Questions for John

John is looking at a few less than perfect matches with the original WH PDF to claim that I have not met the burden of proof. However, he has forgotten that my hypothesis is competing with a forger hypothesis and I have shown explanations of the following features

  1. he presence of multiple monochrome foreground layers and a colored background layer
  2. The background layer contains the full green basket paper
  3. The resolution of the background layer is half that of the foreground layers
  4. The background layer is encoded in JPEG, creating many artifacts
  5. There is a masking layer created by Preview
  6. There is an embedded comment in the JPEG
  7. The 8 bit alignment of two sides of the monochrome images (gsgs observed)
  8. The alignment of the remaining sides touching the interior (gsgs observed)
  9. The Quantization matrices match
  10. The scaling and rotations match

Side by side, the WH PDF and the Xerox created, Preview saved PDF are close to identical other than the number of layers, and some of the dimensions.

A pretty good match and compared to the arguments from ignorance from the CCP, I would say a devastating victory. If only the CCP had looked further and not dismissed the early observations by people such as John Woodman, Dr Neal Krawetz  and Historian Dude (Frank Arduini).

Dr Conspiracy proposed a Xerox scanner, Kevin Vicklund found Xerox patents, I researched MRC compression and made predictions about JBIG2, and so on and so on. Instead they wasted money and resources on finding a forger who indeed resided at the White House, in one of the offices, as a Xerox WorkCentre 7655. How embarrassing. The CCP appears to be disbanded for all practical purposes, and given their inability to convince law makers, District Attorneys and others, I have no doubt they are busy writing another book.

So John, please explain why you are still unable to see that there is NO foundation for a forgery based on the artifacts in the PDF.

And thanks to Reality Check we may also be able to do some side by side checking of the type writer letters, thanks to the Ah’nee’s BC, so kindly provided to us by Jerome Corsi🙂 Now if they would so kind as to release higher resolution images… Unlikely…

Dr C also noted

And JPotter identified MRC in the Xerox equipment on this blog in March of 2012, following NBC’s comment about MRC.

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/03/circular-date-stamps-and-obamas-selective-service-registration/#comment-163000

35 thoughts on “Questions for John

  1. Even if the artifacts can be explained, the birth certificate is still a forgery on numerous, numerous levels:
    1. African Race Problem.
    2. Obama Sr. Age Problem.
    3. Birth Certificate Sequence # Problem.
    4. Typesetting Problem
    5. Ann Dunham Signature Problem.
    And still NBC work lacks alot of things;
    1. Didn’t use safety paper
    2. Won’t release any of the PDF generated.
    I only seen some JPEGS which could easily manipulated to benefit the Obots. NBC needs to release the original PDF created by the Xerox. That’s what Obama produced. That’s what NBC needs to produce. BTW, the safety paper background was last layer produced. I believe Zullo highlighted as being one of the last layers to be of some importance.

  2. John, what a pathetic list.

    1. African Race Problem.

    There is no race problem. The race was self-reported and it has been shown many times that African was a likely way a British subject from Kenyan would have referred to himself.

    2. Obama Sr. Age Problem.

    Irrelevant.

    3. Birth Certificate Sequence # Problem.

    What sequence number problem?
    Ah’Nee – 09945 – August 23rd, Accepted/Filed August 24th
    Nordyke, Susan – 10637 – August 5th, Accepted/Filed August 11th
    Nordyke, Gretchen – 10638 – August 5th, Accepted/Filed August 11th
    Obama, Barack – 10641 – August 4th, Accepted/Filed August 8th
    Sunahara, Virginia* – 11080 – August 4th, Accepted/Filed August 10th
    Waidelich, Stig – 10920 – August 5th/Accepted/Filed August 8th
    Show me that Obama’s BC is the only one that is “out of sequence”. You do not know what the “sequence” is in the first place.

    4. Typesetting Problem

    This exists only in Paul Irey’s warped mind.

    5. Ann Dunham Signature Problem.

    What problem? She decided to add that her first name after signing “Ann Dunham”. The signature is perfectly legal.

    I will let NBC answer the other nonsense.

  3. I’m sure Hermitian would love to have the PDF so he could open Illustrator and observe that has the indentical behavior of that the WHBC.

  4. 1. African – Sounds just too pollitcally correct. Even if Obama Sr. were to list his race it would been reported as Kenya or British. Most Obama Sr. documentation has this listed as his place of orgin or nationality.

    2. Obama Sr. should listed as age 27 because was born in 1934 according to all the documentation around the time. About a year later, he started lying saying he was born 1936. The BC seems to reflect the lying that came later but not before.

    3. We know the birth certificate numbers are not based on ABC order because Gretchen Nordyke comes before Susan Nordyke and hers is higher. It is believed that Hawaii has manipulated their number system in attempt to cover up for the problem on Obama’s birth certificate. Sundahara’s BC may be the key but no can see it, not even the brother.

    4. Ann Dunham’s signature looks “artificial” on both the PDF and the AP BC.

    5. Where is the white halo generation. We haven’t seen the PDF.

    6. What about optimization. The CCP possee took a great deal of time taking this into account.

  5. If this is really the PDF then I am not that impressed. The layer construction is quite different from that of Obama’s BC. not near as compelling. I downloaded Adobe Illustrator as trial to look at the layers.

  6. The layer construction is similar but still different and less compelling. The signature stamp is not on a layer by itself like Obama’s. Also the “Dunham Obama” part of the signature is not part of a layer like the way it is on Obama’s giving it its very “artificial” look. The halo seems present in both PDF but is slightly more profound in Obama’s

  7. John – “I only seen some JPEGS which could easily manipulated to benefit the Obots.”

    I say almost the same thing about Reed Hayes’ report. The CCP could be manipulating it for their benefit.”

    John – “1. African – Sounds just too pollitcally correct.”

    In the 1962 Kenya Census form, it instructed people to use the racial designation “African”.

    John – “2. Obama Sr. should listed as age 27 because was born in 1934”

    IIRC, there are other documents where he reported a different ages. He apparently wanted people to think he was younger. So what?

    John – “3. We know the birth certificate numbers are not based on ABC order because Gretchen Nordyke comes before Susan Nordyke and hers is higher.”

    Then explain Johann Ah’nee’s number. She was born almost two weeks after President Obama. Why is her number lower than everyone elses?

    John – “4. Ann Dunham’s signature looks “artificial” on both the PDF and the AP BC.”

    That’s your opinion. With that opinion and $1.00, you can get any size drink at McDonalds.

    John – “5. Where is the white halo generation. We haven’t seen the PDF.”

    How do you know there are no halos? Doesn’t the 7535 PDF have them?

    John – “6. What about optimization. The CCP possee took a great deal of time taking this into account.”

    What about it? It has already been established that the CCP didn’t use the right equipment.

    You seem to be struggling with the realization that this proves the BC’s layer were produced by the scanner. In time, you will come to accept it. This also negates the whole “Social Security number was stolen” mime, as there is no reason to steal one when he could just as easily apply for one.

  8. So I guess the challenges to overcome in a the replication that is truly convincing is get both the date and signature stamps on their seperate independent layers. The next challenge is to seperate Ann’s signature on to 2 composite layers. And final challenge is get the green background as one layer.

  9. One of the compelling marks Zullo pointed out is the fact that Ann’s signature is a composite of 2 seperate layers. This can easily be deduced since the ink “Dunham Obama” is much different from the ink in “”(Stanley) Ann”. Zullo theorizes that Ann’s signature may have taken from another source and placed into the document. The composite layer construction was used to disguise this fact but it’s clear the layers do indicate that Ann’s signature is very artificial. I am guessing Hayes report discusses Ann’s signature alot.

  10. John – “This can easily be deduced since the ink “Dunham Obama” is much different from the ink in “”(Stanley) Ann”. ”

    Anywhere her signature came too close to a horizontal printed line or touched text that touched a horizontal line or was a lighter color than the rest of the signature, that part of the signature was sent to the green background layer. That’s why the two parts of the Dunham signature look different. Some of it “Stanley) Ann D” meet the above requirements and was sent to the green layer. The rest “unham Obama” didn’t meet the requirements and was left on text layer.

    Notice the leading parentheses in her first name didn’t meet the requirement (touching a line or lettering or was a lighter color) so it left on a text layer.

    Same thing with the doctor’s signature and the dot for the “I” in Sinclair. It was left on the text layer.

    Those type of decisions would not be made by a human, but the software would make exactly that type of decision.

  11. R.C. – “Ah’Nee – 09945 – August 23rd, Accepted/Filed August 24th
    Nordyke, Susan – 10637 – August 5th, Accepted/Filed August 11th
    Nordyke, Gretchen – 10638 – August 5th, Accepted/Filed August 11th
    Obama, Barack – 10641 – August 4th, Accepted/Filed August 8th
    Sunahara, Virginia* – 11080 – August 4th, Accepted/Filed August 10th
    Waidelich, Stig – 10920 – August 5th/Accepted/Filed August 8th”

    Virginia Sunahara should be listed after the others. She was not born at Kapiolani like the rest. The hospital was Wahiawa, which is outside the Honolulu City limits. In the 1961 NCIS manual the County of Honolulu is divided into two geographic regions (Honolulu City limits and the rest of Honolulu County). If the BC’s were collected monthly and separated into geographic regions, she would not be in the group for children born at Kapiolani.

  12. Well NBC knows and gots the technology. He should be able to reproduce it. Got time to conduct 1200 tests.

  13. John – “Well NBC knows and gots the technology.”

    Yep, and the technology divided the Stanley Ann Dunham signature in the same way as on the LFBC.

    No need to run 1200 test using the wrong software and scanners. Time for Mike Zullo to put up or shut up. The CCP is an “official “investigation. Demand that they run their tests using a Xerox WorkCentre 7655 and publish their results. Why have they completely ignored this evidence? Why is Zullo acting like Michael Nifong?

  14. John

    I hate to say it but your analysis is really stupid. You didn’t run it through Preview first either did you? Even without doing that the Xerox PDF you opened in Illustrator exhibited all the major characteristics that are present in the WH PDF. Yet you have moved the goal posts dishonestly so that now we have to exactly replicate the objects in the LFBC without having access to the document before you will be convinced. But then you would fall back on the other stupid anomalies you mentioned. Any reasonable person would look at the results of running a printout of a document through the Xerox scan and Preview process and conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a similar process was responsible for the construction of the LFBC PDF.

    It is lying SOB’s like you that have convinced me the remaining Birthers do not deserve to be treated with civility. I just do this for the entertainment of watching them squirm and make complete fools of yourself as you are doing here. Have a nice day JY.😉

  15. Gorefan said

    Virginia Sunahara should be listed after the others. She was not born at Kapiolani like the rest. The hospital was Wahiawa, which is outside the Honolulu City limits. In the 1961 NCIS manual the County of Honolulu is divided into two geographic regions (Honolulu City limits and the rest of Honolulu County). If the BC’s were collected monthly and separated into geographic regions, she would not be in the group for children born at Kapiolani.

    All your observations are correct. I just happened to list them alphabetically.

  16. Of course there is always Paul Iyer with his analysis on the typesetting. If he wrong as John Woodman has suggested then Obama’s BC would look considerably and substantially different from what he actually seen (meaning if the typesetting was somehow “warped” by the scanning process, Obama’s original copy would look rather different because there would entire new and different typesetting or font.)

  17. Questions for John

    Posted on August 2, 2013 by NBC

    John is looking at a few less than perfect matches with the original WH PDF to claim that I have not met the burden of proof. However, he has forgotten that my hypothesis is competing with a forger hypothesis and I have shown explanations of the following features

    “1. The presence of multiple monochrome foreground layers and a colored background layer

    You forgot about the new type of layers that you created none of which appear in the WH LFCOLB.

    NBC: Same layers my friend..Have you managed to get it saved as PDF yet on preview?

    “2. The background layer contains the full green basket

    And lots more printed and typed text that your MRC didn’t move to a text layer.

    NBC: Minor details that depend on the accuracy of the input document scanned

    “3. The resolution of the background layer is half that of the foreground layers

    As I have shown over and over all the original images were created by the forger at 72 PPI x 72 PPI.
    Thus the difference in resolution is simply caused by a difference in scale factor.

    NBC: These resolutions are trivially explained by the workflow, you have shown no evidence that a forger created this, other than by claiming that a forger could imitate the workflow

    “4. The background layer is encoded in JPEG, creating many artifacts

    Only after you create a JPEG with you freetoy extraction tool.

    NBC: Wrong again… And it’s not the cost of the tool that matters but how you use it… I checked and double checked and all show the same

    “5. There is a masking layer created by Preview

    You’ve offered no proof of this. Preview’s cropping tool does not create an Adobe Clipping Mask.

    NBC: Again you are wrong I have shown how it adds the x y z w Re W n part which is the clipping mask. You can test it yourself by running the document through Preview… Have you done so already?… thought so…

    “6. There is an embedded comment in the JPEG

    But not in the Xerox scan to e-mail PDF. Only in your faux JPEG and the WH LFCOLB.

    NBC: Even in the Xerox scan to email PDF. But you have to know how to extract it. Have you managed to do so, given my instructions?

    “7. The 8 bit alignment of two sides of the monochrome images (gsgs observed)

    All of GSGS’s analysis was done on the WH LFCOLB. Your object boundary placement in your Xerox scan is off.

    NBC

    : So you did get it run through the PDF conversion and you did manage to scan it upside down :-)… Remember you are now getting closer to the riddle I once asked you to predict…

    “8. The alignment of the remaining sides touching the interior (gsgs observed)

    Again, not on your Xerox scan to e-mail PDF. Only on the WH LFCOLB has this placement precision..

    NBC: ROTFL

    “9. The Quantization matrices match

    Before you said they didn’t match. When did you change your story ?

    NBC: I found that they did not match with my 7655 sample but as a diligent researcher I looked at other examples, and found it matches the 7355 sample and when I compared with the WH Tax Form PDF, they also matched. So I showed you all my data and thought processes based on the evidence I had so far.

    “10.The scaling and rotations match

    The Xerox scan to e-mail PDF has a Rotate 270 action. There is no such command in the WH LFCOLB PDF yet the LFCOLB has the correct rotations and the Xerox scan to e-mail PDF does not.

    NBC: Take an upside down scan and run it through Preview… I even explained how this works..

    My re-created images from the wh-lfbc-scanned-xerox 7535-wc.pdf are rotated by 180 degrees connterclockwise relative to the same re-created images from the WH LFCOLB. All nine images that comprise the WH LFCOLB are in their correct final orientations after applying the Unembed Command.

    “Side by side, the WH PDF and the Xerox created, Preview saved PDF are close to identical other than the number of layers, and some of the dimensions.”

    And all the other differences that I just identified. ROTFL !!!
    Close only counts in horse shoes and hand grenades !

    NBC: Well, you are still not looking at the correct documents… I thought that by now you had done the diligent work of obtaining a Preview saved version of the relevant documents? What is holding you back my friend? Confusion about why I concluded upside down scan? Because this matches all the observations, including the internal orientation of the images and how they are rotated. Of course I had noticed that the right side up scan is close but the images are rotated the wrong direction. So I made a prediction, did the experiment and found that indeed it worked as predicted… Science at its best

  18. John – “Of course there is always Paul Iyer with his analysis on the typesetting.’

    Paul Irey was shown that the typewritten letters are not different fonts. In fact when he was challenged to name what the different fonts were – he could not.

    In the Indiana court, Judge Reid ruled that Irey was not an expert in typewritten fonts because he had limited experience with typewriters. She said his methods were not scientific and not admissible:

    Footnote 7 “At most, Mr. Irey’s admissible testimony is that he reviewed a copy of what had been downloaded from the White House site and that within that single document he noticed differences between the sizes of some of the letters, difference of spacing between some of the letters, and a while “haloing” around certain letters. It is unclear whether “expert” testimony was needed for such observations. All other testimony provided by Mr. Irey, however, is hearsay, irrelevant, not based on personal knowledge, and not scientifically reliable; thus it is inadmissible. Ind. R. Evid. 401, 402, 602, 702(b), 802, 805. As for the demonstrative summaries he presented, again, these were admitted for a limited purpose and do not prove that the Certificate of Live Birth is a forgery or that President Obama is not constitutionally qualified for office.”

  19. “Side by side, the WH PDF and the Xerox created, Preview saved PDF are close to identical other than the number of layers, and some of the dimensions.”

    Poor Hermitian… He still does not get it… He ignores my explanations, focuses on irrelevant documents, and makes ad hoc assertions about his ‘forger’ without any explanation.

    For example: The Quantization Matrix.

    It was shown that they did not match with my 7655 example but did match with the 7355 sample. However, when comparing with the White House 7655 sample (Tax form) they matched. Again, I showed how the 7655 owned by the White House, came to the rescue… I am surprised that John did not notice such details…

    Scaling and rotation, orientation of the embedded images, masking layer, separation into foreground and background layers, resolution, all trivially follow from a simple work flow.

    Hermitian is suggesting that the forger imitated the copier to confuse… Basically admitting that it could have been the copier itself. The ‘forger’ should have known about quantization matrices and jpeg comments when ‘creating’ his ‘forgery’ and yet, all of this simply points back to a simple workflow.
    And yes, when you scan the document upside down, and then rotate all falls into place as I have shown as well.

    Then we find the same orientation for the images, the same 8 bit alignment, all trivially from a simple work flow.

    So there is really nothing where the appeal to a ‘forger’ explains anything better…

  20. Well NBC knows and gots the technology. He should be able to reproduce it. Got time to conduct 1200 tests.

    I need only one test to reproduce it all. The poor CCP looked at the wrong hardware and software…

    Hilarious…

  21. 1. Didn’t use safety paper
    2. Won’t release any of the PDF generated.

    I used the safety basketweave that came with the handout. It separated nicely but not perfectly
    I have released the generated PDF’s all you need to do is open them in Preview and print them to PDF
    Then compare..

    Where have you been John?
    Explain why you ignore all that I have found?

    And why are you moving the goalposts with already debunked claims of type face etc?
    Getting a bit desperate I feel… I do understand, we have identified the forger and it is a simple workflow.

  22. I only seen some JPEGS which could easily manipulated to benefit the Obots. NBC needs to release the original PDF created by the Xerox. That’s what Obama produced.

    Nope, he produced PDF which had subsequently been touched by Preview…

    Geez John, get you facts straight

    BTW, the safety paper background was last layer produced. I believe Zullo highlighted as being one of the last layers to be of some importance.

    What does that mean, last layer produced? The layers exist in a PDF order, yes… Internally Obj 7 is the background layer in both documents (once saved w. preview)

    Both Objects are the first ones ‘painted’ onto the ‘canvas’ Which makes sense because the monochrome layers are bitmasks

    Perhaps you can raise some real arguments?

  23. John whined for two years that “If Obama would only produce his long from birth certificate this would all be over”. So Obama produced his long form BC and John was satisfied for all of five minutes. Now he wants us to completely reproduce bit by bit what was published at WhiteHouse.gov and “then this would all be over”. Sure it would John.

    I have a challenge for you John. Why don’t you start from scratch using something like Adobe Photoshop and produce an identical file that doesn’t use anything other than the images other that the Obama LFBC available on the Internet that is bit for bit identical to the WH LFBC. By the way you also have to create the AP JPEG too. Please describe every step in detail. Come on John. We are waiting.

  24. I have a challenge for you John. Why don’t you start from scratch using something like Adobe Photoshop and produce an identical file that doesn’t use anything other than the images other that the Obama LFBC available on the Internet that is bit for bit identical to the WH LFBC.

    The same applies to Hermitian… He has a very ad hoc explanation of a ‘forger’ who mimics the Xerox workcenter/Preview workflow…

    In other words, the Xerox workcenter is his ‘forger’…

    Hermitian is at this moment struggling with the final concepts and it may be time to show him why he is wrong but no rush, I am writing the ‘report’ as we speak and I want to make sure that I cover all the bases. With the report I will also provide the Preview related PDF’s, although they are trivial to create by anyone with a bit of interest in debunking my workflow hypothesis… Why people still focus on the Work Center, is beyond me.

    Yes, Hermitian has figured out that the images turn the wrong way🙂 That was one of my first observations, which is why I predicted the upside down hypothesis.

    Time to show again how it resolves John’s issues with understanding the relevance. I asked John that he should be able to make a prediction based on the findings, he still has to do so… It may be time to unfold the curtain🙂

  25. What would happen if you created a pdf on a 7655 and then created another one of the same document on the same 7655? Would the layers be the same? Same number of layers and characteristics?

  26. “Will do some more experiments…”

    How about this than – print another copy of the LFBC and scan that. Will the layers be the same?

  27. “1. African Race Problem.” – There is no “African Race Problem.” Hawaiian officials have repeatedly explained that individuals “self identified” their races, accounting for Hawaiian birth certificates that list races such as Portuguese, Japanese, Korean… even “American.” As a Kenyan, Obama Sr. would have understood his race according to the standards back in his own country, and Kenyan census instructions are explicit: his race would have been “African.”

    “2. Obama Sr. Age Problem.” – There is no age problem. Obama senior sometimes reported his age differently at different times. This inconsistency is seen across many different documents.

    “3. Birth Certificate Sequence # Problem.”- There is no birth certificate sequence problem. The simple truth is that birther theories concerning how the certificates were numbered have been proven wrong by all the actual birth certificates we have seen. The problem has always been with the false birther theory, not with the actual numbers.

    “4. Typesetting Problem ” – There is no typesetting problem. Irey’s “analysis” has even been submitted to court where it was declared not “persuasive” and Irey himself identified as “not properly qualified or tendered as an expert.”

    “5. Ann Dunham Signature Problem.” – There is no Ann Dunham Signature problem. There is her signature. No problem.

    “1. Didn’t use safety paper” – Yes actually. He did.

    “2. Won’t release any of the PDF generated.” – There’s one in this very thread. And look at it closely. It has halos too.

    “BTW, the safety paper background was last layer produced.” – This is simply an absurd falsehood, and it is insane that Zullo seems to believe this. There actually is no separate layer for the safety paper at all.

  28. “BTW, the safety paper background was last layer produced.” – This is simply an absurd falsehood, and it is insane that Zullo seems to believe this. There actually is no separate layer for the safety paper at all.

    The background layer which contains the basket weave as well as a quite some text, and holes for the ‘lifted’ text is hardly a ‘safety paper’ background anymore. John may not have properly understood Zullo or Zullo may not have properly understood the findings.

  29. John: Of course there is always Paul Iyer with his analysis on the typesetting. If he wrong as John Woodman has suggested then Obama’s BC would look considerably and substantially different from what he actually seen

    You do realize, John, that the PDF is a second generation copy. The copy the HDOH made from their book would have been on some copier that uses digital scanning technology to make the copy. That is how copiers are made now. Every try making a copy or scan from a book? A little bump, a truck driving down the road, etc, can result in results that look obscured. Since I deal with music, the issue is more pronounced (disclosure… any copies made comply with fare use or are being scanned/copied under a license).

    Irey’s analysis could never be accurate because he does not know if the changes happened on the initial copy or the later scan.

  30. Irey’s analysis could never be accurate because he does not know if the changes happened on the initial copy or the later scan.

    Irey was faced with many problems, the copy of copies is one of them. The JBIG2 encoding another one. Comparison with contemporary LFBC from the hospital show similar type faces.

Comments are closed.