Xerox 7655 Overview Picture (Obot claims to replicate Obama LFBC pdf w/floating signature)

Native and Natural Born Citizenship Explored ^ | August 6, 2013 | NBC

[Seizethecarp]

The following image is a composite created by scanning the WH LFBC using Xerox WorkCentre 7655 upside down using the automatic feeder. The resulting file was opened in Preview, the image rotated 180 degrees and printed to PDF. The resulting PDF was opened in preview, the layers unlocked and moved to the side. In addition, a close up of the signature was ‘blown up’ to show how the background layer, not surprisingly, has filled in some of the white that resulted from the separation of the background and foreground layers.

Note how for example the signature block is fully separated.

[MMaschin]

JBIG2 compression would do NOTHING to the boxes on the document. JBIG2 is a font based compressor. The way it works is by determination the original font and character in an image and replacing the image with character set data. This allows the text to be searchable. That is why you know for a FACT that JBIG2 WAS NOT used in this case, the document in not searchable.

[Seizethecarp]

“JBIG2 compression would do NOTHING to the boxes on the document. JBIG2 is a font based compressor.”

NBC claims that it is Mixed Rastor Compression that is involved primarily with the “image segmentation” algorithms and not JBIG2 for the WH LFBC pdf.

I am trying to get up to speed, but the “image segmentation” is being claimed to have captured the first image of a box or “e” (a segment) and then if another similar-enough image (segment) is encountered it is ignored and replaced by a duplicate of the first one. This is NOT OCR but based on an algorithm that tries to ID boundaries of any contiguous shape (segment). It could be a number, letter or blob to the human eye but will be treated the same by Mixed Rastor Compression.

If this is true, then the AP/Applewhite copy (claimed to have been a JPEG made from a photo of a hard copy LFBC, NOT a copier scan), was NOT compressed with “image segmentation” according to NBC. Therefor it is claimed by NBC to NOT have any duplicate images when magnified at the bit-map level. The Applewhite image also doesn’t have the clipping mask, with was added by Preview, according to NBC.

[Seizethecarp]

“The 2011 one must have had the SSN redacted as well, meaning that it had to have layers as well. Would it have to be previewed and saved on a different computer to flatten the file?”

I haven’t had the spare bandwidth to look into the tax returns other than to note the disclosure of the SS#s currently used by Barry and Mooshell.

[Seizethecarp]

“The Applewhite image has the two dots at the right edge?”

I am trying to confirm that.

Here is an extensive attempted rebuttal to NBC by a poster named Hermitian on NBC’s blog which includes NBC’s detailed rebuttal of Hermitian (in red). There are lots of technical details about the AP/Applewhite image and why certain images were cropped a bit more than others:

http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2013/07/28/hermitian-applewhite-ap-document/

[Seizethecarp]

“Just so you know, Zullo has mentioned that the security background doesn’t match that used at the HDOH at the time, so his emphatic claim that the White House image is absolutely known to be a forgery is not just based on the artifacts and/or computer analyses.”

How can it be proved in court beyond a reasonable doubt that only ONE type of security paper was in use by HDOH?

It seems to me that the office where routine COLBs are produced for normal citizens would be in a different location than Onaka’s office or wherever the LFBC was supposedly copied.

Isn’t it possible that these two offices were using two different security papers?

You have raised a question about the paper, but I don’t seen the basis for an evidentiary, court-ready conclusion.

[Seizethecarp]

“And there’s a second problem when the layers and manipulations can be EASILY explained by the process of creating a PDF from a digitally fabricated documented, such as through InDesign and then converted to PDF. Nothing offered in the new explanations can rule that out.”

The problem is that Zullo claimed that his experts ruled out the work flow that NBC claims to have proved was possible. If NBC’s claims are true then Zullo cannot claim to have proved that a hard copy of the LFBC image was NEVER scanned and must have been forged.

Zullo has a very high bar to get to proof beyond a reasonable doubt that criminal forgery has been committed.

There remain many questions about the LFBC image including whether it could have been produced on a circa 1961 typewriter.

Zullo has a 300+ page document claiming proofs of criminal forgery and only one portion pertains to pdf copying issues, although Zullo has presented the pdf issue in the most sensational manner, especially to the sheriffs when he was showing them how Onaka’s signature block could be moved around. Now NBC claims that this can be replicated and put up a pdf supposedly proving it.

[bluecat6]

There is no OCR table in the original file.

You can always have Adobe make a document searchable and thus create an OCR table. But the original document is not searchable, there is no text in the file.

Here is the text from the original AFTER it was processed to make it searchable via OCR.

As Red Steel indicates. This is all smoke and mirrors and it not even good smoke and mirrors.

There simply is no OCR table in the original file.

I still would like the explaination of why this ‘document’ (cough, cough) is the only one known to exist that combines the bend in the image on the left that shows a document that was photo-copied or mimiographed while it was still in a bound volume (like the 1960s Nordyke certified copies) and is printed on modern security paper like so many Hawaii BC images. No other Hawaii LFBC shows this ‘left bend’ that comes from images to make certified copies in the 1960s before the documents were scanned (FLAT!) into digital library. This was likely an optical library using CDs or DVDs for WORM storage.

So again this is only document to exhibit this characteristic in the entire world.

Odd.

CERTIFICATE OF. LIVE BIRTH DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 61 10611 FILE 151 NUMBER
(Type or print) lb. MIddle Name Ie. Lut N .... e
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, II
Sex Thi. Birth )( 4. If TwIn or Triplet, 50. Month Day Year
le[] TwinO
W .. Child 80m Birth Male IotQ 2ndD 3rdD nate August 4 1961
Honolulu
Street Addren
6085 Kalanianaole Highway
11. Mother’. Mulln, Addreu
YOlO No~ r
8. Full Name o( Father 9. It.ee 01 Father
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA African
1.0. Ate or F.,her 11. BirthplatC’ (Jl1lnd, Stale or forti”, Councry) 12 •• U.ual ~eup.tlon 12b. Kind o( Buoineiio or Indu.try
25 enya, East Africa r
13. Full Muden Name o( Mother
STANLEY ANN
‘15. Aae or Mother 16. Blrthplaee (hland, Stale or Forei&” Counlr’)’
18 Wichita
I eertify tha. the above I’a,ed
information 1. tr’lle and corl”Hl
10 th~ beal of my knowledp.
190.
I hereby «rti(y that thl. ehild •
... bora aliYe on the dale and
hour I.ated abon~.
20. Date Aeeepted by Loeal Res. 21.
AUG -8 1961 ~
23. Evld.nee (or Delayed FiU .. , or Alteration

[Seizethecarp]

“This is all smoke and mirrors and it not even good smoke and mirrors.

“There simply is no OCR table in the original file.”

If you go and read the NBC blog he/she does NOT claim OCR was used.

See my comment #182:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/3052270/posts?page=182#182

[MMaschin]

NBCs argument is easily shown to not be valid, because if that was the case, then the perfect place for this to have occurred is in the security background layer. That IS a contiguous, repeating pattern. Are we to believe that a computer process found two hand draw, ink on paper, and photocopied boxes similar enough to replace one with a copy of the other, but it did not find a pattern in the security pattern background?

If what NBC says is true, then the compression occurred AFTER the image layers were separated, because if you look at the image as a whole the boxes are very different when you considered the content inside the boxes. This means that even analyzing the background layer by itself, this compression algorithm was incapable of finding a repeatable pattern.

What NBC is saying is not taking into consideration that this must be a systematic process,and not a logical one. If you say 'this was done here', it must hold true for the entire document, you can't cherrypick.

[4Zoltan]

Have seen the raisedonhoecakes website series of articles on typewriting fonts?

http://raisedonhoecakes.com/ROH/2011/06/12/dear-birthers-grasping-at-straws-hurts-the-conservative-cause/

http://raisedonhoecakes.com/ROH/2011/06/17/paul-irey-doesn’t-like-us-we-are-not-shedding-tears/

http://raisedonhoecakes.com/ROH/2011/06/24/still-here-trying-to-teach-pigs-to-sing/

[butterdezillion]

Right. Except for the White House long-form and COLB, the documents created within the same month as the Obama long-form scan all use the same protocol indicating the Xerox machine as the PDF producer, which is a different protocol than all the other scans I can find from 2009-2013, including the long-form and short-form BC’s.

[butterdezillion]

If this ever made it to court we wouldn’t have to rely on evidence about the security paper; discovery would show us the microfilms and computer transaction logs which would answer our questions. I’m saying that even if the computer anomalies can be explained by the Xerox WorkCentre, other anomaliess - such as the type and signature stuff that others such as Reed Hayes have noted, as well as the difference in security background that I have noted - can’t be explained by it. Nor can Onaka’s refusal to provide a certified verification of any Obama birth facts.

I have seen both long-form and short-form certified copies of vital records, and they all use the same security background (except Obama’s long-form), so even if there are different divisions in the department the paper is the same. And it spans years and years. Why, even Johanna Ah Nee’s BC uses this security background, even though we know from the Peter Kema COLB that the security paper in use 4 years before the certified copy of the Ah Nee BC was supposedly issued had all kinds of watermarks that showed up when copied/scanned and the security background wouldn’t copy. Ah Nee’s long-form BC copy was supposedly issued in 1995 (IIRC) and has the same kind of security paper that Virginia Sunahara’s long-form death certificate and short-form BC had when the copies were issued in 2012 (I’d check the exact date but it looks like my copy is no longer in my computer’s files. sigh. Dang thugs messing with my computer...). The appearance is that Onaka changed the security paper to this less-secure kind when he became chief registrar shortly before 1995 and that security paper has been in use ever since - and is seen on long-form and short-form BC copies issued throughout that time period.

[BigGuy22]

BZ — “Nor can Onaka’s refusal to provide a certified verification of any Obama birth facts.”
__

I don’t understand, BZ. The Letters of Verification do exactly that. And they have been submitted in court, where their authenticity can be challenged.

As far as I know, none of the opposing attorneys have offered any evidence to dispute them.

[Cold Case Posse Supporter]

How do you explain the smiley face in Onaka’s name?

[BigGuy22]

"How do you explain the smiley face in Onaka’s name?"
__

LOL!! Now that's evidence!

[Seizethecarp]

“How do you explain the smiley face in Onaka’s name?”

IIRC that was found to be a stray sideways character, but that anomaly is a separate issue from whether a hard copy was the scanned-in source of the WH LFBC pdf.

[Cold Case Posse Supporter]

So are you believing that NBC has debunked Zullo’s claims?

[Seizethecarp]

“So are you believing that NBC has debunked Zullo’s claims?”

I am taking a forensic approach here neither “believing” nor advocating NBC’s claims as true but rather trying to accurately state NBC’s claims and letting others with expertise assess those claims.

NBC claims to have replicated every pdf anomaly with the exception of the “halos” and has put up a pdf file to prove it. He has also posted his extensive record of trial and error in getting to the equipment and workflow that he claims results in the replicated pdf. If his claims are false, then it is up to debunkers to attack his pdf, IMO.

Zullo has always said that he would withdraw his claim that the WH pdf “never existed as a paper document” if someone could show a “one-touch” replication. NBC claims to have shown a three step replication which meets Zullo’s essential challenge, if true, IMO.

As to the curvature issue, that would have existed on the hard copy LFBC that NBC claims was fed into the Xerox so the curvature is not an artifact of compression.

[butterdezillion]

If the PDF was created on the Xerox WorkCentre, that should be what is listed as the PDF Producer, even if the PDF was emailed to a different computer. Just opening a document doesn’t change the program that created the document.

Why did they treat the BC and COLB differently than they treated the tax forms? If the tax forms were gonna be fine going straight from the Xerox to being posted online, then why weren’t the long-form and COLB gonna be fine?

[GregNH]

I have not been following this Xerox thread with much interest. But it appears to me that 1) The only Xerox created PDF was a tax return. I would be surprised if Zippos tax return was done and processed in the WH, but I will let that go.

2) NBC has not shown any evidence that the WH LFBC was scanned with a Xerox.