In other words, some Obama operatives SAID they reproduced all the anomalies in the PDF with the push of a single button. Your argument consists ENTIRELY in: “I believe them.”
Thank you for responding to my question about the typewriter typefaces.
The presence of the typefaces from different mechanical typewriters on the “birth certificate” proves that the image did not originate from a piece of paper, for the simple reason that no nurse or clerk would run around an office, sticking the “birth certificate” into one make of typewriter, typing few letters or a word, pulling the document out, rolling it into another typewriter, typing another few letters or a word, rolling it out, sticking it into another typewriter, etc. And the typewriters would have to be different makes. Most offices with multiple typewriters would have several typewriters of the same make. That’s how procurement works.
A digital file and a computer screen are incapable of representing typewriter type with sufficient accuracy to enable the viewer to distinguish the typeface of a Remington from an Underwood from a Smith-Corona???
If you are going to retreat into that extreme degree of agnosticism, then you are admitting that the PDF constitutes NO EVIDENCE that any “birth certificate” exists.
People who were interested in this issue conducted software experiments with the Obama LFBC pdf image. They posted their findings and the steps they took so that ANYONE could try to duplicate what they did and observe the results for themselves.
Replication of an experiment is a key component of utilizing the scientific method,
One of the people who evaluated the findings is a Brazillian computer scientist named Ricardo de Queiroz. The 2nd, 4th, 5th, 7th, 8th, and 13th U.S. patents ever issued on Mixed Raster Content (MRC) compression were granted to Ricardo de Queiroz and his team.
It was suspected that MRC compression accounted for the artifacts observed in the Obama LFBC image.
Evaluation of Obama PDF File by Professor Ricardo de Queiroz
There is no possible way I can tell if the PDF of President Obama’s birth certificate (POBC) made available by the White House is a “forgery” or not. The forgery can happen before being processed not to mention that the paper document itself could be forged, before the scanning. Thus, this is not the point.
The question is whether all these artifacts we see after rendering the PDF of POBC are signs of forgery. I do not see that. I see them more likely as a result of inadequate processing.
The document has poor quality and it has been aggressively processed, no questions about it. The question is whether the corruptive processing was individual with the intent of forging it, or if it was automated within regular MRC segmentation.
If it was a forgery it was a very sloppy job. Any photoshop-knowledgeable person, of the garden variety, can do a much better job than that. If it is automated, it is a lousy job too, but bear in mind that algorithms for these jobs are not trained on specific documents. They were more likely developed, trained and tested on magazine pages and books. A US birth certificate is unlikely to give good results because it may be an outlier in the big picture of all documents they had in mind when developed their MRC tool.
MRC is about separating the single-image document into multiple layers, hopefully each one with a given characteristic. This has to be done automatically, in what we call segmentation. What I see in the document are signs of MRC segmentation consistent with strategies in line with the techniques pioneered by DjVu. I (and my students) do not advocate doing the segmentation that way, but that is not the point either. In fact, I would not be surprised if the software which segmented the WH document was derived from some DjVu tool.
[Continued in next post]