MS – Orly v Democrat – Part 9 Questions

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.

Source

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.

Or

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.

Source

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.

Source

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” <xxxx@xxxx.net>

To: “Paul Irey” <xxxx@xxxx.com>, “Doug Vogt” <xxxx@xxxxx.net>, orly.taitz@xxxxx.com, cestrunck@xxxxx.com, “Chito Papa” <xxxx@xxxx.com>

3 Files (1688KB)

Dear Paul,

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.

Sincerely,

Henry

[NBC: Thanks for impeaching yourself. But all the defense would have to do is point at the gaping holes.]

22 thoughts on “MS – Orly v Democrat – Part 9 Questions

  1. THERE HE GOES AGAIN !!!

    “NBC posts more of my research without citing the source !

    But since he did so I do have a few questions for him.

    1. Did Fuddy receive only a three-page paper letter from Tepper?

    2. Or did Fuddy receive same in electronic form also?

    NBC: It does not really matter, Onaka certified the data found on the original document found at the Whitehouse. Given that the 15-1 document was printed out and scanned in again, it seems reasonable that at least a paper copy was produced.

    The information contained in the “Certificate of Live Birth” published at http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/04/27/president-obamas-Iong-form- birth-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, lion file with
    the State of Hawaii Department of Health

    3. Or did Fuddy receive a four-page paper letter from Tepper?

    4. Or did Fuddy receive same in electronic form also?

    5. If Fuddy did receive a four-page paper letter from Tepper, was page four a print-out of the WH LFCOLB PDF image birth-certificate-log-form.pdf?

    6. Or did Fuddy receive same in electronic form also?

    7. If Fuddy did receive a four-page paper letter from Tepper, was page four a print-out of the page 2 LFCOLB from court Document 15-1.pdf as downloaded from PACER?

    8. Or did Fuddy receive same in electronic form also?

    9. If Fuddy did receive a four-page paper letter fromTepper, was page four a print-out of the page 4 LFCOLB from the draft copy of Document 35-1.pdf?

    10. Or did Fuddy receive same in electronic form also?

    These 10 questions will do for now.

    NBC: None of these questions have any real relevance. The Counsel for MDEC asked Fuddy for a verification of the document found on President Obama’s website and which had been submitted to the court as document 15-1. They did so and the verification is legally admissible and self certifying. It was a classy action all because Orly submitted the document as ‘evidence of fraud’, even though we now know that the artifacts found in the PDF were most likely created by a Xerox Workcenter. You may want to check with the court as to the source of document 35-1, if you are really interested. These questions are trivially answered or remain irrelevant. Either way…

  2. I will wait to address these irrelevant questions until Hermetian has answered some of these more fascinating questions as to ‘forgery’.

    as to the lack of sources, Hermetian may want to follow the highlighted ‘source’ URLs after the blockquote. If you believe additional sourcing quotes are necessary the please let me know and I will update my posting.

  3. “NBC Bloviates about his virtual achievements…

    “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.”

    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

    I vaguely remember a bunch of wild claims about the meaning and importance of lines of text clipped out of a PDF file and some images that didn’t match any of the nine objects found in the WH LFCOLB image.

    Close only counts in “horseshoes” and “hand grenades” !!!

    The reader should be informed that these lines of code are worthless because they have not been verified.

    NBC and WKV do not appreciate how delicate the internal coding of a typical PDF is.

    I refer to this as the “Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle” for PDF files.

    Which basically means that it’s almost impossible to examine the lines of code in a PDF file without altering it.

    And usually when this happens the stumblebum who has opened the PDF in his freeware parser has no idea that he has corrupted the code.

    Let me highlight again the folly of this activity with regards the possible downsides.

  4. The reader should be informed that these lines of code are worthless because they have not been verified.

    They have been verified by others as well. And I have provided the documents for inspection. Sadly enough, it seems that the birthers are unwilling to consider these documents as they destroy the myths of a fraudulently created PDF.

    Hermitian is correct that using commercial GUI tools may end up changing the underlying document more easily. But even there, one has to actually save the document. By making the original document read-only, one can avoid changes to the document.

    I have informed the readers before of the dangers of using high level GUI tools to analyze the PDF as much of the telltale information in the PDF is lost when examining it at the object level in Illustrator.

    These tools are all open source and available for several platforms.

    Which basically means that it’s almost impossible to examine the lines of code in a PDF file without altering it.

    On the contrary, there are some excellent tools which only will read the PDF documents. And of course a Hex Editor should always be present in the toolset of anyone interested in research the raw data streams.

  5. Here are the Black Rectangles, Strikeouts and Line objects for page 4 of court document 35-1.pdf.

    Pages 1 – 4 from “35-1.pdf”
    Image masks (7 matches on 1 page)
    Summary
    Page 4: Image mask 48.0×9.2 pt 1.5/3.75 ppi Black (1.0) overprint: off
    Page 4: Image mask 48.0×30.72 pt 1.5 ppi Black (1.0) overprint: off
    Page 4: Image mask 92.16×30.72 pt 0.781/2.344 ppi Black (1.0) overprint: off
    Page 4: Image mask 213.12×113.28 pt 0.338 ppi Black (1.0) overprint: off
    Page 4: Image mask 17.28×34.56 pt 4.167/2.0833 ppi Black (1.0) overprint: off
    Page 4: Image mask 418.561×163.2 pt 0.172 ppi Black (1.0) overprint: off
    Page 4: Image mask 36.48×26.88 pt 1.974 ppi Black (1.0)
    overprint off

    Pages 1 – 4 from “35-1.pdf”
    Vector objects (stroked) (15 matches on 2 pages)
    Summary
    Page 4: stroked: 1.44 pt RGB (0.82/0.91/0.8) overprint: off
    Page 4: stroked: 0.96 pt Black (1.0) overprint: off
    Page 4: stroked: 1.92 pt RGB (0.77/0.88/0.77) overprint: off
    Page 4: stroked: 1.44 pt RGB (0.25/0.39/0.3) overprint: off
    Page 4: stroked: 1.44 pt RGB (0.31/0.41/0.33) overprint: off
    Page 4: stroked: 1.44 pt RGB (0.27/0.42/0.33) overprint: off
    Page 4: stroked 2.4 pt RGB (0.3/0.39/0.33) overprint: off
    Page 4: stroked: 2.88 pt RGB (0.31/0.41/0.34) overprint: off
    Page 4: stroked: 0.48 pt RGB (0.5/0.66/0. 56) overprint: off
    Page 4: stroked: 0.48 pt RGB (0.36/0.52/0.41) overprint: off
    Page 4: stroked: 0.96 pt RGB (0.49/0.61/0. 53) overprint: off
    Page 4: stroked: 0.96 pt RGB (0.25/0.41/0.31) overprint: off
    Page 4: stroked: 0.48 pt RGB (0.44/0.58/0. 5) overprint: off
    Page 4: stroked: 0.96 pt RGB (0.34/0.47/0.38) overprint: off

    These results were obtained by query of the file 35-1.pdf using an industry standard tool with verified profiles for each of the two queries. The file size and date were verified after each query to ensure that no fix was made.

    The Black Rectangles are all Image masks objects. The line and strikeout objects are stroked vector objects. Each of the total 21 objects is monochrome. Only one line is true Black. The others are monochrome RGB.

    All of the 21 objects are 1 Bit layers.

    All of these objects are hidden when the 35-1.pdf file is opened in Adobe Illustrator, Adobe Acrobat, Adobe Photoshop, or Adobe Reader.

  6. As I indicated previously, the 7 Black Rectangle objects are also Inline Image objects.

    File name: (35-1.pd)
    Page: 4 /T:Page
    Contents: (page description as array)
    [5] Image (0)
    [5] Inline Image (1)
    [5] Inline Image (2)
    [5] Inline Image (3)
    [5] Inline Image (4)
    [5] Inline Image (5)
    [5] Inline Image (6)
    [5] Inline Image (7)
    [5] paintline (8)
    [5] paintline (9)
    [5] paintline (l0)
    [5] paintline (ll)
    [5] paintline (12)
    [5] paintline (13)
    [5] paintline (14)
    [5] paintline (15)
    [5] paintline (16)
    [5] paintline (17)
    [5] paintline (18)
    [5] paintline (19)
    [5] paintline (20)
    [5] paintline (21)

    Inline image objects are generally associated with a line of text.

  7. Note that those are the same types of objects that I generated using the Paper Capture plug-in on just the background image. I haven’t checked to see if they line up exactly, but some appear to be identical. (Note that “Inline Image” is Illustrator’s name for an Image mask, and “paintline” is Illustrator’s name for a stroked vector object.)

  8. Note that those are the same types of objects that I generated using the Paper Capture plug-in on just the background image.

    Which is why using Illustrator is so meaningless when trying to find evidence of forgery. It takes a little more effort but you can look at the underlying data objects and really appreciate their origins.

    Vicklund has destroyed the claims that these objects somehow show manipulation.

  9. Here are the Black Rectangles, Strikeouts and Line objects for page 4 of court document 35-1.pdf.

    Just like Vicklund’s examples. It makes a lot of sense of course once one understands the common workflow.

    So what now Hermitian?

  10. “W. Kevin Vicklund

    “July 15, 2013 17:39

    “Note that those are the same types of objects that I generated using the Paper Capture plug-in on just the background image. I haven’t checked to see if they line up exactly, but some appear to be identical.”

    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
    So I guess we finally have Vicklund’s proof here. At least NBC has sworn that it totally Obot debunks a sworn affidavit. But then NBC is the only one who has actually seen Vicklund’s proof. And he promised several times to update Vicklund’s awesome findings. Looks like he was just lying again.

    Now that the two fattest rats in the Obot rat’s nest have heaved yet another shower of breadcrumbs over the rim of the rat’s nest, we members of the public can only struggle to decode what it is that they claim to have pulled off.

    So reading between the lines of Kevin’s post my guess would be that he applied OCR only to the Green basket-weave background image layer of the WH LFCOLB PDF image. This layer contains most of the printed form lines and a small amount of text.

    Now Kevin claims that he used the Adobe Paper Capture Plug-in but he doesn’t mention that he applied the OCR within Adobe Acrobat. I understand his omission because you see NBC won’t let Kevin use those bad ole Adobe high-level PDF tools.

    Evidently, Kevin found some line elements that were generated by the OCR that are coincident with some of the form lines. But he doesn’t mention that the OCR generated any Black Rectangles. And I didn’t notice anywhere in his posting that the lines were hidden. And then there are those missing Broad-line Strikeouts that he didn’t find either.

    I think I know why the Broad-line Strikeouts were missing — and it wasn’t disappearing ink.

    Do you think that maybe WKV and NBC could explain to the readers how an OCR scan of just the Green basket-weave background layer could have automatically generated the broad-line strikeouts of typed text which appears only on the text layer?

    And also generate the two very short monochrome line elements which span the width and half width of the same vertical form line at two separate vertical positions?

    I wonder if any of the elements that Kevin’s OCR created did not match any of the added geometric objects that were hidden on the altered page 4 of the LFCOLB PDF image in document 35-1.pdf? But unfortunately we’ll probably never know. NBC is very good at filtering all findings to downplay any results that don’t fit his storyline.

    Like the four objects that I found in his posted scan of the WH LFCOLB (that his mystery friend produced on the Xerox Workcenter 7535 in the White House) that are totally unlike any of the nine image layers that together comprise the composite image of the WH LFCOLB — so I guess the Xerox Workcenter forger must have stripped out these objects when it forged the WL LFCOLB PDF image. After much ROTFL I decided to write this little omission up and I will post it later today.

    What am I missing here?

    I’ll tell you what — I’m missing any verified Obot results.

    Where’s the Beef ?

  11. So reading between the lines of Kevin’s post my guess would be that he applied OCR only to the Green basket-weave background image layer of the WH LFCOLB PDF image. This layer contains most of the printed form lines and a small amount of text.

    Wrong file, dumbass. I applied it to the 35-1 image, running it on both the 4 page and the 12 page version, just like I explained elsewhere.

    Now Kevin claims that he used the Adobe Paper Capture Plug-in but he doesn’t mention that he applied the OCR within Adobe Acrobat. I understand his omission because you see NBC won’t let Kevin use those bad ole Adobe high-level PDF tools.

    I mentioned it elsewhere. Pay attention, dumbass.

    Evidently, Kevin found some line elements that were generated by the OCR that are coincident with some of the form lines.

    Yes, just like I explained elsewhere.

    But he doesn’t mention that the OCR generated any Black Rectangles.

    It generated black rectangles, just like I explained elsewhere.

    And I didn’t notice anywhere in his posting that the lines were hidden.

    The lines were indeed hidden, just like I explained elsewhere.

    And then there are those missing Broad-line Strikeouts that he didn’t find either.

    Actually, I did find them, I just didn’t explain elsewhere.

    I think I know why the Broad-line Strikeouts were missing — and it wasn’t disappearing ink.

    Yes, please do explain why they were missing when I ran it with the case label intact,but were present when I ran it after removing the case label, just like I explained elsewhere.

    Do you think that maybe WKV and NBC could explain to the readers how an OCR scan of just the Green basket-weave background layer could have automatically generated the broad-line strikeouts of typed text which appears only on the text layer?

    All text, with on some trials the exception of the case label, was on the background layer, since I was using the 35-1 image, just like I explained elsewhere.

    And also generate the two very short monochrome line elements which span the width and half width of the same vertical form line at two separate vertical positions?

    And why would it matter?

    I wonder if any of the elements that Kevin’s OCR created did not match any of the added geometric objects that were hidden on the altered page 4 of the LFCOLB PDF image in document 35-1.pdf? But unfortunately we’ll probably never know. NBC is very good at filtering all findings to downplay any results that don’t fit his storyline.

    Not all objects are identical to the pixel. In fact, removing hidden objects changed the OCR-generated elements between trials, just like I explained elsewhere.

    Like the four objects that I found in his posted scan of the WH LFCOLB (that his mystery friend produced on the Xerox Workcenter 7535 in the White House) that are totally unlike any of the nine image layers that together comprise the composite image of the WH LFCOLB — so I guess the Xerox Workcenter forger must have stripped out these objects when it forged the WL LFCOLB PDF image. After much ROTFL I decided to write this little omission up and I will post it later today.

    In what way are these “totally unlike” the WH LFBC objects that the other 12 don’t qualify as “totally unlike”? Oddly enough, you’ve never explained. Maybe a screen shot comparing the two so we can see how Illustrator finds yet another way to mangle a PDF?

    What am I missing here?

    Apparently, everything I’ve written on the subject on the other threads.

  12. I understand his omission because you see NBC won’t let Kevin use those bad ole Adobe high-level PDF tools.

    Still failing to understand when it is appropriate to use any particular tool.

    I am worried about you my friend. Many of these issues have already been addressed.

    Sigh… If you only did the due diligence and read the postings… Then you can ask us for help as to how to properly use the basic tools.

  13. At least NBC has sworn that it totally Obot debunks a sworn affidavit. But then NBC is the only one who has actually seen Vicklund’s proof. And he promised several times to update Vicklund’s awesome findings. Looks like he was just lying again.

    I strongly advise that you monitor your language. Accusing people of lying or lying again, will not be tolerated.

    I am looking forward to your analysis.

    Evidently, Kevin found some line elements that were generated by the OCR that are coincident with some of the form lines. But he doesn’t mention that the OCR generated any Black Rectangles. And I didn’t notice anywhere in his posting that the lines were hidden. And then there are those missing Broad-line Strikeouts that he didn’t find either.

    broad line strike-outs are just hidden lines. THe black blocks are similarly hidden because of the trick of using a double mask which ‘hides’ all these blocks and lines.
    The same trick as found in the original document…

    I told you to use the low level tools.

    Sigh, Hermitian, you are starting to sound more and more desperate when you pile mistake on mistake and refusing to use the necessary tools to properly understand the origin of these artifacts.

    If you had read my postings, you would have realized that the 7535 version, once you run it through preview, looks in all aspects the same.

    It’s such a trivial experiment and I have provided you with the necessary tools. But perhaps you may not have access to a Mac? That would significantly impede you ability to do the proper analysis, would it not?

  14. Since Hermie can’t be bothered to look up what I wrote on my ocr trial, I have commented on several of the locations where I described what I did. Or, read Parts 3, 5, and 8,and Educating the Confused – Hermie and SnapScan.

  15. “NBC

    I don’t remember you posting the line of PDF code for any of the interconnecting objects that determine how the composite image is assembled and which objects are visible and which objects are hidden. And because you are using some ratty free obscure parser that has never been verified and which has zero ability to screen and print any bitmap contact streams. Why don’t you update us on your source, operating platform and OS that gives you these claimed state-of-the-art capabilities that you constantly brag about. If your tools are soooo good then I would think that you would be eager to share it with your readers.

  16. “NBC

    July 15, 2013 20:34

    “”Here are the Black Rectangles, Strikeouts and Line objects for page 4 of court document 35-1.pdf.””

    Just like Vicklund’s examples. It makes a lot of sense of course once one understands the common workflow.

    So what now Hermitian?

    So what about you posting Vicklund’s examples (that Vicklund sent only to you) and that you promptly deep sixed?

    And then maybe he could tell the readers what software was used to obtain his mind blowing results?

  17. I don’t remember you posting the line of PDF code for any of the interconnecting objects that determine how the composite image is assembled and which objects are visible and which objects are hidden. And because you are using some ratty free obscure parser that has never been verified and which has zero ability to screen and print any bitmap contact streams. Why don’t you update us on your source, operating platform and OS that gives you these claimed state-of-the-art capabilities that you constantly brag about. If your tools are soooo good then I would think that you would be eager to share it with your readers.

    I would expect an interested reader, and especially one who likes to research these things, to take the tools and do their research themselves.

    The parser is neither ratty nor obscure to those familiar with the PDF toolset.

    The relevant tools are:

    XPDF
    pdf-parse.py

    They can be found by doing any quick search for PDF command line tools but I feel that I may need to make the reference more explicit in this case:

    http://blog.didierstevens.com/programs/pdf-tools/

    They are OS/platform independent as they use Python.

    You can also download xpdf at http://www.foolabs.com/xpdf/

    I am sure they have an installer that works for you, or you can build them yourself as I have done for a Mac OS/X.

    If you need any particular objects clarified then please let me know. I showed the code that puts together the relevant documents.

    Check it out if you care

  18. So what about you posting Vicklund’s examples (that Vicklund sent only to you) and that you promptly deep sixed?

    And then maybe he could tell the readers what software was used to obtain his mind blowing results?

    I provided you with the PDF objects in https://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2013/07/11/ms-orly-v-democrat-henry-blake-affidavit-part-5-black-rectangles-again, let me know if they give you any particular problems in parsing or understanding as they are basic PDF objects and properties.

    I never deep sixed the files, I just forgot. After all, the evidence I had provided somewhat destroyed your claims.

    I’d be happy to provide the ‘finishing touches’ to said destruction, as you seem to insist on.

    These results, which may appear to be mind blowing to those not familiar with the toolset, were created through the following workflow, which was described by Vicklund.

    Take document 35-1 and remove the objects such as OCR and the hidden blocks and lines. Now use paper capture to import them into Acrobat.

    Save and now use the tools I outlined to you in an earlier comment to analyze them.

    Since you have all these tools yourself, I am amazed that you have not yet performed this experiment as it is the most straightforward step to take when trying to understand the workflow that led to these artifacts.

    Let me know if you run into any problems and I will see if I can help you out on my end by walking through Vicklund’s examples step by step.

  19. WKV

    “W. Kevin Vicklund

    July 17, 2013 22:05

    “Since Hermie can’t be bothered to look up what I wrote on my ocr trial, I have commented on several of the locations where I described what I did. Or, read Parts 3, 5, and 8,and Educating the Confused – Hermie and SnapScan.”

    I don’t remember any postings that explain the hidden Broad-line Strikeouts. See my 2nd affidavit here:

    You remember, this is my expanded affidavit that NBC posted on Jul 04, 2013 without explaining how he got it from me. He would like you to believe that he got it from my Scribd upload but he couldn’t have because I uploaded it after he posted it here.

    Maybe NBC could share with us his source and the date and time that it first came into his possession?

  20. Maybe NBC could share with us his source and the date and time that it first came into his possession?

    What relevance does that have? Geez my friend, search the web and see where your musings can be all found and downloaded.

  21. Take document 35-1 and remove the objects such as OCR and the hidden blocks and lines. Now use paper capture to import them into Acrobat.

    Sigh. The actual workflow, as described multiple times:

    Open Adobe Acrobat. From within Acrobat, open the document 35-1 pdf file. Open the Content tool. Remove all the hidden objects, including Image masks, lines, and OCR text. Also remove the text for the case label. Now, use the Examine Document tool to delete any remaining hidden objects. Finally, do an OCR search (this will use Paper Capture). Save and analyze.

Comments are closed.