WH LFBC and Xerox 7655 Preview PDF – Side by Side

Status Strong

The raw PDF mimicks the WH LFBC PDF to a remarkable level of similarity. This was for the Preview saved Xerox scan on a 7535 Xerox WorkCentre.

Before I continue, I do have to point out that Preview reorders and renames the Objects, removes any JBIG2 encoding as well as other non PDF 1.3 supported features. Therefore, the similarity between two Preview created documents may be strongly correlated. However, I will show how for example, using a ‘forged’ pdf by Polland, the Preview saved version contains many differences.

Since the Xerox scanned documents typically do not contain the same number of Images as the WH LFBC, the numbering will eventually diverge but the overall structure will remain. In the following table, the objects are shown as they show up in the PDF and aligned to take into account the extra image objects in the WH LFBC. Note how all objects align up exactly. Not just that but the objects themselves contain the same tags.

WH LFBC
obj 4 0
obj 5 0
obj 2 0
obj 6 0
obj 20 0
obj 21 0
obj 22 0
obj 23 0
obj 24 0
obj 25 0
obj 9 0
obj 10 0
obj 14 0
obj 15 0
obj 7 0
obj 8 0
obj 18 0
obj 19 0
obj 12 0
obj 13 0
obj 16 0
obj 17 0
obj 27 0
obj 28 0
obj 26 0
obj 29 0
obj 30 0
obj 11 0
obj 3 0
obj 31 0
obj 32 0
obj 33 0
obj 34 0
obj 35 0
obj 36 0
obj 37 0
obj 38 0
obj 39 0
obj 1 0
Object Name
Contents
Length
Page 
Resources
1st Obj
Length 1st
2nd Obj
Length 2nd
3rd Obj
Length 3rd
4th Obj
Length 4th
5th bj
Length 5th
6th Obj
Length
7th Obj
Length
8th Obj
Length 8th
9th Obj
Length 9th
DeviceGray
Length
/CS2
DeviceRGB
Length
/CS1
Pages
Root
Title
Producer
Author
Subject
Creator
Creationdate
Keywords
AAPL:Keywords
Info
WH7655USDFedRotPreview
obj 4 0
obj 5 0
obj 2 0
obj 6 0
obj 12 0
obj 13 0
obj 16 0
obj 17 0
obj 9 0
obj 10 0
obj 14 0
obj 15 0
obj 7 0
obj 8 0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
obj 19 0
obj 20 0
obj 18 0
obj 21 0
obj 22 0
obj 11 0
obj 3 0
obj 23 0
obj 24 0
obj 25 0
obj 26 0
obj 27 0
obj 28 0
obj 29 0
obj 30 0
obj 31 0
obj 1 0

The next step is to compare side-by-side the actual objects

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

  <<
    /Length 5 0 R
    /Filter /FlateDecode
  >>
obj 4 0
 Type: 
 Referencing: 5 0 R
 Contains stream

  <<
    /Length 5 0 R
    /Filter /FlateDecode
  >>
obj 5 0
 Type: 
 Referencing: 

 [(1, '\n'), (3, '310'), (1, '\n')]

310
obj 5 0
 Type: 
 Referencing: 

 [(1, '\n'), (3, '205'), (1, '\n')]

205
obj 2 0
 Type: /Page
 Referencing: 3 0 R, 6 0 R, 4 0 R

  <<
    /Type /Page
    /Parent 3 0 R
    /Resources 6 0 R
    /Contents 4 0 R
    /MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
  >>
obj 2 0
 Type: /Page
 Referencing: 3 0 R, 6 0 R, 4 0 R

  <<
    /Type /Page
    /Parent 3 0 R
    /Resources 6 0 R
    /Contents 4 0 R
    /MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
  >>
obj 6 0
 Type: 
 Referencing: 26 0 R, 11 0 R, 20 0 R, 22 0 R, 
24 0 R, 9 0 R, 14 0 R, 7 0 R, 18 0 R, 12 0 R, 
16 0 R

  <<
    /ProcSet [ /PDF /ImageB /ImageC /ImageI ]
    /ColorSpace
      <<
        /Cs2 26 0 R
        /Cs1 11 0 R
      >>
    /XObject
      <<
        /Im7 20 0 R
        /Im8 22 0 R
        /Im9 24 0 R
        /Im2 9 0 R
        /Im4 14 0 R
        /Im1 7 0 R
        /Im6 18 0 R
        /Im3 12 0 R
        /Im5 16 0 R
      >>
  >
obj 6 0
 Type: 
 Referencing: 18 0 R, 11 0 R, 12 0 R, 16 0 R, 
 9 0 R, 14 0 R, 7 0 R

  <<
    /ProcSet [ /PDF /ImageB /ImageC /ImageI ]
    /ColorSpace
      <<
        /Cs2 18 0 R
        /Cs1 11 0 R
      >>
    /XObject
      <<
        /Im3 12 0 R
        /Im5 16 0 R
        /Im2 9 0 R
        /Im4 14 0 R
        /Im1 7 0 R
      >>
  >>
obj 20 0
 Type: /XObject
 Referencing: 21 0 R
 Contains stream

  <<
    /Length 21 0 R
    /Type /XObject
    /Subtype /Image
    /Width 34
    /Height 70
    /ImageMask true
    /BitsPerComponent 1
    /Filter /FlateDecode
  >>
obj 12 0
 Type: /XObject
 Referencing: 13 0 R
 Contains stream

  <<
    /Length 13 0 R
    /Type /XObject
    /Subtype /Image
    /Width 203
    /Height 787
    /ImageMask true
    /BitsPerComponent 1
    /Filter /FlateDecode
  >>
obj 21 0
 Type: 
 Referencing: 

 [(1, '\n'), (3, '173'), (1, '\n')]

173
obj 13 0
 Type: 
 Referencing: 

 [(1, '\n'), (3, '5913'), (1, '\n')]

5913
obj 22 0
 Type: /XObject
 Referencing: 23 0 R
 Contains stream

  <<
    /Length 23 0 R
    /Type /XObject
    /Subtype /Image
    /Width 243
    /Height 217
    /ImageMask true
    /BitsPerComponent 1
    /Filter /FlateDecode
  >>
obj 16 0
 Type: /XObject
 Referencing: 17 0 R
 Contains stream

  <<
    /Length 17 0 R
    /Type /XObject
    /Subtype /Image
    /Width 122
    /Height 278
    /ImageMask true
    /BitsPerComponent 1
    /Filter /FlateDecode
  >>
obj 23 0
 Type: 
 Referencing: 

 [(1, '\n'), (3, '671'), (1, '\n')]

671
obj 17 0
 Type: 
 Referencing: 

 [(1, '\n'), (3, '314'), (1, '\n')]

314
obj 24 0
 Type: /XObject
 Referencing: 25 0 R
 Contains stream

  <<
    /Length 25 0 R
    /Type /XObject
    /Subtype /Image
    /Width 132
    /Height 142
    /ImageMask true
    /BitsPerComponent 1
    /Filter /FlateDecode
  >>
obj 9 0
 Type: /XObject
 Referencing: 10 0 R
 Contains stream

  <<
    /Length 10 0 R
    /Type /XObject
    /Subtype /Image
    /Width 1457
    /Height 1832
    /ImageMask true
    /BitsPerComponent 1
    /Filter /FlateDecode
  >>
obj 25 0
 Type: 
 Referencing: 

 [(1, '\n'), (3, '344'), (1, '\n')]

344
obj 10 0
 Type: 
 Referencing: 

 [(1, '\n'), (3, '56397'), (1, '\n')]

56397
obj 9 0
 Type: /XObject
 Referencing: 10 0 R
 Contains stream

  <<
    /Length 10 0 R
    /Type /XObject
    /Subtype /Image
    /Width 1454
    /Height 1819
    /ImageMask true
    /BitsPerComponent 1
    /Filter /FlateDecode
  >>
obj 14 0
 Type: /XObject
 Referencing: 15 0 R
 Contains stream

  <<
    /Length 15 0 R
    /Type /XObject
    /Subtype /Image
    /Width 46
    /Height 284
    /ImageMask true
    /BitsPerComponent 1
    /Filter /FlateDecode
  >>
obj 10 0
 Type: 
 Referencing: 

 [(1, '\n'), (3, '67980'), (1, '\n')]

67980
obj 15 0
 Type: 
 Referencing: 

 [(1, '\n'), (3, '557'), (1, '\n')]

557
obj 14 0
 Type: /XObject
 Referencing: 15 0 R
 Contains stream

  <<
    /Length 15 0 R
    /Type /XObject
    /Subtype /Image
    /Width 42
    /Height 274
    /ImageMask true
    /BitsPerComponent 1
    /Filter /FlateDecode
  >>
obj 7 0
 Type: /XObject
 Referencing: 8 0 R, 11 0 R
 Contains stream

  <<
    /Length 8 0 R
    /Type /XObject
    /Subtype /Image
    /Width 1656
    /Height 1280
    /ColorSpace 11 0 R
    /BitsPerComponent 8
    /Filter /DCTDecode
  >>
obj 15 0
 Type: 
 Referencing: 

 [(1, '\n'), (3, '480'), (1, '\n')]

480
obj 8 0
 Type: 
 Referencing: 

 [(1, '\n'), (3, '238742'), (1, '\n')]

238742
obj 7 0
 Type: /XObject
 Referencing: 8 0 R, 11 0 R
 Contains stream

  <<
    /Length 8 0 R
    /Type /XObject
    /Subtype /Image
    /Width 1652
    /Height 1276
    /ColorSpace 11 0 R
    /BitsPerComponent 8
    /Filter /DCTDecode
  >>
NA
obj 8 0
 Type: 
 Referencing: 

 [(1, '\n'), (3, '299366'), (1, '\n')]

299366
NA
obj 18 0
 Type: /XObject
 Referencing: 19 0 R
 Contains stream

  <<
    /Length 19 0 R
    /Type /XObject
    /Subtype /Image
    /Width 47
    /Height 216
    /ImageMask true
    /BitsPerComponent 1
    /Filter /FlateDecode
  >>
NA
obj 19 0
 Type: 
 Referencing: 

 [(1, '\n'), (3, '436'), (1, '\n')]

436
NA
obj 12 0
 Type: /XObject
 Referencing: 13 0 R
 Contains stream

  <<
    /Length 13 0 R
    /Type /XObject
    /Subtype /Image
    /Width 199
    /Height 778
    /ImageMask true
    /BitsPerComponent 1
    /Filter /FlateDecode
  >>
NA
obj 13 0
 Type: 
 Referencing: 

 [(1, '\n'), (3, '5510'), (1, '\n')]

5510
NA
obj 16 0
 Type: /XObject
 Referencing: 17 0 R
 Contains stream

  <<
    /Length 17 0 R
    /Type /XObject
    /Subtype /Image
    /Width 123
    /Height 228
    /ImageMask true
    /BitsPerComponent 1
    /Filter /FlateDecode
  >>
NA
obj 17 0
 Type: 
 Referencing: 

 [(1, '\n'), (3, '633'), (1, '\n')]

633
NA
obj 27 0
 Type: 
 Referencing: 28 0 R
 Contains stream

  <<
    /Length 28 0 R
    /N 1
    /Alternate /DeviceGray
    /Filter /FlateDecode
  >>
obj 19 0
 Type: 
 Referencing: 20 0 R
 Contains stream

  <<
    /Length 20 0 R
    /N 1
    /Alternate /DeviceGray
    /Filter /FlateDecode
  >>
obj 28 0
 Type: 
 Referencing: 

 [(1, '\n'), (3, '2905'), (1, '\n')]

2905
obj 20 0
 Type: 
 Referencing: 

 [(1, '\n'), (3, '3323'), (1, '\n')]

3323
obj 26 0
 Type: 
 Referencing: 27 0 R
...

[ /ICCBased 27 0 R ]
obj 18 0
 Type: 
 Referencing: 19 0 R
...

[ /ICCBased 19 0 R ]
obj 29 0
 Type: 
 Referencing: 30 0 R
 Contains stream

  <<
    /Length 30 0 R
    /N 3
    /Alternate /DeviceRGB
    /Filter /FlateDecode
  >>
obj 21 0
 Type: 
 Referencing: 22 0 R
 Contains stream

  <<
    /Length 22 0 R
    /N 3
    /Alternate /DeviceRGB
    /Filter /FlateDecode
  >>
obj 30 0
 Type: 
 Referencing: 

 [(1, '\n'), (3, '2615'), (1, '\n')]

2615
obj 22 0
 Type: 
 Referencing: 

 [(1, '\n'), (3, '2612'), (1, '\n')]

2612
obj 11 0
 Type: 
 Referencing: 29 0 R
...
[ /ICCBased 29 0 R ]
obj 11 0
 Type: 
 Referencing: 21 0 R
...
[ /ICCBased 21 0 R ]
obj 3 0
 Type: /Pages
 Referencing: 2 0 R

  <<
    /Type /Pages
    /MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
    /Count 1
    /Kids [ 2 0 R ]
  >>
 Type: /Pages
 Referencing: 2 0 R

  <<
    /Type /Pages
    /MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
    /Count 1
    /Kids [ 2 0 R ]
  >>
obj 31 0
 Type: /Catalog
 Referencing: 3 0 R

  <<
    /Type /Catalog
    /Pages 3 0 R
  >>
obj 23 0
 Type: /Catalog
 Referencing: 3 0 R

  <<
    /Type /Catalog
    /Pages 3 0 R
  >>
...
...
obj 1 0
 Type: 
 Referencing: 32 0 R, 34 0 R, 35 0 R, 33 0 R, 
36 0 R, 37 0 R, 37 0 R, 38 0 R, 39 0 R

  <<
    /Title 32 0 R
    /Author 34 0 R
    /Subject 35 0 R
    /Producer 33 0 R
    /Creator 36 0 R
    /CreationDate 37 0 R
    /ModDate 37 0 R
    /Keywords 38 0 R
    /AAPL:Keywords 39 0 R
  >>
obj 1 0
 Type: 
 Referencing: 24 0 R, 26 0 R, 27 0 R, 25 0 R, 
28 0 R, 29 0 R, 29 0 R, 30 0 R, 31 0 R

  <<
    /Title 24 0 R
    /Author 26 0 R
    /Subject 27 0 R
    /Producer 25 0 R
    /Creator 28 0 R
    /CreationDate 29 0 R
    /ModDate 29 0 R
    /Keywords 30 0 R
    /AAPL:Keywords 31 0 R
  >>

27 thoughts on “WH LFBC and Xerox 7655 Preview PDF – Side by Side

  1. NBC

    Talk about cherry picking ! The WH LFCOLB has only 39 objects whereas the Xerox 7535 / Preview file has 55. Moreover, only 8 of the 39 objects in the WH LFCOLB PDF are type ImageMask whereas the Xerox 7535 / Preview PDF has 17 ImageMasks.

    All of the N/A’s in NBC’s Xerox 7535 object list are totally new objects that MRC created which are not present in the WH LFCOLB PDF.

    Each file has one other object which is the Green basket-weave background image.

    So when are you going to get down and dirty and compare the lines of PDF code including the line numbers for the two PDFs ?

  2. All of the N/A’s in NBC’s Xerox 7535 object list are totally new objects that MRC created which are not present in the WH LFCOLB PDF.

    Man how wrong can you be… First it is the 7655 second the NA objects are present in the WH LFBC but not in the 7655 version. I guess you still do not understand that other than these missing foreground object, the files are remarkably similar.

    But that is what you have to deny, I understand…

    Poor Hermitian, he thought he could easily debunk my findings, now he is dabbling in the margins, just as I had expected.

    Another fine confirmation of my workflow my dear friend.

  3. Oh and there are 9 image objects in the WHLFBC and 5 in the Xerox and 39 total objects versus 31… Note that the 4 images have 8 objects.

    Perfect how all these align so nicely, including the fact that the objects contain the same tags.

    Hard to rebut, I know…

  4. Talk about cherry picking ! The WH LFCOLB has only 39 objects whereas the Xerox 7535 / Preview file has 55. Moreover, only 8 of the 39 objects in the WH LFCOLB PDF are type ImageMask whereas the Xerox 7535 / Preview PDF has 17 ImageMasks.

    Actually, 16, not 17.

    But Hermie’s right. I am the world’s best hacker, and have replaced every scan ever made, and every scan that will ever be made, with a forgery. Hermie can prove that I am doing so by a very simple method. Take a color picture. Place it on a scanner. Without moving the picture, make several scans of that picture. Do a binary comparison.

    If those binary comparisons completely diverge after point, that proves I am the best hacker in the history of the world.

    So Hermie, how good of a hacker am I? Or do you concede that it is nearly impossible for a scanner to make identical scans?

  5. NBC

    “Man how wrong can you be… First it is the 7655 second the NA objects are present in the WH LFBC but not in the 7655 version. I guess you still do not understand that other than these missing foreground object, the files are remarkably similar.”

    You need to take off those weird glasses Dude.

    There are only nine image objects in the WH LFCOLB PDF and we already know which part of the composite image that each one comprises.

    By definition there are no N/A objects in the WH LFCOLB PDF image. Your task is to duplicate exactly the WH LFCOLB PDF without ignoring any of the nine image layers.

    It’s your fleet of Xerox WCs that have spawned those never-seen-before objects.

    So when are you going to let us see the N/As from the Xerox 7655 PDFs.

  6. Your task is to duplicate exactly the WH LFCOLB PDF without ignoring any of the nine image layers.

    Thank you for admitting that I am the world’s best hacker, Hermie.

  7. Who appointed Hermie (has has failed over and over again without admitting it even once) as the arbiter of fact? Normally when when is making wild and incredible claims of forgery like Hermie they are expected to provide a little proof with them.

  8. So when are you going to let us see the N/As from the Xerox 7655 PDFs.

    Are you totally blind my friend? Geez… YOu do not even bother to read the postings?

  9. Your task is to duplicate exactly the WH LFCOLB PDF without ignoring any of the nine image layers.

    That’s a foolish proposition and shows that Hermitian has been unable to find anything wrong with my analysis.

    I knew you were going to become useful.

  10. Normally when when is making wild and incredible claims of forgery like Hermie they are expected to provide a little proof with them.

    He has tried but in all cases so far we have shown his claims to be fallacious…

  11. NBC

    So what happened to the quantization matrices for these two files ?

    So why are you are now deep sixing them ?

    Is it because they are still different dude as you showed before ?

    Are you counting on the fading memories of your readers ?

    Why are the tables so different from all the other Xerox 7XXX models ?

    This Dude is very suspicious !!!

    It’s very odd that Xerox no longer sells the Xerox 7655 but they do still sell the Xerox 7535.

    Maybe a third party did the entire design, fabrication and software 7655 for Xerox ???

    Why are you hiding the 7655 story Man ???

    Maybe it doesn’t match your convoluted storyline ???

    Time to stop dithering Dude.

    It’s way past time to put up or shut up !

    So where’s the 7655 workflow Dude ?

  12. Perhaps the 76XX series fell on a sharp-edged lamppost, Herms😉

    Or it was replaced by the 78XX series. You really expect them to sell the same model for more than a couple years? why? Time, and electronics, marches on. As the temporal displacement of your own expertise continues to demonstrate handily!

    Herms, you really do deserve a trophy, or a medal of some sorts, as the unwitting hero in the undoing of PDF Madness. To what address should any recognition be delivered?

  13. “It’s very odd that Xerox no longer sells the Xerox 7655 but they do still sell the Xerox 7535.”

    Not to anybody with a clue regarding features, functionality and price points.

  14. JPOT

    JPotter says:

    “August 26, 2013 at 14:49

    “Perhaps the 76XX series fell on a sharp-edged lamppost, Herms

    “Or it was replaced by the 78XX series. You really expect them to sell the same model for more than a couple years? why? Time, and electronics, marches on. As the temporal displacement of your own expertise continues to demonstrate handily!

    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
    Well Duh ! Xerox has been selling the 7535 for more than two years.

    Typical Obot logic J POT ! The Xerox 7535 went to market before the release of the Xerox 7655. But yet the 7535 is still for sale and Xerox now sells only refurbished 7655s.

    Actually I’m posting this for the benefit of the readers.

    NBC, J Pot, and WKV are clueless…

    Remember that NBC claimed that the firmware of the 7655 was out of date when the firmware of the 7535 was not. Also remember that NBC posted two quantization tables for the 7655 which were totally different from those of the 7535. And then he clammed up on the subject of quan tables.

    I smell a rat ! Or maybe three rats !

  15. Remember that NBC claimed that the firmware of the 7655 was out of date when the firmware of the 7535 was not.

    Just as Apple still sells the iPod classic and not the iPhone3.

    Price points, Hermie. Price points.

  16. Oh, Herms, have I got a deal for you ….
    http://www.amazon.com/Xerox-Workcentre-7655-Multifunction-Refurbished/dp/B008DWQKUQ

    You can put it in your living room! Shipping only $4.49 … cheap!

    No need to obsess / conspiracize over the model, Herms. This proof isn’t model-specific.

    Seriously, a major corporation manipulating it product lines over 1 document …. cripes. This conspiracy knows no bound …. space, time, or cost!

    Seriously, Herms, where would you like your “Hero of the Madness” award delivered to?

  17. As far as the orders various model were released … as demonstrated by the dates of online support discussions, copyright dates on product literature, and styling of the machines, the 75XX series postdates the 76XX series by 3 yrs, having been released in 2012 as opposed to 2009.

    What are you basing your statement on? Please tell me it isn’t just the model #’s … LOL !

  18. Remember that NBC claimed that the firmware of the 7655 was out of date when the firmware of the 7535 was not. Also remember that NBC posted two quantization tables for the 7655 which were totally different from those of the 7535. And then he clammed up on the subject of quan tables.

    Since then I have shown that the 7655 owned by the Whitehouse has the right quantization tables…

    Did you miss that little detail?

    As to firmware being out of date, it depends on maintenance contracts as to when or if firmware will be updated.

    You are really clueless are you not…

    But it does not matter. The 7655 owned by the White House does show the right quantization matrix and the embedded jpeg comment.

    And there is nothing our friend has done, to address the many artifacts explained by the Xerox workflow.

  19. Why are the tables so different from all the other Xerox 7XXX models ?

    The tables of the 7655 owned by the White House are identical to the WH LFBC PDF…

    Poor Hermitian, had he forgotten about that…

  20. JPOT

    “No need to obsess / conspiracize over the model, Herms. This proof isn’t model-specific.”

    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
    So the Xerox 7655 scan to PDF has different quantization tables and Huffman Tables than the WH LFCOLB PDF but the files are still identical ? Sure ! When pigs can fly !

    And while you are reflecting on that show stopper recall that I have proved that the Xerox 7535 scan to PDF file has quantization and Huffman tables that are identical to those of the WH LFCOLB. But the Xerox 7535 has been rejected as the forger.

    But you can bet that NBC has his workflow for the Xerox 7655 all worked out.

    That is until he is forced to answer a long list of questions.

    Here’s a straightforward question that NBC likely will never answer.

    Why is there a difference between a document placed on the feeder tray versus the same document placed on the glass ?

    Duh !

  21. NBC

    “Since then I have shown that the 7655 owned by the Whitehouse has the right quantization tables…”

    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
    Post the link Dude !

    And then explain how the new tables came to be different from the old 7655 tables that you posted before which were different. Did your inside guy fix your problem ? How about posting the firmware version number both before and after the fix ?

    And have you also checked the 7655 Huffman tables Dude ?

    And just how did you show that the WH 7655 has the right stuff NBC ? Are you in contact with the forger in the WH ?

    Did you miss that little detail?

  22. Why is there a difference between a document placed on the feeder tray versus the same document placed on the glass ?

    Well, there is… You may need to ask Xerox as to why, but I can venture a guess.

    When I placed the document upside down on the glass platen, the document was autorotated, even though the 8 bit alignment still shows that the document was scanned upside down.

    If I feed it using the tray, the Xerox does not autorotate the image.

    I am glad you asked…

    So the Xerox 7655 scan to PDF has different quantization tables and Huffman Tables than the WH LFCOLB PDF but the files are still identical ? Sure ! When pigs can fly !

    Did you miss my posting about the 7655 tax form PDF which matches the quantization tables… Poor Hermitian… So behind.

    And while you are reflecting on that show stopper recall that I have proved that the Xerox 7535 scan to PDF file has quantization and Huffman tables that are identical to those of the WH LFCOLB. But the Xerox 7535 has been rejected as the forger.

    I am glad that we agree that the forger is a Xerox WorkCentre. I call that progress…

    But the 7535 has not been rejected as a possible candidate, it’s just that we know there is a 7655 WorkCentre in use in the office that scanned President Obama’s tax forms, and that it was used weeks before the WH LFBC was scanned.

    Poor Hermitian, still so confused… But at least he has come around to accept that a WorkCentre makes for a very plausible ‘forger’. Combine this with the lack of any non-ad-hoc explanation or evidence that a human forger could have done all this, or why a human forger would do such a poor job in separation and yet such a great job mimicking a Xerox work centre..

  23. Why is there a difference between a document placed on the feeder tray versus the same document placed on the glass ?

    There is no difference in the document.

    But there will almost certainly be a difference in the resulting scanned image. More to the point, there will often a difference in the resulting scanned image even when the document is simply scanned twice via either feeding mechanism without being touched in between. This is characteristic of computer algorithms which are making “decisions” based on programmed criteria. A power surge, a person’s shadow in the doorway of the copy room, the vibration of a nearby coffee maker or a train passing a quarter mile away… any of these things and more can start a cascading series of differences in successive, otherwise identical scans.

    It is a truism of digital cybernetics that computers do not do what you want them to do. They do what you tell them to do. The creation of compression/optimization algorithms has always been among the more arcane but important disciplines in software design, and a vast amount of effort has gone into creating delicate and subtle tools for delivering data as efficiently and effectively as possible over small pipes to not very powerful appliances.

    It kind of makes me sad that the blunt objects birthers have taken to deconstruct this PDF have blinded them to the elegance and ingenuity of the software that created what the amateurs mistake for “anomalies.” But in a pale reflection of Arthur C. Clarke’s 3rd Law (“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic”) the technology of digital optimization seems to be magic to birthers. And black magic at that.

  24. Post the link Dude !

    And then explain how the new tables came to be different from the old 7655 tables that you posted before which were different. Did your inside guy fix your problem ? How about posting the firmware version number both before and after the fix ?

    And have you also checked the 7655 Huffman tables Dude ?

    Yep… You are way behnd as usual.

    And just how did you show that the WH 7655 has the right stuff NBC ? Are you in contact with the forger in the WH ?

    ROTFL… You’re pathetic my friend, truly pathetic.. You randomly accuse people…

  25. Quite elegant, historiandude. You’ve managed to wax prosaic while discussing birthers, quite an accomplishment!

  26. Good old Herms, straining to create errors on the part of others, while steadfastly blind, deaf, and dumb to reproof of his own.
    Remember the biblical quip about motes, logs, and eyes? Mr. Blake has a veritable national forest in each of his eyeholes.
    Still yet, his contribution to this process, that of the Accidental Devil’s Advocate, is a vital one!

  27. Still yet, his contribution to this process, that of the Accidental Devil’s Advocate, is a vital one!

    Finally someone understands the role our friend serves so well… Helping firm up the already strong position of the Xerox Workflow.

Comments are closed.