Educating the Confused – Hermitian and the JPEG Comment

Our poor friend Hermitian is still struggling with the undeniable fact that the WH LFBC contains an embedded JPEG encoded image files with a comment that shows YCbCr. As I and others have shown the same comment shows up in a Xerox Work Flow. However, Hermitian seems to be struggling with his tools and unable to verify these simple facts for himself.

Reality Check took pity on him and provided him with a link to a Preview encoded Xerox Multicenter PDF which, of course, shows a YCbCr comment tag.

Expect Hermitian to continue to refuse to accept these simple facts, leaving the Xerox Work Flow as an unassailed challenge to the Cold Case Posse, to the extent that the CCP appears to have decided to ignore the findings.

As an added bonus, the JPEG encoded file shows the same Quantization Matrix as the one found in the WH LFBC.

 

11 thoughts on “Educating the Confused – Hermitian and the JPEG Comment

  1. As always I have to tell NBC’s readers the rest of the story. What NBC has hidden from his readers is that this new PDF file that RC the Radio Head dredged up and linked to on his blog was also opened in Preview and then re-saved as a different PDF. What NBC deliberately omitted is that the METADATA in this file contained the following important line of text:

    ||Scanned from a Xerox multifunction device[5]||

    Hence the Preview PDF file METADATA indicates that the original PDF image was created by a scan on a Xerox multifunction device. It is very important to establish the source of this comment because the WH LFCOLB PDF file contains no such line. Moreover, this is the only Preview PDF file that has been released by the Obots that has a direct reference to a Xerox multifunction.

    So why doesn’t the WH LFCOLB PDF file include this same comment if it was created by a Xerox Workcenter ?

  2. Hence the Preview PDF file METADATA indicates that the original PDF image was created by a scan on a Xerox multifunction device. It is very important to establish the source of this comment because the WH LFCOLB PDF file contains no such line.

    What is important is that you can see the YCbCr comment embedded in the JPEG encoded stream. Since you have been unable to do the work yourself, the document helps you understand the relevance of finding these comments inside Xerox work centre created PDF’s.

    So once again the WH LFBC and the Xerox Work Centre show the same embedded comment and quantization matrix, which strongly supports my hypothesis.

    As to why the document in question shows a different metadata. Who really cares, it does not matter. But you, by focusing on trivialities can avoid accepting the power of the Xerox Work Flow.

    And that’s why you are not very good at the scientific method.

    And for that and your contributions to strengthening the Xerox Workflow, I thank you.

    Without you, I could not have made as strong a case as I have now.

    And to see you struggle to rebut, but failing, is icing on the cake.

  3. NBC says:

    January 6, 2014 at 20:40

    Hence the Preview PDF file METADATA indicates that the original PDF image was created by a scan on a Xerox multifunction device. It is very important to establish the source of this comment because the WH LFCOLB PDF file contains no such line.

    What is important is that you can see the YCbCr comment embedded in the JPEG encoded stream. Since you have been unable to do the work yourself, the document helps you understand the relevance of finding these comments inside Xerox work centre created PDF’s.

    So once again the WH LFBC and the Xerox Work Centre show the same embedded comment and quantization matrix, which strongly supports my hypothesis.

    As to why the document in question shows a different metadata. Who really cares, it does not matter. But you, by focusing on trivialities can avoid accepting the power of the Xerox Work Flow.

    So RC’s Nooksack Court of Appeals document was produced with your claimed workflow and the METADATA indicates that the original paper document was scanned on a Xerox multifunction printer but the WH LFCOLB PDF and the two PDFs that you released from all your Xerox trial scans don’t have the Xerox identifier but you say that these facts don’t matter.

    Instead you continue hold up the YCbCr label as exclusive to Xerox but you have never offered any proof to back up this claim.

    This must be the Obot scientific method.

  4. Instead you continue hold up the YCbCr label as exclusive to Xerox but you have never offered any proof to back up this claim.

    I have shown how so far only Xerox Work Centres show this embedded Comment. The fact that you cannot find it is of no consequence. The WH LFBC and the Xerox Work Centre documents all show the same comment data and quantization matrix, showing that my work flow is consistent with the facts.

    You are not very familiar with the scientific method now are you?

    Well, your pain will soon be over as the MS judge will dismiss the lawsuit, relieving you from having to testify and explain why you never corrected your affidavit.

    Thanks so much for being such a good ‘birther’…

  5. Hermitian wants to know why the work centre information is in the PDF title…

    Title: Scanned from a Xerox multifunction device[5]

    It’s the title of the document… Geez my friend… Why is the Author’s name in it as well…. Think my friend. Think carefully… Surprise us…

  6. Okay, since it is impossible to do calligraphy while on Hoth, I’m bending my New Year’s resolution.

    Hence the Preview PDF file METADATA indicates that the original PDF image was created by a scan on a Xerox multifunction device. It is very important to establish the source of this comment because the WH LFCOLB PDF file contains no such line. Moreover, this is the only Preview PDF file that has been released by the Obots that has a direct reference to a Xerox multifunction.

    So why doesn’t the WH LFCOLB PDF file include this same comment if it was created by a Xerox Workcenter ?

    Let’s go back a few months, shall we?

    Producer/Creator

    The Producer and Creator metadata in the PDF show:

    Producer: Mac OS X 10.6.7 Quartz PDFContext
    Creator: Preview

    It is clear that the document was last touched by Preview. The only workflow which explains both tags requires one to select Print to PDF. If you save the attachment from your email, there are no changes to the tags, if you open in preview and save, only the producer changes.

    1. Save attachment – Producer and Creator metadata remain Xerox Workcentre
    2. Open in Preview and save – Producer is replaced by Quartz, creator remains Xerox
    3. Open in preview and print to PDF – All metadata now matches

    Yes, Virginia, there is a well-documented work-flow.

  7. Yes, Virginia, there is a well-documented work-flow.

    But poor Hermitian cannot take the steps to repeat the work flow.

    Not very skilled if you were to ask me.

  8. Also, to find files posted on the internet that came from a Xerox WorkCentre something of the Xerox metadata has to be left to find. I just happened across this file in a search for Xerox scans and saw the Quartz/Preview connection. It was a bonus to find that it confirmed our research.

  9. Yes, and I predict that it will take several months before Hermitian understands the work flow involved in these latest documents.

    Don’t tell him… It’s so much fun to see him come the conclusions himself… Which of course may take close to an eternity. But still… Educational

  10. NBC says:

    January 6, 2014 at 23:29

    Hermitian wants to know why the work centre information is in the PDF title…

    Title: Scanned from a Xerox multifunction device[5]

    It’s the title of the document… Geez my friend… Why is the Author’s name in it as well…. Think my friend. Think carefully… Surprise us…

    The title of the document is:

    “IN THE NOOKSACK TRIBAL COURT or APPEALS
    NOOKSACK INDIAN TRIBE
    DEMING, WASHINGTON”

    The comment appears because the document was created on a Xerox Multifunction.

    The same <> line is blank in the METADATA of the WH LFCOLB.

  11. The comment appears because the document was created on a Xerox Multifunction.

    Nice try but predictably wrong

Comments are closed.