Posted on 08/07/2013 6:29:11 PM PDT by Seizethecarp
UPDATE: Barbara Nelson is now claiming she must have misunderstood what role Dr. West played in Obama’s birth. “I don’t know in what capacity [West] knew about this particular birth,” Nelson told WND. “Being one of the leaders in obstetrics in Hawaii, he could have had physical or informational access to all of the obstetrics [on the islands],” she told WND. “The discussion centered on the “peculiarity of a woman named Stanley,” she said. “I just said tell me something [that has happened],” she said. “And he says Stanley had a baby, and that’s something to write home about.”
http://advanceindiana.blogspot.com.au/2011/04/doctors-family-surprised-to-learn-dad.html
Trevor Loudan coming up on KNUS with Peter Boyles. In studio for two hours:
http://www.iheart.com/live/5973/?autoplay=true
I don’t know if it’s saved for podcast like when he was on KHOW.
Did Garrett regularly use the 7655? If so, maybe he could show us the copies he made on the 7655 in April of 2011 that had the same phenomena. When he was collaborating with the CCP did he try out the 7655 to see if it would give these effects? Funny that neither he nor anybody else - when examining documents down to the pixel level - never noticed any number substitutions or other strange phenomena now being brought up.
Maybe we all need to find out whether the Kinko’s or other copy places where we may have had copies made before 2013 used a 7655, and we should look at those copies and see if there are number substitutions in those older copies, or if the number substitutions only started appearing recently.
“There is a whole lot of narrative there that replaces the “happy family” story, IMO!”
_____________________________________________________
Absolutely.
These documents, along with the August 1961 to September of 1962 of what appears to be SAD and child in Washington.
It would certainly appear he did not ‘abandon’ the family. He does not even acknowledge its existence in his hand writing until after the 1964 divorce and when he is desperate to find a reason to stay in the US.
And SAD and child do not show up in earnest in Hawaii until AFTER he is gone. The divorce was ‘one-way’ (no acknowledgement from Sr.) so it appears he or his persona) was used as fill in.
Not to hijack your thread. And I know others will have opinions here that could get off course.
But back to the ‘document’.
Butter’s account of Onaka having to ‘create’ this under the watchful eyes of Fundy makes a lot of sense. Hawaii definitely has records of some sort that are at this point hopefully legally filed and legally on record - matching most their statements back to 2008. What they have is probably not a pristine, unaltered ‘normal’ LFBC on file.
Obama’s childhood identity probably went through the legal meat-grinder 2 or 3 times. The 1964 divorce, the marriage and possible adoption with Lolo Soetoro in 1965. When he was removed from his mother’s passport in 1968 and likely obtained his own passport, likely under the Soetoro family name. And in 1971 during the family court proceedings that likely occurred as part of the ‘grand international family reunion’ of December 1971. His records may look like legal ground beef by this point.
Remember when it was reported that the records were ‘sealed’ by Gov. Lingle? Since when do governors have the right to issue an order to ‘seal’ birth documents? And does that not conflict with the ‘handled like every other BC’ statement? So how does the term sealed enter the MSM storyline? The logical and obvious explanation is identity change and/or adoption. In these circumstances documents are legally ‘sealed’. The original 1961 BC may be 2 or 3 layers deep in legal sealing. AND even it may very well be marked ‘late’ and/or ‘altered’. And probably has supporting documentation. But it would almost certainly be ‘sealed’ given the childhood events. So how would it even legally come to light. It should not. But it did. And hence the lawlessness in Hawaii appears to go on.
To untangle things the only way to do so would be to work BACKWARDS. Starting in 1971. What happened in 1971 is the real starting point. Not 1961.
I don’t know what the plans are towards finding a local level code manual. I think he did look into that, but I don’t believe he was able to turn anything up.
” if the number substitutions only started appearing recently.”
According to Xerox, they have been aware of the issue since the machines were first developed.
“He added that Xerox had been aware of the issue since the machines’ original design and had flagged it in its user manuals. As a result, he said, the company had been caught off-guard by the response to the professor’s blog.”
“We’re surprised there has been such a dramatic reaction, but we are taking it seriously. We got the feedback and we are going to be proactively working with our customers to make sure they feel comfortable with the data integrity of our devices.”
“We know a lot of people in our industry use the Jbig2 algorithm, but I can’t comment on whether they would have this problem or not.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23610405
I’m scrambling like crazy to get a million things done. So if you or anybody else can double-check my understanding of this, it would be very helpful.
Number substitutions happen on what machines? Do they happen on the default setting for the machine, or do you have to lower the quality and file size to get number substitutions? Did Xerox set up warnings for the user to know that substitutions could occur with those particular settings?
What settings are required to create an automatic clipping mask that takes off the outer edges of the scanned document? What settings create multiple layers, and are the layers created reproducible each time, or are they seemingly random? For instance, you lay the paper on the bed of the scanner. Then you press scan 5 different times, one right after the other, changing nothing and not even opening the lid of the scanner. Do all 5 scans give you the same layers - a reproducible result you would expect from a machine carrying out exact algorithms in a controlled setting? If you save a scan on the 7655 without previewing it, is the saved file different than if you preview it on the 7655 before saving it? If you send the scan directly in an email is it in PDF format? If they open it on a PC will they be able to move around pieces of content? If they open it on a Mac will they?
If you import a digital file to the copier does the copier make layers out of a digital file as well, before printing it?
Here are my understanding:
BD: Number substitutions happen on what machines? Do they happen on the default setting for the machine, or do you have to lower the quality and file size to get number substitutions?
A number of Xerox WorkCentre models exhibit this. At first it was reported that only the “normal” setting which is not the factory default setting caused this problem. But there are reports it happens at all settings.
Here is the latest from the German researcher:
BD: Did Xerox set up warnings for the user to know that substitutions could occur with those particular settings?
Yes, here is the reported warning,
“The normal quality option produces small file sizes by using advanced compression techniques. Image quality is generally acceptable, however, text quality degredation and character substitution errors may occur with some originals.”
BD: “What settings are required to create an automatic clipping mask that takes off the outer edges of the scanned document?”
That is actually two issues. The Xerox machines have a feature called EdgeErase which removes the edge of the document. It is designed to remove staple marks or three-hole punch marks. IIRC, the default is .1” This creates a white border around the edge of the document.
There is a clipping mask that is created by Preview when it is opened on a Mac. This is a separate border from the one created by the Xerox.
BD: “What settings create multiple layers, and are the layers created reproducible each time, or are they seemingly random? For instance, you lay the paper on the bed of the scanner.”
IDK the settings. The Xerox has a sheet feeder which would be the normal way it was fed into the machine. The blogger NBC did scan the same document three times and got three different results but I suspect that was using the sheet feeder.
BD: “If you save a scan on the 7655 without previewing it, is the saved file different than if you preview it on the 7655 before saving it?”
I don’t believe it has a screen for previewing the document before scanning like a computer hooked up to a scanner.
BD: “If you send the scan directly in an email is it in PDF format?”
From the Xerox manuals I seen, there are several file formats available including PDF, TIFF and JPEG. You can choose the format you want.
BD: “If they open it on a PC will they be able to move around pieces of content? If they open it on a Mac will they?”
As I understand it only if you open it in Illustrator.
BD: “If you import a digital file to the copier does the copier make layers out of a digital file as well, before printing it?”
IDK, can you even import a digital file?
Thank you. They need to do a controlled experiment by leaving the paper on the glass and scanning it different times to see if the algorithms do the same thing every time. If not, the algorithm is suspect. Why would an algorithm do different things in exactly the same circumstance? Do they create those things with volition? lol
Seize. I just went to Dr. Conspiracy’s site and believes Garrett Papit is trying to trick him pertaining to the halos. See the red Update. Kevin Davidson aka Dr. Conspiracy says the security paper lines don’t match up and he has images up proving it. Have a look and what are your thoughts since you are keeping up with their experiments?
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/08/halos-revisited/
Meant to say ‘he believes’......
Halo research update ping...
NBC has responded to my comment #535 by posting a comment on his blog:
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2013/08/15/seizethecarp-papit/
begin NBC blog post
Seizethecarp – Garrett Papit
Posted on August 15, 2013 by NBC
SeizetheCarp Zullo’s pdf expert, Garrett Papit (who collaborated with Mara Zebest), is now collaborating with Obot blogger “NBC” to the extent of helping him to try to get to the bottom of the mysterious halos on the WH LFBC pdf!
Let me assure you that there is no collaboration between me and Papit. All I did was look at a document Papit had sent to Dr Conspiracy which appeared to be the WH LFBC without halos. The document is quite useless since the background lacks the contrast of the original.
Of course, I do encourage his contributions once he gets the green light to share with us his findings.
I found a Youtube video made by ‘Papit’ where someone can be observed trying to get a Xerox WorkCentre 7655 to scan via email, but failing, probably due to a bad networking setup. This was almost a month ago. It appears that they are still taking their time sharing their findings. I wonder what is taking them so long.
Looking forward to hearing more. At the moment Papit appears to be under a ‘gag’ order of some kind… I kid you not…
Papit: Unfortunately I’m not at liberty to discuss it at this point. But sit tight. It will be covered in due time. … Once I am allowed to discuss it I will be more than happy to address your points.
In his report he mentioned that he had done over 1200 tests, but the real question is: What was tested? Software, hardware? And is this the first time they are looking at the Xerox WorkCentre...
end NBC blog post
If you were to drag this selected text to another computer file, what would happen? The purple text 'YES' would have a black halo around it. Why? Because when the word 'YES' was selected, the selection was expanded by a couple of pixels, resulting in a black halo around the text. This is how the white halos around the bc lines and text occurred, when the fake green security paper background was added behind it.
“This is how the white halos around the bc lines and text occurred, when the fake green security paper background was added behind it.”
So if the foregoing forged file with cut-and-paste text that was added to a fake secutity paper background was printed out as a hardcopy, it would have halos, correct?
Then if that forged hardcopy with halos was fed into a Xerox 7655 scanner, compressed with MRC and sent via e-mail as a pdf to a Mac, it would show all of the features of NBC’s test scans shared with the WH pdf...PLUS it would still have halos...halos that are NOT accounted for by any Xerox 7655 replication efforts by NBC’s own admission, so far, correct?
I suspect that Garrett Papit is hard at work refining his mock-up “original” documents and feeding them into a Xerox 7655 both with and without halos to see what the Xerox does with them. Of course, he would also open them in Preview, invert them and save them on a Mac.
In any case, I am glad that one of Mike Zullo’s primary pdf consultants is aware of the replication claims of NBC and is in a position to try to replicate them himself.
How large in kilobytes was the pdf file for Obama’s White House BC?
From the file:
PDF Producer: Mac OS X 10.6.7 Quartz PDFContext
File Size: 385,354 bytes
Page Size: 8.50 x 11.00 in
“How large in kilobytes was the pdf file for Obama’s White House BC?”
If I open the following link and right-click for “properties” I get 376 kb for the WH LFBC pdf
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf
Garrett Papit’s report that he wrote for the CCP explains the extreme compression levels that can be achieved by MRC:
http://www.mcso.org/MultiMedia/PressRelease/Media%20Supplemental%20Report.pdf
BTW, NBC put up a blog post just for you, RS! It is pretty content-free so I won’t reproduce it on FR.
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2013/08/13/red-steel-and-competent-scanners/
Thanks for staying on this. It’s an important topic, but my dearth of technical skill in this area has consigned me to lurker status for the most part, lately.
One thing you can do without any technical background to show one of the basic issues is simple.
Compare the original file from the WH to the supposed photo by Ms. Samantha Guthrie from NBC.
Note that the size of the of ‘pages’ are very different. Simply go to the right and use the crosshatches. Guthrie’s ‘document’ is physically bigger.
Thanks, just a quick check. They match my 2012 WH birf copy. I got 2011 copy somewhere...
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.