To: DoctorJimbo27
No 1961 typewriter was capable of printing that proportional font.
That is so obviously not typed, but printed from a laser printer.
34 posted on
07/28/2009 9:32:21 AM PDT by
E. Pluribus Unum
(Islam is a religion of peace, and Muslims reserve the right to kill anyone who says otherwise.)
To: E. Pluribus Unum
There’s no reason the original form itself couldn’t have been produced on a type-setting machine, after which millions would have been printed up, much like newspapers.
42 posted on
07/28/2009 9:38:06 AM PDT by
DuncanWaring
(The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
To: E. Pluribus Unum
I was under the impression he was not born with the name he goes by today. Wasn’t his name Barry?
69 posted on
07/28/2009 10:55:18 AM PDT by
shield
(A wise man's heart is at his RIGHT hand;but a fool's heart at his LEFT. Ecc 10:2)
To: E. Pluribus Unum
It was plainly typeset, commonly done when printing something that would be copied in large quantities (like newspapers) where time spent setting up proportional fonts was acceptable.
103 posted on
07/28/2009 11:52:52 AM PDT by
ctdonath2
(John Galt was exiled.)
To: E. Pluribus Unum
That is so obviously not typed, but printed from a laser printer. If it was real, which it obviously is not, the printing would likely be a proportional font, since it would be a printed form, not something done on a typewriter. Since the "fields" are all hand filled in, there would be no typewriter involved anyway.
Even Ben Franklin could have produced such a form, right to the "Royal Seal" at the top.
202 posted on
07/29/2009 4:13:58 PM PDT by
El Gato
("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson