Educating the Confused – Henry Blake and ScanSnap

Update: Based on my examination of the libraries included with ScanSnap, I have concluded that he is correct that ABBYY is used for OCR. He still is wrong about the work flow as I will explain below.

Poor Hermitian continues to make assertions that, on closer scrutiny, fail to survive. In spite of the evidence, our friend continues to make statements that are clearly erroneous.

NBC and Vicklund are still way off base. You would think that by know even an Obot could get it right!

So far, us Obots have gotten quite a few things right. You, not so much.

The PFU ScanSnap Manager 5.0.21 #S1500 can produce PDF files but does not have OCR capability. That’s why the Fugitsu ScanSnap S1500 Scanner is bundled with both Adobe Acrobat X and ABBYY FineReader for ScanSnap. Acrobat can create PDF files directly from the Fugitsu ScanSnap S1500 and apply OCR on the same PDF file. There are three different OCR modes that the operator can choose from.

Contrary to Hermitian’s claims, ScanSnap Manager can produce PDF files and offers OCR support. The reason that it provides additional software (one as a trial) is because people may want to do more with their scanned PDF’s.

PFU ScanSnap uses the Adobe PDF Scan Library

which offers, amongst others, the following capabilities

Extract content and Create and manipulate forms. Ouch… I figured this out, again by accident, when I decided to study the metadata of the PDFs submitted in the MS case. Kevin made a good suggestion and I provided the necessary data, which also indicated that Hermitian was mistaken about his claims (again).

You know, we’ve been assuming that the law firm did the scanning. But they did say they were filing the hardcopy of the verification letter from Fuddy with the court. It’s possible that the court was the one that did the scanning.

The letters to the court are scanned in differently than the ones from the law firm. There are three files that contain the metadata, one lacks the paper capture.
gov.uscourts.mssd.78493.35.1.pdf

Creator        PFU ScanSnap Manager 5.0.21 #S1500
Producer     Adobe Acrobat 9.51 Paper Capture Plug-in

gov.uscourts.mssd.78493.42.0.pdf

Creator:        PFU ScanSnap Manager 5.1.30 #S1500
Producer:       Adobe PDF Scan Library 3.2

gov.uscourts.mssd.78493.61.0.pdf

Creator:        PFU ScanSnap Manager 5.0.21 #S1500
Producer:       Adobe PDF Scan Library 3.1

So let me also correct poor Hermitian with another prediction:

1. PFU ScanSnap Manager uses Adobe PDF Scan library to do its magic
2. It also offers Adobe Acrobat and Abbyy software  which can be used for additional manipulations of the PDF.

It should have been obvious to Hermitian when it was pointed out how the document has two bookmarks.

A little bit of logic, some thinking and the true work flow becomes self evident. I guess, for Hermitian’s sake, it’s time to present more hints that he has so obviously overlooked.

PS: I just found two other PDF’s with PFU ScanSnap Manager 5.0.21 #S1500 and Adobe PDF Scan Library 3.1, so again, Hermitian fails.

Update: I have to correct my findings as I looked at the library files used and PDF Scan Library is used to create PDF’s and ABBYY is used to OCR the document. So the following work flow is proposed

1. The letter is scanned in with ScanSnap and saved to PDF

2. The birth certificate is scanned with ScanSnap and saved to PDF

3. Both cases, OCR was turned on which generated the form blocks in the birth certificate document

4. Both documents were imported into Acrobat and OCR was once again applied

17 thoughts on “Educating the Confused – Henry Blake and ScanSnap

  1. Well ! Well ! Well! Now I’ve finally got the two main Obot rats exactly where I want them !

    We now have NBC and Kevin Davidson putting their heads together to figure out the work flow that was used to create the electronic document 35-1.pdf and especially page 4 which contains the flattened and otherwise greatly altered Obama LFCOLB PDF image.

    Of course only NBC and Mr. Conspiracy know which other rats in their rats nest that the are consulting with on the side. My guess is that the other rats would include Jack Ryan who must have a dedicated PACER terminal in his bed room.

    So, just for fun let’s take a look at the latest NBC update.

    “NBC

    “Update: I have to correct my findings as I looked at the library files used and PDF Scan Library is used to create PDF’s and ABBYY is used to OCR the document. So the following work flow is proposed

    “1. The letter is scanned in with ScanSnap and saved to PDF

    “2. The birth certificate is scanned with ScanSnap and saved to PDF

    “3. Both cases, OCR was turned on which generated the form blocks in the birth certificate document

    “4. Both documents were imported into Acrobat and OCR was once again applied”

    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

    Evidently the above numbered list is NBC’s latest “work flow of the day” that has been thrown over the rim of the rats nest — probably along with a shower of bread crumbs for the citizens who eagerly gather around the nest.

    Maybe it’s time for NBC to turn on the editing capability for this blog.

    So here are just a few “off the top of my head” questions about his latest “work flow” offering.

    Now we all know that the 35-1.pdf is a four-page document. The first three pages comprise the letter from Tepper to Fuddy requesting the verification of Obama’s LFCOLB. Page 4 is the purported Obama LFCOLB.

    Comparing steps 1. and 2. we see that the proposed work flow is the same. So an obvious question is why then would the secretary separately scan the three-page letter and the page 4 LFCOLB? I know why — but let’s see if the readers can guess the reason.

    Additionally we already know that the OCR capabilities of ABBYY FineReader ScanSnap exceed the OCR capabilities of Acrobat — especially for PDFs containing complex printed forms with lots of boxes containing typed text.

    So why would the secretary first apply ABBYY OCR to pages 1-3 and page 4 (separately) and then import each of the two PDF documents into Acrobat and then repeat the two scans to apply Acrobat OCR on top of ABBYY OCR?

    And then (repeating my first question) why would the secretary process pages 1-3 separately from page 4 when the work flow is the same for each separate PDF file?

  2. 1. The letter is scanned in with ScanSnap and saved to PDF

    2. The birth certificate is scanned with ScanSnap and saved to PDF

    3. Both cases, OCR was turned on which generated the form blocks in the birth certificate document

    4. Both documents were imported into Acrobat and OCR was once again applied

    In light of what I just discovered (see the Blake Affadavit Part 3 thread), step 3 is not needed. Doing an OCR scan in Acrobat when there is no case label added will generate the poor OCR results, hidden black rectangles, and hidden lines, which are very similar to (and in many cases, identical) what is in the pdf filed with the court. It is important to note that the exact results change when there are objects present, I was working with a different version of Photo Capture, and I only did it to the LFBC page of the 12-page document (which is the one I had on my computer), deleting the other pages from the trial.

    I will be sending examples to NBC to show how adding and deleting objects changes the results of the OCR and the hidden objects.

  3. Hermie, although I share two names with Dr. Conspiracy, I am not him. The last names are different and the first and middle names are swapped (though we both go by Kevin).

  4. why would the secretary process pages 1-3 separately from page 4 when the work flow is the same for each separate PDF file?

    Seeing as I have determined that ABBYY OCR was not needed, the workflow is reduced to:

    1. Scan the letter

    2. Scan the LFBC

    3. Combine the two files in Acrobat 9.51, bookmark each file automatically

    4. Run OCR

    5. Save

    6. Upload to ECF (where the case label is applied)

    Step 3 explains “why scan separately”

    Actually, it is entirely possible that they weren’t scanned separately, and the Bookmarking was done manually (in that case, combine steps 1 and 2, and split step 3). I’m not sure we can justify the assumption that they were scanned separately.

  5. Well ! Well ! Well! Now I’ve finally got the two main Obot rats exactly where I want them

    ROTFL… You are really interested in us debunking your foolishness? And why are you ignoring that we also have identified the ‘forger’ to be a Xerox work center.

    So why would the secretary first apply ABBYY OCR to pages 1-3 and page 4 (separately) and then import each of the two PDF documents into Acrobat and then repeat the two scans to apply Acrobat OCR on top of ABBYY OCR?

    Why would a forger add black boxes …

    Got you right where I wanted you my friend… You have once again be owned by people who can look beyond the follies of invoking a forger when normal workflows explain the data so much better.

  6. I’m not sure we can justify the assumption that they were scanned separately.

    Well, if a better workflow exists that explains the data, then I can live with that…
    Can Hermitian?… Will he now submit an affidavit to correct his position

  7. I received your files. Thank you very much. It will take some time to put together an analysis. Will see if I can tease Hermitian with some preliminary results

  8. Poor Hermie. And I bet in a couple of weeks*, he’ll be right back, peddling the same claims, as if nothing ever happened.

    *It’ll take that long to surgically reattach the ass we handed him.

  9. I got your files, the objects match quite closely, even as to the format… Will post soon. I guess we have totally debunked his ‘affidavit’. It will be interesting to see how he decides to proceed.

  10. “NBC

    “Contrary to Hermitian’s claims, ScanSnap Manager can produce PDF files and offers OCR support. The reason that it provides additional software (one as a trial) is because people may want to do more with their scanned PDF’s.”

    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

    As I correctly stated the PFU ScanSnap Manager 5.0.21 #S1500 does not do OCR. Other Fugitsu software is required for OCR. The PFU ScanSnap Manager 5.0.21 #S1500 is basically a device driver for the ScanSnap scanners. The only bundled software that does OCR that is a Fugitsu product is “ScanSnap Organizer” [Windows only].

    “ScanSnap Organizer is a virtual filing cabinet which allows you to file, organize, email, print, OCR and browse your scanned documents without the need to open them in Acrobat. It can also convert Scansnap scanned PDF’s into fully searchable PDF as a background process. PDFs can also be OCRed directly into Word, Excel and PowerPoint 2003 editable documents.”

    There is a footnote under the Fugitsu ScanSnap S1500 bundled software list that declares that ScanSnap Manager creates both PDF and “searchable” PDF files. However, ScanSnap Organizer is also bundled with the Fugitsu ScanSnap S1500 and it clearly can do OCR. It seems unlikely that Fugitsu would do OCR in both products because they are both bundled with the scanner.

    There is also a question as to whether ABBYY PDF FineReader ScanSnap can process all types of Adobe created PDF files. The operator’s manual for the scanner states that it does OCR on PDFs created by PFU ScanSnap Manager but not PDFs created by Acrobat.

  11. There is a footnote under the Fugitsu[sic] ScanSnap S1500 bundled software list that declares that ScanSnap Manager creates both PDF and “searchable” PDF files. However, ScanSnap Organizer is also bundled with the Fugitsu[sic] ScanSnap S1500 and it clearly can do OCR. It seems unlikely that Fugitsu[sic] would do OCR in both products because they are both bundled with the scanner.

    And yet it also comes bundled with Acrobat, which also has OCR capability. So under your logic, they wouldn’t bundle ABBYY PDF FineReader for ScanSnap.

    Or as NBC said:

    The reason that it provides additional software … is because people may want to do more with their scanned PDF’s.

    Of course, this is all moot, since there is no evidence that they used ScanSnap Organizer or FineReader for ScanSnap, and proof that they used Photo Capture.

  12. It will be interesting to see how he decides to proceed.

    Apparently, by nit-picking a claim that we have discarded and trumpeting the non-use of a program we’ve already determined wasn’t used.

  13. I think I have a comment in moderation. If it does go through, note that “claim” should instead read as “hypothesis”

  14. Apparently, by nit-picking a claim that we have discarded and trumpeting the non-use of a program we’ve already determined wasn’t used.

    Excellent, let him impeach himself… even more…

  15. Yeah, “They could have used a different program and gotten better results” is not an argument for forgery, it’s -at best- an argument for incompetence.

  16. Hey Hermie, here’s another thing you missed:

    In light of what I just discovered (see the Blake Affadavit Part 3 thread), step 3 is not needed. Doing an OCR scan in Acrobat when there is no case label added will generate the poor OCR results, hidden black rectangles, and hidden lines, which are very similar to (and in many cases, identical) what is in the pdf filed with the court. It is important to note that the exact results change when there are objects present, I was working with a different version of Photo Capture, and I only did it to the LFBC page of the 12-page document (which is the one I had on my computer), deleting the other pages from the trial.

    I will be sending examples to NBC to show how adding and deleting objects changes the results of the OCR and the hidden objects.

Comments are closed.