Note: Abbreviations used on this page are as follows ...

• PasstheWORD is abbreviated as PTW;

• Jane Lead is abbreviated as JL;

• The editor at janelead.org, Diane Guerrero, is abbreviated as DG.
  

As highlighted above, the editor, Diane Guerrero (DG), at janelead.org implies the use of OCR technology on her alleged copies of JL's original manuscripts, which she claims to have used to produce the electronic files from which she began her edited, derivative renditions of Jane Lead's works.

When challenged by PTW, the editor refused to provide ANY proof that she even owned OCR software, or ANY samples of OCR output from ANY of the documents that had recently appeared at janelead.org which, we now believe, have been built upon the copyrighted, electronic, source files stolen from PTW. 

Read on...about why typical OCR software
simply doesn't work on the Jane Lead originals...

First, take a look at and attempt to read a few lines of a sample copy of an original printed page from the 17th century showing the printing-style and character-set that were typically used in the authentic originals published by Jane Lead back in the late 1600's.

Notice the unusual rendering of the character, "s", which looks different depending on where it appears within a word.  This sample (shown below) is actually a fairly "clean" copy from which to work.

PasstheWord (PTW) determined early-on in their labors that modern OCR technology does NOT sort out this printing-style very well... and we'll show you why in two examples.   In the experience of PTW, many of the originals from which copies were preserved in the past (either on microfilm or otherwise) are not as clear as the above sample.

This is a xerographic reproduction of more typical page from an original book published by Jane Lead.  Notice the ink smudging that is prevalent. 

Now here is an actual OCR scan of the left page of the above text (done at PTW for the purpose of this review), to show an example of what the OCR'd, MSWord output (that is produced by the OCR software) looks like...

 Original source page is on the left   —    Output (as an MS Word .doc file) from OCR software is on the right...

Would any of you want to spend the time that would be required to clean up this mess (shown on the right) in your word processor so that it matches the exact text from the source page on the left? 

It would obviously take far less time to type the page, character by character, which is what the volunteers at PasstheWORD chose to do, when they undertook the long process of transcribing the twenty original manuscripts of JL's works, which have been on-line at passtheword.org for over 12 years.  This is why DG's scanning claim raised a "red flag" for those at PTW.

Here is a final page sample — this time of an aged, wrinkled and weathered page, which had been microfilmed and preserved by faithful hands sometime in the past...

Below is an attempt to OCR this same page (done at PTW for the purpose of this review) ...not only does the software fail to recognize the continuity of the text at the page wrinkles, but the output is an incoherent mixture of garbled characters of varying sizes and font styles!

So as a result of the OCR scan, all you have is the output of bits and pieces of the wrinkled page which would have to be reconciled with the other fragments;  all the word-scanning errors would need to be found and corrected before you could put the sentences back together so that you would have a rendering in electronic form of the text of the entire sample-page put back together with the sentences in their proper order.  Please take a close look at this, up close, and envision the enormity of the task...

Again, we submit, that when faced with the task of producing an accurate transcription of this page, an honest person would choose to type it directly rather than to waste time with typical OCR Software...that is, unless it had already been transcribed and you could take a big shortcut...just help yourself to a copy, and then tell everyone that you had simply "scanned the original".

 

The Details of DG's alleged Methodology

In February of 2009, when PTW challenged DG's scanning claim, she refused to provide any proof of her methodology.  If there was one, why didn't she simply supply it?  If DG had nothing to hide, why not openly, obediently and honestly answer the concerns that were put to her?  Instead, she stopped communicating directly with PTW in March of 2009. 

By August of 2009, however, she had posted on-line at janelead.org, an inventive detailed explanation of how she supposedly accomplished the "scanning" of originals into electronic form. 

At the beginning of that document DG shared her experience with trying to type the text: "I typed all day long for two weeks and ended up with a severe case of tendonitis in my right thumb and wrist" which disability, we are supposed to believe, led her to invent her method  for scanning all the manuscript copies and convert them into text (see excerpts below).  

Below are screen captures from her on-line document.  Please read Diane Guerrero's explanation with a spirit of discernment.

Excerpts from Diane Guerrero's 2009 On-Line Document Describing her Scanning Method

Seriously??  This is the elaborate, head-spinning description of the editor's lengthy process which she allegedly used to scan each original page into electronic text.  DG's imaginative process employs an incredible, 100-step macro and many manual passes by the editor on each and every word, of each and every sentence, of each and every paragraph, of each and every scanned page — is this story really believable? ... or is it just an attempt to cover up her theft which PTW had exposed. 

When you consider that there are thousands of JL's original pages to convert into electronic form, wouldn't you choose to transcribe them one word at a time rather than attempt to use typical OCR technology?   When PTW experimented with it, the use of OCR was counterproductive; it took far longer to achieve an accurate electronic rendering of the text with OCR software than it did by simply typing the text!  

  UPDATE:  It may be of interest to know that Diane Guerrero's description (shown above) of her methodology first appeared at janelead.org in August of 2009, but it had disappeared by April of 2010 for her own reasons, but her website continued to say that all manuscripts were scanned by her and converted into text.  By the 13th of May, 2012, her home-page was saying that she had personally scanned or typed all manuscript copies into text.  Later that month, when she changed to a commercial format for her website [where there were no more free downloads or promised free booklets, but everything was for sale], the commercial website still repeated her new claim that she had personally scanned or typed all the manuscript copies into text.  It wasn't long before she changed back to offering free downloads after we pointed out her broken promises, but the promised free booklet offer never reappeared.  In 2014 she was back to saying that all of the JL microfilm copies had been scanned and converted into text!  Hmmmm.

 

After reviewing this report, what does your heart tell you about the validity of DG's scanning claim, and her truthfulness as the editor of these illegal SDV editions?  Is her word to be trusted? 

Beloved Reader, beware of what you find at janelead.org... and also of DG's added deception (from Summer, 2012 through late 2014), an exact duplicate website, called spiritsday.org.

The documents to be found on both of DG's websites have been altered, and they cannot be counted on as being true to the meaning of Jane Lead's authentic originals.

Links to the other evidentiary reports can be found at the bottom of the Fair Warning Reports Page.