Helping out Hermitian

Since Hermitian seems to lack the resources to save the Xerox created PDF’s using OS/X Preview, I will provide him with a sample document based on a document that I have already released.

I love to see the egg on his face and that of his ‘expert’🙂

The document was created on a Xerox WorkCentre 7535 and at least one known issue exists namely that it was not scanned upside down using the automatic feeder. This workflow creates the correct rotation of the embedded images.

Better versions will be released in due time. At least this should keep our friend busy.

wh-lfbc-scanned-xerox-7535-wcpreview

And just in case Hermitian has troubles, here is a screenshot. Of course I expect Hermitian to object to me posting something that could so easily be forged which is why I posted the original Xerox documents. But it seems he is having a hard time taken the next steps in the investigation, in spite of my  efforts.

YCbCr 7535

173 thoughts on “Helping out Hermitian

  1. I am a strong fan of the trickle down approach. as it allows people to make claims that can subsequently be disproven. The process of scientific repetition and cross checking is a slow one, however it helps strengthen the case and Hermitian’s contributions should be recognized for what they are worth.

  2. Before I download, I want to make a prediction. I predict that the background JPEG will not require DeFlate decompression. As such, the YCbCr comment should be able to be found in the binary stream within the PDF.

  3. And I was right! It even has the “thumbnail” code Hermie was talking about this morning.

  4. In fact, the binary stream in the 7535preview file is the same as in the WH LFBC file, up to the comment, after which it is different. The so-called “thumbnail” code might (I reiterate, might) be a fingerprint for Preview. The binary stream DeFlated from the original 7535 file (let’s call this stream12) is not the same as the binary stream in the 7535preview file. Preview is definitely doing something extra when it DeFlates.

  5. Given all this talk about the Xerox Workcenter, Dr. Jerome Corsi, not NBC, believe or not is the one person who can solve this mystery once and for all. Dr. Corsi has the original Hawaii Long Form Birth Certificate. The only thing that needs to be done is put it into and scanner, scan to a PDF and see what happens?

  6. Dr. Corsi has the original Hawaii Long Form Birth Certificate. The only thing that needs to be done is put it into and scanner, scan to a PDF and see what happens?

    I doubt that Corsi would go through the trouble of doing this. But we do not need him other than to understand the halo effect.

  7. The binary stream DeFlated from the original 7535 file (let’s call this stream12) is not the same as the binary stream in the 7535preview file. Preview is definitely doing something extra when it DeFlates.

    I get exactly the same files.

  8. shasum stream12.jpg
    74f1b7974d409e0e4da6977b6fc800d2ef0db0c7 stream12.jpg

    shasum stream12a.jpg
    74f1b7974d409e0e4da6977b6fc800d2ef0db0c7 stream12a.jpg

  9. Hermie! Oh, Hermie! Look here! The 7535 Preview pdf that you haven’t been able to locate? Right here! At the top of the page! Just hit the “Home” key (assuming you’re using a Windows machine – I don’t know what the Mac equivalent is, since Macs tend to burst into flames in my presence)

  10. “9 thoughts on “Helping out Hermitian”

    “NBC says:

    “August 9, 2013 at 01:56

    “I am a strong fan of the trickle down approach. as it allows people to make claims that can subsequently be disproven. The process of scientific repetition and cross checking is a slow one, however it helps strengthen the case and Hermitian’s contributions should be recognized for what they are worth.”

    This post definitely requires another translation of the NBC blather.

    What NBC is really saying here is that I’m going to keep him guessing.

    I’m going to run in the background as many (maybe hundreds) of trial cases (as I can) on two different Xerox Workcenters and rat hole all of my results. Then when Hermitian posts anything that is contrary to any of my thousands of results (whether in context or not) I’m going to cherry pick from all these cases to post something that I can use to ridicule him.

    Now Hermitian being well versed and experienced with dealing with all kinds of slippery fellows prefers not to take the bait but instead keeps his powder dry for the big finale. Of course Hermitian knows that the big finale is not likely to ever come because NBC is never going to have the right stuff and will therefore never release the one file that he knows I will use to hang him.

    But like all scammers, NBC just couldn’t get away with holding back everything so he has tossed us a crumb by posting one of his castaway case files from the Xerox 7535.

    Now this Preview file is full of holes big enough to drive a Mack truck through. In fact it may be just enough to hang him.

    So if I were in NBC’s boots, I would quickly take my best shot because otherwise the deficiencies in this one Preview file will likely sink his little ship before he can pull the trigger. But I doubt that he will do that because he wants to wait until I expose all of the deficiencies in the Xerox 7535 Preview image so that he can first patch up his next offering from the Xerox 7655 before releasing that one.

    For that reason, I’m going to release my findings from my examination of the file “wh-lfbc-scanned-xerox-7535-wcpreview” in piecemeal fashion. Each post will address one deficiency in the image.

    This may take a while because there are lots of deficiencies.

  11. Now this Preview file is full of holes big enough to drive a Mack truck through. In fact it may be just enough to hang him.

    ROTFL…

    Your start was quite poor as you cannot even comprehend the simple workflow that led to the PDF.

    After having spent weeks educating our friend on PDF, extraction of images and more, he still does not seem to get it.

    But I thank you for your approach of trying to find deficiencies in my workflow as that’s what in the end makes or breaks the hypothesis.

    As I said, the process of scientific hypothesis formation is a slow and deliberate process that requires the hypothesis to withstand objections raised. So far, it has managed to whither quite a few objections raised by our friend and for that contribution to our scientific understanding, I continue to thank him. Without Hermitian’s contributions, the path would just not have been the same.

  12. Then when Hermitian posts anything that is contrary to any of my thousands of results (whether in context or not) I’m going to cherry pick from all these cases to post something that I can use to ridicule him.

    Nope, to educate him. As I said, that is a slow and deliberate process.

  13. I’m going to run in the background as many (maybe hundreds) of trial cases (as I can) on two different Xerox Workcenters and rat hole all of my results.

    That’s a bad translation. The initial results from the 7535 WorkCentre was close to perfect. What I am doing is repeating the experiments to make sure that my findings are repeatable. That’s what a good scientist does: Understand the variability in the Xerox capture and dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s.

    It’s a deliberate and often slow process as I do not rely on third parties alone to challenge my own findings.

    That’s what makes a scientific approach so beautiful and relevant.

    Does this help you understand the process here? Question your own results at any given time, do not jump to conclusions, question again, and slowly one gains a fuller understanding of the processes that the Xerox is using.

    If you believe that you have found flaws in my processes or findings, then by all means, let’s discuss them.

  14. And why do you not address the 7655 workflow as the raw Xerox PDF as well as the preview version have been released? The 7535 version fails to capture an essential part: scanning upside down. Although just the other day, I received the results of that workflow on a 7535 WorkCentre… Not surprisingly, they again, match what we see in the WH LFBC PDF.

  15. Now Hermitian being well versed and experienced with dealing with all kinds of slippery fellows prefers not to take the bait but instead keeps his powder dry for the big finale. Of course Hermitian knows that the big finale is not likely to ever come because NBC is never going to have the right stuff and will therefore never release the one file that he knows I will use to hang him.

    Translation: Hermie refuses to check NBC’s work, because he is afraid that NBC is actually right. Anytime NBC releases a new file, Hermie will declare that it is faked, even though he could check the results himself.

    Now a real engineer, like myself (a licensed PE), would check NBC’s work. A real engineer would examine NBC’s claims, try to determine if they are accurate using independent tests -tests that are likely to actually check the work, not obscure it- and attempt to explain the results presented in a coherent fashion. A real engineer would check to see if the phenomenon being claimed had been independently documented. A real engineer would note where errors had been made and provide corrections. A real engineer would, upon being presented with data, be able to interpret that data based on the available documentation and then be able to discuss the implications of that interpretation.

    Hermie has done none of that. I have done all of that. That is why I am a licensed Professional Engineer and Hermie isn’t.

  16. NBC

    “And why do you not address the 7655 workflow as the raw Xerox PDF as well as the preview version have been released?”

    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
    Then I missed the 7655 Preview also. How about posting a link ? Finding anything on your site is a total waste of my time.

  17. NBC

    As I indicated in my post before last I will post each deficiency separately. This will accomplish two things.

    First it will allow the really interested readers to test these findings from the 7535 Preview against the Preview PDF from NBC’s favorite Xerox forger — the 7655.

    Secondly it will prolong NBC’s agony as much as possible.

    Now, as a heads up to the readers, you need to be aware that NBC is not going to like this approach one little bit.

  18. NBC

    Now for the anomalies in the 7535 Preview PDF.

    First, so the reader will know where to look to verify these deficiencies, I am comparing the Preview file “wh-lfbc-scanned-xerox-7535-wcpreview.pdf” head-to-head against the archived copy of the WH LFCOLB which can be downloaded from here.

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

    When I examine any image using Illustrator I always start by outputting the artboard info.

    You can learn much from the dimensions and placement of the artboard. That turns out to be the case for the file “wh-lfbc-scanned-xerox-7535-wcpreview” artboard.

    As a point of reference, the artboard for the archived WH LFCOLB has dimensions W = 8.5 in. ; H = 11.0 in. The center point of the artboard is located at Xc = 4.25 in. ; Yc = 5.5 in. I have checked all of these data and found nothing amiss. The center point coordinates are measured from the origin point which in this case is the upper-left corner of the artboard. This is the default position for the origin point in Illustrator. Positive values of the y coordinate are measured from top to bottom of the screen.

    To the contrary, the center point coordinates of the 7535 Preview image are Xc = 4.25 in. ; Yc = -5.5 in as read out from the artboard panel. However the actual y coordinate of the center point is Yc = +5.5 in (halfway down the screen) as measured within the default x, y coordinate system. The size of this artboard is also W = 8.5 in. ; H = 11.0 in.
    Hence there is a discrepancy between the position of the center point from the read out of the artboard data and the actual position on the Illustrator screen.

    Fortunately, I don’t have to research the cause for this discrepancy in order to debunk the Xerox forger. Again the Xerox forger just doesn’t have the right stuff.

    Now NBC has posted his object boundary analysis for the Xerox 7535 using the default coordinate system used by Illustrator. Thus, the positive direction of his y coordinate axis must run from top to bottom of the screen.

    Probably over a week ago I posted a question to NBC to clarify the x,y coordinates and origin position for his rectangular boundaries analysis. He never answered my questions. This has been his practice on so many questions of mine.

  19. Secondly it will prolong NBC’s agony as much as possible.

    Now, as a heads up to the readers, you need to be aware that NBC is not going to like this approach one little bit.

    I love it.

  20. Probably over a week ago I posted a question to NBC to clarify the x,y coordinates and origin position for his rectangular boundaries analysis. He never answered my questions. This has been his practice on so many questions of mine.

    I thought that they were obvious. I even used the Illustrator coordinates to simplify matters for you.

    Of course, the numbers fully agree with the PDF coordinate system as well which runs from the bottom left.

    Again. a good scientist double checks.

    You must have missed a lot of relevant postings of mine, you are quite a bit behind again. Just when you started to catch up a bit. Maybe I should slow down further…

  21. NBC says:

    “August 13, 2013 at 18:36

    “”Probably over a week ago I posted a question to NBC to clarify the x,y coordinates and origin position for his rectangular boundaries analysis. He never answered my questions. This has been his practice on so many questions of mine.””

    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
    That’s twice that you’ve punted my questions about your origin point. I’m not going to ask again. I’ll just have to assume that the origin point is as opened in the file. You are not going to like my findings. But that’s tough. I gave you two cracks at it and you blew both of them.

    Slippery guys like you always lose in the end because their many storylines get all crossed up. As one other reader posted — It’s not rocket science. If you have a Xerox forger then just post the workflow and the files. So what are you waiting on Ace?

    I thought that they were obvious. I even used the Illustrator coordinates to simplify matters for you.

    Don’t ever sign up for Jeopardy Dude — they don’t get to dodge the question on that show.

    Of course, the numbers fully agree with the PDF coordinate system as well which runs from the bottom left.

  22. NBC

    “Of course, the numbers fully agree with the PDF coordinate system as well which runs from the bottom left

    You are talking to the guy who wrote the book on the positioning of the rectangular object boundaries. Maybe you need a refresher course:

    http://www.scribd.com/recently-read

    As I posted, the lower left origin point does not work for the 16 x 16 blocks for the WH LFCOLB. So if you are saying that the lower left works for your image, then your image does not match the WH LFCOLB image.

    So again your Xerox Operator / Xerox Workcenter 7535 / Preview Operator / MAC OS with Preview / Adobe Illustrator Operator / Adobe Illustrator Graphics Program — forger just doesn’t have the right stuff.

  23. That’s twice that you’ve punted my questions about your origin point.

    He did answer the question. Perhaps you should have a) phrased the question better (if he answered a different question than the one you thought you asked), or b) paid attention to his postings (if you completely missed his answer).

  24. As I posted, the lower left origin point does not work for the 16 x 16 blocks for the WH LFCOLB. So if you are saying that the lower left works for your image, then your image does not match the WH LFCOLB image.

    Did you remember to include the offset?

  25. What Hermitian may be confused about is that which sides align with 8×8 bit boundaries depends on the orientation of the scan. And I do not care about 16×16 blocks really.

    Sigh, I believe Hermitian is running into another wall of failure to understand the source of the alignment and how the sides rotate. The best way to avoid all this is open it up in illustrator and rotate the images back to their internal orientation and then use Illustrator to capture the top left coordinate of the boxes.

  26. So again your Xerox Operator / Xerox Workcenter 7535 / Preview Operator / MAC OS with Preview / Adobe Illustrator Operator / Adobe Illustrator Graphics Program — forger just doesn’t have the right stuff.

    And yet it matches what we see in the other documents. So again, this appears to be operator error on the part of Hermitian, who has made up his own strawmen ideas about the workflow.

    Do you now understand why I have been taking small steps? And they appear to have been too large…

  27. As a point of reference, the artboard for the archived WH LFCOLB has dimensions W = 8.5 in. ; H = 11.0 in. The center point of the artboard is located at Xc = 4.25 in. ; Yc = 5.5 in. I have checked all of these data and found nothing amiss. The center point coordinates are measured from the origin point which in this case is the upper-left corner of the artboard. This is the default position for the origin point in Illustrator. Positive values of the y coordinate are measured from top to bottom of the screen.

    To the contrary, the center point coordinates of the 7535 Preview image are Xc = 4.25 in. ; Yc = -5.5 in as read out from the artboard panel. However the actual y coordinate of the center point is Yc = +5.5 in (halfway down the screen) as measured within the default x, y coordinate system. The size of this artboard is also W = 8.5 in. ; H = 11.0 in.
    Hence there is a discrepancy between the position of the center point from the read out of the artboard data and the actual position on the Illustrator screen.

    Interesting. When I open the files in Illustrator, both have an artboard centered on Xc = 4.25 in. ; Yc = -5.5 in. Are you sure you didn’t change the origin of the artboard ruler at some point?

  28. I’m pretty sure Hermie did change the origin on the WH LFBC. When he was trying to find the coordinates of the monochrome layers.

  29. I’m pretty sure Hermie did change the origin on the WH LFBC. When he was trying to find the coordinates of the monochrome layers.

    Let’s confirm and the rectify.

  30. Yes, I get the same for the WH LFBC as well as the 7535 preview.

    Perhaps Hermitian wants to reconsider?

  31. Another discrepancy in the PDF file “wh-lfbc-scanned-xerox-7535-wcpreview.pdf”

    Because NBC has refused to answer my focussed questions regarding the placement of the origin point for his analyses we are forced to accept the origin position for the PDF file as opened in Adobe Illustrator.

    Hence we find that he was using the artboard ruler origin rather than the global ruler origin point.

    For the artboard dimensions of W = 8.5 in. ; H = 11.0 in. the boundary of the background object is significantly larger than the artboard. For a grid spacing of 1/300 in x 1/300 in., the boundary of the background image from “wh-lfbc-scanned-xerox-7535-wcpreview.pdf” “overhangs the artboard by four pixels on the left and right sides and 14 pixels on the top and bottom.

    With the artboard origin for the rulers, the object boundaries do not meet either the modulo eight or the modulo 16 condition for the mostly text image layer. All four edges of the mostly text image layer fail the modulo tests.

    The page size of the background image from the file “wh-lfbc-scanned-xerox-7535-wcpreview.pdf” is also significantly larger than the page size of the background image layer of the archive copy of WH LFCOLB.

    As a point of reference the page of this background layer “overhangs” the 8.5 in. x 11.0 in. by one pixel on the left and right sides and by two pixels on the top and bottom sides. The significance of this is that this image page size is the smallest for which the image is larger than 8.5 in x 11.0 in. and both modulo conditions are satisfied. Thus the background image page size of the WH LFCOLB is a minimum for the specified conditions.

    From these findings we conclude that the MRC software of the Xerox 7535 Workcenter does not seek the minimum page size which meets the stated conditions of greater than 8.5 in. x 11.0 in. and satisfying the modulo conditions for both 8 x 8 blocks and 16 x 16 blocks.

    This is further evidence that the Xerox forger does not have the right stuff.

  32. WKV

    “Interesting. When I open the files in Illustrator, both have an artboard centered on Xc = 4.25 in. ; Yc = -5.5 in. Are you sure you didn’t change the origin of the artboard ruler at some point?”

    Nope ! I always reset the rulers origin point at the start of each Illustrator session. You do that by double clicking on the small square just outside the intersection of the rulers at the top-left corner of the Illustrator screen.

    Looks like you are the odd man out. I don’t have time to help you with your problems man.

  33. NBC’s detailed description of his origin and coordinates, from two days ago.

    I extracted the top left (x,y) coordinates using Hermitian’s favorite tool: Illustrator and converted them to pixels in a 300 DPI environment. This is done by dividing the numbers by 72 and multiplying them by 300. I then added to this the offset of the top left corner, which falls outside the mediabox. The resulting numbers ‘magically’ divide by 8 without any remainder.

    I have a pretty good idea as to the why and how, but speculations like that are at this moment less relevant than getting the information to our poor friend Hermitian.

    There is a (-6,-5) pixel offset in a 300 PPI system. The final two columns show the coordinates divided by 8. All of them are whole number and 3 of them do not align with a 16×16 grid.

    Because Hermie has refused to read this despite having it linked, we are forced to conclude that he has no fucking clue.

  34. Looks like you are the odd man out. I don’t have time to help you with your problems man.

    Said immediately after NBC confirmed my findings. You might want to doublecheck your settings, Hermie.

    Or are you just lying? You wouldn’t be the first birther to lie when he didn’t think someone would check his claims, after all.

  35. Looks like you are the odd man out. I don’t have time to help you with your problems man.

    Nope there are now two who have confirmed your problems.

  36. Because Hermie has refused to read this despite having it linked, we are forced to conclude that he has no fucking clue.

    Perhaps Hermitian likes to argue his own strawmen and then proudly proclaim that he has shown himself to be wrong🙂

    Why he looks at 16×16 is beyond me…

  37. For the artboard dimensions of W = 8.5 in. ; H = 11.0 in. the boundary of the background object is significantly larger than the artboard. For a grid spacing of 1/300 in x 1/300 in., the boundary of the background image from “wh-lfbc-scanned-xerox-7535-wcpreview.pdf” “overhangs the artboard by four pixels on the left and right sides and 14 pixels on the top and bottom.

    ….

    The page size of the background image from the file “wh-lfbc-scanned-xerox-7535-wcpreview.pdf” is also significantly larger than the page size of the background image layer of the archive copy of WH LFCOLB.

    As a point of reference the page of this background layer “overhangs” the 8.5 in. x 11.0 in. by one pixel on the left and right sides and by two pixels on the top and bottom sides. The significance of this is that this image page size is the smallest for which the image is larger than 8.5 in x 11.0 in. and both modulo conditions are satisfied. Thus the background image page size of the WH LFCOLB is a minimum for the specified conditions.

    It should be noted that the discrepancy in size can be explained by a rotation of a bit less than half a degree when the page was scanned.

  38. Why he looks at 16×16 is beyond me…

    Monkey see, monkey do. He looks at 16×16 because gsgs did. He has no idea why gsgs thought it was important (or why we don’t think it is important).

    BTW , the JPEGs in both files fit the 8×8 modulo criteria at 600 dpi, a common default for scans.

  39. W. Kevin Vicklund says:

    August 13, 2013 at 22:16

    ‘I’m pretty sure Hermie did change the origin on the WH LFBC. When he was trying to find the coordinates of the monochrome layer.

    I’m totally sure that I didn’t. All of my analysis of the placement of the rectangular object boundaries utilized this same x,y coordinate system. You see I know that the Forger used that same coordinate system because he assembled all of his digital cut and paste layers within Adobe Illustrator.

    Look Dummies ! I just told you how to set the rulers origin to the upper-left corner of the screen. Now you want me to fix your problem. But It’s obvious that you know nothing about Illustrator. And it’s also obvious that you don’t know the difference between programmed operations and manual manipulation of the image.

    So the bottom line is both you two and your two Xerox Operator / Xerox 7535 or 7655 Workcenter/ Preview Operator / Mac OS Preview / Adobe Illustrator Operator / Adobe illustrator just don’t have the right stuff.

  40. More discrepancies ….

    I compared the PDF file ““wh-lfbc-scanned-xerox-7535-wcpreview.pdf” with the archive copy of the WH LFCOLB which was downloaded from here:

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

    The two files were compared at the binary code level and all differences were written to file. A preliminary visual comparison of the HEX code revealed that the “NBC smoking gun YCbCr label” was on line 87 of file ““wh-lfbc-scanned-xerox-7535-wcpreview.pdf” and on line 616 of the file birth-certificate-long-form WayBack Machine 04-27-2011_17-11-11.pdf.

    The binary file comparison revealed no similarity in the files. The two files diverged beginning at line 6. Beyond line 6, the differences were too numerous to correlate the two files. The ordering of objects was also different between the two files.

    Again we find that NBC’s Xerox / Preview / Illustrator forger just doesn’t have the right stuff.

  41. W. Kevin Vicklund says:

    “August 13, 2013 at 15:12

    “”Now Hermitian being well versed and experienced with dealing with all kinds of slippery fellows prefers not to take the bait but instead keeps his powder dry for the big finale. Of course Hermitian knows that the big finale is not likely to ever come because NBC is never going to have the right stuff and will therefore never release the one file that he knows I will use to hang him.””

    “Translation: Hermie refuses to check NBC’s work, because he is afraid that NBC is actually right. Anytime NBC releases a new file, Hermie will declare that it is faked, even though he could check the results himself.”

    “Now a real engineer, like myself (a licensed PE), would check NBC’s work. A real engineer would examine NBC’s claims, try to determine if they are accurate using independent tests -tests that are likely to actually check the work, not obscure it- and attempt to explain the results presented in a coherent fashion. A real engineer would check to see if the phenomenon being claimed had been independently documented. A real engineer would note where errors had been made and provide corrections. A real engineer would, upon being presented with data, be able to interpret that data based on the available documentation and then be able to discuss the implications of that interpretation.”

    “Hermie has done none of that. I have done all of that. That is why I am a licensed Professional Engineer and Hermie isn’t.”

    And Hermie taught several hundred of your type in one Engineering lecture hall so that you could pass that PE Exam. Of course I had to be a PhD candidate in good standing before I got paid to instruct you fledgling engineers. Iv’e graded hundreds of your type and flunked my share. Mechanics was the hardest Engineering undergraduate curriculum. We had one Instructor who typically flunked half his class each semester. He and the Dean of Engineering were good buddies.

    So I know crap when I see it. And I don’t waste my time on dead enders.

  42. W. Kevin Vicklund says:

    August 13, 2013 at 20:51

    “Hermie apparently missed this: https://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2013/08/11/xerox-7655-usd-fed-8-bit-alignments/

    I didn’t miss it Dude. NBC provided this only for the Xerox PDF (i.e. No Preview) and only for the landscape orientation.

    Now he claims it also applies to the Preview print to PDF and the portrait orientation after someone manually manipulated the image in Adobe Illustrator.

    You two must think that I am stupid.

    By the way did you figure out your -5.5 problem yet ?

  43. Do either Vicklund or NBC understand the mathematical concept of the minimum ?

    I’m probably asking too much…

    Software programs that seek the minimum do so every time. So when the program fails to seek the minimum one time it proves that the program never seeks the minimum.

    So once more we find that the Xerox forger just doesn’t have the right stuff.

  44. Look Dummies ! I just told you how to set the rulers origin to the upper-left corner of the screen. Now you want me to fix your problem. But It’s obvious that you know nothing about Illustrator. And it’s also obvious that you don’t know the difference between programmed operations and manual manipulation of the image.

    So the bottom line is both you two and your two Xerox Operator / Xerox 7535 or 7655 Workcenter/ Preview Operator / Mac OS Preview / Adobe Illustrator Operator / Adobe illustrator just don’t have the right stuff.

    And that is because the two look exactly the same…

    I get it
    ROTFL…

  45. The binary file comparison revealed no similarity in the files. The two files diverged beginning at line 6. Beyond line 6, the differences were too numerous to correlate the two files.

    Poor Hermitian has done a binary compare rather than dumping it as a text file which shows the detailed similarities, as I have shown so many times.

    Fail

  46. I didn’t miss it Dude. NBC provided this only for the Xerox PDF (i.e. No Preview) and only for the landscape orientation.

    ROTFL…

    Clueless

  47. Software programs that seek the minimum do so every time. So when the program fails to seek the minimum one time it proves that the program never seeks the minimum.

    I have already shown that your argument was wrong here. Still forgetting the past eh?…

    Fascinating how Hermitian is repeating his faulty claims but has yet to address my findings.

    I am not surprised.

  48. So the bottom line is both you two and your two Xerox Operator / Xerox 7535 or 7655 Workcenter/ Preview Operator / Mac OS Preview / Adobe Illustrator Operator / Adobe illustrator just don’t have the right stuff.

    All because they align with 8×8 bit boundaries?… You’re funny, you claim that it does not have the right stuff and yet I have shown that it does.

    Who is fooling himself here.
    Sloppy sloppy

  49. Again we find that NBC’s Xerox / Preview / Illustrator forger just doesn’t have the right stuff.

    And again we see how Hermitian does not know how to use tools properly… Fascinating…

  50. The ordering of objects was also different between the two files.

    Actually, it is the same structure! The only difference is in the number of monochrome layers, and the order they are listed in the Resources object (Object 6 in both). For a file with x images (including the jpeg), the structure and numbering is as follows:

    4 (Contents), 5 (length of Contents stream), 2 (Page), 6 (Resources), Images+Lengths [2x entries, arranged by order listed in Object 6. The object number increases as the image number, and each image object is immediately followed by an object listing the length of the bitstream, the colorspace objects are also mixed in the object numbering scheme], 2x+9 (Cs2 definition), 2x+10 (Cs2 definition Length), [object number following the first image+length to use Cs2] (Cs2), 2x+11 (Cs1 definition), 2x+12 (Cs1 definition Length), [object number following first image+length to use Cs1] (Cs1), 3 (Pages), 2x+13 (Catalog), 2x+14 thru 2x+21 (Metadata Values), 1 (Metadata categories), xref, trailer

    The only thing that is not clear is why the Resources object lists the images out of order. I may investigate this tomorrow.

  51. Vicklund: Actually, it is the same structure! The only difference is in the number of monochrome layers, and the order they are listed in the Resources object (Object 6 in both). For a file with x images (including the jpeg), the structure and numbering is as follows:

    Poor Hermitian is so clueless when it comes to properly using the tools.

    Of course there are many differences in the binary data, that’s why you have to compare the object ordering as Vicklund has done.

    Vicklund shows himself to be a real engineer once again… And I mean that in the nicest meaning of the word.

  52. Do either Vicklund or NBC understand the mathematical concept of the minimum ?

    Yes. For instance, take a 8.5″ x11″ sheet of paper. Rotate it approximately half a degree from orthogonal to the x and y axes. What is the minimum size rectangle that can be drawn about this paper that is orthogonal and meets mod 8 criteria for both axes at 600 dpi? Is this larger, smaller, or equal in size to a rectangle (that meets the above criteria) drawn about the paper when it is orthogonal to the axes?

  53. W. Kevin Vicklund says:

    August 14, 2013 at 05:05

    “Do either Vicklund or NBC understand the mathematical concept of the minimum ?

    “Yes. For instance, take a 8.5″ x11″ sheet of paper. Rotate it approximately half a degree from orthogonal to the x and y axes. What is the minimum size rectangle that can be drawn about this paper that is orthogonal and meets mod 8 criteria for both axes at 600 dpi? Is this larger, smaller, or equal in size to a rectangle (that meets the above criteria) drawn about the paper when it is orthogonal to the axes?”

    So here’s another crutch or band-aide for the simpleton workflow concept. Already we have the simpleton paralegal placing the original up-side-down and now we have him rotating it by a 1/2 degree after he has rotated same by 180 degrees. And of course the Xerox scanning software is the only scanner package on the planet that doesn’t deskew the image.

    ROTFL !!! You two guys are too easy…

  54. NBC says:

    August 13, 2013 at 21:04

    “And remember that the document has been rotated…”

    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
    Correct ! In my case it the images were all rotated by a single human forger.

    In your case the images were rotated by three human operator / forgers.

    So the score is still one for me and three for you and I win.

    So again the simpleton workflow just doesn’t have the right stuff.

  55. NBC says:

    August 13, 2013 at 21:06

    “What Hermitian may be confused about is that which sides align with 8×8 bit boundaries depends on the orientation of the scan. And I do not care about 16×16 blocks really.”

    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
    So the guy who wrote the book about the placement of the object boundaries is confused and the guy who never measured a single object boundary himself is not. ROTFL ! ! !

    You may not care about the 16 x 16 blocks NBC but my human Forger certainly did. Of course he definitely knew his stuff and you as always remain clueless. See (one more time) :

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

    Lossless editing[edit]

    See also: jpegtran and Commons:User:Cropbot

    A number of alterations to a JPEG image can be performed losslessly (that is, without recompression and the associated quality loss) as long as the image size is a multiple of 1 MCU block (Minimum Coded Unit) (usually 16 pixels in both directions, for 4:2:0 chroma subsampling). Utilities that implement this include jpegtran, with user interface Jpegcrop, and the JPG_TRANSFORM plugin to IrfanView.

    Blocks can be rotated in 90 degree increments, flipped in the horizontal, vertical and diagonal axes and moved about in the image. Not all blocks from the original image need to be used in the modified one.

    The top and left edge of a JPEG image must lie on a 8 × 8 pixel block boundary, but the bottom and right edge need not do so. This limits the possible lossless crop operations, and also prevents flips and rotations of an image whose bottom or right edge does not lie on a block boundary for all channels (because the edge would end up on top or left, where – as aforementioned – a block boundary is obligatory).

    When using lossless cropping, if the bottom or right side of the crop region is not on a block boundary then the rest of the data from the partially used blocks will still be present in the cropped file and can be recovered.

    It is also possible to transform between baseline and progressive formats without any loss of quality, since the only difference is the order in which the coefficients are placed in the file.

    Furthermore, several JPEG images can be losslessly joined together, as long as the edges coincide with block boundaries. jpeg supports 12-bit and 32-bit color as RGB”.

    So my Forger knew to set his origin point and x, y axes to achieve both 8 x 8 and 16 x 16 modulo conditions so that his FINAL rotations would be lossless. Thats why he also applied the DCTDecode filter to the images after he rotated them by 90 degrees counterclockwise and before he placed them into Adobe Illustrator. For this initial rotation he would have used one of the above mentioned lossless plugins.

    Then, after he compressed the images, he carefully placed each image into the same new PDF document. He then applied a rotation of -90 degrees (i.e. clockwise ) to each image and then applied the appropriate reduction scale factor. Hence the top and left edges of the landscape orientation became the top and right edges in the final portrait orientation.

    The forger created each image in the portrait orientation within his MAC OS graphics program. He set the origin point of his x,y coordinate system to the conventional upper-left position while constructing each separate image.

    Thus, when he subsequently rotated each image 90 degrees counterclockwise, the Forger’s x, y axes aligned with the PDF user x,y system. Therefore the compression of each image was carried out in the PDF coordinates with the origin point in the lower left corner. The final 90 degree clockwise rotation carried the origin point back to the upper-left corner.

    It’s really not complicated — for some.

  56. NBC says:

    August 13, 2013 at 18:36

    “Probably over a week ago I posted a question to NBC to clarify the x,y coordinates and origin position for his rectangular boundaries analysis. He never answered my questions. This has been his practice on so many questions of mine.

    “I thought that they were obvious. I even used the Illustrator coordinates to simplify matters for you.

    “Of course, the numbers fully agree with the PDF coordinate system as well which runs from the bottom left.

    “Again. a good scientist double checks.

    This has the distinct aroma of rotten bolony (bologna).

    OK just for you NBC I’ll make an exception and give you one more shot. So I’ll make it easy for you.

    When you carried out your rectangular object boundary analysis for the file “wh-lfbc-scanned-xerox-7535-wcpreview did you use the default artboard rulers or instead did you select the global rulers. If the latter, then exactly where did you place the global rulers origin point.

    Take all the time that you need NBC. In the mean time I’m working on other stuff that’s far more important than your simpleton workflow.

  57. Yes. For instance, take a 8.5″ x11″ sheet of paper. Rotate it approximately half a degree from orthogonal to the x and y axes. What is the minimum size rectangle that can be drawn about this paper that is orthogonal and meets mod 8 criteria for both axes at 600 dpi? Is this larger, smaller, or equal in size to a rectangle (that meets the above criteria) drawn about the paper when it is orthogonal to the axes?

    So here’s another crutch or band-aide for the simpleton workflow concept. Already we have the simpleton paralegal placing the original up-side-down and now we have him rotating it by a 1/2 degree after he has rotated same by 180 degrees. And of course the Xerox scanning software is the only scanner package on the planet that doesn’t deskew the image.

    As expected, despite claiming to have a PhD in Engineering Mechanics, Hermie refused to answer the first question. He did, however, answer the second question. Note that he claims that the same paper was placed upside-down and rotated180 degrees and then rotated half a degree (never mind that the workflow doesn’t make any sense). The only scan claimed to have been placed upside-down and rotated 180 degrees was the WH LFBC PDF, meaning that he is claiming that that is the one that is skewed. Now, Hermie earlier correctly noted that the WH LFBC PDF (which he claims is skewed) was a bit smaller than the Xerox 7535 PDF (which, being not skewed, would be orthogonal to the axes).

    Therefore, he believes that when a sheet of paper is skewed from orthogonal, it shrinks!

    The reality is that it is the Xerox 7535 PDF that is skewed. It was not placed upside-down or rotated 180 degrees. And if you examine it closely, focusing on the basket-weave pattern right where the edge erase was applied, you can see it was indeed skewed by about half a degree. Also, is there enough skew for it to be detected by the deskewing software? Probably not. The text itself is curved at the left edge (in portrait mode), which would throw off any deskewing technology, and the basket-weave is rather indistinct after being scanned, downsampled, and printed. The only thing the deskewing software would have to go on would be the faint outline of the sheet of paper. So we know for a fact it is skewed – whether the Xerox has or does not have deskewing software is somewhat irrelevant, and likely wouldn’t correct the skew in any case.

  58. NBC

    Helping out Hermitian

    Posted on August 9, 2013 by NBC

    “Since Hermitian seems to lack the resources to save the Xerox created PDF’s using OS/X Preview, I will provide him with a sample document based on a document that I have already released.

    “I love to see the egg on his face and that of his ‘expert’

    “The document was created on a Xerox WorkCentre 7535 and at least one known issue exists namely that it was not scanned upside down using the automatic feeder. This workflow creates the correct rotation of the embedded images.

    “Better versions will be released in due time. At least this should keep our friend busy.

    “wh-lfbc-scanned-xerox-7535-wcpreview

    “And just in case Hermitian has troubles, here is a screenshot. Of course I expect Hermitian to object to me posting something that could so easily be forged which is why I posted the original Xerox documents. But it seems he is having a hard time taken the next steps in the investigation, in spite of my efforts.”

    NBC is such a careful scientist researcher that he didn’t notice that the position of the YCbCr label in his screen shot is different than the position of the same label in the PDF file “wh-lfbc-scanned-xerox-7535-wcpreview.pdf”. And on top of that, NBC’s screenshot doesn’t have that “yb” (i.e. FF EE) thingy that Vicklund says must come right before a comment in a JPEG file.

    Now you don’t suppose that NBC is trying to pull a fast one do you ?

    I know that he is totally misguided — but could he also be dishonest ?

    It goes without saying that this is the kind of help that I don’t need. That’s why lately I pretty much totally ignore anything that he posts. You see NBC is beyond desperate and will do anything to sell his simpleton Xerox workflow. This is the point in the process where all of his different storylines get all tangled up.

  59. NBC is such a careful scientist researcher that he didn’t notice that the position of the YCbCr label in his screen shot is different than the position of the same label in the PDF file “wh-lfbc-scanned-xerox-7535-wcpreview.pdf”. And on top of that, NBC’s screenshot doesn’t have that “yb” (i.e. FF EE) thingy that Vicklund says must come right before a comment in a JPEG file.

    What are you talking about? It’s at the same place as in the PDF file. My guess is that your hex editor uses a different method of displaying where in the file you are. As far as the “yb” thing goes, the hex editor NBC is using displays those bytes differently (I noticed that after posting about the “yb”). However, you can see that just prior to the YCbCr, there is indeed a FF FE (at the end of the line starting with offset 3520). Remember, a comment starts with FF FE, then has a two-byte length call (which includes the length call but not the FF FE), followed by the comment. Since YCbCr is 5 bytes for a total length of 7 bytes, that means the comment in code is FF FE 00 07 59 43 62 43 72, which matches the screenshot.

  60. Nope ! I always reset the rulers origin point at the start of each Illustrator session. You do that by double clicking on the small square just outside the intersection of the rulers at the top-left corner of the Illustrator screen.

    After playing with this, I made the following observations [using Adobe Illustrator CC]:

    1. Opening a PDF (tried on a number of pdf, some generated by scans by Xerox, HP, and Brother machines, some generated by importing .doc and .xls files into Acrobat, some by printing using CutePDF Writer, some just downloaded off the internet) initially shows the artboard Yc with a negative value
    2. Double clicking on the small square changes Yc to a positive value

    This occurred on all PDFs I examined, including the WH LFBC, the Xerox 7535, and the Xerox 7535 Preview.

  61. This occurred on all PDFs I examined, including the WH LFBC, the Xerox 7535, and the Xerox 7535 Preview.

    In other words, Hermitian was again confused by his tools?

  62. If the latter, then exactly where did you place the global rulers origin point.

    It does not make a difference. You look for the distance from the top and right of the box to the top and right of the document. It’s an absolute number..

    For goodness sakes my friend, this is not that complex…

    I am glad however that you have realized that you have nothing of value to offer.

    Fascinating how our friend needs to be educated at every single step, even though he could have double checked the data by using the cm data in the PDF… That is what I did…

  63. Now you don’t suppose that NBC is trying to pull a fast one do you ?

    I know that he is totally misguided — but could he also be dishonest ?

    Poor Hermitian, lacking any intellectual arguments he has now descended to calling me dishonest.

    What a failure

  64. So here’s another crutch or band-aide for the simpleton workflow concept.

    Again, our friend is trying to comprehend but remains several steps, if not rounds, behind. Fascinating how he cannot accept, at any cost, our findings, causing him to propose strawmen arguments and knock them down.

    I will start keeping a tally of his ‘objections’ and fails… At the moment, he has done little to undermine the workflow, but he has shown himself to have some problems with properly applying tools and concepts. And yes, a byte for byte comparison will generate many differences as most of the binary parts are different Such a simplistic approach ignores how the structure of the files is incredibly similar.

    If only our friend had taken the time and effort to really study the PDF. But no worries, I have done so and shown, side by side, how they are the same in structure…

    Of course, you will never hear Hermitian comment on that, he insists on applying foolish concepts that maximize irrelevant discrepancies that are to be expected.

  65. The two files were compared at the binary code level and all differences were written to file. A preliminary visual comparison of the HEX code revealed that the “NBC smoking gun YCbCr label” was on line 87 of file ““wh-lfbc-scanned-xerox-7535-wcpreview.pdf” and on line 616 of the file birth-certificate-long-form WayBack Machine 04-27-2011_17-11-11.pdf.

    I’m curious as to how Hermie is determining what the line number is. Are they marked by carriage returns? While portions of the pdf do indeed have intentional carriage returns, the bitstreams that make up the bulk of the file are effectively single lines. Is there a set number of characters per line? Offsets are a much more reliable means of determining where in the file something is located.

  66. As I posted, the lower left origin point does not work for the 16 x 16 blocks for the WH LFCOLB. So if you are saying that the lower left works for your image, then your image does not match the WH LFCOLB image.

    Do you see what Hermitian has done here? I have shown how they align with 8 bit boundaries and he insists, without any reason, that they should align with 16 bit boundaries, even though we do not even observe such a consistent alignment in the WH LFBC PDF.

    The 8 bit boundary can be understood quite easily as the document was initially scanned at 600 PPI (see specs) and separated. The algorithm looked at 16×16 600 PPI blocks, to separate the foreground and background layers. The background was encoded in JPEG and then subsampled to 1/4 of the resolution using a frequency domain approach and the foreground was subsampled to 300 PPI. Alignments at 16×16 boundaries in 600 PPI become 8×8 alignments in 300 PPI.

    And note that the 8×8 alignment has nothing to do with JPEG encoding, it’s the alignment of the foreground bitmaps with the background. I have shown how the Xerox workflow created documents all show the same behavior: 8 bit alignment at two sides, alignment with the interior bitmap at the two remaining sides. This is repeatable and observable.

    In other words, the experiments show a match between the Xerox workflow and the WH LFBC. By creating an artificial and not observed 16×16 bit alignment our friend has created a strawman to knock down. As he has shown, the WH LFBC does not abide by the 16×16 bit boundaries for several of its sides. You have a 50-50 % chance that an 8×8 bit aligns with a 16×16 bit so you would expect about 50% of the sides to abide by this. None however show a 100% agreement, unlike the 8×8 bit boundary.

    Our friend has yet to understand the details as to how the document was scanned, causing the images to be encoded internally in landscape orientation. Our friend has yet to understand that two sides consistently show 8×8 bit alignment, and the two others show alignment with the interior objects. Our friend also fails to understand that if you were to scan the document upside down, this creates a document that exactly mimics the orientation of the images as well as the sides which align with 8 bit boundaries.

    It requires a bit of logical reasoning however so far the data has been extremely supportive. What our friend apparently does not understand is that the exact coordinate system really does not matter, as it is the distance between the side and the border of the document which matters, and distance is always absolute.

    While our friend is still struggling with the rulers in his high level toy, I have shown that using the distances in Illustrator you get the same results as using the values embedded in the PDF.

  67. Our friend, lacking the proper tools, opens up his files in a text editor…
    Perhaps a hex editor would have been far more appropriate.
    Now if you dump the binary format to text, you can do a side by side comparison of the documents using a text editor as the binary data is ‘transformed’ to hex data and can thus be safely displayed.

    But I can do only so much in trying to educate our friend as to how to properly use the correct tools…

    It’s such basic stuff…

  68. Oh, I definitely use a text editor for things, like determining the structure, since it is coded as text except for the bitstreams. But when you need to analyze the individual bytes in a bitstream, use a hex editor.

  69. NBC says:

    August 14, 2013 at 18:32

    “Our friend, lacking the proper tools, opens up his files in a text editor…
    Perhaps a hex editor would have been far more appropriate.
    Now if you dump the binary format to text, you can do a side by side comparison of the documents using a text editor as the binary data is ‘transformed’ to hex data and can thus be safely displayed.”

    “But I can do only so much in trying to educate our friend as to how to properly use the correct tools…”

    “It’s such basic stuff…”

    As I’ve said many times, I’ll match my tools with anyone. I’ve compared the file “wh-lfbc-scanned-xerox-7535-wcpreview” to the file birth-certificate-long-form WayBack Machine 04-27-2011_17-11-11.pdf. by means of 010 Editor, Irfanview, Edit Pad Pro 7.

    The binary comparison was made in a DOS window by means of C:\>fc file1 file2 > file3.
    file3 was then opened in Edit Pad Pro 7.

  70. Hermie has just “proven” that every scan ever made is a forgery. Scan a document to pdf. Print a copy. Scan the copy to a second pdf. Do a binary comparison and see how quickly they diverge.

  71. Rather than doing a binary comparison, how about a side by side comparison of the actual structures. That way, you can see the differences and similarities between the two files. After all, if a bitstream is even one byte longer in one file than the other, even if the rest of the file is identical the you won’t be able to tell in a binary comparison.

  72. The binary comparison was made in a DOS window by means of C:\>fc file1 file2 > file3.
    file3 was then opened in Edit Pad Pro 7.

    Yes, this will show thousands of differences. But you miss out on the structure of the PDF which, as I have shown in a side by side comparison, is almost equivalent, other than for some additional or fewer foreground objects

  73. ROTFL, that’s funny Vicklund… But in doing so he ignores the similarities.

    Which eventually leads him to failure

  74. As to the FF FE, note that it preceeds the comment, yes, the first two bytes are 00 07 which is the length marker. Please familiarize yourself with the JPEG standard if you want to base your ‘arguments’ on faulty understanding on your part.
    Sigh, failed again…

  75. Now you don’t suppose that NBC is trying to pull a fast one do you ?

    I know that he is totally misguided — but could he also be dishonest ?

    Apology accepted my poor friend, no hard feelings as it really only reflected on you. But thanks for showing us a bit of Hermitian when he is faced with uncomfortable data.

  76. It really isn’t but then again, some do not understand the work flow. Sigh… Even your own calculations show that the 16 bit alignment fails.

  77. WKV

    “NBC is such a careful scientist researcher that he didn’t notice that the position of the YCbCr label in his screen shot is different than the position of the same label in the PDF file “wh-lfbc-scanned-xerox-7535-wcpreview.pdf”. And on top of that, NBC’s screenshot doesn’t have that “yb” (i.e. FF EE) thingy that Vicklund says must come right before a comment in a JPEG file.”

    What are you talking about? It’s at the same place as in the PDF file. My guess is that your hex editor uses a different method of displaying where in the file you are. As far as the “yb” thing goes, the hex editor NBC is using displays those bytes differently (I noticed that after posting about the “yb”).

    Exactly ACE ! NBC’s HEX editor is screwed up. That’s exactly why I posted that his YCbCr label is in the wrong place. You do know that there is a unique one-to-one relationship between the HEX code and the ASCII string ? NBC’s YCbCr is at a different place in the string compared to the WH LFCOLB PDF. Therefore he is using a tool that should have been trashed long ago. Or he’s playing with his data to obfuscate.
    So when you first noticed that his strings were off why didn’t you warn him ?

    And of course you have no problem with NBC’c editor spitting out erroneous strings but you are sure that my line numbers are wrong (so it’s my problem) instead of acknowledging NBC’s error?.

    Man if you really are a Registered P.E. then you are running with the wrong crowd !
    By the way, as a undergrad I took the EIT and passed. The open book part would have been a piece of cake but my company didn’t think that I needed it.

    As far as the line numbers, it doesn’t matter what line numbering convention is used by a given editor as long as you are comparing both PDF files in the same editor. In this case I was using 010 Editor. The line number for the YCbCr label in the file “wh-lfbc-scanned-xerox-7535-wcpreview.pdf” is 87 in the text mode. The YCbCr label is located in line 616 of the file:

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

    In the HEX mode in 010 Editor the label is on the line numbers 0DD0h: and 1:1970h: respectively.

    Likewise in EditPad Pro 7 the label is respectively on line DC0 of the file “wh-lfbc-scanned-xerox-7535-wcpreview.pdf” and on line 11968 in the file:

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

    So take your pick but the labels are still on different line numbers in any case.

    So we reach the inevitable conclusion that the simpleton Xerox workflow doesn’t have the right stuff.

  78. Exactly ACE ! NBC’s HEX editor is screwed up. That’s exactly why I posted that his YCbCr label is in the wrong place. You do know that there is a unique one-to-one relationship between the HEX code and the ASCII string ? NBC’s YCbCr is at a different place in the string compared to the WH LFCOLB PDF

    Of course it is… Geez… Is that it… You really need to better understand JPEG format. And you still have not explained its presence in all documents… And based on your foolish arguments, you came to accuse me of being dishonest…

    Don’t you feel a bit silly now?

  79. Poor Hermitian also missed me outlining the similarities in the JPEG here

    First observation

    the WH PDF jpeg is larger than the Xerox jpeg

    299366 bytes v 235646 but again, when looking at the structure all lines up nicely

  80. NBC

    W. Kevin Vicklund says:

    August 14, 2013 at 16:14

    “”Nope ! I always reset the rulers origin point at the start of each Illustrator session. You do that by double clicking on the small square just outside the intersection of the rulers at the top-left corner of the Illustrator screen.”””

    “After playing with this, I made the following observations [using Adobe Illustrator CC]:

    “1. Opening a PDF (tried on a number of pdf, some generated by scans by Xerox, HP, and Brother machines, some generated by importing .doc and .xls files into Acrobat, some by printing using CutePDF Writer, some just downloaded off the internet) initially shows the artboard Yc with a negative value
    ” 2. Double clicking on the small square changes Yc to a positive value

    “This occurred on all PDFs I examined, including the WH LFBC, the Xerox 7535, and the Xerox 7535 Preview.

    I knew all of this man. But NBC didn’t and still doesn’t.

    Now NBC has now had THREE chances to answer my question regarding the setting of the rulers origin. His last post (on this same subject) proves again that he remains clueless.

    Therefore he could not possibly have measured the x,y offsets and rectangle dimensions that he presented in his tables by means of Adobe Illustrator.

    So I must conclude that NBC didn’t get any of his coordinates by using Illustrator. It would be impossible without resetting the rulers origin. And it’s obvious that he doesn’t understand the importance of that step nor does he even know how to do it.

    So I must conclude that NBC didn’t get any of his coordinates by using Illustrator. It would be impossible without resetting the rulers origin.

    So NBC has most likely pulled another fast one. His numbers were most likely calculated by someone else outside of Illustrator probably in a spread sheet program.

    And now I am curious why NBC did not give that person the Preview file rather than the Xerox file.

  81. NBC says:

    August 14, 2013 at 19:24

    “”The binary comparison was made in a DOS window by means of C:\>fc file1 file2 > file3. file3 was then opened in Edit Pad Pro 7.””

    “Yes, this will show thousands of differences. But you miss out on the structure of the PDF which, as I have shown in a side by side comparison, is almost equivalent, other than for some additional or fewer foreground objects”

    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

    Notice how NBC glibly changes the subject from the differences in the binary code to the similarity of the object structures. So it’s OK with NBC that the file that his simpleton Xerox forger created has thousands of differences from the file that he claims that his Xerox forger created.

    And NBC is the very guy who preached over and over again to me that I should get down and dirty at the binary code level.

    Hmmmmmm… do I smell a whiff of inconsistency emanating from NBC ?

  82. NBC is such a careful scientist researcher that he didn’t notice that the position of the YCbCr label in his screen shot is different than the position of the same label in the PDF file “wh-lfbc-scanned-xerox-7535-wcpreview.pdf”.

    What are you talking about? It’s at the same place as in the PDF file. My guess is that your hex editor uses a different method of displaying where in the file you are.

    Exactly ACE ! NBC’s HEX editor is screwed up. That’s exactly why I posted that his YCbCr label is in the wrong place. You do know that there is a unique one-to-one relationship between the HEX code and the ASCII string ? NBC’s YCbCr is at a different place in the string compared to the WH LFCOLB PDF.

    Ah, so you made a typo. The screenshot you were discussing was from the “wh-lfbc-scanned-xerox-7535-wcpreview.pdf”, so what you typed indicated that when you compared the screenshot allegedly of the 7535 Preview version, it was different from the actual location in that same file. We are quite aware that there are differences between the two files. The differences arise entirely from the following facts:

    1) Being a second generation scan, the image is not identical.

    All other discrepancies are explained by that single fact. Because it is not identical, it was split into a different number of foreground images. Doing so changes the size of several bitstreams and object definitions. It also changes the order in the file of where individual objects are located, and changes the total number of objects. Changing those leads to a change in where the YCbCr comment is located.

    But even the fact I stated is not entirely accurate. Even using the same printout on the same machine, the number of objects changed for each scan, and no scan was identical to another. So the correction is as follows:

    1) Being a different scan, the image is not identical.

    One thing you failed to note, however:

    The YCbCr comment was in the same spot in the DCTDecode bitstream.

  83. It’s the WH LFBC PDF with the halos, shadows, and basket-weave background removed and a new basketweave background added.

    Wow interesting

  84. Notice how NBC glibly changes the subject from the differences in the binary code to the similarity of the object structures. So it’s OK with NBC that the file that his simpleton Xerox forger created has thousands of differences from the file that he claims that his Xerox forger created.

    Of course, these are minor differences in color that are inevitable and to be fully expected.

    I never have claimed that my jpegs were identical, that is a foolish argument of course. I have argued that they all contain a comment string.

    You need to understand JPEG format to understand perhaps what I have said but it’s trivial.

    Of course you have to get down and dirty at the binary level: where it matters.

  85. NBC says:

    August 14, 2013 at 20:13

    “”Exactly ACE ! NBC’s HEX editor is screwed up. That’s exactly why I posted that his YCbCr label is in the wrong place. You do know that there is a unique one-to-one relationship between the HEX code and the ASCII string ? NBC’s YCbCr is at a different place in the string compared to the WH LFCOLB PDF””

    Of course it is… Geez… Is that it… You really need to better understand JPEG format. And you still have not explained its presence in all documents… And based on your foolish arguments, you came to accuse me of being dishonest…

    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
    So you are claiming that the YCbCr label is in a different place in the string than the position in the string of the same label in the WH LFCOLB.

    That’s funny because all my editors say the label is in the exact same position at the end of the same string in both files. The labels are just on totally different line numbers in the two files. So it’s time for you to either take down your screen shot or post its companion shot from the WH LFCOLB. In other words put up or shut up.

    I’m anxious to see how your screwy editor mangles the WH LFCOLB.

    Don’t you feel a bit silly now?

  86. So you are claiming that the YCbCr label is in a different place in the string than the position in the string of the same label in the WH LFCOLB.

    Huh? Do you have some comprehension problems? Sigh…

    The YCbCr comment is exactly in the same location when understanding the order of objects that are encoded in the jpeg and that some of these objects are not identical in content and/or length.

    You may want to read the JPEG standard to understand how it works and you too can analyze it properly.

    Once you extract the relevant blocks you will see what I have seen.

    A unremarkable similarity.

  87. W. Kevin Vicklund says:

    August 14, 2013 at 20:17

    “Pssst… NBC, we can’t actually see which comment you are responding to. It can get a little confusing without context.

    “Also, ave you seen this:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/08/halos-revisited/

    It’s the WH LFBC PDF with the halos, shadows, and basket-weave background removed and a new basketweave background added.

    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

    You need to read the update man. As usual, Kevin Davidson had to backpedal. He remains a guy who doesn’t know which end is up.

  88. I did read the update. What part of my statement do you fail to understand? What part do you think I got wrong?

  89. NBC says:

    August 14, 2013 at 21:00

    “”So you are claiming that the YCbCr label is in a different place in the string than the position in the string of the same label in the WH LFCOLB.””

    “Do you have some comprehension problems? Sigh…

    “The YCbCr comment is exactly in the same location when understanding the order of objects that are encoded in the jpeg and that some of these objects are not identical in content and/or length.

    ‘You may want to read the JPEG standard to understand how it works and you too can analyze it properly.

    “Once you extract the relevant blocks you will see what I have seen.

    “A unremarkable similarity.

    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
    NBC is clueless as always. But even I can’t believe that he doesn’t get this one. Sometimes I think he is being conveniently dense.

    So let’s back up and take it by the numbers.

    1. The position of the YCbCr label within the ASCII string in NBC’s screenshot is not the same as the position of the label YCbCr within the string as seen in NBC’s editor.

    2. So when NBC took his screen shot of his editor’s window showing the position of the YCbCr label, the Label moved.

    Yep that’s exactly what NBC claims.

  90. You need to read the update man. As usual, Kevin Davidson had to backpedal. He remains a guy who doesn’t know which end is up.

    I find that ironic… And yes, Kevin does admit when he is wrong, that separates him from many others…

  91. So I made two scans of a full color page using my Brother MFC-5890-CN scanner (Scan to File, default settings). The page was not moved between scans, and the only interaction with the scanner during that time was getting it to scan. Two different scans were produced, which I called test1.jpg and test2.jpg. A binary comparison was made of the two files. The first 627 bytes were identical, after which the two files completely diverged. Even their size was different: test1.jpg was 1,492kB, while test2.jpg was only 1,490kB. In analyzing the file, the file diverged starting with the Start of Scan payload. In other words, the comments (no YCbCr, btw), headers (JFIF format), and the various tables were identical, but the actual image was not.

    This totally destroys Hermie’s claim that a binary comparison of two scanned files is at all useful once you get to data dependent on the scanned image.

  92. NBC

    Here is the relevant string from the file “wh-lfbc-scanned-xerox-7535-wcpreview.pdf”

    $4á%ñ&'()*56789:CDEFGHIJSTUVWXYZcdefghijstuvwxyz‚ƒ„…†‡ˆ‰Š’“”•–—˜™š¢£¤¥¦§¨©ª²³´µ¶·¸¹ºÂÃÄÅÆÇÈÉÊÒÓÔÕÖ×ØÙÚâãäåæçèéêòóôõö÷øùúÿþ..YCbCrÿÀ

    Here is the same string from the file
    http://web.archive.org/web/20110427171111/http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf .

    $4á%ñ&'()*56789:CDEFGHIJSTUVWXYZcdefghijstuvwxyz‚ƒ„…†‡ˆ‰Š’“”•–—˜™š¢£¤¥¦§¨©ª²³´µ¶·¸¹ºÂÃÄÅÆÇÈÉÊÒÓÔÕÖ×ØÙÚâãäåæçèéêòóôõö÷øùúÿþ..YCbCrÿÀ

    Notice that the strings are identical in both files.

    Notice that the string in your screenshot is totally different.

    Why is the string in your screenshot totally different from both of the above strings ?

  93. 1. The position of the YCbCr label within the ASCII string in NBC’s screenshot is not the same as the position of the label YCbCr within the string as seen in NBC’s editor.

    2. So when NBC took his screen shot of his editor’s window showing the position of the YCbCr label, the Label moved.

    Nope, the label never moved. I am showing the location in the PDF.

    It is at location 3538 in the PDF and 0x240 in the JPEG, this is also the offset from the JPEG tag FFD8 this is the same distance from offset B92 to DD2.

    Sigh…

  94. This totally destroys Hermie’s claim that a binary comparison of two scanned files is at all useful once you get to data dependent on the scanned image.

    Of course it does… Anyone should have understood this… Basic logic

  95. Yes, wordpress will eat a lot of the non-displayable characters, as you have found out. Try it yourself, cut and past the text, heck i will do it for you

    $4á%ñ&'()*56789:CDEFGHIJSTUVWXYZcdefghijstuvwxyz‚ƒ„…†‡ˆ‰Š’“”•–—˜™š¢£¤¥¦§¨©ª²³´µ¶·¸¹ºÂÃÄÅÆÇÈÉÊÒÓÔÕÖ×ØÙÚâãäåæçèéêòóôõö÷øùúÿþYCbC

    cut and past from the PDF

    This is why you better show hex values….

    24 34 E1 25 F1 17 18 19 1A 26 27 28 29 2A 35 36 37 38 39 3A 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 4A 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 5A 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 6A 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 7A 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 8A 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 9A A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 AA B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 BA C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 CA D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 D8 D9 DA E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7 E8 E9 EA F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 FA FF FE 00 07 59 43 62 43
    
  96. 1. The position of the YCbCr label within the ASCII string in NBC’s screenshot is not the same as the position of the label YCbCr within the string as seen in NBC’s editor.

    Yes it is.

    I think Hermie’s problem is captured here:

    In the HEX mode in 010 Editor the label is on the line numbers 0DD0h

    That’s not a line number, that’s an offset. NBC has two screenshots. In one, there are 20 bytes per line, resulting in the offset increasing by 20 each line. In the other screenshot, there are 16 bytes per line, resulting in an offset increasing by 16 each line. 0DD0h is 3536 in decimal.

  97. Perhaps our friend is not familiar with hex? But I double checked and the offsets all add up to the same place in the jpeg.

    Geez… So many fails and still nothing that even touches my workflow…

    Impressive…

  98. Why is the string in your screenshot totally different from both of the above strings ?

    The hex is identical, it is just that the Hex editor displays the characters at the extreme ends (0x and Fx) differently than a text editor does. In fact, even Word and Wordpad display some characters differently. What does 010 editor display, Hermie?

  99. I apologize, there are 30 bytes per line in the other screenshot, not 20. So in the two screenshots, the one at the top of this page shows the YCbCr string on the line starting with the 3536 offset. The other screenshot, found here (first one):

    https://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2013/08/10/helping-out-hermitian-ycbcr/

    has the YCbCr string starting at the end of the line starting with the 3510 offset and ending on the line starting with the 3540 offset. Ergo, both start at 3538 (with the FF FE starting at 3534).

    Also note the second screenshot on the linked page. Unlike the previously discussed screenshots, this is not from the 7535 Preview PDF. It is instead the JPEG-standard file extracted from the non-Preview 7535 file. It would not be expected to have the comment string found at the same spot, because the PDF has a number of objects prior to the start of the DCTDecode filtered bitstream, whereas the .jpg file has at most a file header.

  100. W. Kevin Vicklund says:

    August 14, 2013 at 21:40

    “”Why is the string in your screenshot totally different from both of the above strings ?””

    “The hex is identical, it is just that the Hex editor displays the characters at the extreme ends (0x and Fx) differently than a text editor does. In fact, even Word and Wordpad display some characters differently. What does 010 editor display, Hermie?”

    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
    You still haven’t answered my question. Instead you have just offered up diversions as usual.

    There is a definite relationship between the HEX and the ASCII string in 010 editor. For each ASCii string character there are two HEX characters. In 010 Editor you cannot select one without selecting the other. So when you select on the HEX side the corresponding ASCII string is also highlighted with the same color as the HEX. Conversely when you select on the string side the corresponding HEX is also highlighted in the same color. When you select on the HEX side the selection returns the HEX. When you select on the ASCII string side the selection returns the ASCII string.

    So I have checked the HEX against the ASCII string and the ASCII string against the HEX in several HEX to ASCII and ASCII to HEX converters. I have never found that 010 Editor is in error.

    So the fact remains that both the string and the HEX match in both PDF files. However neither matches the ASCII string in NBC’s screenshot. So let’s see what his editor produces for the same string from the WH LFCOLB PDF.

    Gee! I wonder why the two wonder boys just don’t want to talk about ASCII strings ?

    ASCII strings are as important as the HEX because they are equivalent. Therefore if the strings don’t check then there has to also be a problem with the HEX. And NBC’s ASCII string doesn’t check.

    So let’s get to the bottom of why NBC says that his HEX is correct when we know that his ASCII string does not check.

    So let’s see the screenshot from the WH LFCOLB NBC !!!

  101. W. Kevin Vicklund says:

    August 14, 2013 at 21:20

    “So I made two scans of a full color page using my Brother MFC-5890-CN scanner (Scan to File, default settings). The page was not moved between scans, and the only interaction with the scanner during that time was getting it to scan. Two different scans were produced, which I called test1.jpg and test2.jpg. A binary comparison was made of the two files. The first 627 bytes were identical, after which the two files completely diverged. Even their size was different: test1.jpg was 1,492kB, while test2.jpg was only 1,490kB. In analyzing the file, the file diverged starting with the Start of Scan payload. In other words, the comments (no YCbCr, btw), headers (JFIF format), and the various tables were identical, but the actual image was not.”

    “This totally destroys Hermie’s claim that a binary comparison of two scanned files is at all useful once you get to data dependent on the scanned image.”

    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

    Let’s translate WK’s statement.

    WKV’s scanner can’t make the same scan twice so Hermitian’s binary file compare is invalid.

    Your scanner was probably on standby before the first scan but was not for the second. Try tossing the first scan and then scan two more times without moving the original.

  102. Gee! I wonder why the two wonder boys just don’t want to talk about ASCII strings ?

    ASCII strings are rendered unpredictably as different OS’s may use different encoding standards. I have already found out that cut and pasting my data into the browser generates a different ascii string than seen in the HEX editor.

    Which is why you want to do a comparison on hex.

  103. Your scanner was probably on standby before the first scan but was not for the second. Try tossing the first scan and then scan two more times without moving the original.

    My goodness sakes, he is persistent and yet I have done the experiments myself and there are significant differences in the images.

    This is not rocket science.

    So when can we expect some real objections to my findings?

  104. NBC says:

    August 14, 2013 at 23:43

    “”Gee! I wonder why the two wonder boys just don’t want to talk about ASCII strings ?””

    “”ASCII strings are rendered unpredictably as different OS’s may use different encoding standards. I have already found out that cut and pasting my data into the browser generates a different ascii string than seen in the HEX editor.””

    Assuming that you are right then the string from the WH LFCOLB should be affected the same as the string from the 7535 Preview (because the two strings are identical).

    It’s funny that all of my checks which require that I cut the ASCII and the HEX from 010 Editor and paste them into a browser window containing boxes to convert ASCII to HEX and HEX to ASCII always work perfectly. You seem to be the only one who doesn’t have the right stuff.

    So lets see your editor screen shot from the WH LFCOLB.

  105. WKV’s scanner can’t make the same scan twice so Hermitian’s binary file compare is invalid.

    So you agree that not all scanners can make the same scan twice. What makes the Xerox WorkCentre different?

    Your scanner was probably on standby before the first scan but was not for the second. Try tossing the first scan and then scan two more times without moving the original.

    Five new scans. Five files of different lengths, identical for the first 627 bytes, then each diverging completely after that point.

    What’s your excuse now?

  106. NBC

    I would assume that NBC’s screen shot was a JPEG. So is NBC saying that different operating systems and different browsers render JPEG images differently ?

    So now it’s the browser’s fault ?

  107. I would assume that NBC’s screen shot was a JPEG. So is NBC saying that different operating systems and different browsers render JPEG images differently ?

    Nope, it is that ascii characters outside the regular range do not always render the same on different systems. I provided you with a screen capture in a new posting

  108. Actually, it’s a PNG (by the way, didn’t you say there was no such thing as a JPEG?)

    Did you know that PNG uses deflate?

  109. W. Kevin Vicklund says:

    August 15, 2013 at 00:08

    “”WKV’s scanner can’t make the same scan twice so Hermitian’s binary file compare is invalid.””

    “So you agree that not all scanners can make the same scan twice. What makes the Xerox WorkCentre different?”

    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
    Your tests prove that your scanner can’t make the same scan twice — no more — no less. It doesn’t say anything about the capabilities of other scanners.

    “”Your scanner was probably on standby before the first scan but was not for the second. Try tossing the first scan and then scan two more times without moving the original.””

    “Five new scans. Five files of different lengths, identical for the first 627 bytes, then each diverging completely after that point.”

    What’s your excuse now?

    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
    I stated that the two PDF files were different at the binary code level. However you and NBC claim that each was created by scanning the same original on a Xerox Workcenter. Those are both true statements. So I don’t need an excuse.

  110. Poor Hermie, first his pet theory about scanners always producing exact duplicates dies a fiery death, then he gets schooled on Extended ASCII.

  111. I stated that the two PDF files were different at the binary code level. However you and NBC claim that each was created by scanning the same original on a Xerox Workcenter. Those are both true statements. So I don’t need an excuse.

    You suggested that these differences were somehow meaningful and/or unexpected.

    Great backpedaling

  112. W. Kevin Vicklund says:

    August 15, 2013 at 00:24

    Actually, it’s a PNG (by the way, didn’t you say there was no such thing as a JPEG?)

    Did you know that PNG uses deflate?

    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

    I know that PNG was developed to be compatible with many different browsers.

    So again let’s see NBC’s screenshot of the WH LFCOLB string.

  113. Your tests prove that your scanner can’t make the same scan twice — no more — no less. It doesn’t say anything about the capabilities of other scanners.

    Motorize those goalposts! Too bad NBC has already proven that the Xerox 7655 can’t produce the same scan twice.

    I stated that the two PDF files were different at the binary code level. However you and NBC claim that each was created by scanning the same original on a Xerox Workcenter. Those are both true statements.

    First statement is true, and a restatement of something NBC and I have said for months. The second statement is false: the 7535 scan was made from a printout of a scan of the original.

    Only a fool would insist that a scanner will produce the same scan twice when one of the scans is a copy.

  114. So again let’s see NBC’s screenshot of the WH LFCOLB string.

    You need him to post it again? Hint: look at the most recent posts. It’s that list in the top left corner of the page.

  115. So again let’s see NBC’s screenshot of the WH LFCOLB string.

    Jeez Hermitian… I already posted it some time ago… Sigh

  116. You need him to post it again? Hint: look at the most recent posts. It’s that list in the top left corner of the page.

    Thanks for helping poor Hermitian navigate this modern technology

    Let’s see if he can follow some simple instructions

  117. NBC

    Just as I thought both the same but both different from everybody else. So where did you find this oddball editor?

  118. Just as I thought both the same but both different from everybody else. So where did you find this oddball editor?

    It’s not the editor, it’s how characters are rendered on Mac versus Windows.

    See here

    It creates a bit of chaos in computer land, that’s why professionals prefer exchanging information in a character set independent manner. Unicode is one of them, or Hex🙂

  119. I believe that if you cut and paste the string into a command line window, you may see what DOS does to it…
    Why do you think I provided Hex information?

  120. W. Kevin Vicklund says:

    “August 15, 2013 at 00:02

    “There are several different variations of the 8-bit ASCII table. The one Hermie is using is ISO 8859-1, also called ISO Latin-1.

    “See also:

    “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_ASCII#Character_set_confusion

    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

    I checked out your link…

    “Character set confusion[edit source]

    “Because these ASCII extensions have so many variants, it is necessary to identify which set is being used for a particular text for it to be interpreted correctly. However, because the most-used characters (those in ASCII, the seven-bit code points) are common to all sets—even most proprietary ones—failure to correctly identify a character set often suffers no adverse consequences if the user is typing in English. Further, because many Internet standards use ISO 8859-1, and because Microsoft Windows (using the code page 1252 superset of ISO 8859-1) is the dominant operating system for personal computers today, unannounced use of ISO 8859-1 is quite commonplace, and may generally be assumed without evidence to the contrary.

    “In many protocols, most importantly e-mail and HTTP, the character encoding of content has to be tagged with IANA-assigned character set identifiers.”

    So my editors all have the right stuff for the U.S. and NBC’s editor is the oddball.

    So where does NBC live — in Sweden ?

  121. So my editors all have the right stuff for the U.S. and NBC’s editor is the oddball.

    Nope, your editor has all the right stuff for Windows, I have all the right stuff for Mac.

    I thought you knew about these issues. Glad to have eliminated your confusion as you could have looked up the hex values and compared.

  122. I saw it yesterday, saw it was consistent, realized that depending on how I viewed the string changed the way it rendered (Word (DOS vs Windows), Wordpad, hex edit, and so on), remembered that ASCII was originally 7 bit, so this must be extended, and went on with my life. Just like a real engineer.

  123. So I took a gander at some pdfs I had scanned back in 2010 on my Brother MFC-9860-CDW (I have access to a number of Brother and HP scanners, as I have previously stated). I noticed that they had JFIF-formated bitstreams, and lo and behold, the bitstreams matched for the first 627 bytes of the JFIFs produced by the other Brother scanner (even though these were of completely different images). Even the comment was the same: LEAD Technologies Inc. V1.01

    So it looks like scanners do tend to have fingerprints (though it is by no means certain that this is restricted to just Brother scanners, nor that all Brother scanners will have this fingerprint). And then I got curious.

    What happens if I open in Illustrator? What does the scaling look like?

    The JFIF is scaled to 24%

    Apparently, Brother (or was it Big Brother) somehow managed to access my scanned files and replace them with forged versions that still match the hardcopy.

    If Hermie is to believed, that is.

  124. Nope ! I always reset the rulers origin point at the start of each Illustrator session. You do that by double clicking on the small square just outside the intersection of the rulers at the top-left corner of the Illustrator screen.

    After playing with this, I made the following observations [using Adobe Illustrator CC]:

    1. Opening a PDF (tried on a number of pdf, some generated by scans by Xerox, HP, and Brother machines, some generated by importing .doc and .xls files into Acrobat, some by printing using CutePDF Writer, some just downloaded off the internet) initially shows the artboard Yc with a negative value
    2. Double clicking on the small square changes Yc to a positive value

    This occurred on all PDFs I examined, including the WH LFBC, the Xerox 7535, and the Xerox 7535 Preview.

    I knew all of this man. But NBC didn’t and still doesn’t.

    Ah, so in other words, you were being deliberately dishonest when you claimed that the Yc coordinates were different.

    Now NBC has now had THREE chances to answer my question regarding the setting of the rulers origin. His last post (on this same subject) proves again that he remains clueless.

    Therefore he could not possibly have measured the x,y offsets and rectangle dimensions that he presented in his tables by means of Adobe Illustrator.

    Apparently Hermie, who claims to have a PhD in Engineering Mechanics, is unaware that you can find the distance between two points if you have their coordinates, regardless of the origin. It’s really simple, actually:

    x = |x1-x2|
    y = |y1-y2|

    I guess trig and geometry just aren’t something he mastered.

    Maybe he’s like this one professor I encountered. Due to transferring colleges (I started at Carnegie-Mellon University, but transferred to Michigan Tech because they were one of the few colleges that still had a Power Engineering curriculum), I found myself needing to take the second half of freshman chemistry because of the different term systems (semesters v. quarters). I finally managed to fit it in my final term in college. For the recitation section, rather than a grad student, our instructer was actually the dean of the Chemistry department. He hadn’t taught freshmen chemistry in 25 years, and on the first day, he made so many basic math errors (that I kept correcting him on) that he asked me to teach the section instead [remember that this was recitation, not lecture, so it was a class on how to actually apply the concepts taught in lecture]. I ended up teaching the first three weeks; he took back over once we got to an area he was more comfortable teaching.

  125. WKV

    W. Kevin Vicklund says:

    August 15, 2013 at 01:06

    “I saw it yesterday, saw it was consistent, realized that depending on how I viewed the string changed the way it rendered (Word (DOS vs Windows), Wordpad, hex edit, and so on), remembered that ASCII was originally 7 bit, so this must be extended, and went on with my life. Just like a real engineer.”
    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
    If by consistent you mean that NBC would have to work hard to get it wrong then I agree.

    Nope a real engineer would have known that ASCII script must be the same for MAC OS and Windows in any browser. Thus we have NBC using some freetoy editor that sometimes gets it right.

    So again NBC and his Xerox playthings just don’t have the right stuff.
    And neither does his sidekick.

  126. Nope a real engineer would have known that ASCII script must be the same for MAC OS and Windows in any browser. Thus we have NBC using some freetoy editor that sometimes gets it right.

    Hilarious, even after I have shown that this is incorrect, our poor friend continues to show his unfamiliarity with text encoding issues.

    Wonderful… But who lacks the right stuff here?..

  127. Hermitian does try but when is shown wrong, and this happens quite often, he does not accept his fails… blaming others…

  128. WKV

    “Too bad NBC has already proven that the Xerox 7655 can’t produce the same scan twice.”

    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
    Let’s see where this screwy logic of WKV takes us.

    The Obamatrons all sing the same tired old song. The WH LFCOLB PDF was created by scanning one of two certified copies of the Obama LFCOLB obtained from the HDOH on Apr. 25, 2011. All of the anomalies detected in the WH LFCOLB PDF image were caused by the Xerox Workcenter and its MRC software.

    The two HDOH certified paper copies of the Obama LFCOLB have never been released to the public.

    However any scanned copy produced on this Xerox WC cannot be a duplicate copy of the original because the Xerox scanner never produces the same image (even twice).

    So the WH LFCOLB PDF cannot be a duplicate copy of the paper original but rather is at most only one of many possible different images all produced from the same original by the same Xerox scanner.

    Yep ! I thought that’s what you meant.

  129. WKV

    “Only a fool would insist that a scanner will produce the same scan twice when one of the scans is a copy.”

    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
    Never say never Dude.! That “never” will come back and bite you every time.

  130. So the WH LFCOLB PDF cannot be a duplicate copy of the paper original but rather is at most only one of many possible different images all produced from the same original by the same Xerox scanner.

    Limited by finding the same features for all the objects… Duh… confused as usual

  131. And again I would like to thank Hermitian to pursue another path to strengthen my work flow.

    You’re the best…

  132. NBC

    “Ah, so in other words, you were being deliberately dishonest when you claimed that the Yc coordinates were different.”

    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

    The Yc coordinates were different. As I explained to you — I always re-set the rulers origin before each session. So I knew to do that but NBC did not. He did not because he hasn’t ever used Illustrator. Consequently he’s totally clueless.

  133. He did not because he hasn’t ever used Illustrator. Consequently he’s totally clueless.

    The latter does not follow from the former my friend, you may want to check out a good text book on logic.

    As to me being unfamiliar with Illustrator, it does not really affect my findings. I reported the data, you ignore it.

    Let’s see who is really ‘totally clueless’ here🙂

    You’re such a gem my friend.

  134. WKV

    Apparently Hermie, who claims to have a PhD in Engineering Mechanics, is unaware that you can find the distance between two points if you have their coordinates, regardless of the origin. It’s really simple, actually:

    x = |x1-x2|
    y = |y1-y2|

    “I guess trig and geometry just aren’t something he mastered.”

    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
    Actually I mastered trig and geometry in High School. In my first year in M.E. I took drafting and Descriptive geometry. Then after lots of other undergraduate math courses (I took a math minor throughout) I had a graduate class in Tensor Calculus followed by one in Riemannian Geometry. The full professor who taught these two classes was Jack Levine. A finer teacher and outstanding person would be hard to find.

    See: http://www4.ncsu.edu/~njrose/Special/Bios/Levine.html

    I also took tons of other graduate level math courses for my math minor but you wouldn’t be interested.

    By the way your equations for the distance are only valid for flat spaces. Otherwise you must calculate the geodesic.

  135. By the way your equations for the distance are only valid for flat spaces. Otherwise you must calculate the geodesic.

    Yawn… Hermitian ignores that the coordinate system made no difference to my distance calculations.

    When will he admit to this simple fact?

  136. NBC says:

    August 15, 2013 at 21:28

    “”Nope a real engineer would have known that ASCII script must be the same for MAC OS and Windows in any browser. Thus we have NBC using some freetoy editor that sometimes gets it right.””

    “Hilarious, even after I have shown that this is incorrect, our poor friend continues to show his unfamiliarity with text encoding issues.”

    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

    Please post the browsers for which you personally have observed differences in ASCII script between MAC OS and Windows.

  137. Please post the browsers for which you personally have observed differences in ASCII script between MAC OS and Windows.

    Sigh… Come on Hermitian, you messed up, and when I corrected your claims by advising you about differences in encoding issues, you now continue down a foolish paths

    You should try to understand more and object less at it merely exposes your unfamiliarity with these issues.

  138. And if you insist, be prepared to once again ‘eat crow’🙂 So you may want to look into Character Encoding in browsers…
    Just a friendly advice…

  139. NBC says:

    August 15, 2013 at 21:47

    “Hey Hermitian, check out how the PDF’s align at the PDF level here’

    Perhaps you now understand…

    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
    ROTFL …. You call that good agreement ? What I see is two lists with different object numbers.

    Now if you really want to communicate the facts to your readers you will go back and highlight all of the objects belonging to the two new object types that are in the Xerox 7655 list that don’t appear at all in the WH LFCOLB list.

  140. ROTFL …. You call that good agreement ? What I see is two lists with different object numbers.

    Yes, I expected this and so I made things even simpler for you

    side by side

    If this still causes you concerns, then let me see how I can further try to help you understand.

    There are no 7655 Objects that do not appear in the WH LFBC in the sense that there are 9 objects versus 4. The only objects I have not shown are the metadata but they too match.

    What does not match are the binary streams, for obvious reasons of course.

    But note the similarities? I do understand that you want to ignore all this in favor of expected differences but you need to address in the end why the two documents align up so nicely.

    Good luck my friend. Seems it is going to be a bit harder to show my workflow to be wrong🙂

    No rush…

  141. NBC says:

    August 15, 2013 at 23:39

    “And if you insist, be prepared to once again ‘eat crow’ So you may want to look into Character Encoding in browsers…
    Just a friendly advice…”

    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
    I already have. You might want to check out UTF-8 standard. If your browser or monitor does not meet the UTF-8 standard then you need to get one that does.

    See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTF-8

    If I were you, I wouldn’t post anymore weird script and blame it on Apple.

  142. I already have. You might want to check out UTF-8 standard. If your browser or monitor does not meet the UTF-8 standard then you need to get one that does.

    Yes, UTF-8 is a standard but now observe the same page in other semi compatible encodings.

    Then you may understand…

    You were wrong when you claimed that the strings were different. Live with it, eventually you may even want to admit to your list of fails?

  143. Please post the browsers for which you personally have observed differences in ASCII script between MAC OS and Windows.

    Browsers? Why restrict it to browsers? Any program in MAC OS will display extended ASCII script differently. Heck, you can even see it happen on a Windows machine!

    1) Right-click the pdf
    2) Select Open With… (you may have to expand the choices, and make sure the Always open this type of file box is unchecked!)
    3) Open with Microsoft Word
    4) You should see a pop-up titled File Conversion, with the top text “Select the encoding that makes your document readable.” and a Preview window.
    5) There a radio buttons for Windows, DOS, and Other.
    6) If you select Other, there is a menu. Click on the various options and see how the Preview changes. In particular, click on “Western European (Mac)”
    7) If you do it with the 7535 Preview version, you can even see what happens to the ASCII around the YCbCr string. The string occurs too far into the WH LFBC PDF to be seen in the preview.
    8) Open in “Western European (Mac)” and compare! (Note that Word interprets some bytes as breaks)

  144. The Yc coordinates were different. As I explained to you — I always re-set the rulers origin before each session.

    Except that in both files the Yc coordinates changed when I double-clicked. So I must conclude that you either forgot to double-click, missed (this actually happened to me), or deliberately chose not to do so.

  145. Except that in both files the Yc coordinates changed when I double-clicked. So I must conclude that you either forgot to double-click, missed (this actually happened to me), or deliberately chose not to do so.

    Operator error. I thought that Hermitian considered himself to be skilled in the use of Illustrator?

  146. Nope a real engineer would have known that ASCII script must be the same for MAC OS and Windows in any browser.

    Wrong! An engineer would know that the ASCII standard is a 7-bit code. Therefore, only the first 127 characters must display the same (actually, the first 10 aren’t characters, so they don’t have a pre-defined display). The extended ASCII (characters 128 and above, so anything 0x80 or above) is not required to display the same. You even claim to have read about this!

  147. My favorite standard ASCII “character” is 0000111 (or 0x07 or 7), commonly referred to as [BEL]

    Strictly speaking, it is not displayable, It is an audible bell tone!

  148. WKV

    “The extended ASCII (characters 128 and above, so anything 0×80 or above) is not required to display the same. You even claim to have read about this!”

    Well your claim just doesn’t track with the applicable standards.

    See : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTF-8#External_links

    And : http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode6.0.0/

    Unicode6.0.0 was released in 2011.

    I think you and NBC are living in past before UTC-8 and subsequent other Unicode developments were formalized.

    I don’t know why you would be clinging to the past when it just makes your hand weaker.

    How can it possibly prove your claims to play down the importance of ASCII strings ?

    However, I have noticed that you Obots fight mightily to increase your number of degrees of freedom. A prime example is the number of different versions of Obama’s LFCOLB that you Obots have pumped out.

  149. I don’t know why you would be clinging to the past when it just makes your hand weaker.

    How can it possibly prove your claims to play down the importance of ASCII strings ?

    There is no relevance. You can look at the hex values and match them to what they would look like with the non-Mac encoding.

    A simple mapping will show that all lines up. Have you done this yet? It’s trivially simple. So perhaps I should give you a hand?

  150. In Latin-1 and UTF-8 the values 7F–9F are not defined however that does not prevent browsers from trying WIN encodings

    Hex Values
    Latin 1

           á     ñ
    24 34 E1 25 F1 17 18 19 1A 26 27 28 29 2A 35 36
    
    37 38 39 3A 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 4A 53 54 55 56
    
    57 58 59 5A 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 6A 73

    Mac

           ·     Ò
    24 34 E1 25 F1 17 18 19 1A 26 27 28 29 2A 35 36
    
    37 38 39 3A 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 4A 53 54 55 56
    
    57 58 59 5A 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 6A 73

    Latin 1

                          ‚  ƒ  „  …  †  ‡  ˆ  ‰  Š
    74 75 76 77 78 79 7A 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 8A 
     ’  “  ”  •  –  —  ˜  ™
    92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 9A A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 
    
    A9 AA B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 BA C2

    Mac

                          Ç  É  Ñ  Ö  Ü  á  à  â  ä
    74 75 76 77 78 79 7A 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 8A 
    
    92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 9A A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 
    
    A9 AA B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 BA C2

    I am sure you can fill in the rest…
    This is getting too pathetic for words…

  151. How can it possibly prove your claims to play down the importance of ASCII strings ?

    Because we understand these issue… That separates us from those who struggle with these basic concepts.

  152. I think you and NBC are living in past before UTC-8 and subsequent other Unicode developments were formalized.

    Until Apple decides to incorporate these standards into it’s operating system, there’s not a whole lot NBC can do about it. I guess he could create his own hex editor and code it to display the Windows version of extended ASCII instead of the Mac version. But that’s more work than it’s worth.

    BTW, you are aware that this is an operating system issue, not a browser issue, right?

  153. guess he could create his own hex editor and code it to display the Windows version of extended ASCII instead of the Mac version. But that’s more work than it’s worth.

    I have done it nevertheless to just show him how foolish his comments are.

  154. I bow down in awe.

    A a “fool worshipper”🙂

    Still, this is so trivial, that I just had to show Hermitian how clueless his claims are.

    I could fill a whole wordpress site with examples… Oh wait…

  155. I think you and NBC are living in past before UTC-8 and subsequent other Unicode developments were formalized.

    “Until Apple decides to incorporate these standards into it’s operating system, there’s not a whole lot NBC can do about it. I guess he could create his own hex editor and code it to display the Windows version of extended ASCII instead of the Mac version. But that’s more work than it’s worth.”

    Sure he can ! He can get a real computer running under Windows OS.

  156. Hasn’t it long passed the point where Hermitian is an interesting diversion? He is a tremendous waster of time who has been wrong about everything yet has never acknowledged that even once.

  157. Sure he can ! He can get a real computer running under Windows OS.

    ROTFL… Poor Hermitian, still blaming others for his fails…

  158. Sure he can ! He can get a real computer running under Windows OS.

    OK, points for humor on that one.

  159. He is a tremendous waster of time who has been wrong about everything yet has never acknowledged that even once.

    One would think so, but he plays a meaningful role, or at least used to. At this moment he is just grasping.

Comments are closed.