One of the certain proofs that the birthers give for forgery is that certain parts of Obama’s long form birth certificate show a mix of black and white, and gray scale for a signature. Here’s a section from the Certificate magnified:
You can see how some of the signature is in gray scale, and some is absolutely black.
Now, look at the Certificate of the California Electoral College vote from the web site of the US National Archives and Records Administration, particularly on signature number 42 magnified:
Wowzers. It’s that same mix of grey scale and black. I guess this means that Romney really won California, and National Archives substituted a forged computer-generated certificate of the vote in place of the real one California sent. Apparently the National Archivist was smart enough to tell the scanner to get rid of the halos.
Mike’s last name is ‘Bowen’? Doc you am genius! I’m off to the telegraph office to notify High Priest Corsi. This must be incorporated into tomorrow’s version of the Absolute Eternal Infallible True Birf.
Actually, I noticed in the course of my own Thorough and Conclusive Forgery Analysis that the scan was not done by the State, but by the National Archives. Or should I say “done” by the “National Archives”? Yes, I should.
A “Certification” of the California Electoral College vote?
No, you’ll need the certificate.
Thanks for the correction, now incorporated into my article. That makes it an even better analogy for Obama’s Long Form birth certificate.
Sorry, my error. Fixed now.
We can all agree on one thing:
that obama’s a real doc-teaser.
The National Archives posted Delaware’s Certificate of Vote today. You can see the same gray/black mixture in one of the signatures if you enlarge the image. It’s a true conspiracy. Calling Mike Zullo! 😆
It gets even worse. Virginia’s certificate shows the same effect on the signatures and on the page with President Obama’s and VP Biden’s vote totals there is some strange writing that is indecipherable below. It might be a hidden message to Butterdizzilion.
I examined the METADATA of the PDF at the URL:
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2012-certificates/pdfs/vote-california.pdf
This PDF file was created on 12/19/2012. The METADATA indicates the following:
CreatorTool Epson Expression 10000XL- Graphic Arts Scanner
Producer Adobe Acrobat 10.1.4 Paper Capture Plug-in
Consequently the PDF image was created by scanning an original paper document with the Epson scanner into Adobe Acrobat 10.1.4. The scan was in color. The resulting PDF file was then passed through the Adobe Acrobat 10.1.4 Paper Capture Plug-in to obtain a new PDF file which is selectable, and searchable but not editable. The scanning resolution was 300 PPI.
Examination of this image at 6400% zoom revealed nothing that would indicate that the signature should look any different from the original signature on the paper document. There is no indication that optimization was applied to the PDF. The file size is 3.77Mb. Color measurements within individual pixels of the signature strokes indicate that no pixels are pure Black in color. The gradations in color and density are continuous and are nowhere discrete. Many of the other signatures in the same list show similar gradations in density. This is typical of signatures made in various colors of ink with different pens.
Mr C. Doesn’t identify the source of his “Optimize Scanned PDF” Menu ScreenShot. He certainly does not indicate that he took an image of a menu from the Adobe Acrobat 10.1.4 Paper Capture Plug-in. Consequently his speculation that someone turned the “Halo Removal” on is just that — speculation.
We can now conclude with certainty that Mr. C’s entire post has absolutely nothing to say about Obama’s LFCOLB.
If I applied birther reasoning I could claim the Nordyke certificates are also fakes. The weight and boldness of the text in several sections differs. Take for instance the text that says Gretchen Carter Nordyke is lighter than the rest of the text. Also the dates only have the day bolded while the month and year have a lesser weight.
These are the specs on the Epson Scanner:
Epson Expression 10000XL- Graphic Arts Scanner
High performance for pros and artists.
With 2400 dpi resolution — higher than any other B-size flatbed scanner available today — plus a 3.8 Dmax and 48-bit color, the Epson Expression 10000XL offers everything professional photographers and graphic artists require for high-quality, large-volume scanning.
A reliable performer that’s sure to increase productivity, this hard-working scanner features Epson’s exclusive ColorTrue II imaging system, which combines superior image processing, a xenon lamp, and Epson Color MatrixCCD™ technology for enhanced colors and pinpoint registration. Its 3.8 Dmax delivers a broad dynamic range with excellent shadow detail. And, an AutoFocus optics system, when activated, adjusts the focus for capturing clear, precise images every time.
Scan Specifications
Back to top
Scanner Type: Flatbed color image scanner
Optical Sensor: Color Epson MatrixCCD™ line sensor
Optical Resolution: 2400 dpi
Hardware Resolution: 2400 x 4800 dpi with Micro Step Drive™ technology
Maximum Resolution: 12,800 x 12,800 dpi
Effective Pixels: 87,840 pixels / line (2400 dpi)
Color Bit Depth: 48-bit internal / external1
Grayscale Bit Depth: 16-bit internal / external1
Optical Density: 3.8 Dmax
Maximum Scan Area: 12.2″ x 17.2″
Light Source: Xenon gas cold cathode fluorescent lamp
Focus Control: AutoFocus optics system (CCD and lens unit)
Any graphic image scanned with this unit would hardly need to be optimized.
Mr. C. needs to try harder !!!
The certificate of Arizona’s electors is here:
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2012-certificates/pdfs/vote-arizona.pdf
Quick, somebody do an instant analysis & let us know if the signatures of Tom Morrissey, Don Ascoli, & John Rhodes are forged. This could be a BFD!
You idiot. Optimization is for the purpose of reducing the file size.
And we may conclude that Hermition has not a clue as to what the article was about.
Please show us your membership credentials from The American Board of Forensic Document Examiners.
If you’re not a member of that body, then your “analysis” is spurious and irrelevant.
Nor has he learned to indicate what he’s quoting, much less provide a citation. So thoughtful to have included marketing copy along with his “specs”.
________________
Flipping through a few of the files …. they all bear the same compression features … all structured similarly, numerous vector objects compressed with Flate, an 8-bit RGB image or two compressed with DCT … and indeed the markup confirms NARA scanned them all on the same model of scanner, if not the same exact scanner.
What a brazen conspiracy!
At least this forger doesn’t roll cheap. ‘They’ even left their fingerprints all over the certificates from states that voted for rMoney! Is nothing sacred?
Or maybe they manipulated the markup. ‘They” could be en-knee-wheres!
________________
You zoomed in that far why? Oh, right, so you could focus on the tree and miss the forest. I’m doing you the undeserved favor of taking you at your word here.
You’re blind (and zoomed in wayyyy too far … amateur)
You’re very blind …. and zoomed in way too far … on a teensy CRT monitor in mom’s basement. Examining individual pixels won’t tell ya nothin’. You can’t see the intense artifacting around the text? you can see that the background is blocked into sectors?
You’re not only blind but ignorant! You’re making Hermite cry.
The overall image in some of these PDFs is 3659 x 5159 (AZ’s for instance). As you correctly ( gasp! ) noted, a 12″x17″ bed imaged at 300dpi (ppi is a printing term, dolt). Some of the PDFs are cropped to the paper size; CA’s for example is legal, 8”x14″, and the images are 2497 x 4147, again, 300dpi. Guess how much memory an uncompressed, 8-bit RGB image of this size takes up? C’mon, it’s simple math. (3659 • 5159 • 8bits • 3 channels) / (8bits •1024) ….
That’s right, 29.6Mb. The files size is 3.68Mb …. divide amongst 6 pages … a mere 0.613Mb per page! Hmmm, that’s a compression ratio of … 100% – (0.6 / 29.6) … 97.9%. And yet the text remains very, very legible!
Extremely efficient for an image that “hasn’t been optimized”!
Let’s see, a 8”x14″ page imaged to 0.613Mb, if uncompressed, would be imaged at slightly less than 42dpi … an image 355 x 590 px for the entire page. The text on the AZ certificate (for instance), is set in 12pt Arial (bureaucrats are bland). If this image wasn’t compressed, each character would be a whopping 7 pixels tall. Instead, they are 50 pixels high… as they should be, having been scanned at 300dpi ( 300dpi / (72pt [that’s 1″ to you] / 12pt) = 50 ).
Now why are you looking for “pure black pixels”? Oh … right. Dear gods, you are “special”! Are you going to Japan today? Maybe the zoo?
Wow. You went out with a bang there …. of your head on floor. “Optimizing” is about balancing image quality against efficiency of storage and transmission. Further, strictly speaking, a low-quality image can’t be “optimized” into a high-quality one. Finally, it’s a great scanner; however, I’m pretty sure it has more than one setting. Dolt.
Hysterical. You’re trying (and failing) to deny that these images have been at all optimized in order to conclude they indicate nothing relative to another image … a conclusion that would require an assumption that all optimization is the same, across all hardware and software, from all vendors! Meanwhile, they are staring you in the face, damning your denials that the WH LFBC PDF’s anomalies are compression artifacts. Sucks to have to deny the obvious to keep the game going, doesn’t it?
Sure! When pigs can fly! The National Archives always uses a $2500 scanner with maximum resolution of 12,800 X 12,800 dpi set down to 300 PPI so that they can then apply file-size optimization to additionally degrade the image.
By the way! Mr. C. still hasn’t told us where he got his “Optimize Scanned Image” menu screenshot from. Bet it’s not one of the Adobe Acrobat 10.1.4 Paper Capture Plug-in menus.
As I understand the point of Mr. C’s original post, the two-tone signature of California elector 42 was supposed to prove that SAD’s signature on the WH LFCOLB is not a forgery.
Mr. C’s argument is that same old worn-out shoe “It’s the optimization stupid”. He just threw in the “Halo Removal” turned “on” as a freebie.
However he is, as usual, comparing Apples with Oranges.
The SAD signature is divided between two layers. The “Stanley Ann D” part in contained within the background layer which is 8-Bit color. This segment of her signature is Grayscale and anti-aliased. The color values vary within each pixel and from pixel to pixel. The “unham” part is contained within the text layer which is 1-Bit monochrome. The monochrome color is not Black. This segment of her signature is binary and aliased. The color values of the text layer are constants. The color values of the text characters is the same as the color values of the transparent regions of this layer.
Importantly, the resolution of the “Stanley Ann D” is 150 PPI and the resolution of the “dunham” part is 300 PPI. Most importantly, when the text image is turned off there is no pure white within the background layer under each character within the text layer. In other words, there is image beneath each character. Thus the WH LFCOLB cannot be a scanned image. The METADATA of the LFCOLB PDF file confirms that conclusion. The PDF was created with Apple Preview rather than with a scanner.
Mr. C’s entire post is a big fail.
If you hover your mouse pointer over the image of the Adobe dialog in the article, it will show you where the screen shot came from.
But the main comment I would make is that you further confirm that you didn’t understand what I was saying in the article.
As for any substantial argument you tried to make, see JPotter’s substantive response to you, showing that he is informed on the topic and you just waving your arms and yelling technical gibberish.
Then maybe Mr. C. would tell the readers what the point of his entire post was?
“Wowzers. It’s that same mix of grey scale and black.”
But J. Potter seems to think that Black is not relevant to your post Mr. C.
It’s that statement of yours that I have proved is absolutely false. There is no “same mix” between the two signature images you posted. In fact there is no relevance between the two images period.
Maybe you need to retract some of your false claims. But then most of your readers are Obots who are forever eager to give you a pass.
Agreed…
Hermitian consistently demonstrates that he cares nothing about truth and only wishes to shout at clouds and rant at empty chairs…
Back here in reality, the world goes on just fine, without the delusions of the grumpy Hermitians of the world.
Denialism gets them nowhere, except proving to others that they are hopeless bitter fools…
G
“Hermitian consistently demonstrates that he cares nothing about truth and only wishes to shout at clouds and rant at empty chairs…”
Translation: Hermitian hit the nail on the head.
Mr. C. just hides behind his Obot defenders.
And he was the one “EXPERT” on his own blog who claimed to know everything about birth certificates.
When they are scanning a text only document that is quite a reasonable thing to do. Not everything, even in an archive needs that kind of resolution.
If they are doing a photograph even then it it would depend on the content and the project. When will you learn that it is the information that is important, not the medium?
You want every document to be scanned at 100 times the sufficient resolution and taking up thousands of times as much disk space as necessary just because they can. And yet the deficit is a trillion dollars in the red, and compatriots in the anti-Obama gangs won’t discuss how to raise revenue to cover the costs of your NASA grade scans. Why don’t you go complain to them?
Keith
“You want every document to be scanned at 100 times the sufficient resolution and taking up thousands of times as much disk space as necessary just because they can.”
Not me! I just reported the ACTUAL resolution of each signature.
Mr. C. is the one who claimed that the CA Electoral vote document was optimized. In fact he implied that the two-tone signature was caused by the optimization which is the same claim that Obots have made about Obama’s LFCOLB and the SAD signature.
The signature of elector 42 is 300 PPI resolution, which is easily achieved with the Epson scanner. The 3.8 MB filesize is not large for this document.
In fact if this same document is opened with the InkScape vector graphics program and then saved as a .SVG file the size is reduced to 5KB. If this small vector file is then re-opened in InkScape, then no loss of image detail is discernable.
Sorry Hermitian, but what you delude yourself in calling a nail is merely your thumb. And that’s all you are, a bumbling lout who is all thumbs and thinks he’s important when he whacks himself with a hammer…self-deluded in not realizing that we all see you smacking yourself silly everytime.
Hmmm…also very telling that you completely ignore JPotter’s detailed smackdown of your nonsense.
But hey, keep trying to dodge and change the subject away from that…
Hey, is that you, PooPooPolarik?
Nice and shiny new name, PooPoo. Unfortunately, your poopoo is still poopoo.
Now run along and be a good little racist at a site more suited to your intellectual level:
http://www.racistlittlekids.com
1) You paid what for that scanner? You’ve been robbed. Thanks for playing (and promptly losing) The Price is Right.
2) You’re too easily impressed. NARA has far more capable, and far more precious, equipment at its disposable. This prosumer unit is relegated to use by the lowly web team.
1) Ooooh! An allegation of conspiracy. This is a new story for a new day. Still tap dancing after all these years, I see.
2) For the purposes of posting documents to the web, that’s exactly what they would do. That’s what every website would do, and does. You’re impressed by the modest file size, and should be, it’s a miracle of algorithms. A student/admirer of Hermite should be all over these processes.Do you know how large an uncompressed image of a letter page would be if scanned at 12.8Kdpi? 46Gb. Even in these heady days of multi-Tb HDDs, that’s ridiculously wasteful.
3) Unless you are interested in studying the means of production, scanning a printed document at a resolution higher than that at which it was produced is a waste of resources. Even when scanning at the resolution of production, descreening must be employed to produce a pleasing image. Resolution finer than 600dpi is only useful / needed when scanning film negative or transparencies, or physical object that you wish to magnify. If you’re scanning paper at 12.8Kdpi, I trust it’s because you are interested in studying the spacing of the individual fibers that compose the paper … because that is what you’ll be looking at!
Indeed, it is. Are you telling me what you’re looking at are literal, photographic representations of the paper certificates NARA received? If so, there are a lot of very confused printers in a lot of SoS offices … and each print looks the same in terms of quality! That would be strange indeed. Again, see the basic math above that uses the file size to demonstrate what your willful eyes are supposedly not showing you.
Now you’ve switch ed back to the WH LFBC PDF, and are, shall we say, misremembering? I would suggest you go back to the file and look again, but I know you lack the technical expertise to do so, and are instead regurgitating what you’ve swallowed over on the YouTubes.
A wise man knows his limits and can recognize expertise in others. You are a fool who does not, and can not. I offer no defense of Dr. C, his article stands on its own, I appreciate its humor, and agree with its correct observations and conclusions. You should try being right sometime.
And you are saying it is not ….
…. and then make this statement. The filesize is not large at all, tiny in fact for what it contains, and indicates a very high degree of compression. Again, see the very simple and straight forward multiplication above. This is extremely basic information theory, graphics theory, general computing knowledge. You’ll say anything to avoid admitting error LOL!
LMFAO! Oh, Henreid. That’s because you chose not to embed the image, and it saved it separately. The new .SVG calls the image as a separate object. Delete the “_img0” file you’ll find in the same location as the SVG, and then open the SVG. You should also notice you have lost 5 of 6 pages in the process. Whoopsie! And you have two files where before one was needed, they contain 1 page, not all 6, and they are larger than the 6-page PDF was. How did that happen? Need me to tell you?
What a dope.
Hermie and the other birthers only see things in terms of analog. Thus, anything “unnatural” created by the unknown digital process is reason to believe it is fake.
J. Potter
It’s past time to hit the “off the subject” button. Since you AttackBots don’t seem to care. Boy is this a DIRTBAG blogsite! Mr. C. must spend a lot of time in the toilet so you facilitators can drag the discussion off target every time Mr. C. Steps in it.
Below is Mr. C’s original post. Funny how this copy shows the Elector 42 signature but doesn’t show SADs signature. But never mind.
Let’s just focus on that caption under SAD’s missing signature.
“ You can see how some of the signature is in gray scale, and some is absolutely black.”
It’s that “absolutely black” lie that Mr. C. Posted for God and Country that must be corrected. I revealed his lie right here on his post. And then you responded with this brilliant comment.
“Hermitian: no pixels are pure Black in color.
“Now why are you looking for “pure black pixels”? Oh … right. Dear gods, you are “special”! Are you going to Japan today? Maybe the zoo?”
Well the answer is that I already knew that SAD’s signature on the WH LFCOLB was not “pure Black” and therefore Mr. C. was lying through his teeth. Of course Mr. C. already knew that he was lying. So of course any rational person would measure the color values of Elector 42’s signature to show that it is not “pure Black”. That of course proves that Mr. C. Is lying. I’ll let you figure out why that proves it.
You see it’s an absolute fact that the “unham” part of her signature is monochrome (but not Black) is evidence of a forgery of the WH LFCOLB. If it were not then Obama would not have changed it in his latest forged LFCOLB to a nondescript Green-Black color. Not to mention that he also changed the color of the GrayScale text to non-monochrome Green-Black. So the color of the “Stanley Ann D” part was also changed. But most importantly, whereas the SAD signature was split between two layers in the WH LFCOLB, the entire SAD signature is contained within the single layer in the new forgery.
And in his post, Mr. C. was not satisfied with just one lie, he had to add the second one in the caption under Elector 42’s signature.
”Wowzers. It’s that same mix of grey scale and black”
The important thing for the reader to remember is that the new Obama LFCOLB forgery is neither “grey scale” nor “black” but rather a nondescript Green-Black.
Finally, the Epson Company prices the subject scanner on their website as $2499.99. I find that the best way to compare prices of items is to compare the vendor base price.
With respect to your focus on my shortcomings regarding the file size, it’s far more important to tell the reader that all the links in all the Obama LFCOLB forgeries were intentionally severed. That alone is evidence of forgery. The White House could have easily also provided the LFCOLB as a small .SVG filed linked to the larger source files in the cloud. That would have greatly reduced their overhead on the WH server. But of course their forger wouldn’t hear of it.
“California electoral vote certification forged?
By Dr. Conspiracy on December 19, 2012in 2012 Presidential Election, Birth Certificate
One of the certain proofs that the birthers give for forgery is that certain parts of Obama’s long form birth certificate show a mix of black and white, and gray scale for a signature. Here’s a section from the Certificate magnified:
“TYPE=PICT;ALT=DetailofStanleyAnnDunhamsignatureonObama’sbirthcertifcate”
Blank on my copy of Mr. C.’s post.
You can see how some of the signature is in gray scale, and some is absolutely black.
Now, look at the Certificate of the California Electoral College vote from the web site of the US National Archives and Records Administration, particularly on signature number 42 magnified:
“TYPE=PICT;ALT=Detailfrom2012CaliforniaElectoralCollegesignature.”
This one is visible when Mr. C’s post is copy and pasted.
Wowzers. It’s that same mix of grey scale and black. I guess this means that Romney really won California, and National Archives substituted a forged computer-generated certificate of the vote in place of the real one California sent.
Apparently the National Archivist was smart enough to tell the scanner to get rid of the halos.
“TYPE=PICT;ALT=Dialogshowing”HaloRemoval”option”
This is Mr. C’s menu screenshot.
It was a total Red Herring because it was not one of the available menus in the Adobe Acrobat 10.1.4 Paper Capture Plug-in software.
Debra Bowen, Electoral College“
Let’s see … is that lie number three in this same post from Mr. C.?
And Mr. C. is the birth certificate EXPERT.
If you can’t be civil, I won’t let you comment any more.
The point of the article is that zooming in on optimized documents, finding anomalies and they claiming forgery is a silly thing to do. Normal documents have anomalies.
The birther forgery claims have been thoroughly debunked elsewhere. This article is poking fun, not debunking. For debunking see John Woodman’s book.
I think Mr. Hermitian is someone else whose name you might recognize, but we don’t disclose stuff like that on this blog.
More precisely, it is an image with 1-bit color depth as opposed to a multi-color gray scale image. The point is that the image is pure (i.e. all of one color), not that that one color is exactly black.
But again, this article is poking fun at birther analysis, not debunking.
Hermie and the Birthers do help make your task much easier.
Hmmm, not PooPoo huh, sure looked familiar.