Author Topic: Fr. Niklaus Pflugers letter to Bishop Williamson (Read 22873 times)

hollingsworth · « **Reply #75 on:** April 17, 2013, 03:42:42 PM »

Vinny:

Quote

I do not think that His Excellency modified the header elements of Microsoft Word docuмent.

Nor do I. In fact, I was just wondering what the original form of the letter was, and how it was sent. Though I've had an emailed copy for a couple of years, I still have no idea about its original format, or how it was originally sent by Father to Bp. W. Hey, it may have been handwritten and sent by snail mail for all we know. :scratchchin:

VinnyF · « **Reply #76 on:** April 17, 2013, 03:47:21 PM »

Quote from: Quo Vadis Petre

Ethelred didn't say simply that. He said this:

Quote
This means that Krah created this letter in the first instance on his computer (or in his user-account on a SSPX computer), because MS-Word uses this user-name as creator tag when you create a new Word docuмent.

Not correct. The only thing MS Word puts in the Creator tag are the characters "MSWD".

John Grace · « **Reply #77 on:** April 17, 2013, 03:53:06 PM »

Quote from: ServusSpiritusSancti

Quote from: VinnyF
Quote from: ServusSpiritusSancti
Quote from: VinnyF
Quote from: ServusSpiritusSancti
Quote from: VinnyF
Quote from: John Grace
Is it all "internet rumour", VinnyF? You probably think it is.

John,

Why is it that when one exposes a potentially fabricated docuмent which has probably been altered to appear to nicely fit into a popular conspiracy theory, your first reaction is not "lets get to the truth" .. but rather "curse you for exposing the fabrication?"

Boy, Menzingen sure has you fooled, don't they?

I am just an engineer and it appears that someone tampered with a docuмent to ostensibly make it fit into the conspiracy. This entire thread was based on the great detective work that seemed to prove that this docuмent was purportedly written by Max and sent to Fr. Pfluger for publication. So if it turns out that this "proof" was fabricated, I wonder why and who would have to gain from it?

Read the (numerous) parts of the letter that kiss up to the Jews and compare them to Krah's comments about the Jews last year. The pro-Jєωιѕн junk in the letter sounds like something Krah would write.

I am not debating that. Your premise is that it sounds just like Krah and the original posting in this thread is that the "smoking gun" had been discovered buried in the header of this docuмent that absolutely linked it to Krah. And I am telling you that the "smoking gun" evidence was fabricated - that's all, just stating a fact.

Yeah, and Bishop Fellay is doing nothing wrong, the letter of the 37 French priests to Bishop Fellay was a hoax, Archbishop Lefebvre would have wanted a deal with Rome, etc.

The problem is, none of the above are facts, they're all lies. So where is your proof that the smoking gun provided by Ethelred is a "fabrication"? If you have no proof (and it seems to me that it is just your opinion) then it's not a fact.

Indeed. VinnyF is offering his opinion.

VinnyF · « **Reply #78 on:** April 17, 2013, 03:53:59 PM »

Quote from: hollingsworth

Vinny:
Quote
I do not think that His Excellency modified the header elements of Microsoft Word docuмent.

Nor do I. In fact, I was just wondering what the original form of the letter was, and how it was sent. Though I've had an emailed copy for a couple of years, I still have no idea about its original format, or how it was originally sent by Father to Bp. W. Hey, it may have been handwritten and sent by snail mail for all we know. :scratchchin:

I wouldn't be surprised if it were originally handwritten. That is typically the style of confidential communications between priests. If it were then I imagine that whomever created the Word docuмent though it best to leave some Maxie evidence that would easily be discovered by any lower-level sleuth. Not sure why that was important.

Ethel said that he received "permission" to publicize the private letter but never said who gave the permission (Pfluger + Williamson?).

Ethelred · « **Reply #79 on:** April 17, 2013, 03:57:24 PM »

Quote from: VinnyF

Quote from: Quo Vadis Petre
Ethelred didn't say simply that. He said this:

Quote
This means that Krah created this letter in the first instance on his computer (or in his user-account on a SSPX computer), because MS-Word uses this user-name as creator tag when you create a new Word docuмent.

Not correct. The only thing MS Word puts in the Creator tag are the characters "MSWD".

Not correct. See tag <dc:creator>Your name</dc:creator> in this MSDN article here, for example:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/office/bb264572%28v=office.12%29.aspx

Also see various docx exporters like Libreoffice etc. They all put the docuмent creator's user name into the creator tag.

I think you're "forgery" accusation is based on some misunderstanding. Happens all the time with the substandard Microsoft rubbish.

But really, when you claim that something is a "forgery", you really need to prove it and get your facts straight before claiming such a thing.

So I try to clear some of your misunderstandings in my next post.