Hermetian confused

Hermitian: NBC totally overlooks the fact that his Xerox scans to PDF consistently do a poor job of separating the monochrome text from the color background. Much more of the text characters “sticks” to the background in the Xerox scans than the human forger left on the background layer of the WH LFCOLB. Unfortunately NBC is too dumb to realize that any text that does not get lifted is downsampled from 300 PPI X 300 PPI to 150 PPI x 150 PPI. Moreover the text color is changed from binary to Grayscale and the aliased image is converted to anti-aliased. Now NBC evidently believes that this mangling of the image is all accomplished without any loss of information. Talk about missing the forest for the trees !

So that is his excuse, that the Workcentre does not do a perfect enough separation… Wow… As to the downsampling and what our friend erroneously calls aliasing were all described by me way before he had ever considered this. Of course, any time a document is ‘compressed the level of the WH LFBC, it is self evident that information is lost. But preview is not the cause of loss of this information. Other than perhaps the fact that it overwrote some metadata and rewrote the internals. If that’s the argument then yes, it is a miracle, is it not, that we still have been able to track it back to a Xerox workflow…

Another great strawman… I have mentioned the separation issues, I have addressed the downsampling, I have addressed the cause of ‘aliasing’, even before I had identified the Xerox WorkCentre. Anyone understanding MRC could have explained why Zebest’s claims ignored the effects of MRC, which includes downsampling, JBIG2 encoding and JPEG encoding of the background.

Hermitian has served his purpose but he has failed to raise any real objections to my well document work flow.

Oh and Hermitian is also rewriting history about me reporting that my Xerox WorkCentre copies did not match up with the quantization tables. Such is the burden of a scientist but to report on all the data. What Hermitian sees as a weakness, is in fact a strength to those interested in applying the scientific method to establish a theory. Of course, our poor friend forgot that I, soon thereafter, was informed that the 7535 tables matched and, that I, on a hunch, analyzed the WH 7655 Tax forms which also showed a matching Quantization Matrix.

Which led me to hypothesize that the differences can be explained by differences in firmware. But that hypothesis adds no degrees of freedom, as I base my conclusion on the actual Xerox WorkCentre found owned by the White House and used to scan in President Obama’s Tax Returns.

Again our poor friend overlooks all the evidence to propose his ill supported ‘forger’ who just happens to mimic a work centre…

For that I thank him, we could not have achieved this success without him and he should be remembered for it.

9 thoughts on “Hermetian confused

  1. “Such is the burden of a scientist but to report on all the data.”

    I suspect that is the main reason Hermie has not created his own PDF on a Xerox WorkCentre. He knows the results will support your findings and he’s afraid of having to admit it. It’s much easier to talk about the AP image or the MDEC PDFs. Anything to avoid the truth.

  2. Hermitian wrote:“Much more of the text characters ‘sticks’ to the background in the Xerox scans than the human forger left on the background layer of the WH LFCOLB.

    I have read this sentence a half dozen times. It borders on the completely insane.

    What human forger in their right mind would have “left” any text on the background layer? Actually, since a human forger should have been expected to be adding things rather than leaving them behind, what human forger (again, in their right mind) would have added such a bizarre and arbitrary collection of partial words, partial signatures, partial stamps, form frame and shadows to the same layer as the security pattern at all (while carefully painting in little halos for all the other stuff that was never supposedly there in the first place)?

    This has always baffled me about the birther theory of forgery. Can there actually be a living person who is simultaneously so completely psychotic and still capable of assembling such a detailed forgery? It’s a pickle.

  3. “I have read this sentence a half dozen times. It borders on the completely insane.”

    When you’re simply flat-out *wrong*, that’s where inflexible denial where always drive you.

  4. NBC

    “So that is his excuse, that the Workcentre does not do a perfect enough separation… Wow…”

    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
    Wrong Dude. The poor separation is just one problem that I have with your crappy PDF images.

    You may want to check out the images that I just posted which reveal dramatically how crappy your images really are compared to expected quality from a 600 DPI x 600 DPI scan to PDF. You can find these head-to-head comparison images here:

    and here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/163617377/Ob-2

    and here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/163631220/BA

    and here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/163685155/BA-150-PPI

    and here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/163781445/Re-Compressed-B-W-Scan-vs-Zerox-7535-Preview

    and here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/163881244/Doubly-Compressed-B-W-Scan-to-PDF-vs-WH-LFCOLB-PDF

    The last screen capture image compares my B&W Canon MF5900 Series UFRII LT Multi-Function Printer (doubly compressed scan to PDF file) head-to-head with the WH LFCOLB PDF. The doubly compressed B&W scanned image is far superior to your Xerox 7535 scan to PDF image.
    Moreover the file-size of the doubly compressed B&W scanned image is only 218 KB as compared to the fie size of your Xerox 7535 PDF which is 296 KB. The doubly compressed B&W scan is also a faithful near-duplicate image of the binary text of the WH LFCOLB . To the contrary, the failure to separate this same text from the background in the Xerox 7535 scan to PDF caused this text to be downsampled to 150 PPI x 150 PPI pixel resolution whereas the doubly compressed B&W scan to PDF image is the same 300 PPI x 300 PPI pixel resolution as the original mostly text layer of the WH LFCOLB PDF image.

    Then considering that the price of the stripped down Xerox 7655 at time of release was over $18,000.00 and the new unit price for my Canon MFP was only $259.00 the readers are certainly within their rights to ask the question — What the Hell did you do to fuzz up your scans ? Remember you claimed that all your scans were at 600 DPI x 600 DPI.

    So again — put up or shut up Friend !

  5. The readers should note that NBC’s purported Xerox forger has never achieved the clean separation of the text from the background that the human forger achieved by manually moving the text from the background to the mostly text layer. Consequently any text that is not separated from the background in NBC’s Xerox scans is downsampled from 300 PPI x 300 PPI to 150 PPI x 150 PPI. Also any text that sticks to the background layer is converted from binary monochrome aliased text to Grayscale, anti-aliased text. As the comparative screen captures reveal, the degradation to the text image that results from the failure to separate from the background is great. Most of the capital letter “As” are converted to solid characters with the hole in the “A” completely filled with solid color pixels.

  6. NBC

    “”Hermitian has served his purpose but he has failed to raise any real objections to my well document work flow.””

    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
    Another veiled threat from NBC that he badly needs to pull my privilege on his blogsite so that he can cleanup his act without me breathing down his neck.
    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

    “Oh and Hermitian is also rewriting history about me reporting that my Xerox WorkCentre copies did not match up with the quantization tables. Such is the burden of a scientist but to report on all the data. What Hermitian sees as a weakness, is in fact a strength to those interested in applying the scientific method to establish a theory. Of course, our poor friend forgot that I, soon thereafter, was informed that the 7535 tables matched and, that I, on a hunch, analyzed the WH 7655 Tax forms which also showed a matching Quantization Matrix.”

    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
    You are the one who is rewriting your own history Dude ! I’m just stating the facts that you cannot refute. And as always you are trying to shift the blame to other unidentified persons. That includes me first of course.

    But you see that you have zero credibility on your claim to have recently found out that the quantization tables of the Xerox 7655 WC is now the same as all Xerox WCs. You could start redeeming yourself by posting a formal retraction of the different quantization tables that you initially reported for the Xerox 7655. You should also clearly explain how and why you got it wrong the first time. This of course would require that you post a link to the PDF file containing the wrong quantization tables. You should also provide your proof supporting your recent claim that the new tables are the right ones to use on the Xerox 7655 scans of the WH LFCOLB copy.

    Remember I am not your whipping boy. So if you pull my privilege I’ll just go elsewhere to air your dirty laundry to a different audience.

  7. Feel free to take your comments somewhere else, or, if you can behave yourself, you will be on moderation…

  8. Remember you claimed that all your scans were at 600 DPI x 600 DPI.

    Still not undesrtanding the workflow…

Comments are closed.