Posted on 09/10/2004 12:01:52 AM PDT by GOPcapitalist
Are the Killian Memos a Forgery?
The media is buzzing with the possibility that the Killian memos broadcast on 60 Minutes are forgeries. The truth hangs on whether any commonly-used typewriters in the 60's-70's had proportional spacing. If you HAVE a typewriter like that, please type out a replica of Killian's first memo and see if your typewriter matches his.
But by then they won't have any credibility left. The "boy who cried wolf" syndrome. Now even if they got legitimate proof, it will be questioned.
UPDATE 10: Reader Jon-Erik Prichard adds what strikes me as an especially persuasive point:
[A]nother aspect of the type on [the August 18, 1973 memo] suggests, perhaps proves, forgery.
1. The type in the document is KERNED. Kerning is the typsetter's art of spacing various letters in such a manner that they are 'grouped' for better readability. Word processors do this automatically. NO TYPEWRITER CAN PHYSICALLY DO THIS.
To explain: the letter 'O' is curved on the outside. A letter such as 'T' has indented space under its cross bar. On a typewriter if one types an 'O' next to a 'T' then both letters remain separated by their physical space. When you type the same letters on a computer next to each other the are automatically 'kerned' or 'grouped' so that their individual spaces actually overlap. e. g., TO. As one can readily see the curvature of the 'O' nestles neatly under the cross bar of the 'T'. Two good kerning examples in the alleged memo are the word 'my' in the second line where 'm' and 'y' are neatly kerned and also the word 'not' in the fourth line where the 'o' and 't' overlap empty space. A typewriter doesn't 'know' what particular letter is next to another and can't make those types of aesthetic adjustments.
2. The kerning and proportional spacing in each of the lines of type track EXACTLY with 12 point Times Roman font on a six inch margin (left justified). Inother words, the sentences break just as they would on a computer and not as they would on a typewriter. Since the type on the memo is both proportionally spaced and kerned the lines of type break at certain instances (i.e., the last word in each line of the first paragraph are - 1. running, 2. regarding, 3. rating, 4. is, 5. either). If the memo was created on a typewriter the line breaks would be at different words (e. g., the word 'running' is at the absolute outside edge of the sentence and would probably not be on the first line).
3. The sentences have a wide variance in their AMOUNT of kerning and proportional spacing. Notice how the first line of the first paragraph seems squished together and little hard to read but the last line of the first paragraph has wider more open spacing. Even the characters themselves are squished in the first line (as a computer does automatically) and more spread out on the last line where there is more room.
There's no way a typewriter could 'set' the type in this memo and even a good typesetter using a Linotype machine of the era would have to spend hours getting this effect.
Really? What thread is that on?
It would be important to know if CBS had originals without all the copy dots or if they just had copies..the originals would have much more hidden information...paper, possible age, watermarks, ink, indentations etc...
Who did give them the docs? If it was the DNC that would not be credible...they should have had a sworn affidavit like the Swifboatvets have...as to who obtained the documents, when and where...
the whole thing, especially CBS vetting is so amatuerish that CBS should be ashamed...
(We should look AGAIN at the memo's (which post was that?) to see if the forger typed a "1" or a "l" ..........!
Click on the link in #54
Is there a consensus yet on whether the th is definitively anachronistic? That Miscellaneous page seems to have been produced by completely different equipment.
Regardless, the fact that the dubious origin of these docs will soon be more notorious than their content... is utterly hilarious. Just when you think Kerry HQ couldn't screw it up any more
Thanks!
and btw you can get a very similar effect on any MS Word document by printing it to WinFax, saving the image and printing it out, then putting it in your scanner at low resolution (gives you the dot crawl), etc. etc.
Indeed. This is one of the things that makes me suspect Barnes. The lack of normal vetting could well indicate that the source is someone Rather was willing to vouch for personally, and this short-circuited the verification procedure.
Pathetic, isn't it? Just pathetic.
Just remember--the AP intentionally faked a story. what have you heard about that today?
The AP may not have credibility with you but that story didn't take down the AP nearly as it should have.
Look at "USAF/TexANG" in Point 1 in the August 1, 1972 memo.
The slash actually invades the space of the capped F just a bit.
Also look at the word "Vietnam" in the August 1, 1972 memo in Point 4,
The small i slides in a little bit under the top right of the Capped V.
PLB is absolutely right. Kerning is definitely taking place, and NO TYPEWRITER EVER DID THAT.
Game. Set. Match. Suspension. Disqualification. Discredited. Exiled to oblivion.
What is really rich here is that, after this attack, they're completely and openly on the defensive.
tracking and kerning
http://www.pbtweb.com/typostyl/lettersp.html
by the way at DU they don't have a clue...they think the docs aren't forgeries and everyone is wrong but CBS...
"and NO TYPEWRITER EVER DID THAT."
Oh I beg to differ. If I'm not mistaken the Hamsterkis 247 was capable of doing that but it required a synthetic Kerrylie ribbon, and those things just don't cut it.
Check out post #31 and compare the '1's with the capital I in the word "Interceptor".
Nailed!
http://thetemplarpundit.blogspot.com/2004/09/how-to-fake-national-guard-documents.html
One OTHER question.
Having served in the Regular Army AND the Ohio National Guard, when ever I recieved a memo it was on OFFICIAL Letterhead. If it was to go into a 201 File it would definitely been.
Where is the letterhead, the Unit Seal, The Army Seal, the DD or DA number on the bottom of the page?
Looked again in my 201 file and ALL attached memos were on official paper. Look at an Amry memo pad IT has an DD or DA number. Such as DD Form XXXX or DA Form XXXX and a date.
DD is Dept of Defense DA is Dept of the Army Form xxxx plus a date.
Back then even a memo pad were DA or DD Forms. Today you might have post its. Ot Staples bought.
And ALL Official memos in My 201 File have a stamped SEAL such as Unit and Adjutant Generals Stamped Sig.
Including a Happy Birthday memo. Now just keeping up moral to notice a soldier and Yes I even got one in the Guard and going so far as to include the Commanders Stamped sig on some and the Unit Seal on all is a bit much but the Military has a certain way to do things.
I was never in the military, so I never would have thought of (or known about) all that. But I think, if I wanted to dummy up something, I'd do my best to find a genuine one to use as a model. I might not catch everything, but as more and more comes out, it sounds as if they might as well have tried to forge them with crayons!
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.