
I am surprised there is no exception on the 75 year rule for a living person. Is that correct. I had read that statute before but it has been a long time.
PS
Or is it 75 years after death of the person?
After the event (vital event) occurs.
Maricopa County, Arizona has a state of the art crime lab, just like every other major American county in a metropolis. It is telling to me that the Maricopa County Cold Case Posse, a 501.c.3 (not for profit) volunteer organization that is adjunct to statutory law enforcement in Maricopa County has not turned over their “evidence” of forgery to duly authorized Sheriff’s department criminal investigators for confirmation. That simple move could have resulted in the Maricopa County Attorney convening a grand jury to look toward indictments. But in nearly two years of nothing but press conferences and lectures, zilch.
Pretty telling…
“What else can they do now that their holy grail of the forged birth certificate has been debunked…”
Try scanning selective service registration cards, genius.
Again, nothing much there either.. What do you want me to do here?
The CCP has been totally unable to build a case beyond pure speculation, while ignoring the simple facts.
Poor Shinks, so angry about our President and nothing to show for it…
So how does it feel now that he has been cleared of the foolish ‘charges’ that the PDF had been fraudulently altered?
Not too great I am sure… And now that DOMA has been found unconstitutional, we can add another victory to our President’s accomplishments… That must drive some people completely over the edge. Just checked out freerepublic… Hilarious…
As to the ‘missing digits’ in the stamp. I bet you that if you get a better copy of the original, you will see the date stamp. Again, these poor souls are relying on poor copies to reach conclusions.
We know that our President registered…. The end…
Now what my friend? Hurry… the goalposts are leaving without you…
Well congratulations on your fine efforts. I have no problem accepting the truth. If what your evidence shows exonerates the prez, wonderful. But what you and your ilk fail to understand is that is if any of your evidence is accurate, then there is no reason not to allow access to the microfilm and the source documents. And that’s the Truth, dude.
There is no reason to believe that there exists any microfilm as the original is kept by the DOH of Hawaii. There is no reason to allow access to these documents, other than for pure curiosity.
We already know what the source documents state, and that, under our Constitution is sufficient to establish his birth on soil.
The rest is just irrelevant. Of course, now that he he has been re-elected, the issue has been resolved and nothing much can remove him other than impeachment. I know that some hold out hopes but none of the scandals have amounted to much.
That is the truth… In the mean time, you may want to look up full faith and credit.
@Shinky Amberstains
So let me get this straight. If the tests show that the pdf is not a forgery then we still need to look at the microfilm rolls and the original? Why, if there is no evidence of a problem?
And since you want to bring up the Selective Service registration card, please explain the following:
Why did the Selective Service Administration in October, 2008 (who was President in 2008?) released then-Senator Obama’s Selective Service registration card?
How did a “forged” card get onto the microfilm rolls at the Selective Service Administration Data Center?
How did it get stamped with a 10-digit Document Locator Number (DLN) that is in the range of other men who registered in 1980?
Where did the forger get an obsolete, round Honolulu Makiki Station Post Office stamp?
Come on show us your genius.
Is that a trick question?
“Is that a trick question?”
I fully expect stinky to come back (if stinky comes back at all) with an explanation that requires the Impossible Mission Force to carry out.
Well thank you very much for all your wonderful inquiries. I regret that I can not provide you with the answers you seek.
However, NBC’s efforts don’t and can’t explain away all the problems with the lfbc pdf. All the scanning in the world won’t account for the numbering problem. Another document analyst pointed out there are two layers of content that overlap. NBC’s efforts don’t account for that either.
Arpaio and Zullo asked for access to the originals. They’ve been denied. You have to be a partisan hack to not consider it possible that access is being denied because the originals cannot withstand scrutiny.
Meanwhile, a recent poll showed that a majority of Americans don’t find the prez trustworthy. Go figure.
And yes, my layers overlap as well, the text is separated in one large rectangle, the dates however become its own layers. One of the dates is inside the larger rectangle. Thanks for pointing that one out, another artifact bites the dust…. I thank you for your help here. I knew that together we could come to unravel these minor mysteries. The numbering problem is one that only exists in the imagination of the birthers.
Arpaio and Zullo have, legally speaking, no right to see the data. Do you not believe in the power of our laws? What about State Rights? What about our Constitution? No respect?
I could not care what people believe about our president. He is our President and that is driving some people to such extremes that they lose contact with reality.
Keep up the good work on helping me solidify my findings.
Under Hawaii law, anyone with a valid court order from a judge of a court of competent jurisdiction can gain access to inspect a confidential birth record. I suggest that Arpaio and Zullo follow the laws of the state of Hawaii (HRS 338-18(b) (9) and approach Hawaii Health Department Officials armed with a valid court order.
It should be noted that from 2008 to 2010, the Republican administration of former Hawaii Governor Linda Lingle also denied access to the original birth record to persons without a valid court order.
Additionally, a congressional subpoena has the effect of a court order. Any of the Republican Committee Chairs in the House of Representatives can issue congressional subpoenas, but none have.
Stinky – “All the scanning in the world won’t account for the numbering problem. ”
What numbering problem? Here are the known Hawaiian birth certificate numbers from six children born in August, 1961
Ah’Nee, Johanna – 09945 – August 23rd, Kapiolani Hospital
Nordyke, Susan – 10637 – August 5th, Kapiolani Hospital
Nordyke, Gretchen – 10638 – August 5th, Kapiolani Hospital
Obama, Barack – 10641 – August 4th, Kapiolani Hospital
Waidelich, Stig – 10920 – August 5th, Kapiolani Hospital
Sunahara, Virginia – 11080 – August 4th, Wahiawa Hospital
“NBC’s efforts don’t account for that either.”
Actually, they do it where NBC talks about color bleed on the background layer. I believe the birthers call it the x-ray effect.
“Arpaio and Zullo asked for access to the originals. ”
So, tell me, if stranger came to your door, flashed an out-of-state badge and said they wanted to look through your house and financial records because they think someone committed a crime. Would you let them? That’s what Arpaio and Zullo did. There are legal procedures that they are well aware of that they should have followed if they truly want access to the originals. For some reason they chose not to follow them.
For the last five years polls have said that the majority of people trusted President Obama why didn’t that stop the birthers?
Yes, why did they not get such a court order, if their work showed such clear evidence of fraud? Or perhaps the district attorney who rejected them based on lack of much any relevant evidence understood the nature of the so called ‘evidence’. And he did it for the right reasons, as we now know with enough certainty, that the fraud allegations do not stand up to scrutiny.
Color me surprised…
I don’t know why everyone harshes on the birthers so much. They did get obama to show something. But the birthers and the anti-birthers who are arguing about forgery or not forgery are missing the big picture. PDFs aren’t evidence. Even Harvard lawyers know that.
Lysander Spooner – “They did get obama to show something.”
That’s not true. President Obama released a certified copy of his birth certificate back in June, 2008. He even let reporters photograph it. That was before there was any real birther movement. Why wasn’t that good enough? And what other option did he have? Have millions of certified copies made and send them out to each registered voter?
Obama had already shown his COLB which showed him born on soil. I now notice how you are moving the goalposts. As expected… But if the PDF was evidence of fraud and now it isn’t then something did change. Of course, even with all the ‘evidence’ the CCP could not make its case, that by itself should tell you something. Of course, the PDF is not evidence, but a PDF certified and verified by the DOH of Hawaii was sufficient for several state entities to consider the matter closed. Not to mention the two original copies, the AP PDF and the Guthrie photograph all clearly showing that which we have known now for quite some time: President Obama is a natural born citizen.
So what’s next Lysander? You are pretty much in your own end zone right now and the clock is ticking… A hail Mary pass, a fumble?
Let’s recall that obamaphiles claimed the short form was enough for everyone. Obviously obama didn’t agree. He presented the lfbc pdf. Even you can admit it’s inadmissable.
So what are we left with? An untrustworthy individual who refuses to allow access to the most basic original documents.
Touchdown!
I have no reason to conclude that our President is untrustworthy, and he has provided all that is necessary. The short form was released before the birthers became active and then foolishness started. It should have been sufficient, but those intent on smearing the candidate and later the President, continued with their distractions.
Who is so far untrustworthy? I’d say the birthers and the so-called researchers have shown themselves to be quite unable to make their cases.
So far we have all the necessary documents and the DOH does not allow access to the vault copy; in fact it does not even provide certified long form birth certificates anymore.
Sorry my friend, you are just a sore loser. And the funny part about all this? You know it.
PS: I believe it is called touchback. You may want to look it up in Wikipedia.
🙂
“Let’s recall that obamaphiles claimed the short form was enough for everyone.”
We also can recall that the State of Hawaii said that President Obama was born in Honolulu in 2008 and again in 2009. And that the newspaper announcements from August, 1961 backed up the COLB and the statements by the Hawaii officials. Birthers for some reason refused to accept the evidence.
Rational, normal people realized that the evidence speaks for itself, there was no massive conspiracy to hide the President’s birth place.
So what are we left with? Only crazy, irrational people are stupid enough to buy into the birther theories. Have you ever noticed that the birther websites all have paypal buttons?
Grand Slam!
Admit it’s inadmissible.
It will cleanse your soul.
Admit there have been three certified verifications that President Obama was born in Hawaii and the information on the pdf matches the original birth certificate. Those certified verifications are admissible.
Admit it and begin your return from the dark side.
Just in case Lysander is unaware of the Hawaii Letters of Verification for Barack Obama’s Certiicate of Live Birth, here’s a link to the Arizona Letter of Verification that was used by the Republican Secretary of State in Arizona to approve Barack Obama’s name for the Arizona ballot: http://www.azcentral.com/12news/Obama-Verification.pdf
Also the whitehouse.gov PDF has been introduced into evidence in both the Georgia ballot challenge and the Mississippi ballot challenge. The US District Court Judge in Mississippi has taken the PDF under advisement. The PDF and Letter of Verification submitted as evidence for the US District Court Judge are on Pages 11 & 12 of the Motion at the following link:
“Let’s recall that obamaphiles claimed the short form was enough for everyone. Obviously obama didn’t agree. He presented the lfbc pdf. Even you can admit it’s inadmissable.”
Let’s recall that Barack Obama was elected with 69 million votes after placing the short form COLB on the Internet for the whole wide world to see.
Let’s also recall that Barack Obama was reelected with 66 million votes after placing the PDF of his long form on the Internet for the whole wide world to see.
Finally, let’s educate Lysander Spooner that the Obama PDF was first introduced as admissible evidence in the Georgia ballot challege where Obama’s attorney refused to participate but won the case anyway after the birther attorneys requested “a trial on the merits.” The judge in Georgia ruled in Swensson, Powell, Farrar and Welden v Obama:: “For the purposes of this analysis, the Court considered that Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Ankeny, he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen. Accordingly, President Barack Obama is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary under O.C.G.A. under Section 21-2-5(b). Administrative Law Judge Michael Mahili, February 3, 2012
Can we expect to see a youtube video showing step by step what you did? Is the final product in a pdf? Have you opened it in Illustrator?
No video, yes the final product is a PDF, no I do not have access to Illustrator but the coding is the same as the Whitehouse PDF.
Look at where the document and the verification by the DOH was accepted 🙂
But it does not matter. The PDF was argued to be fraudulent…
Not so much…
Poor Lysander..
The PDF may be fraudulent; it may be genuine. Time will tell. In the meantime, we are all entertained and enriched by the frantic, pathetic efforts of those who feel the need to defend the indefensible while advocating for the admissibility of the inadmissible.
Lysander
You are absolutely right, the pathetic efforts of the birthers is very entertaining. After five years, they still haven’t figured out that all of their “evidence” is inadmissible. Pathetic is the right word to describe them.
Search your feelings, Lysander, you can’t do this. I feel the conflict within you. Let go of your hate.
“yes the final product is a PDF”
Can you upload it to you site?
ROTFL… You are still upset that our President won a second term…
Some foolish people, in their blind hatred of our President, have relied on flawed arguments, poor logic and reason.
That’s far more entertaining….
Thanks again for helping me solidify the findings that the document is a product of pure algorithms and not a forgery.
If you thought that was funny, wait ’til you get a load of this one:
Lawyers know there’s no reason to hide evidence that doesn’t hurt their case.
Even Harvard-trained lawyers.
You’ve been a great crowd. Tip your waitress.
Thus they asked the DOH of Hawaii to release two certified copies and provide for verifications to various entities.
Sorry my friend, you have helped me adding the final nails to the coffin of what was known as a ‘fraudulent document’ and now has been identified as generated by a simple scanning workflow.
I will tip the waitress on your behalf, she too is quite impressed by your helpful contributions in laying to rest another birther myth.
And please keep dropping by, we can use the entertainment.
Lysander – “Lawyers know there’s no reason to hide evidence that doesn’t hurt their case.
Even Harvard-trained lawyers.”
I think you are mistaken neither Zullo nor Arpaio is a lawyer and I’m pretty sure they didn’t go to Harvard.
As to why they hide evidence, well, I think that is self-evident.. Did you donate money to the Cold Case Posse?
ROTFL…
Nice twist my friend. Lysander is just one of those people who, against better judgment, keeps on giving…
Of course, lawyers also know not to indulge its opponents in a fishing expedition either… And that’s what it has always been. A hope to get discovery…
Now that we know what the discovery would have found, they continue to move the goal posts.
Such a class act.
Another thwack on the deceased equine carcass:
I’ve been having fun going through some of my ancestors’ records on ancestry.com. One of the cool things I just found was the passenger manifest from the voyage to America my great-grandfather and grandfather made in 1907.
The form includes a helpful list of choices for the race of each passenger. First one on the list?
“African (black)”
ROTFL
This story is just not true. The layers shown are the same ones that are on the PDF copy and it was created within a MAC. Besides the PDF does not have a chain of custudy. The reporters copy does. His birth certificate is still a forgery with at least 19 points of forgery on just the reorters copy.
The layers shown are not the same but yes, quite similar to the one shown on in the actual whitehouse PDF.
Of course the PDF does not have a chain of custody but I am using the same PDF to show that the embedded comment is also found in a Xerox Workcentre and have shown how the Whitehouse used such a workcentre when scanning in the prez’s tax returns.
So we know now that a Xerox Work Centre can create all the artifacts found.
As to the reporter’s copy and the AP copy, I am not aware that they have points of forgery. So you are saying that even the certified original shows evidence of forgery, all from a pretty low resolution photograph…
Look Douglas, the claim was that MRC does not generate multiple bitmap layers, and I have provided you with evidence that indeed it does: on a xerox workcentre.
So 99% of the claims of forgery disappear once you follow the workflow.
Of course I am still curious as to these ’19 points’ … I guess I should have expected the moving of the goalposts.
Since you appear to be in the scanner business I suggest you repeat the experiment on a Xerox workcentre…
Deal?
Let me provide you with the details of the workflow
1. Assistant inserts certified long form birth certificate upside down into a Xerox 7655 or equivalent workcentre and emails the document.
2. The assistant opens up the document on her Mac and realizes her mistake and prints to PDF after rotating the picture.
Step 2. removes all the metadata, but explains the orientation of the rotated embedded pictures. Step 2 also removes the JBIG2 compression. Step 1 explains the multiple monochrome bitmap layers as well as the repetition of identical characters because of JBIG2 compression
What are the specific 19 points of forgery? Is there a list?
Wouldn’t it be better if there were 12,068 points of forgery? I’m sure you can get there if you really put your back into it.
Did I miss the part where you posted the resulting pdf file so that your work could be examined and replicated? Please post the resulting pdf file. I’ll be happy to communicate it to Zullo for you, if you’re willing to have your work examined.
“3.When saved as a PDF in preview, after a 180 degree rotation, the relevant metadata identifying the workcentre disappears but various tell-tale signs remain.”
One last myth to bust.
Is there a link to the final (post-Preview) pdf or even to both a pre-Preview pdf and the post-Preview pdf?. I want to open it in Illustrator to see if I get the warning message that Zebest says always occurs when you open a pdf that has been compressed by MRC.
An ‘investigator’ like Zullo with his army of ‘experts’ should be able to do the same experiment I did. All it requires is a Xerox Workcentre 7655 and a printout of President Obama’s LFBC or equivalent.
As to the embedded jpeg comment, it takes little effort to analyze the Whitehouse PDF and PDF’s generated by a xerox workcentre as well.
Look for the string YCrCb preceded by 0xFF 0xFE which indicates a comment.
If Zullo is really interested in following the evidence, then he has all that is needed to do so. Let the proof be in the pudding.
Even an amateur like me could do this, surely his team has much better skills and equipment?
I will await Zullo’s followup research with much interest…
Zebest is correct that sometimes
PDF has a tendency to generate warning messages when opened in illustrator
But the PDF was touched last by preview which rewrote the whole internal file structure. MRC is nothing special but there have been some known bugs with especially JBIG2.
Mark Gillar said
That is hilarious. How about Zullo posting a copy of Reed Hayes’ report? NBC has given you the exact instructions to replicate his work. We have seen nothing but a cherry picked conclusion from Hayes’ “report”.
As I said, the ball is in the court of those who claim to want to show that the Whitehouse PDF is not fraudulent but reached the opposite conclusion based on a failure to properly account for the workflow.
I am more than confident that Zullo and the private non-profit “MCSO CCP” will take all the efforts to repeat the simple steps and report their findings. Justice demands nothing less. Especially when it involves ‘cold case’ investigations like this one. The forger has remained unidentified until recently…
The MCSO CCP has now found itself in a somewhat uncomfortable position with no good way out.
Let’s see how they respond. Of course, if their ‘response’ to the work by John Woodman is of any indication, I can make a prediction…
Would it not be far more fun to have Reed Hayes’ report be submitted in some legislative hearing and be debunked on the spot when the Dems roll in the real ‘forger’, a Xerox 7655 Workcentre?
That would be the ultimate embarrassment…
Who am I to prevent this unlikely but entertaining scenario from happening?
So does this mean that Obots were wrong about OCR software, mixed raster compression and or adaptive compression being responsible for 100% of the anomalies in the document?
Oh no, wait, Preview caused the anomalies, er uh I mean Dejavu, no wait it was JBig2…
Why do I have a feeling we’ll be adding this to the long list of failed attempts by Obots to explain the anomalies?
Also, for everyone debating the “African” term. The HDOH did allow people to self-report. However, failure to use the correct term for self-reporting resulted in a correction.
If the term was not the appropriate term from the 1960 manual, it was lined through and changed. It really doesn’t matter what term Obama Sr. reported. If it was incorrect, it would have been changed by one of the two registrar’s clerks reviewing the document.
In his case, the term African would have been lined through and replaced with the word negro. See the Missouri videos for an actual example of this where someone self-reported “colored” and it was lined through and replaced with the word Negro. It was a 1961 BC by the way.
As for cherry-picking, you and your group wrote the book on it. I’d be carefully criticizing Reed Hayes if I were Perkins & Coie. They’ve used him as an expert. Attacking credibility of one of your former expert witnesses might reopen some of their old cases. A delicous dilemma wouldn’t you say?
I’d love to present a list of additional anomalies that haven’t even been released to the public yet. Unfortunately I can’t. The ultimate embarrassment will be watching democrats try to defend them with this copier. Good luck with that.
The CCP will surely run its own tests on this. I look forward to their results. I’m not going to hold my breath while waiting on someone who obviously doesn’t think his work will hold up to scrutiny to release a file.
Mark Gillar
Your comment sounds rather desperate.
We haven’t seen Reed Hayes report so commenting the content isn’t possible. However, he has no credentials which suggest he is qualified to opine on the validity of a paper document by examining an electronic file. We know he delves into the pseudosciences of graphology and astrology. The NADE is the least respected and has the loosest standards of all the recognized organizations for document examiners. Hayes was 213th document examiner that the CCP contacted before they could find one silly enough to write an opinion on the validity of a paper document based on a picture of it.
If African was not allowed how do you explain the mixture of Hawaiian and other races coded on the Ah’Nee birth certificate? Of course you have no credibility as one of the producers of the fraudulent video that tried to pass off the 1968-69 codes as those from 1961. After getting caught red handed at that deception you tried to explain it as a “production error”. Meanwhile Zullo says “we have the real 1961 codes but we cannot release them”.
There seems to be a lot that the CCP will not release. Your claim off knowledge of additional anomalies is just silly. If the CCP had anything Zullo would have been flaunting it in a press conference.
Yes, that’s the birth certificate I had in mind. The problem here is that Mark is dealing in pure speculations, disproven by actual facts and worse, the CCP has been relying on a coding book that was not even in use at that time.
See why I would love to see them appear in court to ‘testify’… But alas…
Gillar is trying to reframe the issue deceptively of course. He can’t name the forger, the software the forger used, tell us what documents were the source of the forgery, tell us why Hawaii stands behind the document, explain how so many people could be in on it without a single leak, explain how the AP photo can show more detail than the LFBC PDF, explain the COLB, explain the 1961 newspaper announcements, explain the accounts of people who knew about the birth on the day it happened like Barbara Nelson, or provide a single shred of evidence Obama was born anywhere else other than Honolulu on August 4, 1961.
As Foggy says, it’s a pickle isn’t it Mark?
Well, we should thank Miki Booth for debunking Mark Gillar’s statements about ‘African’ and being ‘redacted’… ROTFL. Where have they been?
Which is why the workflow argument is so powerful, even before I discovered that it was the Xerox Workcentre which was the ‘forger’.
The lack of any coherent explanation, the failures to look at the raw data and discover the tell tale signs left behind, the failure to pursue John Woodman’s claims, all have come to haunt them right now.
The ball is in their courts and they can either drop it and look foolish or pick it up and look foolish.
I leave that totally in their capable hands.
One would also think that Mark Gillar would be happy to find out that the PDF no longer shows artifacts that point to fraud as they are explained by a simple work flow.
And why Zullo would share secrets with Gillar which I believe are claimed sometimes to be part of a law enforcement investigation” is beyond me. Unless of course, they are not accurately represented?
Perhaps they are the musings of a private non profit organization or a private citizen named Mark Zullo?
As to Reed Hayes, as noone has seen his arguments, I find it hard to take them very seriously,especially in light of the recent findings.
Mark is just disappointed. I would be too if I had staked my “career” on the arguments about President Obama being ineligible and learned the facts. I do feel a little sorry for him and others… who so quickly were to follow the musings of the MCSOCCP.
To: Mr. Gillar
What is the fascination about the link between Hayes and Perkin & Coie? IIRC, that case was back in the mid 1990s, I doubt it is still being litigated. And it probably had nothing to do with PDFs.
In the case of “African”, if the entries were always corrected to comply with the instruction manual, why did NCHS need to include instructions to its coders on how to code entries like “Afro-American” or “yellow”? If state registrars corrected such entries the Fedreral coders would never encounter an anomlous entry. There would be no need for such an instruction.
A workflow that included refrying the PDF in Mac Preview AFTER it already existed as an optimized PDF? That seems strange to say the least. Why is there no metadata associated with the 7655, or any Xerox product for that matter?
And FYI, saving the file in Preview does NOT remove the warning message associated with the color layer in MRC compression.
And you would think that you’d want to gloat and flaunt this file to the world. Why not just cough it up? You know the CCP will go and analyze this, why not give it to them to more quickly prove them wrong? Seems a bit suspicious.
Without the file, it’s just a claim. A claim that needs exploring, but just a claim nonetheless. My hunch tells me this will the much like the “proof” that Woodman provided with his Little Red Riding Hood PDF, or the Passport PDF that Nathan Goulding from National Review produced. Both were wildly different than the WH PDF once you looked on a level that the average person would not. I suspect this will pan out to be the same.
And the fact that you are trying to delay by not providing the file, just makes it seem that much more so. Is this about science and truth, or just some sick game to you?
All of the above of course.. I am having fun. If the CCP wants to do their job, then I would be the first to applaud them for it. What surprises me is that they never found the hints?
Look, I am having too much fun right now with people like you attacking the messenger rather than doing the simple confirmation… Or disprove what I am saying.
I love being suspicious as it raises the stakes, does it not?
I have provided the steps, if anyone needs more information, please let me know.
As to your predictions, I will gladly accept your apologies when the CCP finally does its job properly.
There is metadata associated with the Xerox work centre but it is within the JPEG
a comment string
0xFF 0XFE followed by the letters YCbCr
Good luck my friend… Looking forward to your findings.
PDF’s lead to many variants of warnings in Illustrator, so try the Danish document and see if it gets upset, then open in Preview and print to PDF. This step will remove all the PDF metadata, like the whitehouse PDF and I bet you, it will load perfectly.
Look, you show me your findings, I have shown you mine.
Funny how nervous some people are getting…
BTW, scanning a printout of the PDF is apples to oranges. Obviously the halo is there from the copy that was scanned. Also, how do you know that there were different colors within the text on the certified copy? You assume that JBIG2 breaks up the text based on color, yet the color differences in your test weren’t from a certified copy, they were from the PDF which we all know has different colored text
Do this again with a proper control, the provide the file. If you are right, I will concede that you have proven a point.
Woodman was on the right track. Too bad that the CCP was so quick to reject his findings. In fact, it should have been clear to anyone that MRC and JBIG was a likely explanation.
The CCP however decided to ridicule it… Funny how it now comes back…
Why would nerves enter into it? I just want the truth…apparently the same can’t be said of you. Why stonewall? Put up or shut up.
Or are YOU nervous?
Yes I pointed out that the halo was already in the original. We know from other examples that the certified copies have different colors in the date stamps. For obvious reasons.
I am encouraged by your admissions, it’s time that the CCP applies the proper controls, would you not say so? After all, they made the claim of fraud…
Are you saying that they did not have a proper control?
Woodman was not on the right track. I can easily disprove his experiment. Would take literally 5 minutes.
And there is nothing with this file that clearly says MRC. All MRC documentation clearly state that it is a 3-layer model. In fact the 3-layer model is what the ITU’s Recommendation T.44 suggest for mixed content compression. Are you suggesting the Xerox isn’t following industry standards? 😉 Purdue college, IETF and Hewlitt Packard all disagree with the idea that there can be multiple mask layers. Perhaps they are wrong too?
FYI, 0xFF is NOT a comment string…lmao. It is unicode. 0xFF sets all the bits in a char. Any program could do that. How does that prove Xerox exactly? Seems you are a bit confused.
I am in no rush. While the CCP is embarrassing itself further, I see no reason to intervene…
If you really wanted the truth, you would not have come here with your guns blazing…
I have given you all the details necessary to repeat my findings.
Why stonewall? Because I want others to do some proper research… It’s about time, would you not say so?
People have accused the President of fraud based on flawed reasoning, why should I help them? Let them for once show that they can do proper research and we can talk.
As I said, I have nothing to prove as the status quo suits me fine. However, I have shown how the artifacts in the PDF can be recreated using a simple workflow.
Now it’s time for those who disagree with me to either show me wrong, or be shown wrong.
I am in no hurry here. The issue of President Obama’s eligibility has long since been decided. This is just fun to see the poor birthers concerned…
Prove me wrong and you have nothing more than you started with. Show I am right and you expose the birther ‘research’ as flawed.
Either way, I am quite satisfied. But for once, do the necessary research…
How much more spoon feeding do you need?
Good luck my friend. I am certainly interested in your findings…
“I am encouraged by your admissions, it’s time that the CCP applies the proper controls, would you not say so? After all, they made the claim of fraud…
Are you saying that they did not have a proper control?”
I guess you don’t know how CCP created their control? I can assure you they were smarter than to simply print out the PDF, like yourself, and think that was a valid control. No, a control was created with manual date stamps and did not include different colors for the text…as the certified copy would not either.
How do you explain two different colors in one single date stamp? Did the Xerox MRC make a mistake? Did they have a dual-tone stamp? 🙂
BTW, for your own reference….JBIG 2 isn’t what is doing the segmenting on the 7655…it is MRC. JBIG2 is simply being used as the encoding algorithm to compress the text. A freebie for you…
Obviously I am shaking in my boots. Oh wait, I do not wear boots.
You do understand the difference between MRC and the 3-layer model? MRC is a term which explains mixed raster compression: the application of different compression algorithms to different layers. Xerox’s patent explains how this may be limited to 3 layers, or include as many layers as necessary.
Mixed Raster Compression is a simple concept, with many different implementations.
Xerox has found a much better solution and patented it, so why should it follow standards when documents generated by its approaches can be read by any PDF reader?
I suggest you familiarize yourself with Xerox patents and the references to PDFs that show exactly what you claim could not exist.
Glad to hear you don’t wear boots…have to agree that isn’t the best fashion statement.
Look, I honestly would be thrilled if your explanation is true. To be honest, I’m sick of this whole debacle. We could explain why the PDF is how it is and move on. There are plenty of people who will still have plenty of questions about obama’s narrative and documents, but we can at least put the PDF issues aside.
And do you really think the CCP has released all of the technical issues they have found? You think you’ve disproved the strongest points….but what if the strongest points are yet to be revealed? 😉
It is not unicode, it’s ASCII. But perhaps you need to familiarize yourself with JPEG encoding where 0XFF 0XFE is indeed a comment marker.
Don’t worry I do not fault you for not being familiar with the JPEG standard. But by all means check it out.
Oh for goodness sakes, I feel generous
check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG
Apologies accepted.
Thanks for the attempted lesson…lol. I clearly understand the difference between the general concept of MRC and how it is implemented, ie. the 3-layer model.
I’ve read ALL of the Xerox patents. There is nothing about multiple mask layers. If there were multiple layers, they would more likely be the BG layer or the FG/Color layer. That’s just a simple fact.
MRC is not thee segmenting either. It’s merely the compression of different layers.
Sigh… But jpeg and JBIG2 are used for background and text compression.
Why would the certified copy not include different colors for the date stamps? They are not generated by a typewriter but rather by ink stamps with clearly different characteristics.
Why did the segmentation fail to take the full stamp? Algorithms are never perfect. We have seen how several characters did not properly separate because of their differences in color or because they touched horizontal lines.
If the CCP has created a proper control with date stamps, it should not find it too hard to run it through a xerox 7655 workcentre.
Looking forward to their results, it’s about time they do something that is relevant to proper research.
I have shown how, despite assurances from the CCP, multiple monochrome bitmap layers can indeed occur in MRC.
Where they wrong?
Surely you can admit the obvious could you not?
The ever imaginary promissory note. The CCP has found nothing of relevance as to the PDF. They may want to argue that the original document is flawed, but that is for later.
Of course people will continue to have questions, even though the facts are there for everyone to see. But I can understand why the CCP reached its conclusions…
“It is not unicode, it’s ASCII. But perhaps you need to familiarize yourself with JPEG encoding where 0XFF 0XFE is indeed a comment marker.”
A marker isn’t just for comments. It just marks the beginning of a block. And I do understand the JPEG format. What I don’t understand is how you think JPEG compression proves the use of the Xerox 7655…non-sequiter.
Sure my friend. And yet, the reality shows otherwise.
Have you looked at the Danish document… It clearly shows multiple bitmaps and was created by a Xerox workcentre 7655.
Quite damning especially when the JPEG shows a similar comment. Place a color document with text on the workcentre and the comment string will be YCbCr
But please do not trust me. By all means, do your own research.
Surely you must realize that separating the text bitmap into smaller sub bitmaps improves the compression.
Now, do the experiments or look at the documents I have linked to.
If truth is your goal then by all means.
“MRC is not thee segmenting either. It’s merely the compression of different layers.”
Wrong…sigh.
“Why would the certified copy not include different colors for the date stamps? They are not generated by a typewriter but rather by ink stamps with clearly different characteristics.”
You misunderstand my point. One single date stamp contains two distinct colors…lol.
“If the CCP has created a proper control with date stamps, it should not find it too hard to run it through a xerox 7655 workcentre.”
Of course they won’t. They are probably doing it right now. I’m just curious why you’d trumpet something then keep it to youself. You’re an odd fellow.
“Where they wrong?
Surely you can admit the obvious could you not?”
Once I see it for myself, I would gladly admit which points they were wrong on. I have no problem admitting I am wrong. Apparantly you are worried about being proven such, otherwise you’d expedite said proof, no?
“The CCP has found nothing of relevance as to the PDF. ”
Really? So you have tapped their phones and know what they still have up their sleeve? Come on…you are pushing belief now.
Trust me…there is more…
The JPEG contains a comment string. The 0XFF 0XFE is a comment marker and shows YCbCr
The same comment string is found in Xerox generated PDFs, in the jpeg.
It is not that jpeg compression proves the use, it is that the embedded string is found in xerox work centres. Perhaps if you can show us other software that embeds this information.
The JPEG is devoid of any metadata typically found if the JPEG had been manipulated by commercial tools but I did notice a tiny comment string not found commonly in JPEGs other than those extracted from Xerox generated PDFs.
You do realize that the PDF contains an actual DCTdecode compressed JPEG?
Extract it and look at the data using a Hex Editor. So far I have found the following strings from Xerox workcentres
0xff 0xfe Y C b C r
0xff 0xfe L i n e a r G r a y
Not sure about capitalization of the lineargray one.
The presence of such a comment requires an explanation and the combination of finding it in xerox work centre generated files and so far nowhere else, lead me to the scanner.
The rest was simple: 1) the whitehouse owns such a printer 2) scans using this scanner show many of the features found in the whitehouse PDF.
Simple deductive logic
“Have you looked at the Danish document… It clearly shows multiple bitmaps and was created by a Xerox workcentre 7655.”
Oh…of course…the Danish document! No idea what doc you are referring to.
“Quite damning especially when the JPEG shows a similar comment. Place a color document with text on the workcentre and the comment string will be YCbCr”
All that proves is it’s a JPEG…says nothing about the app used to render/compress it. Sigh.
“But please do not trust me. By all means, do your own research.
Surely you must realize that separating the text bitmap into smaller sub bitmaps improves the compression.”
No, actually there isn’t much improvement. Which is why the industry standard is the 3-layer model. Do you understand internet standards? The reason the text is separated to a separate layer is so that is can use symbol based compression which is more efficient. There wouldn’t be much gain, if any, from running that algorithm on 7 different layers as opposed to one. Are you suggesting that EVERY major PDF software optimization app manufacturer is too dumb to realize this supposed advantage?
SMH
If you say so. I personal find the desperate responses by the birthers far more interesting.
I’d love to be proven wrong.
A single date stamp may contain two colors, it depends on the algorithm. It tries its best to differentiate between layers and it is never perfect.
Why am I trumpeting it and then keep it close to myself? Because I want others to do independent verification or rebuttal.
And I want to give the CCP a chance to do some proper science.
“You do realize that the PDF contains an actual DCTdecode compressed JPEG?”
No…really?! Damn, I’m screwed…lol.
“The JPEG is devoid of any metadata typically found if the JPEG had been manipulated by commercial tools but I did notice a tiny comment string not found commonly in JPEGs other than those extracted from Xerox generated PDFs.”
And you checked the jpeg layer of PDF generated by several other manufacturers as comparison I assume?
“1) the whitehouse owns such a printer”
On what do you base this assumption. I’ve seen some vague reference to Michelle’s tax returns, but alas that seems to be another proof that you won’t make available.
If you say so, and I predict that nothing of relevance will be revealed.
They failed to give proper time and attention to John Woodman’s work, they ignored the clear evidence of algorithmic markers and all they have now is ‘well there is more’
I have no doubt that they have conjured up more, but I doubt that it will amount to much.
Or there would have been criminal charges by now, would you not think so?
“And I want to give the CCP a chance to do some proper science.”
I see. So the THOUSANDS of experiments they’ve done up to this point are not real science, but the ONE experiment you came up with is. Biased much? 🙂
Let’s assume for the sake of argument that you are right about the comment identifying a Xerox machine. It seems plausible so I will trust you on that until I can verify myself.
What the proves that a source image from another BC, which was used in the final composite, wasn’t scanned on said Xerox, clipped from the overall mask layer, and dropped into the composite?
“They failed to give proper time and attention to John Woodman’s work, they ignored the clear evidence of algorithmic markers and all they have now is ‘well there is more’”
False. I personally spent months researching Woodman’s research. He has a viable theory, but no substantial evidence…certainly not proof.
His optimization samples all have one mask layer…for starters.
I have made it available but perhaps you should do the simple research. It is not Michelle’s tax returns but a file called
POTUS_taxes.pdf found at the whitehouse.
Do I have to do all the research myself? Can people not do a simple search?
Geez, this is not rocket science my friend
Click to access POTUS_taxes.pdf
As a matter of fact I did some checking and a Fogbower looked at thousands of PDFs and failed to find the string.
Another great opportunity to prove me wrong my friend. What is holding you back?
Right, no evidence but a great theory. So rather than dismiss it, the better approach is to ask yourself: what other evidence can I find that help me understand the potential creator of the document?
1. MRC compression
2. JBIG2 compression
3. Comment string
4. Rotated images
and so on.
Then you may want to do a search to find PDFs that meet these features. It was a bit of serendipity when I found the documents that showed multiple monochrome bitmap layers, but there it was.
All because someone reminded me of the Xerox patents and the fact that some of the scanners support MRC and JBIG2. By itself nothing shocking but sufficient to narrow the search.
It took me two days…
How long has the CCP been struggling with no results?
Sure, anything is possible but as I have shown, a simple workflow finds the comment string, the multiple monochrome bitmaps, the rotated graphics, the masking layer, the bleaching of colors behind the text…
All features, once claimed to not be able to be generated by compression workflow. And yet, there it is.
The comment string by itself is nothing by itself. It merely helps identify the scanner used. But once you put all the pieces together a beautiful and consistent story evolves.
Sure, a forger could have made it look as if it was created by a Xerox workcentre, but really, is that the argument? Of course not, there is no coherent explanation for the haphazard separation of text into back and foreground, the bleaching of colors, the rotated graphics and so on.
It’s the details that led to the likely forger and then documents scanned on the identified forger showed many of the features once believed to be generated by a human forger.
Surely you understand that the JPEG was a step towards the answer. Why did the CCP not notice the comment string? Or why did they not report on it.
You and I understand that such a string could be a signature of the software used.
Science requires a method and the variable space is just too large to just randomly generate ‘experiments’. You first narrow down the settigns, the likely candidates. Or do you really suggest we finger print the whole nation, in order to find a suspect?
Crimes are resolved through a careful process of elimination, not by randomly generating some PDFs… You and I understand surely the burden of proving a negative…
Perhaps you can tell me: Did the CCP ever look at the innards of the PDF and the raw data within the flatedecode and dctdecode Xobjects? And if so, how did they miss these telltale signs?
It’s like a robbery suspect leaving behind a signature.
Okay, I like your enthusiasm so here are your rewards
The Danish document
It contains a unique mixture of metadata as it was saved by preview but not printed as PDF.
Do the experiment
1. Create a document with a creator and producer
2. open it up in preview and save it as another file. One of the metadata tags now shows OSX string
3. Print the same file to PDF. Creator and producer data are both erased.
Note how the document shows JBIG2 encoding as well as multiple monochrome bitmaps. Oh and the JBIG2 encoding disappears when printing as PDF in preview as JBIG2 is not supported in PDF 1.3
With a bit of effort we may be able to find more such documents, hopefully one with a colored background. I predict a comment string…
And even before this find, I had predicted that MRC and JBIG2 workflow would explain these artifacts. Read on my blog how gsgs found how all layers align to 8 bit boundaries for example…
So many missed hints…
PS:
Surely you understand the difference between a standard and a recommendation. And furthermore, the Xerox solution is fully compatible with PDF.
And read the standard
Cheers
Please provide proof (not speculation) that the Obama BC PDF was created by the Xerox Workecentre.
Mark,
You realize that it is just not Birth Certificate anomolies but some information itself. For instance, Obama Sr. lists his age as 25. This is wrong. Obama Sr. was born in 1934 making him 27. He changed the date of his birth about a year or 2 after Obama Jr. was born to 1936. But, all documentation around 8/04/1961 indicates that Obama Sr. was born in 1934 making him 27 not 25 as listed on the birth certificate. Further, his place of birth is listed as “Kenya, East Africa”. I have been about to find any place in Obama Sr.’s documentation where he lists “Kenya, East Africa” as his place of birth. I see Kenya, Africa and closest as Kenya, Africa. But, nothing saying “Kenya, East Africa”. Sounds too specific.
… and a pony.
Mark,
You should also know the AZ verification DOES NOT verify the Obama’s birthdate. Apparently Bennett asked for it but ultimately it was never verified. I can think of no reason in the world that Hawaii would “forget” the birthdate but verify everything else. Other verification claim the information on the Obama PDF to be verified (which would include the birthdate) but those verifications are too vague to indicate what information.
And then you have the birth certifcate number that has yet to be explained (except wide speculation by obots.)
It’s unlikely Zullo will look into NBC’s work. The question on whether the BC is forgery is done. There is no need to investigate further. Zullo has a certified document examiner to confirm this. It’s a 100% forgery. The real matter is now trying to get this before Congress. Good Luck with that.
Go back and look at what Bennett asked for and what was verified. Bennett omitted the birthrate from his list. Hawaii verified exactly what Bennett asked to be verified.
This was Bennett’s request letter:
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/05/ken_bennett_birther_hawaii_arizona_emails.php?p=1
That is exactly what Hawaii verified.
Wow, John is having a meltdown right before our eyes.
I meant Birth Date..
I was about to post the same thing! Poor John.
Oh really? Did I miss where any charges have been filed? Or the name of the forger? I would love to see them try to get this Reed Hayes clown through voir dire. It will never get to that point however. Your first statement is probably correct. Zullo will never look into NBC’s work. It is too much like real science.
“That is exactly what Hawaii verified.”
John doesn’t realize that when SoS Bennett asked for verification of “the items to be verified in the attached form” the items on the form include the DOB. It is those items that define which BC is to be verified. The fact that a verification was issued is the verification of those items.
I believe Bennett had asked for the birthdate. It was never verified. In any event, I can think of no reason in the world why either Bennett or Hawaii would “forget” to verify the birthdate. It makes absolutely no sense to ask for say the age (seemly irrelavent piece of information to the whole issue at hand) to be verified and not the birthdate (Probably the most important piece of information on the birth certificate.).
John read the verification again. It says that Dr. Onaka verifies that all the information on the pdf matches the information on the original.
So John on the pdf it says DOB “August 4, 1961” what date matches that? Does June 3rd, 1959 match? How about December 15th, 1964, does that match?
You should pose that question to SoS Bennett. He is the one who left it off the list. It is his letter. As gorefan said it does matter because Onaka verified all the information. He did so again in the verification supplied in Mississippi.
John, you are acting as silly as Butterdizillion now.
John: You should also know the AZ verification DOES NOT verify the Obama’s birthdate.
He would have no need to verify the birth date since that was never an issue in eligibility. The question for the SOS was place not the day of birth. Are you claiming the President was born after 1973?
I have provided all the data that shows how it was ‘created’ and shown how such a document has all the relevant artifacts found in the WH pdf.
No wonder you are so worried.
John is getting worried… ROTFL
Poor guy, his world has just fallen apart…
That was to be expected… Poor poor John…
EM Punk said
You seem to forget how many times you guys have moved the goal posts since John Woodman began his investigation into not one but at least two dozen claims that something is wrong with the PDF. At first the Birthers claimed that “It is a forgery because it has layers and you can move things around”. Well Woodman found many PDF’s with layers where you could move things around. He also found tell tale signs of an algorithm which parsed the document in a somewhat stupid but consistent way. For example the letters touching the form got sucked into the background JPG with the form. Being a reasonable person Woodman concluded based on the overwhelming evidence that it would take a page to list that the artifacts could eventually be explained by compression. Woodman also took on many other claims like kerning and pretty much destroyed them.
Then the Cold Case Posse said “Yeah, we looked at Woodman’s PDF’s but they had too many layers”. So the goal posts began moving and haven’t stopped. Now we have destroyed the claim that MRC compression only produces a single one bit layer. I can’t wait to see the new position they stake out. It should be quite funny.
The of course there is he AP JPG which Zullo carefully never mentions because it cannot be explained to have had the PDF as a source document.
If NBC wants to make you guys do a little real work for a change I cannot fault him for that. he is correct that you (I am talking about the CCP and Birthers in general) would just claim it was a forgery. Its not like he is hiding a mysterious 1961 code manual and a 40 page document examiners report is it?
The CCP indeed was quick to reject Woodman’s suggestions which were so close to the answer. The only problem he had was that he could not identify a scanner which created multiple monochrome bitmap layers and JBIG2.
Even though people had, early on, mentioned the Xerox WorkCentre, it was never properly pursued, until I started my analysis and I ran across the comment by accident and decided to pursue the ‘lead’.
Victory… The CCP owes Woodman some apologies for the way his research has been treated. Of course, the CCP owes some apologies to our President for suggesting that the highly compressed PDF was fraudulently created.
For instance Papit concluded:
I hope that, given the recent finding, the conclusions, which were based on the lack of multiple monochrome layers in MRC compressed example, the white borders, the halos, and the segmentation of the horizontal lines, will be properly updated?
I remembered this video that Mark Gillar produced claiming that specs on the PDF were proof of forgery. It featured “the Obot Clown”. So it turns out the clown was a self portrait. :LOL:
The first two sentences are contradictory. There are, in fact, several Xerox patents that involve multiple mask layers. Things like “3+1 layer MRC” and “3+N layer MRC” – these fit under the T.44 Mode 3 category. Another is a greyscale background with N foreground monochrome layers. But the one we are most interested in is Xerox patent US7376272, “Method for image segmentation to identify regions with constant foreground color.”
Xerox has since been able to combine the N foreground layers with the N mask layers using colorspace and ImageMask=true. And this excerpt also explains why this method is preferable to the standard 3-layer MRC: it allows printers (and Illustrator) to render the image properly.
It should be noted that my discovery of the above patent (Xerox patent US7376272) plus my find that Xerox WorkCentres use Edge Erase is the catalyst that launched NBC’s probe into the guts of the WH PDF and the resulting IDing of the “forger.”
So where does the CCP next move the goalposts? I predict it will be something like “Unless you can create an exact bit by bit duplicate of the LFBC PDF then you haven’t explained that it is not a forgery”. That will be followed of course by “it is a forgery because the father’s race says ‘African'”.
Well, according to some ‘experts’ there are also problems with the AP image…
Sigh…
Mr. Vogt, what are your “19 points of forgery on the reporters (sic) copy?” Weren’t you the guy who once said: ““There was no paper copy with a seal presented to the US Public therefore none to examine by anyone!”
> What I don’t understand is how you think JPEG compression proves the use of the Xerox 7655…non-sequiter
I see what you did there. So first birthers demand non-birthers should prove it’s possible to create a PDF that has the same “anomalies” as the WH PDF, and when a non-birther succeeds, you move the goalpost to “now prove there is no other way this could’ve been created”?
That doesn’t even make sense, given that your initial argument was “there is no explanation for this other than forgery”, and when shown there is, you go “now prove that forgery is impossible”. Right…
> So where does the CCP next move the goalposts?
Very likely to “even if it’s not provably forged, there still isn’t evidence the recorded facts are true” (followed by something like “given that Hawaii routinely records foreign births as Hawaiian births” and so on). I’ve predicted this right after the first “LFBC forged” claims in 2011 and have seen this pop up more and more often in 2013.
NBC this is awesome work. I have personally done work with PDF files innards in the past and felt that all of the supposed anomalies had reasonable explanations. One of the layers does strike me as odd though. I’ve read through here and it seems to be brought up but I’m not sure if I’m reading into something else. There is one layer – if you use Illustrator to look at the 3rd layer down in the collection of 10 layers. This layer just has some small white blobs on it. But if you turn that layer off, you see that the background layer is visible beneath those blobs. I believe Mara Zebest called referred to this as the x-ray vision problem – how did the scanner get the color information beneath these blobs? Did your investigation find any explanation for this? Is it because those blobs are so small, that perhaps there’s just interpolation or some such effect on the surrounding background filling in the area behind the blob? Or ???
The blobs may be speckle corrections, the bottom block overlaps with the raised seal for example.
As to X-Ray, JPEG can indeed create xray effects, which is observable when removing the text layers, and noticing that the background is not pure white.
JPEG and downsampling.
Yes the blobs remain the last few mysteries.