A challenge for Hermitian

Hermitian: Did anybody else notice that the purported Xerox added comment YCbCr happens to be placed at the exact end of a string that gets tons of Google hits all over the internet ?

Can Hermitian explain this, because the explanation is quite trivial

So why does the following string

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

Or Hex

0x24 0x34 0xE1 0x25 0xF1 0x17 0x18 0x19 0x1A 0x26 0x27 0x28 0x29 0x2A 0x35 0x36
0x37 0x38 0x39 0x3A 0x43 0x44 0x45 0x46 0x47 0x48 0x49 0x4A 0x53 0x54 0x55 0x56 
0x57 0x58 0x59 0x5A 0x63 0x64 0x65 0x66 0x67 0x68 0x69 0x6A 0x73 0x74 0x75 0x76 
0x77 0x78 0x79 0x7A 0x82 0x83 0x84 0x85 0x86 0x87 0x88 0x89 0x8A 0x92 0x93 0x94 
0x95 0x96 0x97 0x98 0x99 0x9A 0xA2 0xA3 0xA4 0xA5 0xA6 0xA7 0xA8 0xA9 0xAA 0xB2 
0xB3 0xB4 0xB5 0xB6 0xB7 0xB8 0xB9 0xBA 0xC2 0xC3 0xC4 0xC5 0xC6 0xC7 0xC8 0xC9 
0xCA 0xD2 0xD3 0xD4 0xD5 0xD6 0xD7 0xD8 0xD9 0xDA 0xE2 0xE3 0xE4 0xE5 0xE6 0xE7 
0xE8 0xE9 0xEA 0xF2 0xF3 0xF4 0xF5 0xF6 0xF7 0xF8 0xF9 0xFA

Show up in Google so often

This is going to be a fun test of Hermitian’s skills. Come on Hermitian, I have full confidence in you.

PS: I found another YCbCr match with the above string. Venture to guess what created the PDF?

A 7345… Xerox WorkCentre. Thank you so much Hermitian… I told you, that you were going to help me prove my thesis.

69 thoughts on “A challenge for Hermitian

  1. NBC

    “Hermitian: Did anybody else notice that the purported Xerox added comment YCbCr happens to be placed at the exact end of a string that gets tons of Google hits all over the internet ?”

    “Can Hermitian explain this, because the explanation is quite trivial”

    Maybe it won’t be so trivial after I tell you that the same two strings also appear in an Obama LFCOLB without the YCbCr label.

    [NBC: Nope that should be a hint for you…]

    So your claim now is that these two strings are unique to Xerox Workcenters ?

    NBC:Nope. Just the YCbCr

    I passed your claim of uniqueness of the YCbCr comment to the Xerox WC by three experts. They immediately concluded that your claim is so ridiculous that they wouldn’t even seriously consider it.

  2. NBC

    By the way, does your MAC OS version of the two strings also get Google hits all over the internet?

    Why don’t you post the strings so we can all strum them ?

  3. So your claim now is that these two strings are unique to Xerox Workcenters ?

    Nope. Try again.

  4. “I passed your claim of uniqueness of the YCbCr comment to the Xerox WC by three experts. They immediately concluded that your claim is so ridiculous that they wouldn’t even seriously consider it.”

    Pappit, Zebest and Vogt are not experts.

  5. To avoid confusion, the “YCbCr” string does appear to be unique to JPEGs embedded into Xerox WorkCentre PDFs. The other, long string that precedes it is not unique. There is an explanation for why it is so common. NBC and I know what it is. The question is, does Hermie?

  6. I passed your claim of uniqueness of the YCbCr comment to the Xerox WC by three experts. They immediately concluded that your claim is so ridiculous that they wouldn’t even seriously consider it.

    Ah, so they didn’t even bother to check. Did they tell you which other scanners add that particular comment?

  7. Maybe it won’t be so trivial after I tell you that the same two strings also appear in an Obama LFCOLB without the YCbCr label.

    Yes, of course they do..

    So your claim now is that these two strings are unique to Xerox Workcenters ?

    Nope

    I am claiming that the YCbCr comment is unique or at least is reliably produced by Xerox Workcentres.

    As to your experts, they may not fully understand my argument as it was filtered through you. Assuming thtat they are really experts, as you appear to have an interesting definition of the term.

    So Hermitian, can you explain these strings? Show us your ability to do some investigating…

  8. There is an explanation for why it is so common. NBC and I know what it is. The question is, does Hermie?

    I am starting to doubt this and I am not even sure that he could figure it out as he has yet another issue that was straightforward to predict.

    I will give him a hint: Look for 0xFF markers.

  9. There is an explanation for why it is so common. NBC and I know what it is. The question is, does Hermie?

    Of course not, Hermitian and his ‘experts’ cannot explain why the string is found consistently. Worse, he could not even find it until several people jumped in to help him.

  10. Over at Doc. C’s – JPotter posted this link to an Appalachian Trail Museum PDF. It must have been a jpeg or actual photograph that they scanned into a PDF

    http://atmuseum.org/1983_exhibit_pdfs/Scanned%20from%20a%20Xerox%20multifunction%20device001.pdf

    Created by a Xerox WorkCentre 7556 with Version 1.4 in March of this year.

    It has one 8-bit layer with the following characteristics:

    6 0 obj
    /Length 372416
    /Type /XObject
    /Subtype /Image
    /BitsPerComponent 8
    /Width 1664
    /Height 2552
    /ColorSpace /DeviceRGB
    /Filter [/FlateDecode /DCTDecode]
    /DecodeParms [null 7 0 R]

    And multiple 1-bit layers similar to this:

    8 0 obj
    /Length 47978
    /Type /XObject
    /Subtype /Image
    /BitsPerComponent 1
    /Width 2989
    /Height 3667
    /ImageMask true
    /Filter /JBIG2Decode
    /DecodeParms << /JBIG2Globals 9 0 R

    In Illustrator the layers are random with text being lifted off the background.

  11. In Illustrator the layers are random with text being lifted off the background.

    And ‘shock’… it contains, once again, the YCbCr comment…

    Remember Hermitian the objects is double encoded…

  12. How it treated the text in the caption under the picture of the two men is similar to what MRC did to the labels in box 6C of the LFBC. Some on the background some on a text layer.

    Also the PDF has an uneven white border around it. It will be interesting to see what Preview does to it when it adds a clipping mask.

  13. There are pixel for pixel the same letters – the “U” in “AUGUST” under the USA Today header. And there is a faint halo around the letters so that when you turn off the text layer you can still read the text in the background layer.

  14. Structured the same as the non-Preview files. Crunching the numbers, looks like it was an 11×17 in Portrait, so there shouldn’t be any rotation issues.

  15. “Excellent find… ”

    JPotter says that there are more just Google “Scanned from a Xerox multifunction device001.pdf”

    I found one that looks like the tax returns, it is text on a white sheet of paper and loads in landscape in Illustrator. The PDF is two pages and has two 8-bit objects and each page has one or two 1-bit layers.

  16. JPotter says that there are more just Google “Scanned from a Xerox multifunction device001.pdf”

    Be careful, sometimes they contain javascript viruses… Which I why I had not pursued them🙂 It’s a known scam/spam trick

  17. gorefan says:

    August 18, 2013 at 17:48

    “”I passed your claim of uniqueness of the YCbCr comment to the Xerox WC by three experts. They immediately concluded that your claim is so ridiculous that they wouldn’t even seriously consider it.””

    “Pappit, Zebest and Vogt are not experts.”

    Nope! I intentionally approached three experts who have had no involvement with the various Obama controversies. Based on their reaction to NBC’s claim, I have no worries that all three have it right. His claim is ludicrous.

    But a single phone call to Xerox support would have snuffed this nonsense out long ago. But obviously NBC doesn’t want to hear Xerox’s answer.

  18. But a single phone call to Xerox support would have snuffed this nonsense out long ago. But obviously NBC doesn’t want to hear Xerox’s answer.

    So you admit that it could be falsified by calling Xerox and yet… you call whom?.. ROTFL… So far, every time people have found a Xerox WorkCentre created PDF, it contains the comment.

    Poor Hermitian… He cannot lay to rest the presence of a comment marker in the jpeg, something that had been overlooked as far as I can tell, by all who looked at the data. Assuming that the experts even looked that closely beyond the illustrator rendered information.

  19. “Based on their reaction to NBC’s claim, I have no worries that all three have it right. His claim is ludicrous.”

    Of course, the problem is that since you don’t understand PDF coding, it would be impossible for you to communicate NBCs ideas to them. Better you had simply asked them to review the website and ask their own questions of NBC and Kevin.

  20. But a single phone call to Xerox support would have snuffed this nonsense out long ago.

    Sadly, Xerox seemed disinclined to answer the question when they found out that I’m not a customer – it’s an extremely technical question that is not on their phone jockey’s list of answers. Maybe now that there is the whole character substitution brouhaha I could get an answer.

  21. Xerox engineers are very busy at the moment coming up with a patch for their firmware to fix the flaw that David Kriesel found. I doubt they have time to answer questions about a comment string in their software. It seems that they may be close to a solution for their problem however.

  22. Unless, of course, the question was phrased in such a way as to tie in to the flaw. Such as “In trying to determine which of our existing files might be affected by this problem, we discovered that sometimes the metadata for Producer and Creator was overwritten. We were looking for some other fingerprint in the file, and discovered that the background jpegs have an unusual comment detailing the color components, ‘YCbCr’ for color images, ‘deviceGray’ for black and white. Is this generally true of the scans made by the affected models? If it is, this would allow us to write a script to quickly find files that might be affected, even if the metadata was subsequently modified.”

    Heck, it might even prompt them to write their own script to send to concerned customers.

  23. Reality Check says:

    August 19, 2013 at 21:34

    “Xerox engineers are very busy at the moment coming up with a patch for their firmware to fix the flaw that David Kriesel found. I doubt they have time to answer questions about a comment string in their software. It seems that they may be close to a solution for their problem however.”

    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
    Sounds like a convenient cop out to me.

    At a minimum you could post your E-Mail in which you posed the question to Xerox.

  24. NBC says:

    August 19, 2013 at 17:37

    “”But a single phone call to Xerox support would have snuffed this nonsense out long ago. But obviously NBC doesn’t want to hear Xerox’s answer.””

    “So you admit that it could be falsified by calling Xerox and yet… you call whom?.. ROTFL… So far, every time people have found a Xerox WorkCentre created PDF, it contains the comment.”

    “Poor Hermitian… He cannot lay to rest the presence of a comment marker in the jpeg, something that had been overlooked as far as I can tell, by all who looked at the data. Assuming that the experts even looked that closely beyond the illustrator rendered information.”

    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
    Actually to a man my three experts expressed the opinion that if NBC believes his foolish claim then it is too late to change his mind.

  25. Sounds like a convenient cop out to me.

    At a minimum you could post your E-Mail in which you posed the question to Xerox.

    1. You can try it yourself… After all, here is your opportunity
    2. Will you post the emails in which your ‘experts’ rejected the YCbCr findings?

  26. Actually to a man my three experts expressed the opinion that if NBC believes his foolish claim then it is too late to change his mind.

    Totally ad hominem and totally missing the point that Xerox scans consistently show the presence of the comment tag.

    Poor Hermitian, he is losing all arguments.

  27. Actually to a man my three experts expressed the opinion that if NBC believes his foolish claim then it is too late to change his mind.

    A real expert does not try to change my mind, but rather the data…

    I call BS

  28. NBC

    You aren’t sugesting that the two strings appear in the Huffman tables of all JPEG compressed bitmaps are you ?

  29. You aren’t sugesting that the two strings appear in the Huffman tables of all JPEG compressed bitmaps are you ?

    Nope, but there are ‘standard’ tables that are being used… It’s not what I think, it is what your data suggest that these are commonly reused.

    You cannot argue with the facts.

    Finally you are catching up a little. Well done

  30. NBC says:

    “August 19, 2013 at 23:36

    “”Actually to a man my three experts expressed the opinion that if NBC believes his foolish claim then it is too late to change his mind.””

    “A real expert does not try to change my mind, but rather the data…”

    Look Dude ! You could collect JPEG compressed files for the rest of your life but you could never prove exclusivity to Xerox as the sole source for your YCbCr label. The only way to do that is to get Xerox to confirm your claim ? But then Xerox would have to produce their own evidence of exclusivity. And given their proven use of third-party software in their top-of-the-line scanners what do you think the chances are that they wrote the software for their mid-grade scanners ?

    Even DNA tests are not exclusive Dude.

    So please take your pile of printouts to the nearest Obama court case and propose your exclusivity argument to the court.

    And I suggest that you have a counter argument ready when the opposing attorney informs the court that the YCbCr color space is the default color space for all JIFF formatted files.

  31. At a minimum you could post your E-Mail in which you posed the question to Xerox.

    Unfortunately, because I am not a Xerox customer, the only way (that I could find) to communicate with Xerox was by phone. Email? You have to have purchased a Xerox.

  32. Hermitian said

    At a minimum you could post your E-Mail in which you posed the question to Xerox.

    I didn’t email Xerox. Why don’t you? I just noted that Xerox has been busy addressing the JBIG2 issue that German blogger David Kriesel found. If you follow the links on David Kriesel’s blog you will find the name of the principal engineer at Xerox, Francis A, Tse and his email address francis.a.tse@xerox.com

  33. Reality Check says:

    August 20, 2013 at 01:01

    “”Hermitian said””

    “”At a minimum you could post your E-Mail in which you posed the question to Xerox.””

    “I didn’t email Xerox. Why don’t you? I just noted that Xerox has been busy addressing the JBIG2 issue that German blogger David Kriesel found. If you follow the links on David Kriesel’s blog you will find the name of the principal engineer at Xerox, Francis A, Tse and his email address francis.a.tse@xerox.com

    Here’s how it works. You Obots are the ones claiming that The YCbCr label is exclusive to the Xerox Workcenter. So it’s up to you Obots to prove your claim. You have to prove it just like you would have to prove it in court.

    Exclusivity is very hard to prove because you have to exclude all other possibilities.

    One such possibility is the human forger.

  34. Hemitian

    I don’t have to prove anything to anyone, especially to someone who can’t seem to grasp basic arithmetic.

    Your claims of forgery and those of the other self appointed experts used by the Cold Case Posse lie in shambles. It is clearly apparent no real enforcer of the law takes the claims seriously. I doubt even the most foolish far right member of Congress like Steve Stockman will do more than be polite to people like Zullo who certainly do not deserve it. If the choose to take up the claims they will only be made to look like fools by the facts.

  35. Hermitian wrote:

    Here’s how it works. You Obots are the ones claiming that The YCbCr label is exclusive to the Xerox Workcenter. So it’s up to you Obots to prove your claim. You have to prove it just like you would have to prove it in court.

    Here’s how it works where? Let me tell you how it works in the United States of America. There is a presumption of innocence. Documents that are certified by one of the 50 states are presumed to be valid unless real evidence to the contrary exists. The mistaken ramblings of a retired Engineering Mechanics professor are not evidence. The cooked up case if a volunteer pretend LEO in Arizona is not evidence.

    I assume you took a course in probability and statistics somewhere many years ago? I don’t think you paid attention. When you find that you can take a printed copy of a PDF and scan it and the resultant file has the same features, the same file structure, and even the same superfluous embedded comment that every other scan on that machine is found to exhibit and searches of hundreds of other JPEG’s don’t include that comment or similar features there is only one conclusion at which reasonable person would arrive. That conclusion is that the WH LFBC was the output of a normal work flow and not produced by a forger who would have to have many accomplices.

    NBC never claimed the the “YCbCr” comment could not be found anywhere else. He said that based on his research that it has been found in every file known to have originated on a Xerox WorkCentre and has not been found anywhere else. As the number of files examined continues to mount so does the likelihood that the comment is a unique “feature” of the WorkCentre. I know it is unfortunate for those who cling to nefarious theories of forgery like you.

    Just for once I would like to see a Birther demonstrate even the least bit of intellectual honesty. I don think you are a likely candidate from what I seen.

  36. Hemitian

    “I don’t have to prove anything to anyone, especially to someone who can’t seem to grasp basic arithmetic.”

    People who have had no higher education rarely respect those who have excelled at it.

    One has to have had the required mathematical foundation to grasp the complexity of higher mathematics.

    You obviously are a member in good standing of the mathematically deprived.

    A good mathematician always carefully defines all of his variables and labels. Those who don’t really don’t want others to check their work. They just pretend that they do.
    The best mathematicians welcome the verification of their work by others.

  37. There’s only one question that the Obot claim of the Xerox forger raises. That question is — Could the Xerox / Preview / Illustrator + 3 unnamed operators have possibly created the WH LFCOLB PDF image? The obvious answer to that question is a resounding no.

  38. There’s only one question that the Obot claim of the Xerox forger raises. That question is — Could the Xerox / Preview / Illustrator + 3 unnamed operators have possibly created the WH LFCOLB PDF image? The obvious answer to that question is a resounding no.

    So you assert without any evidence. You’re funny. Thanks for helping out strengthening the case as you have failed to reject any of my findings, in spite of some effort to do so.

  39. Here’s how it works. You Obots are the ones claiming that The YCbCr label is exclusive to the Xerox Workcenter. So it’s up to you Obots to prove your claim. You have to prove it just like you would have to prove it in court.

    Hermitian still does not get it. The appearance of the YCbCr label is completely consistent with the Xerox WorkCentre flow and adds to the strength of the hypothesis.

    Every time I find a Xerox WorkCentre which has the comment label in its PDF, the workflow is strengthened.

    Poor Hermitian… I am not saying that it is exclusive, I am saying that it is consistent.

    What does Hermitian have to offer? A forger who can mimic a Xerox WorkCentre…

  40. You obviously are a member in good standing of the mathematically deprived.

    ROTFL, that’s so funny to hear that come from Hermitian… How are your calculations for the 8 bit alignment coming along…

    The best mathematicians welcome the verification of their work by others.

    Thank you… Of course, it does require that others have the ability to do so without making some really foolish claims. Looking forward however to your 8 bit alignment data.

  41. Hermitian: And I suggest that you have a counter argument ready when the opposing attorney informs the court that the YCbCr color space is the default color space for all JIFF formatted files.

    And all Xerox WorkCentre’s tested so far add the JPEG Comment, which has no value, to their PDF’s. So in other words, we have a vestigial artifact that, so far, has been consistently tracked back to Xerox WorkCentre’s.

    Your challenge is trivial… Ours is more complex. However, even if other origins for the comment can be identified, the comment is completely consistent with the workflow outlined.

    That’s the beauty of it all, don’t you understand? A simple workflow has now explained all the artifacts found in the WH LFBC…

  42. Hermitian wrote:

    There’s only one question that the Obot claim of the Xerox forger raises. That question is — Could the Xerox / Preview / Illustrator + 3 unnamed operators have possibly created the WH LFCOLB PDF image? The obvious answer to that question is a resounding no.

    First, see what I just did there, Hermitian? It is called the HTML block quote function. It is how knowledgeable people quote text on the Internet. They don’t put strings of H’s together that look like dog poop. It is something else in addition to simple math that you have apparently not mastered.

    What does Illustrator have to do with anything? There was most likely only a single operator involved. The person who scanned the document emailed it to their account then opened it on a Mac. He or she rotated it to right side up and saved it. Neat, simple, and concise.

    Go right ahead Hermitian and continue to flail about like a flounder in five inches of warm water. It is very entertaining to all.

  43. Go right ahead Hermitian and continue to flail about like a flounder in five inches of warm water. It is very entertaining to all.

    Especially since Hermitian is still attacking strawmen, such as the need for illustrator or the 3 operators… He has no clue and yet he is convinced, without any relevant arguments, that the Xerox Workflow could not have created the PDF, but some unnamed forger could have somehow, sometimes, have made the PDF look exactly as if it had been created by a xerox workcentre…

    That’s about the best argument he tried to propose…

  44. NBC says:

    August 20, 2013 at 16:41

    “”There’s only one question that the Obot claim of the Xerox forger raises. That question is — Could the Xerox / Preview / Illustrator + 3 unnamed operators have possibly created the WH LFCOLB PDF image? The obvious answer to that question is a resounding no.””

    “So you assert without any evidence. You’re funny. Thanks for helping out strengthening the case as you have failed to reject any of my findings, in spite of some effort to do so.”

    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

    Here’s three hurdles that you will never get over with your Xerox forger.

    1. The almost entire separation of the text from the background that the human forger achieved in his LFCOLB PDF.

    2. The two new types of objects which are created by the Xerox and which are not present in the WH LFCOLB PDF.

    3. The complete absence of any White Spot objects in the Xerox created PDFs.

    I hope you didn’t forget to check all of those Xerox scans that your Obot army is rounding up for White spots and those two new types of objects.

  45. Hermitian has chosen to focus on a few ‘discrepancies’ while ignoring the overwhelming evidence…

    Hermitian: 1. The almost entire separation of the text from the background that the human forger achieved in his LFCOLB PDF.

    No evidence of human forger, who did a poor job at separation, about on par with the separation seen in Xerox scans

    2. The two new types of objects which are created by the Xerox and which are not present in the WH LFCOLB PDF.

    Unsupported…

    3. The complete absence of any White Spot objects in the Xerox created PDFs.

    Speckled objects are found in other Xerox scans.

    I hope you didn’t forget to check all of those Xerox scans that your Obot army is rounding up for White spots and those two new types of objects.

    Yes, we found the speckles in other PDFs as to these new type of objects, I will consider them to be user error on your part as there is no evidence of such new objects in the raw PDF.

    Thanks Hermitian, you are doing fine… Now you have finally caught up with the speckles…

    Ah, you are such a great help in making the case. I do appreciate your efforts.

  46. NBC says:

    August 20, 2013 at 17:03

    “Go right ahead Hermitian and continue to flail about like a flounder in five inches of warm water. It is very entertaining to all.

    “Especially since Hermitian is still attacking strawmen, such as the need for illustrator or the 3 operators… He has no clue and yet he is convinced, without any relevant arguments, that the Xerox Workflow could not have created the PDF, but some unnamed forger could have somehow, sometimes, have made the PDF look exactly as if it had been created by a xerox workcentre…”

    “That’s about the best argument he tried to propose”

    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
    I agree NBC that your Xerox forger is nothing but a strawman.

    But the real problem that you face is that your Xerox copy just doesn’t look like the WH LFCOLB.

    I have posed a number of focussed questions all of which you have dodged. It’s past time that you level with your readers.

    For instance I notice that your Xerox trial scans seem to span two extremes in terms of the number of objects created. When the scan produces significantly more objects than nine many of the objects are of the new types which don’t appear in the WH LFCOLB PDF at all. And when the number of objects is less than nine (say 4 or 5) then some of the objects that do appear in the WH LFCOLB are missing from the Xerox scan. However, without fail, the background layer in these trials always seems to contain exactly the same number of x and y pixels. So you have one layer that doesn’t ever change while all the others are hit or miss ?

    So how about you posting some evidence that the background image also exhibits the expected variability. And while you are at it you should explain to your readers just what knobs and buttons that you are altering on the Xerox to produce the different numbers of objects obtained in your trials.

    I don’t recall a single trial scan that produced nine objects including all of the types that are exhibited by the WH LFCOLB PDF image.

    You do know that close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades ?

  47. NBC

    “Thanks Hermitian, you are doing fine… Now you have finally caught up with the speckles…”

    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
    Funny you don’t remember that the White splotches were discussed in detail in my affidavit. I Believe I posted my affidavit around July 5, 2013.

    See: http://www.scribd.com/doc/151701882/2nd-Affidavit-UL

    As you recall the top White splotch object was clipped by the Clipping Path object in the WH LFCOLB PDF. This was confirmed by turning off the Clipping Path object in the layers list in Adobe Illustrator CC. The Clipping Path does not remove the underlying clipped information. In the case of the Xerox 7535 / Preview PDF there is no information that was clipped by the Clipping Path. Moreover, this Clipping Path is larger than the Clipping Path of the WH LFCOLB. The Clipping Path clips the Green basket-weave background around the entire periphery of the background page of the WH LFCOLB. The Clipping Path of the Xerox / Preview PDF clips nothing.

  48. In the case of the Xerox 7535 / Preview PDF there is no information that was clipped by the Clipping Path.

    That was because the test specimen was a printout of the LFBC that already had the white border and had been printed with the “print to fit” setting which further enlargers the white border.. There was nothing but white border to clip. Kevin already explained this. I suppose you were not paying attention.

  49. Reality Check says:

    August 20, 2013 at 19:43

    “In the case of the Xerox 7535 / Preview PDF there is no information that was clipped by the Clipping Path.

    “That was because the test specimen was a printout of the LFBC that already had the white border and had been printed with the “print to fit” setting which further enlargers the white border.. There was nothing but white border to clip. Kevin already explained this. I suppose you were not paying attention.”

    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
    Wrong again RC ! The Clipping Path could have served the same function as for the WH LFCOLB. It could have clipped the outer border of the Green basket-weave safety background. Then it would not have ragged edges.

    So you and NBC and WKV would have all of us to believe that the WH LFCOLB was created with your complex Xerox / Preview workflow. In that case Preview set the Clipping path on the Xerox scan of one of the two certified copies of the Obama LFCOLB to clip the outer border of the Green basket-weave safety background. And Preview did so without removing any of the underlying data.

    However Preview did not set the Clipping Path to clip the outer border of the basket-weave safety background in 100 % of NBC’s trial scans. In fact Preview set the Clipping path where there is no underlying data.

    So why does Preview do something different when Xerox sends over a copy of a copy ?

  50. The clipping paths in the WH version and the 7535 Preview version are exactly the same size, just under 1/4″ from the edge of the page. In the WH version the green background was close enough that some part of it was clipped. Preview didn’t set anything to the basket weave pattern. It just clips off 1/4″ .

    On the 7535 Preview version only white was clipped because the printing process increased the white border to 3/8″. This will be trivial to test in Preview using a document that is printed to the edge. Why don’t you do that for us and check back?

  51. Hermitian: In the case of the Xerox 7535 / Preview PDF there is no information that was clipped by the Clipping Path.

    But the clipping path is still there, it is just not clipping anything interesting.

  52. However Preview did not set the Clipping Path to clip the outer border of the basket-weave safety background in 100 % of NBC’s trial scans. In fact Preview set the Clipping path where there is no underlying data.

    Duh.. because the white boundary is wider than the clipping mask…

    Geez, this is not rocket science, the copy used to scan did not have green basketweave all up to the edges…

    This is trivial stuff and quite self evident when we mentioned that we had printed out the WH LFBC, which clearly has a white boundary already.

    Again, you are focusing on an issue of no relevance. Good for you.. I guess the time to object to my findings in any meaningful manner has yet to come?

  53. I agree NBC that your Xerox forger is nothing but a strawman.

    But the real problem that you face is that your Xerox copy just doesn’t look like the WH LFCOLB.

    But it does in all relevant aspects, it just is not identical but that would never be expected if one were familiar with the MRC compression.

    So you are raising another strawman… Good for you my friend, you admit to having nothing of relevance.

    And while you are at it you should explain to your readers just what knobs and buttons that you are altering on the Xerox to produce the different numbers of objects obtained in your trials

    No buttons or knobs, just repeating the same workflow, as I already explained…

    If you believe otherwise, i suggest you do some real research…

  54. In the case of the Xerox 7535 / Preview PDF there is no information that was clipped by the Clipping Path.

    True but the two are unrelated so whenever a speckled area shows up (and it does in various examples) its position will determine if preview will clip it.

    You still are somewhat clueless as to why the clipping mask in the preview documents clips nothing… Sigh…

  55. RC

    “The clipping paths in the WH version and the 7535 Preview version are exactly the same size, just under 1/4″ from the edge of the page. In the WH version the green background was close enough that some part of it was clipped. Preview didn’t set anything to the basket weave pattern. It just clips off 1/4″ .”

    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
    Preview set the clipping path 0.16667 in. inside of the 8.5 in. X 11.0 in. Media Box.

    The Clipping Path of the WH LFCOLB PDF was set to 0.25 in. (sides) x 0.20 in. (top & bottom) inside the 8.5 in. x 11.0 in. Artboard.

    Those are the facts. And the facts don’t change just because they don’t fit your storyline.
    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

    “On the 7535 Preview version only white was clipped because the printing process increased the white border to 3/8″. This will be trivial to test in Preview using a document that is printed to the edge. Why don’t you do that for us and check back?”

    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
    I don’t need to do that to prove that you are just making stuff up. So maybe you could explain why Preview increased the White border to 3/8 in on the Xerox 7535 / Preview PDF but Preview left the White border at .25 in. and .2 in on the WH LFCOLB PDF?

    Yep those twisted storylines are beginning to get all snarled up.

  56. NBC

    I think the Preview clipping mask is added because of the print to PDF feature. It allows for the non printing area on the edges that most printers experience. If you search for “print to pdf” and “white borders on pdf’s” you will find many comments about this issue. It happens with Windows software too. Some folks even talked about printing slightly larger 8.5 x 11 images on 11 x 17 paper and trimming them down to size to avoid the white borders. You could make a test specimen that way too.

  57. Hermitian

    The clipping path size is probably set individually depending on the default settings for Preview for a version of OSX or the default printer on a particular PC. The size is irrelevant since on the 7535 Preview there is nothing but white border to clip. I notice you seem to be grasping at smaller and smaller pieces of minutia to hold on to your silly forgery claims.

  58. I don’t need to do that to prove that you are just making stuff up. So maybe you could explain why Preview increased the White border to 3/8 in on the Xerox 7535 / Preview PDF but Preview left the White border at .25 in. and .2 in on the WH LFCOLB PDF?

    The border depends on the image from which it was created. Remember that at various steps, scaling may happen. It depends on if you have it set to 100% default or at scale, which results in most instances in a 96% scaling.

    0.04*8.5/2 is 0.17, add this to 0.2 and you get 0.37, pretty close…

    You need to just apply a little common sense here and understand what may happen at any given step.

    The workflow is far less predictable here as there are many parameter settings that play a role here, but it is hardly something that leads one to reject the fact that the clipping mask is created by Preview.

    The exact dimensions depend on the workflow, and we can reverse engineer it.

    Hope this helps you understand.

  59. The size is irrelevant since on the 7535 Preview there is nothing but white border to clip. I notice you seem to be grasping at smaller and smaller pieces of minutia to hold on to your silly forgery claims.

    Yes, it is a good trend…

  60. The clipping paths in the WH version and the 7535 Preview version are exactly the same size, just under 1/4″ from the edge of the page. In the WH version the green background was close enough that some part of it was clipped. Preview didn’t set anything to the basket weave pattern. It just clips off 1/4″ .

    Actually, they aren’t the same size. However, as has been documented in many places, the size of the clipping mask is determined by the printer margins of the current printer, which depends on the user hardware, not the program. It is somewhat trivial to set the clipping mask, once you know what causes it.

  61. So maybe you could explain why Preview increased the White border to 3/8 in on the Xerox 7535 / Preview PDF but Preview left the White border at .25 in. and .2 in on the WH LFCOLB PDF?

    Print the WH LFCOLB PDF at 96% and measure the margins.

  62. Print the WH LFCOLB PDF at 96% and measure the margins.

    You are too smart for your own good my friend. I doubt Hermitian would even have considered doing experiments to figure it out.

    That’s too bad.

  63. I see now that I switched the ruler to pixels that they clipping paths are slightly different top and bottom to sides. Why didn’t the forger get the memo on the size of the clipping path? Heads will roll over this.

    Seriously, nothing but white is clipped on the 7535 Preview PDF and on the WH LFBC there was some green to clip. What is the point?

Comments are closed.