It isn't Times New Roman

[jpgray]

Note how different the "i"s are in "File". In the memo, the "i" has a straight-across top to it, whereas in Word the top is slanted. The bottom line is also a longer straight line in the memo, whereas in Word it is a shorter line with curved corners. The "F" and "i" almost touch each other in the memo, whereas in Word they come nowhere close. Note also that the dot of the "i" in the memo matches with the top of the "l", whereas in Word the dot is much higher. What horseshit.



Here you can see the "g" is noticeably flatter and more condensed in the memo version--the bottom loop has an entirely different shape. The top loop in TNR is much more circular whereas the top loop in the memo has more of an oval shape.

Thanks to salvorhardin for posting these images originally.

[StopTheMorans]

1. think this will get the morans who keep saying these are

forgeries at DU to finally pipe down? nah, probably not, shilling for the right-wing and saying Kerry's gonna lose is a lot more fun...

on edit: oh yeah, forgot to say "great find"!

:thumbsup:

[MoonRiver]

10. Yep, many 1000+ers have been posting one word replies, patiently

lying in wait for their change to spam this board with rightwing propaganda. That's the way I see it at least. We've been FREEPED big time.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

33. I have noticed this also

it sure is tiresome. And some are so obvious you wonder how they're still here! :eyes:

[demwing]

46. This Font Appears to Be ROMAN, not TNR

the small case "i" The large T and F....

This is most certainly not TNR.

Close, but not.

[htuttle]

2. Note how the baseline jumps around in the memo version

The bottoms of all the letters in the memo don't line up precisely. That's because the paper moves slightly as you are typing on it, and thus the baselines become slightly misaligned.

In a laser printed document, the baselines of all the letters are exactly, precisely aligned.

To me, that says the document is obviously typewritten, if nothing else.

If you shrink the image of the memo down small (to the same size as a word processed document), you won't notice this, of course.

[yellowcanine]

50. Yep those memos were not done on a laser printer - that's for sure.

For it to be faked - only other possibility is a daisy wheel printer or someone actually used a typewriter. I believe a daisy wheel printer would do a better job on the baseline. As for a typewriter -well there goes the MS Word "proof". I am 99% sure these were typed on a typewriter and therefore are probably genuine. (One can never be completely certain because just about anything can be faked, including a connection between Iraq and 9-11.)

[Gregorian]

3. Hey people. Am I wrong, here?

Find other documents out of the same office. There were many many done on the same typewriters. I mean, that's the easy way.

[wuushew]

9. Actually there is a good chance the secretary or typist is still alive

Surely base personnel would be listed in a document somewhere. Perhaps even inventory records exist of what typewriters were on hand.

[liberal N proud]

17. We are talking about Rove and the bush regime.

They probably made sure that all were dead or incapacitate if they did not buy the RW propaganda.

[yellowcanine]

51. If they are Republican they are probably lying low and hoping no one

tracks them down. Just like poor old Alex Butterfield (revealed the existence of the Nixon tapes).

[BurtWorm]

4. The fact that the words are the exact same length, I'm sorry to say, is

very bad for the "non-forgery" argument. Very bad! Better drop these quickly. CBS better tell us where they got these documents from.

[jpgray]

5. I assume that's sarcasm? (nt)

[BurtWorm]

11. No it isn't sarcasm, I'm truly sorry to say. Dems just got sucker punched.

[jpgray]

13. So you're saying it is TNR?

I'm taking that argument singly, and it doesn't appear to hold up to examination.

[BurtWorm]

19. Yes I am. The letters are all exactly the same length.

That would be impossible if they came from different typewriters. Or it would be very close to impossible.

[jpgray]

21. Okay, look at the "i" here

The dot is lower and fatter, the lines on top and bottom are flat and longer, without any slant, and it is much closer to the "F". You are arguing these fonts are the same? In 'Memo' there is also a clear example of a roving baseline that is impossible with anything but a typewriter. These ARE indsisputably two different formats, but the fonts are also different.

[jpgray]

30. Hello?

I'm still waiting to be told how these two "i"s are exactly the same.

[BurtWorm]

31. Copy the TNR, then copy the copy, then copy the copy.

Then tell me the "i" is radically different. I hope it is, but I'm not going to bet on it.

[jpgray]

34. No amount of copying can change these things

The dot of the "i" is on level with the "l", the shape is utterly different since the lines on top and bottom are completely different. Unless copying can magically bring letters closer together, flatten some and not others, create a roving baseline, and alter the shape and length of only certain letter features in the exact same way and with complete consistency, this is not Times New Roman.

[BurtWorm]

35. Did you do the copying experiment?

Try it and see if what you're saying is right. Copies do tend to distort.

[jpgray]

39. If I get time I will try it

But just looking at those two "i"s side by side:



Tell me these are the same. The image is a perfect rectangle, and the shapes and spacing are nothing alike.

[BurtWorm]

43. They certainly do look different. But what is the difference due to?

The fact that they're different fonts or the optical distortion the black on white one went through after being copied several times?

[wuushew]

45. Other TANG documents of the era would show similar variability

after being copied and archived. If that is the case then your assumption would be unfounded abscent direct evidence of a Rovian conpiracy to create the documents.

[Chili]

41. you can copy that document 15,000 times...

...and on copy #15,000, the dot in the "i" will be the exact same distance from the bottom part of the letter as it was on copy #1, it'll just have more noise around it - it can never MOVE text across space. Even a fax would've distorted the entire letter, not just the dot.

The same goes for the fact that the "e" in "File" is higher than the "l" - can't you see that? That's not a distortion from a copy machine, or a fax, it's because it was typed on an imperfect machine. Word simply CAN'T print imperfect type, that's the reason it displaced typewriters.

[BurtWorm]

42. Did you try copying the copies even once?

Try it. Then tell me there's no vertical or horizontal distortion.

[Chili]

47. okay.

There's no vertical or horizontal distortion.

...and then I'm done with this, not going to waste any more time or ink or paper on this.

The idea that if you copy it over and over and over again, it will look like the CBS document is false. It will look like this (original printout from Word document typed on a Dell computer, printed out on an HP PSC750 five times - the original printout is on top):







...which is not even remotedly like this, the original:







If you copy a Word printout over and over and over again, all it will do is make the letters FATTER and DARKER, not faded and distorted and pockmarked... and all still perfectly aligned. That's it.

This is the silliest thing Drudge and those asses have come up with, and we've fallen for it hook, line and sinker. It's a DISTRACTION from what the records really show, that's all this is!

Done and gone.

[formernaderite]

49. I agree, it's not copied...but it could be fax distortion.

...there are still many machines that distort letters etc. I'll wait and see, but am no longer convinced it's necessarily a forgery.

[starroute]

52. The second half of the line with "187th" looks lower than the first half

If someone had to manually roll the platen up to get the superscript -th- and then roll it back down again, they might not be able to return it to exactly the same position. (The Selectric had a feature to let the platen roll freely and then lock back in the original position, but the Executive, which had the proportional spacing and curly quotes, did not.)

I'm looking at the gif of the memo in my graphics program and I've overlaid a grid on it. Most of the lines slant down noticeably to the left. For example, on the left end of the top line, a gridline goes through the crossbar of the -t- in "Staudt" and just below the top curve of the -a-. But on the right end of that same line, it goes through the middle curve of the -a- in "having" and is well below the crossbar of the -t- in "trouble."

In the line with "187th," this is not the case, at least not to the same degree. The gridline just brushes the tops of the letters in "period" at the left and is only a hair below the tops of the letters in "Austin" at the right. That is what you might find if the platen had been rolled up for the superscript and then rolled down slightly past where it started.

However, I'm doing this by eyeball, so I'm not positive about it. Is there someone with more experience who can do the manipulations necessary to determine it more definitely one way or the other?

[Proud2BAmurkin]

36. Word was modeled after already developed technology

:eyes:

[BurtWorm]

40. Which technology was it modeled after?

Cuneiform? ;)

I spent the first part of the afternoon looking through old Selectric manuals for evidence that typing a superscript "th" was a piece of cake on a Selectric. What I found was actually disturbing. Typing superscript on a Selectric involved manually moving the platen up and down.

Go to page 61 of this manual, for instance, to see how complicated the process is, even on a machine that uses memory. In any case, the superscript "th" would be exactly the same size as the normal "th," as the font size on each Selectric golf ball was uniform.

http://www.ibmcomposer.org/docs/Mag%20Card%20Composer%20Operating%20Instructions.pdf

[htuttle]

6. Bullshit

You are aware of the fact that nearly all computer typefaces were based on print typefaces, right? That's why they take up the same amount of room.

Stop drinking the kool-aid, or at least stop handing it out.

[BurtWorm]

18. Show me evidence that IBM Selectric font and Times New Roman are

the same length. I would truly love to see that. But anyone who knows mysteries knows that typewriters had signature spacing that made each model distinct. It wasn't until computers came along that fonts became identical from one printer to the next.

[htuttle]

23. Well, when you say 'identical', you are not talking 'microns'

...'similar to the eye' is not 'identical'. And believe me: printers (and those who make typewriters and the original computer foundry fonts) had a LOT better eyes for this than you or me.

Explain to me one thing. How do you get the baselines of all the letters NOT to line up when using a computer word processor and printer?

And if you come up with an arcane way to do this, explain why someone went to the trouble of setting the baseline on each character differently, yet left the other points brought up by the forgery crowd in?

[wuushew]

25. Look it is very easy to test your theories

Find another memo to file dated from 1972, preferably from May 1972 that was also signed by Colonel Killian.

If you still believe them to be forgeries you are suggesting that either Rove company has forged completely new documents for the entire Alabama Air National Guard or that Rove's full time job is that of print setting expert not political strategist.

[BurtWorm]

32. Someone is going to come up with a legitimate Killian memo

and some of us, I'm afraid, are going to be in for a very rude surprise.

[frylock]

38. and some of us, I'm afraid, are going to be in for a very rude surprise

yes, they are going to be in for a rude surprise. The docs are legit.

[BurtWorm]

44. It would be great if you're right.

I'm not counting on it, though. I'm not going to let my desire for them to be authentic convince me when the material evidence is so weak.

[Goldmund]

7. Not only that,

but they're the SAME EXACT WORDS! Both with the original version and MS WORD.

We're finished.

[Chili]

8. it's a freaking TYPEWRITER!

...Geez, I know we live in the computer age, but for chrissakes, anyone who has ever used a typewriter can see... it's a TYPEWRITER!

I can't even believe this is being debated. Question a signature, question the content, but this is clearly a typewritten memo, even if typed yesterday!

Getting frustrated here.

[janx]

26. A lot of people who are trying to seem expert about all of this

have never even used a typewriter, let alone a few different kinds through the years. Furthermore, they have no knowledge of typography and are throwing terms around that they know nothing about.

So terms like pitch, point, line spacing, proportional spacing, font, etc. are all getting thrown around with abandon and ignorance.

Jeez. I remember the days when we had to write on a typewriter and send the copy to the typesetter. We had to count the type according to the typeface we wanted the copy set in so that we could fit it into a column. I remember the evolution of typewriters, and the transition from those days into digital formatting. Believe me when I tell you that most people--*especially those wingnuts who contrived this rumor*--have no idea what's going on.

Older media types like Rather know this, however. Many of them have had to count type too. They know what various typewriters were capable of and they know digital typesetting and computer fonts very well.

For instance: one ridiculous assertion going around is that a typewriter could not have 13-point line spacing, which is ridiculous. Typewriters used to have type SIZES of typefaces, typically, at 10, 12, and 15 "pitch." (In typesetting this is akin to point size now.) But the line spacing was another matter. When we had to count type, back in the old days, we would designate 12 point Times Roman, for instance, to be set at 13 point line spacing. That was COMMON. We'd write 12/13 in the margin--12 for the type size and 13 for the line spacing.

People are getting hysterical.

[Chili]

12. also, note how the "e" in "File" is not flush with the "l"

Know why?

CUZ IT'S A TYPEWRITER!

I don't understand this debate!

[htuttle]

20. As I mentioned above, the baseline jumps all over the place

as you said, BECAUSE IT'S A TYPEWRITER!

You could NOT replicate the misaligned baselines of all the letters in MS word if you tried!

I'm stumped by the reactions too (actually, I'm not ENTIRELY stumped, but I'm trying to believe that all of the idiots who are buying this aren't actually plants). I know that typewriters are kind of rare nowdays, but really -- is everyone here under the age of 30 so they've never typed on an actual typewriter?

[Chili]

37. I know...

...I know! It's driving me crazy. I don't have any such knowledge about the history of fonts, though I know my fonts in Word and PhotoShop pretty well... but I used to use a typewriter, that's all we had before, say 1984, when the first pcs hit the market. I typed whole 400-page manuscripts on a Selectric myself, I know what a typewritten page looks like - LOL - it's a typewriter!

Just as you said: typewriter keys were imperfect, typewriters got old, keys got clumbed with ink, the paper moved, all kinds of things contribute to a document not having clean or perfect text. ...unlike a printout from a computer, which comes out perfect every single time.

I'm going to create a sign and go protest somewhere, LOL: "IT'S A TYPEWRITER!" :)

[Guaranteed]

22. Almost ALL of the letters are at least slightly crooked, even taking

into account the smudging...without the smudging the letters would not line up correctly.

I don't know who's saying a computer did this, but that is one shitty printer.

[The Last of the Red Hot Mamas]

14. Why does it matter if it is?

Times New Roman has been around since 1932.

[jpgray]

15. Because it casts doubt on it being modern word-processed

If there are significant differences between the memo text and the modern TNR, then it has not been produced on Microsoft Word. And as I show above, there are significant differences.

[DemMother]

16. Can you send a link to that idiot Joshua Micah Marshall.

He's really getting tiresome. I think all the people who were scooped by CBS --including Marshall and Kevin Drum, and of course, MSNBC, WaPo and the others, are latching on to this story because that is their "scoop." That can't repeat the original CBS story because it would show how lame their coverage of this issue has been (Drum excepted, at least until recently). Instead they try to discredit it and come up with some idiotic conspiracy. And what makes it even more pathetic is that the sources for their "scoops" are the idiotic right wing nuttery sites like Drudge and freerepublic and little green scrotum.

Thanks, and thanks for posting this.

[e-mail]

[City Lights]

28. I'm surprised at Josh's response to this.

Maybe it's the ocean air, or too much happy hour. :shrug:

[Mick Knox]

24. Thank you for posting this nt

[librechik]

27. go to Daily Kos--this issue is addressed and more succinctly

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/9/10/34914/1603

IMO, the forgery idea has been debunked.

Die, Cheney heads!

[jpgray]

29. Kos only gave a short space to TNR

I thought I'd try and debunk it more thoroughly.

[librechik]

48. of course--thanks for the thread, jp

only meant to expand, not belittle!