LOL!!! you found me out.
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 ...
One more thing.
Even if the documents were typed on a typewriter, which I don't believe they were, the Signature is very suspicious.
When I sign my name, it is in a continuous movement and generally flowing.
Looking At Killians signature, it appears to be 'jagged' throughout the entire process.
Similar to what a 'forger' would do trying to duplicate someone else's signature.
The 'jaggedness' usually appears because the forger cannot produce a flowing movement, because of the foreigness (being unfamiliar) of the name.
People, don't get yourselves in a lather over this liar. All he's done is make unfounded assertions that he can't possibly support. He might as well keep repeating that time travel is possible. He can say it, but it doesn't make it so.
"He can say it, but it doesn't make it so."
True. But it can be FUN pointing out someone else's desperation and stupidity!!
LOL!!! you found me out.
Phlogistin is the substance that causes fire.
Lead can be transmogrified into gold.
The author of this is a Democrat shill without either the basis for these judgments, nor of course, the original documents to examine. He's allowing his political bias drive his academics. Gee, I've NEVER heard of that happening in any American university before now.
Pity this clown's students.
Congressman Billybob
Latest column, "Kerry Hasn't Read a History Book"
If you haven't already joined the anti-CFR effort, please click here.
Incontrovertible proof that you can find a PhD somewhere to support almost any silly argument.
? Huh ?
This PhD (of what?) is claiming what?
Kerry must be emulating Groucho in "Horsefeathers." Whatever it is, he's against it.
That was exactly my thought when I was reading his article.
"4. Overall inconsistency of the characters goes well beyond what one would expect from photocopying and digitizing and indicates that they were produced using an inconsistent (i.e., 'mechanical') process."
The only proof that he offers for this statement is is a small close up of a picture that was printed, photocopied, and scanned, but evidently only once. He also didn't mention what equipment was used for this "experiment". I have a feeling that it was fairly high end. Notice the other samples are scanned at 4200dpi. A high end scanner set to 300dpi will produce very differant results from a 300dpi fax.
As far as inconsistancy from a digitizing process? I bet Dr. Hailey would be suprised at noise that is added to a signal from low sampling rates and quanitization. Additionally, at some point in time documents created digitally are still subject to a mechanical process. There are a lot of moving parts inside printers and faxes.
But I'm glad that his education background in technical writing gives him such authority to set the record straight.
His resume: http://imrl.usu.edu/Hailey/content/topic01.html
Notice how his thesis research qualifies him for document analysis: "The Objective Metaphors: An Examination of Objects as Metaphors and Metaphors as Objects; 1994"
People like this make me wonder why I'm bothering with grad school at all.
-paridel
David Hailey (Ph.D., University of New Mexico)
Professor Hailey researches and teaches interactive media courses, including online help, online instruction, intranet technologies, and visual design for interactive technologies. His research has been published in journals such as Technical Communication, Computers and Composition, The Journal for the Association of Engineering Educators, and Text Technology. His current research focuses on the processes involved in capturing and archiving critical, professional skills before they are lost.
Anyone claiming these documents are not crude forgeries is either lying or incompetent. See the analysis here for details:
http://homepage.mac.com/cfj/newcomer/index.htm
This is the equivalent of Nixon's secretary showing she could have accidently caused the 18 seconds of blank tape on watergate talk in her office by acting like a Taiwanese acrobat.
Also, he does not say what typewriter he used, and doesn't deal with the problem that there were only two typewriters in that unit at that time. If the memos weren't produced on either of those, they are forgeries.
This guy is way beyond his level of competence. Though in reading his write-up of his own background, he is not beyond his OWN IDEA of his competence. LOL.
Congressman Billybob (writing in his pajamas)
there are at least 95 "typewriter fonts" that can be downloaded on the net for Windows and Macs. This is another attempt to "baffel them with BS" in MHO
So you are attacking the good name of the president. You offer up third generation copies (a major red flag, because, one would expect forgers to create copies of copies to hide their origin). You are producing documents which were purportedly produced by a man who is now dead. The provenance of the documents is questionable, items mentioned in memo do not correspond with their dates. These documents have not cleared the necessary first hurdles. Now were are to forget all that, and swallow the unlikely fact that theoretically, these documents could have been produced with technology at the time despite fact that no other contemporaneous documents exist from TANG using that typeface. And I haven't even mentioned kerning, the signatures, the problems with Jargon, the lack of a letterhead, and the paper size issue. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Simply saying the documents have been made does not even begin to address the ancillary issues that have been raised.
Yup, like I just pointed out in my thread about Paul Lukasiak's website, he's got lots of documents from President Bush's Guard days on there. Not one is typed in a proportional font. Everything from everyone in the chain of command was done with fixed space fonts.
POOF! There it is.
Honestly, the secretary already said they're fake. Haupt already said he didn't pressure anyone.
Why are they still on this?
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.