I think some of the earlier arguments deserved jumping on. This is an expert's opinion, based on actual font samples and not someone's half-baked assertion that typewriters couldn't do that.
Geez, even the most incompetent forger would try to match actual documents from the period.
Thanks for enlightening us all. No really, you raised our level of understanding of the issue to a level I personally didn't think could be achieved. You are absolutely vital to this discussion, and you deserve credit for holding CBS to their words. Without your expertise and calm help in sorting out the forgery question, we all would have been lost.
Really. I mean it.
Look, we are in agreement at this point, but how half baked was the assumption about the proportional font being an indicator of forgery in view of the fact that this expert endorses it?
At a minimum, CBS should immediately bring forward the document expert they consulted. If this is a forgery, I expect the original source of the documents will have had some flimsy pretext for demanding anonymity, but CBS's own expert is fair game.
Agreed. I was defending a couple of posters who actually knew about proportional-font typewriters and were getting slammed for raising legitimate questions. I still think there are some features of the docs that look typed. But gosh, how incompetent must CBS be, to release word-processed documents that purport to date from 1973?
That was my hesitation as well. The vile Clintonites aren't rank amateurs at fraud and smear by any means. I think your admonitions to slow down regarding this "investigation" were well intended and wise.
"Geez, even the most incompetent forger would try to match actual documents from the period."
"Geez, even the most incompetent forger would try..." to find a similar typewriter from the period and then make the forgeries.
This whole episode is so insulting to anyone with a minimal level of commonsense.