Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

YET ANOTHER EXPERT, MORE ARGUMENTS AGAINST (CBS Documents)
National Review ^ | 9-9-04

Posted on 09/09/2004 1:15:01 PM PDT by ambrose

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-77 last
To: Mr Ramsbotham

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

61 posted on 09/09/2004 2:50:18 PM PDT by ancient_geezer (Equality, the French disease: Everyone is equal beneath the guillotine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: ThinkDifferent
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.

62 posted on 09/09/2004 2:59:56 PM PDT by NYCVirago
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

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

Excellent point.

63 posted on 09/09/2004 3:18:20 PM PDT by ThinkDifferent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: ambrose

bttt


64 posted on 09/09/2004 3:19:09 PM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PAR35
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.

65 posted on 09/09/2004 4:25:01 PM PDT by newzjunkey (Why are we in Iraq? Just point the whiners here: http://www.massgraves.info)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: ThinkDifferent
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.

66 posted on 09/09/2004 4:44:47 PM PDT by Dave Olson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ancient_geezer
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.

67 posted on 09/09/2004 6:49:39 PM PDT by Mr Ramsbotham ("This house is sho' gone crazy!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Mr Ramsbotham

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


68 posted on 09/09/2004 7:00:42 PM PDT by marajade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper

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.


69 posted on 09/09/2004 7:10:32 PM PDT by Trust but Verify (Charter member Broken Glass Republicans (2000))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper

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.


70 posted on 09/09/2004 7:10:42 PM PDT by Trust but Verify (Charter member Broken Glass Republicans (2000))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: ambrose

What's the typeface, Kenneth?


71 posted on 09/09/2004 7:14:55 PM PDT by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey
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.

72 posted on 09/09/2004 7:22:27 PM PDT by PAR35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: marajade
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.

73 posted on 09/09/2004 7:32:39 PM PDT by Mr Ramsbotham ("This house is sho' gone crazy!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey

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


74 posted on 09/09/2004 8:22:38 PM PDT by Charles H. (The_r0nin) (Still teaching... or a reasonable facsimile thereof...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Nakatu X
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.


75 posted on 09/09/2004 9:32:20 PM PDT by Eastbound ("Ne'er a Scrooge or a Patsy Be")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: rocklobster11

CLASSIC!!!

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


76 posted on 09/09/2004 10:51:11 PM PDT by Choose Ye This Day ("We showed weakness, and weak people are beaten."--Putin / "A more sensitive war on terror." --Kerry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Eastbound

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!


77 posted on 09/10/2004 4:55:17 AM PDT by Nataku X (John sez: NO BLOOD FOR PURPLE HEARTS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-77 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson