Aw big bummer for Fogbow DUmmies.
Hey, is it an "H" or is it an "X" that is the question!
3 out 4 isn't bad. :^)
Posted on 08/07/2013 6:29:11 PM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com ...
I’ve been lurking over at Fogblower and found a claim at a link posted there that Xerox has known for a long time that “character substitution” could result from using the lowest image quality setting. The machine even warns the user that this is possible! So this recent finding that an 8 was being replaced with 6, etc., didn’t pop up coincident with the CCP putting pressure on Barry.
Posted by spicyjeff
I’ve contacted the researcher and pointed out on our affected device that I can replicate the problem with, that this only happens when the image quality is set to “Normal” (the lowest setting). When set to this level a specific warning does state that “character substitution” may occur. Why anyone at Xerox thought this was acceptable in any form for a scanner is beyond me.
But when the device is set to either of the next two higher levels, “High” and “Highest” respectively, the warning is not displayed and through testing we’ve confirmed the character substitution does not take place.
Last edited by spicyjeff on Mon Aug 05, 2013 6:46 pm
Nowhere did Onaka say that he was verifying the truth of the information contained on any birth certificate. ALL he verified in a clear sentence was that a birth certificate for Barack Hussein Obama, II, exists.
If he was unable to comment on Bennett’s request for verification that the White House image was a “true and accurate representation of the original record on file” then he should not have said anything. He was never asked to verify EVERY fact on the BC OR whether the information was the same. For instance, he never asked for the mother’s address to be verified. For Onaka to say that the information “matched” when he was never requested to verify that is for him to disclose more than he is authorized to disclose. If he is not authorized to verify the genuineness of the image presented to him, then in accordance with UIPA he is supposed to deny that request and state the reasons why the request must be denied - using a Glomarized response if necessary to hide the nondiscloseable information.
What? It didn’t have a fine-letter disclaimer saying, “This applies only if you are a worthless peon who doesn’t even live in Washington DC”?
More confirmation from Xerox on compression errors that can result from industry standard JBIG2 compressor...
Recently there have been articles about Xerox devices randomly altering numbers in scanned documents. We take this issue very seriously.
The problem stems from a combination of compression level and resolution setting. The devices mentioned are shipped from the factory with a compression level and resolution that produces scanned files which are optimized for viewing or printing while maintaining a reasonable file size. We do not normally see a character substitution issue with the factory default settings however, the defect may be seen at lower quality and resolution settings.
The Xerox design utilizes the recognized industry standard JBIG2 compressor which creates extremely small file sizes with good image quality, but with inherent tradeoffs under low resolution and quality settings.
For data integrity purposes, we recommend the use of the factory defaults with a quality level set to “higher.” In cases where lower quality/higher compression is desired for smaller file sizes, we provide the following message to our customers next to the quality settings within the device web user interface: “The normal quality option produces small file sizes by using advanced compression techniques. Image quality is generally acceptable, however, text quality degradation and character substitution errors may occur with some originals.”
Xerox is totally committed to customer satisfaction and with this feedback we will look for ways to help our customers better manage their scanning application needs.
Aw big bummer for Fogbow DUmmies.
Hey, is it an "H" or is it an "X" that is the question!
3 out 4 isn't bad. :^)
Yes, and the only two answers allowable are “yes” and silence - where “yes” has to be given as an answer if it’s legally true.
Onaka’s answer to everything - except that a BC for Barack Hussein Obama, II exists - was silence, when asked to specifically verify that the birth facts Bennett listed on the application were the LEGALLY-ESTABLISHED birth facts.
And Onaka had his office manager initial the signature stamp to distance himself from it. And he refused to apply his raised stamp to authenticate his signature. Fuddy’s raised seal had to be used - which the statute says must be next to Fuddy’s signature, which Fuddy would not put on this document.
Naw that doesn't apply to Obama birf certificates that are not allowed anyone with credibility to see and hold for verification.
“The only thing that Onaka verified is that he has a record. Onaka has no confidence about what he signed is true.”
__
Well, close. Onaka verified that he has a record and that the information in the LFBC matches the information in that official DoH record.
Unless Onaka was present at Obama’s birth, I can’t imagine how he would be able to testify to the truth of the information in the records. For that, he (and most of the rest of us) rely for guidance on Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution, which says that if data exists in the official records of a state, full faith and credit shall be given to that information — in other words, we will start out believing it to be true, until and unless a compelling presentation of evidence to the contrary prevails. Onaka’s job is to issue documents that reflect the data in the official records He is in no position to have independent knowledge of the truthfulness of the data.
Of course, when you think about it, that’s also true of my birth certificate and yours and pretty much everybody else’s. Do you know anyone who has a birth certificate for which the certifying officer had personal knowledge that the facts in the document were true?
I’d have to check again, and right now my desktop is having problems so it’ll be a hassle to do the checking (besides the fact that I’ve wasted way too much time on this already and have way too much I should be doing instead. GRRR), but IIRC the German researcher said they found that the problems exist on the higher-quality settings as well, and on a BUNCH of other versions of Xerox copiers - some of which had no warnings.
But just looking at the context that he gave - where a schematic was drawn to scale but the numbers listed right by a certain figure were obviously way off - I can’t see how this could have been happening on all these machines for almost 10 years and nobody raised heck with Xerox about it in all those years. How many tax audits have been done with these substitutions taking place and yet no auditor caught that the 6’s and 8’s were switched around randomly? I’d like to know what calculators they’ve been using, that the numbers all magically balance even when some of them are randomly switched out.
And another question - why was somebody scanning this important document on the lowest quality setting in the first place?
Also, why didn’t the short-form scan have the same stuff happen to it? Why was there no green background, layers, etc on that, when they “scanned” the COLB to show the world? For that matter, why aren’t the 6’s and 9’s substituted in the long-form, since the German researcher showed that this particular Xerox machine does that quite frequently ?
No, there are still WAY too many things that just don’t make sense.
It makes no difference to me whether the Xerox machine explains the digital anomalies because it’s still got the wrong security background AND Onaka still refused to verify that the White House image is a “true and accurate representation of the original record on file”. We’ve already got our legal answer. So this is really neither here nor there. But I’m interested in it because the way these claims came up smells fishy to me - including details involving some people I believe may have been involved in setting up the disinformation.
It’s actually the same situation as with the birth announcements. It really doesn’t matter whether the birth announcement was in the paper or not, but when I saw the signs of forgery and the now-proven disinformation about where the images really came from it showed how corrupted the entire system is and the desperate lengths to which they were willing to go to get ANYTHING credible to substantiate the fake birth story.
Next we’re going to find out that the computer switched out the 6’s and 3’s on Obama’s tax return’s SSN and it’s been doing that on all the tax returns filed and in all their fine-toothed audits the IRS just hasn’t noticed that wrong SSN’s have been used for the last 10 years...
“Full Faith and Credit shall be given.
Naw that doesn’t apply to Obama birf certificates that are not allowed anyone with credibility to see and hold for verification.”
__
LOL, RS, that’s a good one. Let’s see. On the one hand, we’ve got some text directly from the Constitution; and, on the other, we have the opinion of Red Steel, to wit, that the Constitution doesn’t apply in this particular case for Mr. Steel’s own particular reason.
Hmmm. Who you think’s gonna win that one?
Let see now. I recall something about an Adobe Illustrator software, but heard or read nothing about what hardware scanner they allegedly used to create the document image that so happened to have multitudes of layers with multiple of mistakes.
Funny, how my cheapo flatbed scanner accurately duplicates letters and numbers, but the Obama White House's alleged super duper Xerox 7655 scanner cannot? LoL.
“Show me the words where Onaka verified each fact as TRUE.”
__
Do me a favor, BZ, and think about this.
How would Onaka find out whether or not the facts were true? What sources of information are available to him?
No, what's funny is the blather coming from Obots who don't care a wit about the US Constitution, but only "thinking" when it maybe it is politically expedient for the Marxist in office.
OK,
This is a massive FAIL with a capital F.
‘The same as the document posted at the WH’?
Hardly, The pdf supposedly (and maybe truely generated) by a Xerox machine FAILED the very first test I applied to it.
Massively failed. Completely failed it.
This is a giant distraction. It is a giant lie. It is criminal fraud.
The court proceeding of December 1971 would be a good start since that is likely the last (of many) legal name changes for Obama/Soetoro/Dunham.
I’m sorry, your reference escapes me.
It would be a good start for what?
No, wrong again. The Registrar does not have to be there at anyones' birth to have very good confidence if they were born in a Hawaiian hospital under normal circumstance and that the information contained in the records are true. As we see, nothing about Obama is normal. You ignore how easy it is to amend and get a Hawaiian birf certificate and how easy it is to take advantage of it there to commit fraud. And you have ignored what the deputy AG Nagamine said to Zullo.
A few days ago, there was an interesting thread on Hacker News about the strange things Xerox WorkCentre copiers can do to a document. The HN thread was prompted by this blog post and dealt strictly with the technical merits, uncontaminated by conspiracy theory.
From the blog post:
Next example: Some cost table, scanned on the WorkCentre 7535. As we are used to, a correct-looking scan at the first glance, but take a closer look. This error was found because usually, in such cost tables, the numbers are sorted ascending.
Before After The 65 became an 85 (second column, third line). Edit: I'm getting emails telling me that also a 60 in the upper right region of the image became a 80. Thanks! This is not a simple pixel error either, one can clearly see the characteristic dent the 8 has on the left side in contrast to a 6. This scan is several weeks old – no one can say how many wrong documents have been produced by the Xerox machines in the mean time.
The consensus of Hacker News posters was that the errors were due to improper use of the JBIG2 compression algorithm. One of the HN posters claimed to be the author of Google Books' JBIG2 compressor:
agl 7 days ago | Post #12
This class of error is called (by me, at least) a "contoot" because, long ago, when I was writing the JBIG2 compressor for Google Books PDFs, the first example was on the contents page of book. The title, "Contents", was set in very heavy type which happened to be an unexpected edge case in the classifier and it matched the "o" with the "e" and "n" and output "Contoots".The classifier was adjusted and these errors mostly went away. It certainly seems that Xerox have configured things incorrectly here.
Also, with Google Books, we held the hi-res original images. It's not like the PDF downloads were copies of record. We could also tweak the classification and regenerate all the PDFs from the originals.
For a scanner, I don't think that symbol compression should be used at all for this reason. For a single page, JBIG2 generic region encoding is generally just as good as symbol compression.
More than you want to know about this topic can be found here: https://www.imperialviolet.org/binary/google-books-pdf.pdf
Ranted another poster:
linohh 7 days ago | Post #35
This was predictable. JBIG2 is in no way secure for document processing, archiving or whatsoever. The image is sliced into small areas and a probabilistic matcher finds other areas that are similar. This way similar areas only have to be stored once.Yeah right, you get it, don't you? They are similar, not equal. Whenever there's a probability less than 1, there's a complementary event with a probability larger than 0.
I wonder which prize idiot had the idea of using this algorithm in a copier. JBIG2 can only be used where mistakes won't mean the world is going to end. A photocopier is expected to copy. If the machines were used for digital document archiving, some companies will face a lot of trouble when the next tax audit is due.
Digital archives using this kind of lossy compression are not only worthless, they are dangerous. As the paper trail is usually shredded after successful redundant storage of the images, there will be no way of determining correctness of archived data.
This will make lawsuits a lot of fun in the future.
The point is that modern scanners and copiers don't just output raster scans. Rather, they analyze the image heavily in order to encode it for compression and OCRing. That sort of activity explains the anomalies of Zero's BC PDF, not some absurdly clumsy attempt at forgery.
This brings to mind the “text and image” setting for the “Copy” feature on some photocopiers (Xerox, Canon, and others).
“Text and image” would be selected if say, someone was going to scan a passport (text plus photo) or an ID badge (text plus photo).
I can’t imagine someone selecting that setting off the bat for a birth certificate copy. I would think someone would go for the plain text setting only.
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.
