The AP "certified" copy...
It isn't "ceritified," it's certified. Your unwillingness to respect the authority of state of Hawaii and the pertinent decisions of several courts on this matter is your own problem. This particular vital record has been authenticated far beyond what has ever been required in the history of the United States. Against that, the Birthers have only a tabloid, a racist sheriff, a nutty lawyer, and a woman who writes books on how to make pretty pictures.
Yes, a digital scan of the
photocopies handed at the White House press conference. The certified paper was circulated at the press conference for inspection. It is not a scan of the certified paper copy, as was used to create the PDF. The expectation that they will be identical is naive.
However, this copy is what sank the Birthers. They made all their typography and related "analysis" on the basis of the PDF, including assertions about the degradation of the text etc. that resulted from the PDF optimization process they knew nothing about. They wrongly assumed the paper copy was just a poor printout of the PDF. Then when scans of the photocopy began circulating, the Birthers realized all the handwaving about raster resolution and fidelity was all nonsense because the alleged "printout" was actually at a higher resolution (where the text is concerned) than what they criticized in the PDF. Hence they had to quickly come up with a new theory about there being
two forgeries: one for the paper copy and a second one for the PDF.
The degraded text in the PDF is caused by quantization during the PDF optimization process, and has been demonstrated
ad nauseam by real experts.
There can be no excuse for not attempting to replicate the backgrounds from baby blue in the AP version to checkered green in the WH PDF version...
Why? Because you say so? They aren't expected to be pixel-wise identical, so quit trying to invent silly new
ad hoc tests.
...or admit there must be something very fishy going on here.
Oh there is. There is.
You say that when your scanner scans blue it shows up as blue. The test is when you scan
white. Does it show up white? The answer is no. Depending on your scanner settings, your scanner will attempt to balance or alter the colors during its rendition in the internal color model.
I scanned the magazine page earlier, as I mentioned. Some of the "white" portions of the image rendered as orange. Other portions rendered as green. White is not white, and a white background on paper will not universally scan as white. (Even if you set your scanner to scan grayscale, "white" paper will not scan as full white unless you manipulate the scanner controls to apply an appropriate contrast.)
Safety paper is what it is because it prevents you from photocopying a document using ordinary xerography processes without either (a) losing the safety pattern altogether, or (b) rendering the safety pattern so garish as to obscure the text, or to reveal safety-pattern text that identifies it as a xerographic copy. This is to prevent photocopies from being passed off as originals.
The only
paper copy that can stand on its own as a certified copy, without separate authentication (which has been provided in this case by Hawaii anyway), is one in which the safety pattern is intact and which the emboss or crimp seal is present in the paper itself. That's what's used to determine the candidate's eligibility, and . There is no constitutional or statutory requirement to give certified copies to the press or to any member of the public as a condition for eligibility.
A more likely explanation is the staffer who was assigned to make copies for the press quickly realized that the safety paper would make this difficult. He therefore fiddled with the contrast and image-quality settings on the copier until enough of the safety-paper pattern had been eliminated, although you can still see vestiges of it in the shade of the gutter margin -- i.e., where the contrast break-point would differ.
Of course, excuses will be made because of the impossibility of performing such a transformation.
The stark mathematics of combinatorial complexity are not excuses. You're the one making excuses for your simplistic understanding. Unless you'd care to answer now the half dozen or so questions I asked you on the subject a month ago.
No? I'm not surprised.
"No excuse for replicating!" Jay asks, "So what's your understanding of how big that problem would be?" Robert answers: [silence]
"No excuse for Obama not authorizing people to view the paper original!" Jay asks, "So what's the legal basis in Hawaii statutes for him to make that authorization?" Robert answers: [silence]
"No excuse for opening a forgery investigation regardless of Full Faith and Credit!" Jay asks, "So what would be the legal theory for such a challenge?" Robert answers: [silence]
Do we see something fishy? You better bet we do.
