CBS: Not Sinking!
Capt. Rather On Bridge!
'Rats Deserting Ship!
Posted on 09/10/2004 7:18:39 PM PDT by SkyPilot
Now what? How can we get CBS to fess up?
Absent the original documents it would be impossible to say with any certainty that they were typed, not simply printed. A typewriter would, of course, leave an impression in the paper, unlike a printer.
As to the copying, I've posted previously, give me 15 minutes with some of my readily available graphics software and I'll produce a document that looks as old as your request, and would include a standard type font, not this obviously bogus nonsense See BS is pawning off on the American public.
Capt. Rather On Bridge!
'Rats Deserting Ship!
I dunno and it's not my information, I got it from Southack. I posted to him and sent him a PM but haven't heard back yet.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1210702/posts?page=253#253
Add the charge of being a jagoff to Nixon in the press conference ten million years ago. I have never forgotten.
I'd also bet that no authenticated AF document can be found from that time period that contains the Times-Roman font.
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perhaps the whole list needs to start with:
0. The "documents" in question can be trivially recreated,
with high precision, by using Microsoft Word, under default
settings of the program. This places the documents in the
late 1980s if not more recent.
Occam's Razor (the simplest explanation is the most
likely), suggests that this becomes the leading candidate
explanation for the source of these documents, and covers
all of the objections following.
Historical explanations require answering all of the
following.
The Colonel's wife has said that her husband was not a typist (hint: he could not type). Well--perhaps his Secretary did the typing.
Yup-maybe Terry McAlliffe did the typing.
This is the worst case of media bias in history.
We all need to get off this typeface issue. There are dozens of other problems with these memos. By focusing on one issue only, and the WRONG one at that, we make it easier to debunk the truth - which is that the memos are fabrications.
Bump
Number 5 is a problem. I just sent a copy of Courier 10 pt to Howlin that has a closed 4, but it also has a foot at the bottom.
Good stuff. Time to spread this across the internet :D
Thanks for the handy download and print-out. I think I may use it as gift wrap for hardened lefties...
I have a question regarding the MEMORANDUM for the order to Bush to report for a physical. If this is an order to Lt Bush, why isn't it in "official military records"? You wouldn't type an order to someone and then keep it in your "personal files." Don't you think this would be in Lt Bush's files somewhere? I spent 22 1/2 years in the Air Force, and I don't ever remember seeing anyone get an order in the form of a MEMORANDUM.
Re: kerning. It is true that Word has a special kerning function, which typically would be used for extremely large font sizes.
I believe - am not an expert but did my own test on this - that it DOES kern automatically somewhat.
Try this experiment. Using Word Times New Roman at the largest font size available - mine is 72 point - center justify and type the word "moon" (no quotation marks), hit enter, and then type "mono" (no quotation marks). If the program doesn't adjust the spacing, the words should be the same length. They're not.
Moon is a tiny bit longer than mono. (It doesn't matter whether you capitalize the first "m" or not, but do it the same way both times.)
Hugh Hewitt's guest expert, Robert "Corky" Cartwright, Professor of Computer Science at Rice, explains why.
http://www.hughhewitt.com/#postid876
Admittedly, you can adjust the spacing between the letters even more if you use the "kerning" function.
On #7, if actually an n-th generation copy, why?
If supposedly from "Killian's personal files", why
would it not be a 1st-gen scan of the original, or
of a first-gen copy?
> If Mately told CBS that their memos are "not reliable
> representations of the memos" because they are not the
> original and hence can't be authenticated, why did they
> unprofessionally go ahead with the Memo piece without
> getting a copy of the originals to authenticate.
Specifically, why are the supposed re-creations given a
"distressed"/"copied" look.
The point of re-creating marginal documents is to
improve the appearance, and in any case, when done,
needs to be identified as re-creations. These are
forgeries.
Or is CBS going to tell us they are forgeries of forgeries?
Someone needs to add, no typos from a guy who was known as a non-typist.
There is at least one organization that has all the manuals, equipment and other information at their fingertips to answer all relevant questions:
THE FBI
I would assume they are on the case along with experts in the military.
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.
