Dissecting the White House PDF

DeeLite
Posts: 374
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2010 3:56 am

Dissecting the White House PDF

#26

Post by DeeLite » Sun Jun 23, 2013 12:40 am

Uh, you did not read my postings then as the raw data certainly contains some indicators. Enough to lead me to a Xerox Work Station as the most likely candidate.I use a Xerox Work Station everyday at work, scanning documents to PDF (on a PC). Even my own Hawaii COLB.



User avatar
Dr. Blue
Posts: 875
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2012 10:01 am
Occupation: Call the doctor!

Dissecting the White House PDF

#27

Post by Dr. Blue » Sun Jun 23, 2013 10:40 am

I haven't had enough time to find other PDFs scanned with a Xerox Workcentre, but did do some automated searching through JPEGs - both standalone and JPEGs as part of PDFs that I have (1244 PDFs in my "administrative work" directories - that's way too much paperwork... :( ). With some scripting it's actually pretty easy to do.





Out of all of the images I have, I couldn't find a single one with colorspace described in a JPEG comment segment (but I don't seem to have any that originate from a Xerox scanner either - I've got Konica Minolta, Toshiba, Canon, HP, ...). Most applications do not use the comment segment at all these days - they use application segments (things like EXIF data go in application segments), and I found colorspace notations in some of those, most commonly left by Photoshop, actually. But absolutely none have colorspace info in a JPEG comment segment - so while I had earlier misinterpreted your description as having colorspace info in the PDF file, which is way too common to mean anything, having colorspace info in a JPEG comment segment of an embedded JPEG image seems to be very rare. Rare enough to be a fairly reliable "fingerprint" as to what produced the file.





Based on what you've described, I'd suggest that the equipment used was pretty simple: a small Xerox Workcentre hooked up to a Mac. If DeeLite has a similar setup and could share a sample (even privately) it looks like it would be an interesting comparison.





Again, this has zero to do with whether the whitehouse posting was a "forgery" - that's just too ridiculous for words, with all of the supplemental verifications that have been made by Hawaii in multiple instances. I think that's what set me off with your original postings - when you said that "Now there's no evidence of forgery" - there never ever was any evidence of forgery. But it's a nice piece of detective work nonetheless.



User avatar
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater
Posts: 4982
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 4:28 pm
Location: East Coast
Contact:

Dissecting the White House PDF

#28

Post by Dr. Kenneth Noisewater » Mon Jun 24, 2013 9:22 pm

You know NBC I suspect the moment you figure out the workflow we're going to hear on Carl Gallups Fellation Friday that they've outed you as the forger.



User avatar
nbc
Posts: 4179
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:38 am

Dissecting the White House PDF

#29

Post by nbc » Mon Jun 24, 2013 10:18 pm

You know NBC I suspect the moment you figure out the workflow we're going to hear on Carl Gallups Fellation Friday that they've outed you as the forger.ROTFL... Of course, everyone can be a forger, all it takes is the right Xerox Workcentre and you can show how a simple workflow can produce the PDF found at the Whitehouse website.I also believe that the document was scanned upside down, and the PDF was rotated in preview... The details about the workflow are getting quite interesting...I have now taken the text layer and overlaid it on a basketweave background and scanned it back in. The color background layer is remarkably similar to Obama's and there are 4 monochrome bitmap text layers with their own colors.I have now reconstructed the bleeding of the colors in the JPEG layer, Kevin Vicklund has explained the edge erase, and I have some evidence of the halo effect.Not much remains to be explained. Once the bits and pieces fell in place, not much more was necessary.So, if Zullo finds a Xerox scanner, and he runs the birth certificate through it in the 'email scan' mode, he too can recreate this document. If the CCP had only dug a little deeper.So how was the 'forgery' created?A staffer placed the original document upside down on the scanner, or the document feeder and selected 'scan to email'. The default settings were 'edge erase' as well as medium compression. The document was then opened in preview when it was noticed the scan was upside down so the pdf was rotated and printed as a PDF.The Xerox Workcentre used was likely a 7655, which was used to scan the President and Vice-President's tax returns.That's probably as much as can be extracted from the data.



User avatar
Sam the Centipede
Posts: 6133
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:25 pm

Dissecting the White House PDF

#30

Post by Sam the Centipede » Mon Jun 24, 2013 11:59 pm

But ... but ... the Cold Clammy Clown Pussy had numerous experts of great repute analyzing the PDF for several months, so surely they determined all of this and reported it?





What?! They didn't?! I am shocked!





Srsly nbc, nice work. It shows that a sharp and honest enquiring mind is more productive than a squad of hate-driven lying racists.



User avatar
Dr. Blue
Posts: 875
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2012 10:01 am
Occupation: Call the doctor!

Dissecting the White House PDF

#31

Post by Dr. Blue » Tue Jun 25, 2013 9:41 am

The Xerox Workcentre used was likely a 7655, which was used to scan the President and Vice-President's tax returns.Ooooo.... nice catch and connection made there. Even it isn't the same piece of equipment for both scans, the makes are likely the same. Most large workplaces have office equipment under contract, and as a result you'd consistently have (for example) Xerox equipment in all the different offices.So were there tax returns posted that still had intact metadata indicating the equipment? I pulled up two that I could find, and one was completely scrubbed and the other only had the Mac Quartz annotation.



User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 15069
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Dissecting the White House PDF

#32

Post by Reality Check » Thu Jul 04, 2013 9:13 am

I attempted to summarize the findings on the Xerox connection to the LFBC PDF at my blog:[link]Blogger NBC Identifies the “Forger” for the CCP: Grande Commandante Zullo – Better Go Slap the Cuffs on the Xerox Machine,http://rcradioblog.wordpress.com/2013/0 ... x-machine/[/link]Happy 4th everyone!


"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
kate520
Posts: 15129
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:02 pm
Location: Dark side of the Moon
Occupation: servant of cats, chicken wrangler
Contact:

Dissecting the White House PDF

#33

Post by kate520 » Thu Jul 04, 2013 12:38 pm

=D> =D> Of course, the birthers won't believe word one...


DEFEND DEMOCRACY

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 15069
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Dissecting the White House PDF

#34

Post by Reality Check » Fri Jul 12, 2013 3:10 pm

I have been having fun at my blog with a birther named Adrien Nash. Adrien is a full fledged nut case. He posts at Apuzzo's blog as "h20oflife" and will argue for days about Mario about who is right on their version the two citizen parent nonsense. I told Adrien that all his time picking apart the PDF was a waste because Hawaii says it supplied the BC and becasue the AP JPG was a higher resolution image and could not have come from the PDF. Adrien then claimed he could reproduce the AP document by manipulating the PDF to bleach out the background. This is what he produced:I took his image and blew up a portion to compare with the the same area in the AP JPG and this was these were the results. Adrien's:AP JPG:So what was Adrien's explanation? You’re demonstration clarifies nothing except to show that the White House PDF is a much lower resolution than the original PDF which was not posted because it was unnecessarily large for internet sharing. The web version is a re-sized smaller version. So your claim is correct but it gives a totally false impression that the web pdf is the only pdf in existence. Nearly everything posted on the internet is re-sized downward. PS, I believe you err in calling the AP image a jpeg. I had to convert it from the only form I have of it which is pdf.Did you catch that? The PDF posted on the White House web site is only a "re-sized" version of the original forged PDF that no one has ever seen. #-o Then thanks to W. Kevin VIcklund's comment about remembering about bleed through on one of the images I remembered that the this was true of the AP JPG image. If you play with the contrast and brightness you can see it that a copy of the COLB was behind the paper copy BC when it was copied. I can't wait to see Adrien's explanation for that. :lol:This is the article with the comments. [/break1]wordpress.com/2013/06/18/immigration-attorney-charles-kuck-says-apuzzo-is-wrong-on-nbc/]http://rcradioblog.wordpress.com/2013/0 ... ng-on-nbc/


"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 15069
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Dissecting the White House PDF

#35

Post by Reality Check » Sun Jul 14, 2013 10:10 am

This is a followup on my last post. Poor Adrien Nash couldn't deny that the AP photo could not have been made from the LFBC PDF so he has a brand new theory:RC said: “What one cannot do is create the extra information in the higher res AP photo.”Let’s see, a high resolution original counterfeit is produced, -from which a high resolution 8.5 X 11 print is made, which is used as a master copy to make more photocopies, with the COLB behind it on the scanner-copier.A lower resolution/ smaller size version is produced for web sharing. It’s saved to memory in the Portable Document Format (PDF), just as a compressed version of the higher resolution original was saved as a multi-layer PDF (it being perhaps only one tenth the file size as the original editing format).A fake cover-story is concocted to explain why Obama was unwilling for three years to produce his long form bc. Hawaii goes along with the lie that they don’t issue long form BCs even though there is no such law on the books (it being merely a policy of convenience which any Hawaiian can surmount via a request for the long form and an explanation as to why the it would be needed instead of the simple, bare-bones version.Fake communications are created along with the story of physically traveling to Hawaii at a cost of up to $5,000 and a distance of over 5,000 miles round-trip just to get something that is going to be “public” and could be sent via commercial or PS certified mail.But actually, the trip was unavoidable since the NSA would capture any communication via e-mail, so the original birth certificate source document files needed for the counterfeit had to be personally hand-delivered to someone who could shield Obama under attorney-client privilege and never have to testify against him. It had to be totally off-the-grid and legally protected communication. And it was.I replied:That is such a stupid theory I am beginning to believe you are a troll pretending to be a real Birther. According to your new theory you and all the Birther “experts” like Douglas Vogt, Mara Zebest, Karl Denninger, Tim Selaty, Jr., Garrett Papit, and Reed Hayes have been basing your analyses on a “scaled down” version file of a mysterious larger PDF file that has never been posted and you have never analyzed?Would you care to tell us by what process that scaling down to post the image on the internet was done? The obvious way would be to print a color copy then scan to email from machine like the Xerox 7655 that we already know was used to scan at least one other document posted on the White House web site. It is in the metadata. So that would be the easiest way. If you agree then tell me how you could tell the difference between that printed copy and one supplied by the State of Hawaii?You just keep digging that hole Adrien. Keep right on digging.


"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

fava
Posts: 200
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 12:51 pm

Dissecting the White House PDF

#36

Post by fava » Tue Aug 06, 2013 10:36 am

Apperently there is a "bug" in xerox workcenter copiers that can result in some mumbers being changed from the original when scanning. The 7655 is not in the list but not all models were tested.http://www.dkriesel.com/en/blog/2013/08 ... ingClearly the regime caused this bug in order to flaudulently do something or other. Perhaps there is a similar but unreported bug that causes smiley faces to appear in signatures. :D



User avatar
kate520
Posts: 15129
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:02 pm
Location: Dark side of the Moon
Occupation: servant of cats, chicken wrangler
Contact:

Dissecting the White House PDF

#37

Post by kate520 » Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:01 pm

Just, wow. Those kinds of errors could potentially cause serious problems. Apparently it's always been happening but because it doesn't tweak formatting or anything noticeable, just transposes digits, the problems are only clear if you compare. And who compares a Xerox scan to the original to see if they match?! For all the time you'd waste you might as well use carbon paper.I love technology, don't you? :mrgreen:


DEFEND DEMOCRACY

fava
Posts: 200
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 12:51 pm

Dissecting the White House PDF

#38

Post by fava » Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:16 pm

It would certanly explain the "identical checkbox" issue on the short form that the birthers liked to claim was proof of forgery.



User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 15069
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Dissecting the White House PDF

#39

Post by Reality Check » Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:19 pm

It would certanly explain the "identical checkbox" issue on the short form that the birthers liked to claim was proof of forgery.Yes that is exactly what JBIG2 compression does. It looks for similar letters and shapes and duplicates them to save bytes.


"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
TollandRCR
Posts: 20726
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:17 pm

Dissecting the White House PDF

#40

Post by TollandRCR » Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:37 pm

If this error has been occurring on many different editions of Xerox machines over many years, the number of substantively or legally important documents that have been incorrectly reproduced may be enormous. The liability might be huge. On Aug. 5, [link]XRX hit a new 52-week high,http://www.thestreet.com/story/11999101 ... TSMKTWATCH[/link]. It might be worth watching Xerox for a little while.
Edit: [link]Ars Technica,http://arstechnica.com/information-tech ... comments=1[/link] Aug. 6, 2013Arewethereyeti wrote:spicyjeff wrote:I've contacted the researcher and pointed out on our affected device that I can replicate the problem with, that this only happens when the image quality is set to "Normal" (the lowest setting). When set to this level a specific warning does state that "character substitution" may occur. Why anyone at Xerox thought this was acceptable in any form for a scanner is beyond me.But when the device is set to either of the next two higher levels, "High" and "Highest" respectively, the warning is not displayed and through testing we've confirmed the character substitution does not take place.Then this error is far worse than everyone thought, because if they already had a warning in place 'that "character substutition" may occur', then they already knew about this problem and did nothing about it other than that lame warning. "Warning: the escalator may open up and consume your lower body". Don't say you weren't warned!


“The truth is, we know so little about life, we don’t really know what the good news is and what the bad news is.” Kurt Vonnegut

User avatar
nbc
Posts: 4179
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:38 am

Dissecting the White House PDF

#41

Post by nbc » Tue Aug 06, 2013 1:21 pm

It would certanly explain the "identical checkbox" issue on the short form that the birthers liked to claim was proof of forgery.Yes, that was why I and others predicted JBIG2 compression. The problem is that Preview rewrote the JBIG2 as simple FlateDecode since PDF 1.3 does not support JBIG2.Now that I have Xerox scan PDF's I can do all the experiments and time after time, they strengthen the conclusion. Hermitian is having a hard time at my site right now, trying to defend his 'musings'. A forger who imitates a Xerox WorkCentre to confuse us :-)



User avatar
TollandRCR
Posts: 20726
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:17 pm

Dissecting the White House PDF

#42

Post by TollandRCR » Tue Aug 06, 2013 2:13 pm

Xerox Blogs Aug. 6, 2013 [link]Always Listening To Our Customers: Clarification On Scanning Issue,http://realbusinessatxerox.blogs.xerox. ... ing-issue/[/link]By Francis Tse, principal engineer, XeroxRecently there have been articles about Xerox devices randomly altering numbers in scanned documents. We take this issue very seriously.The problem stems from a combination of compression level and resolution setting. The devices mentioned are shipped from the factory with a compression level and resolution that produces scanned files which are optimized for viewing or printing while maintaining a reasonable file size. We do not normally see a character substitution issue with the factory default settings however, the defect may be seen at lower quality and resolution settings.The Xerox design utilizes the recognized industry standard JBIG2 compressor which creates extremely small file sizes with good image quality, but with inherent tradeoffs under low resolution and quality settings.For data integrity purposes, we recommend the use of the factory defaults with a quality level set to “higher.” In cases where lower quality/higher compression is desired for smaller file sizes, we provide the following message to our customers next to the quality settings within the device web user interface: “The normal quality option produces small file sizes by using advanced compression techniques. Image quality is generally acceptable, however, text quality degradation and character substitution errors may occur with some originals.”Xerox is totally committed to customer satisfaction and with this feedback we will look for ways to help our customers better manage their scanning application needs.For more information, contact Xerox Support at [/break1]xerox.com/perl-bin/world_contact.pl#0]http://www.xerox.com/perl-bin/world_contact.pl#0.


“The truth is, we know so little about life, we don’t really know what the good news is and what the bad news is.” Kurt Vonnegut

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 15069
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Dissecting the White House PDF

#43

Post by Reality Check » Sun Aug 11, 2013 2:06 pm

I tired to distill in one blog post most of the findings on the Xerox WorkCentre as the source for the LFBC.[link]Xerox for Dummies,http://rcradioblog.wordpress.com/2013/0 ... r-dummies/[/link]


"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43902
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Dissecting the White House PDF

#44

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Sun Aug 11, 2013 2:21 pm

So Haloid Paper Xerox has now joined the coverup and RICO conspiracy.





After the fact.





I'm sure TWLITHOTU will be right on it.



User avatar
ObjectiveDoubter
Posts: 3446
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 6:19 pm
Location: Hollywood (more or less)

Dissecting the White House PDF

#45

Post by ObjectiveDoubter » Mon Aug 12, 2013 3:04 am

So Haloid Paper Xerox has now joined the coverup and RICO conspiracy.





After the fact.





I'm sure TWLITHOTU will be right on it.Chester Carlson was from Rochester NY which is very close to Buffalo Albany. Yep. There's the connection Orly's been looking for, Watch out Rep. Issa! Lady Liberty's got the smoking gun now. And Fed Ex profits will edge up again tomorrow. (I wonder if Fed Ex has created a special profit center on their books for Ms. Esquire?)



User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 15069
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Dissecting the White House PDF

#46

Post by Reality Check » Wed Aug 14, 2013 10:59 pm

Guess who has been scanning stuff on a Xerox 7655 for at least a month now? I wonder what he found?
 ! Message from: Foggy
I moved this post to nbc's thread about the Xerox evidence.


"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 26889
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater

Dissecting the White House PDF

#47

Post by Foggy » Thu Aug 15, 2013 5:12 am

Poor Garrett. He used to live on Corsi's Facebook page, but then Corsi gave up birferatin'. Poor birfers, the struggle for relevancy is a living nightmare! :-


Welcome, seeker! There's a seeker born every minute!

User avatar
Whatever4
Posts: 11575
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 6:36 am
Location: Mainely in the plain
Occupation: Visiting doctors.

Dissecting the White House PDF

#48

Post by Whatever4 » Thu Aug 15, 2013 10:06 am

So obviously, the LFBC must be a forgery because Xerox scans are impossible. :roll:


"[Moderate] doesn't mean you don't have views. It just means your views aren't predictable ideologically one way or the other, and you're trying to follow the facts where they lead and reach your own conclusions."
-- Sen. King (R-ME)

User avatar
SLQ
Posts: 2287
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 12:33 am

Dissecting the White House PDF

#49

Post by SLQ » Thu Aug 15, 2013 11:20 am

Could the Obama campaign and the White House have saved themselves a lot of heartburn if back in 2008 they'd posted a high quality photo of the COLB instead of scanning it and posting the pdf?No.


"Try not. Do or do not. There is no try."
-- Yoda

Post Reply

Return to “Debunking the Lies”