Posted on 06/23/2011 5:46:53 AM PDT by arthurus
Can you explain the white background inside certain letters? Where did the security motif go? If they took microfiche and printed the data onto security paper there wouldn’t be white background inside certain letters. The fact that there is white background inside certain letters, particularly in the signatures on the “parent” line indicates tampering, above and beyond the pixel analysis others have shared. With all due respect, it has nothing to do with the history of photocopying.
when i asked my congressman’s office why no one seems to care about this, the staffer suggested i contact the FBI... and that they would investigate
i cannot imagine the FBI would be the ones... are they?
at issue are 2 things:
—
1. obviously forged document
1a. the black letters are missing the anti-aliasing effect of scanning
1b. adobe layers, scanned images do not come in layers
2. even if accepted at face value, it would make him native born, not natural born
is the FBI the crew to look into this??
Consider for a moment that it just might be you being dense. You have yet to understand what I'm talking about or answer the question of why is there white background, instead of the security motif, inside some letters. Much like the altered and discolored letters the white background didn't just magically appear.
How can anyone ever imagine the FBI would take active critical interest in a criminal treasonous POTUS?
About as much as I could imagine the linguine spined Republicans pushing for impeachment......
Yes, it’s explainable with ease. There’s two layers you’re conflating: one the black text, backed by the “security motif” generated with white gradations to render the overlaid black text more readable. Somebody was trying to be nice.
There’s enough technology involved in rendering this thing that some artifacts do, for most practical purposes, “just magically appear”. When you repeatedly process one document thru inconsistent iterations of scanning, filtering, compressing, decomposing, rendering, etc. involving decades of variously limited technologies, some weird stuff starts becoming apparent.
Try this: screenshot this page, paste it into Paint, save as .GIF, load it, resize it, save it as .JPG, load it into Photoshop, posterize it, rescale it, save it as a high-compression .JPG, load it, ... you get the idea ... then show us the results. You’ll end up with a pretty weird-looking copy of the original, probably with some pronounced flare and halos.
I just did that (sorry, can’t post the results at the moment). Result was very similar “halo” artifacts.
You conspiraists haven’t actually tried this stuff, have you?
Oh, yeah, I'm sure that's all it is......./s
Well, considering this IS the culmination of commercial products designed to please customers, yeah.
The halo effect is consistent with standard compression artifacts. Invert, merge, sharpen, merge, more readable result.
I think the brand name was Savin. It wasn't mimeograph, but the paper did come in a roll and there was this two part toner. The entire process and machine was a gigantic POS.“Are you talking about photocopiers or mimeograph machines?”
I was about to say that such machines were not "photocopiers" - but that's not true. They were photocopiers, but they weren't plain paper photocopiers.Xerox invented the plain paper photocopier, the only kind to make copies which might, at a glance, be mistaken for a typed original. And which produces copies which stand the test of time not only better than other types of photocopy, but better than an original which was printed on newsprint (which turns brown with age). It's true, in my recollection, that Xerox machines were rare and expensive until the late 60s or even early 70s.
Anyone remember the Ozalid copiers?
Okay, lets say they did these format changes. And, the reason they did all this to Obama's BC is? Are you familiar with the Latin term "lex parsimoniae"?
...and all you guys have is “I don’t understand, therefore it’s proof of a conspiracy even though I can’t explain why anyone would go thru the effort to do something obvious for no discernible benefit but instead create a document which, if accepted at face value, is proof of ineligibility!”
No, I do understand. I’ve never said it was a conspiracy. Those are your words, not mine. I don’t know and you don’t either. You’ve made a lot of claims you simply cannot back up, such as how the file was handled for 50 years inside an office I would bet hard money you’ve never even seen, much less worked in. I’ve only pointed out obvious flaws that I have observed based on my experience as an Electrical Engineer and Xerox trained copier repair boy back in the day. You’ve conjured up the rest and dismiss outright what you don’t understand.
As a computer engineer and Kodak employee and longtime observer of document processing technology, I’ve explained the “obvious flaws” with ease consistent with technology & history.
I’ve never met you, but I can guess you’re using a Windows-type PC with monitor, keyboard, mouse, etc. to access FR and post this stuff - because it’s just what people do and how things work at a certain point in technological history. While you were fixing copiers, I was studying document decomposition & compression in light of severe storage limitations. I don’t have to see the building to guess how they used common technology to solve normal office document management problems, and see how modern rendering of old files produces predictable artifacts.
The HI one is obviously subjected to lower resolution, lower bit depth, and much higher compression using much older technology. When was the newer one scanned?
The point is, mine is real. The HI one is not.
Note there are no halo's on mine and the security markings never disappear like the HI one.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.