In any case I have a feeling that the truth will be coming out soon either way.
And why would a photocopy (and it is obviously a photocopy or at least a forgery of one with the speckles) be crumpled up?
Posted on 09/09/2004 1:39:31 PM PDT by Steven W.
In the 2nd Hour of Michael Medved's show today he is covering the Dan Rather / 60 Minutes Document Forgery Scandal
The 111 is actually lll - three "ells" instead of three numerals.
Go to his site and look at the first document comparisons. Then find "187th." The superscript in the word document is aligned differently vertically than in the "original" document.
I also notice that the top of the capitol G in word is very thin compared to the left side of the G. In the "original" the top is heavier than the vertical side.
The more I look at these documents, the less similar they look, and it deeply pains me to say that!
Note my post 182. The other site has the same problem with the verticle positioning of the superscript. It isn't even close.
I was noticing that the more I look at the original, the less it looks like the times new roman I am used to seeing.
Here is an extremely relevant quote from the Wikipedia online encyclopedia about the history of the IBM Selectric:
"The Selectric II had a lever (at the top left of the 'carriage') that allowed characters to be shifted up to a half space to the left (for inserting a word one character longer or shorter in place of a deleted mistake), whereas the Selectric I did not."
I believe the the 't' and 'h' characters could be shifted up to simulate superscript in the early Selectric II's, but it was not a true superscript as shown in this sample: th
However, I believe true superscript did become available on the Selectric type balls at some point, although I'm not 100% certain of this. If true superscript was ever available on typewriters, it would only have been on those which used the type ball technology. I have been unable to find info online as to if/when true superscript was introduced.
John Kerry served in Vietnam? Oh my gosh! I had no idea! Now I'll have to change my vote! :P
Not quite. You could get the same effect if the ball supported "small caps" which I've read was possible on IBM systems of the time. This dose demand greater scrutiny but, unfortunately, we don't have the original or even a first generation copy to go by.
Read on another thread that the man who is considered the number one authority on typewriter fonts (he created a catalogue of over 4000 and is an expert witness in typewritten documents) says that this type face (New Times Roman) doesn't exist as a typewriter font in his catalogue.
Interesting post you've made. Anybody who has worked with type knows how hard it is to sometimes even match up the same typeface from the same foundary across different formats and platforms. The chance that everything from typeface to leading just happen to result in a formatting that lines up perfectly between the typewriter and the word processor (look at the period under the l, the period after teh F.L.S. over the i, etc) would appear to me to be very unlikely.
Ah, but the th in the questionable memo is in lower case letters. In other words, true superscript. I know that some of the type balls for the later Selectrics could do a form of simulated superscript. But I don't know if any could do true superscript with letters -- meaning lower-case letters typed as a unit in small size and raised the correct amount above a standard-sized character. They could do special symbols, such as 1/2, 1/4, and the copyright symbol if these were built onto the type ball. But even then, the technique for making them superscript was a simulation, not true superscript.
Formatting is all off too. Everything in the Army was lined up on the left margin: date, body, signature block etc.
... and it was on a Woodstock typewriter, by Alger and Priscilla, in the drawing room!
Then CBS should produce the originals! Or did they build an entire story around copied documents which cannot be authenticated?
bump
I certainly hope not. There may be time for the Dem's to pull a Torricelli! That's a great way to keep the final candidate out of any campaign embarrassments.
You did.
And what a kind thing to say.
Good catch. Yes, you can't really assume that it's true WYSIWYG. There will be variations from the display when you print. I'm not sure of the reason here. I don't think that Windows uses Display Postscript even today -- I think it still uses Bitmap representations that it then scales and smooths according to an algorithm, so that would lead to some differences between the screen's device context representation and the printers device context representation, no? Or am I hopelessly behind the times here (I'm a programmer, but it's been years since I kept up with that particular aspect of the profession).
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.