MS – Orly v Democrat – Part 8 Recap

Let’s step back and recap the ‘affidavit‘ submitted by Henry Blake and the analysis done by people like me, Vicklund and others which helped explain the minor mysteries Henry had uncovered, leading him at various time to claim forgery.

In her case Taitz v Democrat Party, Orly had submitted a poorly legible copy of President Obama’s long form birth certificate. The lawyers for the Mississippi Democratic Party submitted the real PDF that could be downloaded from the Whitehouse’s website. This document is known as 15-1. Note that I have debunked on this website that said PDF shows evidence of a forgery, something Hermitian has yet to confront.

Since the document was now part of litigation, the Democratic Party asked the Department of Health of Hawaii for a letter of verification.

The likely work flow was as follows:

  1. Someone printed out document 15-1 and attached it to a letter sent to Director Fuddy, Director of Health for the State of Hawaii
  2. Fuddy provided a certified letter of verification from Alvin Onaka, State Registrar stating that the information on the Whitehouse PDF was accurate.

Pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes 338-14.3, I verify the following:

1. The original Certificate of Live Birth for Barack Hussein Obama, II, is on file with the State of Hawaii Department of Health.

2. The information contained in the “Certificate of Live Birth” published at http://www .whitehouse. gov/blog/20 11/04/27/president-obamas-Iong-formbirth-certificate and reviewed by me on the date of this verification, a copy of which is attached with your request, matches the information contained in the original Certificate of Live Birth for Barack Hussein Obama, lI on file with the State of Hawaii Department of Health

Since the document contained a raised seal, documents 35-1 and 35-2 were delivered to the chambers of the Magistrate Judge and scanned in by some clerk.

So while document 15-1 contained a copy of the JPEG found embedded in the Whitehouse PDF, the ECF electronic court filing system, adds a label which is evident on the document posted in Pacer. It is also clear that the actual Pacer document was printed out and attached to the letter to Director Fuddy. The letter, the attachment and the letter of verification were delivered to the Chambers of the Magistrate Judge and scanned in.

The scanner is a sheet fed scanner, or more accurately a Fujitsu (Fugitsu according to Hermitian) S1500. The scanner’s software does not support a TWAIN driver which means that one cannot directly import its scans into  document, and one has to rely on the Manager software to capture the document.

Document 35-1 which contains the letter and a copy of the court record shows clearly the label present from the Pacer 15-1 document, however Henry found, what he believed to be ‘discrepancies’ or strike outs and revisions. He loaded the document into Illustrator and found out he could turn on and off hidden objects which showed as Black Squares or Lines. However, Vicklund was kind enough to do the proper research and found that these are artifacts caused by the scanning software, likely in an effort to turn the document into an actionable form. In addition to the black objects, there is also evidence of an OCR scan which manages to only detect a few words, mostly those in larger print. Again, fully consistent with an automated work flow.

Somehow, our friend Hermitian still believes that there are evidences of forgery, even though he has failed to show any logical or reasoned arguments as to how one can reach such a decision. In fact, he has failed to even properly identify a workflow which requires the intervention of a forger who did nothing more that add invisible blocks and lines to a document which was also hand delivered to the chambers of the Magistrate Judge.

Perhaps our friend is suggesting that the Court itself is involved in the ‘forgery’ because its workflow introduced some ‘artifacts’ which are easily explained through a simple workflow.

In recap, Henry Blake’s reliance on Illustrator, caused him to miss essential hints as to the process used leading him to conclusions not very well supported by the data.

I’d say: Much ado about nothing.

Some debunked claims

Document 15-1.pdf is opened in Adobe Acrobat and then page 2 is extracted into a separate one-page PDF document.

The object containing the existing Document 15-1 case label is then selected and its color is changed from bright Blue to light Green.

The bright-Blue case label for Document 35-1 is then typed above the light Green case label of Document 15-1 within the margin of the (page 4/11) LFCOLB PDF image.

The resulting (page 4/11) LFCOLB one-page PDF image file is then merged with the three-page Tepper-to-Fuddy letter to create the Document 35-1.

The actual workflow appears to be simpler. Document 15-1 is printed out, attached to a letter sent to Director Fuddy, who returns a letter of verification of said birth certificate signed by the Hawaiian State Registrar. These documents are hand delivered to the chambers of the Magistrate Judge and scanned into ECF by a clerk or assistant.

This is of course self evident because the document in question show signs of having been scanned in twice. We know that the above workflow was not followed since the metadata show that the document was created on a Fujitsu (Fugitsu…) S1500 Scanner and imported in Adobe Acrobat using a Paper Capture plugin.

The simple fact that document 15-1 was printed out and scanned in again, helps understand why it suffered in quality. In fact, you can see some evidence that the sheet fed scanner was used when looking at some of the distortions near to the bottom.

Henry:

Examination of the one-page (page 4/11 ) LFCOLB PDF image file reveals that the certificate page comprises a single flattened bitmap raster image embedded within the PDF file. Thus, unlike the (page 2/8) LFCOLB PDF image, the (page 4/11) LFCOLB PDF image is not constructed from nine different layers.

True, we know that the nine layers were created by the Xerox WorkCentre and since this was not used to scan in document 35-1, it is not surprising that these layers are ‘missing’.

Henry:

Had this preferred work flow been applied to the creation of the (page 4/11) LFCOLB PDF image, then there would be a solid chain of evidence between the (page 2/8) LFCOLB PDF image and the (page 4/11) LFCOLB PDF image. Unfortunately, the collective findings reported herein indicate that this preferred work flow was not followed in this case.

The solid chain of evidence was maintained by printing out the actual Pacer file, sending it with a letter and a link to the actual document on the Whitehouse server, to Director Fuddy and have the document and the returned letter of verification hand delivered to the Chambers of the Magistrate Judge, as explained in document 35.

Talking about document 15-1 Henry observes that

The larger background pixels are Grayscale and variable in color and the smaller text pixels are Binary and are monochrome and dark Green-Black in color.

A side effect of Mixed Raster Compression where the text is captured at twice the resolution of the background.

Now a hilarious statement that shows how Henry does not understand how scanning works

Henry

Both the (page 2/8) LFCOLB PDF image and the (page 4/11) LFCOLB PDF image exhibit a geometric precision that is not expected from a optically scanned image of a paper document.

Each and every pixel which comprise the (page 2/8) LFCOLB PDF image is congruent with a rectangular grid of 300 LPI.

When a document is scanned it generates a line of pixels, which are combined to form a representation of the document. Furthermore, the document is divided into a background, saved in JPEG (a highly lossy compression) and multiple text foregrounds, saved in lossless bitmap format at twice the resolution of the background. This is a common workflow and the Xerox Workcenter documents have verified that this explains the ‘artifacts’ in the PDF on the Whitehouse servers.

Henry

The (page 2/8) LFCOLB PDF image contains a mixture of large pixels of 150 PPI resolution and smaller pixels of 300 PPI resolution.

Just like the original that was used to create this document. Sigh…

So much more to say about his ‘affidavit’… Time to relax for the weekend…

26 thoughts on “MS – Orly v Democrat – Part 8 Recap

  1. “NBC

    “Let’s step back and recap the ‘“1. affidavit‘ submitted by Henry Blake and the analysis done by people like me, Vicklund and others which helped explain the minor mysteries Henry had uncovered, leading him at various time to claim forgery.
    “In her case Taitz v Democrat Party, Orly had submitted a poorly legible copy of President Obama’s long form birth certificate. The lawyers for the Mississippi Democratic Party submitted the real PDF that could be downloaded from the Whitehouse’s website. This document is known as 15-1. Note that I have debunked on this website that said PDF shows evidence of a forgery, something Hermitian has yet to confront.”

    NBC is again totally clueless. Of course, we already know that reading (much less reading with comprehension) is beyond his mental capabilities.

    I have never claimed that the LFCOLB PDF image which is page 2 of document 15-1 is a forgery any more than the WL LFCOLB is a forgery. They are connected because the page 2 LFCOLB in 15-1.pdf is identical to the WH FCOLB PDF except for the added case label. That’s why I swore to that fact in my affidavit. Consequently, the page 2 LFCOLB is a forgery because the WH LFCOLB is a forgery. My affidavit addresses the massively altered page 4 LFCOLB of document 35-1.pdf.

    An aside — in order for the law firm to print out a copy of page 2 of 15-1.pdf with the case label, the secretary would have to download the actual filed 15-1.pdf electronic court document and then print out page 2. Of course that assumes that the court applies the case labels to all filed electronic documents. For those who do read (and read with comprehension) you may remember that my next to the top preferred work flow had the secretary doing just that.

    To the contrary, if instead if the secretary just prints page 2 of her original draft of 15-1.pdf then the print of page 2 would be the same as if she downloaded the WH LFCOLB PDF file from the WH web site and printed that single page. The reader may remember also that this approach was my topmost preferred method.

    Now we already know that the pdf CreatorTool and the pdf Producer tool for the 15-1.pdf document are the same as for the WL LFCOLB single-page PDF document. That is further evidence that the forger of the WH LFCOB PDF image also created the 2-page document 15-1.pdf. This is also verified by the fact that the METADATA also indicates that these two documents were also created at the same exact time.

    By now, probably hundreds (if not thousands) of forensic and/or digital document experts have examined the WH LFCOLB PDF image and most have found it to be a complete forgery.

  2. “By now, probably hundreds (if not thousands) of forensic and/or digital document experts have examined the WH LFCOLB PDF image and most have found it to be a complete forgery.”

    Actually ten thousand of the top forensic and/or digital document experts have examined it and said it is not a forgery.

    By this time next week that number will increase by ten fold.

  3. I just can’t believe the number of folks that like to beat your dead horse here, NBC. That expired nag should be very tender by now.

  4. “NBC

    “Since the document contained a raised seal, documents 35-1 and 35-2 were delivered to the chambers of the Magistrate Judge and scanned in by some clerk.

    “So while document 15-1 contained a copy of the JPEG found embedded in the Whitehouse PDF, the ECF electronic court filing system, adds a label which is evident on the document posted in Pacer. It is also clear that the actual Pacer document was printed out and attached to the letter to Director Fuddy. The letter, the attachment and the letter of verification were delivered to the Chambers of the Magistrate Judge and scanned in.

    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

    So what does the court record say about this?

    See:

    96221267-HI-DOH-Official-Verification-of-President-Obama-s-Hawaiian-Birth-w-Note.pdf

    Hmmmmm…..

    Just the original Onaka one-page paper hard copy letter with embossed seal was handed over to Administrative Judge Anderson ?

    No way !

    The courier must have lost all that other stuff that NBC swears that he hand carried to Judge Anderson.

    I thought that this stuff happens only to Orly Taitz !!!

    Dang !

  5. So why would Administrative Law Judge Linda Anderson allow a big whopping Los Angeles law firm, a smaller Mississippi law firm, and the MDEC legal office to use her legal staff as their temp secretary?

    So the MDEC attorneys (who are also Obama’s attorneys) just stick a post-it note on each court document..”.Please scan document # XXXXXX to PDF and file to Court Electronic Records (PACER)” ?

    Thanks a bunch “Judge A ” ! There will be lots more coming later !!!

  6. “NBC

    “He loaded the document into Illustrator and found out he could turn on and off hidden objects which showed as Black Squares or Lines. However, Vicklund was kind enough to do the proper research and found that these are artifacts caused by the scanning software, likely in an effort to turn the document into an actionable form. In addition to the black objects, there is also evidence of an OCR scan which manages to only detect a few words, mostly those in larger print. Again, fully consistent with an automated work flow.”

    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

    Make that “Strikeouts, hidden lines and Black redaction rectangles”.

    And tons of other anomolies….and more to come.

    But for now see:

    Those strikeouts through the words “August”, and “Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological” are particularly eye grabbing.

    Wonder why the word “Hospital” was not struck ?

    And then there is the problem that NBC and Vicklund both swear that the OCR was done in Acrobat when (at the same time) NBC is also claiming that the Fugitsu ScanSnap S1500 scanner cannot possibly scan to Acrobat. NBC claims that its some kind of evil twisted TWAIN problem or something.

    And if it really is so hard to make the scanner talk to Acrobat then why didn’t the secretary just do the OCR with ABBYY PDF Fine Reader ScanSnap which is bundled with the S1500 ?
    Oh! I know…It’s because the ABBYY OCR is far superior to Acrobat’s OCR and it word have deciphered all of the typed and form-printed text whereas Acrobat just punted.

    And being able to read that tiny form text would never do….

    After all this is the one (purported) official certified long-form birth certificate of the President of the United States.

    So NBC has totally deep-sixed all the crazy OCR stuff offered up by Vicklund. NBC’s in-box and trash can were overflowing with Vicklund’s printouts so NBC had to take the weekend off to allow the janitorial staff to ketch up (or is it Ketchup) ? .

    Seems like I remember that NBC promised to update Vicklund’s findings several times.

    But I haven’t seen any of Vicklund’s stuff — have you ?

    I’ll bet that Kevin is kicking himself for sending all his good stuff to NBC.

  7. Hermitian hasn’t learned how to use the blockquote function? He has been shown several times before at OCT before. The moron still cannot spell “Fujitsu” either.

  8. “Reality Check

    “July 14, 2013 13:40

    “Hermitian hasn’t learned how to use the blockquote function? He has been shown several times before at OCT before. The moron still cannot spell “Fujitsu” either.

    That blockquote function thingy just gets in the way. I do a search for HHHHHH and all my stuff just pops up.

    I use the Japanese spelling for “Fujitsu”.

  9. However, Vicklund was kind enough to do the proper research and found that these are artifacts caused by the scanning software, likely in an effort to turn the document into an actionable form. In addition to the black objects, there is also evidence of an OCR scan which manages to only detect a few words, mostly those in larger print.

    This is incorrect. There is no “convert to form” step. The hidden lines and hidden black objects are created when doing the OCR scan using Paper Capture in Adobe Acrobat. Also, note that the only thing Paper Capture does is OCR scanning (it can downsample the image to a specified resolution as part of the process, but you must do an OCR search if you use it to downsample). If you see Paper Capture as the Producer, it means OCR was applied to the PDF.

  10. And then there is the problem that NBC and Vicklund both swear that the OCR was done in Acrobat when (at the same time) NBC is also claiming that the Fugitsu ScanSnap S1500 scanner cannot possibly scan to Acrobat.

    Apparently Hermie is unaware that you can open a PDF in Acrobat. This is not the same as scanning to Acrobat.

  11. I use the Japanese spelling for “Fujitsu”.

    No, you don’t. The kanji forming the “fuji” portion of the name is the same as the one for the famous Mt. Fuji (富士).

  12. In fact, the Snapscan software does not support a TWAIN driver and thus one captures the scan into their manager software.

    SImple really… I have never stated that the OCR was done in acrobat but that it was imported into Acrobat using the paper plugin.

    Geez my friend, this is not rocket science. The metadata provides you with all that you need.

    Sigh…

  13. f you see Paper Capture as the Producer, it means OCR was applied to the PDF.

    Hermitian may want to spend more time on the metadata details…

  14. Hermitian hasn’t learned how to use the blockquote function? He has been shown several times before at OCT before. The moron still cannot spell “Fujitsu” either.

    Well, you can show a horse to water but you cannot make him drink.

    As to Fugitsu, he believes he is using the ‘Japanese spelling’ but Fujitsu calls itself just that.

    富士通株式会社, Fujitsū Kabushiki-Kaisha

    富 – On: ふ (fu), ふう (fū)
    士 – On: し (shi), じ (ji)
    通 – On: つう (tsū), つ (tsu), とう (tō)

    Poor Hermitian, his research skills still have not fully developed it seems.

  15. NBC is again totally clueless. Of course, we already know that reading (much less reading with comprehension) is beyond his mental capabilities.

    I have never claimed that the LFCOLB PDF image which is page 2 of document 15-1 is a forgery any more than the WL LFCOLB is a forgery. They are connected because the page 2 LFCOLB in 15-1.pdf is identical to the WH FCOLB PDF except for the added case label. That’s why I swore to that fact in my affidavit. Consequently, the page 2 LFCOLB is a forgery because the WH LFCOLB is a forgery.

    Weird, you do not claim that the WHI LFCOLB Is a forgery but do not claim that the PDF’s are a forgery…

    So let’s examine this claim:

    Document 15-1 and the White House PDF are identical, other than a label that was added by the docketing software.

    The documents show the same copy of the certified copy of President Obama’s Long Form Birth Certificate and has been more than once been verified by the Department of Health of the State of Hawaii.

    If the PDF’s are not a forgery then the claim that the document is a forgery becomes even harder to maintain, in light of the known data.

    So the 15-1 is not a forgery, and the 35-1 is not a forgery other than that it contains, just like document 15-1, some artifacts created by the workflow, in this case some black rectangles and lines that are hidden, and some OCR text.

    Does this mean that the document presented by Blake has no legal relevance at all as it merely states the obvious?..

    What a total waste of time then… Especially since it has missed so many tell tale signs.

  16. By now, probably hundreds (if not thousands) of forensic and/or digital document experts have examined the WH LFCOLB PDF image and most have found it to be a complete forgery.

    A totally unsupported claims. And I have shown how the document is created by a simple work flow, no need for a forgery. So your presumption without evidence is clearly embarrassing your ability to do proper research.

    Poor Hermitian really does not seem to understand how the PDF tools work and the function of creator and producer for example, or what happens to metadata.

    I guess it’s time for yet another educational moment.

    Note that Hermitian has done nothing to show that the Whitehouse Document is in any form or manner a forgery. And if he truly believed it to be such, why submit this meaningless affidavit which repeats that document 15-1 is the same, for all practical purposes, as the WH document and that 35-1 appears to be scanned in by the same scanner used by the court to scan in document 35-2.

    I guess poor Hermitian overlooked the clear statement that document 35-2 had been hand delivered to the Judge’s chambers.

    How much more research do I have to do for our poor soul… We have shown explanations for all his ‘findings’ and none point to anything nefarious.

    All he has now is: well document 15-1 is the same as the whitehouse document which was forged. But that is an argument which requires a bit more evidence, logic and reasoning.

  17. More examples of Henry claiming ‘forgery’ where we now have shown, there is none.

    I’m kinda busy uncovering more indications of forgery but I’ll take the time to debunk this one.

    Source

    Everything is somehow a forgery or created from a forgery… Hilarious… His own words are quite clear here.

    But somehow, everything is a forgery but when you debunk the claims, he disavows himself from anything…

    So Hermitian, let’s address the following question:

    In your mind:

    1. Is the Whitehouse PDF a forgery?
    2. Is President Obama’s certified long form birth certificate a forgery?
    3a. Is document 15-1 a forgery?
    3b. Was it created by a ‘forger’ or ‘accomplish’?
    3c. Was the forger or ‘accomplish’ part of the Whitehouse?
    4. Is document 35-1 a forgery?
    4a. Who scanned in document 35-1 and 35-2?

    Once we have established a clear statement by Hermitian on these issues, we can ask him to support his claims with actual evidence, logic and reason, especially where simple workflow can explain the evidence so much better.

  18. I’m re-posting this one for the benefit WKV. You know he’s one of the many Obots who never reads backwards.

    Hermitian

    July 14, 2013 01:10

    Please Note: Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    “NBC

    “Of course, Hermitian claimed, erroneously that the document was somehow scanned into Acrobat. Now, embarrassed about his amateurish mistakes, he is implying forgery where there is evidence of none..

    “Our poor friend is so convinced that the document was forged that he lets this guide his conclusions.

    “Not very good research…

    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

    Good research requires patience, hard work and accuracy. These are attributes that are totally lacking in all Obots !

    So you see I have learned not take anything for granted (that is offered as proof by the Obots).

    For example compare the CreatorTool and Producer for the following documents:

    —–

    birth-certificate-long-form.pdf [1 page] :

    /“2011-04-27T12:09:24Z”

    /“Preview”

    /” Mac OS X 10.6.7 Quartz PDFContext”

    —–

    10513207156.pdf (same as 15-1.pdf) [2 pages] :

    /“2011-04-27T12:09:24Z”

    /“Preview”

    /“Mac OS X 10.6.7 Quartz PDFContext”

    —–

    10513240131.pdf (same as 35-1.pdf) [4 pages] :

    /“2012-06-04T12:33:38-07:00”

    /“PFU ScanSnap Manager 5.0.21 #S1500”

    /“Adobe Acrobat 9.51 Paper Capture Plug-in”

    —–

    *96200621-2012-06-06-MDEC-Motion-to-Supplement-Response-to-Motion-for-Sanctions-S-D-Miss.pdf [12 pages] :

    /“2012-06-06T12:44:36-07:00”

    /“Adobe Acrobat Pro Extended 9.5.1”

    /“Adobe Acrobat Pro Extended 9.5.1”

    —–

    96289285-Mississippi-Democratic-Party-Motion-v-Taitz.pdf [12 pages]:

    /“ 2012-06-06T12:44:36-07:00”

    /“ Adobe Acrobat Pro Extended 9.5.1”

    /”Adobe Acrobat Pro Extended 9.5.1”

    —–

    92436040-2012-05-04-MDEC-Motion-for-JOP-with-Exhibits.pdf [102 pages] :

    /”2012-05-04T15:21:05-07:00”

    /“Adobe Acrobat Pro Extended 9.5.1”

    /”Adobe Acrobat Pro Extended 9.5.1”

    —–

    *96221274-MDEC-Request-for-Hawaii-DOH-Verification.pdf [3 pages]

    /“2012-06-06T15:43:02-07:00”

    /“Adobe Acrobat Pro Extended 9.5.1”

    /“Adobe Acrobat Pro Extended 9.5.1”

    —–

    96470103-Document-35-Et-Al.pdf [12 pages]:

    /“2012-06-08T20:38:22-04:00”

    /“Adobe Acrobat 9.2.0”

    /“Adobe Acrobat 9.2.0”

    Except for the first, second and last documents in the above list the other documents were all created on 06/06/2012 at different times. Except for the one 3-page document, each of these documents contains the 4-page PDF document 10513240131.pdf (same as 35-1.pdf). According to the METADATA this four-page document was the first one created on that day. This first document contained the 3-page Tepper to Fuddy letter and the 1-page altered Obama LFCOLB PDF image.

    The METADATA from this initial file indicates that it was created with
    the CreatorTool

    /“PFU ScanSnap Manager 5.0.21 #S1500”

    but was produced with the pdf Producer

    /“Adobe Acrobat 9.51 Paper Capture Plug-in”

    This is the only document in the total list that indicates that it was created by scanning a paper document. All the other documents (except for the first two) were entirely created (and produced) by means of Adobe Acrobat 9.

    The 4-page PDF document 10513240131.pdf (same as 35-1.pdf) is the only one produced by means of the Adobe Acrobat 9.51 Paper Capture Plug-in. It is interesting that the 3-page document *96221274.pdf was created and produced entirely by Acrobat Pro Extended 9.51. This document contains the Tepper to Fuddy 3-page request for verification letter. This 3-page document (without page 4) was uploaded to Scribd by Jack Ryan. The two documents that Ryan uploaded are denoted by the asterisk before the document number. The other one uploaded was the 12-page document *96200621.pdf. This longer document included the four-page document 10513240131.pdf (same as 35-1.pdf). Nevertheless, it was created and produced entirely by means of Acrobat Pro Extended 9.5.1.

    The Fugitsu ScanSnap model number for the Windows OS is S1500. The corresponding model number for Macintosh OS is S1500M. Thus, based on the PFU ScanSnap Manager S1500 CreatorTool , the scanner used to create the document 10513240131.pdf (same as 35-1.pdf) was the model S1500 and was operated by a Windows computer.

    It follows that this Fugitsu ScanSnap S1500 scanner had to have been purchased before Dec 21, 2011 because after that date the Windows version of this scanner was shipped with “Acrobat X Standard” instead of Acrobat 9. Thus the particular Fugitsu scanner would have been shipped with Acrobat 9.5 We know that also because the Paper Capture Plug-in was version 9.5.1.

    See:
    http://www.fujitsu.com/us/news/pr/fcpa_20111221_fujitsu_scansnap_s1500_s1500m_new_versions_adobe_acrobat_software.html#

    NBC has made a very big deal about the lack of Twain support making it impossible to scan to PDF directly from the Fugitsu ScanSnap into Acrobat 9. But as I previously stated (starting with Acrobat 5), the Paper Capture Plug-in has been integrated into each successive version of Acrobat. The latest version of Acrobat is XI. I have experience with Acrobat 9 Extended, Acrobat X Pro, and Acrobat XI Pro.

    There are basically two ways to do OCR within Acrobat on a PDF file created by scanning a paper document. In the first method, the PDF file is created in real time and OCR’d on the fly within Acrobat while the document is scanned. In the second method, the scanner software creates the PDF file externally to Acrobat. The scanned bitmap PDF image file is then opened in Acrobat for the OCR scan. Alternatively, the PDF file can be created by scanning to a third-party software program which converts the bitmap image format of the scanner to an Adobe PDF file. This file is then opened in Acrobat and scanned a second time for OCR. These two methods are the only methods for which the producer is the Adobe Acrobat Paper Capture Plug-in.

    The differences between the two methods is explained here in detail for Acrobat 9.

    See: “Acrobat OCR: Make your scanned documents searchable”

    http://blogs.adobe.com/acrobat/acrobat_ocr_make_your_scanned/

    The important point (for the present debate) is that the OCR step is done “within” Acrobat for both methods. The action of the Paper Capture Plug-in is entirely internal to Acrobat. To nail this point home, I OCR’d the White House birth-certificate-long-form.pdf file with Acrobat X Pro and Acrobat XI Pro. The pdf producer from each scan was:

    /”Adobe Acrobat 10.0 Paper Capture Plug-in”

    and

    /” Adobe Acrobat Pro 11.0.3 Paper Capture Plug-in with ClearScan”

    Moreover, I have never downloaded (from Adobe) the Paper Capture Plug-in for either Adobe X or Adobe XI. Nor have I ever installed the Paper Capture Plug-in in either Acrobat X or Acrobat XI. Each version of Acrobat was downloaded from the Adobe Web site and installed “as is”.

    Moreover, both versions of Acrobat show the correct version number for the Paper Capture Plug-in but each program also shows that the plug-in is not currently installed.

    Adobe had long-ago posted a “work around” for the lack of TWAIN capability for the Fugitsu S510 ScanSnap. The S510 is an older model scanner that was replaced by the Fugitsu ScanSnap S1500. Fugitsu currently no longer sells the S1500. Neither of these scanners can scan in TWAIN language.

    See: https://workspaces.acrobat.com/app.html#d=gi8prRo1RsiSWaFsRq4C-g

    Both NBC and Kevin Vicklund have stated that the court filing documents are usually created by scanning paper documents because it is more efficient. Too bad the facts prove them wrong.

  19. NBC has made a very big deal about the lack of Twain support making it impossible to scan to PDF directly from the Fugitsu ScanSnap into Acrobat 9. But as I previously stated (starting with Acrobat 5), the Paper Capture Plug-in has been integrated into each successive version of Acrobat. The latest version of Acrobat is XI. I have experience with Acrobat 9 Extended, Acrobat X Pro, and Acrobat XI Pro.

    Paper Capture plugin also uses Twain to access scanners.

    The paper capture plugin is used to import the PDF created by the ScanSnap manager and the Adobe PDF SDK.

    The creator is missing in 35-2 but the exact meaning of this is unknown right now.

    I have not stated that the court scanning in paper documents is more efficient. I have stated that since the originals of the attachments were delivered to the chambers of the Magistrate judge it makes more sense that they would be scanned in by the clerks.

    As to facts, I have yet see you let facts prove yourself to be wrong… From the correct spelling of Fujitsu all the way to the claims of forgery, people have continued to spend time and effort correcting he many errors in your claims.

    If you read the user manuals for the S1500 you would have know the TWAIN limitations.

    But again, this is a minor issue, relative to the foolish claims of forgery which remain fully unsupported by any evidence.

    Such as the claim that Tepper and/or the State Registrar worked together or that it was Tepper alone who somehow ‘created the document’ in order to mislead the judge.

    Onaka looked at the Whitehouse PDF, and the printed out version of document 15-1 which are both accurate representations of the facts on file in Hawaii.

    I still feel to see the relevance of much of anything our friend has proposed. There is just NO evidence of fraud, and the minor artifacts have all been explained by far more reasonable explanations involving algorithmic compression or in case of document 35-1, the importing into Adobe acrobat using Paper port.

  20. I’m re-posting this one for the benefit WKV. You know he’s one of the many Obots who never reads backwards.
    Hermitian
    July 14, 2013 01:10
    Please Note: Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    If you posted this before, it either wasn’t on one of the Blake Affidavit threads, or it didn’t make it through moderation.

    This is the only document in the total list that indicates that it was created by scanning a paper document. All the other documents (except for the first two) were entirely created (and produced) by means of Adobe Acrobat 9.

    This will happen when you use Adobe Acrobat 9 to merge pdf files or delete pages from files. It overwrites the /Creator tag.

    Alternatively, the PDF file can be created by scanning to a third-party software program which converts the bitmap image format of the scanner to an Adobe PDF file. This file is then opened in Acrobat and scanned a second time for OCR. These two methods are the only methods for which the producer is the Adobe Acrobat Paper Capture Plug-in.

    Congratulations. I’ve been telling you this since last week.

    Both NBC and Kevin Vicklund have stated that the court filing documents are usually created by scanning paper documents because it is more efficient.

    I haven’t stated that. If you have a document meant solely for the court, it is probably more efficient to convert electronically, as most of the documents in the case (Orly, of course, scans everything and does it poorly). However, sometimes it’s more efficient to scan things, or at least more convenient. Just like sometimes its better to sign a document by hand.

  21. Vicklund: However, sometimes it’s more efficient to scan things, or at least more convenient. Just like sometimes its better to sign a document by hand.

    Yes, some people submit Microsoft word documents which are converted by the ECF software. When scanning however, PDF is the preferred format, or if the documents contain relevant signatures or seals, you can submit them to the chambers of the Judge.

  22. Actually, I was talking about converting to PDF before uploading,to ECF. But good point.

  23. I was wrong. ECF (now) requires documents to be in PDF format. Only proposed orders have to be submitted in editable format.

  24. Hey Hermie, here’s one of the things you missed:

    The hidden lines and hidden black objects are created when doing the OCR scan using Paper Capture in Adobe Acrobat.

Comments are closed.