Drudge flips 60 Minutes, Raw Story flips Drudge

[rawstory]

I just couldn't resist/couldn't take it anymore.



Has anyone asked the question, where did Microsoft get their fonts from? Wouldn't it make sense for Word to emulate previous typewriter fonts?

http://rawstory.com

[rawstory]

1. Here's the answer on the fonts

Guess what, Microsoft didn't invent times new roman, go figure!

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

[FreeState]

3. Nor is it a new font...

from your link...

"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"."

[FreeState]

2. Times New Roman its is NOT...

I call Bushit....

Here is a nice copy of the TImes New Roman font

http://www.fonts.com/findfonts/detail.asp?pid=205376&GCID=C2250x012, with its history:)

Compair it to the fonts used here :

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/BushGuardmay19.pdf
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/BushGuardmay4.pdf

(Note Im a graphic designer, with a lot of classes on typography and these are not TIMES NEW ROMAN - look at the E and e... )

[democracyindanger]

4. Basic typefaces

have a long history. Microsoft's typefaces are just digital versions of existing ones; for example, the ubiquitous Times New Roman was created in the 1930's (http://www.linotype.com/7-510-7/stanleymorison.html).

Somebody should find some old typewriters, like the ones TANG might have had, and type out the memos.

And another thing that underlines the stupidity of this 'forgery' nonsense is that if you look closely at the .pdfs, you can see an occassional letter that's misaligned. Extremely common for a typewriter, but if you were using a computer printer you'd need to convert the Word document into a graphics file and use Photoshop or something to shift a letter here or there. So in order to believe that the memos are fake, you have to believe that the forger was smart enough to go to the trouble of doing that while not considering the typeface. The typeface would be the first thing a forger would consider.

The freepers are flailing.

[halfso]

5. There's no question; the docs are NOT from '72

It was obvious to me the first time I saw them that these 4 documents were all made on a modern PC, in the Times New Roman typeface. I just figured that someone along the way was tasked with organizing/consolidating the Colonel's personal memos (probably originally handwritten), and typed them up, also retyping the official orders/memorandum doc of 04 May 72 so they have a uniform appearance and for ease of reading, not to mention to backup the original copies in a modern computerized format.

These are not forgeries, I believe, but simply transcriptions of real original documents, made way after the Col's death. Now why they decided to cut and paste a copy of his signature instead of putting "Original Signed* or something is beyond me. That can do nothing but confuse the issue of authenticity, as it is doing right now.

But the most compelling and obvious argument for an alternate explanation is that if these were indeed intended to be passable forgeries, there is no excuse for someone just sitting down at their Dell desktop and cranking these out. These documents wouldn't fool anybody; any forger would know this.

They're not from 1972, or from any obscure, $20,000 state-of-the-art typewriter that the TANG happened to have laying around their Houston office. They are from MSWord, plain and simple, and I hope that someone has a mighty good explanation for this before the whole thing backfires and somehow works in Bush's favor. CBS, it's time to tell us more about this "expert" you had evaluate these docs... or did he/she evaluate the originals that we haven't seen yet? We can hope...

[FreeState]

6. Not Times New Roman (image compairing them)

Trying to post my image.... cant get it to post.... errrr

Got it sorry... forgot that images post without code here LOL

Feel free to copy this image but do not dead link to it...

[halfso]

16. I think you may be right; not standard TNR.

What I should have said was that my initial IMPRESSION was that they were in TNR, or some similar but equally modern, computer based, and non-early 70's font. At first glance it struck me as TNR, the most common font used in MSWord docs today. But there is a large family of "Times" based fonts, all very similar; this is just a variation. But no matter what, I personally believe the docs are clearly from a computer word processor, yet are still accurate representations of Killian's original memos...

[rawstory]

7. And with one post, you're the new expert

Curiously, Drudge has now pulled the flipped 60 minutes image off his front page -- I think he's even starting to have doubts. :) I think I'll give it an hour and pull the flipped drudge, just to be fair, but it was hella fun to do.

[Fenris]

8. How do you explain the numerous misaligned characters?

I do not recall Word having a "Misalign Text" function.

[democracyindanger]

12. You need Service Pack 2

:P

[halfso]

14. The "misalignments" are an effect of the PDF format

and more importantly of the apparent fact that the document has been photocopied/faxed several times. This distorts the letters, rounds edges, etc., and creates the illusion of misalignment. The original, I'm sure, is laser-printer sharp and squared.

[FreeState]

15. No

Look at the image above. PFDs do not realign text that is already an image (such as a scan). Sorry it can not do it.

Photo copies so might blur but they do not ad arms to accenders or decenders (look at the L and the P both lower and upper case.)

Also the spacing is much longer than that Times... check out the image above.

[rawstory]

17. quit freeping

Please quit freeping and provide solid evidence -- this is sooooo dubious. Not to mention the fact the DRUDGE's primary sources are

1) the guy who heads conservatives for victory

and

2) a blogger who sits on the board of a conservative thinktank

(all at http://bluelemur.com)

and now

3) murdoch's weekly standard.

and lining it up with word doesn't prove anything -- that's not how you do journalism. you have to prove its a fake.

[halfso]

19. Big difference between claming these docs were maliciously forged and

simply claiming (with growing evidence) that they were not created in the 1970s. The demonstration of MSWord correlation here http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=12526_Bush_Guard_Documents-_Forged is pretty irrefutable. And the LGF poster does have a good point about the differences between on-screen fonts and their printed equivalents; it probably is Times New Roman after all. Again, I think that anyone not willing to acknowledge this strong possibility, or who doesn't see that the doc's provenance from the computer age instead of '72 does not necessarily condemn them as false, may be as thickheaded and narrowminded as all those Dubya fanatics. They are modern transcriptions of the colonel's original memos.

[trumad]

18. Nice try

[henslee]

10. Yawn.

[radwriter0555]

11. The type face isn't times new roman. I TYPED on those old

typrewriters, I have one in my house. My typewriter, a cute vintage beast from the early 70's that was owned by a semi-famous travelling comedian who passed away, looks just like this type face.

I also used to work in a graphics house. Part of my job in 1982 was to clean up films of legal documents used in court cases. I had to take regular india ink and fill in the spots made by photo-copying... all those black spots you can see on the memos. I couldn't touch ANYTHING else, the idea was to just take away all the spots.

Them spots, of all things, are a dead give away to me. It would take a VERY VERY VERY experienced forger to know enough to install all those spots on docs like that. Do ya suppose Kerry hired a professional document forgery expert to make up phony docs?

Nah.

[GAspnes]

20. I don't know what they are

yet.

But the baseline of the type varies, which is typical of a typewriter and absolutely *not* possible without highly sophisticated manipulation from Word & a laser printer.

[Dogmudgeon]

9. There was an office typesetting machine ...

... called a Kroy, IIRC. It could handle fairly complex typesetting jobs, but I never got proficient at using one, so I don't know what its capabilities and limitations were.

You'd have to check out that, and (many) similar, office typesetting machines. They became "popular" in the late 1960s and I would not be surprised if some of the better-provisioned military units had one.

--bkl

[radwriter0555]

13. Well there were also typesetting machines too, but neither kroy or

typesetters were used for general correspondence.