Posted on 09/10/2004 5:23:19 PM PDT by Thanatos
You could just set a default font in your web browser. I view FR in Arial, because I detest Times New Roman...or any font that is serifed, for that matter.
For us pre-boomers, try "Verdana" At about 18 or 24 points. Verdana is the most readable screen font I have found.
Rather lied while CBS died.
Farfetched, Huh. Whether they could afford a machine that did not exict is the real question. You don't sound all that scientific to me.
Perfect! That's just the pic I was looking for.
"Font? What Font? Everyone used that Font. It's an old font. Superscripts were common in 1973 typewriters. Of course it matches up exactly with a Microsoft Word document. Why wouldn't it?"
It mentions his licensing Times from the Linotype company in 1984 and it was a "coup" to land the font from the typesetter.
===
"In 1984.... Linotype president Wolfgang Kummer licensed its treasured Times and Helvetica font families to Adobe and Apple. Plus, it agreed to work with Adobe to develop the first PostScript typesetter.
Although Linotype wasnt the countrys largest typesetter manufacturer, it was the most established and most respected, so getting Linotype was something of a coup."
"Dan Blather's report was handed to him by the CBS Legal Department, because CBS may be subject to fines and sanctions if it can be shown that they maliciously used "evidence" against a public offical that was known to be fraudulant."
I think you nailed it. If Rather admitted to being duped, or heaven forbid having been part of the con, there would have been heavy liability. This way, they just claim they did their best.
What about New Times Roman, the font known to CBS news?
Wow, they actually write books about the history of type fonts. And when I get done learning all there is to know about these fake CBS documents, I am going to be able to write one too!
FreeRepublic is great! You (and others on this thread) have explained the source of my frustration in moving documents back and forth between Mac and PC only to have them change format, when every setting (margins, type size, etc.) was identical between the two computers. This problem has caused me hours of extra work!
We went back and forth a bit, yes. Doesn't smell very genuine, does he?
The end of the exchange looked like this:
"...no one could fault us..." ??? The Dims fault us just for existing! Can you imagine the outcry if the documents turn out to be real. They won't listen to our explanations why we were wrong -- they'll just call us idiots.For some reason, haven't heard back after that._____________________________________
It's not about them. They always do the same thing.
Arguing as I have with Young Earth Creationists, the people who think the Earth is 6000 years old and created in 6 literal days, I've noticed an eerie similarity between said YECs and militant liberals.
They have specially received, insider knowledge. They are inflicting a better world on us whether we will have it or not. They are opposed by a cabal of evil dumb people. They are allowed to lie, cheat, and steal because the evil dumb people started it first and it's a Holy War, damn it!
They're the same people with left and right reversed. A little activism is a dangerous, very corrupting thing.
Don't worry about them. They're unreachable. Bullet-proof delusional system. Former YEC Glen R. Morton described the input-filtering they do as "Morton's Demon" by analogy with Maxwell's thermodynamic demon. Like the light bulb that has to want to change, they have to want to see what the Demon is filtering out. Most never will.
So it's not about them. It's about everybody else.
If by "convincing" you mean overwhelming in terms of quantity and variety of evidence, then I have to disagree. If you mean instead that we still have a struggle to overcome CBS and Rather's obtuse diversions, then yeah, we still have to keep up the pressure. But those documents are so obviously phony that the real question becomes either a) are the DNC and CBS so desperate (and incompetent) that they would use blatant forgeries, or b) did the source and author intentionally do such an incompetent job to make sure this would blow up in the face of the Kerry campaign. Either way, neither the network nor the campaign are getting out of this intact.
You're mistaken in your unjustified name-calling. I'm not a troll. I'm a dedicated conservative trying to make sure that FR doesn't end up with egg on its face. No one has yet stepped forward to indicate exactly what typewriters the NG unit had.
I'm simply trying to urge some caution before uninformed Freepers do some real damage to our cause by making FR look foolish.
My reply: Time will tell.
It was never done by anybody from the military and most likely not gummit?? Most of the Freepers could have done a better forgery than this.
Pray for W and Our Troops
"Doesn't smell very genuine, does he?" What is genuine? Is there some kind of litmus test to prove that one is genuine on FR? If you look again at my various posts, you'll see that I'm merely advising Freepers and allies to be absolutely certain. President Bush does not need uninformed supporters, with incomplete evidence, no matter how enthusiastic we are. If I were in a court a law, I wouldn't want any of the so-called experts on FR to be my lawyers. One small example: many Freepers claimed with absolute certainty that TimesNewRoman and Superscripting absolutely did not exist in 1972. Would that statement survive in court? Of course not.I replied as follows (some cleanup from FR's spell-check feature inserted):My job, and my company, are involved in testing very complex factory automation systems. So complex, that it's not always obvious what the system is doing. Thus, it's in my nature to question everything until all of the facts are established.
But maybe I'm missing something ... maybe the FR approach is to always go on the attack, even with shaky evidence.
You're phony through and through. If you're wandering around on these threads offering your words of "caution," you are presumably aware of the usual list of 40 or so areas where the seeming forger slipped up. Let me add another which I only saw today for the first time.No typewriter or typesetting machine of the time had a "center" feature. (What was Killian doing typing memos on a $3000 typesetting machine anyway?) To do a "center," as was done for the letterhead in two memos typed months apart, you have to type out the strings to be centered in a block, physically measure their lengths, work out the starting point on the page for each line, and force the print point of the machine TO said start for each line typed.
So Killian apparently did this centering procedure in two memos months apart. (Killian, who apparently did not type but had a machine more expensive than a new car, a machine no one else in his office used!) When he did this, he got the exact same results three months apart.
The results are so much the same that when you overlay them digitally, they match up PIXEL BY PIXEL. Not closely, IOW, but exactly. This using a machine that didn't have pixels.
Here comes the Twilight Zone part. If you use a completely different technology, Microsoft Word, invented much later, which has this feature called "automatic justification" and you set that justification to "center" and type the same address, you get another thing that overlies Killian's two memos PIXEL BY PIXEL.
But, apparently, you have to use MS Word to do this. WordPerfect, an otherwise full-featured modern program with the same fonts and features, won't make a PIXEL BY PIXEL match. Spooky, huh? I've been playing with this one myself.
The difficulty seems to be that it MATTERS what technology you use to produce a thing. WordPerfect, while "full-featured," was independently developed and doesn't contain the exact same code doing the work. Slight but detectable differences in algorithm create detectable mismatches. That, and the fonts look a bit different although they're both 12 point Times New Roman.
Funny, huh? But some old typewriter did the same thing, including proportional spacing to the pixel level. A typewriter nobody can find, since it turns out you can't actually make a Selectric Composer do what Killian did. (There are some around and it's been repeatedly tried now.)
Then you have all those other 40 things. Maybe you can dismiss each one, separately. One or two of the dismissals may even be true. The P.O. Box may really have been 34567 and it seems to have been used elsewhere.
But all of the improbable dismissals being true at the same time for all of the 41 items has odds of something like 10 to the billion billionth power. It didn't happen that way.
The alternative explanation ties it all together rather neatly. If the documents are faked using MS Word, the spectacular pixel-level coincidences become inevitable rather than nearly impossible. The same explanation also accounts for every other item of the 41.
So there exists this reasoning tool called "Occam's Razor." You don't seem very familiar with it so you might need to Google it up. Anyway, you could say it says "When there are two or more explanations that can be made to work, prefer the simplest." The folk saying of "If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck!" uses the idea.
Applying Occam's Razor to you, we see that you signed up solely to express your concern that we are looking unreasonable for questioning Dan Rather's marvelous memos. In your judgment, WE have insufficient evidence, whereas Mr. Rather has evidently used sound and sober judgment in his journalistic professional responsibilities.
You're as fake as Danny's memos. By the way, you may have noted I've posted one of our exchanges so others can share the joke of your masquerade here. You may expect it with this one.
A thought: Is it possible that only 1 of the memos is faked? Or 2?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.