Alright, "circa" 1972 .. what is the exact date on which these fonts became available for use on IBM Selectrics?
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.
analysis of the bush memo
http://img41.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img41&image=60minbusted.swf
---Not true about Times New Roman. Last night Southack posted something that showed that Times New Roman was available on the 1972 IBM Executive, a high end typewriter---
That runs counter to what I remember and also this little bit of font history. I'd be curious as to the source of those "IBM Executive fonts". I really doubt their authenticity.
---"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.---
http://www.truetype.demon.co.uk/articles/times.htm
If the Times New Roman typeface was available on the IBM Executive typewriter at the the time, is it not still curious that *only* these memos were written on it? A wealth of documents from before and after these documents are available in Bush's military records from the same ANG office, and the all without exception use ordinary monospace typesets like Courier.
The availability of the TNR typeface seems to run counter to the history of licensing of that typeface that's been posted all over... but assuming that it is true, and assuming that this ANG HQ office had such a machine available... seems to me that something else ought to show up that was done on this machine... yet nothing other than these "personal" memos is in anybody's records.
funny, that.
You (and Southack) are correct. See
http://www.truetype.demon.co.uk/articles/times.htm
This is a subtle, but telling item: The samples with the "th" superscripted clearly show it to be WITHIN the line. It does not rise above the line. This is a trivial thing with inkjet and laser printers, but a huge problem for mechanical printers. Just as a mater of practicality, a mechanical device from 1972 that tried to make a fractional carriage adjustment to get the "th" above the line would never be able to return exactly and reliably to the original line.
Actually, this was tried yesterday with an IBM Composer, and it was unable to exactly duplicate the raised "th". It also failed to duplicate the letterspacing, and no attempt was made at centering, because the problem was too time consuming.
Look carefull at the vertical placement of the Executive "th" and compare it to the CBS document. Then try to replicate the letterspacing of the CBS document with an Executive. Can't be done.
And if that isn't enough, try duplicating the 13 point spacing between lines.
The other noticeable difference is the W. In the forged document the W stands pretty straight while the sample W leans a bit to the right.