I received a reply from "expert" who was quoted by Freepers

[The_Casual_Observer]

regarding the memos:

My examination was based on a number of factors. Perhaps the most important thing ... I could find no typewriter font (including the IBM Executive) that matched exactly the Times font letter for letter in the questioned documents (there was always some difference/variation) in the questioned letters when compared with the database Times fonts for that time period. The "th" superscript could have existed on some IBM Selectrics, proportional spacing also existed, and Times fonts have been around a long time. However, I was able to produce in Microsoft Word a document that when compared with the questioned memos showed no significant differences in the letter forms, spacing, indentations, etc.

My findings were that the questioned letters/memos "very probably" were computer-generated using Word or WordPerfect. Without examining the original documents, I cannot be positive. Since then, more information has come to light that confirms my findings.

Thank you for your comments. They are appreciated.

Sandra Ramsey Lines
Forensic Document Examiner


"Since then, more information has come to light that confirms my findings. " ---Huh??????

[jdj]

1. Wow. Wow. Wow.

They had this ON HAND. Ready for you.

Her finding$ have been $confirmed$, mmmmhmmm.

[yardwork]

2. Utter bullshit. Or should I say Bush-shit?

The fact that she was willing to make an analysis with such poor quality copies is a sign of her lack of professionalism right there.

Then she says, "The 'th' superscript could have existed on some IBM Selectrics...." That is nonsense. The 'th' superscript exists on the little balls that were interchangeable on the machines. They didn't exist on the typewriters themselves! Did she have, at her fingertips, every single ball that worked on every single machine available in 1972? That would involve thousands and thousands of combinations. An exhaustive test to rule out every possible combination of balls and machines would take weeks or months. She determined that "no match exists" within minutes! How ridiculous!

Finally, she says she was able to produce a Microsoft Word document with "no significant differences." Really? I would like to see how she got all those uneven letters on a Word document. That would be a hell of a photoshop effort.

She's an embarrassment to the profession she claims to represent.

[interceptor]

4. Nah

There are programs forensic scientists use to classify these things quickly. This isn't that big of a mystery.

Don't sweat this so much. So what if the documents are forgeries? Its not like the questions raised are new anyway, and they won't just "go away" because of this.

Let them have their fun.

[jdj]

7. Beg pardon.

This isn't some hokey two-bit outfit like, say, Fox News.

Are you seriously suggesting CBS didn't have these doc's examined on their own?

In that case, I have a couple of world trade towers to sell you.

[interceptor]

16. Even the best experts...

make mistakes, and "its CBS" isn't proof of anything in of itself. NASA is full of experts who lost a space probe because they crossed metric and english measurements...and they had experts check that stuff out, too. Its not like CBS is some kind of deus ex machina just because they're not Faux News. I'm not even saying they "are" forgeries. Just, really, who cares if they are? Is it going to ruin your day? I don't think so.

Let's say there's ironclad proof they are, and Dan Rather even comes out and says so.

SO WHAT?

Is that going to make you just dismiss your questions about the ANG service? Is that going to make you forget the rest of the documents that have led you to your opinions beforehand?

Probably not. So its not like this is the cathartic moment where we'll all realize we're "wrong" or something.

On the other hand, thinking tactically, we should be ready to press on in the event that this is retracted (which it probably wont') with all the other evidence, and the total picture argument. If we over-emphasize these stupid things and lose, well, then we look stupid and lose momentum where we can't afford it. If we don't sweat it, we're ready to play it off, and stand by with the already obvious lack of evidence regarding the Alabama timeframe, then it won't be so bad.

Don't worry over this so much. Wait it out. If we jump in now lock step, then we're playing into their hands.

[jdj]

17. what?

damaged credibility is damaged credibility

it could kill the story

I don't know what all this "we" business is

p.s. your commands to my emotions are really nauseating.

[interceptor]

19. Only if we let it.

And only if we spaz over it and act like its the whole story. Seriously. Just wait and see what happens.

Or, sit there and be "nauseated" or something.

[jdj]

20. You're not the boss of me.

[interceptor]

21. You don't know that :P I could be...

[jdj]

22. What is :P

[interceptor]

24. I could tell you...

but then my black helicopters would have to come find you.

[jdj]

25. My black helicopters will find you first.

Stop picking your nose, you're under surveillance.

[Swamp Rat]

26. Now for something completely different:

Don't vote for Bush! He's an alien lizard!

[jdj]

27. WHERE did that pic come from?

Did you do it?

How?

(This picture must have been taken in horse vision,that's what bush looks like to horses which is why they hate him, and he's scared of them. I still can't believe this country is run by a fake cowboy on a pseudo ranch who is terrified of horses.)

[Swamp Rat]

30. I used an old version of photoshop.

Here's a more recent one.

[jdj]

32. I saw that one the other day!

I think the eyes should be red, green is too harmless looking.

Cheney really is a sociopath.

[Swamp Rat]

33. I just finished this one for a Colin Powell thread

[jdj]

34. god that is scary.

he looks like those people in "V", that 80's miniseries..remember that?

[Swamp Rat]

35. Yep. Wanna see somethin' even scarier?

[AngryWhiteLiberal]

3. This woman is NO SCIENTIST...not even attempting to test the null hypothes

If she thinks a computer was used to make the documents, she needs to test against the null hypothesis that a computer didn't make the document...not trying to prove the alternative hypothesis (i.e., computer generated document).

"Very probably"...hmmm. What p-value (significance level) does this translate into? What's her risk of making a Type II error?

This lady "scientist" would be massacred in court. She wouldn't even get close to passing a Daubert challenge (i.e., admissibility of "expert" testimony).

JB

[DBoon]

6. She is a Republican Activist

A prior post here at DU noted this (sorry no link). Also a freelance forensic specialist. Freelancer may or may not be qualified.

[Kimber Scott]

29. She works for the "Wish List" in Scottsdale, AZ (GOP Organization)

Here's what I've found so far:

http://www.thewishlist.org/

http://www.azconservative.org/WISH_contributors.htm

I'll update as I go.

[Jim Sagle]

5. Contact info:

Sandra Ramsey Lines
[phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]

(from http://www.swafde.org/memstate.html)

[Fridays Child]

11. And more contact info

6200 E Cholla Lane
Paradise Valley, AZ 85253

[Fridays Child]

8. BUSTED! Sandra Ramsey Lines is a pro-repub partisan!

She's a member of The Wish List, a 527 that raises money for repub women candidates. Victoria Toensing is the secretary of this organization.

Look here: http://www.publicintegrity.org/527/search.aspx?act=com&orgid=574

and here: www.publicintegrity.org/527/handler-download. aspx?act=txt&type=con&org=574&year=2003 (opens as a .txt document)

[jdj]

9. Victoria Tongueling

she is one creepy btch.

Can't stand her.

[Fridays Child]

12. Who do you suppose called upon this Lines character to crawl out from...

...under her rock and play "independent" expert?

[jdj]

18. she didn't crawl out from under a rock...

Tongue-thing whipped out her lizard tongue and caught Lines in mid-flight.

[Jim Sagle]

15. Great work! That's the kind of thing I was trying to find.

:yourock:

[Occulus]

23. OK, that makes TWO who are

connected to both this "document debacle" and this particular 527.

Things that make you go, "hmm".

[City Lights]

28. Two?

I'm only aware of sandra ramsey lines. Who is the other one connected to wish list?

[Fridays Child]

38. Me, too. But does CBS know about this? Dan Rather should make it...

...abundantly clear that these so-called independent experts are members of a partisan 527.

[baldguy]

10. Maybe she try and do a little research.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/IBM+Selectric+typewriter

snip

The Selectric typewriter was first released in 1961 and is generally considered to be a design classic. After the Selectric II was introduced a few years later, the original design was designated the Selectric I. The Correcting Selectric II differed from the Selectric I in many respects:

-The Selectric II was squarer at the corners, whereas the Selectric I was rounder.

-The Selectric II had a Dual Pitch option to allow it to be switched (with a lever at the top left of the "carriage") between 10 and 12 characters per inch, whereas the Selectric I had one fixed "pitch".

-The Selectric II had a lever (at the top left of the "carriage") that allowed characters to be shifted up to a half space to the left (for inserting a word one character longer or shorter in place of a deleted mistake), whereas the Selectric I did not.

-The Selectric II had optional auto-correction (with the extra key at the bottom right of the keyboard), whereas the Selectric I did not. (The white correction tape was at the left of the typeball and its orange take-up spool at the right of the typeball.)

-The Selectric II had a lever (above the right platen knob) that would allow the platen to be turned freely but return to the same vertical line (for inserting such symbols as subscripts and superscripts), whereas the Selectric I did not.

end snip

Google is a wonderful thing.


The fact that she can duplicate the doc in word is meaningless - modern word processing software is DESIGNED to emulate the typewriters that were replaced. Like the IBM Selectric II. It would be odd if the doc COULD NOT be reproduced.

The only thing that would prove the docs are fake is if they contained something that couldn't have been made on a typewriter in 1972.

[Jokinomx]

13. They are all a bunch of liars.. its hard to fight evil...they just keep

throwing the Bullshit at you and then you have to keep cleaning it off... it sure gets frustrating...

Thanks everyone for the great information and links... I don't know what I would do without the Underground...

:toast:

[TreasonousBastard]

14. Gee whiz-- an "expert"...

chimes in with an opinion without seeing the original documents.

Documents which would be yellowed 30-year old paper with imprints from the type actually hitting the paper.

Doesn't anybody know the difference between typewriters and laser printers?

[0rganism]

31. follow her "logic" for a second -- it displays a common fallacy

The document is harder to reproduce on a typewriter than on a computer. Ergo, the ORIGINAL was most likely generated on a computer than a typewriter. Do you see the problem inherent in making this jump?

Let's say you have a page of complex calculations. You reproduce them on a calculator, but the originator claims they were done by sliderule. Does the fact that they are easily and accurately reproduced on a calculator have any logical connection to whether they were produced with a sliderule?

This is essentially the argument the "reproduce this document for $20000" people are making. The hardness of doing an exact replication has little -- indeed, no -- necessary bearing on the production of the original.

[The_Casual_Observer]

36. Well, it would be impossible to match up the documents

so perfectly, particularly since she didn't have the originals to get the scale right. It looked to me that the "match up" was done with two word documents created for the occasion by her to prove her point.

[DeepModem Mom]

37. kick