Replies

Way back when Dan Rather brought his forgeries forward I went through the 20+ biggest reasons why they were forgeries and pointed out how all but 1 item could actually be duplicated by the technology of the time.

The item that could not be duplicated at all with anything less than a linotype using hot lead was the KERNING as displayed in the forgeries. It went way beyond mere proportional letters ~ which we'd had since WWII if you paid for it.

I'm surprised someone found proportional letters on the BC considering the fact that up to now all the indepth development of spacing involved finding the tab stops.

I think the writer of the piece we are looking at forgot the difference between KERNING and PROPORTIONAL TYPING.

Now, what's your problem with my position on examining evidence? Do you want me to simply adopt every unprovable position that pops up just because the proponent claims to be a Birther?

Don't be silly ~ evidence is evidence and it should be relatively easy to examine each and every piece in terms of what appears on the BC and how technology for handling documents of this type worked at the time the particular "anomaly" seemed to have appeared.

I am on all "political sides" on the BC ~ but when it comes to print I spent a career studying the phenomenon. There's some expertise I can lend to the questions regarding the BC. IF some yahoo doesn't want expertise brought into this dicussion he or she can just go to h!!!