0.41 seconds

On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 10:38:08 +0200, "Robert Chung"
wrote:

Using MS Word, re-create the memo dated "04 May 1972." Easy, or hard?

OK, did the entire memo. The only issue - which may be either from a
slightly different font set or from the copy process - is the
superscript on the 111th is slightly lower in an original Word 2003
document.

All of the remainder can be easily reproduced.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Curtis L. Russell wrote:
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 10:38:08 +0200, "Robert Chung"
wrote:

Using MS Word, re-create the memo dated "04 May 1972." Easy, or hard?

OK, did the entire memo. The only issue - which may be either from a
slightly different font set or from the copy process - is the
superscript on the 111th is slightly lower in an original Word 2003
document.

All of the remainder can be easily reproduced.

Great. Can you post the .doc (or a .pdf)?

Robert Chung wrote:
Curtis L. Russell wrote:

On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 10:38:08 +0200, "Robert Chung"
wrote:


Using MS Word, re-create the memo dated "04 May 1972." Easy, or hard?

OK, did the entire memo. The only issue - which may be either from a
slightly different font set or from the copy process - is the
superscript on the 111th is slightly lower in an original Word 2003
document.

All of the remainder can be easily reproduced.


Great. Can you post the .doc (or a .pdf)?


http://littlegreenfootballs.com/webl...uments-_Forged

On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 16:11:16 +0200, "Robert Chung"
wrote:

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.

Easy enough. The only issue is the spacing that is used as a default,
and something easily changed. I personally changed the spacing when
I'm forced to use Times Roman. Doesn't even require actual kerning.

That done and understanding that the experts have said the memo was
copied several times (i.e. there is somewhat wavy text at times), the
only thing that is different in Word 2003 is the superscript, which is
identical but slightly lower. Doubt if multiple copies would cause
that. OTOH, I don't have a prior copy of Word to check that issue.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Dan Connelly wrote:
Robert Chung wrote:
Curtis L. Russell wrote:

On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 10:38:08 +0200, "Robert Chung"
wrote:


Using MS Word, re-create the memo dated "04 May 1972." Easy, or hard?

OK, did the entire memo. The only issue - which may be either from a
slightly different font set or from the copy process - is the
superscript on the 111th is slightly lower in an original Word 2003
document.

All of the remainder can be easily reproduced.


Great. Can you post the .doc (or a .pdf)?



http://littlegreenfootballs.com/webl...uments-_Forged

Right. That's why I was specifically asking about the 04 May 1972 memo,
not the 18 Aug 1973 memo.

On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 17:48:59 +0200, "Robert Chung"
wrote:

Great. Can you post the .doc (or a .pdf)?

No easy way. To create it is easy enough for anyone, though. Just
increase the spacing in the font to get the spacing on the memo, tell
it to reverse the autocorrection on the first superscript and type the
rest. It comes close for all practical purposes except for the one
item. So I don't see anything special about it.

I'm curious if anyone has Word 97 to check the superscript to see if
it is higher in previous versions. I'm not aware that there is any way
to change this easily as a setting and since the superscript in Word
2003 is about dead flat with the top of the numbers, it isn't
something that would shift that high just from copying.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 12:46:19 -0400, Curtis L. Russell
wrote:

I'm curious if anyone has Word 97 to check the superscript to see if
it is higher in previous versions. I'm not aware that there is any way
to change this easily as a setting and since the superscript in Word
2003 is about dead flat with the top of the numbers, it isn't
something that would shift that high just from copying.

After reading that web reference, I did a print and its correct - the
superscript does print higher than the normal text (and higher than on
screen) and is the same as the pdf. Its pretty much a match dead-on.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Curtis L. Russell wrote:

To create it is easy enough for anyone, though. Just
increase the spacing in the font to get the spacing on the memo, tell
it to reverse the autocorrection on the first superscript and type the
rest. It comes close for all practical purposes except for the one
item. So I don't see anything special about it.

Bingo. And that's exactly what I do see as special. You have to tell it
specifically not to automatically superscript the "111th" and the "1st,"
but then you *do* have to let Word superscript the "111th" in paragraph 2.
You also have to specifically insert a soft return on the "MEMORANDUM"
line after the word "Houston" and tab over even though it appears that
there's enough space at the end of the line for the word "Texas." If you
were forging a memo out of whole cloth, why would you do that? You did
what you just did because you were copying an existing memo and trying to
match it--but there'd be no need to do that if you were making it up. And,
for the numbered paragraphs you have to reverse the autoformatting or else
it indents and hangs the paragraphs.

Each of these things is simple and easy, but in total they require a
certain amount of conscious decision-making. So why would a forger
consciously undo the superscripted "111th" and "1st," and insert soft
returns, and over-ride the default formatting, and not override the 111th
in paragrph 2?

Alternatively, if you turned off all formatting everywhere (though you'd
still have to hit the return and tab after "Houston") you'd have to
highlight and superscript the "th" in "111th" in paragraph 2. Why would
you superscript only one of them?

Why pay so much attention to formatting and then do it on a word processor
rather than digging up an old typewriter?

Not-so-BTW, I'm not claiming that the memos are authentic. I'm claiming
that you can't make a judgement about its authenticity based on typefaces
and fonts and kerning and special superscripted characters. Tom's been
focusing on those things, but that's a red herring. The real issue is the
format of the letter, not the shape of the characters.

Curtis L. Russell wrote:

On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 17:48:59 +0200, "Robert Chung"
wrote:


Great. Can you post the .doc (or a .pdf)?


No easy way. To create it is easy enough for anyone, though. Just
increase the spacing in the font to get the spacing on the memo, tell
it to reverse the autocorrection on the first superscript and type the
rest. It comes close for all practical purposes except for the one
item. So I don't see anything special about it.

The key phrase here that you missed is "using the default settings"...

Stewart Fleming wrote:

The key phrase here that you missed is "using the default settings"...

Yeah, but to be fair, the forger, if there was one, might not have used
default settings.

My only real point was that people were focusing on typefaces and fonts
and the arcana of kerning when it seems the documents in question had been
photocopied and faxed and re-faxed multiple times. I actually don't know
whether the documents are authentic or fake and in some sense, I don't
really care--my opinion of the President is determined by what he's done
in the last four years, not what happened in 1972 or 1973.