Thanks. I also get the part about the haloes. It’s the talk of algorithms, Mixed Raster Compression and the like that I’m unable to follow well. In the end, I think that the report by Hayes will be damning enough all by itself, in its handwriting/font analys.
Most of this ‘Mixed Raster’ stuff is pure FUD.
Scanners scan. The original is always just a simple non-layered bit map. Always. Everything else some sort of software post processing. Always.
Now the device or computer program may use the bit-map to create another file in another format (such as Adobe pdf) but it is after the original image is captured. If this is done the original bit map may be discarded and never seen. Thus you are left with only the resulting converted file - a pdf, jpg, bmp or even text (if the desired output was just OCR output).
Adobe Standard and Adobe Professional have most of the ‘enhancing’ functions one would need. A native scan ‘printed’ in Adobe pdf will still contain a single image - a copy of the original bit map. If you attempt select sections of the document using the mouse you will get a blue box on a pure ‘printed’ copy that has no OCR yet applied. That is because the file has understanding of any text in the image - it is still treating it like a single monolithic image with no layers or OCR table.
In Adobe Standard (or Professional) you can have Adobe create an OCR table. So then you can highlight TEXT with your mouse and cut/copy and paste TEXT to another document. Adobe Standard/Professional will add the OCR table with a few clicks from the menu. Does it change the appearance of the document - hell no. The physical appearance of the document looks exactly the same. But the software ‘scanned’ the image looking for things it recognizes as text characters and creates a table inside the file. If you then highlight with your mouse the text characters will get highlighted in blue, not just a single box. The Obama LFBC has no OCR table in it. Even if did it would (or should not) not change the appearance of the image. When the OCR excuse was first used by this same crowd it was laughable.
Can you ‘optimize’ with Adobe Standard/Professional? Yes. And when it is done the text will change to make the new file smaller (optimized). And when it does the pixels are larger (like they are in Obama’s LFBC) and they have less variance in color and are mostly black (like Obama’s) also. What you do not get in any fashion is the stupid halos and the other variances in pixelation. The halos appear in manufactured images, not ones that have been reformatted for standard purposes.
Another non-technical red flag is the Nordyke-like shadowed left bend. That should not be there. Its in the Nordykes certified copies. But for good reason - their COPIES were made in 1965! Well before the originals were scanned into a digital (likely optical WORM) library. Images stored in the digital library are SCANNED FLAT. Except for a very slight bend the images printed on security paper are flat in their appearance. That Nordyke-like left bend is a phenomena of a copy being made while the document is still in a bound volume. To scan them - they unbind them and scan them flat. There has yet to be another example of a LFBC image printed on security paper with a transparent background that looks like Obama’s LFBC. In this regard is truly a only-one-on-this-earth ‘document’.
We will not even get into centered fields with a typewriter. If you ever took a typing class or really had to use a typewriter (manual or electric) you would know what a royal pain centered fields are - ROYAL PAIN! Computers can center things easily - real typewriters, no so much. This is why every LFBC has tabbed fields. Typewriters do do tabs well. Centered fields with a typewriter - yeah right. Stupid 20-somethings or even 30-somethings at work replicating something they only saw in a museum.
This thing is a mess. A complete mess - every way one looks at it.