※ 資料出處：https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Bvr-97ehNo。由原始字幕轉錄之文句尚未定稿（校對錯誤、英式英文、標點符號、中文翻譯等），僅供參考，之後將會繼續修正。
4-3 personal copy of the original thesis
0:17→On June 12th, 2019, at 9:08, Alex Huang one of Ing-Wen Tsai's spokespersons at the time emailed Clive Wilson and copied Fang-Long Shih offering to provide both an electron copy and a hardbound copy of Tsai's doctoral thesis to LSE.
2019年6月12日上午9點08分，蔡英文當時的發言人之一黃重諺向Clive Wilson發送電郵，副本寄給施芳瓏，提議把蔡的博士論文電子版和精裝本提供給LSE。（編按：Clive Wilson為LSE圖書館諮詢服務經理。）
0:35→About an hour later, at 9:56, Wilson informed Huang that: "if there is an electronic copy, we can almost certainly catalog it from that and make it available if it is a decent copy."
大約一小時後，Wilson於9點56分通知黃：「如果有電子版，我們幾乎肯定可以從中加以編目；如果版本還不錯，便可供人使用。」
0:49→It is unclear what would make an electronic copy of Tsai's thesis decent.
目前尚不清楚是什麼讓蔡論文的電子版品質還不錯。
0:54→Scanning quality? or authenticity?
掃描品質？還是可信賴的本質？
0:58→Wilson emailed Huang again at 10:43 showing that LSE didn't care:
Wilson於10點43分再次向黃發送了電郵，顯示LSE對此並不關心：
1:04→"LSE is holding back a press statement in the hope we can get the (electronic copy) thesis today.
「LSE把希望我們今天就可以拿到論文（電子版）的新聞稿攔住了。
1:09→Can you let me know if this will be possible please?
您能讓我知曉這是否可行嗎？
1:11→If we can make the electronic copy available at LSETO with other LSE thesis, we can link to it, and hopefully end the speculation"
如果我們可以在LSETO上讓電子版與其他LSE論文一起供人使用，我們就可以連結到它，並且有望結束猜測。」（編按：LSETO為LSE Theses Online線上論文系統的縮寫。）
1:23→It appears that the devised plan was to make the electronic copy of Tsai's doctoral thesis available at LSE with LSE's other PhD thesis and add a link to Tsai's doctoral thesis in LSETO to the Press statement to show the existence of Tsai's doctoral thesis.
看來，制定的計畫是讓蔡的博士論文電子版與LSE的其他博士論文一起在LSE供人使用，並且把LSETO上的蔡之博士論文鏈接到新聞稿中，以顯示其博士論文的存在。
1:38→The team believed that would end the speculation.
團隊人員相信這將結束猜測。
1:45→Shih responded at 6:12 p.m.
施在下午6點12分回覆：
1:49→Tsai declined to release the thesis online through LSETO.
蔡拒絕透過LSETO在網上發布論文。
1:52→The reason was: "to make the electronic copy available at LSETO with other LSE theses will not end the speculation, but invite many more 'irrational' speculations from anti-Tsai's camp."
原因是；「讓電子版與LSE的其他論文一起在LSETO供人使用，不僅不會結束猜測，反而會引發反蔡陣營更多『非理性』的猜測。」
2:03→Shih asked if it was OK that the Press statement only mentioned the arrival of the hard-bound copy of the thesis.
施問：新聞稿中是否可以只提論文精裝本的到來？
2:13→Shih then informed Wilson: "the Presidential Office is ok to send you the electronic copy now."
然後施向Wilson告知：「總統辦公室現在可以將電子版發給你。」
2:17→It indicates that Shih believed the electronic copy was ready to be emailed to LSE immediately.
這表示施相信電子版已經準備好立即透過電郵發送給LSE。
2:27→Huang then confirmed decision and concerns the electronic copy could only be used for an internal check because it was indeed likely going to invite more irrational speculations.
而後黃確認了這項決定，並且在意一件事：電子版只能用於內部覆核，因為它確實可能會引發更多非理性的猜測。
2:38→Regarding Tsai's refusal to disclose her thesis online no records show any suspicions or concerns were raised at the LSE end.
關於蔡拒絕在網上公開她的論文，沒有記錄顯示在LSE那邊有引起任何的懷疑或擔憂。
2:48→In addition, Huang changed the plan:
此外，黃改變了計畫：
2:52→"We are sending the hardbound editions of the subject thesis tomorrow and I believe it will arrive by next week.
「我們明天會把主題論文的精裝本寄出去，我相信下週就能到。
2:56→As for the electronic copy, we will email it to you by Friday."
至於電子版，我們將在週五之前透過電郵發送給您。」
3:04→It suggests that Tsai had at least two paper copies of her doctoral thesis.
這表明蔡的博士論文至少有兩份紙本。
3:10→June 12th, 2019 was a Wednesday.
2019年6月12日是星期三。
3:10→One copy would be posted to LSE the next day, June 13th, 2019.
一份副本將於第二天，2019年6月13日，寄去LSE。
3:17→An electronic copy would be made from the other paper copy on June 13th, 2019, and emailed to LSE on June 14th, 2019.
2019年6月13日，將用另一份紙本製作電子版，並於2019年6月14日透過電郵發送給LSE。
3:30→Between June 12th and June 14th, Wilson was dedicated to fending off inquiries about Tsai's non-existing doctoral thesis.
6月12日至6月14日期間，Wilson努力迴避有關蔡博士論文不存在的查詢。
3:38→He told Huang that he was pleased to note that Tsai won the party nomination.
他告訴黃，他很高興地注意到蔡贏得了黨內提名。
3:44→Daniel O'Connor's email on June 14th, 2019, at 17:24, reveals LSE's plan in response to the query about Tsai's non-existing doctoral thesis.
Daniel O'Connor於2019年6月14日17點24分發送的電郵中，透露了LSE針對有人質疑蔡博士論文不存在的回應計畫。（編按：Daniel O'Connor是LSE的媒體關係主管。）
3:54→The first stage was releasing press statements and general responses to confirm Tsai's 1984 PhD degree.
第一階段是發布新聞稿和一般性回應，確認蔡於1984年獲得博士學位。
4:01→The second stage was receiving Tsai's PhD thesis in the library and then letting inquirers know that LSE had it.
第二階段是把蔡的博士論文收到圖書館中，然後讓詢問者知道LSE保有著它。
4:08→It should have been the other way around.
其實剛好相反。
4:11→In addition, the authenticity of Tsai's thesis needed to be verified.
此外，蔡的論文真實性也有待驗證。
4:18→However, on June 14th, 2019, Wilson did not receive the electronic copy as promised.
然而，Wilson在2019年6月14日並沒有收到承諾的電子版。
4:24→He emailed Huang in the late evening at 10:02 p.m.:
他在入夜的10點02分給黃發了一封電郵：
4:27→"May I still expect an electronic copy today?
「我今天還能期待收到電子版嗎？
4:30→The sooner we have a copy to verify the student record. the sooner we can make a more robust statement about its existence.
我們越早有副本來核實學籍卡，就越早能夠對其存在做出更有力的聲明。
4:38→An electronic copy will only be used for verification－we are not allowed to make it available to other people without specific permission from president Tsai."
電子版僅用於核實——未經蔡總統特別許可，我們不會允許讓他人使用。」
4:47→It indicates that Wilson thought the delay was caused by Tsai's concern about the public release of her thesis.
這顯示，Wilson認為延誤的原因是蔡對於論文的公開發表是有所擔憂的。
4:56→On June 17th, 2019, at 9:59, instead of an electronic copy of Tsai's thesis, Wilson received an electronic copy of the title page and the acknowledgements page to verify the student record.
2019年6月17日上午9點59分，Wilson沒有收到蔡的論文電子版，替代的是標題頁和致謝頁的電子版，用來核實學籍卡。
5:07→The title page disclosed the thesis title and thesis submission date.
標題頁披露了論文標題和論文提交日期。
5:12→It was 1983, not 1984.
時間是1983年，不是1984年。
5:16→The acknowledgements page disclosed the identity of Tsai's supervisor.
致謝頁揭露了蔡的指導老師身份。
5:24→In the email Huang also informed Wilson that: "a printed copy of the thesis will be posted to you by this week."
在電郵中，黃還告知Wilson：「一份紙本論文將於本週寄給你。」
5:33→An electronic copy of Tsai's old thesis can only be made by scanning a paper copy.
蔡的舊論文電子版只能透過掃描紙本的方式製作。
5:38→The electronic copy would not be ready until the paper copy was.
直到紙本就緒，電子版還沒準備好。
5:41→On June 17th, 2019, when Tsai's office emailed the title page and the acknowledgements page to LSE the printed copy of Tsai's doctoral thesis was not ready to be sent out let alone the electronic copy.
2019年6月17日，當蔡的辦公室透過電郵將標題頁和致謝頁發送給LSE時，蔡的紙本博士論文尚未準備好發出，更不用說電子版了。
5:58→At 11:18 Wilson informed his colleagues at LSE that he received the title page and the acknowledgements page, instead of an electronic copy of Tsai's thesis.
11點18分，Wilson通知LSE的同事，他收到的是蔡的論文標題頁和致謝頁，而非電子版。
6:08→Wilson's comment was: "Not sure how much these help at the moment."
Wilson的評語是：「目前不確定這些有多大幫助。」
6:14→Wilson's email on June 20th, 2019, at 15:01, shows that Fang-Long Shih helped chase Tsai's thesis for LSE.
Wilson於2019年6月20日15點01分發送的郵件顯示，施芳瓏會幫助LSE努力爭取蔡的論文。
6:25→By then LSE still hoped that the promised copy of Tsai's thesis would kill most of the speculations.
那時，LSE仍然希望所承諾的蔡論文副本能夠打消大部分的猜測。
6:34→On June 24th, 2019, Cerny's comment on the authenticity of Tsai's thesis was: "although it almost certainly is valid, we can't prove that this is what she submitted in 1983."
2019年6月24日，Cerny對蔡論文真實性的評論是：「儘管它幾乎肯定是有效的，但我們無法證明這就是她在1983年提交的論文。」（編按：Marcus Cerny是LSE博士學院副總監，乃2019年調查的主要負責人。）
6:48→That was after Cerny was alerted about Tsai's claim that her doctoral thesis was worth two PhDs.
在此之前，Cerny已被提醒：蔡聲稱她的博士論文值兩個博士學位。（編按：蔡英文在2011年的原句是：......要討論是給妳一個博士學位、還是給妳兩個博士學位......最後他們決定給我1.5個學位！）
6:57→3 days before LSE received the hard-bound copy of Tsai's thesis on June 27th, 2019, and 2 days before Cerny personally reviewed Tsai's LSE student file on June 26th, 2019, at the time Cerny had no opportunity to review Tsai's thesis and had not verified Simeon Underwood's confirmation of the validity of Tsai's 1984 PhD degree, based on Tsai's LSE student file.
這是在LSE於2019年6月27日收到蔡的論文精裝本前三天，以及Cerny於2019年6月26日親自審查蔡英文的LSE學生檔案的前兩天，當時Cerny還沒有機會審查蔡的論文，也沒有根據蔡的LSE學生檔案來就Simeon Underwood所謂蔡1984年合法取得博士學位的說法加以核實。（編按：Simeon Underwood在2015年擔任LSE註冊主任，是當時調查的主要負責人）
7:26→At 5:14 p.m. Wilson couldn't wait any longer he emailed to Huang check in on the status of the printed copy.
下午5點14分，Wilson再也等不及了，他給黃發了一封電郵，確認紙本的狀況。
7:35→Based on Huang's response at 6:17 p.m., the hard-bound copy was shipped out on June 21st, Friday at the earliest or June 24th Monday at the latest.
根據黃在下午6點17分的回覆，精裝本最早於6月21日星期五、最晚於6月24日星期一寄出。
7:49→Tsai did not have a copy of her doctoral thesis that could be sent to LSE when the offer was made on June 12th, 2019.
在2019年6月12日提議時，蔡還沒有可以送到LSE的博士論文版本。
7:57→It took 9 to 12 days to make one.
製作一份需要9到12天。
8:02→On June 28th, 2019, at 12:11, Wilson reported to his colleagues that he received one soft ？bound and one hard bound of Tsai's thesis the day before.
2019年6月28日12點11分，Wilson告知同事們，他在前一天收到了蔡的論文，一份平裝本和一份精裝本。
8:10→He noted both were photocopies showing that LSE did not expect to receive Tsai's doctoral thesis in the form of a photocopy.
他指出兩份都是影印本，顯示LSE沒料到會以影印本的形式收到蔡的博士論文。
8:20→Furthermore, no records show that two copies of Tsai's thesis in two different forms raised any suspicions of the authenticity of Tsai's thesis.
此外，沒有任何記錄顯示蔡的論文存在兩份不同形式的版本，從而引發任何對蔡論文真實性的懷疑。
8:32→Wilson's email also initiated a group discussion about how to catalog Tsai's hard-bound copy.
Wilson的電郵也啟動一場關於如何將蔡的精裝本加以編目的小組討論。
8:36→Wilson was one of the few at LSE who had read Tsai's LSE student file.
Wilson是LSE少數閱讀過蔡學生檔案的人之一。
8:41→Regarding the authenticity of the hardbound copy of Tsai's thesis Wilson's assessment was:
對於蔡的論文精裝本真實性，Wilson的評價是：
8:47→"There are two draft chapters and an outline on the student record and—in my humble opinion—there is enough of those in the thesis to suggest it is good.
「學生記錄中有兩章草稿和一份大綱——依我拙見——論文中的內容足以顯示它不錯。
8:55→And besides, even with the whole wheel of government behind you it would still be a rather neat trick to fake or rewrite a thesis as if it was done in 1983 and in the same font as the draft chapters."
此外，即使有政府在後面全力支持來偽造或重寫一篇論文，就好像它是1983年做的，並使用相同的字體作為章節草稿，可算是技巧高超。」（編按：隨後附上笑臉符號！）
9:10→The outline was submitted in March 1981 2 years and four months before Tsai submitted her doctoral thesis for PhD exam in June 1983.
大綱提交於1981年3月，是蔡1983年6月提交應試版博士論文的前兩年零四個月。
9:20→Those two draft chapters were submitted in July 1981 2 years before Tsai submitted her doctoral thesis for PhD exam.
那兩章草稿提交於1981年7月，是蔡提交應試版博士論文的前兩年。
9:32→At 14:09, Cerny stated that: "For the record, I am actually satisfied that this is an accurate version of the thesis examined (but I obviously could not prove it it)."
Cerny在14點09分表示：「為了記錄，我實際上很滿意這是論文的準確版本受到審查（但我顯然無法證明這一點）。」
9:40→It was 2 days after Cerny read Tsai's LSE student file on June 26th, 2019, and knew that UoL had issued a letter of certification to certify that Tsai's PhD was awarded after submitting a thesis title.
這是在Cerny於2019年6月26日閱讀蔡的LSE學生檔案後的兩天，業已得知倫敦大學出具了一封證明信，證明蔡的博士學位在提交論文題目後獲得的。（編按：證明信上的出具時間是1987年，並未提到繳交論文。）
9:57→On July ju 9th, 2019, one day before the LSE Library catalogued the hard-bound copy inquiries about Tsai's non-existing doctoral thesis kept coming.
2019年7月9日，在LSE圖書館對精裝本開始進行編目的前一天，不斷有人詢問蔡那並不存在的博士論文。
10:09→Cerny's response was: "I'm pretty relaxed about this given that there is no question that the thesis existed and was examined."
Cerny的反應是：「我對此很放心，因為論文曾經存在和被審查是毫無疑問的。」
10:18→Around July 13th, 2019, Tsai's thesis became searchable at the LSE Library online catalog.
大約是2019年7月13日，蔡的論文可以在LSE圖書館的線上目錄中搜尋到。
10:24→It was catalogued as a dissertation and PhD thesis.
它被歸類為學位論文和博士論文。
10:27→The date was 1983, not 1984, and the creation date was 2019.
時間是1983、而非1984年，建檔日期則是2019年。
10:35→A note describes the thesis as "a photocopy of Ing-Wen Tsai's personal copy of the original thesis presented to the library in 2019".
有個備註把論文描述為「蔡英文於2019年向圖書館提交的原始論文之個人版影本」。
10:45→On July 19th, 2019, in a brief note prepared for the LSE school management committee led by Minouche Shafik former LSE president and vice Chancellor O'Connor reported that:
2019年7月19日，在一份為LSE前院長兼副校長Minouche Shafik領導的LSE管理委員會準備的簡短說明中，O'Connor報告說：
10:57→"Although there was no reason to believe the thesis would be different to the original 1984 submission we cannot be absolutely certain it is identical, as we do not have an original copy to compare."
「儘管沒有理由相信該論文與1984年提交的原件有所不同，但我們不能百分百確定是相同的，因為我們沒有原件可供比較。」
11:11→It shows that the team knew that Tsai's final hardbound copies should be submitted in 1984, not in 1983, as shown on the title page of Tsai's thesis.
這表明團隊知道，蔡最終的精裝本應該在1984年提交，而不是像蔡論文標題頁上顯示的1983年。
11:24→On August 5th, 2019, Hwan Lin flew to London and spent three days in the LSE Women's Library reviewing the photo copy of Tsai's personal copy of the original thesis created in 2019.
2019年8月5日，林環牆飛往倫敦，在LSE婦女圖書館花了三天時間去觀看蔡建檔於2019年的原始論文之個人版本的複印件。
11:38→He noticed: "dark shadows along the edges of or at the corner of every page, except for the very first two leaves (the title page and the acknowledgements page), which were free of any dark shadows."
他注意到：「每一頁的邊緣或角落有黑色陰影，但只有論文最前面兩頁例外，沒有任何黑影。」（編按：標題頁與致謝頁。）
11:52→Though unbeknown to Lin that the title page and the acknowledgements page were emailed to LSE before the hardbound copy he conjectured that the hard-bound copy was a compilation of pages copied from another dissertation and bound into a hard cover book as an imposture and the acknowledgements page was a retype.
不過，林不知道標題頁和致謝頁曾在精裝本之前用電郵寄給LSE，而他推測精裝本是從另一本論文影印頁面的彙編書籍、並以硬殼裝幀的冒牌貨，而致謝頁是重新打字過的。
12:11→Lin paid special attention to the acknowledgements page because it disclosed the name of Tsai's supervisor.
林特別關注了致謝頁面，因為其中披露了蔡的指導老師名字。
12:20→He also noticed six missing pages, a large number of typos, wrong footnote format, an inaccurate table of contents, and no overall concluding chapter.
他還注意到缺少六頁、大量的拼字錯誤、錯誤的腳註格式、不準確的目錄、以及沒有總結的章節。（編按：論文缺乏總結，似乎首先是由徐永泰提出的！）
12:32→Yung-Tai Hsu is a Taiwanese American with a PhD from the University of Oxford.
徐永泰是一位出身台灣的美國人，擁有牛津大學的博士學位。
12:39→He made two trips to the LSE Women's Library on September 13th and 16, 2019, respectively.
他分別在2019年9月13和16日兩次前往LSE婦女圖書館。
12:45→The World Journal published his review of Tsai's personal copy in North America on September 18th, 2019.
2019年9月18日，《世界日報》在北美發表了他對蔡個人版本的評論。
12:54→Hsu also noticed the Dark Shadows along the edges and suspected that the hardbound copy was a product of fax and photocopy.
徐也注意到黑影竄邊，並懷疑精裝本是傳真和影印的產物。
13:02→He was surprised by the poor quality of the photocopying job.
他對影印品質不佳感到驚訝。
13:07→Unlike Lin's observation Hsu found that the acknowledgements page the abstract and the introduction were free of Dark Shadows.
與林的觀察不同，徐發現致謝頁、論文摘要、緒論都沒有黑色陰影。
13:16→These Pages were numbered differently from the rest of Tsai's thesis.
這些頁面的編碼與蔡論文的其餘部分不同：
13:21→The acknowledgements page was unnumbered and the introduction was numbered with lowercase Roman numerals.
致謝頁沒有編碼，緒論的頁碼為小寫的羅馬數字。
13:29→Dennis Peng is the former dean of the Graduate Institute of Journalism at the National Taiwan University now running personal media on YouTube.
彭文正是國立台灣大學新聞研究所的前院長，現在於YouTube上經營個人媒體。
13:36→Based on Lin and Hsu's observation, Peng suspected that Tsai had a bound thesis;
根據林和徐的觀察，彭懷疑蔡有一份裝訂好的論文；
13:41→She was unwilling to disclose because it would reveal a thesis title different from unfair Trade Practices and Safeguard actions.
她之所以不願意公開，是因為這會暴露另一個論文標題，與unfair Trade Practices and Safeguard actions不同。
13:52→Under immense pressure on September 23rd, 2019, a Press Conference was held by Tsai's office in the Presidential Office Building in Taipei.
在巨大的壓力下，蔡的辦公室於2019年9月23日在台北的總統府舉行記者會。
14:03→To prove the validity of Tsai's 1984 PhD UoL and LSE tried very hard to prove the existence of Tsai's doctoral thesis in the Senate House Library and the IALS Library.
為了證明蔡於1984年取得博士學位的有效性，應該由倫敦大學和LSE竭盡全力證明蔡的博士論文曾經存在於倫大總圖和IALS圖書館。
14:15→However, in the press conference Tsai's office displayed the manuscript of Tsai's thesis to prove the existence of Tsai's doctoral thesis.
然而在記者會上，蔡的辦公室展示了她的論文原稿，以證明蔡博士論文的存在。
14:23→It was unbound and kept in a box.
它沒有裝訂，放在一個盒子裡。
14:30→（另見 https://www.facebook.com/presidentialoffice.tw/videos/603332983534461/）
「好，我先簡單說明：所以各位看得到，這是原稿。原稿為什麼會沒有裝訂呢？很簡單，因為當年只能用影印的，所以你如果一本把它裝訂了，你後面還要再拆開來影印事實上是有困難，因為我們沒有其他的儲存設備。好，這個待會兒會後，各位可以來拍攝。簡單說明：這本博士論文，它過去，這個原稿經過了三十五年，當時沒有任何的儲存設備，但也經過了多次的翻印，所以各位可看到歲月的痕跡。現在LSE圖書館的版本，就是我們寄還給它的版本，中間有缺六頁的部分，確實是在翻印的過程當中有疏漏，但經過相關的查找，其實我們相關的其他年代的翻印本可以看到完整的頁次。」
15:22→The speaker in the video clip is Alex Huang.
影片中的演講者是黃重諺。
15:24→He admitted that six pages were missing from the hard-bound copy collected by the LSE Library.
他承認LSE圖書館收藏的精裝本缺少六頁。
15:32→One PowerPoint slide used in the press conference disclosed that the hardbound copy collected by the LSE Library in June 2019 was made by photocopying another photocopy, leaving traces of photocopying.
記者會上使用的一張投影片透露了LSE圖書館於2019年6月收藏的精裝本是透過影印另一份複印件而製作出來的，留下了影印的痕跡。
15:48→If the hard-bound copy had been made by photocopying another photocopy of the loose leaf manuscript, it would not have left traces of photocopying.
如果精裝本是透過影印另一份活頁原稿而製作出來，那麼它就不會留下影印痕跡。
16:01→Based on Yung-Tai Hsu's observation, the acknowledgements page, the abstract, and the introduction were free of dark shadows.
根據徐永泰的觀察，致謝頁、摘要和緒論中沒有暗影
16:08→With Tsai's manuscript photocopying, binding, and adding a new acknowledgements page, new abstract, and new introduction did not need 9 to 12 days.
把蔡的原稿影印、裝訂，並且添加新的致謝頁、新的摘要和新的緒論，不需要9到12天。
16:20→It was more likely that not that Tsai had the manuscript of her doctoral thesis, but could not find it and did not try to find it, after the offer was made to LSE on June 12th, 2019, and before the hardbound copy was shipped to the LSE Library on June 21st, or June 24th 2019.
更有可能的是，蔡並沒有博士論文原稿，而且在2019年6月12日向LSE提議之後、2019年6月21日或6月24日將精裝本送至LSE圖書館之前，既無法找到它，也沒有嘗試去尋找。
16:40→The traces of photocopying confirm the existence of the dark shadows observed by Lin and Hsu.
影印的痕跡證實了林和徐觀察到的黑影存在。
16:45→The hard-bound copy collected by the LSE Library was not a photocopy of the photocopy of the loose leaf manuscript, but a photocopy of another bound photocopy of Tsai's thesis.
LSE圖書館收藏的精裝本並非活頁原稿複印件的影本，而是蔡另一份裝訂成冊的論文複印件的影本。
16:55→Tsai was unwilling to disclose that bound photocopy of her thesis in the press conference.
蔡在記者會上不願意公開她那本裝訂好的論文影本。
17:05→On November 30th, 2022, to prove the existence of Tsai's doctoral thesis to the Taiwan Taipei District Court, Tsai's attorney presented the manuscript of Tsai's doctoral thesis to the court as evidence, not that bound photocopy of Tsai's thesis.
2022年11月30日，蔡的律師為了向台灣台北地方法院證明蔡的博士論文存在，向法院作為證據展示的乃是蔡的博士論文原稿，而非蔡裝訂成冊的論文影印本。
17:23→As Peng suspected, Tsai was indeed unwilling to disclose that bound photocopy of her doctoral thesis, not even to the court for her criminal defamation case.
正如彭所懷疑的那樣，蔡確實不願意透露她那本裝訂好的博士論文複印件，甚至沒有搬上其刑事誹謗案的法庭。
17:34→Since that bound photocopy could not be disclosed, Tsai was forced to disclose the manuscript to prove the existence of her doctoral thesis.
由於那份裝訂好的複印本無法公開，蔡被迫公開原稿來證明其博士論文的存在。
17:41→She most likely found the manuscript as a cover up shortly before September 23rd, 2019.
她很可能在2019年9月23日之前不久才找到這份原稿，拿來作為掩護。
17:49→After the press conference on September 24th, 2019, Tsai told the media that:
在2019年9月24日的一場記者會後，蔡對媒體表示：
17:57→（另見https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SH12gOd-iWc）
「去確認嘛！老實講，我為了找這個論文也翻箱倒櫃，把家裡的倉庫都找了，找了半天才找到了。」
18:10→Doctoral thesis is submitted for the award of a PhD degree.
博士論文的提交是為了獲得博士學位。
18:12→Once the PhD degree is awarded, there is no need to make new copies of the doctoral thesis.
一旦獲得博士學位，就無需製作新的博士論文版本。
18:20→Most, if not all, PhD students keep several duplicates of their final examine thesis submitted for the final PhD award.
即使不是全部，大多數的博士生都會保留幾份他們為了獲得最終博士學位而提交的最後審核通過之論文複製品。
18:30→However, according to Huang's explanation, Tsai did not keep duplicates of her doctoral thesis because there was no storage tool in the early 1980s, and a bound thesis had to be taken apart in order to make new copies.
然而根據黃的解釋，蔡沒有保留她博士論文的複製品，因為在1980年代初沒有儲存工具；為了製作新的副本，必須將裝訂好的論文拆開。
18:42→Instead, Tsai kept the manuscript of her doctoral thesis and for unfathomable reasons.
蔡反倒是保留了她的博士論文原稿，原因令人費解。
18:47→She photocopied the manuscript several times to make new copies after earning her PhD in 1984.
1984年獲得博士學位後，她數次影印原稿來製作新的副本。
18:55→Some copies were still in Tsai's possession in 2019, allowing her to find those six missing pages.
在2019年，蔡仍然擁有一些副本，這讓她找到那缺失的六頁。
19:04→Tsai had at least one bound photocopy of her doctoral thesis when the offer was made to LSE on June 12th, 2019.
當2019年6月12日向LSE提議時，蔡的手上至少有一份裝訂好的博士論文影印本。
19:12→But Tsai chose not to send that bound photocopy to the LSE Library for collection on June 13, 2019, as promised by Alex Huang.
但是蔡並沒有像黃重諺所承諾的那樣，選擇於2019年6月13日將裝訂好的影印本寄給LSE圖書館收藏。
19:20→Instead, Tsai's office spent 9 or 12 days photocopying that bound photocopy, binding the photocopied leaves into the hard-bound copy, and shipping the final product to LSE on June 21st, or June 24th, 2019.
反之，蔡的辦公室花了9到12天的時間影印了那裝訂好的複印件，將影印的紙張裝訂成精裝本，並在2019年6月21日或6月24日將最終成品運到LSE。
19:42→Why on August 26th, 2021, De-Fen Ho disclosed one document the Ministry of Education provided her on June 3rd, 2021?
為什麼賀德芬在2021年8月26日將教育部於2021年6月3日提供給她的一份文件揭露出來？
19:51→It was provided in response to an order of the Taipei High Administrative Court under the freedom of government information act.
這是回應台北高等行政法院根據《政府資訊公開法》所作出的命令而提供的。
20:00→The document was Tsai's National Chengchi University teacher qualification review CV dated September 28th, 1984, submitted to the Ministry of Education on December 8th, 1984, for the qualification review of Tsai's position as an associate professor at Chengchi University.
這份文件為1984年9月28日蔡的政大教師資格審查履歷表，於1984年12月8日提交教育部，為的是蔡擔任政大副教授進行資格審查。
20:17→In the CV, Tsai hand wrote that the title of her doctoral thesis was "Law of Subsidies, Dumping and Market Safeguards ", not "Unfair Trade Practices and Safeguard actions ".
蔡在履歷表中寫道，她的博士論文題目是Law of Subsidies, Dumping and Market Safeguards，而非Unfair Trade Practices and Safeguard actions。
20:31→Tun-Han Chang, one of Tsai's spokespersons, released his response in the late Sunday evening of August 29th, 2021.
張惇涵，蔡的發言人之一，於2021年8月29日星期天的夜間發表回應。
20:39→He did not deny the authenticity of Tsai's CV, but argued that Tsai's 1983 doctoral thesis consisted of three parts.
他沒有否認蔡履歷表的真實性，但辯稱蔡1983年的博士論文是由三個部分組成的。
20:48→The newly revealed thesis title "Law of Subsidies, Dumping and Market Safeguards " was the title of part two of Tsai's doctoral thesis.
新近揭露的論文題目Law of Subsidies, Dumping and Market Safeguards乃是蔡的博士論文第二部分的標題。
20:56→Part two constituted the central part of Tsai's doctoral thesis, 237 pages out of a 365 page thesis.
第二部分構成蔡的博士論文核心部分，365頁的論文中佔了237頁。
21:07→In other words, the doctoral thesis submitted to the Ministry of Education around September 1984 had a different title page, different table of contents, different abstract, and different introduction, and no part one and no part three of the hardbound copy collected by the LSE Library.
換句話說，1984年9月左右提交給教育部的博士論文有著不一樣的標題頁、不一樣的目錄、不一樣的摘要、以及不一樣的緒論，而且也沒有LSE圖書館收藏之精裝本中的第一部分和第三部分。
21:27→The September 1984 edition of Tsai's doctoral thesis might have been the bound photocopy of Tsai's doctoral thesis from which the hardbound copy collected by the LSE Library was made.
蔡1984年9月版的論文或許是蔡博士論文的裝訂影本，而LSE圖書館收藏的精裝本則是由此製造出來的。
21:37→However, those six missing pages (page 5 through 10) in chapter 1 (part one) were not part of the September 1984 Edition to begin.
然而，（第一部分）第一章中缺少的六頁（第5至第10頁）從一開始就不屬於1984年9月版。
21:50→Tsai had other old bound photocopies of her thesis, allowing her to find those six missing pages, but none could be shipped out to the the LSE Library for collection on June 13th, 2019.
蔡有其他曾裝訂好的論文複印件，讓她找到那缺失的六頁，但是沒有一本可以在2019年6月13日運到LSE圖書館收藏。
22:01→Tsai's office had 9 to 12 days to produce a new hardbound copy, but the quality of the photocopying job was poor.
蔡的辦公室有9到12天的時間來製作新的精裝本，但是影印工作的品質很差。
22:10→It indicates that Tsai's office had much more work than a simple photocopying and binding job.
這顯示蔡的辦公室遠不止於簡單的影印和裝訂工作。
22:17→In the press conference, Alex Huang also announced that a digital copy of Tsai's personal copy would be available online through the National Central Library in Taiwan.
黃重諺在記者會上也宣布，蔡個人版本的數位版將透過台灣國立中央圖書館在線上取得。
22:26→On September 27th, 2019, at 9:54, Clive Wilson informed his colleagues about the news.
2019年9月27日9點54分，Clive Wilson向他的同事們通報了這個新聞。
22:33→The email also indicated that Tsai's office also offered LSE a digital copy and a replacement printed copy that did not have the missing pages.
電郵還指出，蔡的辦公室也向LSE提供一份數位版、以及一份沒有頁面缺失、作為替換的紙本。
22:45→Daniel O'Connor responded at 10:01:
Daniel O'Connor在10點01分回覆道：
22:45→ "I assume you mean the new copy will include the missing pages?
「我猜你的意思是新版將包含缺少的頁面？」
22:50→It indicates that LSE knew that the hard-bound copy collected by the LSE Library had some missing pages, and it hoped to receive a new copy with all the missing pages.
這表明LSE知道其圖書館收藏的精裝本有缺頁，並且希望收到包含所有缺頁的新副本。
23:04→Wilson replied at 13:57:
Wilson在13點57分回覆：
23:07→"Yes, a copy of the thesis with no missing pages would be nice.
「是的，如果能有一份沒有缺頁的論文就好了。
23:10→The National Central Library has now made the digitised version available...
現在國圖已提供數位化版本供人使用...
23:14→It is a beautifully clean copy, with none of the scruffy photocopying of our copy..."
這是一份非常乾淨的版本，沒有任何我們版本上邋遢的複印痕跡......”
23:22→On October 2nd, 2019, Kevin Haynes received an email warning that Tsai's thesis collected by the LSE Library and the copy downloadable on the website of the National Central Library in Taiwan were not identical.
2019年10月2日，Kevin Haynes收到一封警告電郵，說是LSE圖書館收藏的蔡論文與台灣的國圖網站上可下載的版本不一樣。（編按：Kevin Haynes 為LSE法律團隊負責人。）
23:38→Daniel O'Connor's response at 11:34, indicates that Marcus Cerny, Mark Thomson, Kevin Haynes, Wilson, and O'Connor all knew LSE had a facsimile of Tsai's copy of the thesis, there were some missing pages.
Daniel O'Connor's在11點34分的回覆表明，Marcus Cerny、Mark Thomson、Kevin Haynes、Wilson和O'Connor全都知道LSE有蔡的論文傳真，其中缺少一些頁面。（編按：Mark Thomson於2015年繼任LSE註冊主任。）
23:54→Neither copy was the final thesis submitted in 1984.
這兩份都不是1984年提交的最終論文。
23:56→It was always Tsai's personal copy from, not 1983, not 1984, but 2019.
它總歸只是蔡的個人版本，不是1983年的，也不是1984年的，而是2019年的。
24:07→They all had observed what Hwan Lin and Yung-Tai Hsu had observed.
所有人都注意到林環牆和徐永泰所觀察到的。
24:09→All of them could have raised the suspicion.
這些都可能引起懷疑。
24:12→Dennis Peng had raised that Tsai had a bound doctoral thesis when the offer was made, but she was unwilling to send the copy to the LSE Library for collection.
彭文正曾提起，蔡在提議時已經有一份裝訂好的博士論文，但她不願意寄一本給LSE圖書館收藏。
24:20→Tsai's refusal to disclose her thesis through LSETO, failure to provide the promised electronic copy on June 14th, 2019, and the serious delay in supplying the promised thesis the hardbound copy and the softbound copy in the photocopy form are critical facts showing that the suspicion should have been much stronger.
蔡拒絕透過LSETO公開她的論文，未能依承諾在2019年6月14日提供電子版，以及嚴重拖延所承諾的論文精裝和平裝影印本，這些關鍵事實表明了理當更強烈地懷疑。
24:43→The email again confirms that they all knew that Tsai's final thesis should have been submitted in 1984, not at the examination stage in June 1983.
該電郵再次證實，他們都知道蔡的最終論文應該在1984年提交，而不是在1983年6月的審查階段。
24:55→In addition, they all knew the difference between a facsimile of the thesis and a facsimile of Tsai's copy of the thesis, yet the next day at 9:24 Cerny argued that:
此外，他們都知道論文傳真與蔡個人版論文傳真之間的差異，然而Cerny在第二天的9點24分辯稱：
25:08→"We were very careful to avoid wording that suggested this was the copy submitted for examination or for final award.
「我們非常小心地避免讓措辭暗示這份是用於審查或最終裁決而提交的副本。
25:14→Those copies are lost and we have acknowledged that.
這些副本遺失了，而我們業已確認。
25:17→Beyond that there is not much to say."
除此之外，沒什麼好說的。」
25:22→In response to the second FOIA request on August 7th, 2020, LSE claimed that it downloaded a scanned copy directly from the National Central Library and uploaded the scanned copy to the LSETO.
在回應2020年8月7日的第二次資訊公開請求時，LSE聲稱是直接從國圖下載一份掃描版，並將它上傳至LSETO。
25:34→It indicates that LSE denied that it was the publisher of the digital copy of Tsai's personal copy of the thesis.
這顯示LSE否認自己是蔡個人版數位論文的出版者。
25:43→However, the response to the warning email drafted by Haynes on October 3rd, 2019, at 16:34, was:
然而，Haynes於2019年10月3日16點34分起草的警告信的回應是：
25:47→"We are unable to comment on the version ... sent to Taiwan's National Central Library."
「我們無法對發送至台灣國圖的版本發表評論。」
25:58→Haynes circulated the drafted response for comments.
Haynes散布了回覆草稿以徵求意見。
26:00→Cerny responded at 16:47:
Cerny在16點47分回覆：
26:03→"Totally happy with that."
「非常滿意。」
26:07→O'Connor responded at 16:56:
O'Connor在16點56分回應道：
"I suspect it will wind them up but I think that's all we can say."
「我猜這會惹惱他們，但是我想我們只能說這麼多。」
26:16→Wilson's comment on his own assessment of the authenticity of Tsai's personal copy was:
Wilson對於蔡個人版本的真實性評估是：
26:21→"The content, style of language, and type face are all consistent with two draft chapters that we have as part of Dr Tsai's student record——and it might not be an expert opinion but it was pretty glaring."
「其內容、語言風格和字體都與我們當成蔡博士學生記錄之一部分的兩章草稿一致——這可能不是專家意見，但是顯而易見。」
26:35→LSE responded to the first FOIA requested on November 4th, 2019.
LSE於2019年11月4日對第一份資訊公開請求做出了回應。
26:40→In the response, LSE stated that LSE do not claim Miss Tsai's personal copy of the original thesis as a true copy, but believe it is on balance of probabilities, because there are two draft chapters in her student record that were clearly re-written but the content appears in the copy.
在回應中，LSE表示校方並未宣稱蔡女士原始論文的個人版本是真實的副本，但相信這是較有可能的，因為她的學生記錄中有兩個章節的草稿，顯然有被重寫，不過內容有出現在副本裡。
26:59→LSE is a prestigious higher education institution that enjoys global fame.
LSE是一所享譽全球的著名高等教育機構。
27:04→Its balance of probabilities test rested entirely on the humble opinion of Clive Wilson, a librarian and a low-ranking LSE Library manager, with no educational training or professional experience in law or economics.
它的相對可能性之衡量完全基於Clive Wilson的小小意見；他任職於圖書館，是LSE圖書館的低階經理，缺乏法學或經濟學的教育訓練或專業經驗。
27:20→According to LSE's response to a FOIA request on November 4th, 2019, LSE accepted the photo copy of Tsai's personal copy of the thesis as a substitute, but not a replacement of Tsai's doctoral thesis.
根據LSE在2019年11月4日對資訊公開請求的回應，LSE同意把蔡的個人版論文影本當成暫代品，而非取代蔡的博士論文。
