JT

you picture about the pixel document was not close enough to compare
look at Sqmo for comparison

about the kerning pict
it is difficult to compare two files like that— one was taken at an angle while the other one was flat
when I look at that- the text looks wider in the twins document— see it spreading out

Vegas:

Re: Checkboxes, is this zoomed in enough? Also moved them side by side. Again, it was just taking a high resolution photo and doing an OCR ClearScan on it, no manipulation was done (original image and resulting PDFs were linked earlier).

Re: Kerning, it is hard to do an exact match, but I adjusted the Obama BC for both scale and skew, kerning adds up, by the end of the text they should have been WAY off if kerning was being done. Did you look at the other pictures I posted earlier as well?

"Noone has commented on my recreation of "pixel identical" checkboxes, nor on the fact that in the PDFs created using OCR ClearScan there are "pixel identical" letter glyphs as well."

Your check boxes just don't look like the check boxes on the white house PDF. Maybe it's the resolution of the scan. It's not just creating two boxes of indeterminate actual size that seem to have the same pixel payout as each other. See if you can do the following: type out "u" a few times on paper using a TYPEWRITER. Scan them. Now I don't know the resolution of OCR ClearScan, but I did this today and the resolution was "400 DPI". I ended up with letters that seemed to have approximately the same pixel szie as those in the white house PDF.

To successfully rebut the strong pixel evidence, your "u" s would have to have approximately the same # of pixels (we could hand count them!) as Sqmo had posted a few pages back or as could be hand-counted on the white house PDF. If you can honestly come up with three separately typed u's that have the EXACT same pixel layout as each other AND have roughly the same number of pixels as the u's on the white house cert, then I'll start to consider that the pixel evidence might not be as compelling as it otherwise appears.

I would encourage other people to try this. Find a typewriter. Type any key 10-15 times. Scan it to a PDF. Look at it. I'll bet the pixel sizes look about like those on the white house cert (when both are zoomed to 800%). And NONE of your typed letters will have identical pixel layouts...or anything close to identical.

Mortgageguymn: How bout just looking at the PDFs I posted earlier? Check out the two pairs of "a"s.

JT
look at these three boxes taken from LFBC

see how the first two are exactly the same- (I copied and pasted them)
see the pixel squares

look at the third one- it is the same box but once I rotated it- Photoshop re-drew it and blended it
(re drawing is how the security background got blurry/blended as well)

you can not go/tell by your boxes boxes because they are blended- image scan
one would have to look this close (~1860% magnification) to see if every pixel matched up.

So.. are you saying that the zoomed in checkboxes I posted above are not pixel identical? I can zoom in further if need be. Remember, the assertion is that the only way to have pixel identical boxes (and letters) is by cut and pasting them. I'm looking at these boxes and letters and they look at least as pixel identical as the other examples given. And they weren't cut and pasted.

Is this better?

dont feel like reading the rest of the thread,
but J_T, that pic is not pixel identical. Looks a the background in the middle of the box

Now if you saved it in a highly compressed .jpg or whatever that may explain it.

But it is clear that those two boxes are not identical.

LB: The backgrounds aren't identical on the Obama BC either.

Here's a certificate that shows actual typewriter malfunctioning (and is high-enough resolution to be reasonably sure that's what you're looking at.)

http://trueconservative101.com/wp-conten....

Note that the first two columns are "kerned", but they're damaged all the way down in that column from top to bottom. That is, the carriage is loose at that position.

The "H" shows signs of a bent hammer, but EVERY "H" is bent. That's because if a hammer arm is bent IT'S ALWAYS BENT!

That's the point folks - if the unit is out of adjustment, worn or damaged then EVERY instance of a given letter (if it's bent) will show evidence of that, and if it's the carriage position that's loose EVERY pair of characters at that carriage position will show misalignment. Remember, the carriage operates against a spring that wants to pull it leftward and operates via an escapement mechanism. If you see a recurring pattern, incidentally, it is sometimes possible (with enough experience) to determine the exact model and make of the typewriter in question!

If you find INCONSISTENCIES against these two realities of a MECHANICAL device, then the odds are that what you have is a cut-and-paste job.

Never mind that the second line of the alleged birth certificate is out of alignment with the rest. And no, releasing the platen and moving the paper isn't the explanation, because then SUBSEQUENT lines would not be in registration with the TOP line. It is nearly impossible to get the paper back into registration once you do that.

Incidentally, Selectrics malfunction a bit differently, but the results are the same - when the mechanism is "out" it's consistently "out." And we can be nearly 100% certain that this is a bow-style typewriter and NOT a Selectric for two reasons - (1) the Selectric was introduced ONE MONTH before Obama was born, and it is highly unlikely the hospital had them that quickly, and (2) a bow typewriter will ALWAYS misprint capital letters high and ALWAYS misprint lower-case letters low when they are out of vertical registration. That too is consistent with both Obama's BC and also the Nordyke twins.

Karl is correct

JT- what program are you using?
that doesn't look like photoshop

I'm amused that we're expecting repeatable consistency out of an analog mechnical device. But regardless... this seems germane to some of the discussions: http://blogs.adobe.com/acrolaw/2009/05/b....

Quote:

ClearScan works by turning the images which represent text characters on the page into smoothed vector outlines. Each character on the page is compared and all matching characters are replaced with a an outline character:

ClearScan does not replace the font with your system fonts. Rather,a custom font it is created to match the visual appearance of the pixels.

Vegas: Zoomed in with Foxit Reader and composed the graphic with Gimp.

ADOBE PRODUCTS WERE NOT USED TO PRODUCE THIS PDF.

Stop with the Obamabot crap. This PDF is NOT an Adobe production. That's TRIVIALLY discernible from the Metadata; now you're flatly LYING about the production of this thing.

Jeff, why are the boxes in the mega zoom picture not pixellated? I don't think you're looking at what you think you're looking at.

Stop acting like a bunch of conspiracy theorists. No rational and logical people actually belies that Obama was flown to Kenya to give birth. Remember, when he was born he was just another child. To believe in a full fledged conspiracy of his birth that involves many steps that there exists no evidence of is the pinnacle of absurdity. Please show a motive that his mother would fly to Kenya to give birth. Why? Why?

Give us a motive.

I am NOT an Obamabot. The assertion has been that there was no OTHER EXPLANATION. This is PATENTLY FALSE. Read krisb78's comment here: https://discussions.apple.com/thread/240....

Quote:

File originally created with Framemaker 7.2. Can search and copy / paste text no problem. If you check this file's document properties it says: PDF Producer - Acrobat Distiller 8.2.3 (Windows).

If I then open this file in Preview and add some highlights and notes, I can then no longer search or copy / paste (it comes out garbled). The file's document properties now says: PDF Producer Mac OSX 10.6.7 Quartz PDF Context.

So it's possible it was created in Adobe and someone with a Mac open and then saved it from Preview. That would be my guess.

Quote:

Jeff, why are the boxes in the mega zoom picture not pixellated? I don't think you're looking at what you think you're looking at.

Differences in DPI and/or compression settings probably.

Again, the intent is not to reproduce exactly what the Obama BC looks like, only that it's possible for a non-human involvement to create boxes that are identical at the pixel level.

I believe that both the twins certificate and the one Karl just posted were used to make the Obama file.

JT— I can tell you with 99.9% certainty (no one is 100%) that the document that we were given was MADE

it was NOT "just a scan"

look what happens when I zoom in on the top
can you see where the text was copied and pasted on top?

Give it a rest, Spinoza. Your entire contribution to this blog stinks to high heaven. Talented trolls are a bit more subtle...

Wow. Vegas! That's pretty clear, even to me and I so totally don't follow most of this.

Did you look at the PDF I made of the Alan BC? It shows similar artifacts.

Okay - to me, that looks similar.