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.