Pin Cushioning the Illusion

Hermitian raised an interesting but irrelevant argument about “pin cushioning” observed in a copy of a copy of the Long Form BC PDF, scanned in using a Fujitsu ScanSnap scanner. He is ‘worried’ that neither the LFBC PDF on the White House website, nor the PDF’s created on Xerox WorkCentres show such an optical illusion. Why this is relevant is beyond me but Kevin Vicklund encouraged Hermitian to place a ruler next to the image. I have done just that using GIMP (a totally free image processing solution).

Pincushion Illusion

Pincushion Illusion

Illusion revealed

Illusion revealed

Compare this to real distortions (pin cushioning). The lines no longer are parallel. One is an illusion, the other one a real optical distortion.

There are some excellent resources online to educate oneself

81 thoughts on “Pin Cushioning the Illusion

  1. BTW, if you look at Hermie’s affidavit that image came from, the image just to the left (from the WH LFBC, Doc 15-1) shows Hermie’s so-called “pincushion distortion”. It’s a bit obscured by the fact that he used a 300×300 dpi grid, instead of a 150×150 dpi grid, but the ‘S’ that is in the background layer shows the ‘distortion’.

  2. Our brain is tricked into seeing something that is not there…

    I am not sure as to the relevance of all this as here is no pin cushioning in the WH LFBC nor the Xerox WorkCentre documents.

  3. So, just to be clear … Herms was convinced that the copy of a copy was more ‘real’ than the copy, that is, for some reason the copy of the copy was to be considered more true to the original?

    Crazy, man, crazy.

  4. Hermitian about his ‘daffidavit’ It’s 27 pages of facts that have not been disproved by anyone who has issued a counter affidavit. So I am presently the only one who is willing to swear to his facts.

    Anyone can swear to anything, it does not make it true. Your assertions about the PDF’s have been totally debunked already. One does not need an affidavit to establish that. That you were foolish enough to swear to it is unfortunate but luckily for you, the court is not going to consider it as you are hardly qualified as an expert.

  5. About pin cushioning:

    Hermitian: One glaring exception is the Xerox scan to PDF produced on a Xerox 7535 WC. The other exception is the WH LFCOLB.

    So exactly what we would expect if the WH LFBC were scanned on a Xerox work centre. Thanks for proving our points.

    Does Hermitian ever try to apply common sense when he makes these comments?

    And the pin cushioning you observed is not an optical effect but rather an optical illusion. You still appear to be struggling with the differences.

    Yes, pin cushioning is a real optical effect which shows itself as curved lines. The lines on the documents only appear to be curved but when seen next to straight lines, these optical illusions disappear.

    Sigh… I bet poor Hermitian is going to dwell on his latest confusion for some time.. The list is growing quite long by now, and still nothing to reject the workflow…

  6. I have posted a screen capture of the “OF” from “Certificate OF LIVE BIRTH” from the Muscatine Journal Obama LFCOLB scan to PDF image produced with Photoshop CS2. Clearly visible in this image are the bright color fringes and clear pin cushion distortion. The pixel resolution of this image is 200 PPI x 200 PPI. The screen capture was taken with the PDF opened in Adobe Illustrator CC. This image can be downloaded from here:

  7. Hermitian: So the bottom line is why do your scanned copies not exhibit the pincushion distortion seen on all other scanned copies?

    Because neither the WH LFBC nor the Xerox 7535 PDF shows pin cushioning, your argument is irrelevant. It just ‘is’… If you are interested as to why other photographs (AP, etc) or a scan on a Fujitsu scanner show this optical illusion, you are free to investigate.

    What a foolish argument…

  8. Cool, but this has no relevance. This is a photograph taken by Applewhite and has undergone significant efforts to correct for the bluish tint. Come on Hermitian, is that your argument?
    Neither the WH LFBC PDF nor any Xerox work centres show pin cushioning and you insist that it should? That’s just insisting that the data fit your poor hypothesis rather than abandoning or revising your hypothesis… You do understand the scientific method, I assumed… Perhaps I was too hasty here?

    I have posted a screen capture of the “OF” from “Certificate OF LIVE BIRTH” from the Muscatine Journal Obama LFCOLB scan to PDF image produced with Photoshop CS2. Clearly visible in this image are the bright color fringes and clear pin cushion distortion. The pixel resolution of this image is 200 PPI x 200 PPI. The screen capture was taken with the PDF opened in Adobe Illustrator CC. This image can be downloaded from here:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/164131186/4db82608b486f-OF

  9. Is Herms saying that scans that don’t exhibit pincushioning can’t be ‘real’ scans? If so …. WTF?
    H has a pincushion bias?

  10. Is Herms saying that scans that don’t exhibit pincushioning can’t be ‘real’ scans?

    He may want to argue this… Funny how data does not improve his arguments but rather causes him to doubt the data. The scientific method does not work that way…

  11. Still not pincushion distortion.

    ROTFL… Well, he is trying but is unwilling to accept the difference between distortion (a physical process) and illusion.

  12. Hermie might want to ponder why his 8-bit greyscale scans exhibit “pincushion distortion” yet his 1-bit B&W scans don’t…

    ROTFL…

  13. NBC says:

    August 30, 2013 at 18:15

    “”I have posted a screen capture of the “OF” from “Certificate OF LIVE BIRTH” from the Muscatine Journal Obama LFCOLB scan to PDF image produced with Photoshop CS2. Clearly visible in this image are the bright color fringes and clear pin cushion distortion. The pixel resolution of this image is 200 PPI x 200 PPI. The screen capture was taken with the PDF opened in Adobe Illustrator CC. This image can be downloaded from here:””
    “”

    “”

    “Cool, but this has no relevance. This is a photograph taken by Applewhite and has undergone significant efforts to correct for the bluish tint. Come on Hermitian, is that your argument?”

    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
    You have no evidence that this image produced by Applewhite ever had a pale Blue background. Or that the image was retouched.

    The image resolution of 200 PPI x 200 PPI is the same as when Applewhite scanned the copy. The blue and red fringes are typical of scanned copies.
    Top of the line digital cameras do not exhibit color fringes.
    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

    “Neither the WH LFBC PDF nor any Xerox work centres show pin cushioning and you insist that it should? That’s just insisting that the data fit your poor hypothesis rather than abandoning or revising your hypothesis… You do understand the scientific method, I assumed… Perhaps I was too hasty here?”

    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
    As i showed in my expanded affidavit, the pale-Blue background LFCOL also exhibits pin cushion distortion.

    But you still contend that your Xerox forger produces scanned images and for some unknown reason only these do not exhibit pincushion distortion or color fringes. But you also have refused to examine any of the other documents that you claim were scanned on your Xerox for the presence of color fringes and pincushion distortion.

    How about the President’s tax forms? Have you looked for these effects and if so what did you find ?

    After all you claim that this WH Xerox 7655 is the very machine that forged the Obama LFCOLB.

  14. But you still contend that your Xerox forger produces scanned images and for some unknown reason only these do not exhibit pincushion distortion or color fringes. But you also have refused to examine any of the other documents that you claim were scanned on your Xerox for the presence of color fringes and pincushion distortion.

    How about the President’s tax forms? Have you looked for these effects and if so what did you find ?

    After all you claim that this WH Xerox 7655 is the very machine that forged the Obama LFCOLB.

    Why don’t you tell us? Or are you really telling me that you have yet to locate them? I have provided you with at least 4 other documents created on a Xerox WorkCentre that shows all the artifacts. I call them ‘confirmation documents’.

    Are you telling me that you have yet to look at them?

    What I find fascinating is how you accept that the WH 7535 documents do not show pin cushioning, and neither does the WH LFBC…

    Not much relevant data you have collected so far, other than being confused about the AP jpeg, which was used by Muscatine Journal.

    Funny how you accept that high end cameras do not have color fringes and pin cushion illusions and yet, you seem to be unable to accept the same for high end scanners.

    Fascinating

  15. The image resolution of 200 PPI x 200 PPI is the same as when Applewhite scanned the copy. The blue and red fringes are typical of scanned copies.

    When Applewhite took the picture, which you assume to be ‘scanned’ he created a JPEG with a bluish tint. The Muscatine image has all the evidence that they took the image, adjusted it and then made it available as a PDF.

    We have gone over this before.

    But again, the AP document and the Muscatine documents are irrelevant, although did you not at some time suggest that it was Applewhite who was the forger🙂

    Oh and while Hermitian confused PPI and quality, the jpeg data shows that the Muscatine jpeg we recompressed. We all know what this does to the quality of the image.

  16. Oh and the Muscatine JPEG is 120 PPI nope I am wrong

    AP JPEG 13.49 × 16.17 inches

    DPI Height: 200
    DPI Width: 200
    Pixel Height: 3,234
    Pixel Width: 2,698

    Muscatine TIFF 8.695 x 10.355 inches

    Pixel Height: 2071
    Pixel Width: 1739

    Yes, that computes quite nicely 2071/10.335=200 1739/8.695=200. Both are 200 DPI just one contains more pixels because of the larger canvas size. The JPEG I found embedded has dimension 1243×1043, let’s see… that’s about 120 DPI (1243/10.335= 120.17, 1042/8.695=120). It all starts adding up.

    So no resolution change, just recompressed.

  17. “When Applewhite took the picture, which you assume to be ‘scanned’ he created a JPEG with a bluish tint.”

    Is Herms getting a touch of the dementia? He hold forth long and hard back in early 2012 about how the Applewhite image was a photo, not a scan. Kept rambling about macrocopy stands.

  18. Kept rambling about macrocopy stands.

    And that Applewhite was not even there, or the forger or… What happened to looking at the data we have?

  19. For some reason he believes that the AP jpeg has any relevance to the Xerox 7535 scan or the WH LFBC…

    Strange…

    Let’s concede to him the possibility that Applewhite somehow scanned the document using a portable scanner. So what now…

  20. NBC

    “Funny how you accept that high end cameras do not have color fringes and pin cushion illusions and yet, you seem to be unable to accept the same for high end scanners.”

    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
    I presume by you comment that you are claiming that your fleet of Xerox forgers are all high-end scanners.

    Funny then that they all produce such crummy scanned images.

  21. JPotter says:

    August 30, 2013 at 23:09

    “When Applewhite took the picture, which you assume to be ‘scanned’ he created a JPEG with a bluish tint.”

    “Is Herms getting a touch of the dementia? He hold forth long and hard back in early 2012 about how the Applewhite image was a photo, not a scan. Kept rambling about macrocopy stands.”

    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
    Applewhite first created the Muscatine Journal’s PDF image with White background and 30 minutes later he created the pale-Blue copy.

    Where have you been JPOT ? You are hopelessly behind.

  22. NBC says:

    August 30, 2013 at 21:27

    “Oh and the Muscatine JPEG is 120 PPI nope I am wrong

    AP JPEG 13.49 × 16.17 inches

    DPI Height: 200
    DPI Width: 200
    Pixel Height: 3,234
    Pixel Width: 2,698

    Muscatine TIFF 8.695 x 10.355 inches

    Pixel Height: 2071
    Pixel Width: 1739

    Yes, that computes quite nicely 2071/10.335=200 1739/8.695=200. Both are 200 DPI just one contains more pixels because of the larger canvas size. The JPEG I found embedded has dimension 1243×1043, let’s see… that’s about 120 DPI (1243/10.335= 120.17, 1042/8.695=120). It all starts adding up.

    So no resolution change, just recompressed

    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
    Balony ! Bologna !

    You are still fooling around with that freetoy JPEG extractor.

    The extracted JPEG from 4db82608b486f.pdf is W = 14.486 in. x 17.264 in. The resolution of the JPEG is 72 PPI x 72 PPI.

    I told you to get some modern tools months ago.

    Hopeless…Deluded…Confused…Clueless…

    The forger constructed all of his images using a MAC OS with a screen resolution of 72 PPI x 72 PPI.

    It’s really not complicated when you search for the truth.

  23. Interesting find, whatever4. Check out 42-30337406 – it’s a color version of the long-form, but not at the same size. It might be from the WH LFBC, with the white trimmed, or it might be something new. The preview doesn’t have enough detail to be certain.

  24. Funny then that they all produce such crummy scanned images.

    Again our poor soul has confused quality with compression. When instructed the scanner will provide a highly compressed document but no color fringes or pin cushioning illusions…

    Poor Hermitian does not really understand the differences…

    And he still has not shown any reasoned rebuttal of my findings.

  25. The extracted JPEG from 4db82608b486f.pdf is W = 14.486 in. x 17.264 in. The resolution of the JPEG is 72 PPI x 72 PPI.

    and what if you scale down the picture… The PPI increase… Does our friend really not understand how to properly compare PPI?

    Hilarious… But not too surprising.

  26. There is no evidence Applewhite created the Muscatine image and worse, the timeline does not fit as our poor friend is confused about time zones.

    All his follies have long since been rebutted. Somehow he may have forgotten.

    Such ignorance…

  27. There is no evidence Applewhite created the Muscatine image and worse, the timeline does not fit as our poor friend is confused about time zones. Applewhite created the blue image on 8:56AM EDT, and the pdf was created around 9:30AM EDT, the Muscatine PDF was created around 10:00AM EDT.

    All his follies have long since been rebutted. Somehow he may have forgotten.

    Such ignorance…

    And so confused about the timeline. Does our friend refuse to learn from his mistakes?… Fascinating…

  28. W. Kevin Vicklund says:

    August 30, 2013 at 19:46

    “Hermie might want to ponder why his 8-bit greyscale scans exhibit “pincushion distortion” yet his 1-bit B&W scans don’t…”

    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
    As always Vicklund is clueless.

    But he does seem to be singing a different song from NBC. Or is it just a single verse ?

  29. The extracted JPEG from 4db82608b486f.pdf is W = 14.486 in. x 17.264 in. The resolution of the JPEG is 72 PPI x 72 PPI.

    Wrong. The resolution of the JPEG is undefined. Nowhere in the DCTDecoded bitstream is the resolution actually stated. Number of pixels? Yes. Resolution? No.

    Format of JPEG bitstream: SOI, APP14 (Adobe specific application data, sets colorspace to YCbCr), DQT (quantization tables, two defined in one marker), SOF (height and width in pixels, sampling rate and quant table for components), DHT (Huffman Tables, four defined in one marker), SOS (which Huffman tables to use), EOI

  30. Applewhite first created the Muscatine Journal’s PDF image with White background and 30 minutes later he created the pale-Blue copy.

    After hopping into his time machine to go back an hour, presumably, since the pale-blue has a timestamp of half-an-hour before the Muscatine Journal image.

  31. NBC says:

    August 31, 2013 at 05:19

    “There is no evidence Applewhite created the Muscatine image and worse, the timeline does not fit as our poor friend is confused about time zones. Applewhite created the blue image on 8:56AM EDT, and the pdf was created around 9:30AM EDT, the Muscatine PDF was created around 10:00AM EDT.”

    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
    Except for the fact that Applewhite and the AP caption writer are the only persons identified in the file METADATA.

  32. Our poor friend is still unwilling to accept that the metadata do not support his claims. People may want to look for postings tagged with Muscatine PDF as we have totally destroyed Hermitian’s claims…

    He just has a hard time accepting these facts.

    For example Muscatine PDF and Author and Muscatine and embedded thummail which shows the same DCSA103 tag.

    And the creation time

    8:53EDT – Applewhite takes the picture
    9:28EDT – The AP PDF is created
    10:00EDT – Muscatine editor imports JPEG into photoshop (3)

    (1) IPTC tag

    Time Created : 08:53:21+00:00

    (2) PDF metadata

    Modify Date : 2011:04:27 09:29:01-04:00
    Create Date : 2011:04:27 09:28:48-04:00

    (3) PDF Metadata

    Create Date : 2011:04:27 09:00:38-05:00
    Metadata Date : 2011:04:27 09:01:39-05:00

  33. As always Vicklund is clueless.

    Projecting…

    Vicklund is trying to help Hermitian understand the illusion of “pincushioning distortion”… Good luck with that…

  34. “W. Kevin Vicklund says:

    “August 31, 2013 at 15:32

    “”The extracted JPEG from 4db82608b486f.pdf is W = 14.486 in. x 17.264 in. The resolution of the JPEG is 72 PPI x 72 PPI.””

    “Wrong. The resolution of the JPEG is undefined. Nowhere in the DCTDecoded bitstream is the resolution actually stated. Number of pixels? Yes. Resolution? No.”

    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
    Wrong ! the image size is defined from the W and H pixels defined within the PDF as follows:

    W = 1043 x 1/72 = 14.486 in.

    H = 1243 x 1/72 = 17.264 in.

    The default pixel size for PDF is 1/72 in. unless declared otherwise.

    I confirmed the result by loading my extracted JPEG in Photoshop CC. The W and H values match.

    The PDF was created in Photoshop CS2.

  35. It is important to look at the objects to determine their PPI. Relying on the PDF does not help one establish this. I have shown that both the AP JPEG in the AP PDF and the AP JPEG in the Muscatine PDF are both 200 ppi, when properly compared. However, the Muscatine JPEG has been compressed a second time after the bluish tint was removed in photoshop so its quality is less than that of the AP PDF.

    Simple really. Width and height of the PDF can be confusing but you need to compare apples and apples here. What is the resolution when both images are shown at the same size.

    It ain’t rocket science but it continues to confuse some people… No worries… Once you properly extract the images you too can determine its resolution.

  36. “42-30337406 – it’s a color version of the long-form, but not at the same size.”

    It’s from the WH LFBC PDF.

    Licensing a publicly available image. Hope the haven’t had too many takers on that one!

  37. The default pixel size for PDF is 1/72 in. unless declared otherwise.

    And the PDF declares otherwise.

  38. W. Kevin Vicklund says:

    August 31, 2013 at 20:04

    The default pixel size for PDF is 1/72 in. unless declared otherwise.

    And the PDF declares otherwise.
    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
    Talk about tuck on wrong !

    For pixel resolution of 200 PPI x 200 PPI for a TIFF, the METADATA gives the page size in pixels as W = 1739 ; H = 2071. This checks with the measured page size in Illustrator as follows:

    W = 1739 x 1/200 = 8.695 in. H = 2071 x 1/200 = 10.355 in.

    Using your claimed pixel size of 1/200 in. x 1/200 in. for the artbox gives a small page size:

    W = 626.04 x 1/200 = 3.1302 in. H = 745.56 x 1/200 = 3.7278 in.

    Plus NBC has always had to apply a ratio of pixel sizes (ex. 300/72) to the boundary size in pixels for his boundary alignment analyses using data from the PDF.

  39. Plus NBC has always had to apply a ratio of pixel sizes (ex. 300/72) to the boundary size in pixels for his boundary alignment analyses using data from the PDF.

    Yes, the 24 and 48% scaling that maps the 150 and 300 ppi images on the canvas. But the images in this ’72 ppi’ PDF are still 150 and 300 ppi.

    Both the AP and Muscatine PDF include 200 ppi image, although the Muscatine PDF’s jpeg has been recompressed after color correction and is thus of a lower quality.

    I am still not sure what our friend is trying to argue here though but I am sure it is ‘extremely relevant’🙂

  40. I have now successfully extracted the JPEG from the Muscatine Journal PDF file “4db82608b486f.pdf” and obtained the same page size and resolution by means of three different PDF image extractors.

    These three extractions produced a page size of W = 14.486 in. x 17.264 in. The pixel resolution is 72 PPI x 72 PPI.

  41. These three extractions produced a page size of W = 14.486 in. x 17.264 in. The pixel resolution is 72 PPI x 72 PPI.

    That makes them 120 ppi how disappointing… compared to the 200ppi for applewhite’s image

    Hermitian has been struggling with this for some time here

    The PDF in question is interesting because it contains the data that allows one to continue to edit the document in PDF. This contains another JPEG. So there are three objects. A thumbnail, the image as rendered, the image as embedded in the ‘psd’ private area of the PDF.

  42. For pixel resolution of 200 PPI x 200 PPI for a TIFF, the METADATA gives the page size in pixels as W = 1739 ; H = 2071. This checks with the measured page size in Illustrator as follows:

    W = 1739 x 1/200 = 8.695 in. H = 2071 x 1/200 = 10.355 in.

    See? Exactly what I said. The bitstream of the image does not give the resolution image, it is the PDF that defnes the resolution. Note that baseline JPEG does not have a means of specifying resolution, though it can be done in JFIF (and IIRC, Exif).

    Using your claimed pixel size of 1/200 in. x 1/200 in. for the artbox gives a small page size:

    W = 626.04 x 1/200 = 3.1302 in. H = 745.56 x 1/200 = 3.7278 in.

    I have never claimed a “pixel size” for the artbox. The dimensions of a PDF /Page object (Illustrator calls this an Artbox) is measured in default user space units, which is normally 1/72″, though in later versions of PDF, you can change this. It is, however, a unit of measurement, not a resolution. That is why anything that is other than a 72 PPI image shows as being scaled.

  43. Uh oh, Kevin has given away the key to the candy store by finally divulging to Hermitian the concept of default user space. So funny…

    In the mean time, I have tried to help out our friend with the Muscatine workflow

    Needless to say, not much of Hermitian’s original ideas survived close scrutiny.

  44. Uh oh, Kevin has given away the key to the candy store by finally divulging to Hermitian the concept of default user space. So funny…

    Funny, it’s impossible to fully understand the cm commands without this concept. Didn’t he claim to have read a PDFReferenceXX?

  45. Well, he may have read it but is seems to take him some time for it to properly digest.

    Remember the order of the filters?…

    He too may soon understand why the Illustrator windows show 24 and 48% scaling…

  46. So we now have explained the WH LFBC workflow, as well as the Muscatine PDF workflow, and have rebutted the claims about the 35-1 versus 15-1 versions of the WHLFBC. What else has our friend claimed that we can lay to rest by looking at the data? This is too much fun.

  47. W. Kevin Vicklund says:

    September 1, 2013 at 18:26

    “”For pixel resolution of 200 PPI x 200 PPI for a TIFF, the METADATA gives the page size in pixels as W = 1739 ; H = 2071. This checks with the measured page size in Illustrator as follows:

    W = 1739 x 1/200 = 8.695 in. H = 2071 x 1/200 = 10.355 in””.

    “See? Exactly what I said. The bitstream of the image does not give the resolution image, it is the PDF that defnes the resolution. Note that baseline JPEG does not have a means of specifying resolution, though it can be done in JFIF (and IIRC, Exif).”

    Nope still doesn’t work…

    The page size using your assumed resolution of 200 PPI x 200 PPI on the pixel dimensions from the PDF would be as follows:

    W = 1043 x 1/200 = 5.215 in. ; H = 1243 x 1/200 = 6.215

    Thus to obtain the correct page size (given the page size in pixels from the PDF ) requires a pixel size of

    119.954 PPI = 1043 / 8.695 in. ; 120.039 PPI = 1243 / 10.355

    i.e. close to 120 PPI.

    However, this Adobe Photoshop CS2 created file opens in Adobe Photoshop CC at 200 PPI x 200 PPI with a page size of

    W = 8.695 in. ; H = 10.355 in.

    And it also opens in Adobe Illustrator CC with the same page size and a resolution close to 120 PPI x 120 PPI.

  48. And it also opens in Adobe Illustrator CC with the same page size and a resolution close to 120 PPI x 120 PPI.

    Yes, you are missing the JPEG in the PSD file… Which is 200 ppi. The jpeg your tools keep extracting is indeed 120ppi

  49. NBC says:

    September 1, 2013 at 18:29

    “Uh oh, Kevin has given away the key to the candy store by finally divulging to Hermitian the concept of default user space. So funny…

    In the mean time, I have tried to help out our friend with the Muscatine workflow”

    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
    I totally ignore your stuff NBC because you rarely get it right.
    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

    “Needless to say, not much of Hermitian’s original ideas survived close scrutiny.”

    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
    The 16 x 16 block alignment for the mostly text layer of the WH LFCOLB PDF image survives.
    The minimum page size for the WH LFCOLB PDF image survives.
    The nearly complete removal of text from the WH LFCOLB image survives.
    The superior image quality of the WH LFCOLB and my B&W scans (of same) compared to all the Xerox scan to PDF images survives.

    Just on these alone we see that the Xerox forger just doesn’t have the right stuff.

    And also I have extracted all of the bitmap images from the Xerox 7535 scan to PDF image. The extraction produced one JPEG compressed
    bitmap and 16 BMP bitmaps. All of the images were large and 72 PPI x 72 PPI pixel resolution when opened in Adobe Photoshop CC. The page size of each image was appropriate for the scale reduction factor of 48% or 24 % applied when the PDF file is opened in Adobe Illustrator CC.

    All of the BMP files were binary Black on White. These results confirm that the BMP images posted earlier by NBC were also Black and White. NBC has still not explained how the MRC calculates the color values for each image layer. NBC is playing possum on this question because I have already identified two new type of image objects that were created in the Xerox 7535 scan to PDF which are not found in the WH LFCOLB PDF. I suspect that the “miscellaneous” objects appearing in his recent object lists from the Xerox 7655 scan to PDF files are some more of these new types. The method of calculating the color values for the new objects may be different from the method used for the objects appearing in the WH LFCOLB PDF. This difference could provide proof that these objects are not found in the WH LFCOLB. This would be the case if MRC parameters could not be set to eliminate the new objects.

    So we are accumulating an impressive list of deficiencies in the Xerox scan to PDF files which we can look for as soon as NBC releases his final workflow and PDF files.

  50. The 16 x 16 block alignment for the mostly text layer of the WH LFCOLB PDF image survives.
    The minimum page size for the WH LFCOLB PDF image survives.
    The nearly complete removal of text from the WH LFCOLB image survives.
    The superior image quality of the WH LFCOLB and my B&W scans (of same) compared to all the Xerox scan to PDF images survives.

    There is no logic behind the 16×16 alignment of a single block but the 8 x 8 bit alignment is universal and seen across other Xerox Scans. There is a good probability that one of the layers would align at 16×16 as well. Hermitian is confusion coincidence with necessity.

    All of the images were large and 72 PPI x 72 PPI pixel resolution when opened in Adobe Photoshop CC.

    Sigh… still not understanding the concept… When they are scaled 24 and 48 % their resolution becomes 300 and 150 ppi.

    Come on my friend.

    . NBC has still not explained how the MRC calculates the color values for each image layer.

    The average of all the pixel values that it has identified as closely related.

    I have already identified two new type of image objects that were created in the Xerox 7535 scan to PDF which are not found in the WH LFCOLB PDF.

    No you have not done so. You believe that they are somehow different but they are not. Sigh.

    As to the superior quality of your scans, that again is because our friend does not comprehend what happens when scanning a document using MRC compression.

    As I said, there is nothing much that remains that requires any further explanations.

    What Hermitian refuses to admit is that my artifacts and my findings continue to hold strongly, and that Hermitian is working hard to create strawmen arguments while ignoring how all these artifacts line up.

    It’s that simple really.

    Well, he tries but seems to lack the tools and understanding of PDF and JPEG encodings to present a valid alternative to my findings, or even rebut them.

    It’s what Hermitian ignores which makes my findings so strong… In other words, he all but admitted that they are valid but insists on some issues of ignorance to claim otherwise.

    Note that Hermitian has yet to provide ANY evidence to support his work flow, other than by proposing a ‘forger’ who acts just like a Xerox WorkCentre.

    Poor Hermitian… First his affidavit was ripped to shreds, then his Muscatine/AP hypotheses and now he has nothing to offer to rebut my findings.

    Perhaps there is a role for him with the Cold Case Posse after all. He would fit in quite well I am sure.

  51. As to separation

    Check out the 7655 image

    What John fails to understand is that the level of separation is highly sensitive to the document used and even then it varies significantly.

    What he refuses to admit to is that all artifacts pointed to by the CCP have been explained.

    And that must hurt…

  52. NBC says:

    September 1, 2013 at 20:57

    “”And it also opens in Adobe Illustrator CC with the same page size and a resolution close to 120 PPI x 120 PPI””.

    “Yes, you are missing the JPEG in the PSD file… Which is 200 ppi. The jpeg your tools keep extracting is indeed 120ppi”

    Well I don’t know about your “JPEG in the PSD” but if you simply open the Photoshop CS2 file 4db82608b486f.pdf in Photoshop CC ans then Save as 4db82608b486f.psd then the Photoshop PSD bitmap image is 200 PPI x 200 PPI. In fact it looks just like the PDF image opened in Photoshop. Which suggests that the file is just a PSD in a PDF wrapper.

  53. Which suggests that the file is just a PSD in a PDF wrapper.

    Partially true. The PDF is a real PDF with PSD stored in the Private area.

    Just as I explained a while ago. Adobe supports a private object approach where it hides the original file and writes out a PDF as specified.

    The JPEG inside the PDF, not the PSD (or better stated the DCTDecode object) has been recompressed from its original AP JPEG. I am sure that one can see the effects. In addition it is a 120×120 DPI object.

    So the workflow I proposed fully matches so far.

  54. I see your point… Since it is encoded as PSD, its origins are perhaps lost, other than of course the fact that its metadata made it into the PDF file, as I have shown a while ago.

    So my proposed workflow for the Muscatine PDF seems so far quite reasonable as the data so far supports it.

    What I find interesting is the suggestion that the AP JPEG is also for sale in a ~28Mb 300 ppi format… I would love to get my hands on that one.

  55. NBC says:

    August 30, 2013 at 19:54

    “Still not pincushion distortion”.

    “ROTFL… Well, he is trying but is unwilling to accept the difference between distortion (a physical process) and illusion”.

    So if you a nearsighted thats just an illusion?
    People don’t pay good money to correct illusions.

  56. So if you a nearsighted thats just an illusion?
    People don’t pay good money to correct illusions.

    Nope, that is a defect in the lens. This however is not a defect in the lens but rather a trick of the mind. The illusion disappears when you add parallel lines.

    Hence an illusion.

    It is not that hard to understand the differences, really…

    One is a real physical process, the other an illusion, a trick on our brain.

  57. NBC says:

    September 1, 2013 at 22:22

    “As to separation

    “Check out the 7655 image

    “What John fails to understand is that the level of separation is highly sensitive to the document used and even then it varies significantly.”

    “What he refuses to admit to is that all artifacts pointed to by the CCP have been explained.”

    The paper original must have been slightly better for the 7655 scan. When are you going to admit that you are tweaking the original to control the separation ?

  58. NBC

    “One is a real physical process, the other an illusion, a trick on our brain”

    Where do they measure pincushion distortion for a camera lens? Is it on the test pattern or the film plane ? Do you place your ruler on a line on the test pattern or do you place your ruler on the image of the same line on the film ?

    It’s really quite simple… for most people.

  59. The paper original must have been slightly better for the 7655 scan. When are you going to admit that you are tweaking the original to control the separation ?

    ROTFL. Well, yes these were two different documents. Mine actually printed out bluish. But it does not matter, the level of separation is determined by the original used. What I have shown is how all the CCP PDF artifacts that were claimed to be evidence of forgery are observed in a simple workflow.

    If you are claiming that I am working to optimize the original so as to better match the WH LFBC pdf, then you are mistaken. My work has been done.

    If our diligent friend and researcher Dr Conspiracy manages to get a document created on real security paper, then I may be tempted to run the document through an actual test. But I am sure that Dr C can find himself a Xerox workcentre. Heck, even John has found one. So how is your search going to repeat the experiment my friend?

    I am trying to remember what I did to create the document. I believe it is just a printout of the WH PDF onto an inkjet printer at highest quality and then scanned back in on a Xerox WorkCentre.

    If your best argument is the incomplete separation then you have not much left.

    Is that really the best you have? Do you even understand why the argument is as foolish as your ‘my B&W scan is superior’?

    First of all, you have to understand what I did: I tested the CCP’s claims that there is not a single workflow that can explain the artifacts in the WH PDF. Note that I am only addressing real artifacts, not claims about the ‘x’ in the stamp or the smiley face or the race, just the artifacts that people had predicted to be MRC generated.

    And I did find the culprit, and the experiments showed how I could repeat a dozen or so artifacts. Even the CCP was not foolish enough to expect such a process to exactly repeat the WH PDF scan…

  60. I am not sure why Hermitian is under the impression that I am trying to stack the deck in my favor. I reported on my Quantization Matrix findings, I used a clearly sub-standard original (bluish tint) but my goal was not to match the Obama LF BC, bur rather to show that all these artifacts have a simple origin.

  61. Where do they measure pincushion distortion for a camera lens?

    Apples and oranges. The pin chushioning in a lens does not disappear when parallel lines are added.

    Sigh… Our poor friend still does not understand that what his mind told him looked like pin cushioning was a trick of the imagination. No lenses created this ‘distortion’, it was our brain that was confused.

    You do understand the difference I assume?

    A pin cushioning distortion is a real effect where parallel lines are no longer so. A pin cushioning illusion is where the mind is tricked into believing that the image shows pin cushioning but in reality the lines are quite parallel.

    What’s so hard to understand here?

  62. NBC

    “If our diligent friend and researcher Dr Conspiracy manages to get a document created on real security paper, then I may be tempted to run the document through an actual test”

    Well Mr. C created his “Reconstruction of the Obama LFCOLB two years before the White House released it. It’s also on Green basket-weave safety paper. So what have you been waiting for ?

  63. Well Mr. C created his “Reconstruction of the Obama LFCOLB two years before the White House released it. It’s also on Green basket-weave safety paper. So what have you been waiting for ?

    A better resolution one… But if you are willing to accept the document as relevant… I am however looking for an opportunity to further test the halos.

    Such beautiful halos, even the CCP could not really explain them🙂 Of course, now we have a simple workflow.

  64. NBC

    “I am trying to remember what I did to create the document. I believe it is just a printout of the WH PDF onto an inkjet printer at highest quality and then scanned back in on a Xerox WorkCentre.”

    ” I’m trying to remember” is not the scientific process. I recall that you reported making two different copies of the WH LFCOLB.
    So you made dozens of Xerox scans from a printout and you can’t even remember how you printed it ?

    So you had the Xerox WC. Why didn’t you print out the WH LFCOLB on your ‘high-end” MFP ?

  65. NBC continues to duck the obvious problem with his workflow. And that is he claims that the Xerox WC “print to PDF for E-mail” leaves a letter size document in landscape orientation. If so it’s the only Xerox that I have ever heard of that does so. isn’t it strange that no one ever complained ?

  66. ” I’m trying to remember” is not the scientific process. I recall that you reported making two different copies of the WH LFCOLB.
    So you made dozens of Xerox scans from a printout and you can’t even remember how you printed it ?

    It’s not really relevant. I did my experiments and the facts speak for themselves. The exact nature of the documents just do not have any relevance.

    Poor Hermitian is just upset that he never thought of doing any real research.

  67. If so it’s the only Xerox that I have ever heard of that does so. isn’t it strange that no one ever complained ?

    Even Hermitian has seen this effect when opening the PDF in illustrator.

    He is a bit slow in understanding the relevance…

    Note that it does not show the document in landscape just that the images are stored internally in landscape.

    Sorry Hermitian, this is basic stuff…. Do you still not comprehend this? No wonder you stand no chance…

  68. NBC

    “Partially true. The PDF is a real PDF with PSD stored in the Private area.”

    “Just as I explained a while ago. Adobe supports a private object approach where it hides the original file and writes out a PDF as specified.”

    Wrong! The Muscatine PDF is a Photoshop PDF with a public image and a hidden bitmap in the private area. These two images I posted before here:

    The dark, colored image is the private one. When the Photoshop PDF is saved as a Photoshop PSD bitmap there results a single file containing the public image. This PSD image appears to be the same as the PDF public image. I found no evidence of the hidden image in the PSD file using 010 Editor.

    The fact that the Muscatine PDF loads at different resolutions in Photoshop and Illustrator is evidence that Photoshop PDF files and Adobe PDF files are not necessarily the same.

  69. Do you place your ruler on a line on the test pattern or do you place your ruler on the image of the same line on the film ?

    Strictly speaking, the test pattern is itself a ruler – a 2D grid. You then use another ruler on the image of the test pattern to see how much deviation from the expected pattern there is. But with a straight edge, you can determine whether or not there is distortion, provided you have a test image with a straight line. I note that since Hermie doesn’t have the original, he doesn’t have a means of comparing the two images to see if there’s distortion. Also, he is using straight edges to look at something that doesn’t have a straight line.

  70. The fact that the Muscatine PDF loads at different resolutions in Photoshop and Illustrator is evidence that Photoshop PDF files and Adobe PDF files are not necessarily the same.

    Still refusing to understand or even refusing to look at the raw PDF. The PDF is a normal PDF which renders on all viewers, however, the PDF contains a private object which is interpreted by photoshop and which contains the ‘working file’. In this case the “PSD” contains a 200 ppi version while the PDF contains a 120 ppi version.
    This is what happens when you ‘import’ the AP JPEG into photoshop to crop and change the color hue and then save as pdf without turning off ‘preserve editing capabilities’.

    Our friend Hermitian still is struggling with these simple facts. If only he had the means to parse the PDF and he would have recognized the use of a private object.

    I explained it all before. I guess it was lost on our friend. Of course it destroys completely his beliefs that somehow Applewhite created the Muscatine PDF because he does not appreciate the workflow and the effects of said workflow. It takes a few simple experiments to verify all this, so has Hermitian done the experiments? That’s what a diligent researcher would have done…

Comments are closed.