Helping out Hermitian

Perhaps our friend has not realized that I have been building the ‘report’ in the last few weeks, on this site. Did he really miss it all?

Workflow successes

With examples of other Xerox WorkCentre PDF’s which all show the same embedded jPEG and quantization tables.

Hermitian has been incredibly helpful in building out this vast array of evidence that support a Xerox WorkCentre workflow.

The Cold Case Posse is aware of the work and it’s really up to them to either admit to their mistakes or explain why the work flow is insufficient.

Hermitian: Just so the readers will know exactly what I am referring to — I am referring to the Xerox 7655 scan to PDF image of your latest printout of the Obama WH LFCOLB that you claim shows the same quantization tables as the Xerox 7535 scan to PDF file that you have released. The only quantization tables that you both have released and that you claim came from a Xerox scan to PDF of the copy of the WH LFCOLB was produced on a Xerox 7535 and not on the Xerox 7655 WC.

Hermitian is wrong. I never claimed that my scans showed the same quatization tables as the 7535 or WH LFBC PDF. For obvious reasons: I posted the evidence that they did not match. However, in a stroke of luck, I looked at the WH 7655 Tax Return form scans of our President and VP, and noticed that they were created on a 7655 Work Centre and how their quantization tables matched. And contrary to Hermitian’s claim, I did publish that information.

If Hermitian has anything relevant to contribute, please let him do so but at the moment his ‘arguments’ have been reduced to totally irrelevant issues.

Until then, I would like to thank him again for his contributions.

Hermitian: 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.

Well it was not really that cleanly as somehow many characters were missed but yes, the quality of the separation depends on the quality of the original. So noone is really expecting a perfect match.

Hermitian: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.

Yes, when you take a MRC compressed document and print it out and scan again using MRC, degradation is unavoidable but also expected. These are minor quibbles about the process which have no relevance to the overall success of the work flow as it explains ALL the artifacts, once claimed by the Cold Case Posse to be 100% proof that the PDF was somehow forged.

Hermitian may not appreciate these subtleties of the scientific method, but there are two competing hypotheses here: 1) These artifacts cannot be explained by simple workflow processes (aka argument from ignorance) 2) here are the simple steps which repeat all observed artifacts with all the details as to how to repeat it, and independent evidence from various sources and experiments.

If Hermitian wants to debunk 2) he has to do better than ‘my unknown forger’ for some reasons did better but not really and in fact managed to mimic the Xerox WorkCentre workflow in all aspects… So far NO evidence of a human forger intervention has been identified.

Hermitian: 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.

Again Hermitian is confused. While the original was indeed scanned at 600×600 PPI, the maximum resolution for scanning, the image was significantly degraded by the MRC compression. So, the first step for Hermitian is to understand what happened when the document was scanned. And although I and others have explained this, it may be helpful to further explain.

The 600×600 PPI image is separated by MRC software into a single background and multiple foregrounds. The background is compressed with JPEG at about a 50% quality level (which is quite high) with the chrominance channels down-sampled a factor of 2 and then downsampled to 150×150 PPI resolution. The foreground is encoded in JBIG2 and down-sampled to 300×300 PPI.

Why Hermitian expect the document to be comparable to a 600×600 DPI(?) scan may need some explanation. Furthermore, the original document was already MRC compressed and of much inferior quality than the original document in possession of the White House. So it comes as no surprise that printing it out, and scanning it again, further degrades the document. Simple really.

Hermitiation: 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.

Again our poor friend does not understand the timeline. When I started my experiments, I reported that the quantization matrix found in my samples did NOT match the one in the WH LFBC PDF. Why would I have to retract these findings, are they are still factual? What I did find however is that the 7535 and other Work Centre PDF’s all matched the Quantization matrix and thus I compared it to the WH Tax Form scans which had been done on a 7655. And indeed, they showed the same quantization matrix as the WH LFBC PDF. It appears now that Hermitian totally missed these developments and now believes that I recently found out that the matrix matches…

In fact, he is many weeks behind… He blames me for his failures. That’s too bad. Why he wants me to retract my factual findings is beyond me. Science does not work that way. I report the data, positive or negative and define additional experiments to try to explain the observations. The fact that the tables match on the WH 7655 used for scanning the Tax forms of our President, help strengthen my workflow. Note that the exact nature of the scanner is of little relevance, other than that it a Xerox. My prediction of the 7655 as the culprit is based on logical inferences, and is icing on the cake. The same applies to detecting that the document was scanned upside down.

Perhaps Hermitian missed me posting the data for the 7655 Tax forms? Or perhaps our friend has trouble locating them online? Well, that is not exactly my problem now is it? Others have found it trivial to locate these documents. Perhaps you should pay more attention to people like RC, who have contributed immensely to the unraveling of the workflow.

Hermitian: The larger page size of all of NBC’s Xerox scans do not satisfy the 16 x 16 block alignment.

Neither does the WH LFBC my dear friend. Another strawman argument… Well done. But why not focus on the facts. And why there is 8 bit but not 16 bit alignment in 300 PPI. I am sure that eventually you too will come to see the light here.

27 thoughts on “Helping out Hermitian

  1. Hermitian in on probation/moderation. I doubt he realizes that he is mostly talking to the spam queue

  2. Adrian Nash has recently made the suggestion the birth certificate itself is a forgery because it impossible for Hawaii to have copied like they said. Even though the Virginia Sunahara resulted in a dismissal it revealed critical information on how they make the birth certificates. Below is some of the description on how this is done:

    “Short forms are printed on demand, and the clerk does not need to leave the desk. The long forms were bound into volumes and are stored in a climate controlled vault. The records themselves are old and fragile. They are copied on a special photocopier kept in the vault that allows for better protection of the binding. Allowing on-demand production of long form copies would inevitably result in records being torn and damaged, and that this would include records other than the one being copied.”

    This was explained by Jill Nagamine. So we know this much:

    1. Obama’s original is in the vault and extremely old and fragile since it is from 1961.

    2. Obama’s birth certificate was copied using special photocopier and placed in book for better protection of the binding.

    3. Obama’s birth certificate was next copied on to safety paper and given to Obama as a certified copy.

    What does this mean? It means Obama’s birth certificate was basically a 3rd generation copy. However, In looking the Savanna Gutherie photos of Obama’s BC there appears to be no deformations (No fading or other marks that would pick up the older background) in the safety paper background. The background is nice and crisp. It would seem the either the Birth certificate was printed to the safety paper from “air” or the birth certificate was printed to safety paper directly from a computer suggesting that birth certificate is indeed manufactured and fabricated.

  3. John fails to realize that the only birth vital records for the President that really matter are the records stored at the Hawaii Department of Health which no one except Hawaii government officials and staff have ever seen. All copies are based on the original long form which since 2011 has been stored in a safe in the office of Dr. Alvin T. Onaka, Registrar of Vital Statistics.
    If any judge or any congressional committee should ever want to inspect the original, first generation, hard copy vault edition record, they can issue a court order or a congressional subpoena for that vital record.

  4. And where is evidence of the previous background of the birth certificate? The copying process should have picked up something but it appears that Obama’s birth certificate looks like is was printed from “air” or from “glass” (Meaning their was no background to the birth certificate, just lines and text and the lines and text were sitting on some type “air” or some type of “glass” meaning that when it was printed on the safety paper, the background was nice and crisp indicating no presense of a previous background; an impossibility for a hard copy birth certificate but not for a computer generated one.)

  5. “And where is evidence of the previous background of the birth certificate?”

    The original is on white paper with black ink.

    Here is what the DOH told Ivan Zakovich

    “A representative of the Hawaii Department of Health described how the copy of the Obama Birth
    Certificate was produced. She stated that the copy of Obama’s birth certificate was produced by taking
    the original paper birth certificate, which was black printing on white paper. The original is then placed
    on the photocopy machine and that image is copied onto green ‘safety paper’. That green copy is then
    stamped, dated and signed by the State Registrar.”

    “That Hawaii Department of Health stated that they had nothing to do with producing the PDF, and
    directed me to the White House for all such questions.”

    http://www.ecompconsultants.com/news/Obama-report.pdf

  6. John said: “2. Obama’s birth certificate was copied using special photocopier and placed in book for better protection of the binding.

    3. Obama’s birth certificate was next copied on to safety paper and given to Obama as a certified copy.”

    I think you have added a step, John. Step 2 should be “the original birth record was bound in a book in 1961. ” Then #3 is “In 2011, Obama’s birth record was copied onto safety paper using a special photocopier for better protection of the book’s binding.”

    The book contain originals, not copies. The copies were not printed onto white paper then safety paper, they went from original in the book to copy on safety paper.

  7. Details details… You know what John means… Do not look at the facts, but speculate… No wonder or surprise that Hermitian is impressed.

  8. 1. Obama’s original is in the vault and extremely old and fragile since it is from 1961.

    2. Obama’s birth certificate was copied using special photocopier and placed in book for better protection of the binding.

    3. Obama’s birth certificate was next copied on to safety paper and given to Obama as a certified copy.

    A plain reading of the Sunahara quote shows that that is in correct. Here’s what we actually know, based on that quote:

    1. Obama’s original is in the vault and old and somewhat fragile since it is from 1961, and bound in a book for better protection of the original.

    2. Obama’s birth certificate was copied (using a special photocopier for better protection of the binding) on to safety paper and given to Obama as a certified copy.

    Here’s what happened. The original birth records are black ink on a white background, bound into a book. The special copier is (probably) preset to copy only the dimensions of the birth certificate portion from the original birth records, an area approximately 6.25″ wide by 5.25″ tall. The paper tray is loaded with security paper. The bound record is placed with the upper-right edge of the paper face-down at the upper-left corner of the copier glass platen, thus allowing for proper alignment. The copy is printed onto the security paper, with the copied area centered on the page. Because the background is white, very little of the background gets copied, mainly the shadow from where the page curves from the binding, but if you look carefully at the WH LFBC PDF, you can see a slight darkening to the background in the birth certificate area. I can see all four edges of this copied area on my computer screen, though the bottom and right edges are too subtle for my printer.

    As a side note, Xerox WorkCentres are among the list of photocopiers that have this capability.

    And where is evidence of the previous background of the birth certificate?

    Hope that answered your question!

  9. So the white background would super impose on to the safety paper. Definitley would look messed up.

  10. So the white background would super impose on to the safety paper. Definitley would look messed up.

    When was the last time you saw white printer ink?

  11. Photocopy a black text on white background document onto colored paper, and see how messed up it looks.

  12. Nope, the white background does not copy. Have you ever copied something? What happened when you copy something with a white background.
    Come on John do make some effort

  13. Actually, John is reading Arnash over at Squeeky’s and asking over here. John — He figured out the white ink problem by himself, go read then update your questions.

  14. White printer ink? Common enough in *specialty* applications. Silkscreening, packaging applications, signmaking, production of decals and labels.

    White toner is available for Xerox 5000 series models.
    Random patent for white toner: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2011/0159422.html
    Even available at the consumer level: http://www.oki.com/en/press/2011/12/z11090e.html

    OK, so, anyway, it does exist.still, like any other ink, it’s going to print a positive image onto a substrate. Even with the appropriate equipment (which certainly isn’t sitting around your typical office ….), you’d have to either go out of your way to force a white background to print, or print twice, once for the background, once for the foreground. And that would be incredibly ridiculous. If you want a white background, just use white paper.

  15. whatever4 says:

    August 30, 2013 at 02:54

    “John said: “2. Obama’s birth certificate was copied using special photocopier and placed in book for better protection of the binding.

    “3. Obama’s birth certificate was next copied on to safety paper and given to Obama as a certified copy.”

    “I think you have added a step, John. Step 2 should be “the original birth record was bound in a book in 1961. ” Then #3 is “In 2011, Obama’s birth record was copied onto safety paper using a special photocopier for better protection of the book’s binding.”

    “The book contain originals, not copies. The copies were not printed onto white paper then safety paper, they went from original in the book to copy on safety paper.

    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
    John’s point is still well taken. The original certified copies of the Nordyke twins LFCOLBs were white text on black background indicating that they were photocopied from microfilm. So we know that HDOH has yet again changed their method of producing certified copies. And they have done so without ever revising their own regulations as to the method permitted. Moreover, in 2001 the HDOH unilaterally changed their policy to only permit the production of the short-form COLB. For this change, contrary to Hawaii law, no public hearings were held to inform the public and seek public input.

    Now as John has noted, Duncan Sunahara’s request for a certified copy of his sister’s LFCOLB was turned aside on the pretext that permitting him to access the original Sunahara LFCOLB would potentially destroy Obama’s original LFCOLB because they are filed in the same bound volume. She also argued that non-employees of the HDOH are ever allowed to go into the vault to inspect any original birth certificate. She testified to that in spite of the fact that the HDOH regulations clearly permit this inspection by any person having met the requirements laid out in the applicable law.

    Collectively, the facts indicate that any certified copy produced for Obama were computer generated. Otherwise there would be visible imperfections in these copies which should match real defects in the original White paper certificate..

  16. Hermitian: Now as John has noted, Duncan Sunahara’s request for a certified copy of his sister’s LFCOLB was turned aside on the pretext that permitting him to access the original Sunahara LFCOLB would potentially destroy Obama’s original LFCOLB because they are filed in the same bound volume.

    I have read the documents, and that’s not really what the argument was. But yes, they did mention the President’s document…

    Perhaps our diligent researcher could provide us with some references, rather than repeat John’s musings?… Just in the interest of accuracy…

  17. It appears to me that Hermitian Henry is wrong yet again. Hawaii statutes allow the Director of Health to determine the method of reproduction of any copy of any certificate. The statute was last revised in 1978.
    §338-13 Certified copies. (a) Subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18, the department of health shall, upon request, furnish to any applicant a certified copy of any certificate, or the contents of any certificate, or any part thereof.
    (b) Copies of the contents of any certificate on file in the department, certified by the department shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original, subject to the requirements of sections 338-16,
    338-17, and 338-18.
    (c) Copies may be made by photography, dry copy reproduction, typing, computer printout or other process approved by the director of health. [L 1949, c 327, §17; RL 1955, §57-16; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-13; am L 1978, c 49, §1]

  18. Hermitian wrote:“John’s point is still well taken. The original certified copies of the Nordyke twins LFCOLBs were white text on black background indicating that they were photocopied from microfilm. “

    This is not actually true. The fact that they are white on black only shows that they are photostatic copies. Photostatic copies were (dependent on implementation) commonly photographic negative images of the item being copied… but not always. They were capable of producing images like the Nordyke’s from an ordinary original, or an ordinary looking image from a microfilm in negative. In short, the Nordyke certificates tell us nothing certain about the medium they were copied from, only the medium they were copied with.

  19. Hermitian wrote:Now as John has noted, Duncan Sunahara’s request for a certified copy of his sister’s LFCOLB was turned aside on the pretext that permitting him to access the original Sunahara LFCOLB would potentially destroy Obama’s original LFCOLB because they are filed in the same bound volume.

    This is not true. The argument offered by the State in successfully denying Duncan Sunahara a copy of his sister’s long form had nothing to do potential damage to the President’s original birth certificate. The computerized system was established for the purposes of efficiency and effectiveness by the Hawaii Department of Health. It is similar to the systems established in more than half of the other State Department’s of Health, and was established for the same reason. To the extent that old records are better preserved by such a system is simply a fortuitous side effect.

    Hermitian wrote:She also argued that non-employees of the HDOH are ever allowed to go into the vault to inspect any original birth certificate. She testified to that in spite of the fact that the HDOH regulations clearly permit this inspection by any person having met the requirements laid out in the applicable law.

    Now you are just inventing from whole cloth a regulation that does not exist.

Comments are closed.