Incontrovertible proof that the CBS memos were NOT MS Word Times Roman

The giveaway is the pitch of the serif on top segment of the numeral 1. So I guess this takes us back to a typewriter as the instrument used to produce the memo.

Make them report it!

I'm actually leaning towards this being a word processed document (output of a computer) though I reject the claims that it is so obviously a forgery. It's probably something in the same font family as Times New Roman and using the same spacings but it is probably neither the MS version of Times New Roman nor Palatino (two of the fonts which have been put forth as being the font by various people claiming --to paraphrase John Mclaughlin-- metaphysical certitude).

The pyramid font is said to have some flat serifs on certain characters. However I have yet to obtain a sample of the pyramid font.

But those are lower-case l's you're looking at.

That said, there are plenty of font anomalies to examine.

but are slightly taller. The lower case letter "l" has similiar characteristics with respect to the pitch of the serif on the upper part of the letter.

but the flat top serif one the ones or lower case ells is what we need to look for.

In some fonts they're identical.

And some folks, especially back then, had learned to type on typewriters that didn't have a 1 key, so they used lowercase el for it. When I worked in publishing (starting about nine years ago until a year ago), I'd still occasionally get books from authors who had, even on a computer, used els for numeral ones. (I worked in academic publishing, so many of our authors were elderly professors.) We coverted everything to Courier before we started editing, so I'd discover the substitution that way.

So the characters in question could be els or ones. Without identifying the font for certain, there's no way to know.

This was probably done on an IBM Executive. (It's scanned from a mimeographed page, which is why there are so many broken letters.) Many of the letters and numbers seem identical to those on the memoes, but there are a few that are slightly different. (Such as the downstroke of the y, the bottom loop of the g, and the top curve of the r.) However, it's closer than anything else I've found.

Do you know with certainty that it was done on an IBM Executive?

This sample appeared in a science fiction fanzine called Niekas, which I know for sure used an Executive for some of its contents. However, the notice of the Tolkien glossary is in a slightly different font than was normal in the fanzine, so it may have been typed on another machine and sent on mimeo stencil to the editor. Even if it was, that other machine would probably have been an Executive as well -- there was simply no other way of doing proportional spacing on stencils in 1962.

Below is a sample of the Executive font ordinarily used in the fanzine. It's not as close to that of the memoes, but does also have the same general appearance, with highly irregular base lines.

One question that I wonder if anyone here can answer: Typing on the Executive tended to have a somewhat ragged appearance because the proportional spacing was done fairly roughly, with letters limited to being either 2, 3, or 4 spaces wide. This meant that some letters looked jammed together while others had gaps between them. Does anyone know how computers manage their proportional spacing and whether it is more finely tuned? And would it be possible to analyze the letter spacing on the memoes to determine whether they were done on an Executive, on an IBM Composer, or in some other system?

because with a program, such as Adobe, you can change the horizontal or vertical tracking or spacing letter by letter, and you can squeeze the letter any way you want. You can also mix fonts. The typeface in your example seems much closer to the typeface in the memos than Times New Roman. Does the "i" have a flat top? Is the "4" closed? The numbers seem very similar.

Overall, they're extremely similar. But there are subtle differences on a few letters -- particularly the lower hook of the "y," the bottom loop of the "g," and the upper curve of the "r." The font in the second sample also has curlier numbers.

As I keep stressing, it's not quite identical to the memoes. A few of the letters are slightly different, such as the large and small "f." And this font doesn't have curly quotes, although the other Executive font I have samples of does. But it's closer to the memoes than any computer font.

The memoes may not be exactly what they've been represented to be. But I find it difficult to believe that they could have been forged using any currently available equipment.

when this thing first came out. Did it convince the freepers though? Nope. All I got was banned and half a dozen posts claiming I was only seeing what I wanted to believe. :shrug:

This was my comparison below. The white on black text is Times New Roman while the black on white text is one of the CBS PDF files. As you can see there are tons of differences between the two typefaces.

Some of the letters are higher than the others. The spacing between letters is NOT proportional, despite what all the "experts" are saying. This memo is typed on a type writer. I am no expert, but I have used typewriters for 25 years and computers for nearly 20. Any idiot can see that memo is not done on a computer.

I am pissed at everyone, including CBS. Why coldn't they have done their own comparisons? I mean it's not exactly hard and would be the first thing I would do in countering claims of forgery. I also did a comparison to Palatino Linotype (which is what the freepers were claiming after the Times New Roman thing didn't wash). Palatino Linotype is closer to the typeface used in the documents, but again not an exact match. It really pisses me off that so-called journalists can't do the most basic of research.

And I like you am pissed at the media for not even making a feeble attempt to verify --- they are simply READERS not journalists.

I was going to cut up the CBS documents in photoshop and arrange every letter, number and symbol in them alphabetically along with comparisons to the same characters in both Times New Roman and Palatino Linotype, but became so frustrated by the media's inattention to detail and the freeper's inability to see the actual differences that I felt as if I was wasting my time.

My original comparison was the proof I needed that these documents were not produced using a modern word processing program. As I posted in another thread on this topic, I'm beginning to feel as if the freepers and their puppet masters have acquired the uncanny ability to rewrite history to their whim. It's as if the general public is unable to remember anything anymore, except what the media reports.

Also, we weren't the only ones to do this. The Daily Kos did it too, and I'm sure many others. That doesn't mean the documents are authentic. There's innumberable ways they could have been produced, but their primary claim centered around the type faces which indicates to me that for them to attack them on such shallow, easily disprovable grounds means they don't know where they came from either... or at least they didn't at the time.

But, you also need to remember that the "memos are forged" was invented by freepers and started circulating in the RW media even before the original broadcast was over. That alone should make the forgery claims suspect.

If we had a real independent media, the bias of CBS's accusers would have been presented along with the forgery claims.

I thought I'd read everything posted on this subject, but I've likely missed this observation. I don't doubt for a moment that these memos are typewritten, nor that (as was customary) the ones are actually lower-case ells. This confidence comes from having sold typewriters at the time, and from the confidence of my contemporaneous peers who agree wholeheartedly with me now.

The OP's point, then, is absolutely valid. In TNR, the lower-case ells are remarkably similar to ones - with an upper serif flag and curved lower serif. The basic difference is their height and, of course, text width (the ones are one full character, as are all numerics).

In fact, I think our OP has helped debunk the bizarro-world theory that these were typed in Word TNR, but, perhaps, inadvertantly.

Here's my theory, without any legwork (and, thus, possibly way the hell off):

Original TNR lower-case ells (as designed for typesetting) looked like the ones in the example and continued to do so until the introduction of the one key on typewriters (late 1960's?) With the introduction of the one key, both to differentiate from the ell and to break the habit of using ells for ones, the flat-top lower-case ell was introduced. Despite this, as we know, typists (especially amateurs) continued to use the ell.

It seems likely that when Word TNR was designed, the assumption was that typists would use the one and, thus, reverted back to the original lower-case ell (flag serif, et al).

So it would make sense that the memos were typed on a typewriter in TNR, but with the "intermediary" lower-case ell.

Makes sense to me...

it was a MS Word TNR lower case L -- see gif on my last post. The serif is too short and too thin to match the CBS docs.

But only because I suspect that Word TNR uses the "old" design of a lower-case ell - not what I'm calling the "intermediary" design on early typewriters with a one key.

I belive that the typewritten font is TNR and that it can't be replicated with Word because Word uses the typeset ones and ells, rather than the typewritten characters. Therefore, it has to be typed.

where can I get a copy?

at it close before because I obviously can't stand the sight of them.

I just used it as an example, given the limitations of certain browsers to render certain fonts in html.

I think you're right, per my post above. But you can't prove it with Word - you'd have to find a legacy typewriter with TNR and try it out.

manuals.

"Cause if you're showing the memo type in the middle (looking kind of fuzzy), there is quite a difference between the 5 there and the 5 in Courier, the memo 5 having a much bigger bottom curve to it. The th superscript is also very different, being crowded in the memo version.

Times New Roman first and then Palatino Linotype second.

the lie the the Freeper gave them.

A FREEPER! Let's put this into perspective. These 5 news organs have been repeating the Freeper's lie over and over and over again for the past week or so. They all started repeating it the moment the Freeper posted it.

And yet, here we have undeniable proof that MS New Times Roman doesn't match. You'd think that this would have been easy prove, but these five big media outlets don't care and I highly doubt that they'll care that they were wrong (or lying) about this before.

Fox is tailing him.

Heh. Heh. Heh.

I just got a feeling...

Rather's got something up his sleeve. He's just too confident.

The lie has been repeated often enough to officially morph it into the truth. That's the way they work. Swift-Liars, those bastards.

I'm just counting down the inevitable freeper attacks to hit this thread.

Good work, Iceburg! :)

of some of the gifs off to CBS?

You should also send them to other outlets as well. They can ignore them if they choose, but you really should send them. Fine work, I might add. :thumbsup:

No, just kidding. I'm new, but I'm not stupid.

I was making a joke. I know it was risky, since I'm still new, but I thought the freeper mimickry was obvious.

Read this, it'll assuage your concerns about me.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/04/09/16_filter.html

your good humour (cdn spelling eh!)

The WaPo explanation is devastating to the idea that the memos were written 32 years ago.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/graphics/cbsdocs_091804.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/graphics/cbsdocs_091804.html

They make the claim that the 19 May 1972 memo shows an example of kerning -- a complete falsehood!!!$%#


WP's graphic is a complete distortion of fact. I do not know who wrote the memos or how they got there but I know with certainty they were not produced using MS Word. You can take that to the bank!

Look at the samples of Executive typing I posted above in posts #39 and #57. As I explain in #57, the Executive used a pretty rough and ready method of proportional spacing, which meant that certain letters would be jammed together while others had obvious gaps between them.

If you look at the word "firm" in my post #39, you'll see that the -f- and -i- are almost touching, while there is a larger gap between the -i- and the -r-. If you look at the name "Glorfindel" in my post #57, you'll see that the -f- and -i- again are almost touching. In fact, the f's seem generally susceptible to jamming up against the letters after them -- note also the -fl- combinations in "briefly" and "flew."

Neither of these samples uses exactly the same font as the memoes. But the fonts are similar enough that the calculation of the propotional spacing was probably the same as well. And that means that an -fi- jam-up on the memo could actually help confirm it was typed on an Executive.

very similar to these marked up pictures with circles and arrows.
"10x8 color glossies"?

I am/was skepital...but a right wing drive to destroy the messenger and throw things off is not out of the question, by any means.

All the media outlets should get a copy of this.

that was posted some time ago on DU?

Nice work! :yourock:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x816939

I have also put together a case that refutes most of the "style" issues as documented in the FAUX chart at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/graphics/cbsdocs_091804.html.
Stay tuned friend.

Another clear indicator is the weight of the strokes on every rounded letter. Every single rounded letter in the memo has a uniform weight around the entire curved stroke. In Times New Roman, the weights aren't uniform. There is a fatter part and a thinner part along the curve.

but when you are not working from a first generation good copy the argument is vulnerable in that critics will say that it due to distortions caused by the photocopy process or due to the ink bleeding ....
Nevertheless my trained eye does see it also but alas its the untrained eyes that we have to convince.

may be Aldine Roman, designed especially for IBM by the creator of TNR.

Okasha

I have tested most of the Aldine family and its derivatives available thru the http://www.linotype.com/ site and so far all of them have a capital J whose tail descends below the baseline. Since the Js in the docs do not descend below the baseline, I have to the Aldine Roman available for computers/word processors.

It has a red pin next to it - it is a permanent post

Not sure how it relates to typewriters, but it's interesting. I'm trying it out although I couldn't find a "Q" in the documents.

really have good access to a wide range of typewriter fonts -- I am basically limited to sample text that I can find in operationg manuals of that time period. If you have any suggestions I am all ears.

:kick:

We need to get people to stop focusing on the word forgery. The secretary to Killian said that the memo's while not original in form ARE correct in content. This is the point that needs to be slammed home hard! What these memos are are recreations of the actual memos. People equate the word forgery with fake. So while technically the memo's are forgeries they are not faked, they reflect actual memo's written about Bush's service (or lack of)

You are so right. It doesn't matter whether they are forgeries or not, the perception is they are. Any more arguing the point and staying up late at night to study fonts, is just silly. Give it up people, move on, and focus on the issues. We will never win this way.

..since the secretary recalls typing the memeos with the same contents, then where are the memos she typed? Either they are the ones Rather has - which she denies - or the originals went somewhere. And if these are fake, where are those originals? Why isn't anyone asking this question? I think that is the question that the righties do not want anyone to ask for the obvious reasons. Because it means that in fact someone did clean out Bush's file just as Burkett said.

constructed a wall of lies so the general public cannot enter the world of truth and substance.

devote an entire page "a FAUX chart" to the typography and style (Lt. vs LT bla bla bla) to backup their claims of forgery, small minds except there args as proof thus dismiss the real story.

posts of the past few days.

I learned to type on a typewriter. Hated it. Wasn't really good at it either. Because of that, it got me to thinking.

Typewriters use ribbons. Ribbons can be messy. So couldn't the 'bleed' or 'fuzzy' look be because of the fact that these memos did in fact come from a typewriter and not a computer?

Also, the secretary said she didn't type the memos. OK, fine.
BUT, a lot of people here have stated that it was very important to have 'CYA' type documentation in case one ever needed it.
Even if Killian didn't 'type', he could have typed these, couldn't he?
Anyone who's been around a typewriter should be able to figure out how to use one. These are just memos. No one was writing a book. He could do his CYA memos by hunt and peck. That's how a lot of people learned (slowly) to type. He could have looked at any memo his secretary had done in the past to make sure he had the correct 'form.'

One last thought. If you knew how to type, even marginally, but had a secretary who was supposed to do all of that work, would you EVER admit that you knew how to type? I know I wouldn't. I'd do anything I could to get out of having to type. I hated it then. Would still hate it today were it not for computers. So maybe Killian could type a bit. Just enough to write his CYA's. But maybe he never told his secretary? It's possible.

Like I said. Random thoughts - late at night when brain should be in bed. But you never know. Maybe sleepy brains come up with semi-decent thoughts from time to time. :)

for the reasons stated above. We obviously will know much
more when cbs does a followup interview with MS. Knox and Mr. Burke.