by dbeach » Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:28 am
<!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.911blogger.com/node/3234?page=1">www.911blogger.com/node/3234?page=1</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><br>Discharge Form for Lauro Chavez Suggests Manipulation<br><br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.911blogger.com/node/3234#comment">www.911blogger.com/node/3234#comment</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><br>"Earlier this evening we posted the latest news regarding Lauro Chavez being fired. In that thread a link was posted to a forum which was arguing that parts of the document had been manipulated. Seeing as how I have been using photoshop for over 10 years I decided to look into what they had found, and even found a few odd things myself.<br><br>In posting this I am in no way trying to make any statement other than that the PDF of this discharge form has several signs of apparent manipulation. In the image linked to above I tried to show 3 clear examples where the PDF shows signs of manipulation. After looking at the PDF at full detail for a few hours tonight in photoshop I found numerous examples where characters were apparently duplicated and positioned to create new data or perhaps change existing data. The image linked to above is purely meant to illustrate where a few of the issues are, you should analyze the original PDF at maximum zoom to clearly see the things which are pointed out. This may seem like speculation to those not so familiar with image manipulation, but there are numerous places where manipulation appears to be readily obvious. I was very hesitant to even post this for fear that I might somehow be wrong, but after looking at it as closely as I did I feel there are definitely issues with this document that need to be pointed out and clarified.<br><br>I in no way want to get involved with any speculation as to if/how/why the form was manipulated, or who manipulated it, etc. I would simply encourage others who are familiar enough with photoshop and image manipulation to check out the original PDF and what is illustrated in the image download above. I will leave any further speculation and tracking down of further answers (like an original paper copy) to those who might better be able to do such. I would highly encourage others to allow this story to fully develop before casting any solid judgements. Please feel free to contact me directly if need be regarding details on my analysis."<br><br><br><br>Comments from that blog<br><br><br><br><br>Once you scan an image there will be distortion of the pixels, especially if the paper bears any creases or minor imperfections.<br><br>It's possible that the issuing office used different<br>fonts, as data was entered onto the form at different<br>times, possibly on different computers.<br><br>As for Richard Little, it's a school-boy joke, like Malena Stool, Mike Hunt etc. But should this<br>coincidence lead to dismissal of the document as a fraud - NO.<br><br><br><br>dz - three comments<br><br>1) the final pdf presented on AJ site was created by ghostprint.<br><br>2) the final pdf presented has been edited by painting over the SS# before final output. <br><br>3) Adobe Acrobat Professional 7.0 (only version I have) WILL substitute glyphs to match previous identified glyphs during the manual OCR process, pixel for pixel.<br><br> <br><br>That being said, the "1" does look suspicious not because of the pixel per pixel match of the 4WKS and 14WKS but the "1" does not fit between the space between the "/" and "4" in 14WKS.<br><br> <br><br> <p></p><i></i>
