Original Document:
Microsoft Word Document:
Posted on 09/10/2004 2:55:16 PM PDT by Chris_Shugart
National Guard Documents are
Fake, Plain and Simple
by Chris Shugart, 10 Sep, 04
In addition to being a political commentator, I’m also an experienced graphic artist very knowledgeable with the typesetting technology that existed before desktop publishing. I’ve worked extensively with typesetters and I’m familiar with typesetting and all the related equipment.
I examined the Killian documents 04 May 72 , 19 May 72 , 01 Aug 72 , and 18 Aug 73 and they all have one very telling anomaly. The number of characters per inch is variable throughout all of the docs, which means that these were printed on equipment capable of printing proportional width type fonts.
The only equipment I’m aware of that could have done this back in 72-73, would be a photographic typesetter. Such a device was pretty standard for graphic arts production. The equipment was bulky and expensive and produced type galleys on photographic paper. It was not a typewriter and never would have been confused with one. There’s virtually no chance that this kind of machine was used to produce the Killian documents.
The equipment that I’ve seen and heard referenced in the news that possibly could have produced the Killian docs would have been something more like the IBM Selectric Composer, essentially a souped-up typewriter with a tape recorder attached. They first appeared in 1966. This kind of typewriter had some rudimentary capability to produce text with variable spacing. The process was time consuming, in that it required the typist to first type the document whereby the typewriter would then record the text on magnetic tape. Then the device would calculate optimum spacing and then print out a second copy.
If we assume for a moment that something sophisticated like a Selectric was used, even equipment like that would not have produced text that looks like the Killian memos. In order to understand this, we need to make a distinction between letterspacing and kerning. The variable spacing capability that existed in some electric typewriters was used exclusively to produce justified columns. (text with even margins on both sides, like in most newspapers) This was achieved by increasing the space between letters and words, not by decreasing the spacing.
Kerning is the process of tightening the space between letters. Typically kerning is used to remedy visually awkward letter combinations such as “TA” and VC.” The units of measurement used in kerning are minute, calculated in fractions of an inch that usually range from 1/72 to 1/144 of an inch. There are no typewriters that can perform with that kind of mechanical precision. In 1972 and 1973 a phototypesetter was the only equipment that was capable of producing accurate kerning.
Of course nowadays we have word processors that perform letterspacing and kerning, and do it without us even being aware that it’s happening. And we have printers that can print accurately to 1/300 of an inch and more.
Whether or not the Killian memos were forged is not the issue. You don't even need to consider the rest of the evidence. The issue is beyond dispute. There's only one question that remains: Who forged them?
Yeah, Dan - we don't need no stinkin' lies...who's the source?
Yes, that should be extremely obvious to anyone who entered adulthood prior to the rise of the PC and the resulting demise of the typewriter.
Nice shot. Right between the eyes!
Clearly CBS never even had the "originals", or if they did, never had forensic document examiners look at them, as they suggest. Dan Rather's tit in the wringer and I say crank away!
>>>There's only one question that remains: Who forged them?
Make it two questions: add "Why?"
What about IBM executives or selectrics that advertised proportional fonts? Would a proportional font spacing have the effect you're describing? It sounds like the spacing issue is more for justifying type, since you discussed typing first and letting the number of characters be processed. In other words, please explain the difference. Lefties are clinging to the idea that if they can just produce one typewriter with superscript and proportional fonts (regardless of how unlikely it would be that anybody would have actually used one in the ANG), then they've met their burden of proof.
Original Document:
Microsoft Word Document:
BlatherGate: Dan goes docuMENTAL!
Because of the accumulated kerning over the length of a line, by the end it would have been considerably different on a proportional typewriter vs. MS Word. These docs overlay exactly. Even these lousy images show that conclusively.
It's a forgery.
Kerning deals with a different graphic problem. An "M" followed by an "L" for instance, looks normal in any type face. However, an "F" followed by an "A" or a "T" followed by a "C" the pair of letters looks oddly spaced unless the second letter tightens up to and ducks under the first letter, by just a hundredth of an inch or so.
This is called kerning. It is most obvious in the headlines of the full-page display ads in any magazine you pick up. Just pick up any magazine you choose, look at the ads (the process is there in the text also, but not as easy to see). Note the times when the second letter ducks under, or looms over, part of the first letter to eliminate white space and tighten up the type setting. You'll understand kerning.
Congressman Billybob
Latest column, "I'm Mad as Zell, and I'm Not Going to Take It Anymore."
If you haven't already joined the anti-CFR effort, please click here.
Go back and read about the kerning. The point is that for kerning to work, the machine must be congnizant of the letters that precede and succede each other. That was just not possible in 72 on anything except a typeset machine for printing books, etc.
The IBM Executive just adjusted a fixed amount for each letter. Different spaces for each letter, yes. But the same space for the same letter every time.
In the example "TO", the "O" will be shoved a bit closer to the "T", than it would in the example "OO", because the "O" will underlay the "T" just a wee bit. That's kerning.
By the time you accumulate kerning for a whole line, there's no way it would overlay it on the end.
The centering on the 4 may 72 doc, which also relys on kerning, also would have been basically impossible. You would have to pre-type the address, measure it within a tiny fraction of an inch, and exactly space to that point.
Naw, they're fake.
Here's how we typeset in the seventies.
http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu/woverbeck/dtr5.htm
They didn't kern....computers kern.
Quick, everyone go over to Lou Dobbs and vote yes -- to have Rather and CBS reveal sources.
Bill and Hillary?
If the glove fits, you can't acquit.
Tomi
It should display on your screen in a proportional font, but take a look at the "To" letter combination. The T and o are too far apart, even though the spacing is proportional.
Kerning moves certain letter combinations closer together, and in some cases they actually overlap, so that the left edge of the o will fall under the right crossbar of the T.
The algorithm for doing this was first published in 1981. Before this, even the most sophisticated word processors could not do kerning.
What you see in my example is HTML, which does not do kerning. Word processor programs, such as MS Word do it automatically.
It doesn't appear that the space between h and y in physical has been kerned.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.