NBC: 'Some experts say papers could be forged'

MSNBC ^ | Sept. 10, 2004 | MSNBC

[West Coast Conservative]

Whether or not typewriters in use at the time Killian reportedly wrote the memos could produce such superscripts is an issue in the authenticity debate.

Some experts said the typeface used in the documents was Times New Roman, a typeface they said was not available in the 1970s. But CBS reported that the owner of the company that distributes that type style, which it did not identify, said it had been available since 1931.

[...]

Independent document examiner Sandra Ramsey Lines said the memos looked like they had been produced on a computer using Microsoft Word software. Lines, a document expert and fellow of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, pointed to a superscript — a smaller, raised “th” in “111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron” — as evidence indicating forgery.

Microsoft Word automatically inserts superscripts in the same style as the two on the memos obtained by CBS, she said.

“I’m virtually certain these were computer-generated,” Lines said after reviewing copies of the documents at her office in Paradise Valley, Ariz. She produced a nearly identical document using her computer’s Microsoft Word software.

[Republican Red]

Dan Rather Lied: Company that owns font did not License it till 1980!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1212662/posts?page=48#48

[Loyal Buckeye]

Regardless of what Dan Rather says, the conventional wisdom is that the docs were forged. Until Rather proves without a doubt they are not, most are going to thing they are.

[Nathan Zachary]

HA! Is See? B.S. getting their lines from DU? LMAO

[Mach9]

Some experts said the typeface used in the documents was Times New Roman, a typeface they said was not available in the 1970s. But CBS reported that the owner of the company that distributes that type style, which it did not identify, said it had been available since 1931.

MAYBE, just maybe, at a publishing house. Not on a military base.

[Illinois Rep]

How about filing a Freedom of Information Act with the Houston, TX Postal Service to find out the name of the leasee of post office box 34567 for the Houston PO listed on the return address for the 111th squadron listed on the fake document? Maybe this is a way to see if this is the actual box for that squadron. Pretty ironic the numbers are 34567.

[Unknown Freeper]

In 1931, The Times of London commissioned the Monotype Corporation, under the direction of Stanley Morison, to design a newspaper typeface. According to Morison: “The Times, as a newspaper in a class by itself, needed not a general trade type, however good, but a face whose strength of line, firmness of contour, and economy of space fulfilled the specific editorial needs of The Times.” Times New Roman, drawn by Victor Lardent and initially released in 1932, is the result. The Linotype version is called Times Roman. Research into legibility and readability led to a design that was unique in newspaper typography; it is based on old style (or Garalde) types, and has greater contrast and is more condensed than previous newspaper types. Times New Roman continues to be very popular, particularly for newspapers, magazines, and corporate communications such as proposals and annual reports.

Designers:

• Stanley Morison
• Starling Burgess
• Victor Lardent

Times New Roman is a trademark of The Monotype Corporation registered in the US Patent and Trademark Office and may be registered in certain other jurisdictions.

Source: http://store.adobe.com/type/browser/P/P_1266.jhtml;store

[sarasotarepublican]

So far I see only finger pointing by the media. By Monday, this issue will be a whisper. The media is going to stick together.

[hole_n_one]

Good work!

[Loyal Buckeye]

"By Monday, this issue will be a whisper."

I think that will depend on what the real experts find, i.e., those in the military and FBI.

[supercat]

But CBS reported that the owner of the company that distributes that type style, which it did not identify, said it had been available since 1931.

Times-Roman dates back to 1931. Times New Roman is a Microsoft knockoff of much more recent lineage.

It would be interesting to see how the document types out in Times-Roman if anyone has a copy for the PC (or wants to format the document using PostScript).

[ResistorSister]

When I was a typesetter back in the 1970's (using an Addressograph/Multigraph computerized typesetting system) I remember a font known as Times Roman, but not Times New Roman.

[JohnnyZ]

But CBS reported that the owner of the company that distributes that type style, which it did not identify, said it had been available since 1931.

Hello, why don't they find out for themselves, you know, investigate? The history of Times New Roman is not exactly a state secret.

[John Valentine]

Some experts said the typeface used in the documents was Times New Roman, a typeface they said was not available in the 1970s. But CBS reported that the owner of the company that distributes that type style, which it did not identify, said it had been available since 1931.

This is an example of the moronic level of the CBS response to the charges of incompetence and bias leveled at them for allowing forged documents to be used to smear President Bush. They reply with more incompetence and bias.

It is quite true that Times New Roman is a long established Type face. It has been available to publishers for many years, and if the owner of the company that licenses the typeface says 1931, I won't argue.

But that is not and never was the issue.

The issue is whether the documents in question could have been produced on a typewriter in 1972 or 1973.

So far no no one has said that Times New Roman was available on a typewriter at that time, but even if the typeface wasn't Times New Roman, but just a similar one, the issue still is whether or not the document could have been produced on a typewriter in 1972 or 1973.

The answer to that has to be: if the typewriter has to have wordwrap, automatic superscripting, multiple font sizes, kerning, and automatic centering, it wouldn't have been possible in 1972, 1973, or indeed any year right up to the present.

I challenge anyone to duplicate these memos on any readily available office typewriter, in front of witnesses, without using absurd techniques like changing type balls, fingering the type ball during typing to get special effects, figuring, measuring and calculating off to the side, retyping lines, drawing pencil lines on the paper to create typing guides (later to erase), or other nonsense techniques that nobody would have resorted to for a "memo to file".

I'd like to offer a reward, but I think a wager should be a two way street. If anybody thinks he or she can duplicate these memos on a typewriter, make me a challenge and name your bet. I'm ready.

[PokeyJoe]

Just send them some certified mail .... with a signed copy of the acceptance signature. (good enough to provide to a court as proof of service)

[jwpjr]

A simple question. Even IF the information offered in the memos is true, SO WHAT? I can't believe that anyone who is sitting on the fence would decide that because President Bush had to shoot a couple of missed approaches in his fighter. Nope, something else is in play here. As I mused in an earlier post, I wonder if the sting wasn't aimed at CBS, Dan Rather or 60 Minutes. Too much effort here just to point out that someone rubbed his commanding officer the wrong way thirty years ago.

[NYCVirago]

Some experts said the typeface used in the documents was Times New Roman, a typeface they said was not available in the 1970s. But CBS reported that the owner of the company that distributes that type style, which it did not identify, said it had been available since 1931.

They're missing the point. It's not whether the font existed; it's whether the font was available on a TANG typewriter back then.

[Illinois Rep]

PO Boxes could have changed in the past 30 years

[Yardstick]

"But CBS reported that the owner of the company that distributes that type style, which it did not identify, said it had been available since 1931."

Available, yes, but not available as a typewriter font! Before some relatively recent date (a date well after 1972), Times New Roman was available only as a printing font.

At least this is what I gathered from some thread some time today on FR. Can anyone confirm this (I'm pretty sure I've got it right, but I want to doublecheck)?

It's amazing to me how consistently the press stops short of pressing for the real answers, for the critical information that decisively settles these sorts of things. It's like they are incapable of pursuing a line of questioning or reasoning to its end. We end up with these lame-ass, limpwristed reports that do nothing but muddy the water.

Thank goodness for the new media and the blogosphere. They delight in chasing these things down to the last nub.

[Lauratealeaf]

This was Dan Rather's way of getting the Swift Boat Vets for Truth out of the news.