Source: https://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2013/07/15/ms-orly-v-democrat-part-10-updates/
Timestamp: 2016-12-04 14:16:58
Document Index: 449149328

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 10', 'art 10', 'art 11', 'art 10', 'art 2', 'art 3', 'art 3']

MS – Orly v Democrat – Part 10 Updates | Native and Natural Born Citizenship Explored
MS – Orly v Democrat – Part 10 Updates
Posted on July 15, 2013 by NBC	Some relevant metadata confuses the issues further. Never a boring minute. There are several documents that were scanned in with the PFU ScanSnap Manager (document 35.1, document 42.0 and document 61.0). But they show different versions of software, different PDF versions and different producers. Unraveling this will become a fun next task…
Let’s start with document 35 and its two attachments.
Samuel Begley submits document 35, a motion to supplement Counsel for MDEC’s response 30. Begley submits in addition 2 exhibits, one consisting of a letter written to Fuddy, Director of the Department of Health of Hawaii, with a copy of President Obama’s long form birth certificate attached, the other one, the letter of verification of the document found on the Whitehouse’s site, signed by Onaka, State Registrar. Document 35 explains that the signed document from Onaka, which contains the official seal of Hawaii was delivered to the Magistrate Judge’s chambers. The documents were filed on ECF on November 5, 2012.
Document 35 was filed on June 6, 2012 and the ECF record shows the following information. Note that the ModDate shows a date of Fri Jul 12 14:26:20 2013 only a week or so ago… Very strange. So I went back to check the metadata on document 35-1, not by downloading it from Recap but directly from Pacer. I will show my findings below.
MOTION to Supplement Counsel for MDEC’s Response 30 in Opposition to Plaintiff Taitz’s Motion for Sanctions 25 re 30 Response to Motion, by Democrat Party of Mississippi (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit MDEC Counsel Request to HI DOH for Verification of President Obamas Hawaiian Birth Cert, # 2 Exhibit Hawaii DOH Verification of President Obamas Hawaiian Birth-Issued May 31 2012)(Begley, Samuel) (Entered: 06/06/2012)
./gov.uscourts.mssd.78493.35.0.pdf
Creator:        Microsoft? Office Word 2007
Producer:       Microsoft? Office Word 2007; modified using iText 2.1.7 by 1T3XT
CreationDate:   Wed Jun  6 10:16:26 2012
ModDate:        Fri Jul 12 14:26:20 2013
PDF version:    1.5
The first attachment contains 4 pages. Note that both attachments were loaded into the system on
November 5, about 2 minutes apart.
Exhibit MDEC Counsel Request to HI DOH for Verification of President Obamas Haw
2012-11-05 15:22:27
./gov.uscourts.mssd.78493.35.1.pdf
Creator:        PFU ScanSnap Manager 5.0.21 #S1500
Producer:       Adobe Acrobat 9.51 Paper Capture Plug-in
CreationDate:   Mon Jun  4 12:33:38 2012
ModDate:        Wed Jun  6 14:20:29 2012
PDF version:    1.7
I mentioned that I downloaded a more recent version from ECF and this one shows
Producer:       Adobe Acrobat 9.51 Paper Capture Plug-in; modified using iText 2.1.7 by 1T3XT
ModDate:        Fri May 17 14:42:40 2013
Note that all documents appear to have been touched by iText which is likely used as the labeling solution. I will have to check the two pdfs more carefully. In fact there appear to be plenty of differences so I will have to dedicate a separate posting to this one.
The second attachment contains 1 page. It was created on June 4, 2012. Note that it lacks a Creator tag even though it’s ModDate is only 20 seconds after document 35-1 was filed.
Exhibit Hawaii DOH Verification of President Obamas Hawaiian Birth-Issued May 31
2012-11-05 15:24:25
./gov.uscourts.mssd.78493.35.2.pdf
Creator:        &lt;missing&gt;
CreationDate:   Mon Jun  4 10:18:18 2012
ModDate:        Wed Jun  6 14:20:49 2012
Document 42 was submitted and filed by the Court’s clerk. The document was scanned on a Fujitsu #S1500 but with different versions for the software manager and the Adobe PDF Scan Library,
2012-10-08 11:12:18
./gov.uscourts.mssd.78493.42.0.pdf
Creator:        PFU ScanSnap Manager 5.1.30 #S1500
Producer:       Adobe PDF Scan Library 3.2
CreationDate:   Thu Oct  4 14:07:15 2012
ModDate:        Thu Oct  4 14:07:15 2012
PDF version:    1.3
Finally there is document 61 which was filed by Begley which was printed on the same Fujitsu #S1500 printer with the same version number as document 35-1.
NOTICE OF ACTION OF JPML STRIKING MOTION OF TAITZ TO COORDINATE AND CONSOLIDATE by Democrat Party of Mississippi, Barak Hussein Obama, Obama for America, Nanci Pelosi re 55 Response in Opposition to Motion, 46 MOTION (Begley, Samuel) (Entered: 11/02/2012)
2012-11-05 09:39:28
./gov.uscourts.mssd.78493.61.0.pdf
Producer:       Adobe PDF Scan Library 3.1
CreationDate:   Thu Nov  1 23:20:54 2012
ModDate:        Fri Nov  2 14:33:44 2012
Tagged:         no
An interesting question arises. Who created and uploaded the 35-1 and 35-2 documents… Does the Court have several Fujitsu #S1500 scanners with different software patches? Or does the law firm has a similar scanner? Why were the two attachments uploaded several months after their parent document 35-0 had been uploaded?
And the mystery continues but it appears that the modification date can be affected by the actual labeling software.
← Orly – IRS FOIA – Supporting local artist	MS – Orly v Democrat -Part 11 Label Fonts →	47 thoughts on “MS – Orly v Democrat – Part 10 Updates”	Hermitian says:	July 15, 2013 at 14:16	“NBC Bloviates
“Note that all documents appear to have been touched by iText which is likely used as the labeling solution. I will have to check the two pdfs more carefully. In fact there appear to be plenty of differences so I will have to dedicate a separate posting to this one.”
I’ve already researched the iText issue. You are wasting your time — because you will never have the right stuff. That is unless you have someone on the inside of PACER.
But I do have the right stuff !
So be very careful what you wish for !!!
Thomas Lee Brown says:	July 15, 2013 at 14:49	Welcome to irrelevance, Hermie. The world has passed you by. Obama is President and will be until 2017, and after that he will be enshrined as a good if not great President in our history along with the other men who served. And you will be forgotten. You have sided with the crackpots and losers, wallowing in lies and filth. Nice going. You should be proud.
NBC says:	July 15, 2013 at 14:53	I’ve already researched the iText issue. You are wasting your time — because you will never have the right stuff. That is unless you have someone on the inside of PACER.
You never properly researched the documents before, and it required me and Vicklund to point you in the right direction. You are somewhat slow to admit your errors, but that’s fine.
The iText issue is interesting since apparently a new iText was used on the documents recently. Some may be curious enough to look into such information, others may see it as a waste of time. I believe that minor mysteries deserve explanations.
I wish for you to show that the original Whitehouse PDF was forged or that document 35-1 has been forged.
Perhaps you may want to focus your efforts on supporting these claims? Especially now that the ‘artifacts’ of the black blocks, lines and OCR has been explained by Vicklund’s research.
Hermitian says:	July 15, 2013 at 18:20	“NBC
“Finally there is document 61 which was filed by Begley which was printed on the same Fujitsu #S1500 printer with the same version number as document 35-1.”
So it’s all starting to run together eh NBC?
Or maybe WKV (that master printer) has developed the technology of producing prints on a pure scanner?
Hermitian says:	July 15, 2013 at 20:15	“NBC
“You never properly researched the documents before, and it required me and Vicklund to point you in the right direction. You are somewhat slow to admit your errors, but that’s fine.”
“The iText issue is interesting since apparently a new iText was used on the documents recently. Some may be curious enough to look into such information, others may see it as a waste of time. I believe that minor mysteries deserve explanations.”
So do I. That’s why I researched the iText modification this past February.
I have determined that the font used for the case labels on the original 15-1.pdf and 35-1.pdf LFCOLB images was “Arial MT (Regular)”. The font used for the modified 15-1.pdf and 35-1.pdf is “Liberation Sans (Regular)”. Adobe Illustrator includes Arial MT (Regular) in its font library but does not include Liberation Sans (Regular). Adobe Illustrator substituted “Letter Gothic Standard” for the “Liberation Sans” when I open the modified documents with AI. “Letter Gothic Standard is not a good matching font for “Liberation Sans”. That’s why the cases labels were so different between the original and modified documents in my screen shots. However, here is where the plot deepens. The Arial font used in the original documents is a proprietary font. Apparently, the person who modified the documents did not have access to this proprietary Arial font. However, font manufacturers have used a trick to get around the proprietary license. They just copy the same font but with metric dimensions equivalent to the English dimensions of the proprietary font. As it turns out, the “Liberation Sans” font is metrically equivalent to the “Arial MT” font. From Wikipedia: “Arial is a proprietary typeface[27] to which Monotype Imaging owns all rights, including copyright, design and trademark rights.[28] Its licensing terms prohibit derivative works and free redistribution.[29][30][31][32][33][34][35] “Liberation Sans is a metrically equivalent font to Arial developed by Ascender Corp. and published by Red Hat in 2007, initially under the GPL license with some exceptions.[36] Versions 2.00.0 onwards are published under SIL OPEN FONT LICENSE.[37] It is used in some GNU/Linux distributions as default font replacement for Arial.[38].” Evidently, whoever modified the two court documents knew that Liberation Sans was a metrically equivalent font to Arial MT. This means that the difference between the case labels on the original documents versus on the modified documents would be small. Of course the particular PDF reader used to open the file to view it would have to be able to recognize the “Liberation Sans” font. I saw a bigger difference between the labels because Adobe Illustrator substituted a different font. Apparently AI isn’t programmed to substitute “Arial” for “Liberation Sans”. So instead AI substituted ”Letter Gothic Std.” which is not a good match for “Liberation Sans”. I can’t imagine why AI is set up that way because “Arial” is an available font in AI. So AI should have just substituted “Arial” for Liberation Sans; but it didn’t.”
I checked the modified 35-1.pdf LFCOLB image in Adobe Acrobat XI. Adobe Acrobat recognizes the “Liberation Sans” font but this metric font is not in the list of available fonts for Adobe Acrobat XI. Therefore you cannot use Adobe Acrobat to substitute “Liberation Sans” for any other font. Adobe Acrobat does have “Arial” as an available font but it also did not substitute Arial for “Liberation Sans”. Evidently Adobe Reader has “Arial” as an available font. So the bottom line is that whoever modified the 15-1.pdf and 35-1.pdf documents didn’t have “Arial MT” but did have access to “Liberation Sans” and knew that they were equivalent. This unknown person might also be running iText on a GNU/Linux system with a C compiler.
This doesn’t sound like something that the court staff would do routinely. If we assume that the court staff added all the labels (i.e. on both the original documents and the modified documents) then why would they first use an English font and then go back later and substitute a metrically equivalent font? It doesn’t make sense if the substituted font would make only a slight visible difference in the image? Additionally, whoever modified these files likely made other changes to each file beyond just changing the font of the case labels. Just changing the font to an equivalent font doesn’t justify a modification of an official court record. And if the person was up to no good, then why take the risk just to change one font from English to its metric equivalent?
I’m at a disadvantage here because I don’t have a feel for how picky the courts are with respect to maintaining the integrity of court records. In the Engineering world, where I spent my career, there would be consequences when unauthorized alterations are made to certified engineering drawings or standards or procedures.
NBC says:	July 15, 2013 at 20:35	So it’s all starting to run together eh NBC?
It’s remarkable what some careful research can uncover versus speculation. I’d highly suggest this to anyone interested in a proper analysis of the evidence.
NBC says:	July 15, 2013 at 20:39	I’m at a disadvantage here because I don’t have a feel for how picky the courts are with respect to maintaining the integrity of court records. So far these ‘alterations’ are all software induced and do not significantly change the court records. Since Onaka verified the WH document itself (and thus 15-1) the court will consider the matter irrelevant that a scanner created some invisible artifacts.
As I had predicted, nothing much to be found here other than a waste of the Court’s time. But it has provided me with a good opportunity to hone my skills.
Now if Hermitian could focus his attention on the rebutted claims about the WH document being fraudulent because of PDF artifacts, we could perhaps rescue his efforts. NBC says:	July 15, 2013 at 20:41	Heck as you have shown these are open source font licenses and thus it is not surprising that the Court’s ECF software is using them.
Let’s see if we can resolve this minor mystery as well.
Hermitian says:	July 16, 2013 at 00:50	“NBC
“Perhaps you may want to focus your efforts on supporting these claims? Especially now that the ‘artifacts’ of the black blocks, lines and OCR has been explained by Vicklund’s research.”
Do you have another blog somewhere upon which you have posted all of this proof that you claim that Vicklund has offered up? I haven’t seen anything on this blog that is even remotely close to proof that refutes my findings.
And what happened to all of Vicklund’s updates that you promised to post days ago? The rest of us would like to see his proof. Or have you two decided that it’s too good to share?
You both have claimed that all of the anomalies in the page 4 LFCOLB PDF image from Document 35-1.pdf were caused by an OCR scan in Adobe Acrobat. So where’s the proof? Also I downloaded your .pdf https://nativeborncitizen.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/wh-lfbc-scanned-xerox-7535-wc.pdf
that you posted which you claim proves the the layers in the WH LFCOLB were caused by scanning a paper copy of one of the two certified copies of Obama’s LFCOLB in a Xerox Workcenter 7535 with MRC turned on. You probably don’t remember but a “friend” sent you a Xerox scan of a paper copy of the WH LFCOLB. But you didn’t say where your friend got the paper copy that he scanned. I took a brief look at this file in Adobe Illustrator CS6 and Adobe Acrobat XI Pro. I was anxious to see what all the excitement was about. I should have know better. The first thing that I noticed right out of the box was that when the file was opened in Adobe Acrobat XI Pro and/or Adobe Reader XI the image of the LFCOLB was oriented correctly. However, when opened in Adobe Illustrator CS6 the composite image was rotated 90 degrees clockwise. Moreover the Links Panel data for each of the 17 images indicated 0 degree rotation. All of the 17 images were embedded in their incorrect orientation.
The separation of the text from the background layer was not as complete as with the WH LFCOLB PDF image. There is also a blank artboard behind the composite image of the Xerox scanned LFCOLB PDF Image which is not present in the WH LFCOLB PDF image. This indicates that the Xerox scanned composite PDF image of the LFCOLB was placed onto a new artboard in Adobe Illustrator. The composite image can be translated and/or rotated relative to the pure White artbord.
I also noticed that 4 of the 17 images are Black images set to knockout. Overprint is off on these 4 images. However there are no large Black objects visible anywhere on the page. There are no objects with these same attributes in the nine object layers of the WH LFCOLB PDF image. Sixteen of the 17 images are monochrome image masks.
Each of the 16 monochrome Image masks of the Xerox scanned LFCOLB PDF image was compressed by the JBIG2Decode filter whereas each of the nine monochrome Image mask layers of the WH LFCOLB PDF image were all compressed by the FlateDecode filter.
The nine image layers that comprise the composite image of the WH LFCOLB PDF are all “Image mask” monochrome layers and none is a Black bitmap image set to knockout.
Nice try NBC but no Brass Ring for you. More to come….
Hermitian says:	July 16, 2013 at 00:52	By the way NBC, some of the content on this page is not secure.
NBC says:	July 16, 2013 at 00:57	Poor Hermitian, we have now shown how the document that could not be created by OCR software can indeed be created and the same artifacts seen in the original Whitehouse PDF are seen exactly in the PDF provided to me by a friendly reader.
Note also that the orientation is trivially dealt with by scanning in the document upside down.
You really may want to read a bit more about what I have shown here as you show yourself a little bit clueless.
Yes, JBIG2Decode was predicted by me and others because of the various identical letters. When you subsequently save the file using preview, the JBIG2Decode becomes FlateDecode.
Sigh… Still struggling to become a PDF researcher I notice.
You should really throw out illustrator and use the tools that investigators and researchers use. It would avoid you a lot of embarrassments.
NBC says:	July 16, 2013 at 00:58	By the way NBC, some of the content on this page is not secure.
Which in English means what exactly?
NBC says:	July 16, 2013 at 01:03	Hermitian: I took a brief look at this file in Adobe Illustrator CS6 and Adobe Acrobat XI Pro.
Yes, a brief look indeed. Why do you not take a more serious look and read my contributions before you jump to foolish conclusions. Now I know that you do not like to admit that you were wrong, but I strongly suggest you use some more appropriate tools to analyze these documents.
And spend more than a brief look…
And yes, I do comment on the rotation… What Hermitian refuses to admit to is that the artifacts are the same as seen in President Obama’s long form birth certificate, including the embedded comment in the jpeg…
Time to do some hard work my friend. Sloppiness does not make for very good rebuttals.
Hermitian says:	July 16, 2013 at 01:38	Mar 05, 2013
I believe for now we should not report the file modifications as part of the overall forgery investigations. Since yesterday, I have been able to check several other files for modifications(beyond the two that I sent to you yesterday) and have determined that every one has been modified by someone using iText 2.1.7 by I3TXT. For all the files that I have checked, the only change that can be detected by Adobe Acrobat XI File Compare is that the font on the case label was changed from “Arial MT” to Liberation Sans. I have now compared the modified and original files using Adobe Acrobat XI PDF File Compare for the following files:
14-0, 15-0, 15-1, 15-2, 17.0, 35-0, 35-1, and 35-2.
Adobe File Compare only detects the font change to the case label on each page of each document. No other changes are detected to the file content.
The iText modification was verified for each case (except for 15-0). The iText modification is always appended to the variable in the file’s METADATA. (see the attached screenshots for Document 35-1). The one exception was file 15-0. The original 15-0 file METADATA shows: Microsoft Word 1010.
The original Document 15-0 file name is 10513207155.pdf.
The Modified 15-0 METADATA shows: 䵩捲潳潦璮⁗潲搠㈰㄰㬠浯摩晩敤⁵獩湧⁩呥硴′⸱⸷⁢礠ㅔ㍘
The Modified Document 15-0 file name is 105132071557659803e.pdf.
These are the current data for file 15-0 on PACER.
Hence we find a string of Chinese characters has replaced the Name in the file 15-0.pdf METADATA.
Also the file 15-0 name was changed. No other file that I have examined has a file name with the greater number of digits and one letter.
Maybe PACER was hacked by the Chinese!
On a serious note, the reason that I have invested considerable effort to check this out is that iText is used by several U.S. Government agencies including NASA, USPS and USDOD. It is also used by the NY Times and by the entire government of Brazil. Maybe it is also used by the US Federal court system. However, this is unlikely because version 2.1.7 is an old version.
iText can also place encrypted data within PDF files. See: http://itextpdf.com/.
These results prove that the file modifications were not just confined to Documents 15-1 and 35-1 which are the two files which contain the two different LFCOLBS. Instead, possibly all the files in the MS case were modified. However, to prove this would require considerable effort and a reliable archive of the original files.
Adobe Acrobat detects that only that the font of the case labels was changed.
Consequently, to take this investigation further will require someone to acquire iText and come up to speed with it. We would be looking for changes that only iText could have made beyond the font change of the case labels. Possibly someone had used iText to place encrypted data and decided to go in and remove it before we stumbled onto it. Then they modified the case labels on all the files to throw off suspicion.
Realistically, to prove this scenario would require a big effort. Maybe not much bang for the buck.
But on the other hand, It just doesn’t make sense that the court staff would use iText to change the font of the case labels from Arial MT to Liberation Sans. Liberation Sans is a metrically equivalent font for Arial MT.
This may be the end of the road on this one. I would appreciate your opinions.
NBC says:	July 16, 2013 at 01:48	This may be the end of the road on this one. I would appreciate your opinions.
I believe that a massive rescan was done with iText. I venture to guess that they either recently rolled out the system or upgraded it to a newer version. I will see if I can get some information out of the ECF/CM documentation. So far the differences are only in the fonts. I will check the more recent files and see if I can come up with something useful.
W. Kevin Vicklund says:	July 16, 2013 at 02:12	Hermie’s ‘four Black images’ are presumably the four text layers set to DeviceGray rather than the 12 text layers set to DeviceRGB. All 16 of the layers are monochrome (and none of them are true Black), but when the three components of the RGB are identical, it uses the single-value Gray instead. Interestingly, contrary to Hermie’s assertion, there is one of these objects in the original WH LFBC pdf. It’s the upper white splotches layer.
There is also a blank artboard behind the composite image of the Xerox scanned LFCOLB PDF Image which is not present in the WH LFCOLB PDF image.
Funny, you were able to find it a month ago:
Then there is the problem that page size of the artboard object in the WH LFCOLB PDF image is smaller than the page size of the background image on all four sides.
W. Kevin Vicklund says:	July 16, 2013 at 02:19	On the iText typeface replacement issue, it may have something to do with a licensing agreement expiring. ECF/PACER may need their own license to use certain typefaces.
Hermitian says:	July 16, 2013 at 02:28	NBC is in denial !!!
“July 16, 2013 01:0 “Hermitian: I took a brief look at this file in Adobe Illustrator CS6 and Adobe Acrobat XI Pro.
“Yes, a brief look indeed. Why do you not take a more serious look and read my contributions before you jump to foolish conclusions. Now I know that you do not like to admit that you were wrong, but I strongly suggest you use some more appropriate tools to analyze these documents.
“And spend more than a brief look…”
And yes, I do comment on the rotation… ”
Yes I remember that you blamed that on the secretary placing the sheet bottom over top on the glass. But bottom over top is a 180 degree rotation not a 90 degree rotation.
She would have had to turn it 90 degrees to explain the landscape orientation observed in Adobe Illustrator. However, that doesn’t work either because the image correctly opens in the letter orientation in Adobe Acrobat and Adobe Reader. Also the rotation angle is zero for each of the 17 image objects in the Xerox scanned image for the landscape orientation in Illustrator.
“What Hermitian refuses to admit to is that the artifacts are the same as seen in President Obama’s long form birth certificate, including the embedded comment in the jpeg…”
Except for the objects that are not the same. You have reported that 16 of the 17 images are 1-Bit image layers that are just like the eight non-background 1-Bit image layers of the WH LFCOLB PDF image. But that’s just not true. Four of the 16 1-Bit layers are not at all like the 8 1-Bit image layers of the WH LFCOLB PDF image. There are also differences between the other 12 1-Bit images and the 8 1-Bit image layers of the WH LFCOLB PDF image — particularly because of the different layer architecture and different types of interconnecting objects in the layer stacking order as revealed in Illustrator between the two LFCOLB PDF images.
Hermitian says:	July 16, 2013 at 03:05	“NBC
“Yes, JBIG2Decode was predicted by me and others because of the various identical letters. When you subsequently save the file using preview, the JBIG2Decode becomes FlateDecode.”
“Sigh… Still struggling to become a PDF researcher I notice.”
Nope! I’m not struggling at all — but you sure seem to be.
Your friend’s Xerox Workcenter scanned image has the following Creator and Producer:
So you ran his PDF through Preview but Preview didn’t change the METADATA?
W. Kevin Vicklund says:	July 16, 2013 at 03:58	No, you’re looking at the version that wasn’t run through Preview.
W. Kevin Vicklund says:	July 16, 2013 at 04:19	She would have had to turn it 90 degrees to explain the landscape orientation observed in Adobe Illustrator. However, that doesn’t work either because the image correctly opens in the letter orientation in Adobe Acrobat and Adobe Reader. Also the rotation angle is zero for each of the 17 image objects in the Xerox scanned image for the landscape orientation in Illustrator.
The WorkCentre FAQ literature says that the image bitmap scanned in portrait will be output as native landscape, but that scanning it as a pdf will rotate it to portrait. This has been confirmed on numerous files. Notice that the output of the 7535, even prior to being run through Preview, has a 90 degree rotation (as does the 16 1-bit objects: either you are lying like you did in your earlier comment, or Illustrator is obscuring the details).
W. Kevin Vicklund says:	July 16, 2013 at 04:37	I see that Hermie is once again utterly baffled at how an image scanned, printed, and then scanned again could have minor differences between the two scans.
“Hah! At pixel (283,854) the color of the original is (.121,.592,.173), but in the other file, it’s (.125.582,.183)! That proves that your scanner couldn’t create the artifacts seen in the original!”
The reality-based community, on the other hand, sees that the salient characteristics of the artifacts have been recreated and agree that this was likely how the artifacts got there.
Hermitian says:	July 16, 2013 at 09:56	“NBC
“HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
“Your friend’s Xerox Workcenter scanned image has the following Creator and Producer:
“Xerox WorkCentre 7535
“So you ran his PDF through Preview but Preview didn’t change the METADATA?
“July 16, 2013 03:58 “No, you’re looking at the version that wasn’t run through Preview.”
I already knew that because the METADATA from NBC’s Xerox scanned image indicates that it wasn’t. I just wanted to make sure that the readers on this blog also know that.
So how do you and your buddy NBC know that Preview would not make any other changes to the 17 objects without running a trial using preview?
And then neither of you has explained why the Xerox scanned LFCOLB PDF image is landscape orientation when the file is opened in Adobe Illustrator while at the same time the same image is in portrait orientation when opened in Acrobat and Adobe Reader. And why zero rotations are shown for each of the 17 images in Illustrator.
And neither of you has explained how NBC’s friend made the printout of the WH LFCOLB that he scanned.
Does NBC’s friend work in the White House?
Hermitian says:	July 16, 2013 at 10:12	WKV trys to wiggle (or wriggle) off the hook !
“July 16, 2013 04:19 “She would have had to turn it 90 degrees to explain the landscape orientation observed in Adobe Illustrator. However, that doesn’t work either because the image correctly opens in the letter orientation in Adobe Acrobat and Adobe Reader. Also the rotation angle is zero for each of the 17 image objects in the Xerox scanned image for the landscape orientation in Illustrator.
“The WorkCentre FAQ literature says that the image bitmap scanned in portrait will be output as native landscape, but that scanning it as a pdf will rotate it to portrait. This has been confirmed on numerous files. Notice that the output of the 7535, even prior to being run through Preview, has a 90 degree rotation (as does the 16 1-bit objects: either you are lying like you did in your earlier comment, or Illustrator is obscuring the details).”
Hey or Hay Dude !
What’s to obscure? The page is landscape orientation in Illustrator but is in letter orientation in Acrobat and Reader?
And it’s the same PDF file opened in all three programs.
But you might be right. I’m sure that just running the PDF through Preview would fix all of this.
And then the WH LFCOLB PDF image is in the correct letter orientation when the file is opened in these same three programs.
Hermitian says:	July 16, 2013 at 10:14	And I understand that NBC is too busy to do the Preview trial because he’s frantically trying to find out why his blog has unsecure data.
Hermitian says:	July 16, 2013 at 12:00	“WKV is color blind !
“July 16, 2013 02:12 “Hermie’s ‘four Black images’ are presumably the four text layers set to DeviceGray rather than the 12 text layers set to DeviceRGB. All 16 of the layers are monochrome (and none of them are true Black), but when the three components of the RGB are identical, it uses the single-value Gray instead. Interestingly, contrary to Hermie’s assertion, there is one of these objects in the original WH LFBC pdf. It’s the upper white splotches layer.
I’ll have more on your claim later. But as a start you should know that the color values for the first “Black bitmap image is set to knockout” layer that I checked are given in hexadecimal when measured with the Illustrator eyedropper tool. The hexidecimal color number is:
See: http://www.colorcodehex.com/152219/
Converts to Red = 21 Blue = 34 Green = 25
which is a near-Black color
Of course, the WH LFCOLB has no “Black bitmap image set to knockout” layers. The nine layers of the WH LFCOLB are all Image mask layers.
The page 4 LFCOLB from Documant 35-1.pdf has seven hidden Black Rectangles. All of these Rectangles are “Black bitmap image set to knockout” layers. The Xerox scanned LFCOLB PDF image has four “Black bitmap image set to knockout” layers and 12 Image mask layers.
However the four “Black bitmap image set to knockout” layers are totally unlike the seven Black Rectangles.
W. Kevin Vicklund says:	July 16, 2013 at 12:12	So how do you and your buddy NBC know that Preview would not make any other changes to the 17 objects without running a trial using preview?
Because he ran a bunch of other pdfs with similar characteristics through Preview and documented what the changes were and that they were consistent on a variety of scans. The purpose of the 7535 file was to demonstrate that WorkCentre 7500+ series scanners produced scans with the predicted characteristics. These characteristics include: images that were rotated 90 degrees, an 8-bit color background at low-res compressed using DCT, multiple 1-bit color (monochrome) ImageMask layers in a mix of DeviceRGB and DeviceGrey at mid-res compressed using JBIG2, and halos in the background where the monochrome layers were lifted.
If what you are saying is true, then Illustrator is failing to rotate the images to the page’s portrait orientation. However, I suspect that you are either confused about what you have done, or are lying.
Assuming ad arguendo you are not lying, what I think is happening is that after you opened the file in Illustrator, you separated the layers and they “relaxed” to their unrotated orientation. I suspect that if you opened a fresh copy of the file in Illustrator, it would be in Portrait orientation. If it isn’t, then Illustrator isn’t opening the file properly Kind of like how Preview doesn’t hide hidden layers.
In Acrobat and Reader, the ability to deconstruct the layers is unavailable, so the command to rotate the images to the page’s portrait orientation remains intact. The pdf file contains instructions to rotate all 17 images 90 degrees counterclockwise.
This is why it is a bad idea to use Illustrator as a primary forensic tool.
He printed out the WH LFCOLB pdf file and then scanned it. What is there to explain? It’s freely available on the WhiteHouse webpage and mirrored on just about every birther site in existence.
W. Kevin Vicklund says:	July 16, 2013 at 12:38	I’ll have more on your claim later. But as a start you should know that the color values for the first “Black bitmap image is set to knockout” layer that I checked are given in hexadecimal when measured with the Illustrator eyedropper tool. The hexidecimal color number is:
Converting to the format used in pdfs, we get .0824,.1333,.0980. Hmm, that’s dark green. Does the pdf have any image masks of that color, and if so, what does the mask look like? Going to the page that NBC laid this out, Xerox WorkCentre 7535 Part 2, we see that only one of the layers is that color:
/XIPLAYER_CM1 14 0 R 1749 x 1403 336.72 419.76 236.64 95.52 0.0824 0.1333 0.0980
which is Image 1
That’s the primary text layer, you nattering nabob! The white in the image I linked to is where the masked color goes. (Think of the black as a stencil, and the white as the cut out hole).
W. Kevin Vicklund says:	July 16, 2013 at 12:59	I currently have a comment in moderation, pointing out that the first “Black bitmap image is set to knockout” layer Hermie mentions is actually the primary text layer. Presumably, then, layers 1, 2, 11, and 13 are the four Black bitmap images (those being the 4 darkest layers), and 10 and 14 registering to Hermie as “green”. The remaining layers would then be “white” or very light. (In this scheme, the background image is Image 0).
Reality Check says:	July 16, 2013 at 13:16	Hermitian
I challenged Adrien Nash to prove the AP JPG copy of the LFBC was made from the White House PDF. He failed spectacularly. Of course, since it cannot have come from the PDF that means either the PDF and the AP JPG are copies of the same piece of paper or the AP JPG was created by a completely different process. This is why Zullo will never admit the AP JPG even exists. It allows him to baffle Birther suckers with fancy but meaningless talk about layers in the PDF.
Hermitian says:	July 16, 2013 at 13:42	“NBC is insecure !
July 16, 2013 00:58 By the way NBC, some of the content on this page is not secure.
It means that every time that I have posted on this blog lately WIN 7 warns me that your site contains unsecured data. If I check yes then the unsecured data is displayed (somewhere). Of course I always respond by checking no.
You should see the warning pop up in the bar at the bottom of your screen — that is if you are not using your Macintosh…
gorefan says:	July 16, 2013 at 14:10	W. Kevin Vicklund – “If what you are saying is true”
I got the same results and reported it earlier to NBC. Here is the thing. When viewed in any other program (photoshop, acrobat reader, Preview) it is in portrait orientation. Only in Illustrator is it in lanscapeorientation. And when it is saved as pdf in Preview. It is portrait and the layers are rotated by 90 degrees.
W. Kevin Vicklund says:	July 16, 2013 at 14:13	By the way NBC, some of the content on this page is not secure.
Basically, you have a mix of secure and unsecure content. The secure content is the login for commenting. Everything else is unsecured. What’s happening is that Hermie has his settings set to prompt him whenever a site has a combination of secure and unsecure content, because unsecure content can defeat the security. Nothing for you to worry about, your site is working the way it should.
W. Kevin Vicklund says:	July 16, 2013 at 14:20	Thanks, gorefan. So it is confirmed that Illustrator is borking the rotation for some reason. As NBC and I have said, that’s why using Illustrator is a bad choice for document forensics. How do the other pdfs from the 7655 that NBC found on the net open in Illustrator?
Hermitian says:	July 16, 2013 at 15:13	“WKV
“Basically, you have a mix of secure and unsecure content. The secure content is the login for commenting. Everything else is unsecured. What’s happening is that Hermie has his settings set to prompt him whenever a site has a combination of secure and unsecure content, because unsecure content can defeat the security. Nothing for you to worry about, your site is working the way it should.”
I always have IE set to warn for unsecure sites. The warning just popped up for the first time on this blog a few days ago.
It was about the time that you starting linking to all those Pacer documents.
W. Kevin Vicklund says:	July 16, 2013 at 15:22	What’s to obscure? The page is landscape orientation in Illustrator but is in letter orientation in Acrobat and Reader?
Actually, running it through Preview may very well fix this! As gorefan pointed out here, the Page object itself has been rotated :
/CropBox [0 0 792 612]
/Resources 31 0 R
[formatted for clarity]
But in the Preview file, NBC says that the page size is
WH 7535 PDF: [0 0 612 792]
So it sounds like Illustrator is undoing the Rotate command for the page, after it has been constructed. I’m not sure why it does this.
NBC says:	July 16, 2013 at 15:24	So it sounds like Illustrator is undoing the Rotate command for the page, after it has been constructed. I’m not sure why it does this.
Illustrator is showing the bitmap but it is rotated and sized and translated before it is rendered on the PDF page. In other words, it appears to not follow the PDF rendering.
Illustrator is not a very good tool to use for this kind of research.
W. Kevin Vicklund says:	July 16, 2013 at 15:24	It was about the time that you starting linking to all those Pacer documents.
Yeah, linking to a bunch of offsite documents could do that.
NBC says:	July 16, 2013 at 15:25	This is why Zullo will never admit the AP JPG even exists. It allows him to baffle Birther suckers with fancy but meaningless talk about layers in the PDF.
Cherry picking the data that matches their beliefs is not a very good investigative technique.
NBC says:	July 16, 2013 at 15:34	I got the same results and reported it earlier to NBC. Here is the thing. When viewed in any other program (photoshop, acrobat reader, Preview) it is in portrait orientation. Only in Illustrator is it in lanscapeorientation. Why can Hermitian not read what has been done before asking these questions? We have been quite thorough in the analyses. I am sure that Hermitian has recognized how the analysis destroys many of the claims that have led ‘researchers’ to conclude fraud.
W. Kevin Vicklund says:	July 16, 2013 at 16:54	To be fair, Part 3 of the 7535 thread wasn’t made part of the collection. Although he did comment in the thread at one point.
NBC says:	July 16, 2013 at 16:58	To be fair, Part 3 of the 7535 thread wasn’t made part of the collection. Although he did comment in the thread at one point.
W. Kevin Vicklund says:	July 16, 2013 at 21:23	Apparently, Illustrator not being able to properly display rotated pdf pages is a common problem.
NBC says:	July 16, 2013 at 22:38	Yes…
Again, the tool is hiding the real objects…
W. Kevin Vicklund says:	July 16, 2013 at 23:50	BTW, I’m probably going to be offline for most of the next three weeks – busy season at work just hit. Just so no-one thinks I’ve run away or something.
Hermitian says:	July 18, 2013 at 02:51	“W. Kevin Vicklund
“July 16, 2013 23:50 “BTW, I’m probably going to be offline for most of the next three weeks – busy season at work just hit. Just so no-one thinks I’ve run away or something.”
Thanks for the heads up Kevin. We will miss your valuable contributions. And I was counting on you to show NBC how to use Acrobat.
NBC says:	July 18, 2013 at 04:11	Thanks for the heads up Kevin. We will miss your valuable contributions. And I was counting on you to show NBC how to use Acrobat.
Acrobat is trivial to use. Now try to actually look at the raw PDF, that requires some real skills. After all, millions use these tools…
Few use the forensic tools…