George Soros, CEO of Indymedia.org George Soros, CEO of Indymedia.org George Soros, CEO of Indymedia.org George Soros, CEO of Indymedia.org George Soros, CEO of Indymedia.org
Posted on 09/10/2004 3:18:38 PM PDT by Howlin
Edited on 09/10/2004 4:53:58 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
That's what I thought... That is why I dug around and grabbed these and put them together....
kind of sticks out huh???/
I was reporting what William Campenni said on Fox News about what the screenings of Guard at that time were designed to do.
If you have information that the National Guard had instituted drug testing in 1972, let's see it. I have no idea, but I'll trust Campenni who was actually there at the base in that timeframe.
Anecdotal evidence of others' experiences later in that decade are irrelevant.
I might add, I don't think for one minute Bush would have failed such a test had they done screening at that time.
Yep. Saying Times Roman was created in the 1940s, therefore it doesn't prove that the docs are fake is like saying that since the Art Deco font was created in the 30s, documents written in that font would be real, too. It's not a question of whether the font existed then; it's a question of whether it would be used on a typewriter in the TANG. And even the document Dan Rather showed to "prove" that the th was available was in Courier, not Times Roman.
George Soros, CEO of Indymedia.org George Soros, CEO of Indymedia.org George Soros, CEO of Indymedia.org George Soros, CEO of Indymedia.org George Soros, CEO of Indymedia.org
Seems all their 'witnesses' are dead. As you say how convient. BUT if you had the originals wouldn't you want the items I listed tested as I suggested? Making an airtight case?
VACATION
See the space between the V and A? Kerning will tuck the A under the V to provide a smoother flow of text. Kerning would also tuck the A under the T a bit, again, to make it appear neater and make it clear to the eye that it is all one word. This has been kerned:
I worked on the school paper in college, back when we composed pages with wax machines and rollers.
You need to send that to Gunga Dan's handwriting "expert" - I think his e-mail address is here up-thread. Ask him if he still stands by his assertion that the docs are real!
That's right, most people, even most professional secretaries and clerks, would not have access to Linotype or phototypesetters even if they wanted. Operating such machines takes considerable skill and training.
meant to include you in these kudos as well.
Thanks, and please forgive my oversight...
Keith Olberman coming up in a few minutes. I understand David Gregory was on the NBC Nightly News with an expert who said they're forgeries. Keith will probably replay David's segment.
I guess his argument is that he doesn't have the originals. Again, how convenient.
Denizens of DUllsville are imbeciles.
And they're so satisfied about it.
LOL
No prob. I'm just excited to be a small part of helping debunking this fraud!
Although the font of interest would have been available for a phototypesetter.
The superscript Rather showed was not the same one. It had an underline. I don't think the memos had an underline.
As I recall, Times Roman was not released with the original Macintosh in 1984.
The Mac did have a font called Times, which was approximately like Times Roman, but I don't think even this was available until the Apple LaserWriter was released in 1985.
On the original Mac, Apple's New York font was the closest thing to Times Roman. (No one would ever confuse New York with Times Roman or Times, though.) This was back before PostScript fonts and TrueType fonts; all fonts on the Mac were bitmapped back then.
According to the Apple's press release on the LaserWriter, "The LaserWriter is the first personal-computer printer to be awarded license to use the original Helvetica and Times typefaces" (see http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=587%40uw-beaver, late January, 1985).
I don't know whether Windows 3.1 included Times Roman or not. Maybe someone with an old machine sitting around could check.
Check this link out!Is this the Marcel Matley that Rather used?It relates to Vince Foster.
http://www.truetype.demon.co.uk/articles/times.htm
Newsgroups: comp.fonts
Subject: Re: What's the difference between Times Roman and Times New Roman?
From: Charles Bigelow
Date: 5 May 1994
"Times Roman" is the name used by Linotype, and the name they registered as a trademark for the design in the U.S. "Times New Roman" was and still is the name used by The Monotype Corporation. The face was developed by The Times newspaper for its own use, under the design direction of Stanley Morison. Originally cut by the Monotype Corp. in England, the design was also licensed to Linotype, because The Times used Linotype equipment for much of its actual production. The story of "The Times New Roman" can be found in Stanley Morison's A Tally of Types, published by Cambridge University Press, with additional, though not quite the same, versions in Nicolas Barker's biography of Stanley Morison, and in James Moran's biography of SM. (There should be an apostrophe in that name, "Times' Roman", I suppose, though no-one uses it.)
During WWII, the American Linotype company, in a generous spirit of Allied camaraderie, applied for registration of the trademark name "Times Roman" as its own, not Monotype's or The Times', and received the registration in 1945.
In the 1980's, all this was revisited when some entrepreneurs, desirous of gaining the rights to use the name, applied to Rupert Murdoch, who owned The Times; separately, a legal action was also initiated to clarify the right of Monotype to use the name in the U.S., despite Linotype's registration.
The outcome of all of the legal maneuverings is that Linotype and its licensees like Adobe and Apple continue to use the name "Times Roman", while Monotype and its licensees like Microsoft use the name "Times New Roman".
During the decades of transatlantic "sharing" of the Times designs, and the transfer of the faces from metal to photo to digital, various differences developed between the versions marketed by Linotype and Monotype. Especially these became evident when Adobe released the PostScript version, for various reasons having to do with how Adobe produced the original PostScript implementations of Times. The width metrics were different, as well as various proportions and details.
In the late 1980's, Monotype redrew its Times New Roman to make it fit exactly the proportions and metrics of the Adobe-Linotype version of Times Roman. Monotype claimed that its new version was better than the Adobe-Linotype version, because of smoother curves, better detailing, and generally greater sensitivity to the original designs done for The Times and Monotype by Victor Lardent, who worked under the direction of Stanley Morison. During the same period, Adobe upgraded its version of Times, using digital masters from Linotype, which of course claimed that it had a superior version, so there was a kind of competition to see who had the most refined, sensitive, original, genuine, bona-fide, artistically and typographically correct version. Many, perhaps most, users didn't notice and didn't care about these subtle distinctions, many of which were invisible at 10 pt at 300 dpi (which is an em of 42 pixels, a stem of three pixels, a serif of 1 pixel, and so on).
When Microsoft produced its version of Times New Roman, licensed from Monotype, in TrueType format, and when Apple produced its version of Times Roman, licensed from Linotype, in TrueType format, the subtle competition took on a new aspect, because both Microsoft and Apple expended a great deal of time and effort to make the TrueType versions as good as, or better than, the PostScript version. During the same period, Adobe released ATM along with upgraded versions of its core set of fonts, for improved rasterization on screen. Also, firms like Imagen, now part of QMS, and Sun developed rival font scaling technologies, and labored to make sure that their renderings of Times, licensed from Linotype in both cases, were equal to those of their competitors. Hence, the perceived quality of the Times design became a litmus for the quality of several font formats. Never before, and probably never again, would the precise placement of pixels in the serifs or 's' curves etc. of Times Roman occupy the attention of so many engineers and computer scientists. It was perhaps the supreme era of the Digital Fontologist.
As for the actual visual differences in the designs, well, like any good academic author, I leave the detection and analysis of those "as an exercise for the reader".
© Charles Bigelow
Yes, I amended my comments about the Mac later in the thread. The Mac had a 'timesy' font, but not necessarily Times Roman.
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.