It is difficult to believe that Killian, with his supposed very limited typing ability (per his wife's description), would use a Linotype machine to compose personal memos for his private CYA file.
Typical Linotype machine:
Posted on 09/11/2004 5:33:30 PM PDT by dickmc
Is there a way to tell if a signature was pasted into a document even if you don't have the original into which the pasting was done? (By "pasting" I mean either that a photocopy of a signature was inserted into another document manually using scissors and paste/tape or a digitized signature was inserted.)
I would think that if the CBS copy was, for example, a second photocopy of the paper that had the signature pasted into it, that converting the document into an image file, say BMP (less distortion introducing compression than JPG or GIF), and turning up the contrast would eventually show a rectangular or similar shape box around the signature.
On the other hand, if it's the tenth photocopy of the paste job it would be more difficult, maybe impossible, to find such a telltale rectangular or similar shape box around the signature by enhancing contrast.
Also, if someone copied a signature onto a transparency or created a digital file with a transparent background, this "enhance the contrast" approach is unlikely to work.
Maybe the forger was sloppy on at least some of the photocopied signatures?
I can find out Monday at the earliest. I know two people who have old IBM workhorses. If I wasn't so lazy, I'd get out some OLD court papers from the '70's.
One thing I don't see addressed in this list:
While the authenticity of a signature or a document can not be proved from a photocopy, they can be disproved from a photocopy.
The slant of the signatures and initials on the CBS documents is slightly different on all three documents when viewed upside down (as is the accepted way of taking a first look at determining whether or not a signature is a forgery).
It should be noted that on 9 signatures known to be those of Jerry B. Killian the slant is virtually identical on all 9 signatures (again viewed upside down).
The slant of the signatures on the 9 known signatures of Jerry B. Killian do not match the slant of the signatures or initials on any of the CBS documents.
Great job!
# 50 is false. See One Hand Clapping blog.
You may be right but some of this has to do with equipment having a Times Roman type face which was apparently not available in many machines. Also a more true proportional spacing. I think the feeling is that only the Selectric Composer could have done it (if not MS Word). Actually, my head hurts from dealing with all this and a fresh set of eyes are needed.
Will an expert in this thread please take a look at this and suggest a satisfactory fix if/as needed. Then post here for others to review and comment.
Some of the links to look at are:
http://shapeofdays.typepad.com/
http://www.indcjournal.com/
http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/weblog.php
Perhaps we also need to add some links to this bullet.
The IBM ad in post #17 shows proportional type but also straight quote marks and apostrophes. When I look at the ad in Photoshop the header says 1954.
I don't know when they started using 'curly' apostrophes in typewriters.
"50. The manual cited in the forged document "AFM 35-13" doesn't exist. That line of text reads: "to conduct annual physical examination (flight)IAW AFM 35-13". "IAW" means "In Accordance With" and "AFM 35-13" would mean "Air Force Manual 35-13". There is no such Air Force Manual 35-13."
Be careful on this one. You need to ensure that AFM 35-13 did not exist in 1972. The Air Force regulation system underwent a really radical change in the early 1990s under then-Chief of Staff General McPeak. A lot of publications were eliminated and replaced by newly created pubs.
The date would have been typed 18 AUG 73 not 18 August 1973.
Second Lieutenant would be 2LT. First is 1LT. All capitals.
At least that's the way it was in '69.
Re Post 50
Please provide URL to blog. Should we just delete 50???
Thanks,
Dick
#27 and #67 seem to be the same
Re 51
Can you supply suggested change including line number if not a new addition.
Thanks,
Dick
  |
Times (New) Roman and its part in the Development of Scalable Font Technology By Charles Bigelow
|
| Charles Bigelow posted this article to the Usenet newsgroup "comp.fonts" in May 1994 in response to the question: What's the difference between Times Roman and Times New Roman? I am grateful to Prof. Bigelow for his permission to publish the article. I have taken the liberty of retitling it. 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 |
BTTT..Rather evidence.
The typographic argument boils down to this: It would be impossible, using 1970's vintage office equipment, to have produced the CBS docs. That case can be made without laying it all out in public.
To say anything more than the minimum in public just plays into the hands of the opposition, and give CBS an opportunity to create counterarguments...or worse, to prepare other "missing" documents that will pass public scrutiny.
To you who post all these details here, a question: why is it necessary for you to lay it all out in public?
I guess #55 has to go also, they used the same address here.
http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/Doc21.gif
Is this letterhead perfectly centered?
Very Interesting. Although it had the spacing feature, it did not have kerning which the memos show to have and also it did not have Times New Roman font.
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.
