0.41 seconds

In article <[email hidden]>,

Robert Chung said:

is the time gap between first and second in the Tour de l'Avenir. Lokvist
took the final stage with a big fist pump, thinking he'd won the overall.
The officials had to go back to the first stage ITT to determine the
overall. The 1989 TdF GC time gap was roughly 20 times larger.

(I would have written 41/100ths of a second, but the "ths" weren't
superscripted. Some people would consider this proof that this post was
written before 1973).

I hand-typed a copy of your post, and it looks identical. This
conclusively proves your post is a forgery.

--
tanx,
Howard

"Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind."
Albert Einstein

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

"Howard Kveck" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Robert Chung said:

is the time gap between first and second in the Tour de l'Avenir.

Lokvist

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

took the final stage with a big fist pump, thinking he'd won the

overall.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The officials had to go back to the first stage ITT to determine the
overall. The 1989 TdF GC time gap was roughly 20 times larger.

(I would have written 41/100ths of a second, but the "ths" weren't
superscripted. Some people would consider this proof that this post was
written before 1973).

I hand-typed a copy of your post, and it looks identical. This
conclusively proves your post is a forgery.

http://wizbangblog.com/images/cbsdocnumber4studysmall.jpg

If you don't think that the See-BS "documents" are forgeries after this
perhaps you ought to vote for Chirac.

Tom Kunich said:

http://wizbangblog.com/images/cbsdocnumber4studysmall.jpg

If you don't think that the See-BS "documents" are forgeries after this
perhaps you ought to vote for Chirac.

I looked at that page, but I can't see why it's relevant at all. You
appear to be saying, "If at time B one can re-create a document
purportedly created at time A, where B > A, then the document purportedly
created at time A is proved to be a forgery." If that's your claim, that's
nuts.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1644869,00.asp

In article <[email hidden]>,

Tom Kunich said:

"Howard Kveck" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Robert Chung said:

is the time gap between first and second in the Tour de l'Avenir.

Lokvist

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

took the final stage with a big fist pump, thinking he'd won the

overall.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The officials had to go back to the first stage ITT to determine the
overall. The 1989 TdF GC time gap was roughly 20 times larger.

(I would have written 41/100ths of a second, but the "ths" weren't
superscripted. Some people would consider this proof that this post was
written before 1973).

I hand-typed a copy of your post, and it looks identical. This
conclusively proves your post is a forgery.

http://wizbangblog.com/images/cbsdocnumber4studysmall.jpg

If you don't think that the See-BS "documents" are forgeries after this
perhaps you ought to vote for Chirac.

I was mocking some of the people who have styled themselves as experts
in the field of document analysis. See, I don't claim to be an expert in
this field, and I haven't made up my mind on whether they are or aren't
forgeries. A couple of points, though. Some sites I've looked at say that
not all documents that are alleged to be from Killian look the same,
type-wise. Who's to say whether or not they were all done on the same
typewriter, or even by the same person (him or one of several secretaries)?
Further, there was a lot of talk about proportional and superscripted types
not existing then. A little searching will show that IBM had machines out
in '41 that did both of those things, and that the US govt. had them in
common useage. As for the fonts matching, well, Times New Roman in Word
better look like Times New Roman on a typewriter. The fonts in computers
and word processors are made to match the mechanically generated versions
of the same name.

It is interesting to me that the White House didn't and doesn't dispute
any of what the documents said. They aren't pushing back on this at all. I
doubt that's because they knew that the blogoshpere would sort it out for
'em. Maybe they want them to go away?

The important part of all this is simple: did GWB fulfill his obligation
in the TNG? It does not appear to be so. Example:
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/040920/usnews/20guard.htm

As for me voting for Chirac, I don't understand. Chirac is French and...
Ooooooooooohhhhhhh, now I get it! You called Kerry Chirac, cuz he's so, you
know, French. Damn, that is *so* cute.

--
tanx,
Howard

"Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind."
Albert Einstein

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Robert Chung said:

Tom Kunich said:

http://wizbangblog.com/images/cbsdocnumber4studysmall.jpg

If you don't think that the See-BS "documents" are forgeries after this
perhaps you ought to vote for Chirac.

I looked at that page, but I can't see why it's relevant at all. You
appear to be saying, "If at time B one can re-create a document
purportedly created at time A, where B > A, then the document purportedly
created at time A is proved to be a forgery." If that's your claim, that's
nuts.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1644869,00.asp

Sure, every company clerk in the ANG used an IBM Composer to type memoranda.
Makes perfect sense to have those $4,000 machines setting on every desk.

Ron

Howard Kveck said:

Quoted message said:

See, I don't claim to be an expert in
this field,...

Quoted message said:

"Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind."
Albert Einstein

Einstein was not an expert in the field of governance. In appeals to authority,
it is beneficial to actually choose an authority. Even then...

RonSonic said:

Sure, every company clerk in the ANG used an IBM Composer to type
memoranda. Makes perfect sense to have those $4,000 machines setting on
every desk.

So you're saying that if one can use a cheap machine today to re-create a
document purportedly created at some past time on an expensive machine,
then the document is proved to be a forgery.

BTW, speaking of re-creating those memos, have you tried to re-create the
memo dated "04 May 1972" using MS Word?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-09-09bushdocs.pdf

How easy (or hard) was it to get them to match?

On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 22:44:48 +0200, "Robert Chung" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

So you're saying that if one can use a cheap machine today to re-create a
document purportedly created at some past time on an expensive machine,
then the document is proved to be a forgery.

BTW, speaking of re-creating those memos, have you tried to re-create the
memo dated "04 May 1972" using MS Word?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-09-09bushdocs.pdf

How easy (or hard) was it to get them to match?

Ummm, if it were created to begin with with Word, that last issue is a
non-issue. You create it, forge the signature and then run it through
a copier to disguise the age. The longest part of the process is
forging a reasonable signature.

How long to create something pretty much the same? A few minutes.
Longer to forge a signature. Not that I ever saw a 'CYA' memo in my
seven years in the military, not labeled as such. Seems pretty dumb
ass to me.

The interesting part of this entire event is how many
middle-of-the-road to liberal media types are taking CBS to task on
the original vetting and their subsequent defense. Its ABC that was
the harshest commentator as of this morning - not the favorite
whipping boy of the left, Fox.

And the direction of this is even more interested when you look at
Terry Mcauliffe's remarks. After making the Republicans responsible
for anything ever released about Kerry, he now declares the Bush
documents were probably planted by Republicans as well. While this may
sit well with the core Democrat voters, I'm guessing that it doesn't
sit nearly as well with the swing voters.

And it seems to pretty much concede that the documents were probably
forgeries.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Curtis L. Russell said:

On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 22:44:48 +0200, "Robert Chung" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

BTW, speaking of re-creating those memos, have you tried to re-create
the memo dated "04 May 1972" using MS Word?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-09-09bushdocs.pdf

How easy (or hard) was it to get them to match?

Ummm, if it were created to begin with with Word, that last issue is a
non-issue. [...] How long to create something pretty much the same?
A few minutes.

The claim on LGF was that the memos could be re-created using MS Word
defaults, in a few minutes. Try it with the memo dated "04 May 1972."

Curtis L. Russell said:

And it seems to pretty much concede that the documents were probably
forgeries.

So how to explain the White House comment that they did not dispute
authenticity? More "up is down"?

"RonSonic" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 10:20:35 +0200, "Robert Chung" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Tom Kunich said:

http://wizbangblog.com/images/cbsdocnumber4studysmall.jpg

If you don't think that the See-BS "documents" are forgeries after this
perhaps you ought to vote for Chirac.

I looked at that page, but I can't see why it's relevant at all. You
appear to be saying, "If at time B one can re-create a document
purportedly created at time A, where B > A, then the document purportedly
created at time A is proved to be a forgery." If that's your claim,

that's

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

nuts.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1644869,00.asp

Sure, every company clerk in the ANG used an IBM Composer to type

memoranda.

Quoted message said:

Makes perfect sense to have those $4,000 machines setting on every desk.

The typeface that is standard in MS Word is Times New Roman. This typeface
was invented about 1980 (http://www.truetype.demon.co.uk/articles/times.htm)
..

Time Roman, the older typeface was slightly different and was available in
the 40's. However, it was never made available to typewriters and was only
used in Linotypes because IT IS A KERNED typeface. That is, it was designed
to compress the font together so that wide and narrow letter are squashed
together to use the maximum space on a line. Typewriters have character
stamps that are the same width and so kerned typefaces look badly when typed
with such spacings. They invented entirely new typefaces for typewriters
that would look acceptably attractive.

What really modernized the world of publishing was the invention in the
early 80's of the word processing machine. Over the next decade the ability
to kern type and to proportionally space was slowly built into machines that
the extremely tightly controlled printers unions began to lose control of
the printer's business. Most people would say that it wasn't until about 198
8 before word processing hit it's stride.

Robert Chung makes a silly comment about reproducing the typeface as if that
sort of thing was possible or even likely, because he is completely ignorant
of the printer's trade despite whatever other education he might have.

This entire modern world rests on one thing - the written word. And you and
I and everything we know of the modern world we owe to the written word and
the vast powerful history behind it. Robert's entire education started and
was greatly advanced and even today is expanded by -- reading. Each decade
the AVAILABLE technology has been used to its fullest to improve, make more
efficient and cheaper, the printer's trade.

And yet he gives it so little thought that it never even occurs to him to
wonder what the hell he's really looking at. In the citation given in the
first posting on the subject it shows the standard Word character set. On
the second line it shows the See-BS document.

What should have leaped off of the page aside from the fact that both
character sets are identical, save for the number of times they've been
reproduced, in every detail - is that they are PIXELATED. Count the dots
m'lads. They are a standard MS character grid.

The character set at the bottom demonstrates what a typewriter typeface
SHOULD look like from that time. Looking closely you'd see that it is
composed not of dots, but of LINES. And it wouldn't matter in the least what
company or how expensive the typewriters - they would ALL have lines in the
characters instead of dots (or pixels if you like).

Well, there's a reason that there is this very basic difference - because
the upper two character sets were formed by being written by an electron
beam being turned on and off. And that beam was controlled in a grid pattern
which was developed by early computer engineers. You see, we drew lines on a
CRT and turned the lines on and off rapidly so that each line had so many
dots and there were so many lines on a screen. We then divided the screen
into character blocks of 5 x 7 or 7 x 9 etc and then designed character sets
which would work in the available spaces. So every word processing character
set is designed to look correct when draw with - dots.

Before the 1980's typefaces were generated by some artist sitting around and
designing them and then a machinist with clockwork skills would cut these
typefaces into molds with a machine under magnification. The machine didn't
drill holes, it was a cutting blade and the machinist had to be somewhat of
an artisan himself. He would make the mold as accurately to the sketches as
he could.

So, you see, a single glance should suffice to allow absolutely anyone to
see that the documents in question (dated 1973) were manufactured AFTER 1985
or so when word processors began to get the ability to kern and
proportoinally space.

At least one of the documents I observed had hard right hand limits. This
was available ONLY on typeset documents and on the very rare and difficult
to use IBM Selectric Composer.

Moreover, in at least two of the six documents there is a form of
superscript that wasn't available to anyone before the 1980 save with
extremely tedious work. To wit - a Selectric Composer could have been used.
So in order to write EACH LINE of the document you would have to:

1) Type each line as it would be in the finished document.
2) Record the readings on a couple of dials that would allow you to set the
spacing and kerning characteristics for that line
3) Set the dials correctly
4) Type the identical line again. Any mistakes would lead you to throw away
your work and start again.
5) When attempting to superscript you'd have to hit the half space UP key,
change out the ball to a smaller type font type the superscript, remove the
ball and replace with the original, and remember to hit the half space DOWN
key. Any mistakes would require you to retype everything in this same
tedious manner.

Each line would have to be dealt with in exactly the same manner. Each line
would have to be measured and kerned separately. The typewriter has no
memory and no way of showing the user what's going on except to make a
mistake and throw it away.

And remember that TIMES NEW ROMAN typeface wasn't invented until 1980.

Actually I could write about these rediculous forgeries for hours but I'll
refrain since most of you would have no idea what the hell I was talking
about. But the fact is that I studied this business very closely since I was
in on the writing of word processors from the very beginning.

So, there is NO questioning the fact that these documents were forged.
Absolutely none.

And yes, I designed some of those early video boards, character sets and
graphics generators.

"Curtis L. Russell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Ummm, if it were created to begin with with Word, that last issue is a
non-issue. You create it, forge the signature and then run it through
a copier to disguise the age. The longest part of the process is
forging a reasonable signature.

Take almost two seconds. The person who did this had access to some of the
real memos and scanned them and used the parts he wanted (the signature and
the initials in the corners) on the document.

Are you aware that money is being forged all the time with modern equipment
that it takes only a few days to gather?

Tom Kunich said:

Robert Chung makes a silly comment about reproducing the typeface as if
that sort of thing was possible or even likely, because he is
completely ignorant of the printer's trade despite whatever other
education he might have.

[snip]

Quoted message said:

So, there is NO questioning the fact that these documents were forged.
Absolutely none.

Excellent. Then, using MS Word, type in the memo dated "04 May 1972." It
should only take you a moment to do. Try it.

In article <[email hidden]>,
"Tom Kunich" <[email hidden]> wrote:

(snipper)

Quoted message said:

Time Roman, the older typeface was slightly different and was available in
the 40's. However, it was never made available to typewriters and was only
used in Linotypes because IT IS A KERNED typeface.

"Some analysts outside CBS News say they believe the typeface on these
memos is New Times Roman, which they claim was not available in the 1970s.

But the owner of the company that distributes this typing style told CBS
News that it has been available since 1931."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/06/politics/main641481.shtml

Furthermore:

"Courier¹s vanquisher was Times New Roman, designed in 1931 by Stanley
Morison, Typographical Advisor to the Monotype Corporation, with the
assistance of draughtsman Victor Lardent. The Times of London first used it
the following year. Linotype and Intertype quickly licensed the design,
changing its name for their marketing purposes to Times Roman. Times Roman
became an original core font for Apple in the 1980s and Times New Roman MT
became one for Windows in the 1990s. (Ironically, at the same time IBM
invited Frutiger to adapt Univers for the Selectric Typewriter, they asked
Morison to do the same with Times New Roman.)"
http://journal.aiga.org/content.cfm?ContentAlias=_getfullarticle&aid=%23.%5E
G%2F%0A

Quoted message said:

That is, it was designed to compress the font together so that wide and
narrow letter are squashed together to use the maximum space on a line.
Typewriters have character stamps that are the same width and so kerned
typefaces look badly when typed with such spacings. They invented entirely
new typefaces for typewriters that would look acceptably attractive.

The IBM Executive typewriters would do proportional spacing.

Quoted message said:

What should have leaped off of the page aside from the fact that both
character sets are identical, save for the number of times they've been
reproduced, in every detail - is that they are PIXELATED. Count the dots
m'lads. They are a standard MS character grid.

Hmmm, maybe those characters are pixelated because they are part of a
computer generated COPY of the original doc. You know, the document got
scanned and made into a jpeg, bitmap or other image file. Which are made up
of PIXELS. The density of which can vary.

Quoted message said:

Moreover, in at least two of the six documents there is a form of
superscript that wasn't available to anyone before the 1980 save with
extremely tedious work. To wit - a Selectric Composer could have been used.
So in order to write EACH LINE of the document you would have to:

According to one guy who spent 13 years working on those machines, they
could be put together (in the field) with customizeable key sets that would
do the superscripted letters. Speaking of which, people have made a big
deal about the superscripted letters on these docs as proof of forgery. But
those superscripted "th"s turn up on many other docs that had already been
released. Are those also forgeries?

Quoted message said:

And remember that TIMES NEW ROMAN typeface wasn't invented until 1980.

1931.

Quoted message said:

Actually I could write about these rediculous forgeries for hours but I'll
refrain since most of you would have no idea what the hell I was talking
about. But the fact is that I studied this business very closely since I was
in on the writing of word processors from the very beginning.

So, there is NO questioning the fact that these documents were forged.
Absolutely none.

So you've seen and examined the ORIGINALS that CBS has, Tom, and not
just the computer-generated copies online? The Niger/Yellowcake forgeries
were obvious to those who knew the area and people (Niger) because of flaws
like wrong letterheads and wrong people listed as signatories. These docs
have issues that only an expert looking at the ORIGINALS could make any
kind of accurate pronouncement from. Which is why it's too earlier to
emphatically declare them forgeries.

Quoted message said:

And yes, I designed some of those early video boards, character sets and
graphics generators.

(Oh my.)

Once again, why hasn't the White House disputed what the documents
allege? And did GWB fulfill his obligation in the Guard?

--
tanx,
Howard

"Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind."
Albert Einstein

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Howard Kveck wrote:

[snip]

Using MS Word, re-create the memo dated "04 May 1972." Easy, or hard?

BTW, these copies are clearer than the link I gave earlier:
http://img.slate.msn.com/media/77/NATION1.PDF
(The earlier link I gave was for the six "USA Today" memos--this link is
for the four "CBS" memos.)

On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 00:46:11 +0200, "Robert Chung" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

The claim on LGF was that the memos could be re-created using MS Word
defaults, in a few minutes. Try it with the memo dated "04 May 1972."

Don't follow. The date in Word isn't a format issue. You can type in
anything you want. There is an issue if you want Word to autofill the
date, but that is something entirely different.

In Excel the date is a very minor issue and can be formatted ten ways
to Sunday in moments.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Stewart Fleming said:

So how to explain the White House comment that they did not dispute
authenticity? More "up is down"?

More along the lines of why bother. The bloggers are in full attack,
even liberal and middle-of-the-road journalists are saying it is a
screw up, some of the CBS participants are backing down, their own
authenticator has added a bunch of caveats. And the Bush campaign
simply has to stand to the side and let it play out.

And frankly, someone should have told Terry Mcauliffe to do the same
thing. That way, its just CBS against the world - and they will lose,
now the moment to reexamine the right way has passed. That stupid 'the
Republicans are probably responsible' comment is his latest lead
baloon.

The only conspiracy this time appears to be the Clinton hold-outs
making sure that there isn't a Democratic incumbent when Hillary wants
to run for President.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 06:20:25 +0200, "Robert Chung" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Excellent. Then, using MS Word, type in the memo dated "04 May 1972." It
should only take you a moment to do. Try it.

Really don't know why you are bringing this up. I have no problem
whatsoever with the date or any other aspect of the memo. With the
quotes, you seem to be specific to the date. Even setting it up to
autofill with that format takes, what, about 5 seconds? There is
nothing special about the rest of the memo.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Curtis L. Russell said:

On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 06:20:25 +0200, "Robert Chung" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Excellent. Then, using MS Word, type in the memo dated "04 May 1972."
It should only take you a moment to do. Try it.

Really don't know why you are bringing this up. I have no problem
whatsoever with the date or any other aspect of the memo. With the
quotes, you seem to be specific to the date. Even setting it up to
autofill with that format takes, what, about 5 seconds? There is
nothing special about the rest of the memo.

I'm not saying that you should only type in the date. I'm saying you
should type in the memo and re-create it in MS Word. The memo that appears
on the second page here:
http://img.slate.msn.com/media/77/NATION1.PDF
(That's the memo dated 04 May 1972).

Here's the thing: everyone has been looking at the memos as they are
written and pointing out that there are features that (as Tom and RonSonic
say) could not be produced by a typewriter, and therefore must have been
produced by a modern word processor. So, let's do that. Pretend that you
are the forger and you are trying to produce this particular memo in MS
Word. Use the default settings, just as was claimed on LGF. Use 12 point
Times New Roman, just as was claimed on LGF.

You've said you have no problem whatsoever with any aspect of this memo.
So type it in and tell us how easy it was to match the format as it
appears.