Replies

This "professor" claims to have produced "an exact match" of a CBS Bush memo on a manual typewriter. It is clear from looking at this own exhibits that he has NOT produced an exact match. His example would not pass the flash back-and-forth exhibit.

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)

Maybe I am missing something from the "professor's" analysis but exactly what part of the memos is being picture in this example he uses to point out similar wear patterns? Where in the memos is the word "meeterer(?)" or "mem le sec(?)""???

Figure 13. The upper right shoulder of the “e” shows signs of damage throughout the memos. (Image scanned at 4200 lines/inch).

Perhaps these are just random samples taken from words and merely pasted together into a pastiche. If so, a proper analyst would indicate from where each sample was taken so that other researchers could duplicate his work.

He also seems to think, because he "scanned at 4200 lines/inch", that a scan of a low rez scan will improve the image if scanned at a higher rez. This is not useful information because we do not know what level of scan was done at each step of the original copying process, what level of compression was used in the PDF files he downloaded, or what level of reproduction his printer used.

I also note the "good" doctor's sloppiness... there are TWO Figure 13s in his document.

It appears to me that his evidence of "wear" is more likelly evidence of pixelization of the printing/scanning/copying/repeatedly process. Note that in the word "meetere..." the "consistent" wear supposedly shown in the 1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd and 5^th "e's" is NOT CONSISTENT in the 4^th "e"!!!

I think his analysis is flawed.

He may have demonstrated that the forger was a little more thoughtful than we gave him credit for. The professor's work seems to me to indicate that the forger downloaded the "Typewriter" font and used that to attempt to spoof a typewriter of the early '70s... with the same font metrics as Times New Roman. He himself pointed out that many of the Typewriter fonts were created from copy scanned from REAL (shall we say "worn out") typewriter copy.