<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p> It's not the Selectric it's the EXECUTIVE that even you linked to, there is a difference! <p><hr></blockquote><p> No sheet Dick Tracy. I did not say they were. The executive was out in 72 and had proportioanl fonts. I only used the Selectric as an example of a piece of crap the secretaries used in he late 70's while my boss used something much cooler with memory etc. Reread my post without so much pent up excitement.<br><br>Yes, this could be a big story. Or it could be a wanker story like Kerry's love affair. I would wait for the break or non break in the real news outlets.<br><br>luciferase is a four nineteener
I sorta remember that the 96-character ball for selectrics had symbolsl including numerical superscripts (st, th) and trademark and copyright symbols. When I typed my dissertation, I used the 88-character ball, and had a heck of a hard time figuring out how to type a copyright symbol. As to proportional type, here's a sample page of fonts for the selectric. I've put the relevant comment in a box.<br><br><br><br>
_________________________ MACTECHubi dolor ibi digitus
Loc: Syracuse, NY
ABC reported on it during Peter Jennings report tonight. ABC is saying that they contacted CBS about the validity of the memo and CBS says that they stand behind the memo. <br><br>The elusive "th" saga continues....<br><br>
So let's assume the docs are faked. Who supplied them? In other words, my question is did someone at 60 minutes deliberately fake them, or did someone else fake them and then supply them to 60 minutes and they were too lazy (and peeing themselves to release the story) to check the authenticity out. <br><br>My money would be on the latter, but I'm just guessing.<br><br>
There's a new report here.<br><br>Of note:<br><br>Xavier University's Polt, in an email, offers two possible scenarios. "Either these are later transcriptions of earlier documents (which may have been handwritten or typed on a typewriter), or they are crude and amazingly foolish forgeries. I'm a Kerry supporter myself, but I won't let that cloud my objective judgment: I'm 99% sure that these documents were not produced in the early 1970s." <br><br><br>
After looking at them a bit now that I have the time they look very fake to me. Their could have been a proportional font back then. There even could have been a superscript th as this was a common symbol on the later golf ball selectrics and I would not doubt that it would have been one of the first symbols to go into an earlier machine like the 1971 Executive.<br><br>But: I guess I saw too many FBI show with Efrem Zimbalist Junior in the 70's. How did the FBI catch people back then. By matching to a specific typewriter the ransom note. They did that by finding a worn letter or a dirty filled in "e" or a specific key that fires hard or soft. There are all sorts of those things in these memos but none of them are consistent. The e is filled and then next it is not. A letter has a broken kern then it does not. It looks like someone xeroxed it a whole bunch of times on high then low so that these effects would build up.<br><br>So if they are fakes then<br><br>1) they did not bother to find a typewriter<br>2) they did not bother to get a correct era typewriter<br>3) they used a proportional font<br>4) they used the superscript th<br>5) they xerox aged them to make them look like they came from a typewriter<br><br>1 through 5 and especially 3 means that the people who faked them were complete idiots. What I cannot understand is that if 1 - 5 are true how could this be vetted and not be caught? How is it then looked at by experts even now and it is not conclusive?<br><br>Another explanation could be they wanted to get caught eventually to make CBS look stupid? But that does not hold water because of all 5. It should have been caught before publication. So maybe it started out as a joker who never thought it would be actually used and they are busting a gut right now.<br><br>It will hilarious either way. Either 60 minutes has a clown checking their facts or this frenzy this afternoon goes the way of a lot of Drudge BOO - BOOS <br><br>luciferase is a four nineteener
This site is has some excellent analysis of what appears now to indeed be a forgery:http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/007760.php<br><br>< snip ><br>[A]nother aspect of the type on [the August 18, 1973 memo] suggests, perhaps proves, forgery.<br><br>1. The type in the document is KERNED. Kerning is the typsetter's art of spacing various letters in such a manner that they are 'grouped' for better readability. Word processors do this automatically. NO TYPEWRITER CAN PHYSICALLY DO THIS.<br><br>To explain: the letter 'O' is curved on the outside. A letter such as 'T' has indented space under its cross bar. On a typewriter if one types an 'O' next to a 'T' then both letters remain separated by their physical space. When you type the same letters on a computer next to each other the are automatically 'kerned' or 'grouped' so that their individual spaces actually overlap. e. g., TO. As one can readily see the curvature of the 'O' nestles neatly under the cross bar of the 'T'. Two good kerning examples in the alleged memo are the word 'my' in the second line where 'm' and 'y' are neatly kerned and also the word 'not' in the fourth line where the 'o' and 't' overlap empty space. A typewriter doesn't 'know' what particular letter is next to another and can't make those types of aesthetic adjustments.<br><br>2. The kerning and proportional spacing in each of the lines of type track EXACTLY with 12 point Times Roman font on a six inch margin (left justified). Inother words, the sentences break just as they would on a computer and not as they would on a typewriter. Since the type on the memo is both proportionally spaced and kerned the lines of type break at certain instances (i.e., the last word in each line of the first paragraph are - 1. running, 2. regarding, 3. rating, 4. is, 5. either). If the memo was created on a typewriter the line breaks would be at different words (e. g., the word 'running' is at the absolute outside edge of the sentence and would probably not be on the first<br>line).<br><br>3. The sentences have a wide variance in their AMOUNT of kerning and proportional spacing. Notice how the first line of the first paragraph seems squished together and little hard to read but the last line of the first paragraph has wider more open spacing. Even the characters themselves are squished in the first line (as a computer does automatically) and more spread out on the last line where there is more room.<br><br>There's no way a typewriter could 'set' the type in this memo and even a good typesetter using a Linotype machine of the era would have to spend hours getting this effect.<br><br><br>Also, CBS is digging itself even deeper:<br><br>"Later, however, Ms. Edwards sent out an email that appeared to revise the nature of the "authentication" process:<br>CBS verified the authenticity of the documents by talking to individuals who had seen the documents at the time they were written. These individuals were close associates of Colonel Jerry Killian and confirm that the documents reflect his opinions at the time the documents were written.<br><br>So what CBS is now saying is not that the documents are authentic, but that the opinions they express are authentic, based on the hearsay reports of anonymous persons alleged to be close associates of Col. Killian, who recall his views of thirty-two years ago. This is what passes for "authentication" in the mainstream media."<br><br><br><br>
Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.
All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.