W. Kevin Vicklund69p
159 comments posted · 9 followers · following 0
Reality Check July 30, 2015 at 11:33 am (Quote) #
I miscounted late last night. The pattern is 24 across.
Actually it is about 24-1/2 so it depends on where you count the vertical tick marks.
Reality Check July 30, 2015 at 11:37 am (Quote) #
I see now where Irey tried (ineptly I might say) to address the Edge Erase feature.
I checked a sheet of green security paper against the Savannah Guthrie photo and the pattern matches. There are approximately 24+ repeats across the narrow dimension. So if you are counting double vertical bars your will get 24 or 25 depending on how the pattern aligns with the sheet. One thing to remember is that these sheets are cut from a larger roll so I am sure that there are variations from batch to batch depending on how the cutters line up. Therefore, it is meaningless to try to take horizontal slices of various birth certificates and try to match up the pattern.
Another thing I found when examining the sheets is that there is a slight skew in the pattern. The sheet cut is not quite parallel to the pattern so that will cause a variation in where the pattern starts as you go up and down the left edge of a sheet. I don’t know whether the skew is intentional or just manufacturing tolerances.
Kevin is correct. You cannot use the form to calibrate to the green security pattern unless you know the printer reduction settings.
Reality Check July 30, 2015 at 1:27 pm (Quote) #
I checked the pattern repeat on a sheet of green security paper and calculated the pattern repeat compared with the Savannah Guthrie photo.
A sheet of 8.5 in wide security paper is 8.5 in or 215.9 mm wide. I measured 10 pattern cycles and divided that measurement by 10 to calculate the pattern width of 8.85 mm. That means there are 24.395 repeats across the page.
When I printed the Guthrie photo the width was 183 mm. The pattern width was 7.5 mm. That gives a pattern repeat of 24.4. This is remarkably close considering the Guthrie photo barely shows the pattern and it was taken with a cell phone. That would introduce distortion. I had to enhance the contrast just to make out the pattern to get a measurement on the Guthrie photo.
Irey's graphics don't match his written description. He claims that he only enlarged the Obama pdf in the horizontal direction in order to get the hash marks to line up, which made his 160 mm dimension stretch to 163 mm, while keeping the 133 mm dimension intact. But if you look at the graphic, the vertical dimension is also enlarged, and the bottom hash of the 133 mm dimension comes to a different point on the BC. Assuming he is not outright lying, he either enlarged both, and then enlarged in the horizontal direction again (invalidating his claim about the 133 mm dimension), or he thought he was only enlarging in the horizontal direction but actually enlarged both.