WH LFBC versus Preview Saved WH 7535

It may be helpful for our friend Hermitian to see the documents side by side…

On the left, the 7535 PDF saved by Preview, on the right, the White House LFBC PDF. There are more objects but this will give you a taste of what is yet to come… Note how all align so nicely… Except for the rotations being opposite. Of course, scan upside down, open in PDF, rotate and print and you solve that little problem as well.

The ‘remarkable’ observation is how similar the two documents really are. Part of it is to be expected as they were both last touched by Preview.

Differences identified so far:

  • Number of Xobjects (9 versus 17)
  • Colorspace (dependent on the color space captured)

All so simple. I am using the PDF 1.3 reference

7355 PDF Saved in Preview WH LFBC
The PDF file starts with two comments one containing the version and the other a high bit value: From the standard

  • A one-line header identifying the version of the PDF specification to which the file conforms

“It is recommended that, header line be immediately followed by a comment line containing at least 4 bytes of binary characters, that is characters whose codes are 128 or greater. This will ensure proper behavior of file transfer applications that inspect data near the beginning of a file to determine whether to treat the file’s contents as text or as binary.”

The PDF file starts with two comments one containing the version and the other a high bit value: From the standard

  • A one-line header identifying the version of the PDF specification to which the file conforms

“It is recommended that, header line be immediately followed by a comment line containing at least 4 bytes of binary characters, that is characters whose codes are 128 or greater. This will ensure proper behavior of file transfer applications that inspect data near the beginning of a file to determine whether to treat the file’s contents as text or as binary.”

PDF Comment ‘%PDF-1.3\n’
PDF Comment ‘%\xc4\xe5\xf2\xe5\xeb\xa7\xf3\xa0\xd0\xc4\xc6\n’
PDF Comment ‘%PDF-1.3\n’
PDF Comment ‘%\xc4\xe5\xf2\xe5\xeb\xa7\xf3\xa0\xd0\xc4\xc6\n’
The “rendering object” 9 objects The “rendering object” 17 object
obj 4 0
Type:
Referencing: 5 0 R
Contains stream
<<

/Length 5 0 R
/Filter /FlateDecode

>>

obj 4 0
Type:
Referencing: 5 0 R
Contains stream
<<

/Length 5 0 R
/Filter /FlateDecode

>>

 ‘q Q q 12 12 588 768 re W n q 0 798.72 -614.4 0 613.2 -3.36 cm /Im1 Do Q /Cs1\ncs 0.0824 0.1333 0.098 sc q 0 336.72 -419.76 0 516.48 236.64 cm /Im2 Do Q\n0.2039 0.3216 0.2902 sc q 0 47.04 -166.56 0 484.08 71.52 cm /Im3 Do Q 0.1765\n0.2863 0.2392 sc q 0 10.32 -63.36 0 238.8 88.8 cm /Im4 Do Q /Cs2 cs 0.9843\nsc q 0 124.08 -113.76 0 488.88 369.12 cm /Im5 Do Q /Cs1 cs 0.1137 0.2392 0.1804\nsc q 0 28.8 -51.36 0 486 248.16 cm /Im6 Do Q 0.1765 0.3451 0.2667 sc q 0 12.24 -49.68 0 159.84 246.24\ncm /Im7 Do Q 0.7804 0.8549 0.7765 sc q 0 31.92 -83.76 0 167.04 280.8 cm /Im8\nDo Q /Cs2 cs 0.9804 sc q 0 66.96 -42.96 0 473.76 246.24 cm /Im9 Do Q /Cs1\ncs 0.1216 0.2275 0.1922 sc q 0 7.68 -21.84 0 368.16 315.36 cm /Im10 Do Q /Cs2\ncs 0.9882 sc q 0 31.44 -88.56 0 267.84 444 cm /Im11 Do Q 0.9804 sc q 0 25.92 -54.72 0 166.8 449.76\ncm /Im12 Do Q /Cs1 cs 0.8 0.9059 0.7686 sc q 0 22.8 -31.2 0 354.48 739.68\ncm /Im13 Do Q 0.8118 0.9137 0.8 sc q 0 24.96 -17.04 0 501.6 737.76 cm /Im14\nDo Q 0.8118 0.9216 0.8314 sc q 0 41.28 -8.16 0 498.48 687.84 cm /Im15 Do Q\n0.9804 0.9961 1 sc q 0 26.16 -50.4 0 250.8 488.16 cm /Im16 Do Q 0.8196 0.9176\n0.8039 sc q 0 18.96 -12 0 310.32 735.84 cm /Im17 Do Q Q’  ‘q Q q 18 14.40002 576 763.2 re W n q 0 -792.96 612.48 0 -0.24 792.48 cm /Im1\nDo Q /Cs1 cs 0.1059 0.17650 0.1216 sc q 0 -348.96 436.56 0 89.28 581.28 cm\n/Im2 Do Q 0.34510 0.3922 0.3529 sc q 0 -47.76 186.72 0 304.56 108.96 cm /Im3\nDo Q 0.302 0.34510 0.3216 sc q 0 -10.08 65.76 0 170.16 89.76 cm /Im4 Do Q\n0.2549 0.3373 0.2627 sc q 0 -29.52 54.72 0 440.4 274.08 cm /Im5 Do Q 0.3412\n0.4353 0.3412 sc q 0 -11.28 51.84 0 103.44 254.88 cm /Im6 Do Q 0.2549 0.3373\n0.2627 sc q 0 -8.16 16.8 0 349.68 322.08 cm /Im7 Do Q 0.9412 0.9725 0.9216\nsc q 0 -58.32 52.08 0 176.16 185.76 cm /Im8 Do Q /Cs2 cs 0.9647 sc q 0 -31.68 34.08 0 251.76 784.8\ncm /Im9 Do Q Q’
obj 5 0
Type:
Referencing:[(1, ‘\n’), (3, ‘528’), (1, ‘\n’)]
obj 5 0
Type:
Referencing:[(1, ‘\n’), (3, ‘310’), (1, ‘\n’)]
obj 2 0
Type: /Page
Referencing: 3 0 R, 6 0 R, 4 0 R<<

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

>>

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

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

>>

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

>>

/XObject

<<

/Im7 21 0 R
/Im11 29 0 R
/Im9 25 0 R
/Im1 7 0 R
/Im2 9 0 R
/Im12 31 0 R
/Im14 35 0 R
/Im15 37 0 R
/Im8 23 0 R
/Im5 16 0 R
/Im10 27 0 R
/Im6 19 0 R
/Im13 33 0 R
/Im3 12 0 R
/Im16 39 0 R
/Im17 41 0 R
/Im4 14 0 R

>>

>>

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

<<

/Cs2 26 0 R
/Cs1 11 0 R

>>

/XObject

<<

/Im7 20 0 R
/Im8 22 0 R
/Im9 24 0 R
/Im2 9 0 R
/Im4 14 0 R
/Im1 7 0 R
/Im6 18 0 R
/Im3 12 0 R
/Im5 16 0 R

>>

>>

obj 21 0
Type: /XObject
Referencing: 22 0 R
Contains stream<<

/Length 22 0 R
/Type /XObject
/Subtype /Image
/Width 51
/Height 207
/ImageMask true
/BitsPerComponent 1
/Filter /FlateDecode

>>

obj 20 0
Type: /XObject
Referencing: 21 0 R
Contains stream<<

/Length 21 0 R
/Type /XObject
/Subtype /Image
/Width 34
/Height 70
/ImageMask true
/BitsPerComponent 1
/Filter /FlateDecode

>>

From the TrailerSince the PDF is actually interpreted from the end, it is informative to track how it proceeds From the TrailerSince the PDF is actually interpreted from the end, it is informative to track how it proceeds
xreftrailer
<<

/Size 56
/Root 47 0 R
/Info 1 0 R
/ID [<82cf28ecf524bb4fc8013be91eefb447><82cf28ecf524bb4fc8013be91eefb447>]

>>

startxref 301615
PDF Comment ‘%%EOF\n’

xreftrailer
<<

/Size 40
/Root 31 0 R
/Info 1 0 R
/ID [<d6fc2758ceb2f98f54abce9a4b28fc1c><d6fc2758ceb2f98f54abce9a4b28fc1c>]

>>

startxref 384395
PDF Comment ‘%%EOF\n’

Root Object Root Object
obj 47 0
Type: /Catalog
Referencing: 3 0 R<<

/Type /Catalog
/Pages 3 0 R

>>

obj 31 0
Type: /Catalog
Referencing: 3 0 R<<

/Type /Catalog
/Pages 3 0 R

>>

Catalog Catalog
obj 3 0
Type: /Pages
Referencing: 2 0 R<<

/Type /Pages
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Count 1
/Kids [ 2 0 R ]

>>

obj 3 0
Type: /Pages
Referencing: 2 0 R<<

/Type /Pages
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Count 1
/Kids [ 2 0 R ]

>>

Object 3 brings us to Obj 2 above Object 3 brings us to Obj 2 above
The Info Object The Info Object
obj 1 0
Type:
Referencing: 48 0 R, 50 0 R, 51 0 R, 49 0 R, 52 0 R, 53 0 R, 53 0 R, 54 0 R, 55 0 R<<

/Title 48 0 R
/Author 50 0 R
/Subject 51 0 R
/Producer 49 0 R
/Creator 52 0 R
/CreationDate 53 0 R
/ModDate 53 0 R
/Keywords 54 0 R
/AAPL:Keywords 55 0 R

>>

obj 1 0
Type:
Referencing: 32 0 R, 34 0 R, 35 0 R, 33 0 R, 36 0 R, 37 0 R, 37 0 R, 38 0 R, 39 0 R<<

/Title 32 0 R
/Author 34 0 R
/Subject 35 0 R
/Producer 33 0 R
/Creator 36 0 R
/CreationDate 37 0 R
/ModDate 37 0 R
/Keywords 38 0 R
/AAPL:Keywords 39 0 R

>>

Color Spaces CS2 Gray
Color Space CS2 Gray. Different length
 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 ]
 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 ]
 obj 43 0
Type:
Referencing: 44 0 R
Contains stream<<

/Length 44 0 R
/N 1
/Alternate /DeviceGray
/Filter /FlateDecode

>>

 obj 27 0
Type:
Referencing: 28 0 R
Contains stream<<

/Length 28 0 R
/N 1
/Alternate /DeviceGray
/Filter /FlateDecode

>>

 obj 44 0
Type:
Referencing:[(1, ‘\n’), (3, ‘3323’), (1, ‘\n’)]
 obj 28 0
Type:
Referencing:[(1, ‘\n’), (3, ‘2905’), (1, ‘\n’)]
  Color Space CS1 RGB. Different length  Color Space CS1 RGB. Different length
obj 11 0
Type:
Referencing: 45 0 R[(1, ‘\n’), (2, ‘[‘), (1, ‘ ‘), (2, ‘/ICCBased’), (1, ‘ ‘), (3, ’45’), (1, ‘ ‘), (3, ‘0’), (1, ‘ ‘), (3, ‘R’), (1, ‘ ‘), (2, ‘]’), (1, ‘\n’)][ /ICCBased 45 0 R ]
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 ]
 obj 45 0
Type:
Referencing: 46 0 R
Contains stream<<

/Length 46 0 R
/N 3
/Alternate /DeviceRGB
/Filter /FlateDecode

>>

 obj 29 0
Type:
Referencing: 30 0 R
Contains stream<<

/Length 30 0 R
/N 3
/Alternate /DeviceRGB
/Filter /FlateDecode

>>

16 thoughts on “WH LFBC versus Preview Saved WH 7535

  1. NBC

    “It may be helpful for our friend Hermitian to see the documents side by side…”

    We are still waiting !!

    “On the left, the 7535 PDF saved by Preview, on the right, the White House LFBC PDF.”

    We’ll have to take your word for it AGAIN !!!

    “There are more objects but this will give you a taste of what is yet to come… “

    Don’t bother if your can’t figure out the Zoom button…

    Note how all align so nicely…

    The forger probably said that too…

    Except for the rotations being opposite.

    Except that your six-vectors from the Xerox scan to PDF prove that none of the images were rotated. I don’t remember your ever revealing that little detail.

    And don’t forget that you slipped up and accidentally revealed the fact that the form of your Xerox six-vectors is totally different than the form of your six-vectors from the Preview PDF.

    So who told Preview to replace the Xerox six-vectors ?

    I can just hear your grunts grunting over that one.

    And don’t forget that little nagging problem that the image opens in Landscape orientation in Illustrator but the WH LFCOLB opens in Portrait in Illustrator and also in every other graphics program that I own that can open PDFs.

    And then there was zero data in the Links panel so we’ll never know how your Xerox image was constructed and assembled and embedded.

    And of course everybody knows that you are in a panic because you can’t figure out how to block the Illustrator Links panel data from the Preview PDF.

    “Of course, scan upside down, open in PDF, rotate and print and you solve that little problem as well.”

    Yes I would call that a gyration. But I’ve seen much better at Holiday on Ice.

    So SHOWSTOPPERS for you are just a little problem ?

    Hey Dude !!! !!! YOUR XEROX COMPOSITE IMAGE WAS NOT ROTATED !!!

    So tell your inside guy over at the White House (who just uncrated his new Xerox 7655) to forget about that upside-down scan !!! He can just scan it right-side-up.

    I know that you are still upset that he didn’t order the Xerox 7535 but he was probably just confused like the rest of us.

    And we’re still waiting for you to cough up the Preview PDF which is the companion to the Xerox 7535 PDF that you posted before.

    That way we can use the new split screen feature in WIN 7 to compare the two PDFs line for line without chopping off the right window.

    P.S.

    Did you know that the default size for all bitmap images embedded within a PDF file is 1 in. x 1 in. square ?

  2. NBC

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

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

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

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

    I’m glad that you know how to do it because you told us you already did.

    “”Right now would be a good time.””

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

    Sitting back is not how I stay ahead Dude.

    I don’t have a cohort of grunts like you do.

    We’re still waiting for you to tell us how the Xerox created its scanned image from the lines of text in the scan-to-PDF file.

    And remember ! Rotations of any of the images is a NO ! NO.!

  3. NBC

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

    So today we’re back to the Xerox 7535 ?

    Do you just draw straws ?

  4. NBC

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

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

    No Dude ! The only way for anybody to check what you are doing is to have access to your PDF files.

    And you already forgot the biggest change that you accidently revealed yesterday.

    Which is that Preview replaced all of Xerox’s six-vectors. And then Preview applied a rotation that Xerox had not applied. So we know for a fact that your Xerox is not device independent with respect to Preview.

    And we all know what that means. You shouldn’t be using Preview to analyze the Xerox PDF.

    That’s why we all want to download your Preview PDF. That way we can use our own tools to look at it.

    P.S.

    Brother is the only company that I know that builds Landscape mode printers. And their’s are InkJet.

    http://www.brother-usa.com/PressReleases/BROTHER%20BUSINESS%20SMART%20SERIES%208%2022%2012.pdf

  5. NBC

    So Dude the next time you go ragging the CCP about not releasing every jot and tittle I’m going to climb your case about not releasing your Preview PDFs.

  6. NBC

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

    I really like your “the White House made me do it” excuse.

  7. John | July 27, 2013 at 03:15

    “Hermitian,


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

    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
    Right on John ! On every one of your points !

    I couldn’t have said it as well myself !

  8. NBC

    “John”

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

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

    How about clarifying it here and now ?

  9. We’ll have to take your word for it AGAIN !!!

    On the contrary, you too can do the experiment. Open the Xerox document in Preview and Print to PDF.

    Simple…

  10. Hermitian still seems to be confused about these simple facts.

    Except that your six-vectors from the Xerox scan to PDF prove that none of the images were rotated. I don’t remember your ever revealing that little detail.

    And don’t forget that you slipped up and accidentally revealed the fact that the form of your Xerox six-vectors is totally different than the form of your six-vectors from the Preview PDF.

    So who told Preview to replace the Xerox six-vectors ?

    I can just hear your grunts grunting over that one.

    So let’s take some smaller steps

    All the PDF’s contain images which are ‘rotated’. In other words, when you extract the images in their raw form and display them, they are sideways.

    I have shown this in all its gory details.

    The differences are that the xerox PDF places the images without rotation on a landscape canvas and then rotates the canvas 270 degrees. This results in a portrait canvas however internally the images have been rotated as well.

    The WH LFBC creates a portrait canvas and thus has to rotate the images into its proper place.

    Both result in exactly the same rendering with a minor difference: Illustrator does not deal well with the /Rotate command (document on the web as well) and displays the canvas and the images as landscape.

    When you open the document in preview and rotate the upside down scanned document to its proper position, Preview changes the cm matrices to match. Remember that only an upside down scanned document rotated 180 shows the embedded images in the same sideways position as the WH LFBC.

    Who told preview to do all this? Well, that’s simple: The person who opened the PDF, noticed that it was upside down and rotated in 180 degrees and then printed to PDF again.

    The fact that the Xerox and Preview PDF’s are different has been document by me in quite some detail. Some of the differences are

    1. JBIG2Decode is transformed into FlateDecode
    2. ObjStm are transformed into separate XObjects
    3. the /Rotate command is removed
    4. The rotations are applied at the XObject level
    5 The images remain untouched
    6. Creator/Producer etc tags are updated
    7. XObject names are translated from XIPLAYER to IM1….IM9
    8. A clipping path is added

    You may have missed these details but they are trivial to show.

    Understanding that if you scan a document on a Xerox WorkCentre, upside down, and email it, and subsequently use Preview to rotate the document 180 degrees, you end up with a document that contains all the artifacts seen in the WH PDF. Such as

    1. Multiple foreground layers of different monochrome colors
    2. Images which appear sideways internally
    3. A background layer encoded in JPEG with the same Quantization Matrices and Embedded Comment tag, at half the resolution of the monochrome bitmaps
    4.Monochrome bitmaps which align on two sides with 8×8 bit boundaries and touch the internal object on the two opposite boundaries
    5. A clipping mask
    6. Objects that appear to be identical because of the use of JBIG2 although now encoded in FlateDecode
    7. The same metadata
    8. ‘linked objects’ which are rotated and scaled into place
    9. Text which appears partially in higher resolution monochrome and lower resolution RGB

    Did I miss anything?

    I do not understand why you insist on comparing the Xerox Document with the WH Document when the Whitehouse PDF was clearly last touched by Preview. You are just comparing apples and oranges.

    Look Hermitian, I have provided you with all the steps, all the tools, and all the raw data you need to repeat my experiments.

    It’s time you do your work before you continue to fail to understand that you cannot compare apples and oranges.

    What you need to understand is simple: Preview takes a PDF and when it is exported or printed, it creates a PDF version 1.3. This is what we observe, and this also means that the document does no longer contain features that were supported in higher versions of PDF such as JBIG2, ObjStm etc.

    If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to ask. I have found that explaining things to you also helps clarify issues to me and even create new ways to test assumptions.

  11. Sitting back is not how I stay ahead Dude.

    And yet, you appear to be miles behind.

    I don’t have a cohort of grunts like you do.

    Neither do I. I have had some help from various people but recently they are just enjoying the ride you are taking.

    We’re still waiting for you to tell us how the Xerox created its scanned image from the lines of text in the scan-to-PDF file.

    And remember ! Rotations of any of the images is a NO ! NO.!

    Sigh… It’s so simple… Did you really miss the /Rotate instruction ?

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

    So here is how the Xerox PDF creates its portrait oriented picture. Remember that internally all the images are sideways 90 degrees.

    The PDF instructs the renderer to create a Canvas in landscape position

        /MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
    

    Note that the width is larger than the height… Clearly landscape.

    Since the image and the landscape document align (I told you the document was scanned in landscape did I not?), the images are just scaled and rotated in place onto the canvas.

    Once the page is done, the rendered is instructed to rotate the canvas with all the objects 270 degrees and ‘miraculously’ the pages shows up in portrait, with a minor problem in Illustrator which fails to obey the /Rotate 270, which appears to be a common problem, and thus the page renders sideways.

    Now when you open up the document in Preview and export it Preview rewrites the PDF instructions, as I have shown. Even if you do not rotate the objects 180 degrees, preview has to do a lot of rewriting as it downgrades the PDF version from 1.4 or 1.5 to 1.3. We all know that 1.3 has no support for JBIG2 or ObjSTM and others.

    Rather than doing a 270 on the whole page, Preview takes an approach which leads to the same result. It creates a canvas in portrait direction

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

    And now it has to rotate the images which are sideways, onto the rotated canvas. So rather than rotating the resulting page 270 degrees, it rotates the individual components. Anyone who has used Preview and examined its effects would have known this. A diligent researcher would not forget to study the effects of Preview on the embedded objects.

    So while the Xerox PDF and the Preview version create the same output, they are internally quite different. Which is why one should not rely on illustrator.

    Let me know if something still remains unclear to you.

  12. So today we’re back to the Xerox 7535 ?

    Do you just draw straws ?

    The 7535 software acts the same as the 7655 software but I see your point and will of course avoid your confusions by doing the same for the 7655. The side by side comparison is meant to educate you as to how the software works. But it seems that these are lost on you….

    Sigh… I had no idea that I faces so much hand holding with you. But I am a patient person… So far, have you observed anything that destroys my workflow?

  13. No Dude ! The only way for anybody to check what you are doing is to have access to your PDF files.

    On the contrary, the only way to check is to get preview and save the input file I have provided. Otherwise, who knows that I coud have changed internally…

    And you already forgot the biggest change that you accidently revealed yesterday.

    Which is that Preview replaced all of Xerox’s six-vectors. And then Preview applied a rotation that Xerox had not applied. So we know for a fact that your Xerox is not device independent with respect to Preview.

    ROTFL, this has been ‘revealed’ by me much earlier. And yes Xerox is device independent with respect to Preview. It’s just that Preview rewrites the PDF when it is asked to do so (export or print to PDF). As I have patiently explained, this is necessary because Preview only supports PDF 1.3 encoding. What you have observed is what is well known to those familiar with PDFs, namely that there are an infinite amount of ways to generate the same looking PDF. Which is why studying the raw data is so important.

    I am not sure what causes you to conclude that Xerox is not device independent wrt Preview… Both documents render exactly the same on readers. Of course Illustrator is a minor known exception as it appears to have a hard time following the Page /Rotate instructions.

    If you want to argue that Preview completely rewrites the XObject instructions (although it does not touch the image objects) then you are correct. It was “told to do so” when it was asked to export or print to pdf. This is a trivial experiment to do, and anyone who has a Mac or anyone who looks at the Preview PDF would have to do such experiments in order to understand the impact of Preview on the raw format of the PDF.

    I am still not sure why you think that this is such a big issue? In fact the mere observation that Preview, used to export a Xerox created PDF, creates exactly the same layout as observed with in the Whitehouse LFBC PDF.

    That completes the work flow. You cannot compare a Preview created PDF directly with the WH LFBC or you will remain confused about what happened…

    You do the experiments that repeat the work flow, in this case run the Xerox PDF through Preview and export or print to PDF.

    The resulting document shares all the features that confused some into concluding that a forger was in play….

    That my friend is how good research is done.

    So if you object to my findings, you do not start with my final data, you repeat yourself as many as the steps as possible. I provided you with a document created on a Xerox Work Centre, yes it is a 7355 document but you will find that the results are indistinguishable from the WH LFBC. The reason I have concluded a Xerox 7655 is because the WH owns such a device and used it to scan in President Obama’s tax returns. And the document shows all the features that led me towards a Xerox: the embedded JPEG comment and now the Quantization matrix. Once I found the Xerox Work Centre I was able to observe: multiple foreground layers, sideways images, JBIG2 encoding etc etc.

    Excellent detective work I would say. Although you appear to hold a different opinion but have failed to explain where my hypothesized work flow falls apart.

    I know, you need access to a Mac… Well, how hard could that be… After all, a diligent researcher like you would not want to rely on my ‘word’ but would rather repeat all the intermediate steps from the Xerox WorkCentre created document all the way to the Preview PDF…

    I have provided you with such a document created on a 7355 as well as a reference to several other Xerox work centre documents. How hard could it be to do the experiments independently of me?

    That is what peer review is all about. Doubt every single step, question every single finding, until one is satisfied that the conclusions are in fact supported by the data.

  14. So Dude the next time you go ragging the CCP about not releasing every jot and tittle I’m going to climb your case about not releasing your Preview PDFs.

    ROTFL… I do not need the CCP data to show that their conclusions are wrong. I did my own experiments. That’s how a diligent researcher does peer review. Let me know when you have your results available…

    I keep hearing that the CCP has not released all its data, which is not surprising to me as I predict that they amount to nothing… Look, it’s a prediction based on the observation that their released ‘evidence’ has failed and the fact that so far no criminal indictments have been filed. Instead the CCP has been peddling its findings to Sheriffs and Congressmen and even the sheriff who took them seriously, has now abandoned them. As to these VIP’s we keep hearing about? Anytime soon… But always a few months away…

  15. I really like your “the White House made me do it” excuse.

    It’s not an excuse, it’s taking observations and use them to formulate the best hypothesis. So far, the fact that the White House has access to a Xerox WorkCentre 7655 which produces the exact features observed in the WH LFBC jpeg, makes my prediction quite well founded.

    You see, I let the evidence guide my hypotheses, not the other way around.

  16. How about clarifying it here and now ?

    I have but it appears that some are somewhat reluctant to comprehend. But anyone can look at Zebest’s ‘arguments’ and apply how my hypothesized workflow explains them. I will give you a small list…

    1. Multiple foreground monochrome layers of different colors
    2. Background JPEG of half the resolution of the monochrome foreground layers
    3. ‘linked objects’ which are rotated and scaled into place
    4. Inconsistencies in appearance of characters, some of which are rendered in a monochrome layer and some in the RGB background layer
    5. ‘Aliasing’ effects
    6. Clipping mask
    7. Noise and aliasing
    8. Absence of scanner chromatic aberration
    9. Identical objects in foreground
    10. The state seal
    11. The background pattern
    12. Different ‘fonts’ for date stamps

    Other issues can be resolved by looking at the AP scan which is a pure JPEG and thus does not show many of these artifacts introduced by the Xerox Work Center.

    Others have already addressed issues such as ‘African’ as a race, the ‘proportional’ spacing and so on. Nothing much remains… Certainly, the claim that they could not find MRC software that created multiple foreground layers, shows how limited in extent the analysis was. I believe that if they had looked at the JPEG in more detail, they too would have found the embedded comment and the Quantization Matrix and followed the leads of several Obots who pointed to Xerox Work Centers…

    Alas…

Comments are closed.