Hermitian – Forgery

Hermitian has posted 5 long comments, several of which were placed in a queue for approval because they contained too many links. Since I want to give Hermitian the same level of visibility as my own blog postings I will present his claims in this posting

Fair is fair. Enjoy. I will let be intermixing my comments over time in red

His task is to show that his ‘forgery hypothesis’ explains the observed artifacts better than my hypothesized work flow. If I can show that a simple workflow can do the same as what he claims his forger has been doing, then the conclusion is simple: The forger is purely algorithmic because of the work flow. Now that Hermitian finally has shared with us his preferred hypothesis we can do an actual comparison.

[NBC: Introduction

Hermitian’s hypothesis is competing with the following.

  • The original long form birth certificate was scanned in, upside down, on a Xerox Work Centre, most likely 7655 because it has been shown that the White House owns such a device which produces the same finger prints as found in the WH LFBC PDF
  • The Xerox Work Centre was instructed to use the standard profile for constructing a document and email itThe email was opened in Preview and it was found that the scan was upside down
    • This results in:
      • Initial scan of 600 DPI
      • Separation into a jpeg background and multiple monochrome foregrounds
      • Alignment of two boundaries with 8×8 bit offsets
      • Alignment of two boundaries with internal object
      • Downsampling the background to 150 DPI
      • Downsampling the foregrounds to 300 DPI
      • Saving the JPEG with a quality factor of 47.48% with specific Quantization Matrix
      • Embedding a YCbCr comment into the generated JPEG
      • JBIG2 compression
      • Images are all in landscape direction
  • The PDF was rotated in preview 180 degrees
  • The PDF was printed to PDF (possibly with scale to fit set)
    • This results in:
      • PDF version is changed from 1.x to 1.3
      • JBIG2 objects are now encoded as FlateDecode monochrome bitmaps
      • ObjStm objects are decomposed into multiple XObjects
      • /Rotate tag is replaced with cm level rotations
      • Metadata shows Preview creator/producer information
      • A clipping mask is added
  • This PDF was made available electronically

Forgery Part 1

As previously reported on this thread, I have devised a method for simultaneously re-creating the nine bitmap images, each having the same page-size as the original nine images that initially existed on the forger’s Macintosh computer (before he placed them within the final White House LFCOLB PDF document). These nine recreated image files include one JPEG file for the Green background image and eight PNG files for the eight monochrome layers.

[NBC: This presumes that the forger created landscape oriented (sideways) PNG and JPEG files, embedded the right Comment String and matched the Quantization Matrix found in the Xerox generated PDF. Worse, it fails to understand the other observations: Why the bitmaps all align at 8×8 bit boundaries on two sides and with the internal objects on the two other sides. It also fails to explain why the JPEG was created at half the resolution of the Monochrome Bitmaps, or why they were given different color values. When creating a Xerox PDF, all these artifacts are found in the resulting PDF. Furthermore, it fails to explain why some text is in the JPEG and some text is in the foreground, something we do observe in the Xerox created PDF as part of a simple work flow.

And while Hermitian does a lot of hand waving, he has yet to show that he can follow in the footsteps of the forger and recreate all the details found in the PDF. I have shown how a simple workflow can create all these features. Hermitian? Not so much. A bit of hand waving but nothing to support his position.]

During the re-creation, each of the nine new images is automatically rotated 90 degrees counterclockwise relative to their final orientations within the LFCOLB PDF image. The page-size of the re-created JPEG image of the background layer was automatically increased by a scale ratio of 208.3333%. The image size of the eight monochrome layers was scaled up by a ratio of 416.6666%. The actual page-size of the background layer in the LFCOLB PDF file measures 8.5067 in. X 11.0133 in.

[NBC: Hermitian does not explain why the layer is slightly larger than the canvas, again this is something we also observe in the Xerox workflow. So again, we compare an ‘ad hoc’ explanation with the consistent outcome of a Xerox workflow. Why would the images not map exactly in the mediabox? ]

The larger page-size of the re-created JPEG background image is 35.4444 in. X 22.94444 in. The size of the major text image in the composite LFCOLB PDF image measures 6.0633 in. X 4.8467 in. The size of its larger re-created image is 20.1990 in. X 25.2696 in.

The size of each of the re-created images for the eight monochrome layers was automatically scaled up by a factor 200% greater than the scale factor of the background layer.

[NBC: No explanation is given as to the ‘automatic’ scaling of the foreground layers. Again, this follows trivially from the workflow I outlined where the background is stored as 150 DPI and the foreground as 300 DPI bitmaps.]

This was confirmed by scaling the composite WH LFCOLB PDF image by a factor of 416.6666%. The links panel data for the enlarged image of the WH LFCOLB indicated 200% scaling for the background layer and 100% for each of the non-background layers. Hence at the scale factor that re-creates the original size of the non-background layers the background layer is twice its re-created size. Simply stated, 2 = 416.6666% / 208.3333%.

[NBC: Impressive math but it fails to explain the why of these numbers, Again, they are trivially explained by the workflow I identified and verified. The simple explanation is that the foreground layers were subsampled from 600 to 300 PPI and the background layer from 600 to 150 PPI. No need to invent excessively large canvases. ]

This 200% difference in scale factors between the background and the monochrome layers was intentionally chosen by the forger to achieve a final difference in pixel size and resolution between the background and monochrome layers.

[NBC: So it was done to mimic the output from a Xerox workflow? In other words, you have no reason and fail to explain why the forger wanted to achieve a difference in pixel size]

The final resolution of these layers in the LFCOLB PDF image is 150 PPI X 150 PPI for the background and 300 PPI X 300 PPI for the monochrome layers.

[NBC: Exactly as I stated and exactly as is found in the Xerox workflow.]

The differences in pixel size and resolution were entirely caused by the 200% difference in scale factor between the background and non-background images.

[NBC: Yes, an outcome of the MRC step which saves the background as 150 DPI and the foreground at 300 DPI. This has again been verified]

Based on my analysis of and comparison between the nine re-created images and their respective nine embedded images within the WH LFCOLB PDF file, I conclude that the final PDF file was entirely created by a human using a computer graphics program installed on a Macintosh computer. Based on the facts uncovered by my research the WH LFCOLB is a clear forgery. There is no evidence that this PDF image was created by scanning a single certified paper copy of the purported Obama original hospital generated Hawaii birth certificate. Moreover, the WH LFCOLB PDF image did not result from a digital scan of any single original Hawaii Certificate of Live Birth.

[NBC: And yet I can show a scan of a WH LFCOLB document which is very similar in nature and which, once run through a simple work flow, shows all these features, and explains all the scaling and rotations and artifacts in a trivial manner. I have to conclude that so far, Hermitian has managed to identify the forger to be indeed the Xerox WorkCenter and not a human. Since his hypothesis is competing with my hypothesis which recreates all the features he has described, and more, it clearly remains the winner. Hermitian has, unwittingly, described the exact steps that take place when placing a document on a Xerox Workcenter (upside down) and scanning it, emailing it and rotating the PDF in preview and exporting it as a PDF. His workflow fails to explain the following

  1. The embedded comment
  2. The Matrix Quantization being identical
  3. Thhe 8×8 bit alignment and the alignment with the internal object for the two remaining sides

So in addition to being non ad-hoc, my workflow explains more. Clearly, so far we have to conclude that Hermitian’s hypothesis has been beaten by the workflow I identified. Worse, he has failed to explain why a forger would separate the text into a foreground and background layer, why one layer is JPEG and the other Monochrome Bitmaps, and yet my workflow explains all this.

Verdict so far:

Forger 0 Workflow 1

]

Using his graphics program and Macintosh computer the forger assembled his nine created images into a single PDF document. As he placed each image (in turn) he applied a size reduction and a rotation. The background image was scaled by a factor of 48% and the eight non-background images were scaled by 24%.He rotated each image clockwise by 90 degrees. The forger manipulated the images to hide the fact that he had individually created each of the nine images (within a graphics program on his computer) and then placed them within a single PDF file.

[NBC: In other words, Hermitian admits that the forger recreates the same as would be expected from a Xerox workflow, with failures to explain some salient parts, which is why we have to conclude once again that his hypothesis fails.]

After the forger placed, rotated, and re-sized each of the nine images within the WH LFCOLB PDF file, he then embedded all nine images. Only embedded images are found listed in the links panel when the WH LFCOLB PDF file is opened in Adobe Illustrator. By embedding the images, the forger eliminated the links to his nine externally created image files that initially resided on his Macintosh computer. This was a deliberate action by the forger to erase the links data from the links panel. This act prevents any investigator from using the file links data to trace the nine image files to the forger’s computer.

[NBC: And yet, the same is created by our Xerox forger, which has been verified using an actual Xerox scanned file that was saved in Preview. Again, Hermetian has shown that our forger is a Xerox Workcenter workflow, saved by Preview.]

Most of the typed text and signatures are contained within the largest monochrome (mostly text) layer image. All of the text contained within this image is binary and monochrome. The text within the Green background image is Grayscale. The monochrome binary text is aliased and the Grayscale text is anti-aliased.

[NBC: This again is explained by a simple Xerox Workcenter workflow. All these ‘artifacts’ are trivially explained yet Hermitian fails to explain why a forger would recreate a document exactly like a WorkCenter would. In other words, Hermitian fully embraces the forger to be the workflow I identified]

The pixel size of each of the nine re-created images is 1/72 in. X 1/72 in. Thus the pixel resolution of each re-created image is 72 PPI X 72 PPI. This resolution is the same as the native screen resolution for the original Macintosh computer.

[NBC: So how come he created 300 and 150 PPI images🙂 Worse, 72 PPI is the standard settings for PDF on any machine.]

Based on these preliminary findings, I checked the other PDF images of the Obama LFCOLB that have been produced in several court filings and by the Associated Press. In every case the final LFCOLB image had been reduced from a larger size in which the pixel size was 1/72 in. X 1/72 in. (resolution = 72 PPI X 72 PPI). One advantage of this resolution for the original Macintosh was that the graphical image was replicated in actual size if printed to a Postscript printer.

The total number of pixels within each of the nine images is the same between the two different page-sizes for each of the nine images. The differences between each PDF image and its re-created, enlarged image is simply a result of the difference in page-size between the two images. The relationship between the different resolutions of the two background layer images is 150 PPI = 72 PPI / 0.48 PPI. Likewise, the resolutions for the eight monochrome layers are related by 300 PPI = 72 PPI / 0.24.

[NBC: Yes, these trivially flow from the Xerox Workflow I identified, and yet they do not flow rationally by claiming a human forger. Again, Hermitian is embracing the workflow as the forger]

Importantly, for typewriting text, each character of a particular font is assigned a size measured in points. The size of each character is equal to its width expressed as a specific number of points. One point is defined as 1/72 inches. Thus there are 72 points per inch of text containing a single character. Thus each character of a 72 point font is one inch wide.

[NBC: Wow, imagine that… These are some math skills. Okay a bit snarky but why was the text created in 300 DPI and partially in 150 DPI? Hermitian does not tell, and yet it follows trivially from the work center work flow I identified.]

The forger set the screen resolution (within his graphics program as it resided on his Macintosh computer) to 72 PPI. X 72 PPI. He set this resolution for a reason. His reason was to obtain a one-to-one correspondence between points per inch (ppi) and screen resolution in pixels per inch (PPI) for the eight non-background layers. There are 72 points per inch and also 72 pixels occupying the same inch on the forger’s screen. Thus for each non-background image displayed within his graphics program there is exactly one point per pixel.

[NBC and yet he created 300 PPI bitmaps and 150 PPI JPEGs… Weird…]

[Conclusions: Hermitian’s hypothesis has failed to explain several salient points which are trivially explained by the workflow hypothesis, in fact, he has adapted the fact that the forger made it look exactly like the Xerox workflow, and while this is always a logical possibility, he effectively has identified the forger to be the workflow I identified. It is worse since he has failed to explain various scaling factors, and several features.

Intermediate Score

Forger 0  Work Flow 1

]

Forgery Part 2

[NBC: The font issue is incidental to my work flow, however Hermitian does raise good questions that need asnwers

The answer appears to be straightforward:

1. The font best matches the pica font

picaWhat we have forgotten to take into consideration is that the original birth certificate was copied at 72% of the original size.

Which means that 13.9 letters per inch actually were 10 letters per inch or pica font.

Kalanianaole is 12 characters and should at 10 letters per inch be 1.2” but the actually measured length is 0.85 or about 71%.

So how do I know that the document was reduced by ~70-72%. Some investigative work is necessary.

I compared it to the picture provided here

I count 337 pixels for the width of the box “signature of local registrar’

And 510  pixels in the WH PDF @150ppi or about 245 pixels

This means that the WH PDF is scaled by 72.7% according to this calculation

So in the end the WH PDF is also 10 characters/inch

That the WH LFBC showed the original LFBC scaled should have been expected since it takes up ~75% of the full width.

The problem is that Hermitian did not take into account that the text had been scaled during the copy process.

The calculations so far are somewhat inexact but I guess the point should come across that when measuring characters per inch, you need to know if the copy had been scaled and there are signs that it was.

]

This is also true for the re-created background image because it is also displayed at 72 PPI resolution on the forger’s screen. However, because of the 200% difference in scale factor between the background and non-background images, a 20 point character typed on a 72 PPI non-background layer would be equal in size to a 10 point character typed at 72 PPI on the re-created background image after the two images were placed within the LFCOLB PDF image (and then reduced in size by 24% and 48% respectively).

Consequently, for each of the nine re-created images, there are 72 pixels and 72 points filling each inch of the image, (provided that the inch is occupied by one text character).

All standard manual key-stroke typewriters (of 1961 vintage) always typed equally spaced characters on the page. Thus, only monospaced typewriter fonts can emulate the equal spacing of typewritten text.

[NBC: Actually, it is well known that typewriters, certainly old ones, do not necessarily create monospaced letters because of the wear and tear in the mechanisms. The only font which one would expect to consistently be monospaced would indeed be ‘fixed fonts’ found on computers. When you compare texts created on older typewriters, you will invariably see characters shifted both horizontally and vertically]

Monospaced fonts are often referred to as “fixed” fonts. The most popular character pitches available on 1961 vintage manual typewriters were 10 and 12 characters / inch. The points versus pitch battle has been most frequently fought in the application of the typewriter to screenwriting. The Courier New 12 font (10 point – 12 cpi) developed by IBM in 1955 soon became the standard font for typing screenplays. Courier New 12 was also the U.S. State Department’s standard typeface until January 2004, when it was replaced with 14 point Times New Roman. The Courier Standard font developed in the mid 1900′s was (12 point – 10 cpi).

See: http://www.slate.com/articles/business_and_tech/design/2004/02/courier_dispatched.html

The standard pitch for the Prestige Elite typeface of 1961 vintage manual typewriters was 12 characters per inch. These Elite typeface were described as 10 points wide. Obviously, this has to be an “assigned” point size because the “effective” point size for a 12 pitch fixed font is 6 points. Likewise the other standard typewriter pitch of 10 characters per inch was assigned to be a 12 point type face. However, the “effective point size is only 7.2 points = (1/10 inches per character) / 1/72 inches per point) = 72/10. The confusion probably arises from the different character size designations from typography for the same type face.

However, we can rule out the Prestige Elite typewriter font because it doesn’t match the font of the typed text on the LFCOLB PDF composite image. This leaves the Courier or Courier New monospaced fonts as strong candidates for the forger’s 1961 vintage typewriter font. The pitch of the Courier New monospaced font is also 12 characters to the inch. The New Courier font has evolved into the standard Courier font in currently available word processing programs.
The original Courier Standard type was created by IBM and released as a non-proprietary font in the 1950′s. It is still available from Adobe, Linotype, Monotype Imaging and others.

The classification of the size of the typeface for typewriters has been a subject of much confusion. Much of the confusion arises from the different conventions used in typesetting (typography) and typewriting. However, the differences between monospaced (fixed spacing) type versus variable space type also is a source of confusion. The kerning used by all modern word processing software was not possible on 1961 vintage fixed space manual typewriters.

[NBC: Of course fixed space manual typewriters do not support kerning. However a diligent researcher would have found that IBM “announced proportional letter spacing for typewriters in 1941, but IBM’s World War II effort delayed the introduction of a typewriter model, the Executive, with this capability until 1944.”

Source: Wikipedia]

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typewriter

“Character Sizes”

“In English-speaking countries, the commonplace typewriters printing fixed-width characters were standardized to print six horizontal lines per vertical inch, and had either of two variants of character width, called “pica” for ten characters per horizontal inch and “elite” for twelve. This differs from the use of these terms in printing, where they refer to the height of the characters on the page (“pica” making for ten horizontal lines per vertical inch).”

The character height measurement relates to typographical standards which are different than typewriter typeface standards. Typewriter fonts are sized according to their width rather than by their height. Typographic fonts are sized by their height rather than by their width. To add to the confusion typographical fonts are most often sized in “Picas” which is another size measure applied to type. One Pica is defined to be equal to 1/72 of a foot. However, typographical fonts are also sometimes sized in points which are defined as 1/72 of an inch. Hence the confusion arises.

Surprisingly, the measured height of the binary, monochrome (purportedly) typewritten capital characters on the re-created primary text layer is 0.375 in. This is the nominal height of each character. Each character is aliased with numerous random edge pixels which give each character a “Porcupine” appearance. The characters are thus 27 pixels in height for the typed text. The character height is most easily measured on the capital “B” and “I” characters for the two mostly text layer images. The final height of the same character in the final LFCOLB PDF image is thus 0.09 in. = 0.24 X .375 = 27 pixels X 1/300 PPI. Thus the height of each character spans the same number of pixels (i.e.27) in the final PDF image as in the re-created image.

The point size of text characters is less important than character pitch for monospaced typewriter fonts. For example a 12 pitch monospaced typewriter font would have an “effective” point size of 6 points = (1/12 inches per character) / (1/72 inches per point) = 72/12.

The problem arises because the forger fixed the point size of characters for his larger image rather than the character pitch size in the final image. This indicates that the forger was familiar with digital word processing but not familiar with 1961 vintage manual typewriters.

The nominal measured width of the capital letters of the re-created image of the mostly text layer is 20 pixels. This corresponds to a 20 point font in the larger re-created mostly text layer image. Thus the nominal character width is 20 pixels for the forger’s enlarged image of the mostly text layer. The nominal width spans 20 pixels in both the enlarged and reduced LFCOLB PDF images of the mostly text layer. The inch dimensions corresponding to a character width of 20 pixels are 0.27778 in. = 20 pixels / 72 PPI for the larger re-created image and 0.06667 in. = 20 pixels / 300 PPI for the LFCOLB PDF images — both images of the mostly text layer image. However, this point size would equate to a pitch of 15 characters per inch for monospaced type instead of 12.

Again this shows that the forger was relatively young and had no knowledge or experience with typewriting on a manual typewriter.

Forgery Part 3

Facts on the courier font can be found at the following links:

See: http://www.rolandstroud.com/downloads/essays/courierfonts.pdf

“Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Courier . . . And Then Some”

“By Roland Stroud”

For a comparison of the four most popular Courier Fonts see:

http://www.candlerblog.com/2012/09/11/which-courier/

“Which Courier Is the Best Courier?”

Many varieties of Courier fonts are listed here:

http://www.myfonts.com/search/Courier/

The proof of my conjecture about the forger’s motive is the actual measured character pitch of the typed characters within the two-different-size-images of the mostly text layer. The 20 point font of the larger image does not translate to a 10 point font in the smaller PDF image.

If we assume that the forger intended that his typewritten text would emulate a 12 pitch typewriter font in the final LFCOLB PDF image, then we find that the 20 point font that the forger selected for the larger 72 PPI image does not translate to a 10 point font in the smaller PDF image. Instead we calculate 4.8 points = 20 points X .24, much smaller than 10.

However, a 12 pitch fixed font has an effective character width that is smaller than 10 points.
The effective character width for a 12 pitch typewriter is easily calculated to be 6 points = (1 in. /12 characters) X 72 points per inch. The forger’s character width of 4.8 points is thus smaller than the effective width.

Proof of this comes from a measurement of the character pitch of the mostly text layer of the WH LFCOLB. The character count for the typewritten word “Kalanianaole” (on the mostly text layer within the LFCOLB PDF image) is 12 characters. The actual measured length of this word is 0.85 in. rather than the expected 1.0 in. for a character pitch of 12 characters per inch. This length was measured on the WH LFCOLB PDF composite image in Adobe Illustrator CS6.

As an additional check, I printed two B&W copies of the WH LFCOLB PDF image and measured the length of the word “Kalanianaole” from the paper copies. Black and White printouts were produced from Adobe Illustrator CS6 and Adobe Reader XI. The measured length of the word “Kalanianaole” was 0.85 in. for both B&W printed copies.

The 0.85 word length is to be expected because 0.85 in. X 6./4.8 = 1.06.

Consequently, the forger either picked the wrong size computer font (for emulating a 12-pitch typewriter font) or else he intentionally set the size of the typed characters (on the mostly text layer PDF image) to be smaller than the typewriter font of the typed original hospital generated birth certificate (assuming that it was typed on a 12-pitch typewriter). The actual measured pitch of the word “Kalanianaole” is 12 characters / 0.85 in = 14.1 characters per inch.

Another possibility is that the forger selected a computer typewriter font which matches the character size of the original birth certificate but which has a pitch greater than 12 characters per inch. However, I’m not aware of any 1961 vintage typewriter fonts with a pitch of 14 characters per inch.

[NBC: In fact, there is at least one: The IBM Selectric whose Pica font also matches the shape of the characters. But that’s not really important here.]

This leaves only the one explanation that the forger intentionally set the page-size of the WH LFCOLB PDF image to be smaller than the original WH hospital-generated birth certificate. In that case, it cannot be a duplicate copy of the original hospital-generated birth certificate or a duplicate copy of one of Obama’s two certified copies of his LFCOLB. The certified copies presumably would be duplicate copies of the original LFCOLB because they were (purportedly) produced by Xerography (i.e. dry photocopy process) by the HDOH.

The width of the typed capital letters within the mostly text layer is 0.06667 in. = 20P / 300 PPI whereas the width of a 6 point character is 6 p / 72 ppi = 0.08333 in. Thus we find that the point-size of the typed text on the mostly text layer is less than the expected width for a pitch of 12. Thus the actual pitch must be greater than 12 characters per inch.

[NBC: That is of course not the only solution. Scaling also resolves the issue, and so much nicer… It starts with the observation that the DOH of Hawaii reduced the size of the original document when it copied it onto the security paper. Anyone can understand that if you scale, you will give the impression that the point size has changed. I find it somewhat surprising that Hermitian overlooked this.]

In order to match the size of typed characters between the background and monochrome text layers the forger used a 10 point font to type the few characters that appear on the background layer image. The 10 point fonts were typed onto the same resolution (72 PPI) Macintosh screen as were the typed 20 point characters of the eight monochrome images.

In order for the forger’s plan to work, he would have had to select a scalable typewriter font with both 10 point and 20 point sizes available. The typed text characters were most likely vector fonts typed onto the larger images at a screen resolution of 72 PPI. These nine larger images containing the typed scalable fonts were subsequently placed within the LFCOLB PDF composite image and then each of the nine placed images were scaled, rotated and then embedded as bitmap images.

[NBC: Show us how you can recreate the posted PDF using the hypothesized workflow of the forger. Remember, I have a workflow that already does all this]

OCR was not applied to the composite LFCOLB PDF image. None of the text of the composite LFCOLB PDF image is selectable, searchable or editable when the PDF file is opened in Adobe Reader.

Part 4 removed since it adds little to the forgery claim. I will present it in a separate posting

Forgery Part 5

There is no evidence that any type of file-size optimization (compression) was applied to the Obama LFCOLB PDF file except for its relatively small file-size of 380 KB compared to the file-size of bitmap images which are typically several MB.

[NBC: ROTFL… What do you call JPEG if not file-size optimization… My goodness sakes… That by itself explains a good chunk of the compression. We also see how the document is separated into foreground and background layers, the foreground layers compressed using ZLIB. Come on Hermitian, this is basic stuff.]]

However it is important here to report the sum total file-size for the nine re-created images from my devised method of image file re-creation. As previously stated the nine re-created files consist of a JPEG file for the background layer and eight PNG files for the other non-background files. All of these nine re-created image files are bitmap files. The size of the JPEG background file is only 271 KB.

[NBC: That is in its compressed form. You do understand the JPEG concept?]

The summed total size of the other eight PNG files is only 113 KB for a total summed file size of 384 KB. Thus the sum total of the file-sizes of the nine re-created images is only 4 KB larger than the final size of the WH LFCOLB PDF file with the nine linked files embedded as bitmap files.

Consequently, we must conclude that any file-size compression would have been applied to the nine separate image files and not to the composite WH LFCOLB PDF file as posted on the WH website. This would have been most easily accomplished if the nine image files were first placed in individual PDF wrappers.

[NBC: Huh? The easiest way to do this is to take the document and scan it using a Xerox Work Center. It explains the major reduction in file size, the compression of the JPEG as well as of the individual layers. This is getting ridiculous, there is no evidence to support Hermetian hypothesis that a forger was involved and I have shown how a simple workflow explains in all.

Verdict so far:

Forger 0 Workflow 2

]

Support for this conclusion is the fact that the forger ultimately embedded the nine image files as bitmap files within the LFCOLB PDF file. It makes no sense for him to have embedded the linked files in the PDF file if he had already optimized the PDF file-size before embedding the nine linked images. Embedding the linked files often doubles the PDF file size. Thus the only reason for the forger to embed the nine image layers would be to cover his tracks. This is the case if the file optimization was applied to the LFCOLB PDF file before the linked files were embedded.. Thus it would be nonsensical for the forger to re-optimize the final WH LFCOLB after he embedded the nine linked files because he could have achieved a smaller PDF file-size by just not embedding the nine image layers. Consequently, I conclude that the forger embedded the linked image files simply to erase the link data for these files.

As evidence for this conclusion, I flattened the WH LFCOLB PDF file in Adobe Photoshop CS6. Attempts to flatten the file in Adobe Illustrator CS6 and Adobe Acrobat XI Pro were unsuccessful. The flattened file was saved as a Photoshop CS6 PDF file. The resulting image was created at 300 PPI X 300 PPI resolution. The image quality was excellent. However, the file size increased from 380 KB to 17.86 MB. The flattened file was then opened in Adobe Acrobat XI Pro and the file-size optimizer was applied. At the “Smallest Size” setting of the slide lever, the file size was reduced from 17.86 MB to 116 KB. This file size is smaller than the WH LFCOLB file size of 380 KB. The resolution of the image was reduced from 300 PPI X 300 PPI to 100 PPI X 100 PPI. The image quality was degraded but useable. Another attempt was made to optimize the flattened WH LFCOLB PDF in Adobe Acrobat XI Pro. For this second trial the slide lever was set to “High Quality”. The resulting image was created at a resolution of 300 PPI X 300 PPI. The file size was reduced from 17.86 MB to 810 KB. Thus there is no reason for the forger not to flatten the image to reduce file size.

[NBC: Again you are undermining your own hypothesis here]

Additionally, it makes no sense that a file-size optimization algorithm would segment a scanned bitmap image from a 8.5 in. X 11. in. sheet and then enlarge each segment by a different scale factor just to change the resolution of each segment to 72 PPI X 72 PPI and then rotate each segment 90 degrees counterclockwise and then import each segment into a common PDF file and then reduce their size back to the size on the scanned paper image and then rotate them 90 degrees clockwise before placing them. And after all that, then the optimizer would embed the nine images but not flatten the PDF file.

[NBC: You really do not understand how this all works now do you. This is getting pretty ridiculous especially since I have shown how a real workflow does exactly this. Don’t let your ignorance as to why or how stop you from following where the facts lead you.]

So much for using file-size optimization to explain all the image anomalies that have been identified by the many experts (and researchers) who have examined the composite LFCOLB image contained within the WH LFCOLB PDF file.

[NBC: And thus, using his ignorance Hermitian rejects the  simple facts that a Xerox Workcenter/Preview workflow explains all this, and we can explain the major reduction in file size… This is just getting plain silly. Hermetian claims that software would never do this because he does not understand why it would and when I show how software does indeed do this, he just ignores the facts. This is one of the strongest examples of confirmation bias I have ever seen.

Verdict so far:

Forger 0 Workflow 3

]

the Forger created the Obama LFCOLB by digital “cut and paste”.

The forger first acquired various examples of original Hawaii paper birth certificates and other vintage 1961 documents which contained the words and characters to be transferred to the Obama LFCOLB PDF image. He then digitally scanned each document to files residing on his Macintosh computer. From each digitally scanned document, he then used his graphics editing program to digitally “clip out” sections from each document which contained the form text, form lines signatures, and stamp impressions needed to construct the Obama LFCOLB PDF composite image.

The forger then placed the selected digital clippings taken from the scanned images of Hawaii birth certificates and other documents onto the screen of his computer (i.e. within the window of his computer graphics program). He then adjusted the angular position of each clipping to align the baseline of the lines of text parallel to the horizontal screen gridlines. Alternatively, he could have aligned the form lines from the clippings to be parallel with the X and Y gridlines.

Then, using the zoom tool, he sized each clipping to achieve a pixel size which corresponds to the screen resolution of 72 PPI. He then re-saved each clipping after each was aligned and sized to the screen within his graphics program.

Using a digital cut and paste methodology, the forger then separately assembled each of the nine images from selected form text, form lines, signatures and stamp impressions digitally excised from his screen compatible digital clippings. The typewriter text was typed directly onto both the background and non-background images. The completed nine images were then cut out (as described below) as rectangular images and then rotated 90 degrees counterclockwise.

Each of the nine images was then placed within the multilayer (composite) LFCOLB PDF document. As each separate image was placed within the LFCOLB PDF image, the image size was reduced and each image was rotated by an angle of 90 degrees clockwise. The background image was reduced in size by a scale factor of 48%. Each of the non-background layers was reduced in size by a scale factor of 24%. The pixel resolution of each image was automatically increased in proportion to the reciprocal of each scale factor. The pixel resolution of the background image was increased from 72 PPI to 150 PPI. The pixel resolution of each of the non-background images was increased from 72 PPI to 300 PPI.

Based on the actual location and dimensions of each of the placed nine rectangular images within the LFCOLB PDF composite image, I conclude that the forger set the grid for his computer graphics program as follows. First he set the screen resolution to 72 PPI X 72 PPI. Then he chose settings for the orthogonal grid so that the grid would be congruent with the screen pixels. The screen pixels were 1/72 in. X 1/72 in. For each of the nine original images. Thus, as displayed on the forger’s Macintosh computer the major grid lines were set at a spacing of 1/9 in. = 0.1111111111 in. The minor grid spacing was selected for 8 minor divisions between each pair of major grid lines. With this grid setup, the lines were exactly congruent to the four edges of each square pixel of each of the nine re-created images.

Other details of the method that the forger used to align and position each of the nine rectangular images within the composite PDF image were previously posted on this same thread.

[NBC: I would love to see Hermitian use the same tools to recreate the effects seen in the WH PDF, but we already know that a simple workflow with a scanner and preview, can create all these artifacts with no need to invoke an ad hoc forger. There is hand waving, lack of specifics, and no explanation of the JPEG comment and the Quantization matrix, no attempt to explain why the images are stored sideways in landscape form, no attempt to explain much of anything.

I conclude that Hermitian has totally failed in his endeavor. Given the wasted time on the Font size and Applewhite, I find his arguments to be begging the question, ignoring the facts as we know it.

In the introduction I explained that Hermitian has to explain at least as much as I can explain using my workflow hypothesis, Furthermore, he cannot just invoke a forger that acted in a manner indistinguishable from my work flow without adding to rationale as to why the forger did it the way he did it. Many of the steps hypothesized by Hermitian fail to capture the essentials such as the 150/300PPI images, which he claims were created in a 72 PPI setting. Totally hilarious.]

]

96 thoughts on “Hermitian – Forgery

  1. Two differences between the WH LFCOLB PDF file and the Xerox 7535 scan to PDF file rule out the Xerox as the forger.

    The first difference is the number of levels within the layer tree structure in Illustrator. The WH LFCOLB has three levels but the Xerox scan to PDF has only two. The extra level in the tree prevents the nine objects from being selected without first removing two clipping masks. In the Xerox scan to PDF, all 17 objects can be selected using the Select All command without first turning off any Clipping Masks. Also the extra level within the layer tree of the WH LFCOLB permits the entire composite image to be turned off by turning off the one top-level Clip Group object. In the Xerox scan to PDF, each of the seventeen objects must be turned off individually to erase the entire composite image. In both files the entire image can be turned off by turning off the top most layer (Layer 1). Except for this one exception, the image of the Xerox scan to PDF cannot be turned off by removing just one layer.

    The second difference is in the Color Space. The Xerox scan to PDF is DeviceRGB. Whereas the WH LFCOLB is DeviceRGB (ICC). Thus the WH LFCOLB is ICCBased but the Xerox scan is not.

    Back to square 1 NBC. Your Xerox doesn’t have the right stuff to have created the WH LFCOLB.

  2. The first difference is the number of levels within the layer tree structure in Illustrator. The WH LFCOLB has three levels but the Xerox scan to PDF has only two.

    You forgot that Preview adds a clipping mask at the top level…

    Oops.
    You are still comparing apples and oranges my confused friend.

    Cheers. See why I love peer review, if I manage to survive it strengthens my arguments.

  3. I just checked

    The preview version of the Xerox Scan shows the following

    obj 6 0
     Type: 
     Referencing: 18 0 R, 11 0 R, 21 0 R, 29 0 R, 25 0 R, 7 0 R, 9 0 R, 31 0 R, 35 0 R, 37 0 R, 23 0 R, 16 0 R, 27 0 R, 19 0 R, 33 0 R, 12 0 R, 39 0 R, 41 0 R, 14 0 R
    
      <<
        /ProcSet [ /PDF /ImageB /ImageC /ImageI ]
        /ColorSpace
      <<
            /Cs2 18 0 R
            /Cs1 11 0 R
      >>
    

    You really should get a Mac my friend…

    Thanks for helping me strengthen my arguments…

    This is quite educational I am sure.

  4. Back to square 1 NBC. Your Xerox doesn’t have the right stuff to have created the WH LFCOLB.

    I predicted that you would embarrass yourself by comparing apples and oranges. You should have read my postings more carefully. I showed the colorspaces for the preview versions…

    Ouch… Two more ‘rebuttals’ survived… This xerox /preview workflow rocks…

    Bring on some more Hermetian, the confidence of my workflow being correct is increasing by the minute, well hours.
    Surviving your ‘forgery’ claims has been fun, I now have updated the explanation for the 14 characters per inch font… It’s an artifact of the fact that when Hawaii copied the original document, the reduced it in size by about 70-72%, this means that the original had 10 characters per inch.

    You should really compare the document with some other documents that have been released with other names.

    Thanks to your keen eye, I have now concluded that indeed Hawaii reduced the size of the original by about 70 to 72 percent.

    Which, after the fact, should have been obvious as the original only takes up a fraction of the total document…

  5. NBC

    “”The first difference is the number of levels within the layer tree structure in Illustrator. The WH LFCOLB has three levels but the Xerox scan to PDF has only two.””

    “You forgot that Preview adds a clipping mask at the top level…

    “Oops.
    You are still comparing apples and oranges my confused friend.

    “Cheers. See why I love peer review, if I manage to survive it strengthens my arguments.

    1./ We’ll have to take your word for that — Remember you have never posted any Preview created PDF files. You must have dozens of them by now to cherry pick from. You also forgot that Zullo has proof that your clipping mask could only have been added by the forger.

    NBC: And yet we see how a preview created file proves Zullo wrong. Given his track record, I am not too surprised. As to taking my word, you should not take my word for it and repeat my experiment..

    And even if the Preview forger did add a clipping mask it didn’t add another level to the tree structure. You are still stuck with only two levels. So your Xerox guy just doesn’t have the right stuff to do the job. And we all know that you are holding back all of the Preview PDFs because you don’t want your Xerox guy to be debunked. After all he’s all you’ve got Dude. And even after all of your bloviating he just doesn’t have the right stuff.

    MBC: Nice try my friend but these are empty words that lack any supporting evidence. Not the best way to rebut a scientific hypothesis. But I understand that you are a bit frustrated that you are lacking access to the proper tools.</blockquote

    2./ Xerox = Apple ; Preview = Orange
    Weeks ago I demanded that you list out all of the clipping paths and clipping groups for each tree level and layer sub-group. We are still waiting for that detailed list. Just throwing a bunch of object numbers over the wall is not the right stuff.

    NBC: You demanded… Now that is hilarious… Too lazy to do the work youself?

    3./ If you “manage to survive” it will only be in your mind.

    NBC: ROTFL, you made my day once again.. Thanks for helping strengthen my workflow hypothesis my dear friend.

  6. NBC

    “I just checked

    “The preview version of the Xerox Scan shows the following


    obj 6 0
    Type:
    Referencing: 18 0 R, 11 0 R, 21 0 R, 29 0 R, 25 0 R, 7 0 R, 9 0 R, 31 0 R, 35 0 R, 37 0 R, 23 0 R, 16 0 R, 27 0 R, 19 0 R, 33 0 R, 12 0 R, 39 0 R, 41 0 R, 14 0 R

    1./_____I just did a search for “Referencing” in the WH LFCOLB PDF and got zero hits. I also searched for the same term in your Xerox scan to PDF file and again got zero hits.

    So now you have to explain how that “Referencing:” label got into your Preview PDF and then how it got deleted before the WH LFCOLB PDF was released on 04/27/2011.

    2./_____So what are we supposed to do with all of your object reference numbers ?

    You still don’t have the right stuff Dude.

  7. NBC


    << /ProcSet [ /PDF /ImageB /ImageC /ImageI /ColorSpace
    "

    You posted the above line of code that you purport to have extracted from one of your Preview PDFs

    The same line of code clipped from the archive copy of the WH LFCOLB is:

    << /ProcSet [ /PDF /ImageB /ImageC /ImageI ] /ColorSpace << /Cs2 26 0 R /Cs1

    So notice that your line has only ColorSpace" but the same line in the WH LFCOLB has ColorSpace <</Cs2 26 0 R/Cs1

    So again dude your Xerox + Preview guy just doesn't have the right stuff.

  8. NBC

    “You really should get a Mac my friend…”

    Over my dead body !!!

    Apple hasn’t made a real computer since the Apple IIe.

  9. NBC

    “”Back to square 1 NBC. Your Xerox doesn’t have the right stuff to have created the WH LFCOLB.””

    “I predicted that you would embarrass yourself by comparing apples and oranges. You should have read my postings more carefully. I showed the colorspaces for the preview versions…”

    Dude ! Did you stay up all night trying to catch up to me ? That would explain your apples and oranges comment.

    Yep

    You see you have already told us a gazillion times that the WH LFCOLB PDF was created and produced by MAC OS Preview.

    But did you understand the relevance of that..

    And I’m sure you remember the METADATA from the WH LFCOLB PDF

    Preview

    Mac OS X 10.6.7 Quartz PDFContext

    So Dude ! It seems reasonable that I would compare the lines of code that you cherry picked from your many Preview print to PDF files to the same line of code that I extracted from the archived copy of the WH LFCOLB.

    They are the same…

    So I compared your ColorSpace line to my ColorSpace Line and found that they are different. So instead of throwing apples and oranges my way maybe you could catch your breath and explain why the two lines of code are different ?

    You were looking at the Xerox ‘raw’ document

    Now who’s embarrassed ?

  10. Oops ! I forgot that your blog doesn’t like <>

    _____ Preview_____

    _____Mac OS X 10.6.7 Quartz PDFContext_____

  11. You just can’t use these “” without doubling them up.

    This blog is just one big moving target.

  12. NBC

    I believe you are correct that the original scan done in Hawaii of the WH LFBC was around a 75% scale reduction to make it fit neatly on the green security paper with a border. It is apparent when the Obama and Nordyke BC’s are compared side by side. http://www.wnd.com/2011/04/292717/ .

    The Nordyke BC was probably a photostat copy in 1966 and would have been 1:1. I do not know if the photos have been scaled identically but I think we can assume the originals in the binders were typed on the same forms.

  13. One correction. The WND article obviously doesn’t compare the BC’s side by side but the images are next to each other at approximately the same scale.

  14. NBC

    You still lose on the ColorSpace Dude !

    I first searched the WH LFCOLB PDF code for the term “ICC”. I got two hits..

    Line 2710 [ /ICCBased 27 0 R ]
    and
    Line 2734 [ /ICCBased 29 0 R ]

    The color space object [27 0 R] is associated with ColorSpace /Cs1 which is [11 0 R].

    [11 0 R] is associated with the background image.

    <>
    stream

    Object [29 0 R] is associated with [11 0 obj]

    I also did another search for the same term “ICC” in the Xerox scan to PDF file.

    This second scan returned zero occurrences of the term “ICC” .

    So you NBC now have to show how Preview adds the correct color spaces for all nine image layers.

    I’ll be waiting !

    But if you want I would be happy to help out if you would just provide your Preview PDF file.

  15. NBC

    Oops ! NBC’s state-of-the-art editor stripped out a complete code line in my last post.

    Since this one demonstrated clearly that the Xerox could not be the forger, then I would really like to post this “smoking gun” line of code.

    But I’m sure we can safely assume that NBC would never set up his text editor to delete every line of code that I post ? And he would never set that code trap just for me ?

    So NBC !!! — How about getting your web site grunt to fix the problem of the greater than and less than brackets. Or have him a least post an override.

    And ask him why your text editor is reading code instead of text ?

  16. NBC

    “I believe you are correct that the original scan done in Hawaii of the WH LFBC was around a 75% scale reduction to make it fit neatly on the green security paper with a border. It is apparent when the Obama and Nordyke BC’s are compared side by side. http://www.wnd.com/2011/04/292717/ .

    “The Nordyke BC was probably a photostat copy in 1966 and would have been 1:1. I do not know if the photos have been scaled identically but I think we can assume the originals in the binders were typed on the same forms.”

    The assumption that the Nordyke photostats were 1:1 is shaky. Those copies were probably shot from the microfilm.

    There is no evidence that Hawaii has saved the documents on microfil. In fact, like the Obama birth certificate, they are bound in books

    I thought that I clearly stated a size reduction would explain the 14 pitch typeface for the WH LFCOLB. But maybe you can identify the typewriter. The chosen font is very unusual especially the numbers.

    A word that shows 10 characters per inch, once reduced in size by 70% shows about a 14 characters per inch. It is remarkable how all falls in place when accepting that when the original birth certificate was scanned by the DOH of Hawaii, they reduced it in size. There is plenty of hints that support this. Now it all comes down to a careful experiment. I believe that my numbers support my hypothesis…Perhaps you could comment? PS: There are other documents as well that are helpful… I am looking forward to your proper analysis.

  17. The Nordyke BC was probably a photostat copy in 1966 and would have been 1:1. I do not know if the photos have been scaled identically but I think we can assume the originals in the binders were typed on the same forms.

    Yes. That’s how I noticed as well.

  18. This second scan returned zero occurrences of the term “ICC” .

    So you NBC now have to show how Preview adds the correct color spaces for all nine image layers.

    The how is simple, it adds them. Why? I do not know but Preview does some funky stuff as even you have accepted.

    The problem with your argument is simple: You are comparing apples and oranges. The Preview created file contains exactly what you were claiming was missing…

    This is why the Preview step is so important.
    the WH LFBC shows

     Type: 
     Referencing: 26 0 R, 11 0 R, 20 0 R, 22 0 R, 24 0 R, 9 0 R, 14 0 R, 7 0 R, 18 0 R, 12 0 R, 16 0 R
    
      <<
        /ProcSet [ /PDF /ImageB /ImageC /ImageI ]
        /ColorSpace
          <>
        /XObject
          <>
      >>
    

    The Xerox created document after saved by preview shows

    obj 6 0
     Type: 
     Referencing: 18 0 R, 11 0 R, 21 0 R, 29 0 R, 25 0 R, 7 0 R, 9 0 R, 31 0 R, 35 0 R, 37 0 R, 23 0 R, 16 0 R, 27 0 R, 19 0 R, 33 0 R, 12 0 R, 39 0 R, 41 0 R, 14 0 R
    
      <<
        /ProcSet [ /PDF /ImageB /ImageC /ImageI ]
        /ColorSpace
          <>
        /XObject
          <>
      >>
    

    I documented this in the side by side comparison. Nice try… But again your attempt at rebuttal strengthens my claims.

  19. And ask him why your text editor is reading code instead of text ?

    Indeed the

    >>

    and

     <<

    signs can cause problems

  20. Probably the most useful certificate for estimating the pitch of the typed characters on the WH LFCOLB PDF image is a “RECONSTRUCTION” of the Obama long-form birth certificate that was entirely created by Kevin Davidson of the Obamaconspiracy.org blog site.

    See: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/08/the-long-form-reconstructed/

    This “RECONSTRUCTION” appeared on Davidson’s site on August 22, 2009, This was 21 months before the HDOH produced the two certified copies for Obama on May 25, 2011. So Davidson ‘RECONSTRUCTED’ Obama’s LF COLB before it existed. The WH LFCOLB was released two days later on May, 27, 2011.

    This certificate includes only the form portion of the WH LFCOLB. The State Registrar’s Stamps, and the Hawaii State Seal impression are not included. This image is probably the size of the form that is placed in the bound volumes which contain 500 certificates in each bound volume. Because Davidson worked in the South Carolina Vital Statistics Agency for years, he would know more than most people as to the correct dimensions for the original Hawaii certificates.

    The outside dimensions of the Green basket weave safety paper background (i.e. the Green border) of Davidson’s “RECONSTRUCTION” are:

    W = 7.71 in. = 555.12 pt
    H = 6.31 in. = 454.32 pt

    These dimensions compare to”

    W = 6.0633 in. = 436.56 pt
    H = 4.8467 in. = 348.96 pt

    for the same region of the WH LFCOLB.

    I measured the length in inches of the word “Kalanianaole” to be 1.08 inches. Hence the character pitch of the Davidson “RECONSTRUCTION” is nearly 12 characters/inch.
    This would correspond to 14-15 characters/inch for thr smaller form of the WH LFOLB.

    The Davidson certificate is a JPEG. There is no selectable text within the bitmap image. Consequently, OCR must be applied to determine which font is substituted for the typed text.

    Two OCR scans were applied, one with PDF XChange Viewer Pro and the other with Adobe Acrobat XI Pro. The scan with PDF XChange Viewer Pro found all of the typed text and most of the printed text except for the header “Certificate of Live Birth”. The OCR scan substituted the ArialMT font for the typed text. The Acrobat OCR scan deciphered about half of the typed text. This OCR scan substituted the font Minion Pro for the typed text.

    Finally a third scan was applied using ABBYY PDF Transformer 3.0. This third OCR scan deciphered all of the typed and printed text.

  21. Cool, comparing the WH LFBC and the sample prepared by Dr C shows that the box 6c are almost identical in relative sizes. So whatever pitch he used is close to the pitch used in the WH document.

  22. So Dude ! It seems reasonable that I would compare the lines of code that you cherry picked from your many Preview print to PDF files to the same line of code that I extracted from the archived copy of the WH LFCOLB.

    Like this one??

    Note how they both show the same color space? Sloppy sloppy my friend

  23. Over my dead body !!!

    Apple hasn’t made a real computer since the Apple IIe.

    A researcher does not let himself be embarrassed by such subjective feelings, they repeat experiments.

  24. Now who’s embarrassed ?

    Not me🙂

    You should really have double checked… A simple print to PDF in Preview would have saved you much embarrassment.

    This is so much fun… I already thanked Hermitian for helping me strengthen my hypothesis and so far he has done more than hoped for.

  25. 1./ We’ll have to take your word for that — Remember you have never posted any Preview created PDF files. You must have dozens of them by now to cherry pick from. You also forgot that Zullo has proof that your clipping mask could only have been added by the forger.

    NBC: And yet we see how a preview created file proves Zullo wrong. Given his track record, I am not too surprised. As to taking my word, you should not take my word for it and repeat my experiment..

  26. 1./_____I just did a search for “Referencing” in the WH LFCOLB PDF and got zero hits. I also searched for the same term in your Xerox scan to PDF file and again got zero hits.

    You lack the proper tools. I told you I am using pdf-parser.py. It nicely formats the output… As I have shown, everything lines up quite nicely. You really need to branch out a little if you want to do proper forensic analysis…

  27. NBC | July 28, 2013 at 18:03

    “”This second scan returned zero occurrences of the term “ICC” .

    “”So you NBC now have to show how Preview adds the correct color spaces for all nine image layers.

    “The how is simple, it adds them. Why? I do not know but Preview does some funky stuff as even you have accepted.”

    So NBC — When did you start having these brain freezes ? Or are you just slipping into a delusional state of total denial.

    I carefully explained to you that you don’t have the right stuff unless the Preview print to PDF file matches exactly the archived copy of the Obama LFCOLB found here:

    http://web.archive.org/web/20110427171111/http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf

    And I posted the results for the search for “ICC” within this file which returned

    Line 2710 [ /ICCBased 27 0 R ]
    and
    Line 2734 [ /ICCBased 29 0 R ]

    And I also posted the fact that the “ICC” label appears no where in the Xerox scan to PDF file.

    You haven’t shown that either of your two Preview files include the “ICC” color Space designation.

    The problem with your argument is simple: You are comparing apples and oranges. The Preview created file contains exactly what you were claiming was missing…

    This is why the Preview step is so important.
    the WH LFBC shows
    Type:
    Referencing: 26 0 R, 11 0 R, 20 0 R, 22 0 R, 24 0 R, 9 0 R, 14 0 R, 7 0 R, 18 0 R, 12 0 R, 16 0 R

    <<
    /ProcSet [ /PDF /ImageB /ImageC /ImageI ]
    /ColorSpace

    /XObject

    >>

    The Xerox created document after saved by preview shows
    obj 6 0
    Type:
    Referencing: 18 0 R, 11 0 R, 21 0 R, 29 0 R, 25 0 R, 7 0 R, 9 0 R, 31 0 R, 35 0 R, 37 0 R, 23 0 R, 16 0 R, 27 0 R, 19 0 R, 33 0 R, 12 0 R, 39 0 R, 41 0 R, 14 0 R

    <<
    /ProcSet [ /PDF /ImageB /ImageC /ImageI ]
    /ColorSpace

    /XObject

    >>

    “I documented this in the side by side comparison. Nice try… But again your attempt at rebuttal strengthens my claims.”

    You must have had another brain freeze Dude because I had already posted that the corresponding line of code from the archived WH LFCOLB as extracted by myself is:

    << /ProcSet [ /PDF /ImageB /ImageC /ImageI ] /ColorSpace << /Cs2 26 0 R /Cs1

    So neither of you PDFs have the right stuff Dude.

    That is unless you totally blew it and chopped off the <</Cs2 26 0 R/Cs1 part and replaced it with .

    So the bottom line is, until you set the record straight, you lied about the WH LFCOL.

    So remember Apples are Red and Oranges are Orange. And you’re still mixed up.

  28. NBC | July 28, 2013 at 18:33

    So Dude ! It seems reasonable that I would compare the lines of code that you cherry picked from your many Preview print to PDF files to the same line of code that I extracted from the archived copy of the WH LFCOLB.

    Like this one??

    Note how they both show the same color space? Sloppy sloppy my friend

    You call me sloppy and your link goes to your parallel listing where the WH LFCOLB stuff is totally cropped off. What up Dude? Do you think we all have X-ray vision ?

    And don’t forget ! Everybody on the planet has free and easy access to the archived copy of the WH LFCOLB at the following link:

    http://web.archive.org/web/20110427171111/http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf

    And don’t forget that I am doing all my analysis on this one PDF file.

    But you are doing your analysis on ??? Xerox and Preview files ?

    And nobody on the planet has any access to the many Preview PDF files that you have created by tweaking the scan scan parameters on your two Xeroxes, and doing separate scans made at 0, 90, 180, and 270 degrees and then changing all the stuff that you can change in Preview. Not exactly a level or fair playing field on this blog.

    So you’re just leafing through all these PDFs to find the lines of code that match up the best ?

    I thought so…

  29. Line 2710 [ /ICCBased 27 0 R ]
    and
    Line 2734 [ /ICCBased 29 0 R ]

    And I also posted the fact that the “ICC” label appears no where in the Xerox scan to PDF file.

    That is correct… But it does appear in the Xerox scan to PDF file when saved with preview

    Did you miss my side by side comparison?

    Both files contain ICCBased

    Xerox PDF Preview
     obj 18 0
    Type:
    Referencing: 43 0 R[(1, '\n'), (2, '['), (1, ' '), (2, '/ICCBased'), (1, ' '), (3, '43'), (1, ' '), (3, '0'), (1, ' '), (3, 'R'), (1, ' '), (2, ']‘), (1, ‘\n’)][ /ICCBased 43 0 R ]
    
    WH PDF
    obj 26 0
    Type:
    Referencing: 27 0 R[(1, '\n'), (2, '['), (1, ' '), (2, '/ICCBased'), (1, ' '), (3, '27'), (1, ' '), (3, '0'), (1, ' '), (3, 'R'), (1, ' '), (2, ']‘), (1, ‘\n’)][ /ICCBased 27 0 R ]
    

    and

    Xerox PDF Preview
    obj 26 0
    Type:
    Referencing: 27 0 R[(1, '\n'), (2, '['), (1, ' '), (2, '/ICCBased'), (1, ' '), (3, '27'), (1, ' '), (3, '0'), (1, ' '), (3, 'R'), (1, ' '), (2, ']‘), (1, ‘\n’)][ /ICCBased 27 0 R ]
    
    WH PDF
    obj 11 0
    Type:
    Referencing: 29 0 R[(1, '\n'), (2, '['), (1, ' '), (2, '/ICCBased'), (1, ' '), (3, '29'), (1, ' '), (3, '0'), (1, ' '), (3, 'R'), (1, ' '), (2, ']‘), (1, ‘\n’)][ /ICCBased 29 0 R ]
    

    Your turn…

  30. << /ProcSet [ /PDF /ImageB /ImageC /ImageI ] /ColorSpace << /Cs2 26 0 R /Cs1

    So neither of you PDFs have the right stuff Dude.

    Yes

    obj 6 0
    Type:
    Referencing: 26 0 R, 11 0 R, 20 0 R, 22 0 R, 24 0 R, 9 0 R, 14 0 R, 7 0 R, 18 0 R, 12 0 R, 16 0 R<</ProcSet [ /PDF /ImageB /ImageC /ImageI ]/ColorSpace
    
    <>

    That’s what I found as well.

    The Xerox Preview saved PDF shows

    obj 6 0
    Type:
    Referencing: 18 0 R, 11 0 R, 21 0 R, 29 0 R, 25 0 R, 7 0 R, 9 0 R, 31 0 R, 35 0 R, 37 0 R, 23 0 R, 16 0 R, 27 0 R, 19 0 R, 33 0 R, 12 0 R, 39 0 R, 41 0 R, 14 0 R<</ProcSet [ /PDF /ImageB /ImageC /ImageI ]/ColorSpace
    
    <>
    

    That is unless you totally blew it and chopped off the <</Cs2 26 0 R/Cs1 part and replaced it with .

    So the bottom line is, until you set the record straight, you lied about the WH LFCOL.

    So remember Apples are Red and Oranges are Orange. And you’re still mixed up.

    I never lied my dear friend… You are just confused…

    Sigh… Unless you can properly document a lie, which means ‘an intention to deceit’, at best you can show an ‘error’ on my part. Sorry that I confused you when WordPress ate my homework but I had already documented these side by side here

  31. You call me sloppy and your link goes to your parallel listing where the WH LFCOLB stuff is totally cropped off. What up Dude? Do you think we all have X-ray vision ?

    So you are unable to change the zoom on your browser, that’s too bad. You could also look at the source code for the page, or you could have informed me that you cannot read the table. It renders fine on my computer but I work with a low zoom setting.

    And don’t forget ! Everybody on the planet has free and easy access to the archived copy of the WH LFCOLB at the following link:

    http://web.archive.org/web/20110427171111/http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf

    And don’t forget that I am doing all my analysis on this one PDF file.

    But you are doing your analysis on ??? Xerox and Preview files ?

    I am comparing the file you reference above with a Xerox scan printed by Preview to show that they match..

    And nobody on the planet has any access to the many Preview PDF files that you have created by tweaking the scan scan parameters on your two Xeroxes, and doing separate scans made at 0, 90, 180, and 270 degrees and then changing all the stuff that you can change in Preview. Not exactly a level or fair playing field on this blog.

    Poor Hermitian… You complain about fair play when all it takes is to do load the document in preview and print to pdf. I am reporting my finding, and I encourage you to either repeat them or debunk them. Until you can do the necessary step, you continue to embarrass yourself with comparing apples and oranges. As to the Xerox PDF, they were created with the standard workflow setting when emailing the scan. No tweaking, although I have played with the tweaks to understand how they affect the document.

    So you’re just leafing through all these PDFs to find the lines of code that match up the best ?

    I thought so…

    Nope, I am using the Xerox PDF which you have access to and opened it in Preview and printed to PDF. If you disagree, then prove me wrong… Until then, you are only embarrassing yourself more with foolish and unsupported accusations. Keep up the good work, the deeper you dig yourself, the more enjoyable your apologies will be when you finally manage to open the file in Preview and print to PDF.

    Looking forward to that moment.

  32. You call me sloppy and your link goes to your parallel listing where the WH LFCOLB stuff is totally cropped off. What up Dude? Do you think we all have X-ray vision ?

    I checked using Chrome, Firefox and Safari and they all render the page correctly

    Perhaps it’s time to get some proper tools?

  33. IE9 is a proper tool on all other sites Dude. Why is your editor reading code instead of text.

  34. NBC

    “So you are unable to change the zoom on your browser, that’s too bad. You could also look at the source code for the page, or you could have informed me that you cannot read the table. It renders fine on my computer but I work with a low zoom setting.”

    Time to ream out your IT guy dude. If it were me I would call the staff together for a come to Jesus moment.

    You didn’t know this Dude but anyone using a real browser like IE9 noticed immediately that ,on just that one page with the chopped WH LFCOLB, the ZOOM BUTTON AND THE ENTIRE BOTTOM BORDER ARE MISSING. It’s hard to click on a missing ZOOM BUTTON DUDE. And don’t play mind games with me man. I already know that you totally ignore my heads up comments regarding your soon to crash site.

    And of course I reported the chopped image to you the very day that you first posted the mangled page.

    So I already knew that you personally don’t use anything but freeware. (All the browsers that you listed are in the freeware category). However, no one in their right mind would be using only these free browsers to create web pages.

  35. NBC

    “”Line 2710 [ /ICCBased 27 0 R ]
    and
    “” Line 2734 [ /ICCBased 29 0 R ]

    “And I also posted the fact that the “ICC” label appears no where in the Xerox scan to PDF file.

    “That is correct… But it does appear in the Xerox scan to PDF file when saved with preview

    There you go using that pdf-parser freetoy again. You remember that’s it’s that “quick and dirty tool” according to the guy that wrote the code. Did you know that his main area of research is malicious software ? And that he tailors his tools to be resistant to hacker toys ? Maybe that’s why he puts that “use at your own risk” warning on his site.

    So I suggest that you drag your freetoy icon to the trashcan and then go out and purchase an industry verified parser.

    You see Dude, I’m one of those trust but verify guys like Reagan.

    So until you post the raw lines of code with line numbers I’ll keep assuming that you are lying. You see Dude it’s about that verify part. I’m keeping all the lines of code that you post so I can compare the line numbers to the line numbers in your Preview file when you finally publish the your “smoking gun PDF file.” Because you have told us that the Preview file was created in the automatic mode without any human intervention. Of course if you’re lying then there was human manipulation and that person would be a forger. So I’ll post my two lines again. And then wait for the corresponding lines from your latest Preview creation.

    birth-certificate-long-form-WayBack Machine 04-27-2011.pdf

    “”Line 2710 [ /ICCBased 27 0 R ]
    and
    “” Line 2734 [ /ICCBased 29 0 R ]

    And the same search returned zero hits on your Xerox scan to PDF file

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

    “did you miss my side by side comparison?


    Both files contain ICCBased
    Xerox PDF Preview
    obj 18 0
    Type:
    Referencing: 43 0 R[(1, ‘\n’), (2, ‘[‘), (1, ‘ ‘), (2, ‘/ICCBased’), (1, ‘ ‘), (3, ’43’), (1, ‘ ‘), (3, ‘0’), (1, ‘ ‘), (3, ‘R’), (1, ‘ ‘), (2, ‘]‘), (1, ‘\n’)][ /ICCBased 43 0 R ]
    WH PDF
    obj 26 0
    Type:
    Referencing: 27 0 R[(1, ‘\n’), (2, ‘[‘), (1, ‘ ‘), (2, ‘/ICCBased’), (1, ‘ ‘), (3, ’27’), (1, ‘ ‘), (3, ‘0’), (1, ‘ ‘), (3, ‘R’), (1, ‘ ‘), (2, ‘]‘), (1, ‘\n’)][ /ICCBased 27 0 R ]

    and
    Xerox PDF Preview
    obj 26 0
    Type:
    Referencing: 27 0 R[(1, ‘\n’), (2, ‘[‘), (1, ‘ ‘), (2, ‘/ICCBased’), (1, ‘ ‘), (3, ’27’), (1, ‘ ‘), (3, ‘0’), (1, ‘ ‘), (3, ‘R’), (1, ‘ ‘), (2, ‘]‘), (1, ‘\n’)][ /ICCBased 27 0 R ]
    WH PDF
    obj 11 0
    Type:
    Referencing: 29 0 R[(1, ‘\n’), (2, ‘[‘), (1, ‘ ‘), (2, ‘/ICCBased’), (1, ‘ ‘), (3, ’29’), (1, ‘ ‘), (3, ‘0’), (1, ‘ ‘), (3, ‘R’), (1, ‘ ‘), (2, ‘]‘), (1, ‘\n’)][ /ICCBased 29 0 R ]

    Your turn…

    I did a search on the archived copy of the WH LFCOLB file at this URL:

    http://web.archive.org/web/20110427171111/http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf

    I searched the terms “obj 26 0” and “obj 11 0” and the searches both returned zero hits. Are you sure that you didn’t mix up the WH LFCOLB PDF with one of your carefully crafted Preview print to PDF files ?

    Line 2709 26 0 obj
    Line 2733 11 0 obj

    So the bottom line is you are really not posting actual lines of code but rather the filtered (and maybe edited) mangled output from your freetoy parser.

    And you were the one berating me for not getting down and dirty in the lines of code.

    Where I come from we call that a hypocrit.

    Where did you get your copy of the WH LFCOLB Dude ?

  36. NBC

    Next please post the following color space details from your favorite Preview PDF.

    Images
    Position (pt): -0.24/-0.48
    Size (pt): 612.48/792.96
    Resolution (pt/inch): 150.0
    Width/Height (pixel): 1652/1276
    Bits per color component: 8
    Treated as a mask: False
    Perform interpolation: False
    Rendering intent: RelativeColorimetric
    Compression/encoding
    JPEG compression (DCTDecode)
    ICC based color space: “sRGBIEC61966-2.1”
    Components range (0.0/1.0/0.0/1.0/0.0/1.0)
    Number of color components: 3
    Alternate color space
    DeviceRGB color space
    ICC profile data
    Profile version number: “2.1.0”
    Color Management Module (CMM) type: “lino”
    Profile/Device dass signature: “mntr”
    Color space of data: “RGB ”
    Profile Connection Space (PCS): “XYZ ”
    Magic number: “acsp*
    Primary Platform: “Microsoft Corporation (MSFT)”
    Device manufacturer: “Hewlett-Packard (IEC )”
    Device model: “(sRGB)*
    Profile creator: “Hewlett-Packard (HP)”
    Creation date: “2/9/1998 6:49 AM*
    Default rendering intent: Relative Colorimetric
    Profile illuminant
    Copyright information: “Copyright (c) 1998 Hewlett-Packard Company’
    Profile description: “sRGB IEC61966-2.1′
    Profile ID (MD5 hash): “EEEF5CB5B45F412A0135C5F6FA10AB2A”
    Graphic properties_

    Two can play your game my Man.

  37. NBC

    “The Fogbow has not released any original birth certificate images.”


    NBC: Check the attribution. I did not write this my friend…

    That’s funny because you just published one of the FogBow LFCOLB released images.

    1. Click on your Blue Hi-Res Header above.

    2. Then right click on the LFCOLB image

    3. Click on Properties

    4. Observe the FogBow.com owner of this JPEG.

  38. NBC

    “Now something similar happened in Mississippi only with even less dramatic results. In that case the copy that ended up on the court server was actually quite a good reproduction. Yet you in your zeal to claim something, anything was a forgery picked in obscure and explainable differences. Now we know a simple workflow was followed in both cases. You seem like a fairly intelligent fellow so I know you can understand what has been demonstrated. It is time to man up and admit that no chicanery was involved.”

    Ummmmm… the “unaccountability force” is strong in this one.

    I uploaded my affidavit to Scribd after you illegally published it without citing your source.

    You made wild claims about some poorly described trials that you claim that Kevin Vicklund did.

    The only thing “obscure” were your posts of your findings.

    Then you (stated at least twice) that you would update later and post WKV’s detailed results here.

    And then you proceeded to not do that.

    So I repeated Vicklund’s trials (as best as I could) from your vague and rambling posts and posted my results in great detail on this blog site. My trials with two different versions of Adobe Acrobat Pro showed that it was impossible for Vicklund to have produced the results that you claim that he gave to you.

    Those results (if they ever existed) are the stuff that you never posted.

    So realizing that Vicklund was on a fool’s mission you long ago pulled the plug on your investigation of the page 4 LFCOLB od Document 35-1.

    And remember! I didn’t put all of my findings in my affidavit.

  39. IE9 is a proper tool on all other sites Dude. Why is your editor reading code instead of text.

    Are you asking me why WordPress behaves like it does? Good question… It allows you to enter your own html tags which means that you have to write some characters in their ‘escaped’ format
    Just remove the space between & and gt; and you will see >

    & gt; => >
    & lt; => <

  40. I searched the terms “obj 26 0″ and “obj 11 0″ and the searches both returned zero hits. Are you sure that you didn’t mix up the WH LFCOLB PDF with one of your carefully crafted Preview print to PDF files ?

    Line 2709 26 0 obj
    Line 2733 11 0 obj

    So the bottom line is you are really not posting actual lines of code but rather the filtered (and maybe edited) mangled output from your freetoy parser.

    ROTFL…

    In other words, you object to me using a tool that reformats the output slightly to help with readability…
    But of course, the facts remain that the tool so far has been quite accurate, even though I did not have to pay hundreds of dollars for it?
    It’s not the tool my friend, it’s what you do with it that counts… Of course when the tool hides all the intricacies of how the PDF is created, then you run into problems….

    You’re funny….

  41. NBC

    “Now something similar happened in Mississippi only with even less dramatic results. In that case the copy that ended up on the court server was actually quite a good reproduction. Yet you in your zeal to claim something, anything was a forgery picked in obscure and explainable differences. Now we know a simple workflow was followed in both cases. You seem like a fairly intelligent fellow so I know you can understand what has been demonstrated. It is time to man up and admit that no chicanery was involved.”

    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

    Ummmmm… the “unaccountability force” is strong in this one.

    I uploaded my affidavit to Scribd after you illegally published it without citing your source.

    Uh, Hermitian, you are now quoting Reality Check… Speaking of confusion…

    Then you (stated at least twice) that you would update later and post WKV’s detailed results here.

    And then you proceeded to not do that.

    So I repeated Vicklund’s trials (as best as I could) from your vague and rambling posts and posted my results in great detail on this blog site. My trials with two different versions of Adobe Acrobat Pro showed that it was impossible for Vicklund to have produced the results that you claim that he gave to you.

    Vicklund showed how simple tools create the artifacts you observed. I find the 35-1 document claims to be quite silly but if you want me to spend more time on showing how they are totally irrelevant then fine. I changed to the LFBC artifacts because they are more interesting as they are seen by many birthers as conclusive evidence that it must be a forgery.

    And remember! I didn’t put all of my findings in my affidavit.

    Good for you, imagine if you had done so…

    So far your affidavit observed that the original LFBC Whitehouse copy was filed with the court to supplement Orly’s filing of an illegible copy.

    Said document was printed out and mailed to Hawaii for verification. The letter sent as well as the return letter and the printed out copy were subsequently hand delivered to the chambers of the Judge as they contained information that could not be accurately scanned: such as the signature and seal.

    You observed some minor artifacts in the scanned in document and jumped to conclusions.

    Oh, and remember that the certification also mentions the document stored on WH servers.

    So now we have another letter of verification.

  42. Hermitian: Time to ream out your IT guy dude. If it were me I would call the staff together for a come to Jesus moment.

    You do realize that my blog runs on wordpress.com?…

    You didn’t know this Dude but anyone using a real browser like IE9 noticed immediately that ,on just that one page with the chopped WH LFCOLB, the ZOOM BUTTON AND THE ENTIRE BOTTOM BORDER ARE MISSING. It’s hard to click on a missing ZOOM BUTTON DUDE. And don’t play mind games with me man. I already know that you totally ignore my heads up comments regarding your soon to crash site.

    So far wordpress.com has remained quite stable. Perhaps if you can tell me exactly which page is giving you problems and I see if I can address it

    And of course I reported the chopped image to you the very day that you first posted the mangled page.

    I am still confused here.

    So I already knew that you personally don’t use anything but freeware. (All the browsers that you listed are in the freeware category). However, no one in their right mind would be using only these free browsers to create web pages.

    You do not understand, I guess, how wordpress works? No problems… Of course, I am not sure why you are assuming that freeware is equivalent to quality…

    How familiar are you with the Internet, coding, WordPress and the freeware browsers?
    PS: Safari is as much freeware as IE Explorer… ROTFL

  43. So until you post the raw lines of code with line numbers I’ll keep assuming that you are lying. You see Dude it’s about that verify part. I’m keeping all the lines of code that you post so I can compare the line numbers to the line numbers in your Preview file when you finally publish the your “smoking gun PDF file.” Because you have told us that the Preview file was created in the automatic mode without any human intervention.

    I have no problem that you claim to trust but verify but your own words suggest the contrary. Oh and I never claimed that the Preview file was created without human intervention.
    Did you not read my workflow? The pdf was mailed, opened in preview and it was observed that it was upside down. The document was rotated and printed. Dude…. This is a simple workflow that explains all the artifacts.

  44. You posted the above line of code that you purport to have extracted from one of your Preview PDFs

    The same line of code clipped from the archive copy of the WH LFCOLB is:

    << /ProcSet [ /PDF /ImageB /ImageC /ImageI ] /ColorSpace << /Cs2 26 0 R /Cs1

    So notice that your line has only ColorSpace" but the same line in the WH LFCOLB has ColorSpace <</Cs2 26 0 R/Cs1

    So again dude your Xerox + Preview guy just doesn't have the right stuff.

    Did you check the side by side comparison I provided?

    I see what may have confused you. WordPress clips stuff when it sees the HTML > and < tags

    Compare

    obj 6 0
    Type:
    Referencing: 18 0 R, 11 0 R, 21 0 R, 29 0 R, 25 0 R, 7 0 R, 9 0 R, 31 0 R, 35 0 R, 37 0 R, 23 0 R, 16 0 R, 27 0 R, 19 0 R, 33 0 R, 12 0 R, 39 0 R, 41 0 R, 14 0 R<</ProcSet [ /PDF /ImageB /ImageC /ImageI ]/ColorSpace

    <>

    with


    obj 6 0
    Type:
    Referencing: 18 0 R, 11 0 R, 21 0 R, 29 0 R, 25 0 R, 7 0 R, 9 0 R, 31 0 R, 35 0 R, 37 0 R, 23 0 R, 16 0 R, 27 0 R, 19 0 R, 33 0 R, 12 0 R, 39 0 R, 41 0 R, 14 0 R<</ProcSet [ /PDF /ImageB /ImageC /ImageI ]/ColorSpace

    <>

    Ouch even the code tags do not protect it when placing it in comments…

    obj 6 0
    Type:
    Referencing: 18 0 R, 11 0 R, 21 0 R, 29 0 R, 25 0 R, 7 0 R, 9 0 R, 31 0 R, 35 0 R, 37 0 R, 23 0 R, 16 0 R, 27 0 R, 19 0 R, 33 0 R, 12 0 R, 39 0 R, 41 0 R, 14 0 R<</ProcSet [ /PDF /ImageB /ImageC /ImageI ]/ColorSpace

    <<

    /Cs2 18 0 R
    /Cs1 11 0 R

    >>

  45. That’s funny because you just published one of the FogBow LFCOLB released images.

    1. Click on your Blue Hi-Res Header above.

    2. Then right click on the LFCOLB image

    3. Click on Properties

    4. Observe the FogBow.com owner of this JPEG.

    Download the file: No metadata as far as I can tell The raw JPEG shows the Applewhite reference…

    54 00 68 00 69 00 73 00 20 00 68 00 61 00 6E 00 64 00 6F 00 75 00 74 00 20 00 69 00 6D 00 61 00 67 00 65 00 20 00 70 00 72 00 6F 00 76 00 69 00 64 00 65 00 64 00 20 00 62 00 79 00 20 00 74 00 68 00 65 00 20 00 57 00 68 00 69 00 74 00 65 00 20 00 48 00 6F 00 75 00 73 00 65 00 20 00 73 00 68 00 6F 00 77 00 73 00 20 00 61 00 20 00 63 00 6F 00 70 00 79 00 20 00 6F 00 66 00 20 00 74 00 68 00 65 00 20 00 6C 00 6F 00 6E 00 67 00 20 00 66 00 6F 00 72 00 6D 00 20 00 6F 00 66 00 20 00 50 00 72 00 65 00 73 00 69 00 64 00 65 00 6E 00 74 00 20 00 42 00 61 00 72 00 61 00 63 00 6B 00 20 00 4F 00 62 00 61 00 6D 00 61 00 27 00 73 00 20 00 62 00 69 00 72 00 74 00 68 00 20 00 63 00 65 00 72 00 74 00 69 00 66 00 69 00 63 00 61 00 74 00 65 00 20 00 66 00 72 00 6F 00 6D 00 20 00 48 00 61 00 77 00 61 00 69 00 69 00 2E 00 20 00 28 00 41 00 50 00 20 00 50 00 68 00 6F 00 74 00 6F 00 2F 00 4A 00 2E 00 20 00 53 00 63 00 6F 00 74 00 74 00 20 00 41 00 70 00 70 00 6C 00 65 00 77 00 68 00 69 00 74 00 65 00 29

    which translates to

    T

    Darn WordPress…

    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)

  46. NBC | July 29, 2013 at 17:58

    “”That’s funny because you just published one of the FogBow LFCOLB released images.

    1. Click on your Blue Hi-Res Header above.

    2. Then right click on the LFCOLB image

    3. Click on Properties

    4. Observe the FogBow.com owner of this JPEG.””

    “Download the file: No metadata as far as I can tell The raw JPEG shows the Applewhite reference…”

    You didn’t follow my instructions as usual.

    You are referring to the header clipping file that you posted. My instructions take you to the parent image which is on the FogBow.com site.

    Properties
    General
    2011-04-27-obama-birth-certificate.jpg
    Protocol:
    Type:
    Address:
    (URL)
    Size:
    Dimensions:
    HyperText Transfer Protocol
    JPEG image
    http ://www .thefogbow .comyforum/docs/2011 -04-27-
    obama-birth-certif icate jpg
    919540 bytes
    490 x 587 pixels
    Created: 7/28/2013
    Modified: 7/28/2013
    OK
    Cancel
    Apply

    Just as I posted — owned and released by the Fogbow.com.

  47. Does anyone else find Henry’s continued use of these stupid “HHHHHHH’s” so completely insulting that they skip over everything he writes? I think Henry’s audience consists of one person. His name is Henry. He pulled the same crap at Doctor Conspiracy’s blog until he was shamed away.

  48. He appears to be quite inflexible and unwilling or unable to learn how to properly quote text even though it has been explained to him several times.

  49. My instructions take you to the parent image which is on the FogBow.com site.

    I have downloaded the parent image, it references Applewhite… Let me help you

    Click this link

    Download the jpeg, examine the metadata.

    Open the jpeg in your favorite hex editor

    ØÿàJFIFddÿìeDuckyKP¦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)ÿîAdobedÀ

    What a noob… He cannot even properly research the metadata of a jpg file…
    Yes the image is hosted at the Fogbow but it was not ‘released by them’ it was the Applewhite photograph.

    Sigh.. You are getting really sloppy recently… Missing all these fine details about timezones, and failure to properly analyze metadata information.

  50. Hermitian: HyperText Transfer Protocol

    OMG this noob is looking at the metadata of the HTTP protocol… This is just too funny… No wonder you reach all these foolish conclusions. This one is a keeper…
    Thanks my friend…

  51. While I don’t specifically intend here to pejoratively label Hermitian, I cannot help but point out that this thread is a direct demonstration of Rule # 4 on “The Ten Key Characteristics of Nut-job Conspiracy Theorists.” To wit:

    “4. Abhorrence of simplicity (Rube Goldberg’s Razor) .

    Nut-jobs never settle for a simple solution to a problem when a hopelessly complex and idiotic alternative can be proposed. ‘Occam’s Razor’ is anathema to nut-jobs.”

    The key feature missing from Hermitian’s complex knot of ad hoc rationalizations is the reason any forger would go through such inexplicable contortions just to create the image of a birth certificate. Certainly not because they knew what they were doing. The choices made are insane when viewed from the perspective of a human forger… but completely understandable as the result of an unthinking, unintelligent set of computer algorithms. That they would also mimic the ordinary workflow of a Xerox WorkCentre beggars the credulity of… heck… I am out of metaphors.

  52. hat they would also mimic the ordinary workflow of a Xerox WorkCentre beggars the credulity of… heck… I am out of metaphors.

    Hermitian’s problem is that his hypothesis has to compete with a simple work flow. For this to work he has to imagine a totally irrational forger🙂

  53. historiandude,

    While I don’t specifically intend here to belittle you or any particular Obot on this site, I cannot help but point out from my past experience in dealing with moonbats that this thread is a direct demonstration of Rule #4 on “The Ten Key Characteristics of Moonbat Conspiracy Theorists”:

    #4. Abhorrence of simplicity

    Moonbats never settle for a simple solution to a problem when a hopelessly complex and idiotic alternative can be proposed.

    Simple solution: Release the birth record that is claimed to be on file at the HDoH, and the hospital record(s) where the birth is claimed to have taken place. Then we’ll all know if a forgery was committed.

    So much wasted time and effort by so many people. You’d think after 5 years of this that just maybe someone has something to hide, eh?

    No need to thank me for pointing out what needs to be done should be as plain as the nose on your faces.

  54. Ramboike said

    Simple solution: Release the birth record that is claimed to be on file at the HDoH, and the hospital record(s) where the birth is claimed to have taken place. Then we’ll all know if a forgery was committed.

    I would bet a year’s salary that within five minutes Birthers would be posting that a forged record was inserted into the original files in Hawaii.

    Before the release of the LFBC the Birthers were circulating a theory that the Obama people had purchased an old printing press in Canada and had produced a forged copy of the long form that was being aged using UV radiation. They wouldn’t even need to make up a new lie. They would just have to recycle that one.

  55. Simple solution: Release the birth record that is claimed to be on file at the HDoH, and the hospital record(s) where the birth is claimed to have taken place. Then we’ll all know if a forgery was committed.

    The DOH of HI no longer does this for obvious reasons. They have done the next best thing…

    Burden of proof lies with those claiming forgery and no evidence exists to support this.

  56. So much wasted time and effort by so many people. You’d think after 5 years of this that just maybe someone has something to hide, eh?

    The birthers indeed have wasted time and effort, Obama, not so much. What do these birthers have to hide?

  57. NBC said

    What do these birthers have to hide?

    Apparently, every bit of evidence like who is the forger, how they did it, what were the source documents, why tens to hundreds of officials in Hawaii are in on the scam, why the forger would create a PDF that looked like a scan from a commercial office center machine, how multiple independent forged documents were created. Those and many more things.

  58. NBC

    “”During the re-creation, each of the nine new images is automatically rotated 90 degrees counterclockwise relative to their final orientations within the LFCOLB PDF image. The page-size of the re-created JPEG image of the background layer was automatically increased by a scale ratio of 208.3333%. The image size of the eight monochrome layers was scaled up by a ratio of 416.6666%. The actual page-size of the background layer in the LFCOLB PDF file measures 8.5067 in. X 11.0133 in.””

    “[NBC: Hermitian does not explain why the layer is slightly larger than the canvas, again this is something we also observe in the Xerox workflow. So again, we compare an ‘ad hoc’ explanation with the consistent outcome of a Xerox workflow. Why would the images not map exactly in the mediabox? ]”

    Remember that NBC’s Xerox scan to PDF background page size is bigger than the Forger’s. And NBC has given no explanation as to how the Xerox MRC algorithm sets the page edges in relation to the edges of the mediabox.

    However, I at least made an effort to explain how the Forger set the page boundaries. But because it apparently went right over NBC’s head I’ll take the time to explain it more completely.

    The Forger carefully selected the page dimension W = 8.5067 in. H = 11.0133 in. so that the page would contain an interger number of pixels for pixel resolutions of 150 PPI x 150 PPI and at 300 PPI x 300 PPI. The corresponding page sizes given for the two pixel resolutions are respectively 1276 P x 1652 P and 2552 P x 3304 P.

    Another requirement of the Forger’s was that the page size be as close as possible to the mediabox dimensions W = 8.5 in. ; H = 11.0 in. while still satisfying the first requirement of an integer number of pixels for each pixel resolution.

    Finally, the third requirement was that the page dimensions would be such that an integer number of 8 P x 8 P blocks at the 300 PPI x 300 PPI pixel resolution would exactly fill the page in both horizontal and vertical directions. This condition ensures that any edge of a rectangular object boundary that is placed so as to be congruent with the edge of one of the 8 x 8 blocks would automatically meet the 8 MOD 0 condition — that is, provided that the x and y offsets of the rectangle are measured from the top-left corner of the page to the top-left corner of the rectangle.

    The Forger’s screen x and y rulers had the default origin position in the upper left corner of his screen. With the edges of the outermost 8 x 8 blocks congruent with the edges of the page for the 300 PPI x 300 PPI, then the 8 x 8 blocks for the lower resolution (150 PPI x 150 PPI) are not congruent with the right and bottom edges of the page. Along these two edges of the page the closest edge of the larger 8 x 8 blocks is half a block from each edge.

    However these larger 8 x 8 blocks are congruent with the 16 x 16 blocks for the 300 PPI x 300 PPI resolution except for the right and bottom edges of the page. This latter condition ensures that any edge of a rectangle that is congruent to the common edges of the larger 8 x 8 blocks and the 16 x 16 blocks will simultaneously meet the 8 MOD 0 condition for the 150 PPI x 150 PPI 8 x 8 blocks and also meet the 16 MOD 0 condition for the 300 PPI x 300 PPI 16 x 16 blocks.

    Additionally, the Forger placed the top and right edges of the mostly text image such that all three modulo conditions were simultaneously satisfied. He did this by placing the top and right edges of the rectangle congruent to lines which were edges of both the larger 8 x 8 blocks (150 PPI x 150 PPI) and the 16 x 16 blocks (300 PPI x 300 PPI). These congruent block edges are congruent with the major grid lines of both the 150 PPI x 150 PPI and the 300 PPI x 300 PPI grids.

    This clever placement of the rectangular object boundaries by the forger guaranteed that text characters of the same word (but placed on different layers) would line up within each word.

    He also placed the other two edges of each rectangular object boundary so as to touch the edge of the nearest pixel to that edge (of a text character contained within the rectangular object boundary). These two edges were therefore also congruent with the horizontal and vertical minor grid lines. The minor grid lines for each pixel resolution are spaced one pixel apart.

    The Forger also assigned a different near-Black color to each of the 1 Bit layers to facilitate the placement and alignment of the text characters. He then could easily identify which layer a character was on by the color of the character.

    “”The larger page-size of the re-created JPEG background image is 35.4444 in. X 22.94444 in. The size of the major text image in the composite LFCOLB PDF image measures 6.0633 in. X 4.8467 in. The size of its larger re-created image is 20.1990 in. X 25.2696 in.

    “”The size of each of the re-created images for the eight monochrome layers was automatically scaled up by a factor 200% greater than the scale factor of the background layer.”“

    “[NBC: No explanation is given as to the ‘automatic’ scaling of the foreground layers. Again, this follows trivially from the workflow I outlined where the background is stored as 150 DPI and the foreground as 300 DPI bitmaps.]”

    Very simple NBC. The Forger manually applied the rotation and scalings as he placed each of the nine image layers into the WH LFCOLB PDF. The manual manipulations were applied within the Forger’s MAC OS Adobe Illustrator program.

    Consequenty, when I reversed this process to re-create the Forger’s original larger nine images the rotations and scalings were automatically reversed. The re-created images were all 72 PPI x 72 PPI resolution. Thus the Forger had to set his grid only once to create all nine original images.

  59. @Hermitian

    So you have spun this incredible bit of nonsense that the forger created the PDF from scratch. Now tell us. Where did the AP JPG come from?

  60. NBC

    “”This 200% difference in scale factors between the background and the monochrome layers was intentionally chosen by the forger to achieve a final difference in pixel size and resolution between the background and monochrome layers.””

    “[NBC: So it was done to mimic the output from a Xerox workflow? In other words, you have no reason and fail to explain why the forger wanted to achieve a difference in pixel size]”

    The Forger wanted to throw the Birthers and the Forensic document examiners off the sent of forgery. Of course it’s possible that he was familiar with the Xerox technology and intentionally mimicked the fractured image that Xerox produces as his final defense against forgery.

  61. The Forger carefully selected the page dimension W = 8.5067 in. H = 11.0133 in. so that the page would contain an interger number of pixels for pixel resolutions of 150 PPI x 150 PPI and at 300 PPI x 300 PPI. The

    Totally ad hoc. Let’s remember why these numbers are necessary?… They have to be divisible by 8 s@300 PPI o that the JPEG is properly aligned. This introduces some extra pixels but this can be observed as well in the workflow.

    /Width 1652
    /Height 1276

    /Width 1664
    /Height 1280

    So yours is totally ad hoc, mine follows trivially from the work flow.

    Do you know how the JPEG is finally subsampled?

  62. Very simple NBC. The Forger manually applied the rotation and scalings as he placed each of the nine image layers into the WH LFCOLB PDF. The manual manipulations were applied within the Forger’s MAC OS Adobe Illustrator program.

    And yet the rotations and scalings can be seen in the workflow.

    You have just identified the forger again… It’s the Xerox work flow…

    But with the added benefit that I can actually recreate these details, you have to presume them.

    So far there has been no effort to repeat the forger’s workflow to show that it meets the final results.

    Which is why Hermitian’s ‘hypothesis’ continues to fail… You merely describe a forger which mimics an algorithmic workflow…
    So you cannot even distinguish it from such a workflow…
    And I can explain the Quantization Matrix, and the JPEG comment.

    Sorry my friend…

  63. The Forger wanted to throw the Birthers and the Forensic document examiners off the sent of forgery. Of course it’s possible that he was familiar with the Xerox technology and intentionally mimicked the fractured image that Xerox produces as his final defense against forgery.

    So you accept that he mimicked the Xerox workflow and thus is indistinguishable.

    That’s the final admission of failure.

    And I still have better explanatory power…

    Sorry my friend, you are now in the final rounds of denial…

  64. NBC

    “He appears to be quite inflexible and unwilling or unable to learn how to properly quote text even though it has been explained to him several times.”

    Not once dude did you explain how to do the block quote thingy on your blog. Nor do you have any instructions elsewhere on your web site.

  65. NBC

    “”My instructions take you to the parent image which is on the FogBow.com site.””

    “What a noob… He cannot even properly research the metadata of a jpg file…
    Yes the image is hosted at the Fogbow but it was not ‘released by them’ it was the Applewhite photograph.”

    I don’t know how the FogBow.com created their JPEG and frankly I could care less. There’s probably hundreds of JPEGS of this pale-Blue copy scattered all over the internet.

    I don’t see any difference between hosting a document and publishing the document when the chain of custody is unknown.

    For example, the Fogbow could have extracted the JPEG from the AP PDF copy produced by Applewhite. This would be equivalent to what you have done with your freetoy extraction tool. Although I doubt that the whole bunch of Obot lawyers that infest the FogBow.com site could figure out how to do that.

    Most likely they grabbed the Applewhite PDF opened the PDF in Illustrator and exported the PDF to JPEG. They knew to do that because everbody on the planet was doing it.

    One thing that’s curious about your JPEG METADATA is that it’s identical to the PDF METADATA. How do you know that your extractor is extracting the METADATA from the JPEG rather than just extracting the PDF METADATA?

  66. I don’t see any difference between hosting a document and publishing the document when the chain of custody is unknown.

    So in other words you were wrong…

    How do you know that your extractor is extracting the METADATA from the JPEG rather than just extracting the PDF METADATA?

    I obtain JPEG metadata in a very different manner than PDF metadata…

    It does look as if the Fogbow took the jpeg embedded in the AP PDF and posted it.

    So much for your ‘hypothesis’…

    I understand your feelings about the Fogbow, they have been fantastically accurate in their legal predictions and they provide numerous people of different skills who carefully debunk the birther myths.

    You sound a bit like a sore loser right now my friend, whining and complaining about the Fogbow…

    I do understand though.

  67. NBC

    “So yours is totally ad hoc, mine follows trivially from the work flow.”

    “Do you know how the JPEG is finally subsampled?”

    Yours is so trivial that you can’t explain it. What’s you explanation for why the Xerox page is so much larger than the Forger’s and the mediabox when the Forger’s carefully selected page dimensions are the optimum ? The forgers page dimensions are the smallest page size that meets all three modulo conditions for the top and right edges of the mostly text layer.

  68. Yours is so trivial that you can’t explain it. What’s you explanation for why the Xerox page is so much larger than the Forger’s and the mediabox when the Forger’s carefully selected page dimensions are the optimum ? The forgers page dimensions are the smallest page size that meets all three modulo conditions for the top and right edges of the mostly text layer.

    There are some issues related to the original versus the manufactured copy used here. So minor discrepancies will continue to occur. What I have shown however is that the software meets all the requirements as well…

    You pose an ad hoc forger who, as you have already admitted, is mimicking the Xerox workflow.

  69. You are still ignoring the fact that I can explain the alignment of all the layers. You, not so much…

    And I can show how the same features are found in the Xerox workflow created documents.

    You have to invoke an ad hoc explanation which mimicks the workflow.

  70. Reality Check | July 30, 2013 at 22:06

    NBC said

    What do these birthers have to hide?

    Apparently, every bit of evidence like who is the forger, how they did it, what were the source documents, why tens to hundreds of officials in Hawaii are in on the scam, why the forger would create a PDF that looked like a scan from a commercial office center machine, how multiple independent forged documents were created. Those and many more things.

    NBC: Sorry, I edited to add the blockquote tags and deleted the response which was something about the Playbook and progressives not lying and so on. I am not sure what this has to do with my observation but perhaps Hermitian remembers what he wrote and can explain?

  71. Reality Check | July 31, 2013 at 00:08

    “@Hermitian

    So you have spun this incredible bit of nonsense that the forger created the PDF from scratch. Now tell us. Where did the AP JPG come from?”

    The AP did not create a JPEG. Applewhite created two different PDFs. All the JPEGS that have since popped up all over the internet show the telltale bleedthrough of the short-form COLB. Based on this observation I would guess that all the JPEGS were produced from Applewhites (2nd PDF) which is purported to be a copy of the reporter’s handout. But I really don’t know. It’s quite possible that the news outlets that had a reporter at the gaggle could have scanned the reporter’s handout copy to JPEG.

    I have noticed that the visibility of the bleedthrough varies between different JPEGs.

  72. he Forger carefully selected the page dimension W = 8.5067 in. H = 11.0133 in. so that the page would contain an interger number of pixels for pixel resolutions of 150 PPI x 150 PPI and at 300 PPI x 300 PPI. The

    The page dimensions are the same for both, it’s the size of the /Im1 or JPEG encoded image which differs

    The WH LFBC

    /Width 1652
    /Height 1276

    The Xerox workflow

    /Width 1664
    /Height 1280

    Interesting observation that Hermitian may have missed. The size for Xerox is 0 MOD 8 and 0 MOD 16 compliant

    My experiments get
    /Width 1656
    /Heigh 1280

    So again, we know what the Xerox workflow software does.. But now we have another minor mystery…

    Never a boring moment…

  73. But we do know how the WH 7655 works

    Pixel Height: 1,276
    Pixel Width: 1,652

    From the Potus tax forms

    Mystery solved.

  74. NBC

    “And yet the rotations and scalings can be seen in the workflow.”

    “You have just identified the forger again… It’s the Xerox work flow…”

    I have already proven beyond doubt that the six-vectors produced by the Xerox scan to PDF indicate that no rotations were applied by the Xerox scan. Consequently, any rotations that appear after the PDF was passed through Preview had to have been applied while the image was displayed in Preview but before the file was printed to PDF.

  75. The AP did not create a JPEG.

    Uh, the PDF did include a JPEG which shows that it was created by Applewhite.

    Applewhite created two different PDFs.

    I doubt that he created the Muscatine one, it was created around 10AM East Coast Time per the metadata information.

    All the JPEGS that have since popped up all over the internet show the telltale bleedthrough of the short-form COLB. Based on this observation I would guess that all the JPEGS were produced from Applewhites (2nd PDF) which is purported to be a copy of the reporter’s handout. But I really don’t know. It’s quite possible that the news outlets that had a reporter at the gaggle could have scanned the reporter’s handout copy to JPEG.

    There is at least one version which shows a photograph made by a different photographer…

    Artist: Brendan Smialowski
    Creator: Brendan Smialowski
    Creator’s Jobtitle: Stringer
    Caption/Description: WASHINGTON – APRIL 27: A view of President Barack Obama’s long form birth certificate in the Briefing Room of the White House April 27, 2011 in Washington, DC. US President Barack Obama released a long form version of his birth certificate after extended criticism by those who do not believe he was born in the United States. (Photo by Brendan Smialowski/Getty Images)
    Category: US
    City: Washington
    Copyright Notice: 2011 Getty Images
    ISO Country Code: Uni
    Country: United States
    Provider: Getty Images
    Date Created: Apr 27, 2011
    Headline: Obama Releases Original Birth Certificate
    Title: 64475877
    Province/State: DC
    Source: Getty Images North America
    Supplemental Category: POL
    Time Created: 12:00:00 AM
    Caption/Description Writer: bs/kle

    He also shows the COLB bleeding through. Clearly a photograph, not some photoshopped creation… But I am sure you are familiar with his work🙂

    I have noticed that the visibility of the bleedthrough varies between different JPEGs.

    Yes, and the color has been corrected. Look at the color histograms for example.

  76. I have already proven beyond doubt that the six-vectors produced by the Xerox scan to PDF indicate that no rotations were applied by the Xerox scan. Consequently, any rotations that appear after the PDF was passed through Preview had to have been applied while the image was displayed in Preview but before the file was printed to PDF.

    OK, S L O W L Y this time.

    As I had shown already, the Xerox scan to PDF takes the following steps:

    Create a landscape canvas
    Scale and translate (not rotate) the sideways images onto the landscape canvas
    Rotate the canvas as a whole 270 degrees

    The preview version, both for Obama’s as well as for Xerox changes this to

    Portrait canvas
    Rotate, scale and translate the images

    You are so clueless my friend, this is basic stuff.

    You do know that inside the PDF, the images are all ‘sideways’ in landscape orientation…

    My goodness sakes, I had no idea that you would be this slow to catch on to this simple idea.

    Let me also explain why the images are stored in landscape orientation internally.

    When the page is fed to the Xerox printer it is fed sideways with the long side parallel to the scanning strip which moves over the page from left to right.
    This means that the scan lines run parallel to the long edge.

  77. NBC | July 31, 2013 at 01:06

    “You are still ignoring the fact that I can explain the alignment of all the layers. You, not so much…”

    “And I can show how the same features are found in the Xerox workflow created documents.

    “You have to invoke an ad hoc explanation which mimicks the workflow”

    Well NBC saying that you can explain how the Xerox does this and proving it by posting the numerical tables like I did weeks ago — are two entirely things.

    Just to post your meager offerings to date. The dimensions of the background layer from the one Xerox PDF that you have released are :

    W = 11.093333 in. ; H = 8.533333 in. The size in pixels at 150 PPI resolution is W = 1664 ; H = 1280. Now you have not yet reported the x, y offset and pixel W and H dimensions of each rectangular object. So you still have to post the numbers. Just because you padded the page dimensions to be divisible by 8 and 16 pixels doesn’t cut it. You also have to show that Xerox set the object boundaries correctly. From my cursory look with illustrator at the mostly text layer your Xerox forger just doesn’t have the right stuff.

    And besides, your haven’t yet defined the origin point of your (x,y) coordinate system which in turn will define your grid. The first question for you to answer is does Xerox set up it’s (x,y) coordinate system origin at the corner of the mediabox or the corner of the page?

  78. NBC

    “And yet the rotations and scalings can be seen in the workflow.”

    Not in the Xerox scan to PDF workflow ! The six-vectors show zero rotations. If you end up with rotations then they came from Preview and not from Xerox.

  79. W = 11.093333 in. ; H = 8.533333 in. The size in pixels at 150 PPI resolution is W = 1664 ; H = 1280. Now you have not yet reported the x, y offset and pixel W and H dimensions of each rectangular object.

    So you do not read PDF format… But this posting shows all the details… Come on Hermitian, you have all the data necessary.
    What is stopping you.

    The first question for you to answer is does Xerox set up it’s (x,y) coordinate system origin at the corner of the mediabox or the corner of the page?

    Xerox of course follows the PDF standard but you have to also take into account how it scans its images.

    PS: What do you think is the difference btween the corner of the media box and the corner of the page? For this purpose, they are quite the same as they are the same size are they not?

    612×792…

    You keep claiming that the Xerox ‘forger’ does not have the right stuff and yet I have shown you all that it explains.

    You have to do a bit more than stare and share with us your ‘concerns’…

    Come on Hermitian, this posting contains all of the relevant data… Do you need some hand holding?

    Come on, you claimed that the document was a forgery… Based on what?… Surely not ignorance?

  80. Not in the Xerox scan to PDF workflow ! The six-vectors show zero rotations. If you end up with rotations then they came from Preview and not from Xerox.

    OMG… Yes, the Xerox PDF shows zero rotations of the individual objects but rotates the final page 270 degrees… Preview rewrites the order to match what we see in the Obama WH PDF.

    COme on my friend, do you really need me to explain in more details? I won’t mind but this is so simple.

    Let me know…

  81. NBC

    “Create a landscape canvas
    Scale and translate (not rotate) the sideways images onto the landscape canvas
    Rotate the canvas as a whole 270 degrees”

    You really ought to read the PDFReferenceXX.pdf. If you had then you would know that PDF rotations are applied to the coordinate — not to the object. And they are certainly not applied to a “canvas”. In fact the PDFREference14.pdf which applies to your Xerox states that the coordinate system is the canvas !

    “4.2 Coordinate Systems

    “Coordinate systems define the canvas on which all painting occurs. They deter-
    mine the position, orientation, and size of the text, graphics, and images that
    appear on a page. This section describes each of the coordinate systems used in
    PDF, how they are related, and how transformations among them are specified.”

    So you can’t rotate the canvas without rotating the coordinate system. In fact the rotation six-vector rotates the coordinate system and the canvas goes along for the ride. Consequently their is no rotation of the coordinates (or the canvas) without a six-vector that specifies the rotation. And your Xerox six-vectors do not include any rotations.

    I can see you are confusing PDF coordinate rotations with object rotations. Just remember any PDF rotation requires a rotation matrix included in the concatenated six-vector. And your Xerox concatenated six vectors do not include any rotation.

  82. NBC

    Maybe NBC needs to explain how Preview changes the form of the Xerox six-vectors.

  83. You really ought to read the PDFReferenceXX.pdf. If you had then you would know that PDF rotations are applied to the coordinate — not to the object. And they are certainly not applied to a “canvas”. In fact the PDFREference14.pdf which applies to your Xerox states that the coordinate system is the canvas !

    Sigh… You still need more hand holding…

    Yes the Xerox PDF does not include rotations EXCEPT the Rotate 270 which causes much confusion to Illustrator.

    The Rotate 270 is at the Page/Canvas level and turns the whole landscape document into portrait.

    And yes, the coordinates mean that the objects are rotates. It’s the same concept.

    Basic math.

    I showed you how the Preview version of the Xerox document contains all the rotation vectors as found in the WH Document.

    What is holding you back?

  84. Maybe NBC needs to explain how Preview changes the form of the Xerox six-vectors.

    It just does.. Nothing to earth shattering here. I have shown that this is indeed the case.

    Did Hermitian really believe that a PDF can be created in only one unique way? Nope, and thus the format of the PDF itself is a signature.

    I will explain how Preview does it in a later posting, it’s trivial.

  85. So you can’t rotate the canvas without rotating the coordinate system. In fact the rotation six-vector rotates the coordinate system and the canvas goes along for the ride.

    That is incorrect. The Canvas is invariant, the objects are rotated and then painted on the canvas as defined by the Mediabox and masked by possible masking layers.

    But yes, you can rotate the final page after all objects are in place. It’s trivial to understand that such a step is not intrusive on the rendering of the page.

    In fact, it is quite trivial to understand that you can layout all objects on landscape and then rotate the landscape canvas into portrait orientation or that you can create a portrait canvas and rotate all the pieces in place.

    Think about it, you may even want to mimic a layout actions.

  86. NBC

    And how soon do you forget NBC ! I just told you that when I re-created the Forger’s original working files, the process produces a single JPEG for the background layer and eight PNG Bitmap files for the eight non-background layers.

    I have examine the JPEG thoroughly in 010 HEX Editor and the only ASCII text is the “JFIF” label in the first line, the word “Ducky” in the second line and the word “Adobe” in the third line. Your YCbCr label appears nowhere in this re-created JPEG file.

  87. Reality Check,

    Re Your: “I would bet a year’s salary that within five minutes Birthers would be posting that a forged record was inserted into the original files in Hawaii.”

    I would join you in that bet. It’s almost a given that some Birthers will try it. Butttt, we eliminate that by having independent document experts representing both sides examine the records and conduct whatever tests they need to preform to determine if the records are legit or forgeries. If they conclude the birth record on file and the hospital record(s) are genuine then it’s game over for the Birthers. There should be no excuse making by anyone. For the life of me I can’t come up with any other way that would eliminate hearsay & and possible document manipulation. I would think if truth is your higher calling you’d be for doing the same.

    Hypothetically speaking: So you debunk Zullo. That still isn’t proof of an Hawaiian birth.

    Lets also not confuse this with the issue of natural born citizen. This is only about place & date of birth, and biological parents.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    NBC,

    Re your: “The birthers indeed have wasted time and effort, Obama, not so much. What do these birthers have to hide?”

    Who is hiding? You do have a sense of humor.

    “..I think what’s important if you are running for President is that the American people know who you are, what you’ve done, and you’re an open book..”
    ~Obama

    “When you’re running for president, everything should be public – including your full medical records. I believe in a right to privacy. But when you’re running for president, which is such an important job, the need of the public to know supersedes it.”
    ~Charles Schumer, D-Senator, N.Y

    “The only people who don’t want to disclose the truth are people who have something to hide”
    ~Obama

  88. NBC

    You probably don’t know that starting with Adobe Illustrator CS6, Adobe added the Unembed command. This command, as the name implies, unembeds any layer that was previously embedded in an Adobe Illustrator PDF file.

    I applied the unembed command to the WH LFCOLB Green basket-weave background layer. Both Adobe Illustrator CS6 and Adobe Illustrator CC create a Photoshop PSD file containing the bitmap image of the background layer as the unembedded file.

    I examined this .PSD file in 010 HEX Editor and a search for “your smoking gun” YCbCr label turned up no hits.

    This proves that your YCbCR label is not required to re-create the bitmap image by means of the Adobe unembed command.

    Thus neither the re-created JPEG bitmap nor the unembedded PSD bitmap contains the YCbCr label.

  89. I have examine the JPEG thoroughly in 010 HEX Editor and the only ASCII text is the “JFIF” label in the first line, the word “Ducky” in the second line and the word “Adobe” in the third line. Your YCbCr label appears nowhere in this re-created JPEG file.

    Huh…You are looking at the wrong jpeg

    ROTFL

  90. I examined this .PSD file in 010 HEX Editor and a search for “your smoking gun” YCbCr label turned up no hits.

    Of course the YCbCr label is not required, it’s a comment…Geez.

    But the fact that it is embedded in the jpeg somewhat destroyes your argument and yes, you can see it in the document and even the PDF itself.

    My goodness sakes Hermitian…

  91. Thus neither the re-created JPEG bitmap nor the unembedded PSD bitmap contains the YCbCr label.

    Poor Hermitian lacks the tools and skills to do the proper experiment, instead of extracting a JPEG he creates a .PSD file…

    Has it even occurred to our clueless friend to open the PDF in a hex editor and search?

    the YCbCr string is found at offset 0x1197A

    The full comment is

    FF FE 00 07 59 43 62 43 72

    It is the stream for 7 0 obj, which is dctdecode encoded and is the JPEG.

    Come on Hermitian, this is not rocket science my friend.

    Sigh… How much more silliness can we expect from our friend… I do understand though that your hypothesis shows itself to be unable to defeat the work flow one, but at least verify before making these noob mistakes.

  92. NBC’s latest ridicule is all based on “trust me it’s trivial”. Well re-writing the PDFReferenceXX.pdf specifications is not trivial dude. You see — you don’t get to just make up new rules when your Xerox guy doesn’t deliver the goods.

    This is just plain weird, I have shown how the PDF created by the Xerox workflow saved by preview matches all that is found in the WH LFBC PDF and somehow Hermitian believes, or insists that the Xerox workflow does not deliver the goods.

    I’ve told you time and time again that all PDF rotations are between two coordinate systems — not between one coordinate system and an object. Thus if your six-vectors don’t include a rotation matrix then you don’t have any rotations.

    That is correct. However, the cm matrices are not the only way to rotate. The page object contains a /Rotate 270 command. A to PDF rotations being between coordinate systems, it basically takes a set of points that make an object in one coordinate system and applies a set of transformations which rotate, scale, skew and translate these points, forming a new object

    So let me make this perfectly clear. Your Xerox guy doesn’t deliver the goods. Xerox doesn’t have the right stuff ! All that’s left for you to do is to release the Xerox and Preview PDF files from your best Xerox/Prevew combo special and then we can prove that your dumb machines could not have possibly produced the WH LFCOLB PDF image.

    ROTFL.. So I have shown that it delivers the goods but now our friend insists that I should deliver the PDF files so that he can support his claims. Hilarious… He should instead show us how I was wrong, not claim that I am wrong, if he only had the evidence. Why is it so hard for Hermitian to repeat my experiment of printing a document to PDF using Preview…

    You are confusing the rotations that your human operator of the XEROX machine applies to a piece of paper with the software rotations applied to the PDF user coordinate system within a computer grahpics program which are written to the lines of PDF code.

    Still not understanding what I am telling you based on the data I have presented…

    You don’t seem to understand that the PDF rotations between the two coordinate frames must be applied within a software program that can calculate the correct rotation matrix and write the matrix to the PDF file. Your human Xerox operator cannot

    That is of course self evident. My ‘xerox operator’ merely applied two rotations to correct for the upside down image. But even on a right side up image, the document still contains rotations because, as I have shown, the images are stored internally in a landscape format. This is why you see rotate operations in the WH PDF, this is why you see rotate operations in the Xerox document printed with Preview, that’s why you see rotate operations in the original Xerox PDF. Of course, in the latter case, the rotation is applied at the page level.

    Your Xerox operator cannot do that because he/she is not applying software rotations within a computer graphics software program.

    Any physical rotations applied by the Xerox operator to the sheet of the paper original before the scan to PDF is initiated can only control the orientation of the scanned image. However, because the Xerox scanning software does not apply any PDF rotations between coordinate systems, then these physical rotations applied by the Xerox operator to the paper original must show up in the orientation of the scanned image.

    So if you scan the paper original right-side-up then the scanned image must be right-side-up when the PDF is opened in any PDF Viewer or editor. And if the operator places the original up-side-down on the glass, then the scanned image must be up-side-down when the PDF file is opened in any PDF Viewer or editor. This is basic physics stuff. By the way did you ever take college level physics? How about college level drafting, CAD/CAM or Descriptive Geometry?

    You are now confusing various issues. 1) How the document was scanned 2) how the images are stored internally 3) how the images are transformed into place 4) how the final PDF is oriented.

    Let’s walk through this in small steps:

    I scan a document on a Xerox WorkCenter

    The document is scanned in landscape orientation because the long edge of the paper is perpendicular to the scanning direction which is from left to right. The images are stored internally in a landscape direction (this is why you see them rotated in place in the WH PDF). In the Xerox PDF, instead of rotating them individually into portrait orientation, the software places them ‘as is’ (landscape) into a landscape oriented canvas and then rotates the whole page before it renders it. This is why Illustrator shows them still in landscape as it fails to obey Rotate 270 instruction (which is a know issue).

    When you print the document to PDF using preview, the operations are as follows.

    1. The images remain stored in their landscape internal position 2. The cm matrices now add rotation to rotate th images from the landscape into a portrait oriented canvas 3. No more page wide rotations are found at the /Page level.

    If you scan the document upside down, the same happens, only now the page opens up upside down in readers. When the ‘human operator’ who had just scanned the document noticed this, she/he rotated the picture using Preview and printed it to PDF.

    This results in a correctly oriented PDF and the images are still stored in landscape form however rotated 180 degrees (so instead of clockwise, they are now stored counter clockwise).

    It’s trivial really.

    And you still haven’t told us how Preview can change the form of the Xerox six-vectors ???
    To demonstrate that you must multiply any rotation matrix applied by Preview and the concatenated matrix cm from the Xerox scan to PDF and get the final Preview six-vector. Of course any of the readers could do that check as soon as you release your final Xerox and Preview PDF files.

    Preview simply does what it does. Instead of apply the Rotate and page level, as the Xerox PDF instructs the reader to do, it adds the rotation to the individual objects and rotates them into a portrait oriented canvas directly. This is why the preview PDF shows a similar cm matrix when compared to the WH PDF. I have released all the relevant data, such as the cm matrices and the object orientations as stored within the Xerox PDF created by Preview. If you doubt me, then repeat my experiment and show me wrong.

    So the bottom line is your fleet of dumb machines don’t have the right stuff.

    IT TAKES A LIVING BREATHING HUMAN FORGER TO CREATE THE WH LFCOLB PDF.

    So you keep saying and yet my data show otherwise. How embarrassing isn’t it?… Now, if you disagree, do the simple experiment and print your PDF using preview and analyse, just like I have done, the rotations.

    Looking forward to your detailed “rebuttal”…

Comments are closed.