Thursday, September 09, 2004
The Blogger Bandwagon
Hate to come late to the blogger party on this one (Power Line has already done more intensely extensive coverage than I could hope to), but I can't believe CBS is still standing behind their fake 60 Minutes anti-Bush documents; CNN and the AP and every other network are still reporting these forgeries as fact!
This is what a typewritten document looked like in 1972 (part of the public record and mutually agreed upon):
As was the case with all manual typewriters, there is no "kerning" between letters -- indeed, the font is monospaced, meaning an "i" and an "m" and a capital "L" all take up the same amount of width. Quotes and apostrophes were straight up and down (because the typewriter, obviously, had no way of knowing which direction the quote was supposed to curve, without context), and there was certainly no way of doing superscripting (having an "st" or "th" in a smaller font up and to the right of the number preceding it.)
Now, here's an example of what CBS is claiming is an authentic 1972 document:
The reason this forgery is so easily disprovable is because anyone can open up Microsoft Word and, using the default settings and the default Times New Roman font in the default 12 point size, type the statement above, and get this:
That's what I got (and what you will get, too) just by typing the paragraph into Microsoft Word and pressing print. I didn't change a thing; in fact, there's even accidental "proof of authenticity" there because I made a transposition typo (OERT instead of OETR). Everything is identical -- spacing, kerning, margins, everything -- to the default Microsoft Word settings. Try it yourself -- you'll get the exact same thing. Run it through a fax machine and it'll come out identical to CBS's "1972" document, I guarantee it.
Incidentally, there's another oddity among these "1972" documents, when it comes to Colonel Killian's signature:
Obviously, this is another childish forgery, with the same impossible raised "th"s and computer-assisted kerned proportional Times New Roman font (which, by the way, was never available on a typewriter, even now.) But also check out the signature in this new example with the one in the document we began with (which we know is accurate.) Who, exactly, is the "documentation expert" that CBS claims to have verified these ridiculous papers?
No typewriter exists today (and certainly not 32 years ago) that could produce a single one of these forgeries. I know the opponents of the President (and therefore the U.S. media) are feeling desperate these days. But to insult our intelligence so amateurishly, and then have the audacity to stand by and defend such an easily disproved story, is an enormous violation of the public trust that cannot be allowed to get swept under the rug.
Update: The defeatjohnjohn.com blog is now offering $10,000 (in the form of a cashier's check) to the first individual who can recreate the CBS documents on a typewriter available in 1972. Details can be found here.
Hate to come late to the blogger party on this one (Power Line has already done more intensely extensive coverage than I could hope to), but I can't believe CBS is still standing behind their fake 60 Minutes anti-Bush documents; CNN and the AP and every other network are still reporting these forgeries as fact!
This is what a typewritten document looked like in 1972 (part of the public record and mutually agreed upon):
As was the case with all manual typewriters, there is no "kerning" between letters -- indeed, the font is monospaced, meaning an "i" and an "m" and a capital "L" all take up the same amount of width. Quotes and apostrophes were straight up and down (because the typewriter, obviously, had no way of knowing which direction the quote was supposed to curve, without context), and there was certainly no way of doing superscripting (having an "st" or "th" in a smaller font up and to the right of the number preceding it.)
Now, here's an example of what CBS is claiming is an authentic 1972 document:
The reason this forgery is so easily disprovable is because anyone can open up Microsoft Word and, using the default settings and the default Times New Roman font in the default 12 point size, type the statement above, and get this:
That's what I got (and what you will get, too) just by typing the paragraph into Microsoft Word and pressing print. I didn't change a thing; in fact, there's even accidental "proof of authenticity" there because I made a transposition typo (OERT instead of OETR). Everything is identical -- spacing, kerning, margins, everything -- to the default Microsoft Word settings. Try it yourself -- you'll get the exact same thing. Run it through a fax machine and it'll come out identical to CBS's "1972" document, I guarantee it.
Incidentally, there's another oddity among these "1972" documents, when it comes to Colonel Killian's signature:
Obviously, this is another childish forgery, with the same impossible raised "th"s and computer-assisted kerned proportional Times New Roman font (which, by the way, was never available on a typewriter, even now.) But also check out the signature in this new example with the one in the document we began with (which we know is accurate.) Who, exactly, is the "documentation expert" that CBS claims to have verified these ridiculous papers?
No typewriter exists today (and certainly not 32 years ago) that could produce a single one of these forgeries. I know the opponents of the President (and therefore the U.S. media) are feeling desperate these days. But to insult our intelligence so amateurishly, and then have the audacity to stand by and defend such an easily disproved story, is an enormous violation of the public trust that cannot be allowed to get swept under the rug.
Update: The defeatjohnjohn.com blog is now offering $10,000 (in the form of a cashier's check) to the first individual who can recreate the CBS documents on a typewriter available in 1972. Details can be found here.
