Debunking the Claims – WND and Cut and Paste v JBIG2

The WND ‘reports‘ that there is an identical pixel structure, revealing a ‘cut-and-paste operation’. However, the same happens when I scan the AP LFBC on a Xerox WorkCentre. There are some characters which are rendered identical, even though their source document shows them not to be so. This is caused by JBIG2 compression. Early on, I and others, had predicted that most if not all of the artifacts found in the WH Long Form Birth Certificate PDF could be explained by Mixed Raster Compression. In order to achieve high levels of compression, the MRC algorithm separates the image into a background color image and one or more monochrome foreground bitmaps. The background is encoded using JPEG and subsampled to a lower resolution, the foreground objects are encoded using JBIG2. At that time, we could not point to examples of such a process and our observations were quickly ignored. Hard work and persistence, and a lot of luck, led us to the Xerox WorkCentre which not only explained many of the artifacts, but also explained several artifacts the CCP and others had failed to document: such as an embedded comment in the JPEG background and the quantization matrices used to encode the DCT encoded JPEG. Both were reproduced using Xerox WorkCentre. The final ‘straw’ was me finding a Xerox Scanned document on the White House servers, showing the President’s Tax Returns. While in Black and White, the JPEG contained an embedded comment ‘lineargray’ and the quantization matrix matched. The Xerox WorkCentre 7655 is a likely candidate as the ‘forger’ of the White House Long Form Birth Certificate.

Identical pixel structure reveals ‘cut-and-Paste’ creation

An examination of the registrar text under magnification shows several letters that contain the exact pixel structure, a phenomenon that is only possible if the letter was produced by a copy, cut and paste process.

Exhibit 6 demonstrates that the “T” in “CERTIFY” was copied and pasted identically into the text of the registrar stamp eight times. But in four instances (the “T” in “ABSTRACT,” the “T” in “TXE,” the second “T” in “State,” and the “T” in “DEPARTMENT”), the pixel structure is different, showing that these letters were not produced by a copy, cut and paste process.

JBIG2 compression creates a dictionary of objects and if a new object is ‘close enough’ it will be replaced with the dictionary object. Recently Xerox has had some negative press when it was found that such a process could change actual digits.

So let’s look at the signature block that the Xerox copier extracted. The T in CERTIFY and the T in THIS are pixel identical. Same for the first T in ABSTRACT. Or the second T in STATE and the second T in DEPARTMENT. The I in FILE and in IN or in CERTIFY and THIS

This is caused by JBIG2 compression.

signaturezerox