Since the following does little to enlighten us as to the forger or forgery, I have removed this unnecessarily long distraction and given it its own posting. Given Hermitians problems understanding workflow created artifacts, I am at this moment reluctant to dive too deep in this side show. But with enough detective work, I am sure we can come to understand how these documents ended up being created. There is however NOTHING that suggests that a forger somehow worked with the AP or that the AP forged the document…
Forgery Part 4
On 04/27/2011 the WH released the Green background LFCOLB PDF image and also handed out pale Blue Xerox copies to the WH press corps at the WH early morning “Press Gaggle”. Additionally, the AP released two different PDF images, one to the Iowa Muscatine Journal, and another to ABC News. It was reported that Scott Applewhite, a photographer for the Associated Press, created both of these PDF images by scanning one of the paper handout copies. These two PDF images were published on the internet on 04/27/2011 by the Muscatine Journal and by ABC. The Muscatine Journal’s copy has a near-White background but the ABC copy has a pale- Blue background like the paper handouts.
Applewhite would have created the two AP images using either a digital scanner or a digital camera mounted on a macro copy stand. He created both images on 04/27/2011 albeit at different times. The first image (created at 9:00:38 AM) was published on the Muscatine Journal website on 04/27/2011.
[NBC:
Look at the metadata DCSA103… it refers to his camera. It apparently starts at DCSA100. So Applewhite took a photograph.
APPHOTO DCSA103: House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio walks to the House floor to deliver remarks about negotiations with President Barack Obama on the fiscal cliff, Tuesday, Dec. 11, 2012, on Capitol Hill in Washington. Boehner said President Barack Obama is slow-walking talks to avoid the fiscal cliff, and hasn’t outlined spending cuts he’s willing to support as part of a compromise. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite) (11 Dec 2012)
The PDF shows D:20110427090139-06’00 April 27, 2011, 09:01:39-06’00 whch is 10:01:39 East Coast Time. Muscatine is in Iowa. There is no information in the JPEG as to when the photograph was created. The PDF shows 20110427090038-05’00’ as the time Applewhite took the picture.
There is something weird, the PDF is 5.9 Mb, the jpeg 294 Kb…
]
See: http://muscatinejournal.com/pdf_6a633f26-70d9-11e0-8729-001cc4c002e0.html
( Wait a few seconds for the PDFXChange viewer to pop up! Then you can download the PDF )
The PDF file METADATA from 4db82608b486f.pdf gave the following description:
“This handout image provided by the White House shows a copy of the long form of President Barack Obama’s birth certificate from Hawaii. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)”
The published PDF copy has a White background and relatively low resolution of 120 PPI X 120 PPI. and size of 1043 X 1243 pixels. The page size, measured in Adobe Illustrator is 8.695 in. X 10.355 in. The 120 PPI X 120 PPI image was reduced in size by 72% X 72% indicating that it previously existed at a larger size of 14.486 in. X 17.264 in and resolution of 72 PPI X 72 PPI. The total number of pixels in both size images would be the same. For reasons I will explain later, I now believe that this image never existed at the larger size (i.e. 14.486 X 17.264) and lower resolution (i.e. 72 PPI X 72 PPI).
However, the PDF file METADATA from 4db82608b486f.pdf indicates that it was created by Applewhite at 200 PPI X 200 PPI resolution and size of 1739 × 2071 pixels. Conversion of the pixels to inches shows that both of these two images would be the same size (8.695 in. X 10.355 in.). Thus, there is a mystery here ! Both the PDF image published on the Muscatine Journal and the original image created by Applewhite are the same page size but they are not the same pixel resolution. This is not easy to accomplish if one sets out to do it with Illustrator or Photoshop because the usual way to change resolution is to change page size.
The METADAT from 4db82608b486f.pdf also indicates that the PDF creator tool was Adobe Photoshop CS2 and the producer tool was Adobe Photoshop for Windows — Image Conversion Plug-in. The original file type was TIFF ( 200 PPI X 200 PPI ) and the PDF was created with Photoshop.
The Muscatine Journal’s image was more tightly cropped than was the ABC image. Both images are probably scanned images because they both have color fringes on the edges of the form lines and text characters. However, the color fringes are weak on the ABC image. Alternative, the original paper copy for each image could have been photographed by a digital camera mounted on a macrocopy light stand.
The second copy (also created by Applewhite but later at 9:28:48 AM) was published by ABC also on 04/27/2011. This second PDF, also created by Applewhite, is also 200 PPI X 200 PPI resolution but is larger size (2698 pixels X 3334 pixels). The image page size is 13.49 in X 16.17 in. The PDF creation tool was Adobe Acrobat 8.26 and the producer tool was Adobe Acrobat 8.26 Image Conversion Plug-in. This second image has a pale Blue background.
When opened in Adobe Illustrator CC, This larger 200 PPI X 200 PPI image was reduced in size by a scale factor of 36% X 36% indicating that it also had previously existed as a larger size 37.472 in. X 46.3046 in. and resolution of 72 PPI X 72 PPI. The total number of pixels in both size images are again the same. However, I believe that it is unlikely that this larger image ever existed either.
[NBC: Duh… This is again a confusion on poor Hermitian’s part… 200/72 equals 36%, in order to display the 200 PPI image in the 72 PPI PDF, a 36% scaling is necessary. Basic math. thus the ‘indicating that it also… is just a total miscalculation by our friend.]
ABC posted a George Stephanopoulos video and link to Applewhite’s copy at:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obama-birth-certificate-released-white-house/story?id=13467977
“President Obama Releases Birth Certificate to End Birther ‘Silliness’”
The ABC link to the Applewhite copy:
http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/ap_obama_certificate_dm_110427.pdf
There was also another ABC link from the same ABC article to another ABC article written by Jake Tapper and Sunlen Miller. It was posted by “Kristina” under ABC’s “Political Punch”. This second article included a link to the WH website and the official PDF copy of Obama’s Green-background) LFCOLB.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/04/27/president-obamas-long-form-birth-certificate
Consequently, ABC news published both the WH and AP PDF images on 04/27/2013.
The transcript of the early morning “press gaggle” indicates that the presser started at 8:48 AM.
See:
“Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/27/2011
“James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
“8:48 A.M. EDT”
Therefore, the AP had to have a paper image of the Obama LFCOLB “in house” exactly 12 minutes and 38 seconds after the press gaggle began. Consequently, the AP could not have possibly obtained a paper handout copy from their AP reporter (attending the presser) in time for Applewhite to create the Muscatine Journal PDF by 9:00:38 AM. Thus, the AP either got a paper handout copy from the WH before the press gaggle or the WH must have sent an electronic image over to the AP (also before the press gaggle). But if the WH sent a paper handout over to the AP Washington DC office, then it would have had the pale-blue background. Why would the WH give the AP a pre-release paper copy on White paper? Or if, instead, the WH sent an electronic image, then why didn’t they send the Green-background LFCOLB PDF image that they posted on the WH website? Why would the WH send an electronic image that had a near-White background? Neither scenario adds up!
Otherwise, if not supplied by the WH, then the AP would have had to obtain this copy directly from the forger? Thus either the AP knows who the forger is (and the AP is in on the conspiracy) or the forger works at the AP.
[NBC: Hermetian provides no logic for this, again it is his ignorance as to the why and how that leads him to conclude that a forger must have been involved. And so the ad hoc explanations continue…]
Three things are proven by these facts.
1. Applewhite had created his White-background PDF image by 9:00:38 ( 12 min 38 sec after the start of the press gaggle ).
[NBC: Using his camera yes.. actually he has one created by 8:53:21, the one with the bluish tint.]
2. Applewhite had created his pale-Blue PDF image by 9:28:48 AM.
[NBC: The document says 2011-04-27T09:28:48-04:00 weird. but it is not local time DC..]
3. Applewhite’s (200 PPI X 200 PPI) and (8.965 in. X 10.355 in.) page size image (if it exists) would be the highest resolution image of the Obama LFCOLB in existence.
From the start, the WH issued (at least) two different LFCOLB images.
[NBC: No evidence of this has been presented.]
Moreover, no effort was made to standardized the size or resolution of any of the Obama LFCOLB PDF images that were released to the public. Obviously the Obama team made sure initially that at least two different versions of the Obama LFCOLB were released to the public on 04/27/2011. In the interim his attorneys have produced several more versions. All of this has been done while Obama claims to have the two certified paper copies that were produced by the HDOH on 04/25/2011 in his possession. So let’s see these two certified copies! Each would bear the Hawaii State seal impression and the State Registrar’s signature and date stamps in Black ink.
I have stumbled into a discovery that may go a long way in solving the riddle of the Obama LFCOLB.
My discovery explains how the Muscatine PDF image (4db82608b486f.pdf) has a resolution of 120 PPI X 120 PPI when opened in Adobe Illustrator CC but the image was created as a scanned TIFF at 200 PPI X 200 PPI and the PDF was created and produced by Photoshop. In this case the Muscatine PDF file (4db82608b486f.pdf) was created as a Photoshop PDF.
When the Muscatine PDF image (4db82608b486f.pdf) is opened in Photoshop CC as a Photoshop PDF file it opens at 200 PPI X 200 PPI resolution. This image is the one created by Applewhite. When the same PDF is opened in Adobe Illustrator CC as an Adobe PDF then it opens at 120 PPI X 120 PPI resolution. Thus a Photoshop PDF file opened in Photoshop does not necessarily produce the same image when the same Photoshop PDF file is opened as an Adobe PDF file in Illustrator or Acrobat.
I have attached two screen shots one from Photoshop at 200 PPI X 200 PPI and the other from Acrobat XI Pro at 120 PPI X 120 PPI. Both images are from the Muscatine Journal PDF file (4db82608b486f.pdf). This is the image that Applewhite created with Photoshop at 9:00:38 AM.
To the contrary, the ABC PDF image was created at (200 PPI X 200 PPI) with a page size of 13.49 in. X 16.17 in. The PDF creation tool was Adobe Acrobat 8.26 and the producer tool was Adobe Acrobat 8.26 Image Conversion Plug-in. Thus the ABC PDF (ap_obama_certificate_dm_110427.pdf) was created as an Adobe PDF.
Of course this ABC PDF opens at 200 PPI X 200 PPI in Acrobat.
However the same file (ap_obama_certificate_dm_110427.pdf) cannot be opened as a Photoshop PDF in Photoshop CC or CS6. An error occurs in this case.
[NBC: Nothing here really helps Hermitian’s ‘forger’ argument. It’s an interesting side note at best]
Native and Natural Born Citizenship Explored 
Simple logic NBC. But I already know that you struggle to grasp the obvious. You seem to be able to juggle just one fact at a time.
First let’s clear up your confusion about the METEDATA and the creation time for the 1st Scott Applewhite image.
xmlns:photoshop=”http://ns.adobe.com/photoshop/1.0/”>>
<AP>
<USA>
<AP>
<Washington>
<JSA RCL**DC**>
<2011-04-27> <DCSA103>
<DC>
<5>
<HANDOUT IMAGE PROVIDED BY THE WHITE HOUSE>
<A>
<STF>
<3>
<QCT RGB settings>
<>
——————————-
<>
<>
<2011-04-27T09:00:38-05:00>
<2011-04-27T09:01:39-05:00>
< 2011-04-27T09:01:39-05:00>
< Adobe Photoshop CS2 Windows>
<>
<>
<>
<JPEG>
<256>
<215>
<<xmpGImg:image >
<>
<1739>
<2071>
<-1>
<><>
<>
<>
<Adobe Photoshop for Windows — Image Conversion Plug-in>
<>
Scott J. Applewhite is a staff photographer with the AP Washington, DC Bureau. He is stationed in Washington DC. It is clear that he created his first copy at the Washington DC Bureau Headquarters which is within the Eastern Time Zone. Hence the create time 09:00:38 AM is Eastern Time. There is absolutely no evidence that he was instead in Iowa.
Notice also that the DCSA103 is consistent with his ID. DCSA would be DC Bureau and SA is obviously Scott Applewhite. Also the caption writer JSA RCL**DC** obviously was also stationed at the AP Washington DC Bureau. Also, Applewhite is a photographer not a reported. There would be no reason for him to attend the press gaggle at the White House.
Moreover, the Camera METADATA is lacking any Camera data for the following Items:
Camera Maker:
Model:
Owner:
Lens:
Focal Length:
Exposure:
Being a professional photographer, Applewhite would not have omitted this data if he had actually used his camera to photograph the paper original. Consequently its unlikely that he photographed this initial copy. Also there are clear color fringes at the edges of the text characters and form lines. The fringes are consistent with a scan of a paper original to make this White Background copy. The quality of camera provided to Applewhite by the AP would certainly have color fringe correction built in.
Thus the first copy of the Obama LFCOLB was created by scanning a B & W paper copy at 9:00:38 AM at the Washington DC Bureau Headquarters. This copy was scanned approximately 12-1/2 minutes after the start of the press gaggle.
It’s unlikely that a courier could have obtained a paper handout copy at 8:48 AM at the White House and delivered it to Applewhite in time for him to scan his first image by 09:00:38 AM. Also, all of the paper handout copies were on plain pale Blue background paper. So even if a courier had managed to deliver the paper copy there would have been insufficient time for Applewhite to remove the Blue background and then make a B & W copy. And why would he do that anyway unless he had been instructed to by the White House to do so ?
Thus either Applewhite had received a pre-release paper copy on White paper from the White House or else he got this paper copy from someone else.
Alternatively, the White House could have E-mailed a pre-release B & W image to Applewhite sometime before 09:00:38 AM. But in that case, why would the White House send him a B&W copy when they could have just sent the same Green background image that they sent to ABC and others later that same morning ? And if they had sent an electronic copy, then there would be no need to for Applewhite to scan it unless AP wanted to create a copy that would have only the AP METADATA.
The 1st Applewhite PDF file 4db82608b486f.pdf is the only one that I am aware of that was created entirely by means of Photoshop. I have proved that it was created as a Photoshop PDF file. The file opens in Photoshop CS6 or CC with a pixel resolution of 200 PPI. This file was created with Photoshop CS2 with a pixel resolution of 200 PPI. However, the same file opens at a lower resolution of 150 PPI in Adobe Illustrator CS6 or CC.
NBC
It’s a lost cause to even try to post any data containing on this editor. So I’ll cease doing that but instead just do silly trial posts until NBC and his grunts can fix the problem that didn’t exist before they changed the web page multiple times. Anyone who wants to study the METADATA can download the AP PDF file from this link.
http://muscatinejournal.com/pdf_6a633f26-70d9-11e0-8729-001cc4c002e0.html
( Wait a few seconds for the PDFXChange Viewer to pop up! Then you can download the PDF )
1. http://muscatinejournal.com/pdf_6a633f26-70d9-11e0-8729-001cc4c002e0.html
2. http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/ap_obama_certificate_dm_110427.pdf
3. http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/04/27/president-obamas-long-form-birth-certificate
Here’s three and there are lots more because various web sites shot their own JPEGS from a handout copy.
[NBC: You claimed that the Whitehouse released two LFBC copies. That was a rumor spread by some poorly informed birthers. Nice attempt my friend… There has been only ONE copy of the long form birth certificate made available by the Whitehouse which shows the document in its full color.]
No, I am referring to the time stamp in the PDF in the Iowa News site.
103 is an increasing number for his photos. Just do a search… He was there to photograph, as you had surmised, the documents that were presented.
Unlikely, the jpeg shows similar information found on Applewhite’s photos, the 103 tag is a picture number.
ROTFL, he was there representing AP and was taking pictures. That’s his job. No need for a courier, just a simple photo capture which is then emailed to AP.
Instead you invent unnecessary components for which you have not a single iota of evidence. You have not tried to figure out of Applewhite was there or not.
If you had carefully checked your sources you would have found that
Applewhite created his picture with the bluish tint 8:53:21
Hermitian is further confused by the timestamp
See the -6:00 which indicates Iowa time which is where the document was created by the staff of the newspaper and turned into its own PDF, cropped and al.
Can you not even read time stamps properly? You do know what -6:00 means? It means 6 hours before GMT. Check which time zone this is. Hint it is NOT Eastern Time.
The newspaper is in Iowa, the PDF was created in Iowa time… You are one hour off here…
Not a great researcher my friend…
Yes this is the B&W copy created in Iowa time around 9:00AM local time, or 10:00AM DC time…
Learn to do some proper research my friend, I explained it all and you still missed int
So much for the hypothesis that the copy was forged by AP… Thank you Hermitian…
Then you must have an earlier AP PDF than I do because I don’t have one created at 8:53:21.
See: http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/ap_obama_certificate_dm_110427.pdf
<-<<2011-04-27T09:28:48-04:00>>>->
<-<<<2011-04-27T09:29:01-04:00>>>->
<-<<<Adobe Acrobat 8.26>>>->
<-<<<application/pdf>>>->
<-<<<uuid:cbc77ddb-0cfd-453e-b022-b288c2daeab5>>>->
<-<<<uuid:1880039f-f8a7-4f9b-9bf6-5f49288e152e>>>->
<-<Adobe Acrobat 8.26 Image Conversion Plug-in>->
If you have a different AP PDF then post a link.
NBC is constantly spinning. When one does that constantly then one will have frequent brain freezes. Sometime you get your storylines crossed up. Like this picture number tale that he just invented.
Now based on NBC’s earlier post, DCSA103 was taken at a shoot of John Boehner walking to the House floor on 11 Dec 2012. So unless Applewhite resets his photo counter every year then I think we can safely rule out NBS’s photo number diversion. It’s much more likely that DCSA103 is Applewhite’s employee number.
NBC’s earlier post:
“”APPHOTO DCSA103: House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio walks to the House floor to deliver remarks about negotiations with President Barack Obama on the fiscal cliff, Tuesday, Dec. 11, 2012, on Capitol Hill in Washington. Boehner said President Barack Obama is slow-walking talks to avoid the fiscal cliff, and hasn’t outlined spending cuts he’s willing to support as part of a compromise. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite) (11 Dec 2012)””
Boy! Those constant diversions of NBC’s sure do fowl up the workflow on his site.
Ah, but see, you did not check the embedded jpeg now did you… Oh boy…
Exrtact the JPEG and then look at the time stamp… Problem here is: No GMT offset so I assume it to be DC time.
Come on Hermitian, do some investigation… Extract the JPEG. You know what I will post my findings so far…
Excellent point but wrong. He also has DCSA 101 to 104 and likely more.
Nice try though, some creative thinking here…
I found them all the way up to DCSA121 Simple searches… Oh so easy…
Nope! It’s your problem Dude. I’ll just have to keep posting those silly P.S. corrections until you get your act together. Funny I don’t have these problems on other WordPress blogs — just yours.
ROTFL !!!! So the fact that DCSA103 appears both on the Muscatine Journal PDF and on Boehner’s “walking to the House” shot doesn’t bother you? You believe that the AP recycles their pic numbers?
Where do you live Dude? Under a rock ?
What do you want to bet that the AP uses bar code for their Photo numbers ?
NBC
“”It’s unlikely that a courier could have obtained a paper handout copy at 8:48 AM at the White House and delivered it to Applewhite in time for him to scan his first image by 09:00:38 AM. Also, all of the paper handout copies were on plain pale Blue background paper. So even if a courier had managed to deliver the paper copy there would have been insufficient time for Applewhite to remove the Blue background and then make a B & W copy. And why would he do that anyway unless he had been instructed to by the White House to do so ?””
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
ROTFL, he was there representing AP and was taking pictures. That’s his job. No need for a courier, just a simple photo capture which is then emailed to AP.
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Ever heard of camera shake on a hand-held shot?
There’s no way the the Muscatine Journal PDF image is a digital photograph taken with a hand-held camera. The Muscatine PDF image is actually better than the WH LFCOLB PDF image. The resolution is a uniform 200 PPI x 200 PPI whereas the WH LFCOLB PDF image has a low resolution background (150 PPI x 150 PPI) and high-resolution (300 PPI x 300 PPI) 1 Bit non-background layers. Additionally, the Muscatine text characters are uniformly anti-aliased without any of the “porcupine” pixels that stick out from the binary monochrome text of the WH LFCOLB PDF image.
Every operate a macrocopy stand Dude? I have many times and I know exactly what is required to obtain an image with the high quality of the Muscatine PDF.
The caliber of digital camera that an AP professional photographer would use would not produce detectable color fringes. The Muscatine Journal PDF image has noticeable color fringes on the edges of text characters and form lines.
You are confusing quality and resolution. In Jpeg world they are not necessarily equivalent.
Compare the two jpeg’s side by side and zoom in…
It’s so obvious
You did take into account that they adjusted the “white balance” to remove the bluish tint.
Let us know what this does… Come on Hermitian, you are jumping to conclusions without having done the experiments first..
Difference between lossy JPEG and capturing text in bitmaps.
That has confused the poor CCP as well
I thought it showed color fringes… Come on Hermitian, apply some logic here and do the actual comparison.
jpeg versus jpeg….
Let’s also focus on the AP jpeg from which the Muscatine was obviously created.
Now do the experiment..
[NBC:
“Look at the metadata DCSA103… it refers to his camera. It apparently starts at DCSA100. So Applewhite took a photograph.”
“APPHOTO DCSA103: House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio walks to the House floor to deliver remarks about negotiations with President Barack Obama on the fiscal cliff, Tuesday, Dec. 11, 2012, on Capitol Hill in Washington. Boehner said President Barack Obama is slow-walking talks to avoid the fiscal cliff, and hasn’t outlined spending cuts he’s willing to support as part of a compromise. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite) (11 Dec 2012)”
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Looks like the AP photo numbers are 12 digit numbers !!!
http://www.apimages.com/Search?query=APTOPIX+and+mediatype+%3D+photo&ss=10&st=kw&entitysearch=&toItem=30&orderBy=Newsfeed
I knew that DCSA103 was no way a photo number for the AP !!!
Obviously the AP 12 digit system does not identify the photographer.
NBC
“Let’s also focus on the AP jpeg from which the Muscatine was obviously created.”
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
The METADATA from the Muscatine PDF clearly indicates that the image was created by placing a TIFF bitmap image into Photoshop CS2. The only unknown is whether the TIFF was first created by a scan to TIFF and then the TIFF was opened in Photoshop or the TIFF was scanned directly to Photoshop.
Regardless there is absolutely no evidence that a JPEG was involved in the creation of the Muscatine PDF in any way.
I have extracted the TIFF from the PDF and it does not have the YCbCr label or the JFIF label.
I also extracted the image as a JPEG and the extraction step added the label JFIF in the first line of the JPEG code. This results proves that the extraction using the wrong bitmap format can add extraneous labels in the JPEG which would not be present if the bitmap had been extracted with identical format to the original bitmap image before it was placed into the PDF.
It is a number for J Scott Applewhite as I have shown. Geez my friend, this is not rocket science.
I am not sure what you believe you are doing here
Of course not, it was never scanned by a Xerox WorkCenter.
Actually there is good evidence as to this.
Remember that the PDF producer tag shows CS Image Conversion, which is what took the original Applewhite JPEG (and its metadata) and created a TIFF file, which was subsequently saved as compressed TIFF aka JPEG. The quality of the file is far less than the AP jpeg, even though it is much larger in size.
Simple logic, following the metadata and common sense.
While the document that was opened up in Photoshop likely was a TIFF format, imported using the image conversion tool, there is no evidence of scan and all points back to Applewhite’s DCS103 photograph.
Or more likely, the JPEG was imported as a TIFF file and then saved as an optimized tiff.
That would explain a lot.
NBC
“”From the start, the WH issued (at least) two different LFCOLB images.””
“[NBC: No evidence of this has been presented.]”
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Here’s three and there are lots more because various web sites shot their own JPEGS from a handout copy.
1. http://muscatinejournal.com/pdf_6a633f26-70d9-11e0-8729-001cc4c002e0.html
2. http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/ap_obama_certificate_dm_110427.pdf
3. http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/04/27/president-obamas-long-form-birth-certificate
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
“[NBC: You claimed that the Whitehouse released two LFBC copies. That was a rumor spread by some poorly informed birthers. Nice attempt my friend… There has been only ONE copy of the long form birth certificate made available by the Whitehouse which shows the document in its full color.]”
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Not true ! The WH first released the pale-blue background paper handouts on 04/27/2011 and then later that same day they posted the Green background WH LFCOLB PDF image on the WH web site. The chain of custody between the pale-Blue paper copies and the Green basket-weave background PDF image has never been established.
Rate This
NBC
“You are confusing quality and resolution. In Jpeg world they are not necessarily equivalent. Compare the two jpeg’s side by side and zoom in…”
“It’s so obvious”
What’s the resolution of your JPEG extracted from the Muscatine Journal PDF?
Which is irrelevant although the bluish version appears by all aspects to be an accurate representation as it was based on a copy.
The jpeg shows 72 x 72 DPI
Pixel Height: 1,243
Pixel Width: 1,043
Have you compared the documents side by side?
AP document
DPI means little as to quality per se, you need to do a visual inspection. I can provide you with some samples. They are quite obvious. The 5.9 Mb file shows quite a big size for such a low resolution so I am still concerned that I am missing something here. But it renders beautifully as a JPEG.