Must See TV: Sheriff Joe Arpaio's Obama Investigation; New Criminal Evidence Coming

BirtherReport.com ^ | March 26, 2014 | PixelPatriot/Where'sObama'sbirthcertificate

[Seizethecarp]

"This video outlines the document and ID fraud surrounding Barack Obama with his known aliases, AKA Barry Soetoro, AKA Soebarkah; and his Constitutional eligibility to hold the Office of the United States Presidency. Due to new criminal evidence, a 2nd official investigation has been opened by the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office unrelated to the original ID fraud investigation of Barack Obama. The public has been put on notice of an upcoming press conference disclosing this new criminal evidence which has been characterized as “Universe Shattering” by lead investigator Mike Zullo of the Maricopa County Cold Case Posse."

[MMaschin]

Again, complete BS!


From http://jbig2.com/
The advantage of JBIG2 encoding of your company's documents is that this ITU-approved standard, unlike TIFF G4 and TIFF-based PDF, is font-based and allows for efficient encoding of a fully-searchable text layer.

WHERE IS THE TEXT LAYER! IT'S NOT THERE!!!

Now, knowing that a font based compression did not create a text layer, how did the document end up with multiple letter and box pixel for pixel duplications? Answer - cut and paste!

Spread your stupid lies somewhere else!

[DiogenesLamp]

And of course, you can’t miss an opportunity to opine on this topic in defense of Barack Obama’s legitimacy.

One would think that most actual conservatives would be of two positions. Either

1. Do not give a ****.
2. Happy to see crap flying in Barack’s direction, true or not.

But you come in as a third catagory.

3. Looking for any and every excuse to justify every weird twist and question of legitimacy regarding the Worst Democrat President in the History of forever.

My recollection is I still haven’t heard a plausible explanation from you (or anyone else) why typewritten text might be misaligned by a half space both vertically and horizontally on this asserted “document.”

Thought of anything yet?

[little jeremiah]

How do you know he isn’t a member there?

[MMaschin]

The way JBIG2 works is that is searches a document for areas that match known fonts. When it finds a match, is removes it from the image layer, and adds it to a text layer. This has two large advantages, 1) storing text data as an image is VERY inefficient, and 2) you can not search an image data for text, only text layers. So after JBIG2 compression, text in a document will be in the text layer, and can be found by a simple search with ctrl+F.

The idea that compression, especially JBIG2 compression created anomalies in the document is ludicrous. The idea that JBIG2 was used was first brought forward to explain the letters that are pixel for pixel copies throughout the document. But that was quickly shot down when it was pointed out that the letters where still in image layers, and not in a text layer, therefore a substitution type algorithm was not used.

[Seizethecarp]

“But hardcopy documents and electronic documents entail two entirely different skill sets. You can’t move from one area to the other on the notion that one is a ‘document’ expert.”

You have resorted to the non sequitur logical fallacy: your erroneous conclusion does not follow from your premise.

Hayes can most certainly be a qualified expert in two separate fields, as am I (CPA and CFE).

[Seizethecarp]

“You are communicating with member of Fogbow.”

Sometimes it is hard to tell the anti-birthers from the Fogblowers!

[DiogenesLamp]

That it's not impossible at all for a typewriter to do that. The typewriter I had in the 60s--a cheap manual from Montgomery Ward--had a button on the end of the platen that would enable it to roll freely rather than in discrete chunks.

And apparently you aren't aware that when you let go of the button it falls back into it's normal spacing. It's because of this little thing called a "carriage rack." You see, they put those little notches in it to make sure it only types at specifically spaced intervals.

If you understand the mechanics of a typewriter, you realize immediately that your explanation above DOES NOT HOLD WATER.

This process also loosened the machine's grip on the paper,...

No, that's a distinctly different process. Carriage release only releases the Carriage, it doesn't release the paper. I think you are referring to the "Platen" release.

So for me, Lord Monckton's assertion fails on two points: it's based on a false assumption, and it posits an implausible scenario.

But you find it entirely plausible for someone to release the paper from the platen and have to reposition it, but only on the right side of the page? You may or may not have noticed, most of the out of position problems are on the right side of the page.

I'm not following your explanation here, I would think that if someone accidentally, or purposefully released the page from the platen, then it wouldn't manifest itself as having almost all the errors on one side of the page.

I assume a normal person would start at the top, and fill out details on a line by line basis, until they get to the bottom of the page. I could see spacing errors being at the top of the page, or the bottom of the page, but you would think one wouldn't keep making the sort of mistake that only causes problems on one side of the page.

No, your explanation is too simplistic, and improbable for it to be a good explanation of the evidence. You are going to have to think of something else.

[4Zoltan]

All of the 1-bit layers are text layers (there are 8 of them).

Look at these PDFs in Illustrator. They have the same type of layers as the White House PDF (except their rotations are 0 degrees but open and save them on a Mac and they will have rotations of 90 degrees).

http://www.ssunaa.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Scanned-from-a-Xerox-multifunction-device001.pdf

http://www.tric.edu/workforce/joblinkservices/Documents/Scanned%20from%20a%20Xerox%20multifunction%20device001.pdf

http://www.newport.gov.uk/stellent/groups/public/documents/planningdocument/cont513447.pdf

http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/rules/comments-3-13-TalismanEnergy.PDF

Why would any of these groups create routine memos in a haphazard piece by piece way?

[4Zoltan]

Look again at this document.

http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/rules/comments-3-13-TalismanEnergy.PDF

It has letters that are pixel-for-pixel identical. In the second row the name “Smelley, Ronald”, the “e”s and the “l”s are pixel identical.

Open this file in a text editor like WordPad and search for the term “bitspercomponent” all of the 1-bit layers were compressed using JBIG2.

Notice on the document that some of the text letters were added to the image (8-bit) layers. For example, the “T”in “Tuesday, November 20”.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

And apparently you aren't aware that when you let go of the button it falls back into it's normal spacing. It's because of this little thing called a "carriage rack."

I'm pretty sure the carriage rack controlled the horizontal spacing, and you're right, when you let go of that lever, the carriage locked into normal spacing. But I was talking about a button to release the vertical spacing (note I said "roll freely"). In that case, it just started again wherever it ended up.

Carriage release only releases the Carriage, it doesn't release the paper. I think you are referring to the "Platen" release.

It's probably clear by now that I was.

But what it comes down to is, you and Lord Monckton want me to believe that a forger assembled the LFBC by pasting in commas one by one, occasionally getting the spacing right but occasionally not; that the "Mat" part of "Maternity" was pasted in separately from the "ernity" part; that he would make sure "August 4" lined up on the baseline but then carelessly leave "1961" misaligned. I'm not sure what the exact explanation is for all the disrepancies one can find in the LFBC, but inconsistencies in an old manual typewriter seems a lot more plausible to me than the scenario you describe.

[GAFreedom]

@DiogenesLamp:

Does it also move the text around a half character, both vertically and horizontally when it scans it? Nothing else, just the text.

Absolutely. Just look at the errors produced by people replicating Kriesal's work. You get all sorts of weird stuff. It's why the industry is going to move away from JBIG2; the error is unfixable. It's a problem with the compression itself. @DiogenesLamp:

Just wondering. Can’t think of any application in which text needs to be moved over a half space, but perhaps it’s a feature on these new machines.

Do an OCR conversion of a SUB subtitle to an SRT subtitle sometime. Especially if there are italics in the mix. You will get some of the weirdest crap you've ever seen, from half-space problems to total misreads that cannot be manually corrected.

OCR's still in the infancy. It's nowhere near perfect and I don't expect it to be truly error-free on an acceptable basis until about 2025.

===
@4Zoltan:

Why would any of these groups create routine memos in a haphazard piece by piece way?

I'm telling you, you will get that layer setup if you just scan the document straight from the copier to folder. I know this for a fact; I work on these machines for a living and I deal with this stuff all day.

Notice on the document that some of the text letters were added to the image (8-bit) layers. For example, the “T”in “Tuesday, November 20”.

Yes. That's as a result of compression of elements that were recognized using the OCR on an obfuscated information scale. Very common when you are dealing with documents with a seal, backstamp, or embossing.

===
@MMischin:

WHERE IS THE TEXT LAYER! IT'S NOT THERE!!!

Yes, it is. It's Layer 0, containing the majority of the information in B&W. Also, the "efficient encoding" is more or less crap, as was proven when it was found that it errors like hell when scanning at too low a resolution.

Now, knowing that a font based compression did not create a text layer, how did the document end up with multiple letter and box pixel for pixel duplications? Answer - cut and paste!

Told you where it was. Since there is one, negates your question.

Spread your stupid lies somewhere else!

I work on copiers and document imaging solutions for a living. You don't. I prefer my expertise over an amateur any day of the week.

Now mind your language, like a Godly person would.

[4Zoltan]

“I’m telling you, you will get that layer setup if you just scan the document straight from the copier to folder. I know this for a fact; I work on these machines for a living and I deal with this stuff all day.”

I agree with you.

BTW, Bulldogs or Yellow Jackets?

[DiogenesLamp]

Absolutely. Just look at the errors produced by people replicating Kriesal's work. You get all sorts of weird stuff. It's why the industry is going to move away from JBIG2; the error is unfixable. It's a problem with the compression itself.

You are seriously going to argue that it will move the supposedly typed text around, but leave all the printed text in the exact correct position? By what process can the algorithm distinguish between typewritten text and printed text so that it can tell which one it needs to screw up?

Pull the other one.

Do an OCR conversion of a SUB subtitle to an SRT subtitle sometime. Especially if there are italics in the mix. You will get some of the weirdest crap you've ever seen, from half-space problems to total misreads that cannot be manually corrected.

In Science and Engineering, we refer to this sort of statement as "Hand Waving." You haven't really explained anything, you've just made some vague reference to an algorithm that does "Weird" things. It is not an answer to how typewritten text can be "weirded" while leaving the printed text in a completely normal condition.

I'm thinking the question cannot be answered without invoking forgery. I cannot comprehend the idea of an algorithm that will screw up only the typewritten text, but will leave the printed text completely normal.

[4Zoltan]

Can you look at this for me and explain why the “T” in “Tuesday. November 20, 2012” on the first page was treated differently by the algorithm?

http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/rules/comments-3-13-TalismanEnergy.PDF

Can you also look at this PDF and explain why the algorithm treated the “T” in the second occurrence of “WPD Surf Telecom” differently than the first and third occurrence?

Or why in the last line the “l,” in “Bristol,” is treated differently?

Or why in the line “Following consultation the local Western Power Distribution team will where necessary prepare detailed proposals and provide” some of the “l”s are pixel-for-pixel identical but others are not?

http://www.newport.gov.uk/stellent/groups/public/documents/planningdocument/cont513447.pdf

Algorithms seem to work inconsistently. And maybe the size of the typewritten text versus the preprinted text was enough to confuse the software.

[CpnHook]

And of course, you can’t miss an opportunity to opine on this topic in defense of Barack Obama’s legitimacy.

If I were to go back to when I registered and count the number of potential opportunities, my guess is that I've missed the greater percentage.

But increasingly your "replies" are about shifting the focus onto me personally. That type of ad hominem is a logical fallacy. Though consistency has never been your strong suit.

One would think that most actual conservatives would be of two positions. Either

* * *

2. Happy to see crap flying in Barack’s direction, true or not.

You're actually suggesting it's a conservative principle to be cavalier about factual accuracy? I have too much intellectual integrity to toss out crap without regard to factual support.

3. Looking for any and every excuse to justify every weird twist and question of legitimacy regarding the Worst Democrat President in the History of forever.

Eligibility flows from two points that aren't credibly challenged: 1) Hawaii has affirmed Obama's birth in that state, and 2) the Wong Kim Ark decision clearly equates "born in . . . the U.S. and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" with the common law meaning of "natural born citizen," reading both in accord with the jus soli principle of the antecedent "natural born subject." (And in case you need a reminder on this lesson, I refer you back to this post.)

My recollection is I still haven’t heard a plausible explanation from you (or anyone else) why typewritten text might be misaligned by a half space both vertically and horizontally on this asserted “document.”

Plausible is in the eye of the beholder. I gave several potential explanations when this was first discussed. In turn, I pointed out several things that warrant explanation on your end. 1) if this is supposedly drafted on a computer with someone filling in the form boxes by moving to each area in turn, how is it that the entire left side of the document has character alignment as per a typewriter? And 2) How can Moncton's "grid" technique be held up as meaningful absent demonstration of a "control" that validates the methodology?

You were silent on both questions. Of course, silence on the latter point was understandable given Moncton's split-down-the-middle "comparator" birth certificate.

[CpnHook]

You have resorted to the non sequitur logical fallacy: your erroneous conclusion does not follow from your premise.

Hayes can most certainly be a qualified expert in two separate fields, as am I (CPA and CFE).

Hmmm. Strawman argument fallacy committed in the attempt to assert a non sequitur fallacy.

I've not claimed Hayes can't be qualified in two areas. I'm simply saying he isn't qualified as to both handwriting (hardcopy) and electronic matters, based on what his C.V. reveals.

(And I added a further 'proof is in the pudding' point that Zullo's diligence in keeping the Hayes report from the view of anyone that matters supports what I'm claiming).

[DiogenesLamp]

Can you look at this for me and explain why the “T” in “Tuesday. November 20, 2012” on the first page was treated differently by the algorithm?

Can you also look at this PDF and explain why the algorithm treated the “T” in the second occurrence of “WPD Surf Telecom” differently than the first and third occurrence?

Or why in the last line the “l,” in “Bristol,” is treated differently?

Or why in the line “Following consultation the local Western Power Distribution team will where necessary prepare detailed proposals and provide” some of the “l”s are pixel-for-pixel identical but others are not?

Actually, I think I can. I've had spent some time acquainting myself with that mixed raster content compression scheme, and I understand why it sometimes changes the bit depth of a character and renders it as an image.

There are all sorts of techniques used in compression schemes, and one of them is "tokenization." They take a section of a scanned image, such as a typed character, and they create a token for it. They store the image as part of the file, but rather than storing say a hundred copies of the letter "A", (for example), they will store one copy, and replace it in the file stream with a "token" (could be a single byte, but nowadays it's more likely to be larger) to represents that image. When they decompress the file, they simply replace the token with that stored image that the token represents.

This generally results in all the characters of the same type (such as a letter "A") resembling each other exactly. Sometimes they don't, and if this occurs, it would generally be caused by the encoding software not recognizing the character as the same one it had already stored, and so it creates another example with a new token for it.

As for why the "T" is an image, it's because when the document was printed, for whatever reason, the contrast wasn't sharp enough for it to be recognized as a character, so the compression algorithm represented it as an image.

There's a bit more to it, but this explanation is probably sufficient, and in any case, already long enough.

Algorithms seem to work inconsistently. And maybe the size of the typewritten text versus the preprinted text was enough to confuse the software.

Algorithms are absolutely consistent. In this image scan/compression/reproduction scheme, variations too small to be noticeable by humans are distinctly different from the perspective of a machine. To the machine, a black and white image isn't black and white. It can see at a minimum 65,536 different colors, (16 bit pixel depth) and Probably several thousand different shades of white, and several thousand different shades of black.

It has a setting in the algorithm to tell it how much variation there is in the color "black" before it decides that it isn't "black", but is instead some other color, such as grey. Same thing with "white", or any other color. It has threshold settings for contrast which it follows, and that's my best guess at what happened to the "T" you mentioned. The OCR either didn't recognize it as a "T", or it recognized it as a "T" of a different font.

But none of these compression issues explain how you misalign character positions on a type written document. In some cases, the misaligned characters are typed over a box, and that pretty much makes it a single unit as far as the compression algorithm is concerned. Whatever it would do to the typed "X", it would do to the box as well, yet the box is exactly where it should be, while the "X" is misaligned both vertically and horizontally.

It is POSSIBLE to do this with a typewriter, but you would pretty much have to release the paper to do it, but as i've pointed out, a theory that requires you to release the paper so as to misalign the typing on the right, while getting most of the typing on the left correct, (Which means doing it over and over again as you type each new line) is a thoroughly implausible theory. It is simply stretching credibility too far.

And why is it so hard to believe that the document is fake? There is at least seven pieces of evidence to indicate that Lolo Soetoro adopted Barack Obama when he Married Stanly Ann. Barack's original birth certificate would have been sealed, and Hawaii would have produced a replacement identifying him as Barry Soetoro, or some such.

Very likely they created ANOTHER replacement birth certificate back in 1971 when his claimed father, Barack Obama Sr, and his Mother Stanly, came back to Hawaii during Christmas of that year. He Stayed in Hawaii after that, and most likely his Grandparents had legal guardianship of him.

Obviously had the document been produced back in 1971, it would have been done by hand without benefit of a computer. I'm pretty certain we aren't seeing a 1971 version of a replacement birth certificate,(The characters wouldn't be misaligned.) so I can only suggest that for whatever reason, (Possibly something on it he didn't want anyone to see) Barry's attorneys got Hawaii to make him a new replacement birth certificate designed to resemble a 1961 Hawaiian birth certificate, and they used a computer to do it. (As do all States nowadays.) Nobody would notice that the characters on one side of the page might be off a half space horizontally or vertically, they don't have calibrated eyeballs. It would suffice for government work, and fool most casual observers, which is all that replacement birth certificates are designed to do anyways.

This scenario explains everything that has been discovered to be wrong with the document in the simplest possible manner. This is the Occam's razor answer.

[Seizethecarp]

“I’m simply saying he isn’t qualified as to both handwriting (hardcopy) and electronic matters, based on what his C.V. reveals.”

Hayes has never claimed he is qualified in “electronic matters.” Hayes claims to be an expert witness in each of the separate but distinct forensic fields of handwriting and document authentication and has authored and marketed to his profession separate and combined courses in these two fields.

No exclusively electronic/digital claims of proof of forgery have been made public by Hayes, nor are they needed for Hayes to render an opinion that the WH pdf IMAGE (not the pdf file) is almost certainly a forgery.

NO examination of the digital pdf file is needed for Hayes to render an opinion of forgery either on the basis of handwriting analysis or of document authentication analysis...neither of which require opening the pdf file.

[DiogenesLamp]

You were silent on both questions.

Most of the time I just don't take you seriously.

[CpnHook]

Most of the time I just don't take you seriously.

It seems you're "serious" so long as you think the dialogue is going your way. The moment it shifts (which it repeatedly has) you head to the hills, uttering statements like this one you just made. It got to the point I was even correctly predicting when you would do it, as in this post.

If you finally come up with an answer, do let me know.