Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 2,843 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 887,807
Pageviews Today: 1,321,294Threads Today: 339Posts Today: 7,365
11:44 AM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

Evidence of .pdf tampering with transcripts from Dzokhar Tsarnaev's arraignment hearing! May have been authored in 2006!

 
Screamer
Offer Upgrade

User ID: 45042546
United States
08/14/2013 09:50 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Evidence of .pdf tampering with transcripts from Dzokhar Tsarnaev's arraignment hearing! May have been authored in 2006!
Check this out. This article is saying at very least that there was tampering with the .pdf of the transcript from Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's arraignment hearing. It may have even been authored in 2006! It's not that it's just created from a template made in 2006. because it shows only a creation date, and no modification date. If this whole thing was actually planned in 2006, that is insane. He was only 12 or so at the time.

The article also says that there is evidence that a special program was used to display a different version of .pdf factory used than what was likely actually used to create the document. What I don't understand is why they would go through all of that trouble to change the version of .pdf factory and not the creation date.

I guess it was to make it impossible to retrieve it properly if archived by it's creation date.

Any theories?

Link:

[link to www.zhn.cz]

I bolded the important things in this article.


Attack at the Boston Marathon

(Czech article added on April 23, 2013; English translation added on April 27, 2013.)

On April 15 two explosions occurred at the finishing straight of the Boston marathon, killing 3 people and injuring almost 200 (More than 180 people injured in Boston Marathon bombings expected to live, doctors say). The perpetrators were soon identified as two brothers (26 year old Tamerlan Tsarnaev and 19 year old Dzhokhar Tsarnaev) who, along with their parents, in 2002 moved to The United States from Chechnya, i.e. not from The Czech Republic as was stated by some American experts (Twitterers mistake Czech Republic for Chechnya in Boston bombings).

On April 23 while updating News, a transcript of the court hearing from April 22 with the injured 19 year old Dzhokhar came to our attention (it is possible to download it, for example, from CNN – Transcript of Boston terror suspect's first hearing or from our own pages – Tsarnaev hearing transcript). Since the full transcription of the court hearing was in a *.pdf document we downloaded it out of curiosity so that we could have a closer look. A big surprise was waiting for us. According to the displayed properties of the document, at first glance it appears that this file was created on June 2, 2006 in the programme pdfFactory version 3.52 on a PC with Windows XP Home. Except that version 3.52 was not released until December 12, 2009 (pdfFactory Release Notes). For your own research it is enough to download the document, open it in the programme Adobe Reader, Nuance PDF Reader, or similar, and to display the properties of the document. Or it should be enough to press the Ctrl key along with the letter D (Ctrl + D).

Following the end of the court hearing on April 22, 2013, so that the Official Court Reporter, Mr. James P. Gibbons, could create a document with a date of June 2, 2006, the set date on his PC would have to be almost 7 years out of date, or he or someone else would have had to “play” with the file creation date, changing it to 2006, – which is extremely irregular. If he used a Microsoft Word programme from a 2007 version (on sale from the end of 2006) or OpenOffice Writer from version 1.1 (released at the end of 2003) he should not have had any problem saving a document to *.pdf format without requiring another programme like pdfFactory or similar. Important also is the fact that the document contains only the date of creation and not any date of change. This indicates that if no special data modification programme was used in this *.pdf file, then in all probability the document was created without being the modification of an older *.pdf file. Even among IT experts, changing the creation date of a file in pratice is done, let's say, very rarely. In summary, we have in effect three possibilities:

1)the time on the PC was moved back by almost 7 years,

2) the modification date of the document was deleted by means of a special programme and maybe the creation date of the file was amended,

3)this document itself was actually created on June 2, 2006 (later with a special programme added information about the creation in the programme pdfFactory 3.52) and is only now being distributed to the media.

The motive for these above mentioned possibilities let everyone find for themselves.

If, during the creation of the document, only the time on the PC was moved backwards by around 7 years, then it is appropriate to raise the question, what type of PC was it, whether a home PC or a company PC? On a home PC the operating system Windows XP Home is commonplace, however not so much on a company PC. On company PCs today the operating systems Windows Vista or Windows 7 in version Professional are quite widespread. As Windows, when linked to the internet, endeavors to synchronize its own time with an atomic clock every 7 days, it is then highly unprobable that a time shift of almost 7 years would last longer than several weeks. A PC permanently disconnected from the internet would constitute an exception, or a PC which would have the automatic time updates blocked, which is not at all common. All the same, it would be fitting to subject to careful examination the PC on which this document was supposedly created in order to find out the exact date of the making of this file.

It can be possible to justifiably suppose that if a court hearing took place on April 22, 2013, the resultant interview transcriptions should then be saved by a matter of course with the date of April 22, 2013 and not June 2, 2006. The file creation date is also important for the archival of documents and any subsequent retrieval of information. If we then wanted to search through all the documents related to this court hearing and as a search criterion we chose for example the time entry figure from the April 15, 2013, then a document with an older creation date would neither be retrieved nor searched.

At this moment it is too soon to make any conclusions regarding any official or unofficial version. Currently there are more questions than answers. However certainly the following document at least is worth reading (Conspiracy theories swirl around Boston Marathon terrorist attack). For further details we recommend to keep an eye on News.

Boston bombing update

(Article added on June 23, 2013.)

On the April 22, 2013 a transcription of a court hearing with 19 year old Dzhokhar was released. This document was then published, for example, on the pages of CNN and The Wall Street Journal.

On the April 23 we picked up this document and made some analysis, based on which we wrote the above shown article in Czech language, which we then published on our web pages on the very same day. At the same time we sent our article to be translated into English (the article in English language we did not put on the internet until April 27). Several hours after publishing the article in Czech, we detected a visit to our pages (specifically to this article) from someone in The United States Of America using an unknown operating system and an unknown web browser. Within several hours, on the pages of The Wall Street Journalu the original document was altered in such a way that a date of amendment of April 22, 2013 was added whilst the creation date of June 2, 2006 still remained. Other information was left unchanged. This alteration did not occur on CNN.

Following the publication of our article concerning the Boston attack, we throughly analysed further the possibilities regarding the creation of this *.pdf file containing the alleged transcript of the court hearing with Dzhokhar. On several computers with the operating systems Windows XP and 7, we carried out tests with English trial versions of the pdfFactory programme.

Based on in-depth analysis of the official document, and the behaviour of the English trial versions of the pdfFactory programme, it was shown that the document in question could not have been created in the pdfFactory version 3.52 programme despite of the fact that this version is indicated in the properties of the document (see picture below).

(picture in link)

Document Properties

Version 3.52 in fact contains a fault in the underscore of the link www.pdffactory.com in the lower section (foot) of every page of the document, which was, during utilization, transfered to the *.pdf. All higher versions no longer contain this fault, i.e. the manufacturer noticed and repaired it, which certainly cannot be said for the person who, for some reason, strove to adjust the document so that it appears it was created in a trial version of the pdfFactory version 3.52 programme. For changing the properties of the document some special programme was used, – with its utilization the notification concerning the creation of the document in a trial version of the pdfFactory 3.52 programme was forged. Such a special programme is not ordinarily accessible and the profound majority of computer experts (almost 100%) have never come into contact with it. Details are in the picture shown below.

evidence of fraud with version 3.52

(picture in link)

For your own research you can download some of the following versions of the pdfFactory programme directly from the pages of the manufacturer: version 3.50, 3.51, 3.52, 3.53, 4.50, 4.60, 4.70 and 4.81.

We will not go into any speculation regarding the motives concerning any deliberate amendment to the properties of the document, made by utilizing some special programme, but rather concern ourselves with the unmistakeable facts, which are in this instance unambiguous. While the motives can be speculated about for hours, it is enough to speak about the facts for just a couple of minutes. The motive, let everyone look for themselves.
 Quoting: Screamer


Last Edited by Screamer on 08/14/2013 12:23 PM
Screamer
Screamer (OP)

User ID: 45042546
United States
08/14/2013 10:13 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Evidence of .pdf tampering with transcripts from Dzokhar Tsarnaev's arraignment hearing! May have been authored in 2006!
bump
Screamer
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 41518311
United States
08/14/2013 10:21 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Evidence of .pdf tampering with transcripts from Dzokhar Tsarnaev's arraignment hearing! May have been authored in 2006!
The Date set in the PC's BIOS is wrong.

I do believe Dzokhar Tsarnaev is definitely a Patsy, but this is not a smoking gun of any sort.
Screamer (OP)

User ID: 45042546
United States
08/14/2013 10:51 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Evidence of .pdf tampering with transcripts from Dzokhar Tsarnaev's arraignment hearing! May have been authored in 2006!
The Date set in the PC's BIOS is wrong.

I do believe Dzokhar Tsarnaev is definitely a Patsy, but this is not a smoking gun of any sort.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 41518311



It's set 7 years behind?

The computer with an internet connection has not had any synching with an atomic clock ?

The document was also created on June 2,2006.

If it was set 7 years behind, and came out on April 23,1013. How could it have been created on June 2, 2013?

A court reporter in 2013 created a .pdf on a Windows XP Home PC ?

A windows 7 or 8, or at least vista would make more sense.

I also don't believe that this is the type of work you can take home to work on your old rachety pc.

I would think that the OS would be a Professional version.

Als, If using Mircosoft Word from anything later than 2007, you wouldn't need PDFfactory. Also PDF 3.52 did not come out until 2009.

There has also been 6 different up-versions of PDFfactory since then.

Why also an effort by the Wall Street journal to add a modification date of April 22, 2013, (which was not added on the CNN version), if the BIOS date was wrong and everyone should just shut the fuck up?

Last Edited by Screamer on 08/14/2013 10:54 AM
Screamer
Screamer (OP)

User ID: 45042546
United States
08/14/2013 11:09 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Evidence of .pdf tampering with transcripts from Dzokhar Tsarnaev's arraignment hearing! May have been authored in 2006!
Also, isn't having the wrong creation date a huge problem for a legal document? It would affect the way it is archived and therefore retrieved. That is my theory.

I don't know why it would have a modification date for the Wall Street Journal version and not the CNN one.
Screamer
Screamer (OP)

User ID: 45042546
United States
08/14/2013 11:37 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Evidence of .pdf tampering with transcripts from Dzokhar Tsarnaev's arraignment hearing! May have been authored in 2006!
One Star?verysad
Screamer
Screamer (OP)

User ID: 45042546
United States
08/14/2013 12:22 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Evidence of .pdf tampering with transcripts from Dzokhar Tsarnaev's arraignment hearing! May have been authored in 2006!
bumpyoda
Screamer
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 45133918
United States
08/14/2013 12:33 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Evidence of .pdf tampering with transcripts from Dzokhar Tsarnaev's arraignment hearing! May have been authored in 2006!
It's a show, where DC is creating the script, saying it was real. But the agencies they have created are real and think they have authority. Well, until they do not receive a paycheck.
Screamer (OP)

User ID: 45042546
United States
08/14/2013 04:53 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Evidence of .pdf tampering with transcripts from Dzokhar Tsarnaev's arraignment hearing! May have been authored in 2006!
When do you think this was actually written? Everything in the properties is so outdated, but from different times.

This clearly was not written in a court house or a legal place of business.

Do you think DT's uncle Ruslan wrote it from Graham fuller's house, to frame DT when he was 12, probably because he hated Zubeidat so much? I've seen in-laws not liking their family's choice of spouse and then taking it out on the kids before.

I have looked at all of the other legal documents, the indictment, the criminal complaint, etc. All of them were made in Acrobat, with the correct creation dates.

wtf

Last Edited by Screamer on 08/14/2013 05:10 PM
Screamer
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 30943034
Spain
08/14/2013 05:00 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Evidence of .pdf tampering with transcripts from Dzokhar Tsarnaev's arraignment hearing! May have been authored in 2006!
Also, isn't having the wrong creation date a huge problem for a legal document? It would affect the way it is archived and therefore retrieved. That is my theory.

I don't know why it would have a modification date for the Wall Street Journal version and not the CNN one.
 Quoting: Screamer


In 2004 there was this case by SCO, SCO is a patent troll basicly. They tried to sue DaimlerCrysler for using a Linux file system. Investigation of the official Word file showed that they first wanted to sue Bank of America, but later erased the words Bank of America and changed it to DaimlerCrysler. This totally messed up SCO's credibility.
Screamer (OP)

User ID: 45042546
United States
08/14/2013 05:28 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Evidence of .pdf tampering with transcripts from Dzokhar Tsarnaev's arraignment hearing! May have been authored in 2006!
Also, isn't having the wrong creation date a huge problem for a legal document? It would affect the way it is archived and therefore retrieved. That is my theory.

I don't know why it would have a modification date for the Wall Street Journal version and not the CNN one.
 Quoting: Screamer


In 2004 there was this case by SCO, SCO is a patent troll basicly. They tried to sue DaimlerCrysler for using a Linux file system. Investigation of the official Word file showed that they first wanted to sue Bank of America, but later erased the words Bank of America and changed it to DaimlerCrysler. This totally messed up SCO's credibility.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 30943034


I'm sorry. I don't really see what that has to do with this.
Is this case, there is no money or lawsuits. The modification of this pdf would be simply to have pre-written scripts to sell to the American audience, or to affect the archival of it as an official document.

Did the SCO ever have any credibility? The SCO is a company merely set up to sue major companies (all funded by Microsoft). It buys up patents, simply to sue for them and fuck with other companies.

The reasons for changing legal documents would be totally different in this case.
Screamer
Screamer (OP)

User ID: 45042546
United States
08/14/2013 06:19 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Evidence of .pdf tampering with transcripts from Dzokhar Tsarnaev's arraignment hearing! May have been authored in 2006!
banana2
Screamer
Screamer (OP)

User ID: 45042546
United States
08/14/2013 06:44 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Evidence of .pdf tampering with transcripts from Dzokhar Tsarnaev's arraignment hearing! May have been authored in 2006!
Does no one seriously care about this?
Screamer
Screamer (OP)

User ID: 45042546
United States
08/14/2013 07:55 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Evidence of .pdf tampering with transcripts from Dzokhar Tsarnaev's arraignment hearing! May have been authored in 2006!
tomato
Screamer
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 45048863
United States
08/14/2013 08:06 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Evidence of .pdf tampering with transcripts from Dzokhar Tsarnaev's arraignment hearing! May have been authored in 2006!
Nope
Screamer (OP)

User ID: 45042546
United States
08/14/2013 08:11 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Evidence of .pdf tampering with transcripts from Dzokhar Tsarnaev's arraignment hearing! May have been authored in 2006!
Why not?

Its a pretty significant evidence that there is a coverup regarding this case.
Screamer
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 2269485
United States
08/14/2013 08:23 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Evidence of .pdf tampering with transcripts from Dzokhar Tsarnaev's arraignment hearing! May have been authored in 2006!
Yesterday Tsarnaev's Mother and today this. Got an agenda?
Screamer (OP)

User ID: 45042546
United States
08/14/2013 08:31 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Evidence of .pdf tampering with transcripts from Dzokhar Tsarnaev's arraignment hearing! May have been authored in 2006!
What agenda would I have? I have been interested in getting to the bottom of this case. I have more free time since yesterday.

Everyone here believes it is fake, so its not like I have to convince anyone
Screamer
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 2269485
United States
08/14/2013 08:50 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Evidence of .pdf tampering with transcripts from Dzokhar Tsarnaev's arraignment hearing! May have been authored in 2006!
What agenda would I have? I have been interested in getting to the bottom of this case. I have more free time since yesterday.

Everyone here believes it is fake, so its not like I have to convince anyone
 Quoting: Screamer


I don't know it is just that the two posts about the Tsarnaev's are they only ones you've ever made. Everyone here believes what is fake?
Screamer (OP)

User ID: 45042546
United States
08/14/2013 09:19 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Evidence of .pdf tampering with transcripts from Dzokhar Tsarnaev's arraignment hearing! May have been authored in 2006!
^Everyone knows that the official story is fake. I'm relatively new. Just joined in July. I have only made these two threads but I have posted in other threads several times.
Screamer
Screamer (OP)

User ID: 45042546
United States
08/14/2013 09:44 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Evidence of .pdf tampering with transcripts from Dzokhar Tsarnaev's arraignment hearing! May have been authored in 2006!
bump
Screamer
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 2269485
United States
08/14/2013 09:54 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Evidence of .pdf tampering with transcripts from Dzokhar Tsarnaev's arraignment hearing! May have been authored in 2006!
^Everyone knows that the official story is fake. I'm relatively new. Just joined in July. I have only made these two threads but I have posted in other threads several times.
 Quoting: Screamer


I do not know the official story is fake.
Screamer (OP)

User ID: 45042546
United States
08/14/2013 09:56 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Evidence of .pdf tampering with transcripts from Dzokhar Tsarnaev's arraignment hearing! May have been authored in 2006!
^Everyone knows that the official story is fake. I'm relatively new. Just joined in July. I have only made these two threads but I have posted in other threads several times.
 Quoting: Screamer


I do not know the official story is fake.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 2269485


? You're in the minority here
Screamer
Screamer (OP)

User ID: 45042546
United States
08/14/2013 10:26 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Evidence of .pdf tampering with transcripts from Dzokhar Tsarnaev's arraignment hearing! May have been authored in 2006!
bump
Screamer
Screamer (OP)

User ID: 45042546
United States
08/14/2013 10:48 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Evidence of .pdf tampering with transcripts from Dzokhar Tsarnaev's arraignment hearing! May have been authored in 2006!
bumpbumphf
Screamer
Louve
We see what we look for...

User ID: 44987396
United States
08/14/2013 10:52 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Evidence of .pdf tampering with transcripts from Dzokhar Tsarnaev's arraignment hearing! May have been authored in 2006!
I think its a credible story and nice work on the OP's part.

Unfortunately, I'm sure this will get shuffled away just like every other bit of confusing "evidence". I'll be looking forward to other mentions of this though as things continue.

Good work OP, green and 5 for you!
"Standing on a hill in my mountain of dreams,
Telling myself it's not as hard, hard, hard as it seems."
Kinect

User ID: 44626146
08/14/2013 11:02 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Evidence of .pdf tampering with transcripts from Dzokhar Tsarnaev's arraignment hearing! May have been authored in 2006!
I think that TPTB does this type of thing on purpose. They know that someone out there will catch these "glitches."

It's a manufactured laugh at us "pee-ons." Bastards they are!

It's disinformation to create an agenda. Same as Obama's birth certificate.

What are they really doing, besides diverting attention from what?

hmmm

Makes you think...
"The more we do to you, the less you seem to believe we are doing it." - Josef Mengele

"You can't fix stupid" - Ron White

"Whatever you do in life, leave it better than you found it."
Screamer (OP)

User ID: 45042546
United States
08/14/2013 11:24 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Evidence of .pdf tampering with transcripts from Dzokhar Tsarnaev's arraignment hearing! May have been authored in 2006!
I think its a credible story and nice work on the OP's part.

Unfortunately, I'm sure this will get shuffled away just like every other bit of confusing "evidence". I'll be looking forward to other mentions of this though as things continue.

Good work OP, green and 5 for you!
 Quoting: Louve


Thank you dear. BTW, I wasn't looking for stars. I was just annoyed at the one star, calling this bullshit, at the time =)

I just wanted people to mull over this odd fact.

Regarding credibility, one can go to CNN and the Wall street Journal, find the arraignment hearing transcript, and right click for document properties, and find the same thing.

I have another theory than simply changing the creation date so it will be archived improperly, taking into account the Windows Home XP and the PDFFactory version.

It was actually authored in 2006 (they had the idea of framing the kid when he was 12, and with all that planning people still suspect he is framed), by Uncle Ruslan in Graham Fuller's home (Damn, he must hate his sister-in-law ALOT). He figured in 2006, that by 2013, there would be some up-versions of PDFfactory, it being really hard to imagine how technology will change and all. Maybe all of the papers have had this document in their possession this whole time?
Screamer
wisc_natureboy

User ID: 33824070
United States
08/14/2013 11:28 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Evidence of .pdf tampering with transcripts from Dzokhar Tsarnaev's arraignment hearing! May have been authored in 2006!
OP, I think you will get along just fine around here. ;-`)

Last Edited by wisc_natureboy on 08/14/2013 11:28 PM
.
-
.

We all breathe the same air.
.-.. --- ...- . / .- .-.. .-..
(love/all)
Screamer (OP)

User ID: 45042546
United States
08/14/2013 11:33 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Evidence of .pdf tampering with transcripts from Dzokhar Tsarnaev's arraignment hearing! May have been authored in 2006!
I think that TPTB does this type of thing on purpose. They know that someone out there will catch these "glitches."

It's a manufactured laugh at us "pee-ons." Bastards they are!

It's disinformation to create an agenda. Same as Obama's birth certificate.

What are they really doing, besides diverting attention from what?

hmmm

Makes you think...
 Quoting: Kinect


This is an interesting idea. Part of the whole divide and conquer psy-ops.

Only one obscure czech site caught it. Also, what explains someone from the Wall Street journal finding this obscure site in Czech before the English translation came out, and within hours updating it with a modification date? Seems like alot of trouble to go through, when the story has so many holes. The main doubters are "conspiracy theorists" who are not the ones out protesting and teenage girls who no
one takes seriously.

Everyone else believes the official story hook line and sinker, so if this is a Divide and Conquer or diversion psy-op, it was done pretty shittily (which of course is possible)
Screamer
Screamer (OP)

User ID: 45042546
United States
08/15/2013 12:00 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Evidence of .pdf tampering with transcripts from Dzokhar Tsarnaev's arraignment hearing! May have been authored in 2006!
last bump tonight
Screamer

News