Seizethecarp: Obots claim that the AP/Applewhite scan has much higher resolution than the green WH pdf, despite having a less distict light blue “security paper” pattern instead of a clearer green pattern and lower resolution in the WH pdf.
Not ‘much higher’, in some ways the document resolution itself is not sufficient to determine the quality as jpeg’s are also ‘compressed’ and this ‘quality factor’ can reduce the value of the resolution. The AP image is 200DPI (dots per inch) versus 150/300DPI (background/foreground) for the White House LFBC PDF. The AP image looks ‘cleaner’ as the JPEG smooths the text, giving it a cleaner appearance.
BZ: If the PDF was created on the Xerox WorkCentre, that should be what is listed as the PDF Producer, even if the PDF was emailed to a different computer. Just opening a document doesn’t change the program that created the document.
Correct, but remember that I have shown that the document was fed into the document feeder upside down and thus when the email recipient received the document, he/she rotated it and saved it as a Preview PDF. The question now becomes: Can I show that the document was created on the Xerox? And the answer is yes. I will address this below when I address a similar question by GregNH
4Zoltan posted some excellent links addressing Irey’s flawed arguments. I have so far not looked at the font issues as they are incidental to my experiments but they do raise in relevance if one argues that the copies received by the White House were manipulated.
Have seen the raisedonhoecakes website series of articles on typewriting fonts?
MMaschin: NBCs argument is easily shown to not be valid, because if that was the case, then the perfect place for this to have occurred is in the security background layer.
The security background layer is recognized as a colored background and is almost completely separated as such. Since it is compressed with JPEG, there are no JBIG2 artifacts.
Edge919 This paragraph pretty much sums it up. This falls under the “too good to be true” category. Follow the timing by overcomplicating the explanation, which is just intended to confuse enough people to create doubt about Zullo’s investigation. Even with the multiple blogposts worth of “explanations,” there’s a problem if there was ANY kind of manipulation after the original scan. And there’s a second problem when the layers and manipulations can be EASILY explained by the process of creating a PDF from a digitally fabricated documented, such as through InDesign and then converted to PDF. Nothing offered in the new explanations can rule that out.
True, nothing can rule out manipulations that mimic a Xerox WorkCentre, but that is not at issue right now. What I have shown is that the claim of forgery was based on what is known as argument from ignorance: we do not know how it could have happened so it must have been forger. What I have shown is how simple processes explain most if not all of the artifacts. This of course complicates any meaningful forgery claims. One can hand wave that a real forger could have done this while at the same time arguing that the forger is both incompetent and a master forger.
BZ: Why would they scan it on the Xerox and not save it until it was on a Mac? They didn’t do that with the tax return NBC cites. Of course, that tax return is the only one that mentions Xerox WorkCentre. If the Xerox does all scans in landscape orientation, then wouldn’t the tax form be sideways unless it was first previewed, rotated, and then saved – yielding a PDF producer other than the Xerox?
The Xerox scanner sends the document as an email. Since it was scanned up-side-down, the person who opened it on the Mac rotated it and saved it. If you look at the images at the PDF level, they are rotated in landscape format.