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 can see faint halos. If you zoom in on the title that begins “2,100”. The centers of the “00” clearly show halos.
I haven’t seen the x-ray yet.
I wonder, if the registrar stamp is on the front of the document do they use an embossed seal. That way the words in the seal are in the correct orientation.
Trying the same things and getting different results is a positive form of crazy if you try using it as a proof of anything. What it would prove is either that something changed, or all the phenomena are inconsistent and whimsical, which flies in the face of what computing is all about.
What changes to the workflow cause halos, x-ray effect, and identical pixel elements? Why were they not showing up before and show up now? And what other documents provably created in 2011 show these features?
And while they’re at it, somebody could try explaining why the white copy long-form has cross-hatches showing only on one side of the document, with a clear cut-off line right where the BC portion ends and the certification portion begins - on a scan with bleed-through from a page behind the one being scanned. If the long-form was fed in with an automatic feed there wouldn’t have been any document underneath when it was being scanned. If the long-form was manually placed on the glass to be copied, why would you put another document on top of it? And why would anything show through anyway, if you’re copying security paper?
Is the white copy a scan of the long-form, as claimed in the press gaggle? If so, how could that have been created using the same workflow as it is said the White House folks used?
“What changes to the workflow cause halos, x-ray effect, and identical pixel elements? Why were they not showing up before and show up now?”
Was anyone looking for halos, x-ray effect, and identical pixel elements?
Are most PDFs given this type of scrutiny?
Take this new one from the Appalachian Trail Museum. If you were just looking for info from their website and opened it in your browser, you would not notice the differences. It’s only if you look very carefully and know what to look for and zoom-in to a ridiculous level that you can see that there are differences.
Yes, I believe NBC was looking closely for these things this whole time, and hadn’t found these phenomena on any of the ones he had looked at until now.
Not sure if this is the x-ray effect.
If you load the PDF into Illustrator and release the clipping mask, one of the layers consists of the dark gray triangle in the center of the “A” in “USA” for the “USA TODAY” title. When you turn off that triangle in the center of the “A”, the underlying color is very close to the body color of the “A”.
Another “great day”??? Amazing how this person keeps coming up with evidence to support the theory ... almost miraculous.
“Amazing how this person keeps coming up with evidence to support the theory ... almost miraculous.”
__
It only looks miraculous in contrast with the quantity and quality of the evidence from the other side.
So from the thousands of this popular Xerox machine in the world generating millions of Adobe files using this supposed algorithm. They ‘found’ 2 examples.
With Adobe standard you can test most of these in under 2 minutes. So far - every one fails. They are not the same as WH posted file.
“Amazing how this person keeps coming up with evidence to support the theory ... almost miraculous.”
From what I can see, NBC is not showing evidence to support any theory. He is making claims of fact that are falsifiable.
If NBC’s claims prove to be true and can be replicated by others, then the claims serve to falsify the claims of Zullo’s team that certain specific artifacts in the WH LFBC “cannot be replicated on any known copier.”
Zullo has stated that inability to replicate the artifacts supports a claim that the WH LFBC never existed as a paper document and therefor MUST have been forged electronically.
Obviously, this particular claim of proof of forgery by Zullo fails (is falsified) if NBC has succeeded in demonstrating that these artifacts can be replicated.
The truth is the truth and regardless of how long it took for someone to demonstrate it (if NBC has) it is what it is.
Proving Barry’s LFBC to be a forgery, if it is a forgery, will have to rely on OTHER claims that cannot be falsified and/or other evidence.
Anything can be replicated when you can write an algorithm to do it. Proving that they can get a machine to do these things now is a far cry from proving that these machines did these things on their own in April of 2011.
For what it is worth:
Here is the wayback version of the website TaxHistory.org for April 20, 2011
Here is the archival copy of the 2010 Obama taxes:
Actually, we had found them, the problem was either all of the halos were white on white (thus impossible to determine whether there actually was a halo) or might have come from the fact that the test scan was using a printout that already had halos.
NBC reply on his blog:
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2013/08/19/to-4zoltanbutterdezillion/
To 4Zoltan/Butterdezillion
Posted on August 19, 2013 by NBC
4Zoltan: “What changes to the workflow cause halos, x-ray effect, and identical pixel elements? Why were they not showing up before and show up now?”
Was anyone looking for halos, x-ray effect, and identical pixel elements?
Are most PDFs given this type of scrutiny?
NBC: Halos, x-ray effects and identical pixels are found in all the PDF’s however, I am not satisfied with the amount of Halo I see in my WH scan.
BZ: Yes, I believe NBC was looking closely for these things this whole time, and hadn’t found these phenomena on any of the ones he had looked at until now.
NBC: That is not correct.
4Zoltan: Not sure if this is the x-ray effect.
If you load the PDF into Illustrator and release the clipping mask, one of the layers consists of the dark gray triangle in the center of the “A” in “USA” for the “USA TODAY” title. When you turn off that triangle in the center of the “A”, the underlying color is very close to the body color of the “A”.
NBC: That is an example, basically xray means that the background is not ‘white’ when you remove the foreground bitmap layers.
And there is another PDF
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2013/08/19/job-link-pdf-confirmation/
Well of course there is.
Blogger NBC now claims to have a hard copy document that when scanned into a Xerox copier replicates the “halo effect” seen in the WH LFBC pdf. NBC says he considers his research into replication of WH LFBC pdf artifacts to now be complete.
“And halos, we have halos – Confirmation PDF”
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2013/08/20/and-halos-we-have-halos-confirmation-pdf/
“Finally, what I have been looking for… This settles it for me…”
Never a doubt that the FlogBlowing Fogblower would ‘find it’. LoL.
Send this to NBC Seize:
Ask NBC to duplicate Obama’s long form PDF birth certificate in precise detail with ALL of the exact anomalies including the smiley face in Alvin Onaka’s name as well as the ‘TXE’ in the registrars stamp.
All this for an exercise that Zulllo, etc. seem to believe is totally irrevelant? Count me as less than impressed at these rounds of navel-gazing
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.