Posted on 09/11/2004 1:06:26 AM PDT by Uchitel
The material is too detailed to reproduce here, but I've written a verbal analysis of why the docs are almost certainly forgeries, from an more formal typographic perspective, rather than just with images.
http://www.neiluchitel.com/index.php?p=299
I now know more about fonts than I ever hoped to know ;D
Wonderful find. It actually links to the Composer thread already posted. The more experts weigh in the deeper CBS sinks.
MEGA-BUMP: this one needs to get to the other blogs.
There's a thread about a conversation Hugh Hewitt had with a Professor of Computer Science from Rice University who says the documents are FORGERIES.
I wished I could lay my hands on an Air Force manual on proper corresspondence procedures. I was a Navy clerk then and we had one that was followed exactly. I wished someone with Air Force clerical experience from that time would post here on Free Republic about whether these "documents" were actually done IAW the regulations of that time. Some have pointed out, an I think them correct, that an official order to report for a physical would not be given in the form of a Memorandum. In the Navy a Memo was only used for informal corresspondence.
Actually, IBM Composer (http://www.ibmcomposer.org/) did support variable letter/word/line spacing, but it highly improbable that someone 30+ years ago had managed to match MS Word precisely by playing with these settings. I will believe in time travel first :-)
bttt
This is the most detailed analysis I've seen. It is extremely accurate. The items that CBS claims are "authentic" cannot be so.
After all of the discussion, it occurs to me that the Army did not use memoranda until the early 80s. Informal traffic was done on a pre printed Disposition Form AKA DF. Did the AF do the same?
You are correct regarding the word spacing issue, and exactly matching the MS layout. As I've said on other threads...
To me the smoking gun is wordwrap. Others have noted that the wordwrap of a manual typewriter works differently than a word processor.
In particular, MSWORD wraps the current word when the end of a word passes the right margin, so that no line of text exceeds the right margin. By contrast, a person typing manually finishes the word (or syllable with hyphen) he is typing when the right-margin bell rings, and then does a carriage return. The net effect of the manual typewritten style is that, if one draws a vertical line at the bell-margin, that line should go through (intersect) the last word of every line of text.
Clearly, from the 1 AUG 1972 memo (and possibly others), NO SUCH VERTICAL LINE CAN BE CONSTRUCTED THAT INTERSECTS THE LAST WORD OF EVERY WRAPPED LINE OF TEXT!
This fact says that the margin control of the documents was not done according to manual typewriting protocol. By contrast, the margin control ends up exactly what MSWORD produces.
I've pointed this out on other threads. And on another thread, Freeper bolobaby noted that "this is not definitive proof by any stretch of the imagination," because a typist has the option to manually violate the wrapping convention of the bell, and squeeze in extra words. But I replied, what are the odds that a manual typist, over the span of 4 memos, would exactly choose to squeeze in the EXACT SAME words, so as to "accidentally" coincide with what MSWORD would produce. I would say, with metaphysical certitude that the odds are nil. Bolobaby agreed.
ping - documents
bttt
Thank you.
You should check out the thread involving the IBM Composer. That machine failed to get the leading and the letterspacing is inexact.
bump
bump
Here's the thread lavrenti mentions:
Typewriter Expert can't duplicate Guard memos using IBM Composer
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1213108/posts
In addition, here are some other more recent threads of note to most interested in this stuff:
Seems obvious to me that someone took a real signature, copied it and added it to the MS Word forgeries... probably too tough for this "expert" to figure out this tactic... LOL... The REAL question now is who did it, and why.
---->>>
From "Rather Forges Ahead"... regarding his "expert" authenticator...
"Matley comes up from Google as a "graphologist" and has authored books on how your handwriting shows your personallity."
CREDENTIALS:
Certification with commendation, Paul de Sainte Colombe Center, January 28, 1981
------
Did a google on Paul de.......
It's about pen and pencil therapy!!!!!!!! The guys a loon
60 posted on 09/11/2004 4:05:08 AM EDT by Poincare
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1212980/posts?page=60#60
--->
You will probably also enjoy these:
It would take an incredible amount of fussing around with the Composer to reproduce these memos. In addition, there are major font availability questions that do not appear to be answerable, and in addition, the ANG unit was using a fixed, not proportional, typewriter for other memos. Plus, the style of those memos is not even close to the style of these forgeries.
Check:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1212833/posts
Another Shoe Drops...May 24th Memo from Killian Office Not Similar to CBS Memo
No chance in hell, BP. Check out this thread.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1212786/posts
You are tilting at windmills with the IBM Selectric Composer theory.
Go to this link:
http://www.ibmcomposer.org/docs/Selectric%20Composer%20Operations%20Manual.pdf
which is a user's manual showing some sample typed text using this typewriter.
Rather could get any expert he wants to attempt to do this, but it may even then be impossible. Even then he would have to explain the style differences and why it was done on the wrong size paper and many other anamolies.
Meanwhile, it is trivial to compose these on MS Word.
These are clear forgeries, Danny - time for you and CBS FRAUDcasting network to hang it up
/
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.