Posted on 09/26/2004 7:20:50 AM PDT by OSHA
The following evidence from a forensic examination of the Bush memos indicates that they were typed on a typewriter:
1. The specific font used is from a typewriter family in common use since 1905 and a typewriter capable of producing the spacing has been available since 1944. 2. The characters “e,” “t,” “s,” and “a” show indications of physical damage and/or wear consistent with a well used typewriter. 3. The characters that are seldom used show no signs of damage or wear. 4. The quality of individual characters is inconsistent throughout the memos beyond expectations from photocopying and/or digitizing but quality is consistent with worn platen and variations in paper quality.
[Snip]
6. Critical indicators of digital production or cut and paste production are missing.
Implications are that there is nothing in this evidence that would indicate the memos are inauthentic. Furthermore, from the point of view of the physical evidence in the documents (excluding any rhetorical evidence or external evidence, which is not examined in this study) no amount of additional research on the part of CBS would have lead them to exclude the documents from their 60 Minutes report.
[Snip]
First, The documents are not Times New Roman, or any similar font, nor are they produced with word processing software (or at least, were not printed using contemporary printing technologies). The documents are almost certainly printed using an impact printer (typewriter or daisy wheel) and are not digitally produced for the following three reasons:
[Snip]
None of the fonts available on the Internet seem to be exact matches, however. It is unlikely that a digital typeface could have produced any of these memos. Specifically, the quality of strike between characters is inconsistent, and the effect caused by photocopying and digitizing are inadequate to explain the differences.
(Excerpt) Read more at imrl.usu.edu ...
POOF!
This is ridiculous.
I can't believe there are still people out there willing to embarrass themselves so as to destroy a president they can't stand.
With respects to Lanny Davis....
Not gonna go there, wouldn't be prudent at this juncture. The memos are fake as is the 'story' behind them. To buy into this BS story is only proof that liberals will never stop trying to get someone to believe their LIES!
" a mechanical Olympia typewriter and the IBM Selectric "
Well, how the hell can this guy provide such in-depth analysis of documents that nobody seems to have the originals of?
Another point...this guy's reume shows no signs of any kind of forensic document training. (see link) http://imrl.usu.edu/Hailey/content/topic01.html
So who the hell is David E. Hailey, Jr., Ph.D.? Looks like he's a glorified art and english prof. Hmmmmmm... the plot thickens...
Would any so called expert conclude anything definitive from copies?
The reaction of the perpetrators leaves no doubt they didn't trust the authenticity.
This guy stands alone as far as I know in a sea of skeptics amidst powerful pronouncements that these documents are fakes. The statement of Col Walter Staudt alone is powerful, Bill Burkett himself warned that they should be carefully vetted, Gary & Mrs Killian said they were crap, the typist Ms Knox said garbage, Col Hodges said crap, Ghenghis Kahn in Germany said he didn't know squat about them, the term "billets" is Army, not AF and on and on. This PhD is clearly a Kerry Koolaidite.
Yup.
The poor doofus hasn't even seen the overlays that people have created showing how extremely close the forgery matches a creation using MS Word ...
Ok, if this is true, then let's see a sampling of some other memos that came from that Guard Unit at the same time. Should be easy enough to do, right?
Proof of the ironic truth that institutions of higher learning are often just hiding places for stupidity. Truthfully, many of the things the 'expert' outlines are indefensible, even laughable, in the true context of the situation (such as his indepth analysis based on digitized images of documents generations away from the original).
The only line by line comparison he does was with one that he created on a computer!
Hey that's NOT FAIR! The fact that they are photocopies are part of his proof! LOL
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.