Cold Case Posse Debunked

Reality Check

John Woodman

NBC

Frank Arduini

And with the release of the full xxxx birth certificate by Orly Taitz, and the release of the TXE stamp by Miki Booth (as documented by Butterdezillion), we now know that the CCP’s claims were further demolished.

In the first part, she describes an authentic certified copy of a birth certificate she had obtained that had been issued on May 4, 2011 just a couple of weeks after the President’s long form. Interestingly, the certificate was clearly stamped with the identical Registrar’s stamp used on the President’s, “TXE anomaly” and all.

Source: Vogt Debunked

butterdezillionWe should really thank these ladies for their tireless efforts…

30 thoughts on “Cold Case Posse Debunked

  1. The Xerox Workflow is simple. It offers a way to scan a document and email it. This workflow applies high compression to the document by using Mixed Raster compression. It separates the background from the foreground and saves the background as a compressed JPEG and the foregrounds are rendered as monochrome bitmaps. In addition, letters that are close in appearance are replaced with a single character, further increasing the compression.

    It’s not a flaw but rather a feature as a full TIFF would take tens of mega bytes and the PDF hundreds of kilobytes.

  2. I read your article on the ‘forged’ 5. Again, there are far better explanations for this that do not require one to invoke ‘forgery’.

  3. In other words, a “better explanation” is that the Workflow would have taken a normal stamped number five, and for some reason decided to add all these odd little features to it in order make it’s job easier and use less data? Even if it arbitrarily decided to “morph” these with the other three ‘5’s on the form because they are “similar in appearance” – why aren’t they all like this? Why are they all clear and normal and look like themselves? Sorry no,there are still features on this little “5” that aren’t any where else one the document. I don’t buy that office equipment made this strange character on it’s own as a “better explanation”. I wouldn’t want to be the lawyer going into court with documents “forged” by my scanner! It would be so much easier if the President would just let us see it for real in the book in Hawaii, so this whole talk of scanners and bitmaps and layers could be taken off the table and settled once and for all. But thanks for looking and responding –

  4. In other words, a “better explanation” is that the Workflow would have taken a normal stamped number five, and for some reason decided to add all these odd little features to it in order make it’s job easier and use less data?

    As anyone knows, a stamped digit can be less than perfect and since these stamps are trivial to acquire, why would someone go through the motion to make one from scratch and which, when forged by you, only superficially looks the same.

    Worse, the document has been certified and verified by the State of Hawaii who owns all these stamps. Again, this does not make any sense.

    As to the highly compressed PDF, of course that is not going to be taken into court, they would submit the certified copy.

    Somehow people do not want to accept such a simple fact.

  5. Even if it arbitrarily decided to “morph” these with the other three ’5′s on the form because they are “similar in appearance” – why aren’t they all like this?

    The 5 is part of a inked stamp and very distinct in appearance and is as such recognized by the segmentation algorithm which assigned to it a single color.

    Compare with the following stamp obtained a few weeks earlier. Note the similarity in the 2 in 2011 and the 5 in 15

    March 15

  6. This is just another example of the folly of performing typographical analysis on a third or even forth generation copy of an original. Then we are to believe that no rubber stamp ever stamped a single digit imperfectly but instead a clever forger left a portion of a letter “T” (from somewhere not explained) in the final product. To call this sort of analysis stupid is completely justified.

  7. I think the birthers probably use a Basic copy of the original instead of a Forth generation copy. (Does that mean the BC forgery was done by someone from Dartmouth?)

  8. FYI – we use the PDF on the White House website – since that’s the OFFICIAL “REAL” copy. And check back on the FrankenFive. It gets weirder.It’s in the wrong place and it’s too tall. http://www.accidentalpatriot4.wordpress.com Call me stupid if you want, but none of you has a better explanation on how this 5 was made. I don’t know if it was a T or the tops of the 11 or WHATEVER, but something strange happened here and it is NOT a stamp and it is not a scanner error. By the way, I do think he was born in Hawaii, I just believe this is a fraudulent document, and I don’t like being lied to by the President – though he’s really good at it..

  9. You presume that the 5 was ‘made’ when in fact it was stamped and then scanned.

    So far our President is far less a liar than most politicians and there is NO evidence that this document is fraudulent, even though some people see ‘artifacts’ that they believe need explanation in pure speculation.

  10. @accidentalpatriot4 — “By the way, I do think he was born in Hawaii, I just believe this is a fraudulent document…”
    __

    Can you explain this please? If you believe he was born in Hawaii, what information on the document do you believe to be false?

    The Hawaii DoH has verified all of it, and a document cannot be fraudulent unless it conveys incorrect information.

  11. FrankenFive is a one of a kind. He is not a STAMP. He was computer generated. (see my analysis here) And now, thanks to his detractor, I can show that the FrankenFive could not have been part of the same stamp that stamped the MAR 15 just 6 weeks earlier.

    Again, your ‘analysis’ shows that the two stamps are indeed very similar and therefor your claims need some careful analysis. You do realize that the numbers can rotate individually which means that they need not line up perfectly in the vertical. As to their distance to the year, the two appear to be quite similar, once realizing that the digit appears to be somewhat smeared.

    Not very convincing in light of the known facts…

  12. The application of Flate deflation by the Xerox 7535 MRC to the JPG compressed bitmap of the background layer from NBC’s scan to PDF file “wh-lfbc-scanned-xerox-7535-wc.pdf” achieved a compression of only 2.2 %. This low number is consistent with the fact that Flate is not the compression method of choice for JPG compressed bitmap files. Also a JPG compressed bitmap is not recommended for rendering an image consisting of scattered text and form lines on a near-uniform background.

    WinZip has developed an effective compression filter for JPG compressed files. I applied WinZip 18 to the raw extracted .jpg file of the background image. The file size was reduced from 231 KB (.jpg) to 173 KB (.zipx). Thus the .jpg file size was reduced by 25.1%.

    Consequently, either the Xerox is a stupid forger or a human dumbed his Xerox pal way down.

    Additionally, the term “Mixed Raster Content Compression” appears nowhere in the Xerox 7655 user’s manual. The manual is 1670 total pages. The acronym “MRC” also does not appear. The 262 page Xerox 7655 Administrator’s Manual has three instances of “MRC” in one paragraph under PDF formatted files.

    “Select MRC Compression if you want to use Mixed Raster Content (MRC) compression. MRC is used to
    divide the scanned image based on content, and then compress each area in the optimal manner for that
    image area. This option allows for smaller output files with better image quality.”

    An additional compression of 2.2% is hardly optimum !!!

    The operator selectable features do not include MRC. Instead a “slider control” allows the operator to choose settings between “minimum file size” and “maximum quality”. There is no indication how (or when) MRC is activated either by the machine control or the user’s manual.

    Consequently, only the administrator would be able to program the workcenter to “switch on” MRC at a specific compression/quality setting. Hence, the administrator would be the only one who would know the details of the MRC implementation on a given Xerox 7655 Workcenter.
    The operator would have to seek out the administrator if s/he had to know anything about MRC.

  13. The “Frankenfive” is an example of what I call (in my Ten Key Characteristics of Nut-Job Conspiracy Theorists) “Rube Goldsberg’s Razor.” Nut-jobs never settle for a simple solution to a problem when a hopelessly complex and idiotic alternative can be proposed.

    We are presented here with two competing explanations for the distorted “5.” In one it is an already distorted imprint of a rubber stamp that has been further distorted through at least three and probably four subsequent instances of copying, and the other we have a forger inexplicably choosing to digitally assemble a number “5” out of a number “6” and a letter “T.” The fact that the AP JPEG has experienced a vast about of “generation loss” distortion is not in the least controversial… any casual perusal of the image quickly identifies a large number of badly distorted characters even among letters and numbers that were originally typeset, let alone that originated as a rubber stamp. The assertion that any one of them (to include the “Frankenfive”) is so uniquely different that it cannot be explained by the same mechanisms that caused all the other distortion on the image is arbitrary hand waving. A badly distorted document that is then magnified and poured over with the preexisting intent to identify “anomalies” is little more than a Rorschach Test. You can see anything you want to see in it, none of which is actually there at all.

    Accidental Patriot’s proposed alternative “theories of history” are simply absurd. The first is that the date stamp had to be changed because the White House had announced that the document had been acquired on the 25th and the original “forgery” had a date of the 26th on it. In that theory, the forger (or another person) had to quickly go back and change the number. The stupidity of such a theory is demonstrated by the fact that the first announcement of any date of acquisition and the handout of the press photocopy occurred at essentially the same exact moment: i.e. at the April 27 press conference. As so many times in the past we are confronted with a birther theory that tears a hole in the time-space continuum and requires the employment of a TARDIS.

    The second is that the alleged forger wanted to deliberately signal the fraud… a theory regularly proposed by other birthers (Butterdezillion and Vogt for example) when even they have been forced to confront the abject idiocy otherwise required to declare the claimed “anomaly” as a sign of deliberate forgery rather than an innocent artifact of process. Even birthers realize that the Whitehouse.gov PDF and the AP JPEG must, if they are actually forged, have been produced by forgers that are simultaneously capable of brilliant technical virtuosity and bumbling stupidity. It should escape no one’s attention that this is a rather accurate description of computers… though rarely of humans not on the autism spectrum. I know of no idiot savants currently employed in the West Wing.

  14. Consequently, either the Xerox is a stupid forger or a human dumbed his Xerox pal way down.

    Still failing to understand. Many, a real scientist would have done all the relevant experiments using the Xerox and the effect of Preview which removes the JBIG2 compression.

    As I have shown, a simple workflow explains it all. Even if Xerox MRC is not optimal, it does quite a good job. Poor Hermitian is now arguing against facts and lacks the ability to do any relevant research and experiments.

    That’s why we love you…

  15. Hermitian continues to ignore the simple facts. Let him find his own website to try to confuse the birthers. He has served his purpose and it is unlikely he will learn how to properly apply the scientific method.

  16. “Consequently, either the Xerox is a stupid forger or a human dumbed his Xerox pal way down.” –Hermitian, the Wonder Lummox.

    Hey! That’s rich, coming from the Poster Boy for “dumbed down.” And your attempts at understanding my internal processes would have to improve 100-fold to rise to the level of pathetic.

    But thanks for the chuckles at your expense! Lacking an NTSC tuner or internet access (for security reasons) I can’t access the Comedy Channel, but you are an entertaining simulacrum. We hear people in the office reading your comments aloud… and there is never any worry or fear in their voices, only dumbfounded pity.

    “Stupid forger,” indeed. You just can’t stand it that we work for a winner, the President of these United States, and you are an insignificant loser who hasn’t contributed as much to this country as a copying machine.

  17. I see the Hermie-bot has slipped into his Nirvana-fallacy subroutine.

    The application of Flate deflation by the Xerox 7535 MRC to the JPG compressed bitmap of the background layer from NBC’s scan to PDF file “wh-lfbc-scanned-xerox-7535-wc.pdf” achieved a compression of only 2.2 %. This low number is consistent with the fact that Flate is not the compression method of choice for JPG compressed bitmap files. Also a JPG compressed bitmap is not recommended for rendering an image consisting of scattered text and form lines on a near-uniform background.

    Generally speaking, there is usually not a whole lot of compression that you can get once you’ve already compressed a file, barring some highly specialized compression algorithm. 2-3% is all you’ll generally get. (but see also the No Free Lunch Theorem) Also, the basketweave background is definitely not “near-uniform”.

    WinZip has developed an effective compression filter for JPG compressed files. I applied WinZip 18 to the raw extracted .jpg file of the background image. The file size was reduced from 231 KB (.jpg) to 173 KB (.zipx). Thus the .jpg file size was reduced by 25.1%.

    zipx is a proprietary algorithm from WinZip and is not available as a compression algorithm in PDF format. A person using zipx needs to make sure the other user has WinZip 12 or higher, and a zipx file cannot be displayed as an image without being decompressed by the receiving person.

    Consequently, either the Xerox is a stupid forger or a human dumbed his Xerox pal way down.

    No, the Xerox designers simply worked with what tools are readily and widely available. “Widely” being a key component.

    Additionally, the term “Mixed Raster Content Compression” appears nowhere in the Xerox 7655 user’s manual. The manual is 1670 total pages. The acronym “MRC” also does not appear. The 262 page Xerox 7655 Administrator’s Manual has three instances of “MRC” in one paragraph under PDF formatted files.

    “Select MRC Compression if you want to use Mixed Raster Content (MRC) compression. MRC is used to
    divide the scanned image based on content, and then compress each area in the optimal manner for that
    image area. This option allows for smaller output files with better image quality.”

    I believe I have mentioned on numerous occasions the poor quality of some of the Xerox manuals. Other model manuals, however, are much clearer about how it works. It’s a default setting that the operator can change if she knows how.

    An additional compression of 2.2% is hardly optimum !!!

    2.2% is more optimal than 0%. The bulk of the optimizing comes from the MRC separation and the jpeg compression (for the background image) or JBIG2 (for the areas of near uniform color, such as text). Also, optimum is not the same as perfect. Finally, the separation algorithm is itself not perfect, but rather an optimum of conflicting requirements.

    The operator selectable features do not include MRC. Instead a “slider control” allows the operator to choose settings between “minimum file size” and “maximum quality”. There is no indication how (or when) MRC is activated either by the machine control or the user’s manual.

    Consequently, only the administrator would be able to program the workcenter to “switch on” MRC at a specific compression/quality setting. Hence, the administrator would be the only one who would know the details of the MRC implementation on a given Xerox 7655 Workcenter.
    The operator would have to seek out the administrator if s/he had to know anything about MRC.

    And most operators wouldn’t give a rat’s ass whether MRC was used. The reality is that most operators don’t really know how the machine works, they just know how to get it to do what they want.

    Can’t wait to get rid of this stomach bug so I can get back to intellectually stimulating topics.

  18. WKV

    “”Consequently, either the Xerox is a stupid forger or a human dumbed his Xerox pal way down.””

    “No, the Xerox designers simply worked with what tools are readily and widely available. “Widely” being a key component.”

    “”Additionally, the term “Mixed Raster Content Compression” appears nowhere in the Xerox 7655 user’s manual. The manual is 1670 total pages. The acronym “MRC” also does not appear. The 262 page Xerox 7655 Administrator’s Manual has three instances of “MRC” in one paragraph under PDF formatted files.””

    ““Select MRC Compression if you want to use Mixed Raster Content (MRC) compression. MRC is used to
    divide the scanned image based on content, and then compress each area in the optimal manner for that
    image area. This option allows for smaller output files with better image quality.””

    “I believe I have mentioned on numerous occasions the poor quality of some of the Xerox manuals. Other model manuals, however, are much clearer about how it works. It’s a default setting that the operator can change if she knows how.”

    Yea but you three Amigos claimed that the Xerox 7655 was the forger; though none of you has posted any Xerox info on MRC for this one. You haven’t even produced any paper info from Xerox that proves that the the Xerox 7655 uses the (old JPG) compression for the background layer. The Administrator manual for the Xerox 7655 indicates that (old JPG) is used with TIFF6.

    “TIFF Settings”

    “Tagged Image File Format is a multi-platform format for raster (bitmapped) graphics. Nearly every
    graphics application can read and write TIFF. Depending upon your needs, select which version of TIFF
    Compression the Xerox system uses.

    TIFF 6.0 (old JPEG)

    TIFF Specification Supplement 2 (new JPEG).

    LZW –

    “One of the first lossless, data compression algorithms, LZW works best for files containing lots of
    repetitive data, such as is the case with text and monochrome images. LZW has long been associated
    with TIFF and GIF images. This compression algorithm was widely used in Adobe Photoshop, until
    version 6, and Adobe Acrobat, until version 5.”

    So why would the Xerox 7655 select lousy (old JPG) for the background layer when it has TIFF which is far better for text and line art ? And why would the MRC Flate compress the (old JPG) just for an additional 2.2% compression ? And, most importently, why would Preview then Flate inflate the (old JPG) and therewith throw the 2.2% away ?

    So you three Amigos are still whistling by the graveyard.

  19. So why would the Xerox 7655 select lousy (old JPG) for the background layer when it has TIFF which is far better for text and line art ?

    You are asking the wrong questions.

    It’s not why Xerox does it but rather the fact that Xerox does it which allows us to link the Xerox workflow to the WH LFBC.

    They why is completely irrelevant here.

    Clueless… totally clueless. You are attacking facts . Perhaps you should first do some Xerox experiments before you expose yourself as totally clueless. Then we can address your why questions, which are irrelevant but help show how poor your familiarity is with logic.

  20. So now your fictional work flow purportedly involves a Xerox 7655, a Xerox 7655 administrator, a drunk paralegal who doesn’t know up from down, a MAC OS computer equipped with Preview, and an operator who does know up from down.

    Nope, it is not a fictional work flow, it is a simple workflow using a standard 7655, scanning the document upside down, opening it up in a Mac and rotating it.

    Simple really… The rest are just your inabilities to understand that this simple workflow explains all the features.

    Something you refuse to accept or admit. No problems Hermitian, your avoidance is quite fascinating and even entertaining. Not much of a scientist you have shown yourself so far in this endeavor. Which is why we love you.

  21. NBC says:

    January 16, 2014 at 00:24

    “”So now your fictional work flow purportedly involves a Xerox 7655, a Xerox 7655 administrator, a drunk paralegal who doesn’t know up from down, a MAC OS computer equipped with Preview, and an operator who does know up from down.””

    “Nope, it is not a fictional work flow, it is a simple workflow using a standard 7655, scanning the document upside down, opening it up in a Mac and rotating it.”

    Claims are cheap. Where’s your proof ? The scientific method doesn’t operate on “just take my word for it”. Let’s see a video record of your claimed workflow. And by the way was the “autorotate” option checked on your Preview print to PDF ?

    I have extracted a JFIF file from your scan to PDF file “wh-lfbc-scanned-xerox-7535-wc.pdf” which has your precious YCrCb label embedded in the JFIF header. I suppose you’re going to claim that this different position of your smoking gun label is also specific to Xerox ?

    Nope! You’re going to claim that I should have used your free-toy extractor !!!

  22. Claims are cheap. Where’s your proof ? The scientific method doesn’t operate on “just take my word for it”.

    I have provided you with all the necessary steps. That you are unable and/or unwilling to pursue them is not my problem.

    Poor Hermitian, so clueless.

    As to ‘toy extractor’ it is a simple and straightforward tool to extract and decode the data. Much better than software one does not understand….

    Sorry my friend, your foolish beliefs combined with your inability to do scientific experiments, continue to provide us with continued entertainment.

  23. Gee !!! I wonder why different PDF image extraction tools give different results for the YCbCr label when they are all applied to the same Xerox 7535 scan to PDF file “wh-lfbc-scanned-xerox-7535-wc.pdf” ?

    Funny how that YCbCr label can move around within the extracted .jpg image file and sometimes even disappear !!!

    How can that be If the Xerox placed that YCbCr comment in the file ?

    And then there’s also that nagging fact that the YCbCr color space is an extension to the (old JPG) specification. So why is NBC wetting his pants when he finds a YCbCr comment in some files with .jpg extension ?

    We will all be on pins and needles while we are waiting for NBC to explain how all these results are unique to Xerox …

    You don’t suppose that the only thing unique here is that NBC always uses the same free-toy image extraction tool ?

    Nah ! No Way !

  24. Gee !!! I wonder why different PDF image extraction tools give different results for the YCbCr label when they are all applied to the same Xerox 7535 scan to PDF file “wh-lfbc-scanned-xerox-7535-wc.pdf” ?

    Funny how that YCbCr label can move around within the extracted .jpg image file and sometimes even disappear !!!

    Operator error. As long as you know and understand what you are doing the YCbCr label is always int he same place.

    You still do not understand the relevance:

    1. the YCbCr comment is found in the WH PDF
    2. Th YCbCr comment is found in the Xerox Workflow.

    So far they have been shown to be unique to Xerox but if Hermitian has any contradicting information?

    Poor Hermitian seems incapable of properly using the tools, eading him to blame others.

  25. You don’t suppose that the only thing unique here is that NBC always uses the same free-toy image extraction tool ?

    And you do not think I had considered this and tried different approaches, all leading to the same conclusion?

    Your continued lack of understanding, and your apparent misunderstanding of what I and others have done, continues to show a hilarious ignorance.

  26. Hermitian still has not answered the following questions at RCR’s blog

    Have you been able to successfully extract and decompress the JPG layer from the 7535 scan I posted and if so does it contain the “YCbCr” comment tag?

    Does the Preview version of the file also contain the tag?

    Does the White House LFBC contain the tag?

    Have you found any other copier/scanner line other than the Xerox WorkCentre that inserts the same comment tag?

    You are back in moderation until you provide yes or no answers to those questions.

    Simple steps that anyone with the right tools can achieve in a few minutes… Poor Hermitian however…

  27. Yeah, Hermie didn’t take me seriously for a while and kept trying to sneak posts through. I think I convinced him I was serious.

    He is not very smart… I cannot believe that he believes he can rebut our findings by making unsubstantiated claims. And his lack of competence in properly using graphic tools is near unbelievable… And he signed a notarized affidavit? It’s not worth the value of the paper it was written on.

    The scientific method appears to be totally foreign to him.

Comments are closed.