Introduction:
Henry Blake submitted an affidavit (Update: Hermitian uploaded a better version to scribd) to Orly Taitz in which he describes two documents, submitted by the defendants in the Mississippi case of Taitz v Democrat (sic) Party. The first document contains an exact duplicate of the Whitehouse PDF, however the second copy shows evidence of being scanned in and, on closer scrutiny, shows evidence of hidden black rectangles and lines and some OCR words. Henry considers these artifacts somehow to be evidence of some sort of forgery, even though the documents contain the same information.
I have been looking at the file in closer scrutiny and described a work flow which I believe would generate the document, including the artifacts. However, I do not have access to the software used to create the document. However, Kevin Vicklund has performed some experiments which I will describe <here at a later time>
Comparison with file 35.1 PDF shows some difference but also many overlaps. Obj 22 has been reordered for clarity, the key values pairs are not in the same order. Outlines are lacking, not a big deal and /MarkInfo is turned on. /MarkInfo references an empty dictionary so it really does not do anything. Usually, it provides information about the logical layout of the PDF if it contains tagged content.
PDF Comment '%PDF-1.7\r' PDF Comment '%\xe2\xe3\xcf\xd3\r\n' obj 22 0 Type: /Catalog Referencing: 28 0 R, 4 0 R, 18 0 R, 11 0 R << /Type /Catalog /StructTreeRoot 11 0 R /AcroForm 28 0 R/Outlines 3 0 R/Metadata 4 0 R /Pages 18 0 R /MarkInfo >>
The Content Object shows the following information (OCR text layer removed for the moment)
q
612.4799957 0 0 793.440094 0 0 cm /Im0 Do
Q
q
0 0 612.48 793.44 re
0 0 612.48 793.44 re
W* n ; The double Rectangle approach to making the blocks and lines invisible
;
; Several BI empty images follow
;
q
88.3200989 0 0 13.4400024 76.8099976 570.7200012 cm
BI
/W 1
/H 1
/IM true
/BPC 1
/ID \x00
/EI
Q
q
46.0800018 0 0 19.1999969 355.2100067 543.8500061 cm
BI
/W 1
/H 1
/IM true
/BPC 1
/ID \x00
/EI
Q
q
72.9600983 0 0 72.9600983 78.7200012 451.6799927 cm
BI
/W 1
/H 1
/IM true
/BPC 1
/ID \x00
/EI
Q
q
274.5601044 0 0 113.2801056 234.25 411.3600006 cm
BI
/W 1
/H 1
/IM true
/BPC 1
/ID \x00
/EI
Q
q
282.240097 0 0 163.1999969 86.3999939 234.7299957 cm
BI
/W 1
/H 1
/IM true
/BPC 1
/ID \x00
/EI
Q
q
49.9199982 0 0 9.6000061 430.0800018 336.4900055 cm
BI
/W 1
/H 1
/IM true
/BPC 1
/ID \x00
/EI
Q
q
86.4001007 0 0 78.7200928 418.5700073 238.5700073 cm
BI
/W 1
/H 1
/IM true
/BPC 1
/ID \x00
/EI
Q
;
; Invisible lines
;
0.188 0.361 0.251 RG
1.44 w
q
1 0 0 1 90 523.2 cm
0 0 m
0 55.2 l
S
Q
0.329 0.408 0.345 RG
q
1 0 0 1 104.64 549.6 cm
0 0 m
419.04 0 l
S
Q
0.533 0.612 0.549 RG
0.96 w
q
1 0 0 1 150.72 518.88 cm
0 0 m
90.72 0 l
S
Q
0.455 0.533 0.486 RG
0.48 w
q
1 0 0 1 150.24 498.48 cm
0 0 m
87.36 0 l
S
Q
0.345 0.439 0.376 RG
15.36 w
q
1 0 0 1 84.48 452.64 cm
0 0 m
211.2 0 l
S
Q
0.565 0.659 0.596 RG
0.96 w
q
1 0 0 1 110.88 416.16 cm
0 0 m
186.24 0 l
S
Q
0.376 0.486 0.408 RG
1.44 w
q
1 0 0 1 89.76 394.56 cm
0 0 m
435.36 0 l
S
Q
0.486 0.58 0.518 RG
0.96 w
q
1 0 0 1 397.2 327.36 cm
0 0 m
0 88.8 l
S
Q
0.345 0.502 0.392 RG
36.48 w
q
1 0 0 1 93.6 362.4 cm
0 0 m
4.8 0 l
S
Q
0.314 0.408 0.345 RG
2.88 w
q
1 0 0 1 367.2 297.12 cm
0 0 m
84 0 l
S
Q
0.533 0.612 0.565 RG
0.96 w
q
1 0 0 1 367.2 263.52 cm
0 0 m
52.8 0 l
S
Q
0.376 0.471 0.408 RG
q
1 0 0 1 80.16 214.8 cm
0 0 m
446.4 0 l
S
Q
0.769 0.878 0.769 RG
2.4 w
q
1 0 0 1 29.28 48.96 cm
0 0 m
0 41.76 l
S
Q
Q
Native and Natural Born Citizenship Explored 
Is this the case label excised file?
yes.
psst… Vicklund
/Outlines is gone because I deleted the bookmarks. Not sure about the addition of the /MarkInfo – likely something to do with how I got rid of the hidden text and stuff (or possibly because I used the 12-page combo file and it was in there) I should probably repeat the experiment [later!] with the four-page file and see what happens.
That would be helpful.
You know what got me doing the revised experiment? I remembered that someone (Mara Zebest?) had mentioned that the WH LFBC wasn’t OCRed, as that introduces lots of weird boxes and lines, or something to that effect.
“Wait a minute, maybe it does add those after all. Wasn’t there a way for me to see where all of these things were located? I didn’t think to check that. That’s not it, nope nope, where the he-aHA! Hey, boxes! Aw, no lines.” Pretty much verbatim what I was muttering this morning.
Repeated and sent. Have fun with the analysis.
Oh boy, will I ever 🙂
A birther named “Adrien Nash” who goes by “h20oflife” on his blog and elsewhere has been trying to push a bunch of nonsense things. His latest claim was that he reproduced the AP jpg by manipulating the WH pdf image to remove the green background. I quickly destroyed that one in a comment. http://rcradioblog.wordpress.com/2013/06/18/immigration-attorney-charles-kuck-says-apuzzo-is-wrong-on-nbc/#comment-2245
Funny how people are so unable to accept the facts.
It gets better. After I caught Adrien with his pants down on his claim to have recreated the AP JPG from the PDF he has a new explanation. The PDF we have been analyzing is only a downsized version of the original forged PDF, which of course no one has ever seen. See, they downsized the forged PDF to post it on the internet. They downsize stuff to post on the internet Adrien tells us. Oh and the forger for kicks placed a backwards “3” in the downsized PDF that isn’t in the original forged PDF. Y’all got that? 😆
I forgot to mention that Adrien’s imaginary backwards “3” is in the smiley A in Alvin Onaka’s name.
On July 03, 2013 NBC posted a mangled version of my affidavit.
Maybe in fairness to me he could have identified his source for same.
But because his blog site is not about fairness, I suppose that I expected too much out of an Obot.
Readers who would like to read my affidavit which includes seven exhibits in color can find it here:
NBC posted the text and mangled the color exhibits.
I’ll let each reader judge for himself whether (or not) NBC and Vicklund have debunked my findings.
He linked to his source several times. Orly Taitz. But good to know that there is a full copy of the affidavit available.
ROTFL..
I would say that you have impeached your own affidavit quite aptly.
You do realize this now, don’t you?
It was uploaded on 07/04/2013…
Ugh. The quality of your color exhibits is atrocious.
Addressing the images in order:
1. These are the same artifacts I have shown are generated when the background image is run through Paper Capture without the case label added.
2. More of the same. In fact, my various trials duplicated the line at the bottom left distortion (caused by the way the paper is grabbed by the Fujitsu scanner’s roll bar)
3. More of the same. A number of the hidden line objects generated in my trials were obviously associated with lines in the background image.
4. The white splotches are small enough that they would not show up if you printed and scanned at low resolution. Especially if an inkjet printer was used. A while back, I printed the WH LFBC on a laser printer and an inkjet printer, to see if there was any noticeable difference. The white blotches were barely noticeable under magnification -maybe- on the laser, but on the inkjet, the bleedover completely obscured them. Also, the colors on the inkjet were not nearly as vibrant. Print quality is highly device-dependent. I notice that you can see the 4% reduction in size for the page 4/11 pic. Look at how smooth the image in the bottom right is compared to the bottom left. All sorts of distortions not in the white layers have been smoothed over.
5. This is the type of thing you see in low resolution scans of printed images. And the halos are not gone, they are blended, just like the other letters in the images have been.
6. The “pincushion” effect you talk about is either from the horrible quality of the exhibits, or from you not being careful when you scaled up the image. You are, in effect, claiming that individual pixels in a bitmap can be shifted by less than one row or column. This is impossible, by the definition of a bitmap. My verdict: you’re looking at compression artifacts, including anti-aliasing, from when you did a screen-capture. When I look at the original files at high zoom (2400%) on my flat-screen monitor, the grids are properly aligned.
7. Again, printing and scanning does this.
On a whim, I used a straight-edge to determine the extent of the pincushion distortion. There is none. It’s actually an optical illusion caused by the color of the grid lines.
The day after NBC started the Blake Affidavit series. Hermie is such a tool.
He should be thanked however for giving us the tools to debunk his ‘findings’ and he has more than enough contributed to his own impeachment, so to speak…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehrenstein_illusion
Ok, here are some updates:
1. Vicklund’s PDFs do show evidence of black squares and lines
2. However the format of the document is not equivalent to the one on the ECF site
3. ECF appears to add a label and in doing so does not add additional creator/producer information but it may reinterpret the PDF objects
Uhoh…
I have to conclude that the scanning was done by the court after all…
Click to access gov.uscourts.mssd.78493.42.0.pdf
Letter from pro se plaintiff, Orly Taitz, Esq. (TRS) (Entered: 10/04/2012)
Shows:
Creator: PFU ScanSnap Manager 5.1.30 #S1500
Producer: Adobe PDF Scan Library 3.2
It’s a letter sent by Orly to the Court…
So I looked at document 35:
MDEC
Counsel has delivered the original verification, containing the official seal of the Hawaii Department of Health, to the chambers of Magistrate Judge Anderson and respectfully requests that she order that it be kept in the custody of the Court for the duration of the proceedings.
My conclusions?
The MDEC filed motion 35 and submitted exhibit 1 and 2 as paper originals.
Yes, this is what I was referring to when I brought up the possibility.
I’ll be interested to see what the difference in format is. Keep in mind that I’m attempting to strip the processing and duplicate it, rather than working from the raw image – if the background image was at all altered, the results WILL be different. And as we saw, the presence of other objects can alter the outcome as well, so it’s entirely possible that there is something that I missed while stripping the file.
The 35.1 file does not contain any ‘inline objects’ /ObjStm which are a way to ‘stream objects without explicitly defining them as such’.
NBC: Edited to add proper blockquote tags to improve legibility
<blockquote< text </blockquote>
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
I’m kinda busy uncovering more indications of forgery but I’ll take the time to debunk this one.
The pick roller of the Fugitsu ScanSnap 1500 scanner is only 1-1/2 to 2 inches wide and is centered with respect to the paper guides. Consequently, the pick roller only contacts a band of the same width in the center of the page. Assuming that the print of page 2 of document 15-1.pdf was made on 20 lb copy paper no wrinkling at the edges of the sheet would be expected. And if it had occured, then it would have wrinkled the entire length of the sheet — not just the bottom inch of the sheet. It that case, the IT guy would have replaced the roller and if that didn’t correct the problem then he would have sent the scanner back to Fugitsu to be repaired.
Moreover, had the Obama attorneys done the right thing, then they would have scanned (to PDF) one of the two certified copies that Obama has rat-holed. These two certified copies were made on the Green basket-weave safety paper. In that case, the weight of the paper would have been 24 lb instead of 20 lb.
Neither of these scenarios can account for the observed waves in the basket-weave pattern. The observed defects in the Green basket-weave pattern would require both edges to be sheared. Shearing deformations (at just the edges of such a heavy-weight paper) is improbable. The shear deformations in the basket-weave pattern are sufficiently great that the sheet would have torn at both edges. Also the line of maximum shear coincides with the line of the color change near each corner. Aldditionally, the shadow along the left edge of the page at the bottom is consistent with the offset of two overlapping thicknesses of paper such as a could occur if a patch had been applied with glue. The darker Green strip across the bottom of the page has the general appearance of a poorly aligned patch. The width of the patch measures 1- 1-1/4 inch across the width of the page.
And by the way, if you don’t like the color quality of my exhibits then that’s just tough. The color is exactly the same as the color of the LFCOLB PDF image on page 4 of document 35-1.pdf. That’s because these images were obtained by opening page 4 of the electronic court document 35-1.pdf in Adobe Illustrator CS6 zoonimg in to each region of each document and then saving each image to PDF. The images pages were then merged with the typed pages in one PDF and then this PDF was uploaded to Scribd. Also I had already verified the color value changes across the top-left edge of the patch in the white border with the eyedropper tool.
More ??? You have yet to find any evidence ROTFL
Assuming that NBC and Kevin are correct about the court ALWAYS adding the case labels and page numbers then the preferred work flow would be:
1. Secretary types page 1 of document 15-1.pdf in WORD and then exports the page to PDF.
2. She then downloads the WH LFCOLB PDF image from:
Click to access birth-certificate-long-form.pdf
3. She then opens both PDF pages in Adobe Acrobat and merges the two pages to create court document 15-1.pdf.
4. The case attorney then electronically files the two-page PDF document 15-1.pdf.
5. The court then adds the 15-1 case label and page number to each page.
6. Later, the secretary types the three-page Tepper to Fuddy letter in WORD and then exports the document to PDF.
7. She then downloads court document 15-1.pdf from PACER.
8. The secretary then opens the PDF document 15-1.pdf in Acrobat and extracts page 2 to a new one-page PDF file.
9. She then opens the PDF document containing the Tepper to Fuddy letter into Acrobat.
10. The secretary then merges the three-page letter and the one-page PDF (i.e. page 2 of 15-1.pdf) document into one four-page PDF document.
11. The attorney electronically files the four-page document 35-1.pdf with the court.
12. The court then adds the 35-1 case labels and page numbers.
Hermitian still has to explain what HIS workflow looks like, then we can compare to see which one is best supported by the evidence. So far, his claims of forgery do not hold up and he has successfully impeached himself.
Precisely. I Have a sheet of 20 bond paper in front of me, a document I printed out yesterday and has been sitting on my desk without being moved for about 28 hours. Due to the small radius rollers in the printer, the bottom (and to a much lesser extent the top) has a curl. Now, when I press down in the center of the bottom, like the roller on the Fujitsu does to start the scan, the center goes flat, but the edges retain their curl. This causes the corners to deflect inwards at a diagonal. This would also cause a shadow to appear, getting increasingly dark as you move from the center. However, as I slide my finger along the center up the page, at about an inch the curl straightens suddenly, so that it is no longer on the diagonal, but straight across the page. The edges are no longer deflecting inwards, so no shadowing. This is a very quick transition. I used to get this all the time when I was using a top feed scanner.
The problem isn’t a wrinkle, it’s a curl that is only partially flattened.because the roller bar is narrow and centered (also, notice how the distortion increases as you move toward the edges.
Who the fuck cares what the “preferred” workflow is? Choosing to use a different workflow than some perceived optimum does not indicate forgery. Also, you forgot to include the step where Tepper signs the letter. Oops! Your workflow just failed. Any proffered workflow must include must scanning in the letter Tepper signed.
Of course, it’s looking more and more like it was the court that scanned it in.
Not what I’m talking about. Take, for instance, the bottom right of Exhibit 1. The image has been turned off, and just the locations of the hidden objects are shown. The quality of this is abysmal! You’ve got compression artifacts all over the place. Or take the speckling around the second (Blue) case label in the other three screenshots. That’s not in the original file – it’s from compressing the screenshot. But what really is awful is what the gridlines do to the images. You simply can’t trust the color on anything with the gridlines due to the compression artifacts, and what it does to the images in the “pincushion” example is illegal* in several states.
*hyperbole for comedic effect
Hermitian’s alternative work flow:
Actually MY preferred work flow for steps 7- ? would be:
7. She then retrieves the previously downloaded WH LFCOLB one-page PDF file from her hard drive and opens it in Acrobat.
8. The secretary then opens the three-page PDF containing the Tepper to Fuddy letter into Acrobat.
9. Next she merges the two PDF files into one four-page PDF document.
10. The case attorney then electronically files the four-page document 35-1.pdf with the court.
11. The court adds whatever case labels and page numbers to document 35-1.pdf according to their protocols.
Notice that the Fugitsu ScanSnap S1500 with the bent pick roller shaft is not needed. If the court requires that all pages containing text be searchable then the secretary would use ABBYY PDF FineReader to OCR documents 15-1.pdf and 35-1.pdf before they are filed with the court. Any case labels and page numbers added by the court would automatically be searchable.
Then all PDF copies of the of Obama’s LFCOLB that were filed with the court would be identical to the WH LFCOLB PDF image except for the court-added case labels and page numbers. Also the printed copy of the LFCOLB from printing document 35-1 for mailing to Fuddy would then be identical to a printout of the WH LFCOLB PDF image. There would be minimal color changes and the White halos and White speckles would still be present.
“W. Kevin Vicklund
“July 12, 2013 21:25
“The pick roller of the Fugitsu ScanSnap 1500 scanner is only 1-1/2 to 2 inches wide and is centered with respect to the paper guides. Consequently, the pick roller only contacts a band of the same width in the center of the page.
“Precisely. I Have a sheet of 20 bond paper in front of me, a document I printed out yesterday and has been sitting on my desk without being moved for about 28 hours. Due to the small radius rollers in the printer, the bottom (and to a much lesser extent the top) has a curl. Now, when I press down in the center of the bottom, like the roller on the Fujitsu does to start the scan, the center goes flat, but the edges retain their curl. This causes the corners to deflect inwards at a diagonal. This would also cause a shadow to appear, getting increasingly dark as you move from the center. However, as I slide my finger along the center up the page, at about an inch the curl straightens suddenly, so that it is no longer on the diagonal, but straight across the page. The edges are no longer deflecting inwards, so no shadowing. This is a very quick transition. I used to get this all the time when I was using a top feed scanner.
“The problem isn’t a wrinkle, it’s a curl that is only partially flattened.because the roller bar is narrow and centered (also, notice how the distortion increases as you move toward the edges.”
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Please look up the meaning of the word shear. A paper curl on your desk could not have caused the shear of the basket-weave pattern that is obvious to everyone.
So next you’re going to claim that the curl after an overnight exposure of a printed sheet (lying on your desk) to wet air is representative of some imaginary curl that you speculate occurs in a $600 scanner with four idle rollers in addition to the pick roller? Actually, I think that the original vendor price was around $1200.
The Obot bull is getting pretty deep around this blog site !
“W. Kevin Vicklund
July 12, 2013 21:40
“”Assuming that NBC and Kevin are correct about the court ALWAYS adding the case labels and page numbers then the preferred work flow would be:””
“Who the fuck cares what the “preferred” workflow is? Choosing to use a different workflow than some perceived optimum does not indicate forgery. Also, you forgot to include the step where Tepper signs the letter. Oops! Your workflow just failed. Any proffered workflow must include must scanning in the letter Tepper signed.
“Of course, it’s looking more and more like it was the court that scanned it in.”
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Ever heard of electronic signatures?
Also most courts accept
Attorney’s Typed Name /S
Sounds reasonable, with of course a few errors but not bad… Some obvious problems
10. Nope, all documents were sent to the Judge’s chambers
11. The document was not electronically filed
12. Is a common work flow
“Kevin Vicklund
“Not what I’m talking about. Take, for instance, the bottom right of Exhibit 1. The image has been turned off, and just the locations of the hidden objects are shown. The quality of this is abysmal! You’ve got compression artifacts all over the place. Or take the speckling around the second (Blue) case label in the other three screenshots. That’s not in the original file – it’s from compressing the screenshot. But what really is awful is what the gridlines do to the images. You simply can’t trust the color on anything with the gridlines due to the compression artifacts, and what it does to the images in the “pincushion” example is illegal* in several states.
“*hyperbole for comedic effect”
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
You obviously didn’t read my lead-in for Exhibit 1. The image is not turned off in the bottom-right window of Exhibit 1 !
Let’s take it slow……..
The top-left window of Exhibit 1 is the page 4 LFCOLB PDF image with the hidden strikeouts and redactions turned off (i.e. hidden). The top right window of Exhibit 1 is the page 4 LFCOLB PDF image with the hidden strikeouts and redactions turned on (i.e. not hidden).
The bottom half of Exhibit 1 (bottom-left + bottom-right) is all one image (i.e. one screen image). The bottom-left of Exhibit 1 is the flattened image of the LFCOLB (bottommost layer in the layer stack). The bottom-right of Exhibit 1 is the group of strikeouts and redactions after the group was slid off to the right from their original position over the bottommost layer. These objects are grouped by the topmost “Clip Group” in the layer stack. The flattened LFCOLB image layer is contained within a second “Clip Group” at the same “object level”.
The visibility of the hidden strikeouts and redactions is switched off and on by clicking the “Eyeball” Icon at the left end of the one “Compound Clipping Path” layer immediately below the topmost “Cilp Group” containing the hidden strikeouts and redactions. The hidden strikeouts and redactions are contained within a separate page which is smaller than the letter-size page of the flattened image of the LFCOLB. This hidden page has a transparent background.
The off/on switching action (i.e. clicking the Eyeball Icon off and on) of the hidden strikeout and redaction page is still functional after the strikeout/redaction group is slid off the LFCOLB image (see bottom-half of Exhibit 1).
Maybe NBC and KV can duplicate this composite LFCOLB image which is actually one opaque page together with one transparent page containing seven Black rectangle objects and 14 monochrome line objects.
And with each click of the mouse (with the selection arrow placed on the “Eyeball of the Compound Clipping Path”) the seven Black Rectangles and 14 monochrome lines switch from visible to invisible — just like disappearing ink !
Looks like Hermie failed trigonometry. A curl on a diagonal to the scan axis will cause the projection of the sheet to the xy plane to shift towards the center. Returning the curl to parallel to the scan axis will shift the projection of the sheet away from the center. If you actually look at what the basket-weave pattern is doing, and keep in mind that the scanner builds the image row by row, you can see that the projection of the image to the scan plan starts out shifted toward the center of the scan line (also remembering that the scan starts at the bottom). At about an inch, it smoothly but rapidly shifts to the edge. I’ve seen hundreds of scanned documents that did this. It’s why I won’t get this kind of scanner.
Now Hermie is claiming that the Fujitsu is a printer?! My wife just printed…[gets up to look] …4 sheets because we bought books on line this evening. All four of these sheets have even more curl when laid on the dining room table than the one on my desk did, because the one on my desk had 28 hours to flatten. And these sheets were very flat before printing. The scanner is not providing the curl, the curl was already there because of the printer.
You’re right, I didn’t refresh my memory before describing it. Change “turned off” to “moved to the side” and everything should be correct.
See how easy that was? When I make an error, I own up to it and correct myself. You should try it someday, Blake.
Well, I guess the description of “moved to the side” isn’t quite right, but any reasonable person could certainly see what I mean.
No redactions or strikeouts, just lines and blocks generated by the scanning process and the subsequent OCR.
You really should make more effort to support your claims that these are redactions and strikeouts. It does not make sense rationally that a forger would add black invisible lines and blocks and leave the original document the same.
The content shown on the image is exactly the same as that show on 15-1 and there are minor differences due to it being scanned on a sheet feeder scanner.
Again, no evidence of fraud. Just scanner and workflow generated artifacts.
Can you not even spell correctly the name of the scanner? It’s Fujitsu not Fugitsu. Geez, how often do we have to correct you.
As I have shown also, it was the court which scanned in the documents since they had been delivered to the Judge’s chambers since the Fuddy document contained the seal.
Geez, this is not that hard.
How hard is it to simply follow the evidence my friend?
Not a single speck of evidence of fraud, not related to the Whitehouse PDF not related to document 15-1 or document 35-1.
And yet you foolishly insist otherwise but lack any reasonable explanation other than your conviction that it must have been forged.
You have so far totally failed to address the simple fact that the artifacts in the WH PDF were caused by the Xerox Workcentre.
Once you realize that the document is not forged, you must accept the fact that none of your arguments survive.
What you need to do is to inspect the documents that were filed in chambers.
But we already know that they show that President Obama was indeed born on US soil.
Hilarious to hear this from someone who used Adobe Illustrator to look at the files.
A more skilled researcher would have used tools that allow for inspection of the objects themselves.
This is how I found the embedded comment in the JPEG that I tracked down to the Xerox Workcentre.
Researchers would also have to be able to do the experiments that would allow them to eliminate workflow artifacts.
But to claim that an artifact is evidence of forgery, when there is no rational or reasonable explanation as to why the forger would do it, is just an example of a method so common amongst creationists for example, and more recently also birthers.
Convinced that there must be a ‘designer’ they see anything they cannot explain as supporting evidence.
That’s what makes it an argument from ignorance.
Hey Hermie, here’s something else you missed:
plus more on this page.