Hermitian has over time made the following claims
I have determined that the font used for the case labels on the original 15-1.pdf and 35-1.pdf LFCOLB images was “Arial MT (Regular)”. The font used for the modified 15-1.pdf and 35-1.pdf is “Liberation Sans (Regular)”.
But there is irrefutable proof that the WH LFCOLB PDF is not a scan of any paper document. The WH PDF was exhaustively examined by many experts who all concluded that the document was digitally created by a human using graphics software on a computer. This WH PDF image has the Green basket-weave safety paper background.
And yet, as I have shown, a Xerox Workcentre creates exactly such document. So does Hermitian still believes that the documents cannot be or is not a scan of a paper document.
Then each copy would be compared to the WH LFCOLB PDF image to identify any differences between each certified copy and the PDF image.
Then Obama is arrested and prosecuted for conspiracy to commit forgery and election fraud.
There is no evidence that the WH LFCOLB PDF image is a duplicate copy of a hospital-generated Certificate of Live Birth produced in 1961 by the staff of the Kapiolani Hospital. Likewise there is no evidence that the same PDF image was produced by scanning a certified copy of an original Certificate of Live Birth.
The evidence is irrefutable that it is not.
So there is no evidence that it is a duplicate copy, even though the Department of Hawaii has verified and certified this? And there is ‘irrefutable’ evidence that it is not but no evidence is presented?
Is that the kind of scholarly research that underlies your affidavit? A presumption of forgery that takes you down a path of more forgeries? Even when simple work flow explains the data so much better?
Henry Blake also wrote the following email which was submitted by Strunk in his legal filings [NBC: Added in Re: Strunk USCA #13-5005, document #1413882]
Re: binder 11 …
Tuesday, December 4, 2012 11:26 AM
From: “Henry Wayland Blake” <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: “Paul Irey” <email@example.com>, “Doug Vogt” <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, “Chito Papa” <email@example.com>
3 Files (1688KB)
I think you have proposed the most probable scenario based on the creation and file dates of the associated court documents.
1. The paper copy of the Tepper to Fuddy 3-page letter was dated 05/26/2012.
2. The electronic version of this 3-page letter appeared on Scribd on 06/06/2012
3. The Tepper four-page electronic document 10513240131.pdf (same as 35-1.pdf) was created on 06/04/2012 and was last modified on 06/06/2012. Pages 1-3 of this document are the 3 electronic pages of the Tepper to Fuddy letter that appeared on Scribd on 06/06/2012. The 4th electronic page is the Tepper page 4, LFCOLB. This four-page document was filed in MS on 06/06/2012.
4. We really don’t know when the Tepper page 4 LFCOLB was created.
[NBC: We know that Obj 17 contains the tag /LastModified “(D:20120604123500-07’00’)” just like the other 3 Objects for pages 1 through 3. It is so important to not rely on high level tools when trying to figure out the intimate details of a PDF.]
5. The paper copy of the one-page Onaka to Tepper verification letter was dated 05/31/2012.
6. The electronic version, which is court document 35-2, was created on 06/04/2012 and was last modified on 06/06/2012. This one-page electronic document was filed in MS on 06/06/2012.
i believe that the most likely scenario is that Tepper created a paper copy of his three-page ietter to Fuddy on 05/26/2012. He attached a paper printout copy of the original WH LFCOLB and mailed this four-page paper copy to Fuddy.
[NBC: A very logical scenario. Somehow Blake appears to have changed his mind here? No explanation as to why.]
Tepper and Onaka then collaborated to alter the WH LFCOLB to create the Tepper page 4 LFCOLB. On 06/04/2012, Tepper created the documents 10513240131.pdf (same as 35-1) and 35-2.
He then filed the two documents 35-1 and 35-2 in MS on 06/06/2012.
[NBC: Huh? There is no evidence that either side ‘collaborated’ to alter the document, other than by printing it out and later, scanning it back in. But of course, not only are the originals available to the court, they are visually identical to the Whitehouse PDF and it is the Whitehouse PDF which was verified. ]
We really don’t know the individual actions of either Tepper or Onaka with regards the modifications of the WH LFCOLB PDF image file to create the altered LFCOLB PDF image file. Onaka may have modified the WH LFCOLB and then sent the altered PDF image to Tepper as a one-page PDF image file. There is nothing in his verification letter that indicates that he attached this altered LFCOLB to his verification letter. However, his letter does refer to the LFCOLB copy that was purportedly attached to the four-page request letter from Tepper to Fuddy.
[NBC: A logical conclusion as you yourself admitted]
Alternatively, Tepper might have had someone else modify the WH LFCOLB PDF image to create the altered PDF image. That might explain why the METADATA was not entirely erased from his four-page electronic document. We know that a scanner was used so Tepper’s forger would have had to have some means of re-sizing a scanned and altered image of the WH LFCOLB back to the correct size to -match a real 1961 Certificate of Live Birth printed form.
[NBC: so Tepper ‘altered’ the document to have the same information present on it.. Wow…]
I am now certain that the 21 added objects which are invisible in Adobe Reader pre-existed before 06/04/2012 as a separate PDF image. The 21 objects include 12 kine segements, 2 broad-line strikeouts and 7 Black redaction rectangles. This (/redaction” page is smaller than the LFCOLB image page size. I have successfully separated this smaller (/redaction” image from the flattened and altered WH LFCOLB image in both Adobe Illustrator CS6 and lnkscape. I have attached my latest screenshots from Adobe Illustrator as proof. The screenshot [105132401131_ss3.jpg] attached shows the (/redaction” page slid off the LFCOLB image page to the right. The background of the (/redaction” page is transparent.
[NBC: We now know that they are not strike outs or redaction rectangles but simple scanning artifacts]
So an alternative scenario would be that Tepper had his forger modify the WH LFCOLB and Onaka provided the (/redaction” image to assist Tepper’s forger re-size his scanned image. This would lessen ·onaka’s in-volvement with-the-creation-of the-fraudulent LFC6Li3tepper-page4 [FCOLI3. –
So scenario A would be that Onaka did the deed and scenario B would be that they collaborated to do the deed.
[NBC: Or the more likely scenario is that the letter was printed out and scanned back in, creating these artifacts. Just as Vicklund has shown]
Either way they both are guilty of attempting to pull off a bait and switch on Judge Wingate. They substituted the Tepper page 4 LFCOLB for the WH LFCOLB and didn’t tell Judge Wingate about the switch.
[NBC: In other words, they forged a document to look exactly like the one on the Whitehouse servers, at least for all practical purposes. And they filed a letter of verification which verified the Whitehouse document. Yes, that makes a lot of sense…. Not!!!]
I can provide a notarized copy of my sworn affidavit whenever you need it. Also, I can provide any of my screen shots as required. I would prefer not to testify because of personal reasons. I also believe that. if I were to testify, then I would quickly become a (/punching bag” for the defense because I don’t have an IT certificate and I have never testified as a forensic expert.
[NBC: Thanks for impeaching yourself. But all the defense would have to do is point at the gaping holes.]