Disappearing Security Background and Xerox Workflow

Disappearing security background


  1. drconspiracy
    Posted August 18, 2013 at 6:47 pm | Permalink | Reply

    The weirdnesses in the President’s LFBC PDF result from the MRC compression applied by the Xerox WorkCentre 7655 in converting the scan to a PDF file.

    The other documents you showed are not PDF’s (and never had been PDF’s) but JPG files, and have not going through the MRC compression.

    Any pretension that the White House PDF is not a scan of an original document, processed by MRC compression and saved on a Mac with Preview, is over. The files produced by the Xerox are stunningly alike the White House PDF.

    • Posted August 29, 2013 at 5:32 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Show me an example of this happening on any other document before April of 2011. The examples cited by NBC were all PDF’s created in 2013 – long after it was known that the layers, haloes, movable portions, and exact-to-the-pixel areas were going to need an explanation if Zullo could convince Congress members that we need an investigation.

      These copiers are all over the place. This technology has been in use with these machines for almost 10 years. As David Kriesel noted to Xerox, these are life-threatening problems. Over 10 years, how many complaints or lawsuits have been filed because of these machines using this technology? How many people have failed IRS audits because the 6’s and 8’s were mixed around in their tax forms? How many instances of 8’s and 6’s switching are found in Obama’s tax returns? How many bridges were built wrong because the builder actually followed the numbers on the blueprint when ordering materials?

      At first these problems only showed up when the low-quality setting was used – which would explain why in 10 years we haven’t had people dropping dead because of these problems. But when it was asked why the White House used poor-quality settings for this important document, then the problems started appearing even on the default setting. So OK, if it does this stuff on the default setting we’re back to the same question as before: why have people not been dropping dead and failing audits for the last 10 years because of this big problem, which Xerox only heard about at the very same time as NBC began finding Xerox machines that would replicate the effects of Obama’s BC?

      • Posted August 29, 2013 at 8:55 pm | Permalink

        You are conflating completely different events and issues. Xerox’s “problem” with JBIG2 compression has nothing to do with any of the birther labeled “anomalies except for the pixel identical letters and check boxes, and that’s specifically what the compression algorithm is supposed to do. The format was released in 2000, but the patents go back to at least 1997.

        As to how “life threatening” the problem is, hyperbole and exaggeration is of no help to your argument. The effect is exceedingly rare and so bridges are fine, tax returns are okay, and nobody has died. Problems are discovered when they are discovered. History is contingent.

        None of the other “anomalies” have anything to do with JBIG2 compression, or with any problems that Xerox is experiencing. The layers, the halos, the movable bitmasks… none of those have anything to do with JBIG2. And again, each and every one of them are the direct results of deliberately written compression algorithms, patents for which go back as long as two decades ago and can be readily found online by anybody willing to look.

        It’s not NBC’s fault that he was the first who thought to look, and none of the MCCCP “experts” ever had the idea.

        I will try and find you the link, but I recall that some of the other PDFs discovered online are in fact older than the President’s PDF.

      • Posted August 30, 2013 at 7:23 am | Permalink

        The Xerox WorkCentre 7655 using compression fairly regularly substitutes 6’s and 8’s, as discovered by David Kriesel and those who reported to him. It was Kriesel who reported the problem to Xerox, which took them by surprise because nobody had complained about problems before this, and all of a sudden these problems were cropping up everywhere – first on different computers and then on different quality settings, ultimately ending up showing up on just about every computer on just about every setting.

        Kriesel rightly told Xerox that number substitutions because of the compression algorithm in the computers now could create deadly problems – such as if prescriptions were altered, or measurements for bridges, etc. I add that having 6’s and 8’s switched around would be an accountant’s nightmare, and tax audits would certainly be triggered by such a thing.

        Makes a thinking person wonder why Kriesel was so surprised to find this phenomenon – so surprised, in fact, that he thought somebody was playing a practical joke on him. Apparently this isn’t something that this computer expert/researcher had always known was causing problems, as the Fogbowers have claimed that all real experts would know. And it makes a person wonder why Xerox had received no complaints until 10 or so years after putting these algorithms in place – and right in the middle of the time that the Xerox 7655 was being suggested as a possible explanation for Obama’s anomalies. Which happened to be right when the Fogbowers were frantic about Reed Hayes’ affidavit.

        It also makes a person wonder why the substitutions didn’t happen anywhere in any of the scans made of Obama’s BC. The problem typically occurs where there are small fonts such as are in the BC, and Kriesel noted that out of 3 scans in his experiment there were 3 different results. Two out of the 3 scans had substitutions. So why weren’t there any substitutions in Obama’s long-form, since it was scanned on the Xerox 7655? Did the numbers all add up in Obama’s tax return, which was the basis for saying the White House uses the 7655 – or were there no substitutions in that document either? Why are the White House documents showing anomalies that have been raised by the Cold Case Posse but not showing any substitutions, which are also caused by the compression and have been shown to happen a LOT in other documents (at least these days, although nobody noticed anything for the 10 or so previous years)?

      • Posted August 30, 2013 at 3:02 am | Permalink

        Here you go. The PDF was created on September 1, 2010:

        Click to access BigBellySolar.pdf

      • Posted August 30, 2013 at 7:24 am | Permalink

        This wasn’t one of the documents NBC linked to as an example in the page I looked at. Can you please tell me what searches you made to find this document?

      • Posted August 30, 2013 at 12:47 pm | Permalink

        You continue to exaggerate.

        The Xerox WorkCentre does not “fairly regularly substitutes 6′s and 8′s.” It is a vanishingly rare occurrence and across the millions of documents scanned monthly on such work stations, the actual number of identified occurrences (that were not the result of a deliberate effort to elicit the phenomenon) appear to be in low teens. The PDFs of the President’s birth certificate and tax return (along with those multiple millions of other documents) are not among them.

        NBC has delivered into your hands all the information you need to go personally check and see if what he is telling you is true. You appear to accept that, since your arguments have now fallen back to trying to find excuses for that truth rather than making any effort to demonstrate that what he has discovered is false. Remember… this is what Zullo told the Post & Email back in May when his own “experts” had demonstrated their inability to recreate the PDF:

        “I have put it out there numerous times: if you can show me how a one-button scan push can do this to a document, please come in; I’d love to sit here and have you show me. Nobody ever steps up to that plate.”

        And back in March of 2012 at his first Press Conference, Zullo said this:

        “Going forward, our methodology was to look at this document and to validate this document. In other words, all we wanted to do was look at this information, reproduce what was in this document, and then move on. If we could reproduce it, there truly is no issue.”

        Of course, in response to his challenge being met Zullo has gone back on his word. Rather than inviting his critics to come show him, Zullo is moving the goalposts and now instead demanding “affidavits” and threatening NBC and RC with now becoming targets of his investigation.

        The birther response to the collapse of the PDF forgery claims is highly instructive.

      • Posted August 30, 2013 at 2:37 pm | Permalink

        You don’t even hear how nuts you sound. You say the only way these results are achieved over millions of scans is when people are TRYING to get these results. And yet Obama’s BC just accidentally had some – but not all – of the effects of Xerox’s compression algorithms.

        I am not a computer expert; I don’t either accept or reject anything that’s been claimed because I don’t have any way to check any of it out. I’m just noting that the claims made by you folks are self-contradictory and the observed phenomena seemed to adjust according to what objections the “birthers” raised.

        That the long-form is a forgery I know by means other than computer analysis. My analyses have never depended on computer technology because I know nothing about that. They don’t even have the right security background, for crying out loud. And Onaka was twice directly asked to verify the authenticity of the White House image – and legally required to verify anything he could truthfully verify – and he refused to verify that it was a “correct and accurate representation of the original record on file” or that the information contained in it is “identical to” the information contained in the HDOH record. We’ve got our answer right there. And AZ SOS Ken Bennett knew it. He told a Freeper who asked him why the birth date was not verified that it must have been a mistake – that the verification he received must be wrong, because everybody knows Obama’s birth claims are true. Some epistemology there, huh?

        As to why Zullo has responded the way he has, first you tell me why any of us should listen to folks who admitted to having created a forged birth certificate to have Orly submit in court. Why trust any claims of proud, self-proclaimed liars and forgers? Your credibility was shot a long, long time ago.

      • Posted August 30, 2013 at 1:26 pm | Permalink

        Here’s another from September 2010:

        Click to access cont513447.pdf

        Try searching on the default output for a Xerox WorkCentre “device001.pdf”. You will find an embarrassment of riches.

      • Posted August 30, 2013 at 3:03 pm | Permalink

        Give me the search terms you used to find these documents. I have no idea how to “search on the default output”. Tell me what to put in bing or google in order to find what you found.

        I also noticed that the file you gave shows the Xerox WorkCentre 7655 as the PDF producer, just like Obama’s tax return does, but the effects on the forged BC don’t appear in the tax return and the reason given was that the file has to be emailed and previewed on another computer in order for the effects to happen. So if that is true then the Sept 2010 file you mentioned shouldn’t have any of these effects because it wasn’t emailed to another computer which created the PDF. This is the kind of inconsistency that makes these claims suspect. The stories change depending on what the “birthers” notice.

        Maybe there are explanations and I’m just not understanding the claims. In order for me to understand and know whether the claims were correct I’d have to get a degree in computer science, which i simply don’t have time to do. It’s good enough for me to know that the security background isn’t even correct and that Onaka wouldn’t verify the authenticity of either the White House image or the information in the White House image.

        The only reason I’m even bothering with this compression issue at all is because the way things unfolded seems suspicious to me – the same reason I investigated the birth announcements, which have no legal weight at all. It’s amazing the amount of work and effort that has gone into forging those announcements, and it confirms a desperation that would not be there if the HDOH had this pristinely-routine BC in their office which claims nothing embarrassing at all for Obama to be so prickly about and for his lawyer to not even allow him to touch the document he presented to the world in a White House press conference.

        Nor would all the HDOH’s illegalities be necessary, such as the falsification of the 1960-64 birth index so that it includes non-valid records, the illegal violation of the Administrative Rules by mere “director’s discretion” rather than by due process to change the methods for reproducing standard copies of vital records, the forging of a post-dated Ah Nee BC, the switching around of BC#’s, the fabrication of Virginia Sunahara’s death certificate, etc. The public interest in whether a little boy was abused because of child protective service negligence was reason enough for the HDOH to disclose certified copies of Peter Kema Jr’s COLB and his sister’s death certificate. Do any of us really believe that there is less public interest in knowing whether Obama has been lying about his birth records, and whether all the government agencies such as the HDOH, HI AG’s office, passport office, social security office, and selective service office are covering up known crimes and in fact committing crimes of their own? The man who has overseen soldier deaths in Afghanistan, the desecration of SEAL Team 6 by an imam who cursed them, the deaths of our Benghazi people and then fabricating new identities so nobody could find and question the survivors, the handing over to terrorists over 20,000 manpads each capable of bringing down the plane any one of us citizens flies in, etc….. are not as important to the public as how Peter Kema Jr was treated?

        I’ve spent way more time than I should have on this. It’s the transparent desperation that I just can’t resist exposing.

      • Posted August 30, 2013 at 3:49 pm | Permalink

        Please, stop trying to put words in my mouth. Again, rather than addressing what is actually in front of you, you seem to be in full flight from the objective facts and instead are chasing an army of straw men.

        The following statements are simply and objectively true:

        1) The problem with character or digit substitution is vanishingly rare. In the millions of documents that have been scanned with these machines over the last decade, only a handful of character substitutions have ever been identified. This includes those examples where the operator was deliberately trying to elicit the effect.

        2) You have identified no self-contradictory claims. You have only identified contradictions between our claims and your straw men… which as you acknowledge you do not have the computer expertise to even set up.

        3) Your particularly idiosyncratic reasons for considering the PDF a forgery are not at issue here. Those of the Maricopa County Cold Case Posse are. They have based their claims entirely on the assertion that the “anomalies” must have been the result of deliberate forgery rather than automatic computer algorithms. Their assertion has been proved false.

        Now in terms of “sounding nuts,” certainly you have noticed that even hard core birthers on Free Republic like Seizethecarp consider your claims regarding the legal insufficiency of the State of Hawaii’s verifications to be absurd. I know that you have long based your claims on the conviction that almost everything out of the State of Hawaii somehow means the opposite of what it actually says. The verification elicited by Scott Tepper for example is for all intents and purposes legally bullet proof. To be able to challenge it in any court of law requires you to have what you know full well no birther has: evidence that the original birth certificate in the DoH archives is a fake.

        Good luck with that.

        As to “why Zullo should listen,” first because he said he would. Second, because NBC and RC had nothing whatsoever to do with the Bomford hoax. Third because were this genuinely a “criminal investigation” it is his ethical responsibility to examine any and all exculpatory evidence.

        But that said, don’t be misled that any of us expect him to do the right thing. This is a man who was already caught red handed in July of 2012 (to include by highly regarded birther bloggers such as Ladysforest) presenting fake evidence at a press conference regarding Federal coding manuals. He knows they were fake, accounting for why he kicked Corsi off the Posse, and why Corsi was forced to abandon birthing completely. Yet he has never acknowledged the fraud… whistling past the graveyard in hope that the birther faithful will just forget or forgive.

        And in final measure, while he and Gallups may sputter and moan that the Xerox findings “are of no concern,” they absolutely are listening. For more than a week now he and Gallups have been furiously backpedaling in preparation for abandoning the PDF forgery claims. Go back and listen to the radio programs. They both know how fully that goose is cooked.

      • Posted August 30, 2013 at 4:47 pm | Permalink

        You’re correct; over the course of about ten years there have been an astonishingly few instances where these anomalies crop up. It was only very suddenly when people were trying to get these results that Xerox heard anything about it. You are right. I find that very interesting. As to how urgent and serious the issue could be (should have been over the past 10 or so years…), I defer to David Kriesel who sounded the alarm to Xerox. If you think it’s exaggeration, take it up with him.

        Keep denying that there were any inconsistencies in how these discoveries came about; maybe if you deny it long enough they will go away.

        Scott Tepper has nada. “A is roughly equal to B” cannot prove that A and B are both 5. A and B could both be any number. The info in the White House image could be roughly the same as the info in the HDOH record (explaining why Onaka would not verify to Bennett that the WH BC image is a “true and accurate representation of the original record on file” and why he would not verify to Koback that the WH BC’s INFORMATION is “identical to” the information in the HDOH record)… and both of them could STILL be legally non-valid. What Tepper asked doesn’t even ADDRESS the validity of the record. Tepper has nothing. If Obama’s record at the HDOH is legally valid, Tepper could have had a bullet-proof verification. Instead he didn’t even TRY for one. Odd, huh?

        Zullo and I both know the WH BC is a forgery because of a bunch of other evidence that you probably wish you knew, so you could fabricate things in order to explain the evidence. Other stuff would all of a sudden become observable, just like these work centres mangling images and data suddenly became observable.

        And Garrett Papit IS listening to the claims being made by NBC and is evaluating them, so you’re blowing smoke when you say the whole thing is being ignored. Zullo needs somebody like Papit to check it out because these are very technical claims and he can’t just take self-professed liars at their word. Zullo has dealt with enough attempts to derail him – some deliberate and some because of bureaucrats’ incompetence, which is what happened with the coding manual mistake. He was wrong on that but not because he lied; he had a hard deadline (the press conference) that came before it could be seen that the copy he was given by an incompetent government worker was for the wrong manual. He trusted the worker to have it right and she didn’t. He’s dropped that argument because it doesn’t hold water.

        As for whistling past the graveyard, you know a lot about that, don’t you? Why won’t anybody address the 1960-64 birth index that the HDOH altered to include legally non-valid records, or the back-dated Ah Nee forgery, or the Sunahara death certificate that has 4 blatant red flags just in the top line? Why won’t any of you address why Onaka would not verify that the information in the WH image is “identical” – especially since Tepper is trying to get a judge to think that’s EXACTLY what Onaka meant in the verification Tepper received?

      • Posted August 30, 2013 at 4:11 pm | Permalink

        Since you insist on trying to distract from the real discussion here by misdirecting to a vast school of red herring, I will be generous and respond.
        First, I already gave you the search term. The rest requires you to actually act like a researcher and apply some elbow grease.

        I also noticed that the file you gave shows the Xerox WorkCentre 7655 as the PDF producer, just like Obama’s tax return does, but the effects on the forged BC don’t appear in the tax return and the reason given was that the file has to be emailed and previewed on another computer in order for the effects to happen.

        That has never been “the reason given.” The reason given is that the tax return scans were black and white, and the other documents in question are in color.

        Nor would all the HDOH’s illegalities be necessary, such as the falsification of the 1960-64 birth index so that it includes non-valid records, the illegal violation of the Administrative Rules by mere “director’s discretion” rather than by due process to change the methods for reproducing standard copies of vital records, the forging of a post-dated Ah Nee BC, the switching around of BC#’s, the fabrication of Virginia Sunahara’s death certificate, etc.

        Now is as good a time as any to make an observation regarding the very odd way you have of conducting an investigation. It betrays an understanding of the relationship between theories and facts that is completely backwards. In any real investigation, it is the facts that drive the theories, not the theories that drive the facts. Early on in your birthing you committed yourself to a theory of birth certificate numbering that might have made sense (as many different a mutually exclusive other theories make sense) but that no evidence in its favor. It was essentially created out of whole cloth. And then you proceeded to test that theory by looking for evidence.
        It is simply true that with the exception of the Nordyke twins (which simply by chance had a 50:50 probability of supporting your theory purely by accident) not a single other Hawaiian birth certificate from August of 1961 has supported your proposed schema. Every single additional data point has directly contradicted it.
        Now… when real investigators (scientists for example) are presented with the evidence that their theory is wrong they abandon or modify the theory. They do not throw out the data. You, on the other hand, cling desperately to the theory and declare the data to be fake. It is a demonstration of irrational confirmation bias rarely surpassed, even among birthers.
        My impression of the HDOH is that they have acted with grace, incredible patience, and great dignity in the face of the calumnies and impositions they have been forced to face by birthers such as yourself. I do not feel that anyone could objectively justify your assertions of “illegalities” on their part, let alone expect anyone to receive with a straight face your accusations that they have been involved in a vast campaign of ad hoc forgery and falsification. They cannot tell you what want to hear for a very simply reason; what you want to hear is not true.

        Barack Obama was born at Kapi‘olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961. There has never been any genuine evidence otherwise.

      • Posted August 30, 2013 at 4:54 pm | Permalink

        I’m done with you. You have no idea the “elbow grease” I’ve put in on any of this stuff. Right now I am elbow deep in canning apples while working on home-schooling my son and a million other projects at home and in my church. My left elbow has tennis elbow so badly from one of my two part-time jobs that I can’t even lift a plate out of the cupboard without a lot of pain. I have put my life on hold for the past 4 years in order to present actual evidence and put it where anybody can see it. I answer questions and address a lot of bullcrap from the likes of you. If you think I am going to become a computer expert in addition to everything else I’ve got going on just to satisfy you then the only thing that exceeds your ego is your delusions.

        I won’t be approving your comments from here on out. I don’t have time to go on wild goosechases of your choosing.

  2. Posted August 29, 2013 at 4:06 pm | Permalink | Reply

    The cross hatching stops being visible where the shadow of the volume binding ends. What is the mystery here?

    • Posted August 29, 2013 at 5:18 pm | Permalink | Reply

      The scan was deep enough that it detected print from a document underneath the BC, and yet it only detected cross-hatches on the BC itself where there was a shadow?

      • Posted August 29, 2013 at 8:16 pm | Permalink

        I don’t know what “deep enough” is supposed to mean. Scans are neither shallow nor deep, and it was not the act of scanning that eliminated most of the pattern or recorded traces of the document underneath. The critical issue here is that the photocopy was black-and-white. The only reason any of the security pattern survived at all was because it was it distorted the image of the shadow.

      • Posted August 30, 2013 at 7:05 am | Permalink

        Shadow doesn’t add clarity to the background pattern.

        I couldn’t find any other images where there was both a security background and a left-hand shadow, which tells us the Obama BC is an anomaly right off the bat. But to test the question of whether shadow on the page would make the cross-hatches appear in black and white, I used several images with cross-hatches where there was some kind of shadow on the page, including the Factcheck photos where part of the image was in shadow. I switched the view to black and white and no matter how I adjusted the brightness and contrast I could not get cross-hatches to appear. All I could get to change was whether the shadow itself appeared or disappeared. The shadow acts independently of the cross-hatches. Shadow doesn’t darken the cross-hatches.

      • Posted August 30, 2013 at 1:02 pm | Permalink

        Who said anything about a shadow “adding clarity” to a background pattern? It is always fascinating to watch you bristle against simple data.

        It is simply true that the only place the security pattern was preserved in the black and white photocopy is where it is overlapped by the shadow. End of story. This is not an “argument.” This is not a “theory.” It is an objective observation. So where again is the mystery?

      • Posted August 30, 2013 at 2:39 pm | Permalink

        I cannot duplicate the effect of cross-hatches showing up in black and white simply because there is a shadow in the area. Overlapping of shadows does not explain what is observed.

  3. Captain Peanut
    Posted September 25, 2013 at 11:41 pm | Permalink | Reply

    I’ve followed birther arguments on & off over the years but life forced me to take a several-month break. So wow, a scanner/software combination was finally found that spontaneously reproduced the LFBC pdf anomolies birthers cited as proof of forgery? Amazing! Out of a gazillion possible combinations, I guess it was always out there, but identifying the exact one was like finding a needle in haystack without the guidance of White House staffers themselves. Great work on the part of whoever finally cracked the puzzle!

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: