Some software to create PDF documents from a scan will convert high-contrast black and white parts to bitonal graphics, continuous-tone monochromatic parts to grayscale graphics, and other parts to color graphics. This can be a good thing for a scan that has e.g. a small color photo in the middle of what's otherwise a text document. Software might also notice that certain graphic elements are essentially identical and replace the later instances with references to the first one.
If one had an uncompressed graphics file of a scanned document and it exhibited the anomalies present in the Obama PDF, those anomalies would be substantial evidence of forgery. In a compressed PDF, however, all they show is that the document was not formatted in such a way as to permit meaningful forensic analysis.
So you’re saying that at best what Obama released is worthless. Am I understanding correctly?
I would add that without a raised seal on the piece of paper, ANYTHING he would offer is legally worthless.
The Factcheck people at least had the sense to know that they had to show that there was a real live 3D document with a real live 3D seal on it. They did a really bad job of proving that but they at least understood that was what needed to happen.
Obama should have produced a bunch of photos, maybe even video, because the thing that gives the paper any legal value at all is the raised seal.
If one had an uncompressed graphics file of a scanned document and it exhibited the anomalies present in the Obama PDF, those anomalies would be substantial evidence of forgery. In a compressed PDF, however, all they show is that the document was not formatted in such a way as to permit meaningful forensic analysis.
Brilliant post, and not just because you used large words. Do you have any specific sources of information you can cite that support your points?