QandO
Questions and Observations| « A compendium of the Evidence | Main | To kern or not to kern? » |
|
September 10, 2004 Superscriptastic! From an anti-bush web site, awolbush.com, that posts service documents for both Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry, there is this document. As you can see, it uses the superscript "th" in several places, and I suspect this is the document that CBS will show us tonight. It's the only document I can find after looking at them that uses superscripts. I'm not sure what it proves, however. First the document is undated and unsigned, which makes it's provenance difficult to judge. But, based on the dates in the document, it appears that the earliest it could've been produced was in late November of 1974, over two years after the first Killian document. The font is also a monospaced font of the Courier family. Natually, as a monospaced font, it isn't kerned. So, what have we learned? Well, not much. Unless this or a similar model was the typewriter used by Lt Col Killian, it tells us nothing. We already knew that some typewriters in 1973 did type a superscript "th". They were relatively rare, expensive, top-end models, but they existed. The question is, Did Lt Col Killian have one? We don't even know who typed this, or when they did it, although it was at least 2.5 years after the original Killian memos. Maybe somebody got a nice new IBM Selectric Executive in 1975. Maybe this was automatically generated on a daisy-wheel computer printer at ARPC, and wasn't typed at all. How can we possibly know? And what does it tell us about the memos typed by Lt Col Killian? Look, let's keep our eye on the ball here. The problem is not that there's a couple of superscripts in the CBS memos. That's just a flag that catches our attention because it's so unusual. Because once we notice that, we also notice the font, then we notice it's kerned, then we notice some stylistic problems, and so on. All the superscript does it catch our attention. After that, it becomes just one piece in the totality of the evidence. But, telling me that if you find a document a) with superscripts that is b) unsigned and c) undated, d) may not even be manually typed, and e) is at least two years newer than the memos in question, then you still haven't come anywhere near to proving f) the original memos are genuine. It tells me nothing to show me something from Mr. Bush's records a couple of years later, to whom you can't attach a source or an author. Find me similar examples of the same typographical and stylistic characteristics from Lt Col Killian's records. Because if Lt Col Killian's records have 1,000 monospaced Courier documents, and then these four proportionally spaced Times New Roman memo's, then you've still got lots of questions to answer. Otherwise, all you're doing is just a version of the old joke about the defense lawyer: "You honor, I can produce 100 witnesses that didn't see my client shoot the victim!" If this is the document that CBS plans to show us tonight, then they're essentially saying, "See, I can prove that there were superscripted typewritten documents in the 70s!" Well, yeah, there were. We know. So what? id this document typewritten, or is it daisy-printed? How do you know? Find any of those 1970s typewritten documents that were kerned? Oh, and while we're at it, are any of 'em in Lt Col Killian's files? Or is one document produced at an unknown time, by an unknown person, on an unknown system all you got? Yes, I'll definitely be watching Gunga Dan tonight... |
Someone has put up 10,000 bucks for anyone who can produce a typewriter that can accurately generate those memos.
The site has all the details.
Ok all you lefties, here is your chance to pull papa Dan's butt out of the fire, earn the respect and jealousy of your fellow moobats and make a cool 10K.
MK Ultra?
Posted by: capt joe at September 10, 2004 05:29 PM
And it seems to have "non-strikover" bold, meaning the way you did bold type with a typewriter was to restrike the work you wanted to emphasise. That usually filled in the letters quite a bit. This indicates the use of a word processor.
Since its a military biography, we know it wasn't done until after November 21st 1974 (the date of his service completion listed in the last line). In fact I'd bet at the earliest its a 1975 document and probably later. It could have been done on a word processor then (my ex worked on a early WP in a lawyer's office in late '73 ... it was expensive as hell).
I'm sure he had no need of a Mil Bio in Harvard. This could be as late as 1980. By then wordprocessors in offices were in fairly wide usage.
Posted by: McQ at September 10, 2004 05:40 PM
Superscript is it - there's their total answer...
No addressing of the Kerning issue, no addressing of the proportional fonts.
Then they trot out the talking heads who agree with them to do it again.
And oh, by the way, all you photo copy and fax people need to stop because the handwriting expert says you don't know what you're doing.
Anyone here have a faxed copy? No, thought not.
Well, not totally true, because -
their (CBS's) document copy is a FAXED copy itself. Ain't that nice - so they don't even have the originals.
Posted by: looker at September 10, 2004 05:47 PM
As this document with the superscript states it's consistant with the FOIA, when was the FOIA passed?
Posted by: eklektos at September 10, 2004 05:58 PM
Fortunately there are other experts looking into this who don't speak and sit up when Dan tells them to.
Foolish me, after all these years, I must still have hope for honesty. Good of CBS to remind me that I'm being really stupid.
Posted by: looker at September 10, 2004 06:03 PM
I think that document came from a dot-matrix printer. It's starting to fade, so you can see the individual dots in some of the is.
Posted by: Mark at September 10, 2004 06:04 PM
"The font is also a monospaced font of the Courier family. Natually, as a monospaced font, it isn't kerned."
Actually it isn't monospaced. Notice that the superscripted "th" is about 150% of the width of the letter directly beneath. This document could not be produced on a standard typewriter. I hazard that it was produced on a computer using a typeface like "Courier New". (The older computer typeface "Courier" has a superscripted "th", but it is exactly the same width as the other characters in the font).
Posted by: passerby at September 10, 2004 06:10 PM
Interesting that the "expert" also believes that Kurt Cobain was murdered.
Apparently, he was the handwriting "expert" who decided that the suicide note was faked.
So how did that turn out.
Posted by: capt joe at September 10, 2004 06:25 PM
I agree with McQ. Who knows when this document was made? There is nothing telling us when it was produced? If it was distributed by Bush, he knows when he asked for this document.
Besides. Does the military make these "releasable under Freedom of Information act biographies like this one and keep them in their file cabinet? Or do they produce one after someone asks for it using record on file to compile it?
OT: Enter this competition. Crazy!
Posted by: EL Box at September 10, 2004 06:32 PM
Eklektos, Freedom of Information act enacted in 1966.
Still this document has no date. It could've been made 4 weeks ago.
http://www.google.nl/search?q=cache:eZ__suLqd0sJ:www.ferc.gov/legal/ceii-foia/foia/guide/basics.asp+%22freedom+of+information+act%22+became+law+in&hl=nl
Posted by: EL Box at September 10, 2004 06:38 PM
One thing everyone is overlooking that is very important.
Lt Col Jerry Killian didn't type. He wrote all of his notes in longhand.
His wife and military associates have pointed out he avoided typewriters.
Posted by: mshyde at September 10, 2004 06:50 PM
The National Guard is always shafted when it comes to funding and equipment, so what was the probability that Lt Col Killian was able to get his hands on a top-of-the-line IBM Selectric Executive?
Geez, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if there were a few Curtiss JN-4s still in service with the TANG at that time.
Posted by: Markus Barca at September 10, 2004 07:26 PM
Here's what we out to be looking at in these memo's and every other attack on Bush in the next two months
Posted by: themarkman at September 10, 2004 08:17 PM
I am aghast at CBS's complete abandonment of pretense of any investigative rigor on this question. It seems prima facie evidence is good enough for CBS...if it might hurt Bush. No way in hell they'd run these if the subject was Kerry's absence from Cambodia, or his lack of wound on Dec. 2, etc.: CBS would demand a deposition from God in that case.
Seems a relatively simple job for a highly motivated internet researcher to demonstrate that Dan Rather has a certain variable standard of proof.
Posted by: Jumbo at September 10, 2004 08:29 PM
The memos are NOT kerned. I have checked and double checked. They are absolutely NOT kerned. They use proportional spacing, but the letters DO NOT OVERLAP AT ALL.
However, if you type it in Word, take a screen cap, resize (using nearest neighbor to avoid antialiasing), it lays over so damn perfect you'd think it was a copy.
Please see my post here to see what I mean.
Posted by: Sharp as a Marble at September 10, 2004 08:39 PM
Sharp, that's not entirely true. The letters f, j, and r always overlap in Times New Roman. I think this is what led to the kerning confusion.
Posted by: Dale Franks at September 10, 2004 09:36 PM
I can't get an r to kern. f & j do, however. I credited the overlapping in the original due to noise but on further analysis it appears there is a pixel of overlap which would make it look identical to the memo. This means my original analysis is partially incorrect which invalidates my theory. Please disregard my post.
However, if I was Dan Rather, you bet your sweet bottoms that there'd be 30 pixels between every letter just like the IBM Font-O-Matic that was used back in '72!
Posted by: Sharp as a Marble at September 10, 2004 09:50 PM
In word, magnify the page to 500%, type an r, and then highlight the letter. The right tip of the r protrudes slightly outside of the alloted horizontal space.
Posted by: Dale Franks at September 10, 2004 09:57 PM
While I'm primarily persuaded that the CBS-held documents are fakes, I think it's interesting that there is a typewritten document of that general era that has a superscripted "th" in a smaller font.
It tends to make me search my memory (I'm 52, and I used to play with my mother's manual typewriter when I was little). I may be mistaken, but I think that perhaps some manual typewriters allowed you to type a superscripted "th" with a single shifted key. (That is, the "t" and the "h" were parts of a single character, and required a single typing stroke, not two typing strokes.) I can't remember what key it was. And I also seem to recall that to enter this superscripted "th", one didn't have to manually rotate the drum of the typewriter 1/2 space. As a consequence, though, because the "th" hit so high on the drum, often the upper parts of the "t" and the "h" didn't make full contact with the drum, and would often be highly faded...unless you had a brand new ribben, and/or hit the key very hard, or re-typed it several times.
Does anyone have a similar recollection?
---Tom Nally, New Orleans
Posted by: Tomas J. Nally at September 10, 2004 10:57 PM
I don't have the recollection, particularly, but several experts have said from the start, and I have been at pains to stress, that there were a few superscripted typewriter models in the early 70s, though they were fairly rare.
Posted by: Dale Franks at September 10, 2004 11:20 PM
So......most documents were entered after the fact....way after,
The question I pose is: Why were the documents not made avail to Walter Robinsobn of the Boston Globe when requested in 1999 via th FOIA? How did they mysteriously appear in 2000 through the FOIA by Marty Heldt. Why was the copy obtained by George mag in 10/00 different than the copy rec'vd by Marty in '00.?
I think questions other than forgery should be asked, since forgery can neither be proved or dis proved. Remember the signature has been authenticated.....what does that prove?...nothing.
Posted by: Kim Lowe at September 22, 2004 08:56 AM