I think that's a very good point. Fiction writers are (by inclination and training) kind of drama queens. They make good stories out of everything -- but good stories are unpleasant living.
NOrman Spinrad has been predicting the end of civilization as we know it, and/or the collapse of the US into fascism, for thirty years that I remember.
Bruce Sterling has been pushing the end of US innovation and the collapse of the economy for most of that time.
I know most of those people, more or less, and while I love much of their fiction, I can't think of any one of them that I would consider other than a negative predictor.
If they are all that worried, we must be in pretty good shape.
Just by the way this guy is offering $10,500 ($10,000 plus some additional contributions) for anyone who can duplicate the memo on a typewriter. he also reproduces page 56 of the Composer manual, which makes it clear that the Composer had to have superscripts inserted manually and could not directly do small superscripted ligatures.
So, lefty, this is your chance. Ten grand. You and Kos can split it.
At this point, CNN is reporting that the documents are very likely forged, including the opinion of a guy who is specifically an expert on IBM Composers.
Yeah. It's clear a lot of you guys don't remember typewriters, but the way you got superscript and subscript in general was to roll the platen up or down a half-line. The super- or sub-script would be the same size font, but offset.
You could get a superscript like that by changing the "element" (ie, the typeball). It was amazingly easy -- for 1972 -- as all you had to do was open the little clamp on top (usually meant breaking off a fingernail, even for males), digging the new element out, popping it on, closing the clamp, and then doing it again to go back.
Nobody bothered with this for the "th" in "11th".
According to the Selectric Museum, IBM never made a Times New Roman element. They're slashdotted to within an inch of their lives, but they've put up some static pages with the information you need.
In any case, though, as someone who typed a lot of this stuff in 69-73, I can tell you GI typewriters weren't IBM Executives. They were old-fashioned IBM C typewriters in black or green.
Maybe some PIO officer somewhere had an Executive, but not an ANG office in halfway-to-nowhere Texas.
Well, we're getting into the battle of the experts, but Dr Phillip Bouffard, who is a certified forensic expert in typography, disagrees with you:
* He said that he didn't know who CBS contacted to verify the document's authenticity, but that there is really only one other man that may be more qualified to determine authentic typefaces than himself. I think that the burden of proof may be on CBS to reveal this information.
I asked him to put a percentage on the chances that this was a fake, and he said that was "hard to put a number on it." I then suggested "90%?" Again he said it's "hard to put an exact number, but I'd say it's at least that high, sure. I pretty much agree that that font is Times New Roman."
I hesitate to render verdicts, but based on an initial visual analysis by one of the country's foremost forensic document analysts that specializes in old typefaces, it looks like CBS was duped.
Remember that the PDF'ed original is actually a multiply-copied photocopy... and maybe faxed at least once as well. You'd expect some fuzziness and some optical nonlinearities.
I ain't sayin' it's certain, but I sure wouldn't take the little bit of noise as good evidence against.
Again, the question is, why would a forger, who would have seen other documents from the service record and the era not try to actually forge the document to look like the others? Why not type it on a generic selectric?
Old fashioned typewriters definitly -- at least very often -- has 1/4 and 1/2. They were where the [{}] were, along with a couple of other punctuation characters. On the other hand, they didn't have ^ and (depending on the typewriter) sometimes didn't have a digit 1 (you used lower-case L).
I don't remember any with the superscript th though. Remember you'd also need superscript 'nd' and 'st'.
You're still making a bit of a jump. Wearing of an authorized unit citation could be authorized VOCO. If he weren't supposed to be wearing it, someone would notice -- military guys are sensitive about that -- but if he were supposed to be wearing it along with his unitmates, there's be no written record.
They cite and directly quote three typography experts, all hitting the same basic points as noted below: proportional type, the superscript 'th', the lack of a letterhead.
And one other -- it looks like the 01 Aug 72 signature may have been cut and pasted (the old fashioined way, actual cutting and pasting) because of the cutoff of the top loop.
The point is, though, that all the other documents are typed on the same old conventional GI typewriter -- not an Executive Proportional, just the same old crappy IBM model I used at the same time.
Slashdot Mirror
More customers for the "psychologcal help" section.
You might be better advised to look in the "self help for nut cases" section.
I think that's a very good point. Fiction writers are (by inclination and training) kind of drama queens. They make good stories out of everything -- but good stories are unpleasant living.
"May you live in interesting times."
NOrman Spinrad has been predicting the end of civilization as we know it, and/or the collapse of the US into fascism, for thirty years that I remember.
Bruce Sterling has been pushing the end of US innovation and the collapse of the economy for most of that time.
I know most of those people, more or less, and while I love much of their fiction, I can't think of any one of them that I would consider other than a negative predictor.
If they are all that worried, we must be in pretty good shape.
It means I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with the half-armed.
"Occam's" razor, for William of Occam.
Just by the way this guy is offering $10,500 ($10,000 plus some additional contributions) for anyone who can duplicate the memo on a typewriter. he also reproduces page 56 of the Composer manual, which makes it clear that the Composer had to have superscripts inserted manually and could not directly do small superscripted ligatures.
So, lefty, this is your chance. Ten grand. You and Kos can split it.
At this point, CNN is reporting that the documents are very likely forged, including the opinion of a guy who is specifically an expert on IBM Composers.
a rd.ap/index.html
6 7-2004Sep9.html
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/10/bush.gu
Dr Phil Bouffard, one of the top experts in the field, is nearly conclusively certain that they're forged.
http://www.indcjournal.com/archives/000851.php
MSNBC is reporting experts in several areas who say they're forged.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5963843/
The Washington Post has a number of experts who strongly believe the documents were forged.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A99
And you've got Kos.
Read the stories. Think for yourself.
And for crying out loud learn to post a link. There's even a little crib in the edit window on Slashdot, for God's sake.
Drudge
Yeah. It's clear a lot of you guys don't remember typewriters, but the way you got superscript and subscript in general was to roll the platen up or down a half-line. The super- or sub-script would be the same size font, but offset.
You could get a superscript like that by changing the "element" (ie, the typeball). It was amazingly easy -- for 1972 -- as all you had to do was open the little clamp on top (usually meant breaking off a fingernail, even for males), digging the new element out, popping it on, closing the clamp, and then doing it again to go back.
Nobody bothered with this for the "th" in "11th".
According to the Selectric Museum, IBM never made a Times New Roman element. They're slashdotted to within an inch of their lives, but they've put up some static pages with the information you need.
In any case, though, as someone who typed a lot of this stuff in 69-73, I can tell you GI typewriters weren't IBM Executives. They were old-fashioned IBM C typewriters in black or green.
Maybe some PIO officer somewhere had an Executive, but not an ANG office in halfway-to-nowhere Texas.
Sorry, I had that backwards. Adobe licenses Times Roman from Linotype, Microsoft licenses Times New Roman from Monotype.
I was trying to be a little understated.
Read the whole thing, of course.
Times New Roman is an Adobe font that was made to look as much like Times as possible without violating intellectual property laws.
Remember that the PDF'ed original is actually a multiply-copied photocopy ... and maybe faxed at least once as well. You'd expect some fuzziness and some optical nonlinearities.
I ain't sayin' it's certain, but I sure wouldn't take the little bit of noise as good evidence against.
Look, poopsie, I've been preaching this for days now -- look at the damned documents and think for yourself!
Get a look at some contemporary docs. Typewriters just didn't do that back then.
A-HA! The WH released memos that CBS News faxed them. The WH never had originals at all.
Kevin Drum (blogging from the Left) looked into this.
Wow. That's pretty close.
Again, the question is, why would a forger, who would have seen other documents from the service record and the era not try to actually forge the document to look like the others? Why not type it on a generic selectric?
Stupidity?
Old fashioned typewriters definitly -- at least very often -- has 1/4 and 1/2. They were where the [{}] were, along with a couple of other punctuation characters. On the other hand, they didn't have ^ and (depending on the typewriter) sometimes didn't have a digit 1 (you used lower-case L).
I don't remember any with the superscript th though. Remember you'd also need superscript 'nd' and 'st'.
Lars, he wasn't president then. They they don't normally take tons of photos of J Random 1LT.
Check out the CNS story: http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewPolitics.asp?Page=%5CP olitics%5Carchive%5C200409%5CPOL20040909d.html
Even on a Selectric or an Executive Proportional, you had to take special steps to get a smaller font superscript, including changing the typeball.
The old GI IBM C typewriters couldn't even do that.
I was typing orders on those things in 69-72.
You're still making a bit of a jump. Wearing of an authorized unit citation could be authorized VOCO. If he weren't supposed to be wearing it, someone would notice -- military guys are sensitive about that -- but if he were supposed to be wearing it along with his unitmates, there's be no written record.
I think this one's a dry hole.
http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewPolitics.asp?Page=%5CP olitics%5Carchive%5C200409%5CPOL20040909d.html
They cite and directly quote three typography experts, all hitting the same basic points as noted below: proportional type, the superscript 'th', the lack of a letterhead.
And one other -- it looks like the 01 Aug 72 signature may have been cut and pasted (the old fashioined way, actual cutting and pasting) because of the cutoff of the top loop.
The point is, though, that all the other documents are typed on the same old conventional GI typewriter -- not an Executive Proportional, just the same old crappy IBM model I used at the same time.