Here you go. Have at it. It is clear that the "e" has tucked itself under the "f" but not the "r" in the same word. Typewriter my ass.
Posted on 09/10/2004 2:55:16 PM PDT by Chris_Shugart
I posted this thought on another thread, but I think it's important, and I'll repeat it here.
I had an IBM Executive typewriter, purchased by me about 1970.
The Executive had proportional spacing, where the width (as I recall)varied from 2 (for i) to 5 (for m and w). It used a one pass carbon on mylar ribbon which made a very black imprint, and the combination of the uniformly black type plus proportional spacing produced professional looking documents. I used the Executive until 1984.
I pulled some documents that I had typed on the Executive from my files. I haven't taken the time to try to identify the exact font, but it is virtually identical to Times New Roman 12, the default Word font.
I then typed some of my old file material with Word, using default Word settings and compared the letter spacing produced from the IBM Executive. It was striking; the letter spacing isn't even close.
Also significant: My IBM Executive had straight quotation marks (" ") and a straight apostrophe (').
Therefore, with good and sufficient reason centered around the mismatch in letter spacing, I conclude that there's no way the Rather document claiming to be from 1972 was produced on an IBM Executive typewriter. And the Executive was probably the most advanced proportional spacing typewriter of the time.
At least one of the Rather documents was obviously produced with Word; that's the only way such a striking match as we've seen demonstrated on these threads could have occurred.
I can answer your question about the super-scripts and how they were typed back in 1972.
In 1972, I typed on an IBM Executive typewriter, and I know FOR SURE there were no special keys for sub-scripts and super-scripts. (Keys which would place smaller letters above or below the typing line.)
We had to "manually" roll DOWN the platen 1/2 degree (there was a click) to type super-scripts, such as th or st.
You had to hold the platen at that awkward position with one hand, and peck ONE key with your the other hand. Usually, the platen would jerk and move somewhat, and if the super-script was 2-characters, you had to again "manually" roll DOWN the platen before striking the second character. Then you'd have to re-position the platen so that the typing line was correct.
So the super-script "th" would be exactly the same size as the "th" in the rest of the document. There was no such thing as a "smaller" type font for superscripts in 1972 on the IBM Executive Typewriter.
One other thing about typing on the IBM Executive. One had to be an excellent typist to type a page without at least ONE erasure. Good secretaries were able to make erasures which didn't show -- but upon examination, one could always see erasures. I've had bosses who'd turn the sheet over -- to inspect the page for erasures.
Of course, since no one can produce the ORIGINAL (because it doesn't exist), we can't inspect the original page. And erasures would not show up on copies, unless they were messy erasures.
The most damning evidence I've seen with these RATHER documents is that the "centering" on one of them was exactly centered the same as a Word Processing Program would center. I've seen a presentation here on FR where one was "over-layed" the other, and it was EXACT. And that is nearly an impossibility.
Centering on an IBM Executive was a guessing game and no two people would center the same. Also the exact width of the margins -- matching modern Word Processing Systems -- is a real long shot. Secretaries typing on manual typewriters didn't use the same left margin for every document. We changed the left margin frequently -- to match the letterhead or the paper form on which we were typing.
Too much of a coincidence if the margins are exactly as the default of Microsoft Word.
They need to do a CSI style art forgery investigation on the originals (if they are available and found). Paper watermark, composition and age; letter impressions in paper (if any); ink composition (should be easy to tell if it was ink-jet, laser or ribbon feed), etc.
This is how the Hitler diaries were disproved. They used old stationery, but modern ink. Very simple, but too much to expect from simpleton media libs who didn't realize Nixon and barnes did not not assume office until '69.
Sean Hannity is on now and just went over the typographical arguments for forgery, but he vastly understated the case, as he made no mention that Microsoft Word reproduces each of these documents EXACTLY.
I did the "Phone call" memo and the "exam order". For the latter, I had to adjust margins, for the former, all I had to do was turn off automatic "bullet" margination ( from the Format pull-down . )
MS Word produces the spacing and line breaks with absolute precision.
Duplicating the whole document is not convincing to the uninitiated. Such people can readily imagine that the modern computers can perfectly mimic a 1973 typewriter.
What will be convincing is a single simple example of something in the document that cannot be created by a typewriter.
On a different thread I have suggested that the "fe" in the word "interference" which appears in one of the memos exhibits what another Freeper called "glyph overhang". Magnification of this single example would, I hope, demonstrate a two character sequence which cannot be created on any 1973 typewriter.
This single detail might convince people that the memo in question is a forgery. It would then not be necessary to cloud the discussion with other less certain indications of forgery.
Here you go. Have at it. It is clear that the "e" has tucked itself under the "f" but not the "r" in the same word. Typewriter my ass.
On a different thread addressing this topic, it has been pointed out that the IBM Composer could create details like this. The machine was probably quite specialized and expensive but operated similar to a typewriter, I think.
The existence of this piece of equipment rules out being able to create the simple, single, graphical example to refute authenticity that I had hoped for.
We're stuck with the experts having to outline the many possibilities and the resulting unsatisfying "duels". There probably won't be too many "experts" supporting authenticity. Somebody like Juan Williams only needs one to cling to and he can give the whole DNC a life preserver.
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.