Why hasn't this been noted about TIMES NEW ROMAN font?

[geek tragedy]

1. There are multiple variations of Roman font which can very closely resemble Times New Roman. The fonts themselves don't have as much copyright protection as the names have trademark protection.

2. This means that, even though the "Haas Atlas" doesn't have a specific entry for "Times New Roman" there could be literally dozens of fonts that are virtually identical but with different names.

3. The Haas Atlas contains thousands of font types. These "experts" spent about one hour eyeballing the PDF. This means that:

4. IT WAS PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANY OUTSIDE EXPERT TO STATE WITH ANY CONFIDENCE THAT THIS FONT WASN'T BEING USED IN TYPEWRITERS AT THE TIME AFTER REVIEWING THE DOC FOR AN HOUR.

[Wickerman]

1. The whole discussion is moot

Your point is well taken and an actual document examiner would spend some serious time with this, factor in reproduction artifact, etc.

However, on CNN Dan Rather stated unequivically that there is NO doubt these docs are real - there is no possibilty of a retraction.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x783464

[PROGRESSIVE1]

2. Bless you CNN. NY Times said the same thing.