According to his CV Seize, he has experience in ‘Examination of Computer Generated Handwriting’ as well as research in ‘Computer-Generated Handwriting and Documents’
http://reedwrite.com/?page_id=11
I personally believe ‘NBC’ is not replicating Obama’s document at all but rather insinuating he is and changing the data to make it seem so while using Obama’s existing document image on the White House website. As butter states, you have to look at the timing of this. This Xerox scenario all come about right after Zullo announced Reed Hayes report and his consultations with Congressman Stockman and others. This put pressure on the Obots to counter the unseen Hayes report. At first when NBC broke the news about it, he admitted he couldn’t replicate the document in it’s entirety and admitted that yes, there were anomalies he and his cohort he did the experiment with couldn’t explain. Also they expect 95% of individuals with no computer background skills in graphics, scanning and imaging to believe them since they use terminology the average person doesn’t understand. This is nothing but a ruse. Now would be a time to consult with international scanner expert Doug Vogt, the person who owns Archive Index Systems, a company that sells a wide variety of document scanners worldwide and develops document imaging software. Before that, Vogt owned Nova Typesetting for 11 years. Vogt admitted the document was fake after Obama released it and submitted a 22 page criminal to the FBI back in May of 2011. They have been sitting on it. Here is his complaint:
Again, NBC and his cohort are admitted amateurs and they have no credentials to match Reed Hayes, Doug Vogt or Adobe expert Mara Zabest. Zullo needs to consult with them to counter this latest disinformation tactic they are using and neutralize their scheme.
I meant to say 22 page criminal ‘complaint’.
“According to his CV Seize, he has experience in ‘Examination of Computer Generated Handwriting’ as well as research in ‘Computer-Generated Handwriting and Documents’”
An expert would need experience with the specific scanning compression software used by the Xerox Work Centre, I would think.
This paragraph pretty much sums it up. This falls under the "too good to be true" category. Follow the timing by overcomplicating the explanation, which is just intended to confuse enough people to create doubt about Zullo's investigation. Even with the multiple blogposts worth of "explanations," there's a problem if there was ANY kind of manipulation after the original scan. 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.