Hermitian and affine transforms

In short: Hermitian looks in depth at the affine transforms and re-discovers that which I had already discovered and posted on. But he lacked somehow the preview generated PDF which of course matches exactly what we see in the WH LFBC PDF. You cannot compare apples and oranges unless you want to create a ‘smoothie’

Hermitian

The following six-vector was extracted from the archived copy of the file “birth-certificate-long-form.pdf” by means of Adobe Acrobat XI Pro Preflight.

0 -792.96002 612.47998 0 -.24 792.47998 cm

Thus the form of this six-vector is:

[0 b c 0 e f]

his form for the six-vector is consistent with a rotation of -90 degrees (clockwise) provided that the skew angles alpha and beta are both zero. A rotation of 90 degrees clockwise for each of the nine objects is consistent with the rotation angles read out from the Link panel data in Adobe Illustrator from the same PDF file. The rotation angle was 90 degrees clockwise for each of the nine image layers.

So far so good, yes, as I have been explaining for some time now, the instructions rotate the images 90 degrees clockwise as they are stored in “landscape”.

Hermitian continues

ll of the findings reported here were obtained by means of Adobe Acrobat XI Pro Preflight. The extracted transformation six-vector for the Xerox created background image layer is:

798.71997 0 0 614.40002 -3.36 -1.2 cm

Contrary to the form of the corresponding six-vector of the background image of the WH LFCOLB PDF image, the form of the Xerox six-vector is:

[a 0 0 d e f]

Hence unlike the WH LFCOLB six-vector, where a and d were zero, instead we find in this case that b and c are both zero. All six-vectors of all seventeen objects in the Xerox file have this same form.

Yes also exactly as I had show… But Hermitian is comparing apples and oranges. What he needs is the Preview saved version which shows:

0  798.72   -614.4   0 613.2 -3.36 cm /Im1

Same rotation/scaling form as the WH PDF…

0 -794.88    614.4     0 -1.2 793.44 cm /Im1

Thanks for proving my point… And you dropped the /XIPLAYER0 which is a tell tale sign that these are different objects… /Im1 is the standard used by Preview, /XIPLAYER is used by Xerox…

Oh and the cm for the upside down version, rotated 180 degrees?

0 -792.96002 612.47998 0 -.24 792.47998 cm /XIPLAYER0
0 -794.88    614.4     0 -1.2 793.44 cm /Im1

Hermitian

All of these findings are consistent with the PDF file having been created with Adobe Illustrator.

And with Xerox Work Center with the added benefits that I can show that the images contain exactly the elements that indicate a Xerox Work Center…

8 thoughts on “Hermitian and affine transforms

  1. NBC

    “Yes also exactly as I had show… But Hermitian is comparing apples and oranges. What he needs is the Preview saved version which shows:

    0 798.72 -614.4 0 613.2 -3.36 cm /Im1

    Wrong ! Dude…

    What you need to do is post the companion Preview file for yesterday’s Xerox 7535 forger and stop dancing around. If you can’t stand behind you claims of yesterday why should we give you an ounce of credibility for your totally different claims of today ?

    Yesterday it was the 7535 and today its the 7655. How many of these Xerox forgers have you interviewed Dude?

    I’ve worked with hundreds of light weights like you Man. They all have the same character flaw. You are all totally unaccountable.

  2. I’ve worked with hundreds of light weights like you Man. They all have the same character flaw. You are all totally unaccountable.

    I report my findings. You can reproduce them and/or disprove them. You want me to hold your hand? The journey is more important than the destination.

    I have provided you with the relevant cm matrix which sort of destroys your claim.. If only you had a Mac🙂

  3. NBC

    “Thanks for proving my point… And you dropped the /XIPLAYER0 which is a tell tale sign that these are different objects… /Im1 is the standard used by Preview, /XIPLAYER is used by Xerox…”

    But the point is that they are different objects. They are different in form, in signs and in numerical values. They would still be different if we label them Tweedle dum and Tweedle Dee.

    And if you thought that your Preview stuff was so important why did you not post it already? Funny how its suddenly important to you after I posted my preliminary findings for the WH LFCOLB.

    But I have seen something that warrants a closer look. You just revealed for the firsr time that Preview changes the form of the Xerox six-vectors.

    I’ll be looking for you to post the link to your Preview companion to the Xerox 7535 scanned to PDF file:

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

    Right now would be a good time.

  4. But the point is that they are different objects. They are different in form, in signs and in numerical values. They would still be different if we label them Tweedle dum and Tweedle Dee.

    That’ because you are comparing two different formats and failed to properly account for a variable: The xerox document was saved by preview…

    And if you thought that your Preview stuff was so important why did you not post it already? Funny how its suddenly important to you after I posted my preliminary findings for the WH LFCOLB.

    Well, I felt that you were somewhat foolish in your analysis and felt a little pity on you… But I posted many of these findings before… I am just repeating the obvious.

    But I have seen something that warrants a closer look. You just revealed for the firsr time that Preview changes the form of the Xerox six-vectors.

    Where have you been… I have disclosed this on several occasions. Gees..

    I’ll be looking for you to post the link to your Preview companion to the Xerox 7535 scanned to PDF file:

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

    I named it wh-lfcb-scanned-xerox-7535-wcpreview.pdf and can be created as follows:

    1. Open wh-lfcb-scanned-xerox-7535-wc.pdf. in preview
    2. Print or export
    3. Name it wh-lfcb-scanned-xerox-7535-wcpreview.pdf.

    Right now would be a good time.

    Not really.. I am enjying your wild goose chase a little bit too much… Sit back and enjoy…

    I am now comparing the WH LFBC with the Preview version of the 7535 PDF…

  5. NBC

    “”Hermitian

    “”All of these findings are consistent with the PDF file having been created with Adobe Illustrator.””

    NBC: And with Xerox Work Center with the added benefits that I can show that the images contain exactly the elements that indicate a Xerox Work Center…

    Would that be the Xerox 7535 or the Xerox 7566 ? And what about all that Preview Voodoo magic ? So the MAC OS Preview was just the stooge for this forgery ?

    [NBC: No voodoo. Anyone can check what I am reporting… The Mac OS preview was responsible for only minor artifacts: it created the clipping mask and rewrote the rendering of the object as it had been rotated. It also reordered many of the objects of course. It removed all the JBIG2 encoding and encoded the data as FlateDecode, it removed any Objstm objects and rewrote them as simple Xobjects. etc etc. The layer artifacts came from the Xerox scanner. ]

  6. Would that be the Xerox 7535 or the Xerox 7566 ? And what about all that Preview Voodoo magic ? So the MAC OS Preview was just the stooge for this forgery ?

    Both appear to work, at least the ones with similar firmware. But since the WH has a 7655, my bet is on this one.

  7. Hermitian,

    it should be noted that the final layer of the WH PDF was the safety paper background which was added last as a single unit. Has NBC been able show this on the Xerox scan? It should also be known that NBC has apparently not used safety paper in experiments where the CCP has. We know that the safety paper produces odds results when you try to print it and then scan. Finally, the CCP ran 1200 tests on the WH PDF. There is little doubt the CCP has done this all before. It seems that NBC has run no where near 1200 tests on the WH PDF. The results of the 1200 revealed that it was not possible to produce all of the anomolies present in the WH PDF. Mike Zullo has said in fact, that some have been able to produce SOME of the anomolies but simply can’t produce ALL of the anomolies as a whole for the WH PDF. With the sheer number of anomlies present in the WH PDF, there is simply no way the Xerox can’t account for all of it.

  8. With the sheer number of anomlies present in the WH PDF, there is simply no way the Xerox can’t account for all of it.

    It accounts for almost all pointed out by Mara Zebest. I will of course be clarifying this in my report.

    In both cases the safety paper sits behind all the other layers. Of course, the ‘safety paper’ in both cases already contains fragments of text.

Comments are closed.