Author Topic: Fr. Niklaus Pflugers letter to Bishop Williamson (Read 22854 times)

Incredulous · « **Reply #95 on:** April 18, 2013, 02:49:41 PM »

From Msgr. Fellay's micro-management behavior, post 2009, it is unlikely Fr. Pfuger would unilaterally initiate such confrontational correspondence.

Yea... the letter was sent two months after the first Max Krah bombshell hit the internet. That story of SSPX intrigue was "buzzing" hot for at least six months.

I liken the Menzingen authorized Pluger letter response to the Japanese military's hasty attack of Midway in 1942. They unsuccesfully attacked in order to "save face" after Jimmy Doolittle unexpectedly fire-bombed Tokyo.

Ethelred · « **Reply #96 on:** April 19, 2013, 08:00:22 AM »

(Note to non-technical readers: boring technical article ahead. But only one for today.)

Quote from: VinnyF

Please re-read your original post - You only spoke of the Creator tag

You better re-read what I wrote, and what others like Exilenomore understood well. Then you will see -- or maybe not -- that you got it all wrong, and confused too many things. And my patience with your nonsense and insinuations just run out.

I said in my original post about the Pfluger-Letter docx file :
Open the the MS-Word docuмent which is of type ".docx" in your Openoffice or MS-Office program, go to the file menu, select properties and look for the creator tag. It say(s): MK28

So I mentioned a textual creator tag aka creator property, which Office shows in its file-menu under "File properties" ("Dateieigenschaften" in my localised Office) for a loaded docuмent file.

Yet you still don't understand what and where my mentioned creator and company tags are in the Pfluger-Letter of format "Office Open XML" (usually with .docx filename ending). As with any Open-XML file these properties are plain-text metadata in the plain-text Open-XML files (app.xml & core.xml). Every Office user can also read them in plain-text from within his Office. Like I said from the beginning.

Now this textual creator property is just coincidentally 4 characters long in the case of Krah's "MK28" initials in this Pfluger-Letter. Maybe because of this coincidence you came up with that very funny off-the-field 32bit magic byte of some exotic Macintosh Offices.
Anyway, since naturally this Macintosh magic number didn't match my mentioned -- and coincidentally 4 characters long -- MK28 textual file creator property in the Open-XML Pfluger-Letter, because they're totally different things, you started to spit out your "forgery" lie. You've got some nerve.

You would have noticed what I meant, if you had taken notice of the menu clicking path I described from the beginning: Office's File-menu, then menu entry "File properties". Several non-engineers here managed to follow my description and even found the company property. Too simple for an engineer of wide reading like you?

And yes, in contrast to your wrong claim ("there is only one such tag") my countless times mentioned textual creator tag identifying an docuмent's author, is also called "creator tag" aka creator property.

But only after I asked for proof, you popped up with some off-the-field Macintosh MS-Office magic number nonsense, which it totally amiss for our case hereof an ISO Open-XML file here.

So tell us, Vinny: Where is your mentioned need-to-be in order not to be a forgery Macintosh magic number in a normal, text-only Open-XML file like the Pfluger-Letter or a gazillion similar Open-XML files edited on non-Macs?

And this Macintosh nonsense was the final straw. Now I realise you either don't know what you're talking about, or how to think in context, or you don't want to. Either way it's pretty bad.

Ethelred · « **Reply #97 on:** April 19, 2013, 08:10:11 AM »

Quote from: Vinny

As I said to Incredulous, I do not believe that Fr. Pfluger sent this letter as a docx attachment.

You're entitled to your beliefs. But we talked about facts. So, do the reality check and ask the Father or the Bishop if that attached docx file is authentic.

Then you'd know what I said from the beginning: Fr Pfluger sent this docx file electronically to Bishop Williamson. No paper letter, no PDF, just a copy & paste Office docuмent (and the two authors used copy & paste a lot). And their file in Open-XML format I attached to this thread.

Quote

I proved that what you offered as the irrefutable factual basis for your proposition that Max Krah ghost-wrote this on his computer can easily be forged along the way.

1) Note that you didn't prove anything, but only confuse everything.
And you just did a random shot and claimed that my docx file attachment was a forgery.
When I asked for proof, you quoted some out-of-the field Macintosh magic number nonsense which nobody ever talked about or needed here in order to see the Open-XML docuмent's creator property "MK28" and the globalist school company property "Columbia Business School".

2) In the virtual world a lot can be forged today. So why bring up such a platitude?
It's all a matter of trust. Do you trust this or that poster. For example, I trust Incredulous, J.Paul, Hollingsworth, and several more here with good reason. I've however no reason to trust you. And after your magical number comedy here I got still less reason to do.

Quote

But Ethel, I am NOT challenging that a letter whose content you've translated, was sent from +Pfluger to +Williamson.

Oh thank you! But ... why do repeat your imaginary fantasies? More magical numbers? Where did you get the "information" from, that I translated that letter? Easy: It's either just another wrong imagination of yours, or intentionally done to misinform people.

I didn't mention I translated the letter, because I didn't translate or help it. I couldn't even if I wanted to -- no surprise for those seeing my Pidgin-English posts here in front of their eyes.

I wrote in the thread's first post, and you better re-read what I really wrote: Since the translation was done by an English gentlemen and brave bishop, it's more polite than the original but accurate.

Quote

My only problem was of your "proof", which is evidently no "proof" at all.

Your main problem is your wild imagination which fails to comply with the reality check.

In contrast to your fairytale about magical numbers, paper letters, "man in the middle" forgers, PDF attachments, etc, my mentioned "MK28" textual creator property and the "Columbia Business School" textual company property do actually exist in the original Pfluger-Letter's textual metadata. They were there right from the beginning.

And these facts are a good start to think and combine.

Ethelred · « **Reply #98 on:** April 19, 2013, 08:21:44 AM »

Quote from: hollingsworth

Incredulous:
Quote
There were many dirty hands formulating this letter before it ever reached the Lion's laptop, in his attic prison.

I think this is the point to be noted. I think Vinny may be right. We don't have any real solid, computer-based evidence that MK wrote the letter.

Well, below I try to list what we have, and what this does mean.

Unfortunately Vinny doesn't know what he's talking about, and flooded this thread here with technical nonsense and confusing claims for days. Either intentionally or not. We'll see.

He claimed that my attached Pfluger-Letter's docx file was a forgery. He's taking random shots, and from the beginning he didn't get what I was talking about. Despite the fact that I explained everything in great detail. (But at least I got my crash-course into MS' ISO "Office Open XML" format now. That is something for us Openoffice/Libreoffice friends.)

Vinny didn't prove a thing in this thread, but misinformed it from the beginning. He claims that his fantasy was facts, and defames facts as "forgeries". His technical talk is out-of-context nonsense (Macintosh magical number? He's a real joker!). Net result: confusion, and nearly derailment of thread.

So maybe John's intuition was right. Vinny's either a fool or a shill. We need to take into account that we're dealing with the dirty Krah business here.

So let's get back to the basic facts, in a preferably non-technical manner :

(1) Fr Pfluger sent his German letter to Bishop Williamson as an e-mail attachment; a MS-Office Word docuмent of type "Office Open XML" with the file name: "PNP an BW.docx"
Everbody can ask either the Father or the Bishop to get a confirmation. Hollingsworth, didn't you do so already?

(2) I attached the Pfluger-Letter's docx file to this thread, so that everybody can examine it with any Office application capable of reading Open-XML files (navigate to your Office's "File menu" and click the "File properties" menu entry). And since it's an Open-XML file, everybody can also examine its plain-text metadata and docuмent data (core.xml for file properties like file author, and app.xml for Office properties like company and which application stored the file). There's no "forgery" in this file whatsoever. It's the original file sent from Fr Pfluger to the bishop.

(3) The Pfluger-Letter being a MS Word docuмent of type Open-XML, its metadata show interesting factual details, and again everybody can examine them by opening that docuмent in his Office and navigating the file-menu and click the "File properties" entry.

(4) The two file properties say:
1) File created by Office user "MK28" on January 2011. This is the creator-property, as this tag is called in the metadata itself, meaning the file's author: the person who entered this as his name into his Office installation during or after installation.
2) Company name of the this Office installation: "Colombia Business School". This is the company-property, as this tag is called in the metadata itself, meaning the Office's user or typically administrator entered this as company name into this Office installation during or after installation.

The name and company property are there for a fact. Since they're two properties, in combination they're even more telling: name AND company, i.e. Krah's initials and his EMBA school.

Now, you, Hollingsworth, are right that indeed these factual two file properties don't proof the Pfluger-Letter's authorship of a certain person, so they wouldn't stand up in court.
But for an Internet forum they are very useful "circuмstantial evidence", making it evident who created that letter in the first instance.

VinnyF · « **Reply #99 on:** April 19, 2013, 09:02:08 AM »

Quote from: Ethelred

Quote from: hollingsworth
Incredulous:
Quote
There were many dirty hands formulating this letter before it ever reached the Lion's laptop, in his attic prison.

I think this is the point to be noted. I think Vinny may be right. We don't have any real solid, computer-based evidence that MK wrote the letter.

Well, below I try to list what we have, and what this does mean.

Unfortunately Vinny doesn't know what he's talking about, and flooded this thread here with technical nonsense and confusing claims for days. Either intentionally or not. We'll see.

He claimed that my attached Pfluger-Letter's docx file was a forgery. He's taking random shots, and from the beginning he didn't get what I was talking about. Despite the fact that I explained everything in great detail. (But at least I got my crash-course into MS' ISO "Office Open XML" format now. That is something for us Openoffice/Libreoffice friends.)

Vinny didn't prove a thing in this thread, but misinformed it from the beginning. He claims that his fantasy was facts, and defames facts as "forgeries". His technical talk is out-of-context nonsense (Macintosh magical number? He's a real joker!). Net result: confusion, and nearly derailment of thread.

So maybe John's intuition was right. Vinny's either a fool or a shill. We need to take into account that we're dealing with the dirty Krah business here.

So let's get back to the basic facts, in a preferably non-technical manner :

(1) Fr Pfluger sent his German letter to Bishop Williamson as an e-mail attachment; a MS-Office Word docuмent of type "Office Open XML" with the file name: "PNP an BW.docx"
Everbody can ask either the Father or the Bishop to get a confirmation. Hollingsworth, didn't you do so already?

(2) I attached the Pfluger-Letter's docx file to this thread, so that everybody can examine it with any Office application capable of reading Open-XML files (navigate to your Office's "File menu" and click the "File properties" menu entry). And since it's an Open-XML file, everybody can also examine its plain-text metadata and docuмent data (core.xml for file properties like file author, and app.xml for Office properties like company and which application stored the file). There's no "forgery" in this file whatsoever. It's the original file sent from Fr Pfluger to the bishop.

(3) The Pfluger-Letter being a MS Word docuмent of type Open-XML, its metadata show interesting factual details, and again everybody can examine them by opening that docuмent in his Office and navigating the file-menu and click the "File properties" entry.

(4) The two file properties say:
1) File created by Office user "MK28" on January 2011. This is the creator-property, as this tag is called in the metadata itself, meaning the file's author: the person who entered this as his name into his Office installation during or after installation.
2) Company name of the this Office installation: "Colombia Business School". This is the company-property, as this tag is called in the metadata itself, meaning the Office's user or typically administrator entered this as company name into this Office installation during or after installation.

The name and company property are there for a fact. Since they're two properties, in combination they're even more telling: name AND company, i.e. Krah's initials and his EMBA school.

Now, you, Hollingsworth, are right that indeed these factual two file properties don't proof the Pfluger-Letter's authorship of a certain person, so they wouldn't stand up in court.
But for an Internet forum they are very useful "circuмstantial evidence", making it evident who created that letter in the first instance.

OK Ethel, I'll give this one more shot since you are so adamant.

It just so happens I received a letter from Max Krah this very morning and I have attached it here.

Max Krah Letter to Vinny F

Please examine this letter and you will see, based on how you came to detect that your original letter was without a doubt created on Max's computer (a FACT, as you called it), that this has without a doubt come from his computer and was sent by Max Krah to me and cannot possibly have any other source. This is a hard fact and you will be happy to see that Max agrees with everything you have said and that this letter was written over a week ago, before you and I began this discussion.

I have also received permission from an undisclosed source to share it.

Also, and hopefully for the last time, I did not insinuate that the contents of your letter was a forgery. I can honestly believe that it faithfully represents a correspondence between +Pfluger and +Williamson. But I am nearly certain that your docx has been tampered with to make a point.