Xerox/WH PDF – Part 18 Xerox/Preview I

Let’s explore the low level data for the Xerox generated PDF as well as the Preview generated PDF, which may help Hermitian understand the intricate details which explain how Illustrator renders the document. I have appended preview to the filename to indicate the document printed as a PDF using Mac OS/X.

The first simple step is to look at the pdf-info. The comparison shows that Preview adds 4 keywords (Title, Subject, Keywords and Author). The Creator/Producer keys have changed from Xerox WorkCentre 7535 to Preview and Mac OS X 10.8.3 Quartz PDFContext, just like the Whitehouse PDF. Note that the pages size is changed from 792 x 612 pts (landscape) to 612 x 792 pts (portrait) which explains the observed rotation in Illustrator. The box formats are the same but with x and y switched. The size has increased as was to be expected and the PDF version is reduced from 1.4 to 1.3. Note that 1.3 does not support for example the JBIG2 encoding.

wh-lfbc-scanned-xerox-7535-wc.pdf
  
  

 
Creator:        Xerox WorkCentre 7535
Producer:       Xerox WorkCentre 7535
CreationDate:   Thu Jun 27 11:09:59 2013
ModDate:        Thu Jun 27 11:06:28 2013
Tagged:         no
Pages:          1
Encrypted:      no
Page size:      792 x 612 pts (letter)
MediaBox:           0.00     0.00   792.00   612.00
CropBox:            0.00     0.00   792.00   612.00
BleedBox:           0.00     0.00   792.00   612.00
TrimBox:            0.00     0.00   792.00   612.00
ArtBox:             0.00     0.00   792.00   612.00
File size:      258116 bytes
Optimized:      yes
PDF version:    1.4
wh-lfbc-scanned-xerox-7535-wcpreview.pdf
 Title:
 Subject:
 Keywords:
 Author:
 Creator:        Preview
 Producer:       Mac OS X 10.8.3 Quartz PDFContext
 CreationDate:   Mon Jul 22 19:54:34 2013
 ModDate:        Mon Jul 22 19:54:34 2013
 Tagged:         no
 Pages:          1
 Encrypted:      no
 Page size:      612 x 792 pts (letter)
 MediaBox:           0.00     0.00   612.00   792.00
 CropBox:            0.00     0.00   612.00   792.00
 BleedBox:           0.00     0.00   612.00   792.00
 TrimBox:            0.00     0.00   612.00   792.00
 ArtBox:             0.00     0.00   612.00   792.00
 File size:      302894 bytes
 Optimized:      no
 PDF version:    1.3

Now  let’s look at the /Page XObject which defines various relevant aspects of the document and again helps us understand the high level behavior. The Xerox generated file contains a /Rotate 270 reference, the preview generated file does not.

wh-lfbc-scanned-xerox-7535-wc.pdf

obj 9 0
 Type: /Page
 Referencing: 10 0 R, 5 0 R, 31 0 R

  <<
    /Contents 10 0 R
    /CropBox [0 0 792 612]
    /MediaBox [0 0 792 612]
    /Parent 5 0 R
    /Resources 31 0 R
    /Rotate 270
    /Type /Page
  >>
wh-lfbc-scanned-xerox-7535-wcpreview.pdf

obj 2 0
 Type: /Page
 Referencing: 3 0 R, 6 0 R, 4 0 R

  <<
    /Type /Page
    /Parent 3 0 R
    /Resources 6 0 R
    /Contents 4 0 R
    /MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
  >>

Now the Image Objects. They clearly show how looking at the raw data can reveal tell-tale signs about the software used to create the PDF. Note how Xerox calls the XObjects XIPLAYER and XIPlayer_CM1 while Preview uses the more common representation if /Im1. Preview uses sc to set the color scheme, Xerox rg. Again, this shows that there are many ways to represent a particular PDF, something which would be hard to detect using high level tools. Note how the Preview PDF contains a masking layer (q 12 12 588 768 re W n)?

wh-lfbc-scanned-xerox-7535-wc.pdf
'
.
.
.
q 798.72 0.00 0.00 614.40 -3.36 -1.20 cm /XIPLAYER0 Do Q
q 0.0824 0.1333 0.0980 rg
336.72 0.00 0.00 419.76 236.64 95.52 cm /XIPLAYER_CM1 Do Q
q 0.2039 0.3216 0.2902 rg
47.04 0.00 0.00 166.56 71.52 127.92 cm /XIPLAYER_CM2 Do Q
q 0.1765 0.2863 0.2392 rg
10.32 0.00 0.00 63.36 88.80 373.20 cm /XIPLAYER_CM3 Do Q
q 0.9843 g 
124.08 0.00 0.00 113.76 369.12 123.12 cm /XIPLAYER_CM4 Do Q
q 0.1137 0.2392 0.1804 rg
28.80 0.00 0.00 51.36 248.16 126.00 cm /XIPLAYER_CM5 Do Q
q 0.1765 0.3451 0.2667 rg
12.24 0.00 0.00 49.68 246.24 452.16 cm /XIPLAYER_CM6 Do Q
q 0.7804 0.8549 0.7765 rg
31.92 0.00 0.00 83.76 280.80 444.96 cm /XIPLAYER_CM7 Do Q
q 0.9804 g 
66.96 0.00 0.00 42.96 246.24 138.24 cm /XIPLAYER_CM8 Do Q
q 0.1216 0.2275 0.1922 rg
7.68 0.00 0.00 21.84 315.36 243.84 cm /XIPLAYER_CM9 Do Q
q 0.9882 g 
31.44 0.00 0.00 88.56 444.00 344.16 cm /XIPLAYER_CM10 Do Q
q 0.9804 g 
25.92 0.00 0.00 54.72 449.76 445.20 cm /XIPLAYER_CM11 Do Q
q 0.8000 0.9059 0.7686 rg
22.80 0.00 0.00 31.20 739.68 257.52 cm /XIPLAYER_CM12 Do Q
q 0.8118 0.9137 0.8000 rg
24.96 0.00 0.00 17.04 737.76 110.40 cm /XIPLAYER_CM13 Do Q
q 0.8118 0.9216 0.8314 rg
41.28 0.00 0.00 8.16 687.84 113.52 cm /XIPLAYER_CM14 Do Q
q 0.9804 0.9961 1. rg
26.16 0.00 0.00 50.40 488.16 361.20 cm /XIPLAYER_CM15 Do Q
q 0.8196 0.9176 0.8039 rg
18.96 0.00 0.00 12.00 735.84 301.68 cm /XIPLAYER_CM16 Do Q '
wh-lfbc-scanned-xerox-7535-wcpreview.pdf
'
q Q
q 12 12 588 768 re W n

q 0 798.72 -614.4 0 613.2 -3.36 cm /Im1 DO Q
/Cs1 cs 0.0824 0.1333 0.098 sc
q 0 336.72 -419.76 0 516.48 236.64 cm /Im2 DO Q
0.2039 0.3216 0.2902 sc
q 0 47.04 -166.56 0 484.08 71.52 cm /Im3 DO Q
0.1765 0.2863 0.2392 sc
q 0 10.32 -63.36 0 238.8 88.8 cm /Im4 DO Q
/Cs2 cs 0.9843 sc
q 0 124.08 -113.76 0 488.88 369.12 cm /Im5 DO Q
/Cs1 cs 0.1137 0.2392 0.1804 sc
q 0 28.8 -51.36 0 486 248.16 cm /Im6 DO Q
0.1765 0.3451 0.2667 sc
q 0 12.24 -49.68 0 159.84 246.24 cm /Im7 DO Q
0.7804 0.8549 0.7765 sc
q 0 31.92 -83.76 0 167.04 280.8 cm /Im8 DO Q
/Cs2 cs 0.9804 sc
q 0 66.96 -42.96 0 473.76 246.24 cm /Im9 DO Q
/Cs1 cs 0.1216 0.2275 0.1922 sc
q 0 7.68 -21.84 0 368.16 315.36 cm /Im10 DO Q
/Cs2 cs 0.9882 sc
q 0 31.44 -88.56 0 267.84 444 cm /Im11 DO Q
0.9804 sc
q 0 25.92 -54.72 0 166.8 449.76 cm /Im12 DO Q
/Cs1 cs 0.8 0.9059 0.7686 sc
q 0 22.8 -31.2 0 354.48 739.68 cm /Im13 DO Q
0.8118 0.9137 0.8 sc
q 0 24.96 -17.04 0 501.6 737.76 cm /Im14 DO Q
0.8118 0.9216 0.8314 sc
q 0 41.28 -8.16 0 498.48 687.84 cm /Im15 DO Q
0.9804 0.9961 1 sc
q 0 26.16 -50.4 0 250.8 488.16 cm /Im16 DO Q
0.8196 0.9176 0.8039 sc
q 0 18.96 -12 0 310.32 735.84 cm /Im17 DO Q
Q'

7 thoughts on “Xerox/WH PDF – Part 18 Xerox/Preview I

  1. “NBC

    “This was independent of the 8×8 blocks used for the DCT compression, though. To match that alignment we would need 16×16-blocks for the text-layers because of the double resolution, but it doesn’t align to 16×16

    “for the text-layers because of the double resolution, but it doesn’t align to 16×16

    “The table he presents requires some math which may cause concern to some of my readers but no worries.

     (a)   (b)         (c)
    1, 1819×1454,( 373, 970)
    2,  778× 199,(1270, 257)
    3,  274×  42,( 710, 334)
    4,  228× 123,(1836,1021)
    5,  216×  47,( 432,1017)
    6,   70×  34,(1458,1310)
    7,  217× 243,( 735, 533)
    8,  142× 132,(1050,3140)

    (a) is the number of the layer, (b) its size and (c) its coordinates from the lower left hand corner. Size and position add to (0,0) mod 8

    “First observation is that the coordinates themselves do not show any pattern however when adding the size to the position we find the coordinates for the top and right.

    “Let’s do the addition.

     (a)    (b)       (c)
     1, 2192x2424, 274x 303
     2, 2048x 456, 256x  57
     3,  984x 376  123x  47
     4, 2064x1144, 258x 143
     5,  648x1064,  81x 133
     6, 1528x1344, 191x 168
     7, 952x  776, 119x  97
     8, 1192x3272, 149x 409

    (a) is the number of the layer, (b) the sum of the coordinates and the size (c) when divided by 8

    You can quickly observed that several of these do not align to 16×16 bit layers.”

    Boy! Talk about the punch line being buried in the fine print at the bottom of the page !

    [NBC: Do you know why it is called a punch line?]

    Somehow NBC managed to turn GSGS’s one table into two.

    Do you suppose he did that because my report includes three tables?

    [NBC: Nope, I wanted to make sure that some people would understand the simple steps of converting one table into another]

    Well I prefer GSGS’s ORIGINAL ONE AND ONLY TABLE.

    [NBC: Uh… what about the one here… I told you… diligence… hard work… So satisfying.]

    [NBC: Well, you complained that you needed more explanation…]

    “GSGS

    “[whitehouse-pdf]
    to examine the birth certificate copy in pdf-format on the whitehouse webpage
    I’m trying to keep chronological order, what’s unclear in early posts may be resolved
    in later posts.

    “I put results in this first post as long as I can edit it

    “the layers in the WH-pdf

    “total size = (1276×1652)*2 = 2552×3304
    (but 2550×3300 was found in internet files,
    maybe Illustrator makes that resolution ?)


    Code:

    layer number (order in the .pdf)
      bits
        resolution
           pixel-size (rotated)
                      color values bgr
                                   size when compressed
                                           description
    ----------------------------------------------------
    1 1 2    70x  34  066,086,064     173  Non
    2 1 2   217x 243  235,247,240     671  lower white
    3 1 2   142x 132  245,245,245     344  upper white
    4 1 2  1819x1454  031,045,027   67980  main text
    5 1 2   274x  42  082,088,077     480  Onaka date
    6 8 1  1276x1652               299366  rest
    7 1 2   216x  47  087,111,087     436  left date
    8 1 2   778x 199  089,100,088    5510  Onaka 
    9 1 2   228x 123  066,086,064     633  right date
    ----------------------------------------------------

    “has anyone looked at the pdf-manuals, how these files are structured ,
    encoded ? It should be possible to detect, which algorithm
    and method were used.

    “The 8 1-bit-text-layers, which occupy ~ 80000 bytes have twice the resolution
    as the 8-bit background layer,which occupies 299555 bytes
    pdf-1.3 was used, which is an old variant”

    There ! Now that wasn’t so complicated after all.

    [NBC: Wow so why did you need more explanations?]

    The readers should appreciate that (before this post by GSGS) the Obots treated him with disdain because they suspected that he was a BIRTHER !

    [NBC: That is correct and we apologized for our behavior. He showed himself to be quite a researcher, with all the necessary tools and insights one expects a researcher to use.]

    Now my analysis results require three tables whereas (as of today) GSGS’s results still only require one (i.e. his ORIGINAL) table.

    Here are my three tables:

    [NBC: I have aligned and highlighted the failing cases in red]

    Resolution = 300 PPI X 300 PPI / 8 X 8 Blocks
    Top and Right Sides Obey 8 MOD 0
    Left and Bottom Sides Align with Grid Lines
    (and also Touch Pixels)

    Layer

    N (x,y)(w,h)(x+w,y)((x+w)/8,y/8)
    1 (  0,  0)   (2552,3304) (2552,   0) (319,  0) Background
    2 ( 373, 880) (1819,1454) (2192, 880) (274,110) Mostly Text
    3 (1270,2848) ( 778, 199) (2048,2848) (256,356) Onaka Signature
    4 ( 710,2928) ( 274,  42) ( 984,2928) (123,366) Onaka Date
    5 (1836,2160) ( 228, 123) (2064,2160) (258,270) Reg. Gen. Date
    6 ( 432,2240) ( 216,  47) ( 648,2240) ( 81,280) Loc. Reg. Date
    7 (1458,1960) (  70,  34) (1528,1960) (191,245) Non
    8 ( 735,2528) ( 217, 243) ( 952,2528) (119,316) Bottom Speckle
    9 (1050,  32) ( 142, 132) (1192,  32) (149,  4) Top Speckle

    Resolution = 300 PPI X 300 PPI / 16 X 16 Blocks
    Layer

    N (x,y)(w,h)(x+w,y)((x+w)/16,y/16)
    1 (  0,  0)   (2552,3304) (2552,   0) (159.5,   0)   Background
    2 ( 373, 880) (1819,1454) (2192, 880) (137  ,  55)   Mostly Text
    3 (1270,2848) ( 778, 199) (2048,2848) (128  , 178)   Onaka Signature
    5 (1836,2160) ( 228, 123) (2064,2160) (129  , 135)   Reg. Gen. Date
    6 ( 432,2240) ( 216,  47) ( 648,2240) ( 40.5, 140)   Loc. Reg. Date
    7 (1458,1960) (  70,  34) (1528,1960) ( 95.5, 122.5) Non
    8 ( 735,2528) ( 217, 243) ( 952,2528) ( 59.5, 158)   Bottom Speckle
    9 (1050,  32) ( 142, 132) (1192,  32) ( 74.5,   2)   Top Speckle

    Resolution = 150 PPI X 150 PPI / 8 X 8 Blocks

    Layer

    N (x,y)(w,h)(x+w,y)((x+w)/8,y/8)
    1 (    0,   0) (1276  ,1652  ) (1276,   0) (159.5,  0  ) Background
    2 (186.5, 440) ( 909.5, 727  ) (1096, 440) (137  , 55  ) Mostly Text
    3 (635  ,1424) ( 389  ,  99.5) (1024,1424) (128  ,178  ) Onaka Signature
    4 (355  ,1464) ( 137  ,  21  ) ( 492,1464) ( 61.5,183  ) Onaka Date
    5 (918  ,1080) ( 114  ,  61.5) (1032,1080) (129  ,135  ) Reg. Gen. Date
    6 (216  ,1120) ( 108  ,  23.5) ( 324,1120) ( 40.5,140  ) Loc. Reg. Date
    7 (729  , 980) (  35  ,  17  ) ( 764, 980) ( 95.5,122.5) Non
    8 (367.5,1264) ( 108.5, 121.5) ( 476,1264) ( 59.5,158  ) Bottom Speckle
    9 (525  ,  16) (  71  ,  66  ) ( 596,  16) ( 74.5,  2  ) Top Speckle

    At this point, the reader should recall that the number 3 is 2 more than the number 1.

    [NBC: And the statement GIGO…]

    My most important finding, which GSGS and NBC totally missed, is that the mostly text layer satisfies both the 8 MOD 0 AND the 16 MOD 0 conditions.

    However, GSGS’s analysis indicates that the mostly text layer does not satisfy the 16 MOD 0 condition. Hence a SHOWSTOPPER !

    So why did GSGS and NBC miss the 16 MOD 0 case ?

    [NBC: He did not miss the case, he showed that, like you have shown, the layers do not abide by the 16 MOD 0 condition. You can move the origins but then others will fail. You are totally ignoring the complete picture…]

    It is because GSGS chose to apply the PDF user space (x , y) coordinates with the origin in the lower left corner. That (x , y) coordinate system is the same as the device coordinates of the Xerox Workcenter.

    To the contrary, I chose the origin of my (x , y) coordinate system to be in the upper left corner. This is the same coordinate system that is the default coordinate system for Adobe Illustrator, Adobe Acrobat, Adobe Photoshop and InkScape.

    [NBC: Which is problematic because we know that the standard coordinate system for a PDF is in the lower left corner. This was the default coordinate system of Adobe tools until version 1.5 I believe. Worse, you need to take into consideration in what coordinate system the document was ‘created’ which needs to take into consideration that the objects are all rotated into their final position. These are all hints that cannot be observed at the Illustrator level and requires low leve code analysis.]

    The fact that ONLY my coordinate system leads to the finding that both the 8 MOD 0 and the 16 MOD 0 are satisfied (for the mostly text layer and other non-background layers) is strong evidence that the WH LFCOLB PDF image was assembled by a forger within a modern computer graphics program installed on a Apple MAC computer equipped with Preview.

    [NBC: of course that is begging the question. There is no reason why his ‘coordinate’ system or the partial alignment indicates that a forger was involved. The lack of logic and the ‘a miracle happens’ analysis fails to eliminate algorithmic processes or even explains why some but not all objects should align at the 16 MOD 0 boundary. Given Hermitian’s non-explanation I will have to spend additional time educating him about the evidence pointing to pure algorithmic processes. In the mean time he may want to fill in the “forger of the gaps” argument… In case Hermitian is not familiar with the term “God of the Gaps” arguments, let me explain: Our ignorance about how nature may have done something is used as evidence for a deity. When we did not understand thunder and lightning we invented deities whose tools would generate the noise and light. And so on.. The same here: The inability of some to explain artifacts in the document is seen as requiring a ‘forger’ where the ‘forger’ is just a placeholder for ignorance. There is NOTHING presented in a non ad-hoc fashion that supports a forger explanation. Even Hermitian’s 0 MOD 16 argument fails. He even fails to explain why a forger would align the layers so perfectly.]

    At this point I should emphasize the fact that the WH LFCOLB PDF file is the sum total information that we have regarding the purported original birth certificate of Barack Obama.

    [NBC: That is incorrect. We have more evidence, not limited to the copies of the long form birth certificates. We have certification and verification in several cases by the Department of Health of Hawaii as to these certificates. We have a certification of life birth, we have birth announcements, we have the signature of the attending physician, we have the date of filing, all of them show nothing out of the ordinary.]

    This original birth certificate was supposedly created by the hospital staff at Kapiolani hospital on a 1961 vintage typewriter. It has been reported many times that the WH LFCOLB PDF Image was created by a digital scan of one of two certified copies of Obama’s purported original hospital-generated long-form birth certificate.

    [NBC: It was signed by an attending physician. It has been reported, verified and certified that the Long Form Birth Certificate matches the information on file. Note that not all of the data represents the hospital generated part either. I leave that as an exercise to Hermitian]

    No other printed image or electronic file available to the public has an unbroken chain of custody between the White House and the citizen. Rather these other images and files have passed through third parties and digital processes that break the chain of custody.

    [NBC: Irrelevant but partially true. There are of course the letters of verification issued by the DOH of Hawaii, which include the seal and signature and which have been filed directly in chambers]

    An example of this are the TWO DIFFERENT PDF images that were created by Scott Applewhite of the Associated Press. The first one of these two was created at 9:00:38 AM on 04/27/2011. This one was created by Applewhite from and unknown paper original at approximately 12-1/2 minutes after the start of the press gaggle at the White House where the paper handout copies of the WH LFCOLB were distributed to the WH press corp. Applewhite is a photographer at the Washington DC headquarters of the AP.

    Therefore every piece of evidence must comport with the PDF file and the resulting images that are created by opening this PDF file with whatever computer graphics program.

    [NBC: In order to understand how the various PDF’s were created, it is not sufficient to open it in a graphics program as anyone familiar with PDF’s knows that every program inserts tell tale signs that can be used to track the work flow in more detail. Such information can then be used to formulate hypotheses which can be tested and confirmed or rejected. Science is not just staring at pictures and saying: I do not understand how this was created, therefore it must be a forgery. Remember that the forgery hypothesis has to compete with the workflow hypotheses and so far, the forgery hypothesis has failed to stand up to its promise, exactly because it is based on ignorance. Anyone who was concerned about the appearance of letters in the WH PDF should have consulted the AP documents and would have realized that the WH PDF shows artifacts not found in the handed out copies and/or the Guthrie document. Yes, all the evidence has to align, which is why a claim of forgery continues to fall apart… Remember how the argument was that the ‘researchers’ could not understand how these layers were created because they could not find any software that behaved exactly like that? That ‘ignorance’ was eliminated when someone finally identified the software that matched this behavior. Remember how some claimed that the 35-1 document showed artifacts that could not be explained, that led to another claim of forgery until someone did the simple experiment of running the 15-1 document through paper capture and observed many of the same artifacts… History is full of examples where our lack of imagination led us to conclude ‘design’ rather than to formulating hypothesis that could be tested/rejected. Only the latter furthers our scientific understanding. Since there is no non-ad-hoc explanation of a forger that can compete with the well supported hypothesized workflow, one has no choice but to reject the forgery hypothesis.

    Claims about chain of custody have no relevance here. The 15-1 document was introduced as a better copy of Orly’s document. Document 35-1 and 35-2 combined show how the DOH’s letter of verification has all the required components for the court to accept, including the statement that they looked at the document found on the WH servers and shown in the attached printout. Claims of chain of custody… Some people have watched too many criminal court TV…]

  2. NBC

    “MS – Orly v Democrat – Henry Blake Affidavit – Part 17 Resolution

    “July 22, 2013

    “Our friend Hermitian made a somewhat puzzling suggestion when I pointed out to him that the Whitehouse PDF had been significantly compressed.

    “First of all he failed to understand that the 150 DPI resolution for the background was only part of the loss in quality of the background, after all, the JPEG compression itself had reduced the size of the image significantly but at the expense of about 50% of the quality.

    “Then he suggested that I should print out the document at 600 or 1200 DPI…

    “Does he not understand that such a picture will not truly be 600 or 1200 DPI? Anything above 150 DPI will be interpolated and this will result in a softening and blurring of the image. Anyone familiar with information theory would know that you cannot recreate lost information by just blowing up the resolution.

    “It’s quite fun to help Hermitian understand these basic principles of image analysis.

    Clueless !, Hopeless !

    Will somebody please help NBC over his mental block over dpi vs PPI difference as it relates to printing a sceen image?

    So NBC believes that printing a pixelated screen image with one dot per pixel is always better that printing the same pixelated screen image at say four dots per pixel.

    Maybe NBC should recall that the CMYK color system requires four dots and the RGB color system requires three dots.

    So to faithfully reproduce the true color of one pixel requires ….4 or 3 dots.

    Well that’s sorta right if one discounts the beneficial effects of half-toning with different screen angles and printing with black ink.

    See: CMYK color model

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMYK_color_model

    The major difference between CMYK and RGB is that CMYK is subtractive and RGB is additive.

    See also: RGB color model

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RGB_color_model

    Duh!

  3. Ah, I see your argument. You are not claiming that the resolution is improved by printing at higher DPI but rather that the accuracy of the color is improved. Fair enough. I was wrong.

  4. NBC

    “”Here are my three tables:””

    “[NBC: I have aligned and highlighted the failing cases in red]”

    “”Resolution = 300 PPI X 300 PPI / 8 X 8 Blocks
    Top and Right Sides Obey 8 MOD 0
    Left and Bottom Sides Align with Grid Lines
    (and also Touch Pixels)

    Layer
    N (x,y)(w,h)(x+w,y)((x+w)/8,y/8)
    1 ( 0, 0) (2552,3304) (2552, 0) (319, 0) Background
    2 ( 373, 880) (1819,1454) (2192, 880) (274,110) Mostly Text
    3 (1270,2848) ( 778, 199) (2048,2848) (256,356) Onaka Signature
    4 ( 710,2928) ( 274, 42) ( 984,2928) (123,366) Onaka Date
    5 (1836,2160) ( 228, 123) (2064,2160) (258,270) Reg. Gen. Date
    6 ( 432,2240) ( 216, 47) ( 648,2240) ( 81,280) Loc. Reg. Date
    7 (1458,1960) ( 70, 34) (1528,1960) (191,245) Non
    8 ( 735,2528) ( 217, 243) ( 952,2528) (119,316) Bottom Speckle
    9 (1050, 32) ( 142, 132) (1192, 32) (149, 4) Top Speckle

    Resolution = 300 PPI X 300 PPI / 16 X 16 Blocks
    Layer
    N (x,y)(w,h)(x+w,y)((x+w)/16,y/16)
    1 ( 0, 0) (2552,3304) (2552, 0) (159.5, 0) Background
    2 ( 373, 880) (1819,1454) (2192, 880) (137 , 55) Mostly Text
    3 (1270,2848) ( 778, 199) (2048,2848) (128 , 178) Onaka Signature
    5 (1836,2160) ( 228, 123) (2064,2160) (129 , 135) Reg. Gen. Date
    6 ( 432,2240) ( 216, 47) ( 648,2240) ( 40.5, 140) Loc. Reg. Date
    7 (1458,1960) ( 70, 34) (1528,1960) ( 95.5, 122.5) Non
    8 ( 735,2528) ( 217, 243) ( 952,2528) ( 59.5, 158) Bottom Speckle
    9 (1050, 32) ( 142, 132) (1192, 32) ( 74.5, 2) Top Speckle
    Resolution = 150 PPI X 150 PPI / 8 X 8 Blocks

    Layer
    N (x,y)(w,h)(x+w,y)((x+w)/8,y/8)
    1 ( 0, 0) (1276 ,1652 ) (1276, 0) (159.5, 0 ) Background
    2 (186.5, 440) ( 909.5, 727 ) (1096, 440) (137 , 55 ) Mostly Text
    3 (635 ,1424) ( 389 , 99.5) (1024,1424) (128 ,178 ) Onaka Signature
    4 (355 ,1464) ( 137 , 21 ) ( 492,1464) ( 61.5,183 ) Onaka Date
    5 (918 ,1080) ( 114 , 61.5) (1032,1080) (129 ,135 ) Reg. Gen. Date
    6 (216 ,1120) ( 108 , 23.5) ( 324,1120) ( 40.5,140 ) Loc. Reg. Date
    7 (729 , 980) ( 35 , 17 ) ( 764, 980) ( 95.5,122.5) Non
    8 (367.5,1264) ( 108.5, 121.5) ( 476,1264) ( 59.5,158 ) Bottom Speckle
    9 (525 , 16) ( 71 , 66 ) ( 596, 16) ( 74.5, 2 ) Top Speckle

    At this point, the reader should recall that the number 3 is 2 more than the number 1.

    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

    I like your new page format very much. Thanks for the monospaced fonts. My tables never looked better !

  5. Oops! I accidentally grabbed the wrong table from GSGS’s archive. Here’s his one and only table on the object boundaries and 8 MOD 0.

    “GSGS


    Code:
    layer,
    size,
    position (distance of layer from (left,below) border)
    ——————————————–
    1,1819×1454,( 373, 970)
    2, 778× 199,(1270, 257)
    3, 274× 42,( 710, 334)
    4, 228× 123,(1836,1021)
    5, 216× 47,( 432,1017)
    6, 70× 34,(1458,1310)
    7, 217× 243,( 735, 533)
    8, 142× 132,(1050,3140)

    size and position add to (0,0) mod 8

    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

    I seem to remember that Kevin Vicklund posted an improved version of GSGS’s table on Obamacospiracy.org. NBC may be thinking about that one as belonging to GSGS also.
    I looked for this table of WKV’s on Mr. C’s blog but couldn’t find it. Lots of stuff that I remember has vanished under the cover of an IP implosion. Obots always claim these web site disasters when they scrubb their web sites of all things Birther.

  6. NBC

    So why did GSGS and NBC miss the 16 MOD 0 case ?

    “[NBC: He did not miss the case, he showed that, like you have shown, the layers do not abide by the 16 MOD 0 condition. You can move the origins but then others will fail. You are totally ignoring the complete picture…]”

    Wrong Doofus ! My analysis results for the mostly text layer satisfy both the 8 MOD 0 the 16 MOD 0 conditions. To prove it requires three tables.

    [NBC: Only to those who cannot do the simple math. if 8 MOD 0 results in an odd number then 16 MOD 0 will be ending in .5]

    My use of the upper-left origin point and the upper left corner of each rectangle could not possibly have had any affect on GSGS’s calculations after the fact. His calculations were different and totally independent of mine because his were done before mine.

    His choice of the wrong origin point is why his results do not satisfy the 16 MOD 0 condition.

    [NBC: Neither to yours… As with gsgs some layers match, some don’t]

    My choice of origin point position is consistent with the WH LFCOLB being created within a vector graphics program with the origin point in the conventional upper-left corner position.

    [NBC: It’s consistent with a lower left hand corner as well… In order to properly understand you need to look at the raw PDF which shows that the images are rotated in their ‘default’ form. That of course needs to be taken into consideration. Consistency is by itself not sufficient, it has to remain logically consistent. gsgs showed how it is consistent with the scan line approach.]

    GSGS’s results indicate that the image was not created within a device coordinate system with the origin at the lower-left corner.

    [NBC: Neither do yours… You still do not realize the impact of the findings of the rotated objects, now do you? Remember that the objects showed two sides aligning with 8 MOD 0 but not with 16 MOD 0, you have found the same effect, albeit on different objects. It is clear that in neither case the 16 MOD 0 holds across all the layers. You do also realize that there are two sides which are ‘abbreviated’ to hug the objects inside? Now apply your knowledge gained from the Xerox scan and observe how the objects are rotated clockwise 90 degrees, not counter clockwise 90 degrees. I did the additional experiment and as I had predicted, scanning upside down causes the document to render like the WH document. But there are some differences that can tell you more. Look at the sides which hug the objects inside and look at the sides which satisfy the 8 MOD 0. Do the math and research and you too can figure it out. It’s a simple prediction based on the knowledge gained so far… Does it work out? The ball is in your court, show us that you can draw the proper inference and test it. Then we compare notes.]

    It’s really not complicated !

Comments are closed.