#11
|
|||
|
|||
Curtis L. Russell wrote: And it seems to pretty much concede that the documents were probably forgeries. So how to explain the White House comment that they did not dispute authenticity? More "up is down"? |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"RonSonic" wrote in message
... On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 10:20:35 +0200, "Robert Chung" wrote: Tom Kunich wrote: http://wizbangblog.com/images/cbsdoc...studysmall.jpg If you don't think that the See-BS "documents" are forgeries after this perhaps you ought to vote for Chirac. I looked at that page, but I can't see why it's relevant at all. You appear to be saying, "If at time B one can re-create a document purportedly created at time A, where B A, then the document purportedly created at time A is proved to be a forgery." If that's your claim, that's nuts. http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1644869,00.asp Sure, every company clerk in the ANG used an IBM Composer to type memoranda. Makes perfect sense to have those $4,000 machines setting on every desk. The typeface that is standard in MS Word is Times New Roman. This typeface was invented about 1980 (http://www.truetype.demon.co.uk/articles/times.htm) .. Time Roman, the older typeface was slightly different and was available in the 40's. However, it was never made available to typewriters and was only used in Linotypes because IT IS A KERNED typeface. That is, it was designed to compress the font together so that wide and narrow letter are squashed together to use the maximum space on a line. Typewriters have character stamps that are the same width and so kerned typefaces look badly when typed with such spacings. They invented entirely new typefaces for typewriters that would look acceptably attractive. What really modernized the world of publishing was the invention in the early 80's of the word processing machine. Over the next decade the ability to kern type and to proportionally space was slowly built into machines that the extremely tightly controlled printers unions began to lose control of the printer's business. Most people would say that it wasn't until about 198 8 before word processing hit it's stride. Robert Chung makes a silly comment about reproducing the typeface as if that sort of thing was possible or even likely, because he is completely ignorant of the printer's trade despite whatever other education he might have. This entire modern world rests on one thing - the written word. And you and I and everything we know of the modern world we owe to the written word and the vast powerful history behind it. Robert's entire education started and was greatly advanced and even today is expanded by -- reading. Each decade the AVAILABLE technology has been used to its fullest to improve, make more efficient and cheaper, the printer's trade. And yet he gives it so little thought that it never even occurs to him to wonder what the hell he's really looking at. In the citation given in the first posting on the subject it shows the standard Word character set. On the second line it shows the See-BS document. What should have leaped off of the page aside from the fact that both character sets are identical, save for the number of times they've been reproduced, in every detail - is that they are PIXELATED. Count the dots m'lads. They are a standard MS character grid. The character set at the bottom demonstrates what a typewriter typeface SHOULD look like from that time. Looking closely you'd see that it is composed not of dots, but of LINES. And it wouldn't matter in the least what company or how expensive the typewriters - they would ALL have lines in the characters instead of dots (or pixels if you like). Well, there's a reason that there is this very basic difference - because the upper two character sets were formed by being written by an electron beam being turned on and off. And that beam was controlled in a grid pattern which was developed by early computer engineers. You see, we drew lines on a CRT and turned the lines on and off rapidly so that each line had so many dots and there were so many lines on a screen. We then divided the screen into character blocks of 5 x 7 or 7 x 9 etc and then designed character sets which would work in the available spaces. So every word processing character set is designed to look correct when draw with - dots. Before the 1980's typefaces were generated by some artist sitting around and designing them and then a machinist with clockwork skills would cut these typefaces into molds with a machine under magnification. The machine didn't drill holes, it was a cutting blade and the machinist had to be somewhat of an artisan himself. He would make the mold as accurately to the sketches as he could. So, you see, a single glance should suffice to allow absolutely anyone to see that the documents in question (dated 1973) were manufactured AFTER 1985 or so when word processors began to get the ability to kern and proportoinally space. At least one of the documents I observed had hard right hand limits. This was available ONLY on typeset documents and on the very rare and difficult to use IBM Selectric Composer. Moreover, in at least two of the six documents there is a form of superscript that wasn't available to anyone before the 1980 save with extremely tedious work. To wit - a Selectric Composer could have been used. So in order to write EACH LINE of the document you would have to: 1) Type each line as it would be in the finished document. 2) Record the readings on a couple of dials that would allow you to set the spacing and kerning characteristics for that line 3) Set the dials correctly 4) Type the identical line again. Any mistakes would lead you to throw away your work and start again. 5) When attempting to superscript you'd have to hit the half space UP key, change out the ball to a smaller type font type the superscript, remove the ball and replace with the original, and remember to hit the half space DOWN key. Any mistakes would require you to retype everything in this same tedious manner. Each line would have to be dealt with in exactly the same manner. Each line would have to be measured and kerned separately. The typewriter has no memory and no way of showing the user what's going on except to make a mistake and throw it away. And remember that TIMES NEW ROMAN typeface wasn't invented until 1980. Actually I could write about these rediculous forgeries for hours but I'll refrain since most of you would have no idea what the hell I was talking about. But the fact is that I studied this business very closely since I was in on the writing of word processors from the very beginning. So, there is NO questioning the fact that these documents were forged. Absolutely none. And yes, I designed some of those early video boards, character sets and graphics generators. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"Curtis L. Russell" wrote in message
... Ummm, if it were created to begin with with Word, that last issue is a non-issue. You create it, forge the signature and then run it through a copier to disguise the age. The longest part of the process is forging a reasonable signature. Take almost two seconds. The person who did this had access to some of the real memos and scanned them and used the parts he wanted (the signature and the initials in the corners) on the document. Are you aware that money is being forged all the time with modern equipment that it takes only a few days to gather? |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Tom Kunich wrote:
Robert Chung makes a silly comment about reproducing the typeface as if that sort of thing was possible or even likely, because he is completely ignorant of the printer's trade despite whatever other education he might have. [snip] So, there is NO questioning the fact that these documents were forged. Absolutely none. Excellent. Then, using MS Word, type in the memo dated "04 May 1972." It should only take you a moment to do. Try it. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
In article t,
"Tom Kunich" wrote: (snipper) Time Roman, the older typeface was slightly different and was available in the 40's. However, it was never made available to typewriters and was only used in Linotypes because IT IS A KERNED typeface. "Some analysts outside CBS News say they believe the typeface on these memos is New Times Roman, which they claim was not available in the 1970s. But the owner of the company that distributes this typing style told CBS News that it has been available since 1931." http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in641481.shtml Furthermo "Courieršs vanquisher was Times New Roman, designed in 1931 by Stanley Morison, Typographical Advisor to the Monotype Corporation, with the assistance of draughtsman Victor Lardent. The Times of London first used it the following year. Linotype and Intertype quickly licensed the design, changing its name for their marketing purposes to Times Roman. Times Roman became an original core font for Apple in the 1980s and Times New Roman MT became one for Windows in the 1990s. (Ironically, at the same time IBM invited Frutiger to adapt Univers for the Selectric Typewriter, they asked Morison to do the same with Times New Roman.)" http://journal.aiga.org/content.cfm?...&aid=%23.% 5E G%2F%0A That is, it was designed to compress the font together so that wide and narrow letter are squashed together to use the maximum space on a line. Typewriters have character stamps that are the same width and so kerned typefaces look badly when typed with such spacings. They invented entirely new typefaces for typewriters that would look acceptably attractive. The IBM Executive typewriters would do proportional spacing. What should have leaped off of the page aside from the fact that both character sets are identical, save for the number of times they've been reproduced, in every detail - is that they are PIXELATED. Count the dots m'lads. They are a standard MS character grid. Hmmm, maybe those characters are pixelated because they are part of a computer generated COPY of the original doc. You know, the document got scanned and made into a jpeg, bitmap or other image file. Which are made up of PIXELS. The density of which can vary. Moreover, in at least two of the six documents there is a form of superscript that wasn't available to anyone before the 1980 save with extremely tedious work. To wit - a Selectric Composer could have been used. So in order to write EACH LINE of the document you would have to: According to one guy who spent 13 years working on those machines, they could be put together (in the field) with customizeable key sets that would do the superscripted letters. Speaking of which, people have made a big deal about the superscripted letters on these docs as proof of forgery. But those superscripted "th"s turn up on many other docs that had already been released. Are those also forgeries? And remember that TIMES NEW ROMAN typeface wasn't invented until 1980. 1931. Actually I could write about these rediculous forgeries for hours but I'll refrain since most of you would have no idea what the hell I was talking about. But the fact is that I studied this business very closely since I was in on the writing of word processors from the very beginning. So, there is NO questioning the fact that these documents were forged. Absolutely none. So you've seen and examined the ORIGINALS that CBS has, Tom, and not just the computer-generated copies online? The Niger/Yellowcake forgeries were obvious to those who knew the area and people (Niger) because of flaws like wrong letterheads and wrong people listed as signatories. These docs have issues that only an expert looking at the ORIGINALS could make any kind of accurate pronouncement from. Which is why it's too earlier to emphatically declare them forgeries. And yes, I designed some of those early video boards, character sets and graphics generators. (Oh my.) Once again, why hasn't the White House disputed what the documents allege? And did GWB fulfill his obligation in the Guard? -- tanx, Howard "Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind." Albert Einstein remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok? |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Howard Kveck wrote:
[snip] Using MS Word, re-create the memo dated "04 May 1972." Easy, or hard? BTW, these copies are clearer than the link I gave earlier: http://img.slate.msn.com/media/77/NATION1.PDF (The earlier link I gave was for the six "USA Today" memos--this link is for the four "CBS" memos.) |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 00:46:11 +0200, "Robert Chung"
wrote: The claim on LGF was that the memos could be re-created using MS Word defaults, in a few minutes. Try it with the memo dated "04 May 1972." Don't follow. The date in Word isn't a format issue. You can type in anything you want. There is an issue if you want Word to autofill the date, but that is something entirely different. In Excel the date is a very minor issue and can be formatted ten ways to Sunday in moments. Curtis L. Russell Odenton, MD (USA) Just someone on two wheels... |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 14:24:41 +1200, Stewart Fleming
wrote: So how to explain the White House comment that they did not dispute authenticity? More "up is down"? More along the lines of why bother. The bloggers are in full attack, even liberal and middle-of-the-road journalists are saying it is a screw up, some of the CBS participants are backing down, their own authenticator has added a bunch of caveats. And the Bush campaign simply has to stand to the side and let it play out. And frankly, someone should have told Terry Mcauliffe to do the same thing. That way, its just CBS against the world - and they will lose, now the moment to reexamine the right way has passed. That stupid 'the Republicans are probably responsible' comment is his latest lead baloon. The only conspiracy this time appears to be the Clinton hold-outs making sure that there isn't a Democratic incumbent when Hillary wants to run for President. Curtis L. Russell Odenton, MD (USA) Just someone on two wheels... |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 06:20:25 +0200, "Robert Chung"
wrote: Excellent. Then, using MS Word, type in the memo dated "04 May 1972." It should only take you a moment to do. Try it. Really don't know why you are bringing this up. I have no problem whatsoever with the date or any other aspect of the memo. With the quotes, you seem to be specific to the date. Even setting it up to autofill with that format takes, what, about 5 seconds? There is nothing special about the rest of the memo. Curtis L. Russell Odenton, MD (USA) Just someone on two wheels... |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Curtis L. Russell wrote:
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 06:20:25 +0200, "Robert Chung" wrote: Excellent. Then, using MS Word, type in the memo dated "04 May 1972." It should only take you a moment to do. Try it. Really don't know why you are bringing this up. I have no problem whatsoever with the date or any other aspect of the memo. With the quotes, you seem to be specific to the date. Even setting it up to autofill with that format takes, what, about 5 seconds? There is nothing special about the rest of the memo. I'm not saying that you should only type in the date. I'm saying you should type in the memo and re-create it in MS Word. The memo that appears on the second page he http://img.slate.msn.com/media/77/NATION1.PDF (That's the memo dated 04 May 1972). Here's the thing: everyone has been looking at the memos as they are written and pointing out that there are features that (as Tom and RonSonic say) could not be produced by a typewriter, and therefore must have been produced by a modern word processor. So, let's do that. Pretend that you are the forger and you are trying to produce this particular memo in MS Word. Use the default settings, just as was claimed on LGF. Use 12 point Times New Roman, just as was claimed on LGF. You've said you have no problem whatsoever with any aspect of this memo. So type it in and tell us how easy it was to match the format as it appears. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
90 F*CKING SECONDS | James Calivar | General | 69 | August 2nd 04 11:31 PM |