Bush Guard Documents: Forged

little green footballs ^

[Jack_1]

I opened Microsoft Word, set the font to Microsoft’s Times New Roman, tabbed over to the default tab stop to enter the date “18 August 1973,” then typed the rest of the document purportedly from the personal records of the late Lieutenant Colonel Jerry B. Killian.

And my Microsoft Word version, typed in 2004, is an exact match for the documents trumpeted by CBS News as “authentic.”

[ml/nj]

MEGAping

[RetroSexual]

Yup, I get similar results. Practically the whole document except for the superscript the line up. And there, the diffference is minor. Makes CBS look Rather suspicious!

[Momto2]

Anyone heard if Rush or Drudge has picked up on this story? Incredible!!! I hope Rather gets exposed BIG TIME!!!

[mek1959]

I think you might be right. This seems to too easy. How could the lunkheads at CBS have missed this - though I hope they did!

[agincourt1415]

I was a AF Personnel Specialist and I seem to recall that the typewriters we had were all Underwoods, circa 1974.

With an occassional IBM Selectric typewriter.

Our Computers were Burroughs (with of course no capability to word process).

You guys seem to have really caught'em red handed.

[Frank_Discussion]

I'm still trying to maintain some skepticism, but I typed a "1" and a lowercase "l" in Time New Roman, and they look exactly the same.

This is real weird, and if it is a fake, I am damn leery of why it's so easy to spot.

[kidd]

From: http://www.truetype.demon.co.uk/articles/times.htm

Newsgroups: comp.fonts
Subject: Re: What's the difference between Times Roman and Times New Roman?
From: Charles Bigelow
Date: 5 May 1994

"Times Roman" is the name used by Linotype, and the name they registered as a trademark for the design in the U.S. "Times New Roman" was and still is the name used by The Monotype Corporation. The face was developed by The Times newspaper for its own use, under the design direction of Stanley Morison. Originally cut by the Monotype Corp. in England, the design was also licensed to Linotype, because The Times used Linotype equipment for much of its actual production. The story of "The Times New Roman" can be found in Stanley Morison's A Tally of Types, published by Cambridge University Press, with additional, though not quite the same, versions in Nicolas Barker's biography of Stanley Morison, and in James Moran's biography of SM. (There should be an apostrophe in that name, "Times' Roman", I suppose, though no-one uses it.)

During WWII, the American Linotype company, in a generous spirit of Allied camaraderie, applied for registration of the trademark name "Times Roman" as its own, not Monotype's or The Times', and received the registration in 1945.

In the 1980's, all this was revisited when some entrepreneurs, desirous of gaining the rights to use the name, applied to Rupert Murdoch, who owned The Times; separately, a legal action was also initiated to clarify the right of Monotype to use the name in the U.S., despite Linotype's registration.

The outcome of all of the legal maneuverings is that Linotype and its licensees like Adobe and Apple continue to use the name "Times Roman", while Monotype and its licensees like Microsoft use the name "Times New Roman".

During the decades of transatlantic "sharing" of the Times designs, and the transfer of the faces from metal to photo to digital, various differences developed between the versions marketed by Linotype and Monotype. Especially these became evident when Adobe released the PostScript version, for various reasons having to do with how Adobe produced the original PostScript implementations of Times. The width metrics were different, as well as various proportions and details.

In the late 1980's, Monotype redrew its Times New Roman to make it fit exactly the proportions and metrics of the Adobe-Linotype version of Times Roman. Monotype claimed that its new version was better than the Adobe-Linotype version, because of smoother curves, better detailing, and generally greater sensitivity to the original designs done for The Times and Monotype by Victor Lardent, who worked under the direction of Stanley Morison. During the same period, Adobe upgraded its version of Times, using digital masters from Linotype, which of course claimed that it had a superior version, so there was a kind of competition to see who had the most refined, sensitive, original, genuine, bona-fide, artistically and typographically correct version. Many, perhaps most, users didn't notice and didn't care about these subtle distinctions, many of which were invisible at 10 pt at 300 dpi (which is an em of 42 pixels, a stem of three pixels, a serif of 1 pixel, and so on).

When Microsoft produced its version of Times New Roman, licensed from Monotype, in TrueType format, and when Apple produced its version of Times Roman, licensed from Linotype, in TrueType format, the subtle competition took on a new aspect, because both Microsoft and Apple expended a great deal of time and effort to make the TrueType versions as good as, or better than, the PostScript version. During the same period, Adobe released ATM along with upgraded versions of its core set of fonts, for improved rasterization on screen. Also, firms like Imagen, now part of QMS, and Sun developed rival font scaling technologies, and labored to make sure that their renderings of Times, licensed from Linotype in both cases, were equal to those of their competitors. Hence, the perceived quality of the Times design became a litmus for the quality of several font formats. Never before, and probably never again, would the precise placement of pixels in the serifs or 's' curves etc. of Times Roman occupy the attention of so many engineers and computer scientists. It was perhaps the supreme era of the Digital Fontologist.

As for the actual visual differences in the designs, well, like any good academic author, I leave the detection and analysis of those "as an exercise for the reader".

© Charles Bigelow

[WoodstockCat]

Also look at the text of the letter they used itself. "Austin is not happy either.". The implication here is that IF they had said something like "Bush Sr." or even used Bush's Father's name it's something that might have a paper trail elsewhere. By using "Austin", it's like a code word that implicates Bush "operatives" or "family" without saying or typing the words. Another interesting word study would be how long has "sugar coat" been in the military venacular?

[Howlin]

I am damn leery of why it's so easy to spot.

Precisely.

Can they be that dumb?

[plushaye]

National Review's blog 'The Corner' has picked it up the link to the littlegreenfootballs commentary. See 'Forgery' [KJL] at 2:01pm.

http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/corner.asp

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=12526

[RandallFlagg]

Is this something like what you were asking for?

[IncPen]

See my post #69

[Mr. Thorne]

"And did they intentionally do such a poor job covering their tracks?"

My thoughts exactly.

[Sacajaweau]

I found it interesting that the last digit of the dates of the August 18 1973 memo and the May 19 1972 memo are almost perfectly aligned, column wise, even though they were written a 15 months apart. Yet, the left margin differs substantially. I'd even take a crack that all three line up knowing what my little copier does here.

[isthisnickcool]

You can take the Word document image then put it in Paint then blow it up. Zoom it as big as you can. Then use the pencil to add dots at the same places where it appears the original may have had a typewriter letter "strike" it then print and copy it sure looks close to the other "old" document.

I expect that someone that understands this stuff will be able to say if we have anything here or not. Pretty weird if you ask me though.

[finnman69]

Ok, when I superimposed them in Paint it was almost perfect. Slight distortion likely from the copier twisting the alignment. The only difference is the 'th' after the '187'. Otherwise its perfect.Too perfect.

Here is my spuerimposed version.

[Oblongata]

That is the most damning piece of evidence I've seen so far.

[Frank_Discussion]

Oh, I think they can, because they are desperate. But it could be trap, or even worse, the MSM and the Kedwards Kampain might find a way to shove it doen our throats. IF they manage the latter, what further lies and of what magnitude will they execute on the country.

[aruanan]

FReepmail me an address and I'll send you a superimposed version. I'll open up the original as a red tif and the new version as a green tif and then combine them in NIH ImageJ. Where they overlap, the signal will be yellow.