Hermitian versus the 7655 data

Our friend Hermitian is still struggling with following the information I have presented. So here we go, a comment upgraded to a full posting, just for him…Again.. The differences are that the WH Tax forms are LinearGray…

From the WH 7655 Tax forms:

Quantization Tables

0x08 0x0A 0x0B 0x0D 0x0B 0x09 0x0E 0x0D 0x0C 0x0D 0x10 0x0F 0x0E 0x11 0x16 0x24 
0x17 0x16 0x14 0x14 0x16 0x2C 0x20 0x21 0x1A 0x24 0x34 0x2E 0x37 0x36 0x33 0x2E 
0x32 0x32 0x3A 0x41 0x53 0x46 0x3A 0x3D 0x4E 0x3E 0x32 0x32 0x48 0x62 0x49 0x4E 
0x56 0x58 0x5D 0x5E 0x5D 0x38 0x45 0x66 0x6D 0x65 0x5A 0x6C 0x53 0x5B 0x5D 0x59

which I have translated for Hermitian’s benefits

 8 10 11 13 11  9 14  13  12  13  16  15 14 17 22 36 
23 22 20 20 22 44 32  33  26  36  52  46 55 54 51 46 
50 50 58 65 83 70 58  61  78  62  50  50 72 98 73 78 
86 88 93 94 93 56 69 102 109 101  90 108 83 91 93 89

Compared to Hermitian

 8 10 11 13 11  9 14  13  12  13 16  15 14 17 22 36 
23 22 20 20 22 44 32  33  26  36 52  46 55 54 51 46 
50 50 58 65 83 70 58  61  78  62 50  50 72 98 73 78 
86 88 93 94 93 56 69 102 109 101 90 108 83 91 93 89

Next:

Huffman Tables

00 00 01 05 01 01 01 01 01 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 
00 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0A 0B

To help Hermitian

0 0 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Compared to Hermitian

0 0 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

And the rest

0x10 0x00 0x02 0x01 0x03 0x03 0x02 0x04 0x03 0x05 0x05 0x04 0x04 0x00 0x00 0x01
0x7D 0x01 0x02 0x03 0x00 0x04 0x11 0x05 0x12 0x21 0x31 0x41 0x06 0x13 0x51 0x61 
0x07 0x22 0x71 0x14 0x32 0x81 0x91 0xA1 0x08 0x23 0x42 0xB1 0xC1 0x15 0x52 0xD1 
0xF0 0x24 0x33 0x62 0x72 0x82 0x09 0x0A 0x16 0x17 0x18 0x19 0x1A 0x25 0x26 0x27 
0x28 0x29 0x2A 0x34 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 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 0xE1 
0xE2 0xE3 0xE4 0xE5 0xE6 0xE7 0xE8 0xE9 0xEA 0xF1 0xF2 0xF3 0xF4 0xF5 0xF6 0xF7 
0xF8 0xF9 0xFA

Or in decimal

16 0 2 1 3 3 2 4 3 5 5 4 4 0 0 1 125 1 2 3 0 4 17 5 18 33 49 65 6 19 81 97 7 34 
113 20 50 129 145 161 8 35 66 177 193 21 82 209 240 36 51 98 114 130 9 10 22 23 
24 25 26 37 38 39 40 41 42 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 83 84 85 
86 87 88 89 90 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 131 
132 133 134 135 136 137 138 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 162 163 164 165 
166 167 168 169 170 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 194 195 196 197 198 199 
200 201 202 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 
233 234 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250

Compared to his

16 0 2 1 3 3 2 4 3 5 5 4 4 0 0 1 125 1 2 3 0 4 17 5 18 33 49 65 6 19 81 97 7 34 
113 20 50 129 145 161 8 35 66 177 193 21 82 209 240 36 51 98 114 130 9 10 22 23 
24 25 26 37 38 39 40 41 42 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 83 84 85 
86 87 88 89 90 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 131 
132 133 134 135 136 137 138 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 162 163 164 165 
166 167 168 169 170 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 194 195 196 197 198 199 
200 201 202 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 
233 234 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250

So again the Tax Forms align…

All that Hermitian should have done is to download the documents from the White House websites..

106 thoughts on “Hermitian versus the 7655 data

  1. Herms has to get increasingly obscure in order to successfully play dumb.
    And he is so creative at it (desperation powered!)
    The aversion to the admission of error is *strong* in this one.

    I don’t think he’ll ever give up. No bottom in his rabbit hole.

  2. I don’t think he’ll ever give up. No bottom in his rabbit hole.

    He has served his purpose, now it is mostly noise.

  3. NBC

    “From the WH 7655 Tax forms:”

    Dude ! I don’t care about Obummer’s tax forms. Where’s the beef ?

    NBC is at his slippery best on the question of the Xerox 7655 quantization and Huffman tables.

    “Xerox 7655 Additional Experiments”

    ” Posted on July 26, 2013 by NBC

    I received documents captured on a Xerox 7655 WorkCentre which involved the normal workflow. The original document was scanned Right Side Up (RSUP) and Up Side Down (USD). I extracted the pictures and observed that

    4. 4.The Quantization Matrices do not match the WH LFBC, and the WH Tax matrices but this can be explained by realizing that the scanner is not using the up-to-date firmware as it scans to PDF 1.4 not PDF 1.5 as found in the WH Tax form PDF.

    ROTFL… What a lame excuse.

    See the only NBC posted quantization tables for the Xerox 7655 scan to PDF LFCOLB PDF here:

    https://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2013/07/26/xerox-7655-additional-experiments/

    Notice that the two quantization tables are different from the tables for the Xerox 7535 scan to PDF LFCOLB and the WH LFCOLB PDF.

    So:

    1. Where did you get these totally different quantization tables which you claimed were from the Xerox 7655 scan to PDF of a paper copy of the WH LFCOLB certified copy ?

    2. When did you change your story that the tables are now the same as for the Xerox 7535 scan to PDF and the WH LFCOLB PDF ?

    3. Why didn’t you retract the earlier post ?

    4. Where’s your proof that the quantization tables have changed for the Xerox 7655 scan to PDF of the WH LFCOLB copy ?

    For all we know, you scanned the Obama Tax return on a Xerox 7535.

    Where’s your affidavit concerning all of these trial scans. If you don’t swear to it then you didn’t do it Dude. My affidavits have been posted on Scribd for everyone to read for months.

  4. 1. Where did you get these totally different quantization tables which you claimed were from the Xerox 7655 scan to PDF of a paper copy of the WH LFCOLB certified copy ?

    The 7655 I used for the tests showed a difference in the Quantization Matrix. I reported this and also reported that the 7535 as well as the White House 7655 Tax Forms showed the correct Quantization matrix. I guess you were asleep through all of this?

    2. When did you change your story that the tables are now the same as for the Xerox 7535 scan to PDF and the WH LFCOLB PDF ?

    I did not change my story, I reported my findings that the 7655 used by the WH shows the same matrix as found in the WH LFBC.

    3. Why didn’t you retract the earlier post ?

    Because it was factually correct. Given my findings with the 7655 documents found on the WH website, I proposed a likely explanation.

    You remained totally unaware of this or how one reports on one findings. My earlier findings do not suddenly become untrue just because I found that the WH 7655 uses the same matrices as found in the WH LFBC. You do understand how research works? If this confused you, you should have kept up to date with my findings. Reality check was quick to point out that my 7655 findings were not supported by his 7535 findings so I checked the WH tax forms and voila.

    4. Where’s your proof that the quantization tables have changed for the Xerox 7655 scan to PDF of the WH LFCOLB copy ?

    For all we know, you scanned the Obama Tax return on a Xerox 7535.

    I guess our internet shy friend has no abilities to download the pdf from the White House website or perhaps he cannot locate such a trivial document.

    My affidavits have been posted on Scribd for everyone to read for months.

    Much to many person’s amusement. So what do you prefer? A flawed affidavit or a valid work flow, well document for anyone to repeat.

    Science is not done through affidavit my friends…

  5. Dude ! I don’t care about Obummer’s tax forms. Where’s the beef ?

    Did you miss how these documents were scanned using a 7655 WorkCentre, only a few weeks before the LFBC was released… You should care about this… Were you asleep when I went over all this? How embarrassing, but do not blame me for your foolish responses.

  6. 2. When did you change your story that the tables are now the same as for the Xerox 7535 scan to PDF and the WH LFCOLB PDF ?

    When I found the data that supported this… Duh..

    Did you miss how other Xerox WorkCentre scans also show the same quantization matrices and comments?… Assuming of course you can manage to correctly extract the JPEG of course.

    Sigh… you are again miles behind the mark..
    Do you not know that science moves quickly when new information is found? I am sure you have yet to read most of my findings. They are not hard to find and they show which aspects of the workflow have been verified and the supporting evidence.

    What have you done to further our understanding other than us having to help you with your understanding of such trivial issues as PDF’s, the extraction of objects that are FlateDecoded, and so on and so on. You have gone totally of on a tangent that has less and less relevance to my arguments, especially when they show a lack of familiarity with my latest findings.

    Let me know if you cannot keep up though. I can see if I can S L O W

    D
    o
    w
    n
    .
    .
    .

  7. NBC

    I don’t buy any of your lame excuses man.

    1. Post a link to the Xerox 7655 scan to PDF file with the different quantization tables.

    2. Post it’s exact history.

    3. Post the new Xerox 7655 scan to PDF file with the same quantization tables as the WH LFCOLB

    4. Post the location and serial number of the Xerox 7655 for each of these two PDFs.

    5. Post your affidavit with signature supporting the two PDF files that you post

    Otherwise your credibility is in the tank !!!

    Until then your posted record shows:

    “Xerox 7655 Additional Experiments”

    ” Posted on July 26, 2013 by NBC

    “I received documents captured on a Xerox 7655 WorkCentre which involved the normal workflow. The original document was scanned Right Side Up (RSUP) and Up Side Down (USD). I extracted the pictures and observed that

    1.RSUP images are rotated 90 degrees clockwise
    2.USD images are rotated 90 degrees counter clockwise
    3.USD images when the PDF is rotated in Preview 180 degrees are still rotated 90 degrees counter clockwise
    4.The Quantization Matrices do not match the WH LFBC, and the WH Tax matrices but this can be explained by realizing that the scanner is not using the up-to-date firmware as it scans to PDF 1.4 not PDF 1.5 as found in the WH Tax form PDF.
    5.The RSUP contains 5 layers, the USD 4 layers
    6.They all contain the YCbCr comment tag
    7.The Xerox WorkCentre Firmware in question creates PDF version 1.4 documents

    And then the following facts attach to your facts.

    1. The PDF “wh-lfbc-scanned-xerox-7535-wc.pdf” is PDF version 1.4
    2. The WH LFCOLB PDF is PDF version 1.3
    3. No PDF version 1.5 Xerox scan to PDF file (of a WH LFCOLB print out) has ever been produced by NBC.
    4. The PDF version 1.5 WH tax forms have the same quantization tables as the Xerox 7535 scan to PDF file “wh-lfbc-scanned-xerox-7535-wc.pdf” which is PDF version 1.4
    5. The PDF version 1.5 Xerox 7655 scan to PDF files are two version numbers beyond the Preview print to PDF files which are all PDF version 1.3.
    6. A Xerox 7655 with the old firmware (i.e. PDF version 1.4) produces different quantization tables than a Xerox 7535 which produces PDF version 1.4 scan to PDF files.
    7. A Xerox 7655 with the new firmware (i.e. PDF version 1.5) produces the same quantization tables as the Xerox 7535 which produces PDF version 1.4 scan to PDF files.
    8. The MAC OS Preview used by the forger produces PDF version 1.3 print to PDF files whereas the current PDF version number is 1.7.

    It’s past time that you admit that your Xerox forger doesn’t have the right stuff.

    And here’s some friendly advice for you. Stop listening to RC the Radio Head. He’s not a scientist and he will say and do anything for Obama.

    NBC’s storylines are now in a knot.

  8. Hermie’s entire argument has now devolved into the fact that one 7655 with older firmware produces PDF’s with different quantization matrices than a Workstation 7535 and the White House Workcentre 7655 with more recent firmware? That’s it? He ignores the other dozen or so key features of the PDF’s that all match including the “YCbCr” comment tag.

    The fact Mac OS Preview produces PDF’s conforming to version 1.3 is well documented. You can read discussion on forums about how Preview does not support JBIG2. If you don’t like it call Apple and ask them why.

    Hermie is the textbook definition of a troll. Trolls have no shame. They will never admit they are wrong even after the 50th time. They have no morals. They are intellectually dishonest and not interested at all in real discourse.

  9. Hermitian,

    NBC has yet to produce any PDFs. The ones he has produces are lousy and don’t capture the elegance of Obama’s PDF.

  10. I’m sure the CCP has already contacted Xerox Engineers about the “YCbCr” comment tag know exactly what it means. At least I hope the CCP will do that.

  11. Reality Check says:

    August 27, 2013 at 13:21

    “Hermie’s entire argument has now devolved into the fact that one 7655 with older firmware produces PDF’s with different quantization matrices than a Workstation 7535 and the White House Workcentre 7655 with more recent firmware? That’s it? He ignores the other dozen or so key features of the PDF’s that all match including the “YCbCr” comment tag.”

    Wrong Dude ! My last post is by no means my only problem with your work. I am compiling a long list of my questions that you have totally ignored which I plan to release immediately after you go public with your final report. It’s going to be a shock to any rational person that you ignored these questions.

    Your story just doesn’t add up. No one believes you Dude.

    And this last post of yours is just pitiful. You did not address any of my facts. You did not take exception with any of my facts.

    THEREFORE ALL OF MY FACTS STAND UNTIL YOU PROVE OTHERWISE !!!

  12. FOR NBC

    Hermitian says:

    August 27, 2013 at 14:28

    Reality Check says:

    August 27, 2013 at 13:21

    “Hermie’s entire argument has now devolved into the fact that one 7655 with older firmware produces PDF’s with different quantization matrices than a Workstation 7535 and the White House Workcentre 7655 with more recent firmware? That’s it? He ignores the other dozen or so key features of the PDF’s that all match including the “YCbCr” comment tag.”

    Wrong Dude ! My last post is by no means my only problem with your work. I am compiling a long list of my questions that you have totally ignored which I plan to release immediately after you go public with your final report. It’s going to be a shock to any rational person that you ignored these questions.

    Your story just doesn’t add up. No one believes you Dude.

    And this last post of yours is just pitiful. You did not address any of my facts. You did not take exception with any of my facts.

    THEREFORE ALL OF MY FACTS STAND UNTIL YOU PROVE OTHERWISE !!!

    Just in case you didn’t realize that my last post was for you…

  13. ” the elegance of Obama’s PDF.”

    Did a birfer really just post that?!? LOL!

    “YCbCr” …. it’s a reference to a colorspace, as is “Lineargray”, found in greyscale scans produced by the same process.

    Are these knuckleheads ever going to catch on that they conceded the argument weeks ago? The base premise of the technical side of PDF Madness is that there was no way that “that” file was produced by a simple scan, it had to be a construction. Oopsie.

    Now they’re way in over their heads and Herms is trying to denigrate Xerox just for the hell of it. Back to his default, misdirection by personal attack … levelling a personal attack on a corporation LOL

  14. These are the facts regarding the Xerox 7655 scan to PDF file.

    THESE FACTS STAND UNTIL NBC PROVIDES EVIDENCE SUPPORTING HIS CLAIM THAT THE XEROX 7655 FORGED THE WH LFCOLB PDF.

    Hermitian says:

    August 27, 2013 at 12:36

    NBC

    I don’t buy any of your lame excuses man.

    1. Post a link to the Xerox 7655 scan to PDF file with the different quantization tables.

    2. Post it’s exact history.

    3. Post the new Xerox 7655 scan to PDF file with the same quantization tables as the WH LFCOLB

    4. Post the location and serial number of the Xerox 7655 for each of these two PDFs.

    5. Post your affidavit with signature supporting the two PDF files that you post

    Otherwise your credibility is in the tank !!!

    Until then your posted record shows:

    “Xerox 7655 Additional Experiments”

    ” Posted on July 26, 2013 by NBC

    “I received documents captured on a Xerox 7655 WorkCentre which involved the normal workflow. The original document was scanned Right Side Up (RSUP) and Up Side Down (USD). I extracted the pictures and observed that

    1.RSUP images are rotated 90 degrees clockwise
    2.USD images are rotated 90 degrees counter clockwise
    3.USD images when the PDF is rotated in Preview 180 degrees are still rotated 90 degrees counter clockwise
    4.The Quantization Matrices do not match the WH LFBC, and the WH Tax matrices but this can be explained by realizing that the scanner is not using the up-to-date firmware as it scans to PDF 1.4 not PDF 1.5 as found in the WH Tax form PDF.
    5.The RSUP contains 5 layers, the USD 4 layers
    6.They all contain the YCbCr comment tag
    7.The Xerox WorkCentre Firmware in question creates PDF version 1.4 documents

    And then the following facts attach to your facts.

    1. The PDF “wh-lfbc-scanned-xerox-7535-wc.pdf” is PDF version 1.4
    2. The WH LFCOLB PDF is PDF version 1.3
    3. No PDF version 1.5 Xerox scan to PDF file (of a WH LFCOLB print out) has ever been produced by NBC.
    4. The PDF version 1.5 WH tax forms have the same quantization tables as the Xerox 7535 scan to PDF file “wh-lfbc-scanned-xerox-7535-wc.pdf” which is PDF version 1.4
    5. The PDF version 1.5 Xerox 7655 scan to PDF files are two version numbers beyond the Preview print to PDF files which are all PDF version 1.3.
    6. A Xerox 7655 with the old firmware (i.e. PDF version 1.4) produces different quantization tables than a Xerox 7535 which produces PDF version 1.4 scan to PDF files.
    7. A Xerox 7655 with the new firmware (i.e. PDF version 1.5) produces the same quantization tables as the Xerox 7535 which produces PDF version 1.4 scan to PDF files.
    8. The MAC OS Preview used by the forger produces PDF version 1.3 print to PDF files whereas the current PDF version number is 1.7.

    It’s past time that you admit that your Xerox forger doesn’t have the right stuff.

    And here’s some friendly advice for you. Stop listening to RC the Radio Head. He’s not a scientist and he will say and do anything for Obama.

    NBC’s storylines are now in a knot.

  15. Why would anyone claim that a Xerox Workcentre 7655 (or any other scanner, printer, and/or copier) “forged” anything?
    Forgery requires intent to deceive, which is well beyond even the most sophisticated contemporary electronics.

    Based on your “questions’, you seem to be alleging someone created a file intended to mimic the MRC PDF output of a Xerox device. Is that your new story, no more “this can’t possibly be ‘just’ a scan”?

  16. JPOT

    JPotter says:

    August 27, 2013 at 14:49

    “Why would anyone claim that a Xerox Workcentre 7655 (or any other scanner, printer, and/or copier) “forged” anything? Forgery requires intent to deceive, which is well beyond even the most sophisticated contemporary electronics.”

    JPOT you need to pose your question to NBC. He’s the guy who thought up this Xerox charade.

    I always knew that his claim that the Xerox WC forged the WH LFCOLB was bogus.

  17. John wrote: “I’m sure the CCP has already contacted Xerox Engineers about the “YCbCr” comment tag know exactly what it means. At least I hope the CCP will do that.”

    Based on the most recent comments from Zullo and Gallups, the MCCCP is already positioning itself to abandon all claims based on technical “anomalies.” Just as previously when the cone-of-silence descended over Corsi’s fraudulent coding evidence, Zullo has commenced whistling past this particular graveyard.

    In all the prior MCCCP “affidavits” only three pieces of technical “evidence” were ever cited to support claims of birth certificate forgery. They were 1) the existence of layers, 2) the characteristics of the registrar’s stamp and date stamp, and 3) the inability of MCCCP “experts” to figure out how they might have happened. All of these have been neatly dismembered by NBC’s discovery of the Xerox workflow. Without them, the affidavits can be reduced to the following:

    Hawaii officials are mean.

    Corsi can’t be trusted to provide real evidence.

  18. JPOT is still living in the stone age…

    JPotter says:

    August 27, 2013 at 14:49

    “Why would anyone claim that a Xerox Workcentre 7655 (or any other scanner, printer, and/or copier) “forged” anything? Forgery requires intent to deceive, which is well beyond even the most sophisticated contemporary electronics.”

    Maybe just barely…

    See: JIRI SEJTKO | April 22nd, 2011

    “Another nasty trick in malicious PDF”

    https://blog.avast.com/2011/04/22/another-nasty-trick-in-malicious-pdf/

    [NBC: Poor Hermitian totally missed the mark here.]

  19. Hermitian wrote: I am compiling a long list of my questions that you have totally ignored which I plan to release immediately after you go public with your final report. It’s going to be a shock to any rational person that you ignored these questions.

    You go, girl. The blog here already presents the paper trail of your questions and their answers. It is always fascinating to me when people keep asking the same questions in the expectation that all of a sudden they’re going to get different answers. Perhaps your time is better spent trying to understand the answers you’ve been given rather than asking them over and over in the hope they might change.

    The only question I have for you is this:

    When are you going to get around to actually replicating the workflow NBC has proposed and seeing for yourself?

    The foundation of the scientific method is experimental repeatability. Go repeat it.

  20. I agree that it is mistake for the CCP not to come right away and refute NBC’s findings. But, Gallup has informed us that this is a criminal investigation and that the CCP will release what information they feel the public is entitled to know. As for the Obots, I agree with Gallup that the Obots have ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT whatsoever to privy into the CCP investigation.

  21. Hermitian,

    NBC has agreed he has no expertise in what he supposely discovered. NBC apparently has less expertise than Paul Iyer and Dougt Voyt.

  22. “Another nasty trick in malicious PDF”

    An exploit of Adobe Reader (of which there are many …) is a hacking endeavor, coded by a human, and has nothing to do with forging a document.

    Still the same old game, eh, Herms? You make the silliness, someone has to explain it, right? Not man enough to defend your own claims, admit your own errors?😛

  23. Hermitian,
    NBC won’t release his PDFs. However, I did send the ones he has released to the CCP.

  24. 1.RSUP images are rotated 90 degrees clockwise

    Agreed.

    2.USD images are rotated 90 degrees counter clockwise

    Agreed.

    3.USD images when the PDF is rotated in Preview 180 degrees are still rotated 90 degrees counter clockwise

    Agreed.

    4.The Quantization Matrices do not match the WH LFBC, and the WH Tax matrices but this can be explained by realizing that the scanner is not using the up-to-date firmware as it scans to PDF 1.4 not PDF 1.5 as found in the WH Tax form PDF.

    Agreed.

    5.The RSUP contains 5 layers, the USD 4 layers

    This needs to be updated. Different runs of the RSUP and USD result in different numbers of layers.

    6.They all contain the YCbCr comment tag

    Agreed.

    7.The Xerox WorkCentre Firmware in question creates PDF version 1.4 documents

    Agreed.

    And then the following facts attach to your facts.

    1. The PDF “wh-lfbc-scanned-xerox-7535-wc.pdf” is PDF version 1.4

    Agreed.

    2. The WH LFCOLB PDF is PDF version 1.3

    Agreed.

    3. No PDF version 1.5 Xerox scan to PDF file (of a WH LFCOLB print out) has ever been produced by NBC.

    However, NBC has produced several links to PDF version 1.5 Xerox scans that were produced by others.

    4. The PDF version 1.5 WH tax forms have the same quantization tables as the Xerox 7535 scan to PDF file “wh-lfbc-scanned-xerox-7535-wc.pdf” which is PDF version 1.4

    Agreed.

    5. The PDF version 1.5 Xerox 7655 scan to PDF files are two version numbers beyond the Preview print to PDF files which are all PDF version 1.3.

    Agreed.

    6. A Xerox 7655 with the old firmware (i.e. PDF version 1.4) produces different quantization tables than a Xerox 7535 which produces PDF version 1.4 scan to PDF files.

    Change to “Some Xeroxes with older firmware” as there may be multiple firmware versions that utilize the same PDF version.

    7. A Xerox 7655 with the new firmware (i.e. PDF version 1.5) produces the same quantization tables as the Xerox 7535 which produces PDF version 1.4 scan to PDF files.

    Change to “Some Xeroxes with newer firmware” as there may be multiple firmware versions that utilize the same PDF version.

    8. The MAC OS Preview used by the forger produces PDF version 1.3 print to PDF files whereas the current PDF version number is 1.7.

    Remove “used by the forger”.

    To the above facts I would add the following:

    1. The 76xx series was first released in 2007

    2. The 75xx series was first released in 2009

    3. The 76xx series had a second version of the firmware released in 2009. Updates for the second version do not work for the first version – updating equipment to the second version required contacting your Sales Representative. The second version uses PDF 1.5.

  25. I always knew that his claim that the Xerox WC forged the WH LFCOLB was bogus.

    That’s the difference between you and me. I let data guide me, you let your feelings guide you.

  26. NBC has agreed he has no expertise in what he supposely discovered. NBC apparently has less expertise than Paul Iyer and Dougt Voyt.

    Yes, but I have an actual workflow that destroys the CCP’s findings about the PDF, which forms the foundation for their claims.

    ROTFL

  27. Still the same old game, eh, Herms? You make the silliness, someone has to explain it, right? Not man enough to defend your own claims, admit your own errors?

    🙂

  28. NBC won’t release his PDFs. However, I did send the ones he has released to the CCP.

    Are they still struggling to get a 7655 workcentre to scan? But I do thank you for bringing my work to their attention, now they have no excuses. So when will Zullo revise his affidavit🙂

  29. Otherwise your credibility is in the tank !!!

    ROTFL… Because I once again exposed your unfamiliarity with facts…

    You’re a funny dude…

  30. NBC has yet to produce any PDFs. The ones he has produces are lousy and don’t capture the elegance of Obama’s PDF.

    ROTFL… You too are getting a bit desperate are you not…

  31. At least I hope the CCP will do that.

    Will they do what is right, or will they just pretend it never happened🙂

  32. Based on your “questions’, you seem to be alleging someone created a file intended to mimic the MRC PDF output of a Xerox device. Is that your new story, no more “this can’t possibly be ‘just’ a scan”?

    Hermitian has decided to ignore the findings and focus on some irrelevant issues, many of which are caused by his unfamiliarity with facts, the PDF standard, the JPEG standard or just common logic.

  33. 1. Post a link to the Xerox 7655 scan to PDF file with the different quantization tables.

    2. Post it’s exact history.

    3. Post the new Xerox 7655 scan to PDF file with the same quantization tables as the WH LFCOLB

    4. Post the location and serial number of the Xerox 7655 for each of these two PDFs.

    5. Post your affidavit with signature supporting the two PDF files that you post

    In other words, when I do not abide by your demands, which are totally irrelevant, you insist that my findings are irrelevant…

    You have no idea what the scientific method is all about, now do you?

    Love to see how you evolve… Very interesting. But why do you not make some attempt to rebut my findings first…

    And let me know if you need any help?..

  34. Wrong Dude ! My last post is by no means my only problem with your work. I am compiling a long list of my questions that you have totally ignored which I plan to release immediately after you go public with your final report. It’s going to be a shock to any rational person that you ignored these questions.

    I believe that people will be shocked but not for the reasons you mentioned. We have a long list of postings in which you have shown your lack of familiarity with a myriad of issues. And when you claim that I have ignored you, most of these are because you have failed to properly track our conversations, or my blog contributions.

    The funny side effect of all this is, that you have helped us debunk your AP forgery claims as well as your affidavit. And you have been extremely helpful in strengthening the Xerox workflow, especially by your failure to raise much of any real objection.

    You have performed beyond expectations my friend.

    PS: Have you not noticed that my message has gone public already🙂 The Cold Case Posse is struggling with formulating a proper response…

  35. Has Hermie created any PDFs using the Xerox WorkCentres?

    Or created preview versions

    Or looked carefully at the raw PDF

    Or …. Well you get the picture.

    It’s just that his task is not enviable as he has to debunk a well documented and supported work flow.

  36. John

    John says:

    August 27, 2013 at 15:26

    “Hermitian,

    “NBC has agreed he has no expertise in what he supposely discovered. NBC apparently has less expertise than Paul Iyer and Dougt Voyt”

    I agree completely, NBC is not in their league. He’s a very slippery fellow. Unfortunately, some other Obots ALWAYS pile on whether NBC gets it right or wrong.

    You can always tell when someone is blowing smoke because they never narrow down their facts but rather expand them.

    And they refuse to answer questions that don’t fit their story line.

    A good example are my color fringe and pincushion distortion questions. The evidence doesn’t fit their storyline.

    After the Obama attorneys purportedly scanned a printout of the WH LFCOLB (purportedly by means of a Fugitsu ScanSnap S1500 scanner) the scanned image exhibits pincushion distortion. This image also has the White Halos which makes it difficult to detect color fringes.

    The WH LFCOLB exhibits neither color fringes or pincushion distortion.

    Likewise the image contained in the PDF file “wh-lfbc-scanned-xerox-7535-wc shifted origin” does not exhibit either color fringes or pincushion distortion.

    However, a scanned image of a handout copy of the WH LFCOLB produced for the Muscatine Iowa Journal exhibits both strong color fringes and pincushion distortion.

    These questions have everything to do with whether or not the WH LFCOLB was produced by scanning a paper document.

    It also has everything to do with whether or not any of NBCs PDFs were created by scanning a printout of the WH LFCOLB by means of a Xerox WC.

    In my expert opinion they were not.

    NBC also ignored my question on whether or not any of the other purported Xerox images that he has accumulated exhibited color fringes or pincushion distortion.

  37. A good example are my color fringe and pincushion distortion questions. The evidence doesn’t fit their storyline.

    Why do you not check? You already admitted that the Xerox 7355 did not, there are others to investigate.

    Such irrelevant issues…

    We know that the workflow explains all the PDF artifacts as outlined on my “Workflow Successes” page. We can even tell if a document is scanned upside down.

    Yes, the pictures taken by the AP do exhibit color fringes, so perhaps your unfounded claim that they were scanned need some revision…

    Your AP /Muscatine hypothesis has been totally destroyed already.

    I am not sure why you are so interested in documents like the Scansnap created PDF which has no real relevance. In fact, your claims about the document have been quite well debunked by a simple workflow.

    Common sense my friend.

    Now you are backing up to your foolish claims about unrelated documents.

    I guess it’s too hard to address the solid evidence I have provided… Instead you complain about me not catering to your inabilities to locate documents or do proper experiments yourself.

    You yourself admitted that Xerox does not create color fringes.

    I can add that to the list of confirmations… Thank you my friend

    BTw have you checked the WH tax forms for fringes…? Just saying…

  38. In my expert opinion they were not.

    Anyone can call himself an expert but the value of such a claim depends on the arguments presented and you have none of any relevance. In fact, your ‘expert opinions’ have been quite fully debunked. Remember?… Or are you trying to forget😉

    Simple isn’t it…

  39. Hermie – have you created a PDF on a Xerox WorkCentre? If not, why not?

    I wonder as well why this self proclaimed expert has yet to do what is necessary to rebut my findings…

  40. And they refuse to answer questions that don’t fit their story line.

    Oh that’s hilarious and sooo ironic.

  41. “You can always tell when someone is blowing smoke because they never narrow down their facts but rather expand them.
    And they refuse to answer questions that don’t fit their story line.”

    So much for irony-free Tuesday!

    If I am parsing Herm’s word salad correctly—granted, that’s a big ‘IF’—he is insisting that a document, when scanned on various devices, by various parties, in very uncontrolled circumstances to boot, the resulting scans don’t all look the same.

    Well … ummm …. duh.

  42. Hermie is an expert now? Of what? Advanced Internet trolling?😆

    Northland10 posted a link to a search of the GSA website. He found at least 20 contracts in fiscal year 2010 between Xerox and the Executive Office of the President for office equipment and maintenance services.
    https://www.fpds.gov/ezsearch/search.do?s=FPDSNG.COM&q=xerox+CONTRACT_FISCAL_YEAR%3A%222010%22+CONTRACTING_AGENCY_NAME%3A%22EXECUTIVE%20OFFICE%20OF%20THE%20PRESIDENT%22&indexName=awardfull&templateName=1.4.4

    This is beginning to remind me of the final scene in Tradings Places

    Louis: Looking good, Billy Ray!
    Billy Ray: Feeling good, Louis!

  43. After the Obama attorneys purportedly scanned a printout of the WH LFCOLB (purportedly by means of a Fugitsu ScanSnap S1500 scanner) the scanned image exhibits pincushion distortion. This image also has the White Halos which makes it difficult to detect color fringes.

    It’s not pincushion distortion, just an optical illusion. In this instance, the grid lines appear to curve due to there being a curved gradient, but they are actually straight. The WH LFBC doesn’t show this optical illusion because the letters are a solid color, not a curved gradient.

    Also, it’s Fujitsu.

    The WH LFCOLB exhibits neither color fringes or pincushion distortion.

    Likewise the image contained in the PDF file “wh-lfbc-scanned-xerox-7535-wc shifted origin” does not exhibit either color fringes or pincushion distortion

    This is evidence (though weak, as a number of other mid- to high-end scanners do not show color fringes) that a Xerox WorkCentre is a good candidate for creating the WH LFBC.

    However, a scanned image of a handout copy of the WH LFCOLB produced for the Muscatine Iowa Journal exhibits both strong color fringes and pincushion distortion.

    Digital photograph, not scan, and color fringes are common in digital photographs. I haven’t evaluated the picture for actual pincushion distortion, though it is not really relevant other than to point out that the WH LFBC PDF is believed to have been scanned, not photographed.

    These questions have everything to do with whether or not the WH LFCOLB was produced by scanning a paper document.

    It also has everything to do with whether or not any of NBCs PDFs were created by scanning a printout of the WH LFCOLB by means of a Xerox WC.

    In my expert opinion they were not.

    In other words, you are accusing NBC of forging his PDFs.

    NBC also ignored my question on whether or not any of the other purported Xerox images that he has accumulated exhibited color fringes or pincushion distortion.

    I went through and checked various non-birth certificate Xerox PDFs that were found on the web in the past few weeks. None of them exhibited color fringes or actual pincushion distortion. However, some did exhibit the optical illusion you mistakenly identified as pincushion distortion, but (as expected) only in the background JPEG where there is a gradient.

  44. I went through and checked various non-birth certificate Xerox PDFs that were found on the web in the past few weeks. None of them exhibited color fringes or actual pincushion distortion. However, some did exhibit the optical illusion you mistakenly identified as pincushion distortion, but (as expected) only in the background JPEG where there is a gradient.

    You did what our researcher could and should have done…

    Much appreciated.

  45. In other words, you are accusing NBC of forging his PDFs.

    Yeah… all of these PDF’s that can be found online, even at the WH site…

  46. Wait, NBC is the WH Forger? Oh, man, see what you get for going the extra mile … !

    I am in great company if Hermitian is to be believed… But his track record is less than stellar.

  47. RC

    “Reality Check says:

    August 27, 2013 at 18:21

    “Hermie is an expert now? Of what? Advanced Internet trolling?

    “Northland10 posted a link to a search of the GSA website. He found at least 20 contracts in fiscal year 2010 between Xerox and the Executive Office of the President for office equipment and maintenance services.
    https://www.fpds.gov/ezsearch/search.do?s=FPDSNG.COM&q=xerox+CONTRACT_FISCAL_YEAR%3A%222010%22+CONTRACTING_AGENCY_NAME%3A%22EXECUTIVE%20OFFICE%20OF%20THE%20PRESIDENT%22&indexName=awardfull&templateName=1.4.4

    “This is beginning to remind me of the final scene in Tradings Places
    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
    Obots are just different from scientists. They get all excited when their their number of degrees of freedom go up. Scientists by their nature eliminate as many degrees of freedom (i.e. possible outcomes) as possible. Obviously Northern 10 is just ecstatic that he found 20 different Xerox contracts. Whereas I’m surprised that there are evidently only 20 Xerox machines in the White House.

    You might want to reflect on my asking for the serial numbers on all Xerox WCs that NBC has used to scan the WH LFCOLB. Now rather than ridicule, scientist always give other scientists the benefit of the doubt when the scientist poses a valid question. Whereas Obots never do that.

    So I happen to know that over the lifetime of the Xerox 7535 there have been exactly zero software patches. Whereas in the case of the Xerox 7655 there have been at least 10. The table of updates that I downloaded was not current.

    So the score is Xerox 7535 0 and Xerox 7655 at least 10.

    Thus there are a much greater number of degrees of freedom if the forger is the Xerox 7655 rather than if the forger is the 7535.

    Why am I not surprised that the Obots picked the Xerox 7655 as their forger even when all the evidence in hand said it was the Xerox 7535.

    And now we know why the Obots have been madly searching for every document that they can get their hands on that has the YCbCr label.

    It’s because they have no Xerox scan to PDF file with the right stuff.

    But you know with at least 10 different patches and dozens of different documents the Obots still claim that they have a lock on the Xerox 7655 forger.

    Sure! When pigs can fly !

    You readers might as well tune into some other blogsite. You are never going to get anything from NBC that you can trust.

  48. Hermie reminds me of a relative of mine who had a PhD in Chemistry. He thought having a PhD made him an expert in everything.. When he got into areas outside of chemistry it was surprising what stupid things he could say. Everyone just tolerated him and snickered behind his back.

  49. “I am in great company if Hermitian is to be believed… But his track record is less than stellar.”

    True on both counts … he blamed me too😀
    Oh, look, more furious spin. Now anti-birthers are responsible for selecting office equipment for the WH!
    Damn, our reach is like, totally without bounds.

  50. ou might want to reflect on my asking for the serial numbers on all Xerox WCs that NBC has used to scan the WH LFCOLB. Now rather than ridicule, scientist always give other scientists the benefit of the doubt when the scientist poses a valid question. Whereas Obots never do that.

    That’s funny. You are not a scientist and you demonstrate that more and more every day. We are trying to debunk the Cold Case Posse nonsense Hermie not you. You are self debunking. How open have they been on their research?

  51. It does not matter, we know that the WH 7655 has the ‘goods’ as it matches the quantization tables and the embedded JPEG comment.

    What do you have? Nothing relevant really…

  52. NBC

    “We are trying to debunk the Cold Case Posse nonsense Hermie not you. You are self debunking. How open have they been on their research?”

    [NBC: Wrong attribution]

    Well let’s see — I count two full press conferences with the world’s press invited. These were very professionally done.

    In addition Zullo recently presented all of his evidence to hundreds of law enforcement officials. None have leaked even a whisper. They wouldn’t have reacted that way if they were not satisfied with the evidence.

    Now, at last count, RC and NBC, JPOT and WKV have done exactly zero press conferences. And none have provided sworn affidavits supporting their claims.

    I’m satisfied with that score. How about you ?

  53. Hermie

    I am more than satisfied. Zullo can’t get a single prosecutor or member of Congress to do anything. Barack Obama is still President and will be for over three more years. I don’t see the need to do a daffidavit like Zullo did that was not requested by any court. i am very satisfied to watch idiots like you for entertainment.

  54. Well let’s see — I count two full press conferences with the world’s press invited. These were very professionally done.

    Yes, it was a great media event.. But science is not done through press conferences or affidavits.

    You are working on total speculation and ignore facts.
    Scientists work just the other way, and propose hypotheses that can be tested. I have no need for affidavits, the CCP knows about this and if it is a real ‘criminal investigation’ they have the duty to address it. It’s that simple.

    But perhaps its not really what they claim it to be?

    If that’s your standard of success then you have abandoned the scientific method in favor of rhetoric.

    That’s of course your choice..

  55. WVK

    W. Kevin Vicklund says:

    August 27, 2013 at 15:47


    1.RSUP images are rotated 90 degrees clockwise
    Agreed.

    2.USD images are rotated 90 degrees counter clockwise
    Agreed.

    3.USD images when the PDF is rotated in Preview 180 degrees are still rotated 90 degrees counter clockwise
    Agreed.

    4.The Quantization Matrices do not match the WH LFBC, and the WH Tax matrices but this can be explained by realizing that the scanner is not using the up-to-date firmware as it scans to PDF 1.4 not PDF 1.5 as found in the WH Tax form PDF.
    Agreed.

    5.The RSUP contains 5 layers, the USD 4 layers
    This needs to be updated. Different runs of the RSUP and USD result in different numbers of layers.

    6.They all contain the YCbCr comment tag
    Agreed.

    7.The Xerox WorkCentre Firmware in question creates PDF version 1.4 documents
    Agreed.

    And then the following facts attach to your facts.

    1. The PDF “wh-lfbc-scanned-xerox-7535-wc.pdf” is PDF version 1.4
    Agreed.

    2. The WH LFCOLB PDF is PDF version 1.3
    Agreed.

    3. No PDF version 1.5 Xerox scan to PDF file (of a WH LFCOLB print out) has ever been produced by NBC.
    However, NBC has produced several links to PDF version 1.5 Xerox scans that were produced by others.
    4. The PDF version 1.5 WH tax forms have the same quantization tables as the Xerox 7535 scan to PDF file “wh-lfbc-scanned-xerox-7535-wc.pdf” which is PDF version 1.4
    Agreed.

    5. The PDF version 1.5 Xerox 7655 scan to PDF files are two version numbers beyond the Preview print to PDF files which are all PDF version 1.3.
    Agreed.

    6. A Xerox 7655 with the old firmware (i.e. PDF version 1.4) produces different quantization tables than a Xerox 7535 which produces PDF version 1.4 scan to PDF files.
    Change to “Some Xeroxes with older firmware” as there may be multiple firmware versions that utilize the same PDF version.

    7. A Xerox 7655 with the new firmware (i.e. PDF version 1.5) produces the same quantization tables as the Xerox 7535 which produces PDF version 1.4 scan to PDF files.
    Change to “Some Xeroxes with newer firmware” as there may be multiple firmware versions that utilize the same PDF version.

    8. The MAC OS Preview used by the forger produces PDF version 1.3 print to PDF files whereas the current PDF version number is 1.7.
    Remove “used by the forger”.

    To the above facts I would add the following:
    1. The 76xx series was first released in 2007
    2. The 75xx series was first released in 2009

    3. The 76xx series had a second version of the firmware released in 2009. Updates for the second version do not work for the first version – updating equipment to the second version required contacting your Sales Representative. The second version uses PDF 1.5.

    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
    To save space and time I will only comment on the items that you took issue with.


    5.The RSUP contains 5 layers, the USD 4 layers
    This needs to be updated. Different runs of the RSUP and USD result in different numbers of layers.

    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
    This situation is unacceptable. The only Xerox scan to PDF that NBC has released had a total of 17 objects including the background object. This number included four objects of two different types which do not appear at all in the WH LFCOLB PDF image. Moreover the 1-bit bmp images were Black & White instead of monochrome. NBC has never explained where in his workflow the monochrome colors are inserted and how the colors are selected. NBC also has never explained why the number of layers suddenly dropped to four or five from 17.
    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH


    6. A Xerox 7655 with the old firmware (i.e. PDF version 1.4) produces different quantization tables than a Xerox 7535 which produces PDF version 1.4 scan to PDF files.
    Change to “Some Xeroxes with older firmware” as there may be multiple firmware versions that utilize the same PDF version.

    7. A Xerox 7655 with the new firmware (i.e. PDF version 1.5) produces the same quantization tables as the Xerox 7535 which produces PDF version 1.4 scan to PDF files.
    Change to “Some Xeroxes with newer firmware” as there may be multiple firmware versions that utilize the same PDF version.

    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
    Since you obviously don’t know the facts who can say ? But I know that the 7655 has had at least 10 software patches many of which were to correct security vulnerabilities and the 7535 has had none. So your hand is very weak anyway. It would take a squad of accountants and lawyers to sort all of this out.
    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH


    8. The MAC OS Preview used by the forger produces PDF version 1.3 print to PDF files whereas the current PDF version number is 1.7.
    Remove “used by the forger”.

    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
    Well given the gyrations that NBC has gone through to mangle his workflow, it’s for sure that his combo Xerox / Preview operator would have also done many of the same things as NBC. In my book that makes the operator a forger.
    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH


    To the above facts I would add the following:
    1. The 76xx series was first released in 2007
    2. The 75xx series was first released in 2009

    3. The 76xx series had a second version of the firmware released in 2009. Updates for the second version do not work for the first version – updating equipment to the second version required contacting your Sales Representative. The second version uses PDF 1.5.
    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

    So the White House could have had this Xerox 7655 WC for six years or maybe less than one?
    I think you are referring to an equipment upgrade to the 7655 which rendered the upgraded machines to be incompatible with the previous software. The upgrade required significant equipment changes as well as software.

    The JBIG2 compression and the .bmp file format only support Black and White images. The 1-bit layers in the WH LFCOLB each have a different monochrome color which covers the entire object. Moreover NBC has been reporting at least one layer as a random image. I suspect he has done this to hide the fact that this is an object type which does not appear in the WH LFCOLB PDF image.

    So prove me wrong.

  56. “Well let’s see — I count two full press conferences with the world’s press invited. These were very professionally done …. In addition Zullo recently presented all of his evidence to hundreds of law enforcement officials. None have leaked even a whisper. They wouldn’t have reacted that way if they were not satisfied with the evidence … Now, at last count, RC and NBC, JPOT and WKV have done exactly zero press conferences. And none have provided sworn affidavits supporting their claims.”

    Do you think Herms types this stuff with a straight face? C’mon, he’s got to be laughing his butt off! I know I am😀

  57. “The JBIG2 compression and the .bmp file format only support Black and White images.”

    You couldn’t be more wrong. Where did you get such an idea?

  58. RC – All he’s ever wanted was recognition. He’s got an ego like a black hole, and he’s so sensitive. You should have seen his long-running engagement at the Amazon Forums. Yowza!

  59. NBC

    It doesn’t count to just say it Dude. You’ve got to deliver the PDF file for the Xerox 7655. And you have refused to do that over and over again. In fact every time that you threw another length of your TP over the wall.

    And now we know that you Obots deliberately selected the Xerox 7655 over the 7535 just to expand the total number of variables that you can now use to deflect all attacks.

    In fact you are all already doing just that.

  60. It’s publicly available information that some of the Obama’s personal docs were prepared for online publishing using a 7655. If the particular model bothers you, blame whoever submitted that model on a bid on an office services contract.

    Over a year ago, despite the fact that PDF Madness is pointless anyway (Hawaii verifies the info, the PDF is just an image for public relations purposes! LOL!) I assured you the LFBC was scanned on a Xerox Workcentre, based on comparisons with known Xerox PDFs (both visual, markup, and general file structure), and a reading of their patents and white papers. That settled it for me. Now NBC, WKV, and RC have gone way down deep in the weeds, gone the extra 100 miles, absolutely nailing this case shut. I certainly appreciate their work, and you should, too. Like a good ‘scientist’😉

    Watching you wiggle is just that extra dollop of sweetness😀

  61. This situation is unacceptable. The only Xerox scan to PDF that NBC has released had a total of 17 objects including the background object.

    Your point… You are so funny.

    The JBIG2 compression and the .bmp file format only support Black and White images. The 1-bit layers in the WH LFCOLB each have a different monochrome color which covers the entire object

    Still unfamiliar with how PDF works. How sad.

    I have no reason to prove anything to you my friend, your meaningless speculations have no relevance.

    The facts speak for themselves, which is why you avoid discussing them.

  62. You couldn’t be more wrong. Where did you get such an idea?

    Because he does not understand how PDF works… Simple..

  63. JPOT comes late to the game

    JPotter says:

    August 27, 2013 at 22:43

    “The JBIG2 compression and the .bmp file format only support Black and White images.”

    You couldn’t be more wrong. Where did you get such an idea?

    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
    When the WH LFCOLB PDF contained the label for the YCbCr color space but did not apply either that color space or the YBR equivalent.
    And then the Xerox 7535 scan to PDF file did not have the label within the PDF like the WH LFCOLB. The label was present only after extracting the one JPEG compressed bitmap file.

    So why would Xerox place the YCbCr label within a JPEG compressed bitmap which does not meet the JFIF standard for JPEG compressed bitmap files in a Xerox scan to EMail application? Xerox would just never do that. Especially when the YCbCr is the default color space for JPEG compressed bitmaps which meet all of the requirements of the JFIF standard.

    To the contrary, if Xerox had written their own code then they would have pulled out all of the stops to meet every requirement of the JFIF standard. They would have done that because it is a performance issue and a competitive issue. There are significant efficiency gains for JFIF standard files and YCbCr color space. Also any customer who discovered that the Xerox scan to EMail App didn’t meet the JFIF standard would soon be looking for another MFP. Unless he happens to be an Obot.

    I knew immediately that NBC was up to no good when he claimed exclusivity to Xerox WCs.

  64. And now we know that you Obots deliberately selected the Xerox 7655 over the 7535 just to expand the total number of variables that you can now use to deflect all attacks.

    In fact, I chose the 7655 because we know the WH has one and used it weeks before the LFBC was scanned. But it does not matter, many WorkCentre machines seems to be able to to the job.

    You are so focused on something so totally irrelevant my friend…

    Remember what I have shown: All the artifacts found by the CCP that were presumed to be evidence of a PDF forgery have been explained by a simple work flow.

    You yourself seem to accept this little fact but are quibbling about meaningless details.

    Have you tried the scientific method recently?

  65. It’s publicly available information that some of the Obama’s personal docs were prepared for online publishing using a 7655. If the particular model bothers you, blame whoever submitted that model on a bid on an office services contract.

    Exactly, it is an informed speculation. However, the model number really does not matter, it is just icing on the cake but also seems to serve to distract our friend.

    Not that he needs any help there… He is still struggling with basic concepts about object colors.

    And he has access to the PDF standards… And still…

    This is just so much fun. Not really relevant to the successes of my work flow, but still amusing.

    I’d love to see Hermitian defend his affidavit in court, but luckily for him that is as improbable as the Senate taking up hearings.

  66. The label was present only after extracting the one JPEG compressed bitmap file.

    So why would Xerox place the YCbCr label within a JPEG compressed bitmap which does not meet the JFIF standard for JPEG compressed bitmap files in a Xerox scan to EMail application? Xerox would just never do that

    and yet it does do exactly that… So why are you disagreeing with facts here?

    I knew immediately that NBC was up to no good when he claimed exclusivity to Xerox WCs.

    That’s a lie. I stated that it is consistent with Xerox Work Centres and that so far I have not found any other examples that are not Xerox related.

    Please stop misrepresenting me.

    Our poor friend has no idea about the ‘efficiency gains’ for JFIF. What he fails to accept is that all PDF’s so far from Work Centres show the embedded jpeg.

    That’s an undeniable fact…

  67. John: NBC has yet to produce any PDFs. The ones he has produces are lousy and don’t capture the elegance of Obama’s PDF.

    Maybe we should suggest this as a quote of the day over at Doc’s.

  68. 7535 Specs since you like the scanner🙂

    Color TIFF (TIFF 6.0 or TTN2 with JPEG, LZW)
    Black and White TIFF (G3MH, G4 MMR compression – single or multiple pages)
    PDF or PDF/A (MRC, JPEG, G3 MH, G4 MMR, JBIG 2 Huffman, JBIG Arithmetic Compression, Deflate (for B/W and
    within MRC))
    JPEG
    XPS
    Searchable PDF, PDF/A, XPS
    Encrypted / Password Protected PDF (for Workflow Scanning)
    Linearized PDF

  69. John wrote: I agree that it is mistake for the CCP not to come right away and refute NBC’s findings.

    How can it be a mistake to not do something that you can’t do? That’s like saying it is a mistake for Afghanistan to not land a man on the moon.

    John wrote: But, Gallup has informed us that this is a criminal investigation and that the CCP will release what information they feel the public is entitled to know.

    Let’s put to rest one of the sillier birther memes… the one desperately being promoted by Zullo and Gallups regarding “Obot demands” for information from his case. In actuality, we are demanding nothing. Zullo and the posse “investigation” are a known quantity to us, and long ago established complete incompetence of a level so sublime that they can provide nothing but entertainement. Everything that Zullo knows that is actually true, we already know. Anything Zullo knows that we don’t is either false or trivial. It may have escaped your notice but we do not sit around and wait for Zullo to do anything.

    That’s something we leave to Zullo’s marks; the small but dedicated band of birthers who wring their hands, gnash their teeth, and send their money.

    John wrote: As for the Obots, I agree with Gallup that the Obots have ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT whatsoever to privy into the CCP investigation.

    What investigation?

  70. Hermitian: Obviously Northern 10 is just ecstatic that he found 20 different Xerox contracts. Whereas I’m surprised that there are evidently only 20 Xerox machines in the White House.

    Finding the obvious on an easily accessible government site does not create any ecstatic joy for me. I do enjoy the oddity in thinking that 20 contracts equals 20 machines. The contracts cover various things such as maintenance and leases. Some contracts, as you can tell by the amounts, are for multiple devices and only cover that period. There may be other outstanding contracts for other years.

    Is it me, or is Hermie sounding like the Mario of the BC forgery? He has gone from attempting to argue details to, I’m right because I say so.

  71. WKV

    W. Kevin Vicklund says:

    August 27, 2013 at 18:46

    “”After the Obama attorneys purportedly scanned a printout of the WH LFCOLB (purportedly by means of a Fugitsu ScanSnap S1500 scanner) the scanned image exhibits pincushion distortion. This image also has the White Halos which makes it difficult to detect color fringes.””

    “It’s not pincushion distortion, just an optical illusion. In this instance, the grid lines appear to curve due to there being a curved gradient, but they are actually straight. The WH LFBC doesn’t show this optical illusion because the letters are a solid color, not a curved gradient.”

    I looked up your reference. If you were right then every grid of parallel lines would appear as pairs of converging lines alternating in their direction of convergence like in the picture. But that is not the case. I’m not sure of the optical origin of the effect that you cited. But I’m sure it’s not caused by a color gradient because there are only two solid colors, Red and Black. I’ll see what I can dig up on it.

    However you apparently didn’t notice that I did not state what the cause of the pincushion distortion is. Whatever the cause, it’s a real effect because a human can and has observed it. Following your argument, one could argue that Moire’ fringes are not real or diffraction patterns or Newton’s rings or holographic fringes or even photoelastic patterns. You could even argue that Michelson was mistaken when he adjusted his interference fringes in an attempt to measure the drift of the Aether.

    See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Abraham_Michelson

    But you would be foolish to do so.

    NBC:
    Another meaningless distraction from our friend, trying to impress us with his abilities to look up Wikipedia. But when it comes to independent research…

  72. Hermitian also has overlooked something funny… The 7655 supports TIFF old and new JPEG. I always wondered about this and now it seems quite straightforward..

    Compression scheme used on the image data.

    The specification defines these values to be baseline:

    Additionally, the specification defines these values as part of the TIFF extensions:

    1 = No compression
    2 = CCITT modified Huffman RLE
    32773 = PackBits compression, aka Macintosh RLE

    Additionally, the specification defines these values as part of the TIFF extensions:

    3 = CCITT Group 3 fax encoding
    4 = CCITT Group 4 fax encoding
    5 = LZW
    6 = JPEG (‘old-style’ JPEG, later overriden in Technote2)

    Technote2 overrides old-style JPEG compression, and defines:

    7 = JPEG (‘new-style’ JPEG)

    Adobe later added the deflate compression scheme:

    8 = Deflate (‘Adobe-style’)

    So the DCTDecode object is a TIFF object JPEG encoded, which just happens to look like a JPEG… Ain’t that funny..

  73. Is it me, or is Hermie sounding like the Mario of the BC forgery? He has gone from attempting to argue details to, I’m right because I say so.

    Well, he is somewhat sloppy in his logic and research….

  74. Herms, *what* does your word salad ramble have to do with teh nature of either JBIG2 compression or the .bmp file format?

    He doesn’t just fail to understand PDF, he doesn’t understand digital computing or any aspect of information theory … period! How many timesdid you shoot yerself in the eye with those lasers in the ’60s, Herms?

  75. He doesn’t just fail to understand PDF, he doesn’t understand digital computing or any aspect of information theory … period! How many timesdid you shoot yerself in the eye with those lasers in the ’60s, Herms?

    Now don’t make fun of his laser related skills, it’s just that he does not appear to be very familiar with PDF. Despite my efforts…

    He still has not figured it out.

    If he had only looked at the raw PDF and he too would have known how the color is set…

    Bitmask and JBIG2 are monochrome but that does not mean necessarily black…

  76. Hermitian wrote:I looked up your reference. If you were right then every grid of parallel lines would appear as pairs of converging lines alternating in their direction of convergence like in the picture. But that is not the case. I’m not sure of the optical origin of the effect that you cited. But I’m sure it’s not caused by a color gradient because there are only two solid colors, Red and Black. I’ll see what I can dig up on it.

    Well… no. Not every grid of parallel lines would look that way. That’s not how optical illusions work. Ultimately, however, that is neither here nor there.

    But to determine whether a particular example is an optical illusion as opposed to an actual distortion requires a complex, highly technical tool that few people possess: Once having accessed that tool, however, the test is trivial.

    Get a ruler.

  77. “Bitmask and JBIG2 are monochrome but that does not mean necessarily black…”

    Careful, spot our silly friend an inch and he’ll take a mile or two. He referred to the BMP file format itself, and stated it was limited to monochrome. As an aide in judging the hilarity of his claims, please take care to preserve the magnitude of his ignorance for posterity😀

  78. He referred to the BMP file format itself, and stated it was limited to monochrome.

    Missed that one… Of course they are bitmasks big difference…

  79. Hermitian, present an argument but do not spam this site with irrelevant issues… I will clean up after you…

  80. Hermitian, present an argument but do not spam this site with irrelevant issues… I will clean up after you

    I hope you have a wide broom and a huge trashcan. The HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH’s alone would fill a dumpster.

  81. NBC

    NBC says:

    August 27, 2013 at 23:49

    “Hermitian also has overlooked something funny… The 7655 supports TIFF old and new JPEG. I always wondered about this and now it seems quite straightforward..”

    “Compression scheme used on the image data.

    “The specification defines these values to be baseline:

    “Additionally, the specification defines these values as part of the TIFF extensions:

    1 = No compression
    2 = CCITT modified Huffman RLE
    32773 = PackBits compression, aka Macintosh RLE

    Additionally, the specification defines these values as part of the TIFF extensions:

    3 = CCITT Group 3 fax encoding
    4 = CCITT Group 4 fax encoding
    5 = LZW
    6 = JPEG (‘old-style’ JPEG, later overriden in Technote2)

    Technote2 overrides old-style JPEG compression, and defines:

    7 = JPEG (‘new-style’ JPEG)

    Adobe later added the deflate compression scheme:

    8 = Deflate (‘Adobe-style’)

    So the DCTDecode object is a TIFF object JPEG encoded, which just happens to look like a JPEG… Ain’t that funny..

    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHh
    ROTFL funny ! That NBC would believe that a specification for TIFF file type would have anything to do with his precious JPEG embedded within the xerox PDF’s. Even more funny is the fact that NBC still doesn’t know the difference between a file compression standard and a file format standard. NBC has only told us hundreds of times that without question, the background image of the Xerox scans are embedded JPEG file format. Now he is suddenly switching to TIFF file format. The fact is that NBC doesn’t know what the Hell he is doing. And realizing hsi own limitations NBC is now playing his same old trick of increasing his number of options. Of course his options are already so numerous that no one, including NBC himself, has any idea what he has done. Which of course renders everything (that he says that he has done) as totally worthless.

  82. I looked up your reference. If you were right then every grid of parallel lines would appear as pairs of converging lines alternating in their direction of convergence like in the picture. But that is not the case. I’m not sure of the optical origin of the effect that you cited. But I’m sure it’s not caused by a color gradient because there are only two solid colors, Red and Black. I’ll see what I can dig up on it.

    This is a bit of an extreme example. The cause of this is that the luminosity of the gridlines makes us perceive the black “pixels” as being larger than they are, while the white “pixels” are not changed in size – the closer the luminosity of the gridline is to the “pixel”s luminosity, the larger the “pixel” will be perceived. However, we also perceive that the gridlines are smooth. So our brain, seeing that the edges go “small, big, small, big” on one side and “big, small, big, small” on the other, and seeing the lines are straight, interprets this as alternating converging and diverging grid lines. If you apply this to a non-linear gradient, you end up with what you perceive as a curved line.

    However you apparently didn’t notice that I did not state what the cause of the pincushion distortion is. Whatever the cause, it’s a real effect because a human can and has observed it. Following your argument, one could argue that Moire’ fringes are not real or diffraction patterns or Newton’s rings or holographic fringes or even photoelastic patterns. You could even argue that Michelson was mistaken when he adjusted his interference fringes in an attempt to measure the drift of the Aether.

    You apparently didn’t notice that I distinguished the optical illusion that you noted from actual pincushion distortion. Pincushion distortion is not an optical illusion, it is a measurable effect. There are multiple problems with you calling this pincushion distortion:

    1) Pincushion distortion can be measured using a straight edge, if there are straight lines in the image (there are other methods for more complex objects, but you need to know their original shape). The line will curve towards the center of the image if the ruler is placed at the terminal points o the line. In your affidavit, the lines do not actually curve when measured with a straight edge.

    2) What you claim to be observing isn’t properly pincushion distortion – it would be a complex distortion, akin to barrel distortion.

    3) Pincushion distortion is a gradual effect seen across the whole image. You don’t get it centered on multiple points on the same image.

    4) Scanners don’t exhibit pincushion distortion – the physics aren’t right. Digital cameras, on the other hand, can exhibit it.

    So let me reiterate, with added detail:

    What you saw is not actual pincushion distortion. It is, instead, an optical illusion caused by superimposing gridlines on a luminance-dominated gradient.

  83. WKV

    “”I looked up your reference. If you were right then every grid of parallel lines would appear as pairs of converging lines alternating in their direction of convergence like in the picture. But that is not the case. I’m not sure of the optical origin of the effect that you cited. But I’m sure it’s not caused by a color gradient because there are only two solid colors, Red and Black. I’ll see what I can dig up on it.””

    “This is a bit of an extreme example. The cause of this is that the luminosity of the gridlines makes us perceive the black “pixels” as being larger than they are, while the white “pixels” are not changed in size – the closer the luminosity of the gridline is to the “pixel”s luminosity, the larger the “pixel” will be perceived. However, we also perceive that the gridlines are smooth. So our brain, seeing that the edges go “small, big, small, big” on one side and “big, small, big, small” on the other, and seeing the lines are straight, interprets this as alternating converging and diverging grid lines. If you apply this to a non-linear gradient, you end up with what you perceive as a curved line.”

    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
    I agree that it’s an extreme example because it has absolutely nothing to do with the phenomenon which is the subject of our discussion. I tried every grid default color in Illustrator at several different zoom levels and never say anything remotely resembling your cited example. Therefore you should have retracted it.

    What you don’t seem to grasp is that even your “so-called” “Optical Illusions” are real physical processes. You just don’t happen to have a clue as to the cause. You seem to want to rule out processes that involve human vision. However the human vision function is much more understood than even 10 years ago. This is especially true of ophthalmologists who specialize in treating cataracts. They now have specialized diagnostic equipment which directly measure phenomena that “didn’t exist” 20 years ago.

    You application of the ruler to the screen is incorrect. Pincushion distortion in cameras is always measured at the camera’s focal plane either on the film or within the digital image for digital cameras. Adobe Camera Raw can correct for this optical flaw in either scanned images from film or the direct digital image. The analogous situation with human vision would be the image delivered to the retina and then re-assembled from two separate but overlapping images in the brain.

    The pincushion distortion is never measured on the test pattern image that is photographed to measure the various optical defects within the lens.

    However, this “pincushion distortion” ( I use quotes here if it makes you feel better) is not caused by an optical defect within the optical elements of a single lens assembly. Rather I suspect the cause is unrelated to this type of distortion. Instead it is most likely caused by the moving diode strip and it’s associated optical elements. It also may depend on the speed of the strip and the response time of the diode sensors.

    Any way, I’m not here to solve the problem but just to point out that it occurs often in digitally scanned images but never in any of the few images that NBC has released. Which makes me very suspicious that he is up to no good.

    For example the “pincushion effect” is strong in the page 4 LFCOLB PDF image extracted from federal court document 35-1.pdf This image was produced by Scott Tepper’s law firm and attached to the Tepper to Fuddy letter requesting verification of the Obama LFCOLB. This image was reported to have been scanned on a Fugitsu ScanSnap S1500 scanner.

    Of course, as always, the Obots want it both ways. But unfortunately for them, in this pending matter of Obama’s eligibility they don’t get their usual pass.

    Instead we will pry all of their excess degrees of freedom out of their clutching and greedy hands.

  84. ROTFL funny ! That NBC would believe that a specification for TIFF file type would have anything to do with his precious JPEG embedded within the xerox PDF’s.

    Indeed, that is what the evidence suggests. Remember that TIFF can be encoded in JPEG and the object meets all the requirements of this. It explains why Xerox refers to the image as TIFF (old or new JPEG).

    I am merely following the evidence, and explaining the lack of JFIF information. You on the other hand considers such steps admission of weakness. That’s the problem with your position my dear friend.

    Regardless of what the encoding really is, the DCTDecode object, contains a JPEG Comment tag. Rather than addressing specifics, our poor friend is trying to paint with a broad brush. A scientist would never be so foolish.

  85. Any way, I’m not here to solve the problem but just to point out that it occurs often in digitally scanned images but never in any of the few images that NBC has released. Which makes me very suspicious that he is up to no good.

    Again accusing me without any evidence. This was your final warning my friend, you are no longer welcome here.

  86. It looks like as always the Obots must maintain their double standard. They can totally dish it out — heaping on the personal ridicule from multiple posters from morning till night. But they all cannot take it when the persecuted reciprocate. The Obots are the ultimate thin-skinned type. A bunch of total hypocrites.

  87. Where are the quantization tables from any recent Xerox 7655 scan to PDF of the printout copy of the Obama LFCOLB? The only tables that have been posted for a Xerox 7655 scan of the LFCOLB are totally different from the quantization tables from the Xerox 7535 scan to PDF.

  88. The only tables that have been posted for a Xerox 7655 scan of the LFCOLB are totally different from the quantization tables from the Xerox 7535 scan to PDF.

    Still ignoring the tables in the WH tax form scans I see… Oh the ignorance…

  89. It looks like as always the Obots must maintain their double standard.

    Really?… Do you not understand the differences?

  90. And preview does not erase information, it hides it behind a masking layer…. Edge erase, a Xerox functionality is what does the erasing… The idea that the information can be recreated is ridiculous…

  91. Beautiful illusion. Of course, Hermitian would insist that there is still a physical explanation and that this is not an illusion, even though with a ruler, you can see that it is an illusion.

  92. Beautiful illusion. Of course, Hermitian would insist that there is still a physical explanation and that this is not an illusion, even though with a ruler, you can see that it is an illusion.

    He doesn’t appear to know the difference between ‘physical’ and ‘physiological’. It’s like he completely missed the explanation I gave.

  93. Hermitian writes:“What you don’t seem to grasp is that even your “so-called” “Optical Illusions” are real physical processes.”

    Wrong. If that were true, they wouldn’t be called illusions.

  94. Wrong. If that were true, they wouldn’t be called illusions.

    Exactly… Poor Hermitian, he is now confusing pin cushioning as a physical effect with pin cushioning as an illusion. As Vicklund pointed out, a simple ruler is all you need to determine which one…

Comments are closed.