It’s just a blog experiment. If it were ever needed to be replicated in the real world, what has been discussed on the blog might be a starting point for professional computer software experts, nothing more.
Another blogger makes a salient point ( I am excerpting and editing a post that is too long in its entirety to put up here):
“The [first, 1983] scanner I used was roughly 10 DPI, in other words I had 10 measurements per inch. Today’s scanners have up to 600 measurements per inch, giving much more information on each line of data (600 DPI), they also scan many, many more lines, and color scanners also have to measure the light’s color spectrum. Today’s programmers have to take each of those measurements into account when producing an image from the scan. The image you see of the President’s LFBC is not a duplicate image, but a computer programmer’s guess of what the image would look like via a file of light reflection intensity readings created by the scanner. Ever wonder why you have to load certain scanners, printers and monitors onto your PC before you can use them? That’s so the raw data can be translated to properly read or write the data to create the printed copy or to display it. Again, as written by programmers.
My original 1983 Programs: 10 DPI X 8 inches per line X 60 lines = 4800 dots per page
Modern Programs 600 DPI X 8 inches = 4800
600 DPI X 11 1/2 inches = 6900
4800 page width X 6900 page height = 33,120,000 dots per page
Not only do modern color scanners record the light intensity, they record the light’s color spectrum. However, they do not duplicate a scanned item. They translate it into digital numbers representing what the copier reflects. Then, a program translates those digital readings into a standard that can be used by a PDF reader, such as Adobe.
Let me stop here and mention something that the birthers seem not to know or understand. There are NO PICTURES ON THE WEB. There are only digital representations of images. Manipulations of those digital representations do NOT reflect what is ACTUALLY a part of the underlying document, only a program’s interpretation of what the digital image MIGHT look like if you could do the same with a document.
Let’s look at just a piece of the analysis that Mr. Zullo’s team did. When you take an image on your computer screen and increase the size of it by zooming in, you are NOT looking at the image as if you had a piece of paper and were looking at it through a magnifying glass. Very important, a used copier salesman would not know this and as you can see in the report does not understand that. Let me show as simply as I can what I mean. If you had a single line opened up in a PDF file it might look like this:
__________
If you were to zoom in to double the size of the line, if there was no manipulation of the data, the line would look like:
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Why is that? Because that is all the data it actually has, zooming in just spreads the data dots out on your screen pixels.
But, because of SOFTWARE manipulation, you see: ____________________
Whenever you zoom into a digital image, what you actually see is NOT ALL BUT A PART OF THE IMAGE, up to 50% or more could actually be software created and NEVER A PART OF THE IMAGE at all. Why is that important in this case? The white halos that Zullo claims show forgery? All they are is computer software generated guesses at what the image might look like if you could zoom in. That’s it. Zullo is blaming the President for computer software written by a group of programmers to create and edit PDF files.
What Mr. Zullo did was not an analysis of the LFBC, it was an analysis of the software used to create the image seen on the screen. Software that has nothing to do with the underlying document.”
Me again: the bottom line is that the only Obama birth certificate that matters and will ever matter resides in Dr. Onaka’s safe at the Hawaii Department of Health.
If there is a need to inspect the original document, it can be made available by court order or congressional subpoena (which has the effect of a court order).
“It’s just a blog experiment.”
So your guess is that nativeborncitizen (NBC) blogger did NOT actually replicate 100% of the features of the WH LFBC pdf, as it was claimed he/she was able to do, so there is NO pdf that experimentally shows 100% of the features of the WH LFBC pdf.
You would think that some Obot/Fogblower with $$ and access to the Xerox and a Mac would have come up with a replicated pdf by now (if it could be done) just for the pleasure of claiming they had “punked” “birthers” one more time...