YET ANOTHER EXPERT, MORE ARGUMENTS AGAINST (CBS Documents)

National Review ^ | 9-9-04

[ambrose]

YET ANOTHER EXPERT, MORE ARGUMENTS AGAINST [09/09 03:48 PM]

Kerry Spot reader Bruce Webster who has as served as an expert witness in U.S. District Court cases regarding computer document forensics, writes in that the CBS News document "has all sorts of problems... The typefaces weren't available on typewriters in 1973."

The typefaces listed and linked below, by the way, do not have “curly” quotes, only "straight" ones. Oddly, you'll notice the CBS documents, like the Kerry Spot, have both, sometimes in the same document. (On the Kerry Spot, this is a result of transferring text from a word processing program into web-publishing program Moveable Type. (A link using curly quotes won't link correctly, which means every link has to be checked to make sure it has the right kind of quotes.)

CBS had better have one heck of a defense for this.

[ancient_geezer]

As a former professional typesetter, I can tell you that the font used in those documents is not Times Roman, so I don't understand what all the fuss is about.

I suggest you take a quick review here: 35 posted on 09/09/2004 2:40:41 PM MDT by mwilli20

[NYCVirago]

I didn't believe this at first, but the evidence keeps piling up. If it really is a forgery I'm astounded, not that the left would stoop to this level, but that they'd be so incompetent.

I think it's very possible they would be that incompetent. They knew that Dan Rather wouldn't exactly check this stuff with a fine-toothed comb, as long as it made Bush look bad. And the only reason we were able to analyze these documents is because cbs.com put them on their website -- it may not have occurred to the forgers that these documents would get to be viewed by the American public.

[ThinkDifferent]

it may not have occurred to the forgers that these documents would get to be viewed by the American public

Excellent point.

[nopardons]

bttt

[newzjunkey]

That site is very, very interesting. I think, reading various documents, that it's *possible* the documents are authentic since the Selectrics supported SMALL CAPS meaning the questioned "TH" is *entirely* possible and it also supported proportional type. They also supported curly quotes. The faxes sent to the White House are of such a terrible quality that I can't see it being possible to compare the fonts. One of the documents compares the M as seen on various paper types and that M is mostly comparable to the M's seen in the poor quality documents in terms of proportion but there's nothing conclusive.

Clearly *MORE* investigation is needed as *most importantly* the original documents (or 1st generation copy) is needed.

[Dave Olson]

If it really is a forgery I'm astounded, not that the left would stoop to this level, but that they'd be so incompetent.

While the left is impressed with its own intelligence, it underestimates everyone else's. It's quite possible that someone forged these documents and didn't think anyone else would be smart enough to catch it.

[Mr Ramsbotham]

I suggest you take a quick review here: 35 posted on 09/09/2004 2:40:41 PM MDT by mwilli20.

Sorry, but I'm looking at the documents as they were originally posted, not someone's superimposition. The serifs on the characters are not bracketed and the weight stress is vertical; both signs of a square-serif (Egyptian) font, which Times Roman is definitely not. I realize it's not a very good copy, but that's a square-serif font I'm looking at.

[marajade]

But wasn't Courier pretty much the preferred font of choice back then at 10 pt even?

[Trust but Verify]

si, in other words, the WH would have no idea whether they're forgeries or not, but the AP makes it sound like the WH has authenticated them.

[Trust but Verify]

si, in other words, the WH would have no idea whether they're forgeries or not, but the AP makes it sound like the WH has authenticated them.

[Republican Wildcat]

What's the typeface, Kenneth?

[PAR35]

Selectrics...also supported proportional type.

A regular Selectric didn't support proportional spacing. Other IBM products (generally more expensive) of that era did. I think it is highly unlikely that an ANG unit would kave been using one for routine typing.

[Mr Ramsbotham]

But wasn't Courier pretty much the preferred font of choice back then at 10 pt even?

I believe so; at least for typewritten documents. Typesetters had more options, but I would think that the low-end typesetting devices we're discussing here wouldn't have afforded a lot of choices.

[Charles H. (The_r0nin)]

Did Selectrics support kerning? Look at the "ot" and the "my" in the letters. NO typewriter back then could kern...

[Eastbound]

Great job, Nakatu X! Definitely same font. I cut and pasted two lines from each to show them stacked. I bumped the contrast on the 'Word' version and stretched it to match the original. Hope you don't mind, but thought it would be easier to make the comparison. The stretch was not exact, but close.

[Choose Ye This Day]

CLASSIC!!!

I know I'm very late to this thread, but your "authentic" memo is every bit as believable as 60 minutes'. LOL!

[Nataku X]

Same font, but it was probably resized a bit in the printer. In any case this story is gaining a lot of traction. We'll see, thanks for the images!