How much debt did GWB add? the truth

[edthecynic]

"The equipment that typed superscript and subscript existed in the 1970s and no one has been able to prove the documents to be forgeries"



"At least one expert has stated that the documents were from a typewriter, not a digital printer"

Dan Rather is not an expert.

There was 1000s of people in line when NBC-CBS called Gore the winner
1000s that where going to be allowed to vote, IN THE PANHANDLE OF FLORIDA
IT WAS A MISTAKE, TRYING TO DEFEND IT IS WRONG
That part of the state is on central standard time

And as far as those documents in 04
your joking right?
anyone trying to defend that or say that Dan rather is no expert as a defense is a political hack
There were people fired over it and rather got "run off" weeks after the lie was posted
CBS ousts four over Bush Guard story - CNN
CBS ousts four over Bush Guard story - CNN

And those 1,000s were watching CBS on TV as they were standing in line! What an And CBS called it at 7: 50: 10 PM eastern time which was less than 10 minutes before the polls closed at 7 PM central time.

And YOU were the "political hack" who said Rather was no expert!

ASSHOLE?
thats intelligent

There where 1000s of people standing in line
Were not talking about for 30 minutes

Whats so funny about any of this?
10-20% UE with over 1 trillion dollars being spent we do not have to achieve this?

I said Rather was no expert?
No those 1000s standing in line got word that Florida was given to Gore
And as far as CBS goes, CBS fired people over it

Look you try to justify any of this, I could care less
I use Heritage for information that is proven accurate
WHY?
because the others have no desire to print what matters
both sides of the story

Its like Clinton and his "surplus"
Congress had nothing to do with it?

One other thing
I am 6th generation from Florida
I have some first hand knowledge of the events that took place in 2000

Except Heritage's crapaganda is NEVER accurate, which is the ONLY reason you use it.

 

[Trajan]

According to wiki Dubya added $6.1-Trillion

National debt by U.S. presidential terms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yup. There was an article in the Denver Post this last Sunday detailing the national debt by presidents. Bush's figure was the highest of all presidents at $6 Trillion.

we said this 400 pages ago....hello.

 

[edthecynic]

"The equipment that typed superscript and subscript existed in the 1970s and no one has been able to prove the documents to be forgeries"



"At least one expert has stated that the documents were from a typewriter, not a digital printer"

Dan Rather is not an expert.

The link was provided. Here it is again, use it this time.

http://imrl.usu.edu/bush_memo_study/supporting_material/bush_memos.pdf

Documents Suggest Special Treatment for Bush in Guard [post 47]

From your link to post 47:

To: Howlin
Howlin, every single one of these memos to file is in a proportionally spaced font, probably Palatino or Times New Roman.

In 1972 people used typewriters for this sort of thing, and typewriters used monospaced fonts.

The use of proportionally spaced fonts did not come into common use for office memos until the introduction of laser printers, word processing software, and personal computers. They were not widespread until the mid to late 90's. Before then, you needed typesetting equipment, and that wasn't used for personal memos to file. Even the Wang systems that were dominant in the mid 80's used monospaced fonts.

I am saying these documents are forgeries, run through a copier for 15 generations to make them look old.

This should be pursued aggressively.

47 posted on Wed Sep 8 23:59:43 2004 by Buckhead

Every claim made in the post is soundly thrashed in the link to the pdf, complete with photos and illustrations, that I posted. But any mindless drone whose opinion, with no backup, supports the CON$ervative propaganda trumps all absolute proof.

From my linked pdf:

Are the memos done in Times New Roman? No.
In an examination of the possibility of Times New Roman being responsible for the
memos, several characters prove to be mismatches. Most obvious is the “F,” but a few of
the other mismatches include the “1,” “g,” “5,” “#,” and “L.”

Is spacing computer-like? No.
The document does not use Times New Roman default leading or spacing. Figure 3
represents the following processes:

1. Type the document in Word, using Times New Roman, using the format of the
document.
2. Print the document and scan it at 1200 dpi.
3. Insert the Times New Roman onto the memo as a red overlay.
4. Align the number 1’s in the first paragraph.
5. Examine for breakdowns in alignment.
Figure 3: Pre-faxed document with TNR overlay in red. The overlay was typed in TNR with
default leading and centered. I aligned the “1’s” in the overlay.

The extent to which the red text fails to overlay the black text is the extent to which
Times New Roman defaults fail when attempting to reproduce the memo. Certain factors
become immediately clear: (1) the heading is not centered, (2) default horizontal spacing
is not appropriate, (3) default vertical spacing is not appropriate.

Any argument that someone created a perfect copy of the memo in 20 minutes using
Times New Roman should be immediately suspect. Furthermore, without adjusting every
character independently, it is not possible to adjust Word to produce the first line.


Figure 4: The above memo was reset in Word changing from defaults to 12/13.8 pt leading and
adding absolute minimum of .025 spacing between characters. Both spacing configurations require
keyboarding into the document – requiring knowledge of the inner-workings of Word.

The above document should, provide problems for the theory that this document can be
typed in Times New Roman. First, the distance between the date and “MEMO-
RANDUM” is 2-6/7 carriage returns. That is to say, to produce the vertical distance in
the space between the date and the word “MEMORANDUM” a user would have to
produce a fraction of a carriage return. The space between the end of paragraph one and
the beginning of paragraph two also requires a fractional carriage return. Anybody
familiar with Word will know that it does not do fractional carriage returns (though it is
possible for people who know what they are doing to simulate one by changing leading).
A more important problem for the theory are paragraphs three and four and the ways they
interact with the left margin. The horizontal lines in paragraph one are horizontal to a
thousandth of a degree. However the left edge of the body copy drifts to the left, well
into the margin. It begins slowly towards the top, between memorandum and paragraph
one, but increases its penetration toward the bottom, so that between the beginning of
paragraph three and the end of paragraph four the defect becomes significant. This
problem also occurs on other memos. Defects of that nature are common in typed pages
and are caused by the page squirming to the right as it passes through a defective platen or is put in slightly crooked and is forced to the right by the page guide. More important,
there is no reasonable way to reproduce this problem using Word (figure 5).

Figure 5: Detail from left edge of memo. Black text is twisting into the margin. I know of no
way to reproduce this with Times New Roman.
The text can only be made to fit by adjusting individual characters and their spaces
(figure 6).

Figure 6: Detail from figure 6 with numbers aligned at the “F.”

I believe that by this point, it should be clear that anybody who “reproduced” this
document using Times New Roman must, necessarily, have created an inexact fit or used
an image management software to make their arguments work. The heading is not
centered. There are multiple partial carriage returns. And the left edge behaves in a
manner completely at odds with digital production. And that only includes the easily
seen. A more careful examination of details shows numerous problems such as figure 6
throughout the documents.


Are there defective characters? Yes.
IBM type balls are made of plastic with a thin metal plating. The plastic is prone to
failure and the plating is prone to breaking (see figure 7).

Figure 7: The above characters have all failed. The flexing of the plastic under its metal
coating causes the metal to pit (the “8”), crack (the “7”), flake off (the “0” and “n”),
collapse (the “i”).

The impact of these broken characters can be seen as persistent inconsistency when they
are typed. The character in figure 8 makes a perfect example. The figure persists in
demonstrating that the character is damaged, but the way the damage is demonstrated is
never the same -- “inconsistent.” Persistent inconsistency marks the difference between
digital damage effects (damaged characters designed to imitate typed characters) and real
damage. Digital damage is persistent and consistent (always very similar). Characters in
the memos universally show persistent damage and show it inconsistently.

Figure 10: Examples of “t’s” taken from two memos implying breakdown of quality over time.

Comparing “t’s” in the top row (04 May) to “t’s” in the middle rows (01 August) shows
significant (statistical) differences in the quality of the cross strokes. In contrast, the left
stroke on the “f” is at least as good as the 04 May memo. There are a total of thirty-nine
“t’s” in the above August example. Of the thirty-nine, twenty-seven (approximately
75%) show little or no left cross bar.

I do not see how the implications of damaged characters can be disputed. If other similar
characters showed the same indications in the same places, it might be arguable that the
damage is caused by random effects from a photocopier, but this is a case where the “e,”
“t,” “R,” and numerous other characters show the unique indicators of damage
persistently and inconsistently. Furthermore, the “t” seems to show increasing wear over
time.


I close this by quoting directly from my conclusions in the second report.

I believe the memos were typed for the following reasons:

1. They cannot have been done in Times New Roman, so the argument that they
were done digitally has no logical support.
2. The evidence of character damage is no longer in question; the “t,” “e,” “a,” “c,”
“R,” “o,” “M,” and “N,” are all clearly defective, and in each case the character
has unique defects. Other characters not discussed also show signs of being
defective.
3. I found good evidence that characters interacted with each other, something only
possible with a typewriter or other device that produces characters one at a time
and involves physical impact.
4. Spacing in the memos is consistent with using a platen and not consistent with Word or similar digital processes:
• spacing of the heading is not centered
• headings do not align
• fractional returns are consistent with adjusting with a platen
• left edge of several memos appears to have drifted to the right causing
characters to penetrate the left margin.
• left margin is ragged in a manner that suggests escapement.
5. False color tests (although new and only tentatively valuable) support the
contention that characters have different tonal values, indicating different impact
pressures during creation. [I do not discuss false color testing in this document.]
6. Apparent interaction between signature and signature block is consistent with a
signature using a loosely held pen and a typed text.

I cannot say whether the memos are authentic. Nor can I say for certain that they were
produced in Press Roman, although most of the evidence indicates they probably were (or
in a derivative) . But I can say that they were not done in TNR, and I am totally
persuaded they were typed.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The link was provided. Here it is again, use it this time.

http://imrl.usu.edu/bush_memo_study/supporting_material/bush_memos.pdf

Documents Suggest Special Treatment for Bush in Guard [post 47]

From your link to post 47:

To: Howlin
Howlin, every single one of these memos to file is in a proportionally spaced font, probably Palatino or Times New Roman.

In 1972 people used typewriters for this sort of thing, and typewriters used monospaced fonts.

The use of proportionally spaced fonts did not come into common use for office memos until the introduction of laser printers, word processing software, and personal computers. They were not widespread until the mid to late 90's. Before then, you needed typesetting equipment, and that wasn't used for personal memos to file. Even the Wang systems that were dominant in the mid 80's used monospaced fonts.

I am saying these documents are forgeries, run through a copier for 15 generations to make them look old.

This should be pursued aggressively.

47 posted on Wed Sep 8 23:59:43 2004 by Buckhead

Every claim made in the post is soundly thrashed in the link to the pdf, complete with photos and illustrations, that I posted. But any mindless drone whose opinion, with no backup, supports the CON$ervative propaganda trumps all absolute proof.

From my linked pdf:

Are the memos done in Times New Roman? No.
In an examination of the possibility of Times New Roman being responsible for the
memos, several characters prove to be mismatches. Most obvious is the “F,” but a few of
the other mismatches include the “1,” “g,” “5,” “#,” and “L.”

Is spacing computer-like? No.
The document does not use Times New Roman default leading or spacing. Figure 3
represents the following processes:

1. Type the document in Word, using Times New Roman, using the format of the
document.
2. Print the document and scan it at 1200 dpi.
3. Insert the Times New Roman onto the memo as a red overlay.
4. Align the number 1’s in the first paragraph.
5. Examine for breakdowns in alignment.
Figure 3: Pre-faxed document with TNR overlay in red. The overlay was typed in TNR with
default leading and centered. I aligned the “1’s” in the overlay.

The extent to which the red text fails to overlay the black text is the extent to which
Times New Roman defaults fail when attempting to reproduce the memo. Certain factors
become immediately clear: (1) the heading is not centered, (2) default horizontal spacing
is not appropriate, (3) default vertical spacing is not appropriate.

Any argument that someone created a perfect copy of the memo in 20 minutes using
Times New Roman should be immediately suspect. Furthermore, without adjusting every
character independently, it is not possible to adjust Word to produce the first line.


Figure 4: The above memo was reset in Word changing from defaults to 12/13.8 pt leading and
adding absolute minimum of .025 spacing between characters. Both spacing configurations require
keyboarding into the document – requiring knowledge of the inner-workings of Word.

The above document should, provide problems for the theory that this document can be
typed in Times New Roman. First, the distance between the date and “MEMO-
RANDUM” is 2-6/7 carriage returns. That is to say, to produce the vertical distance in
the space between the date and the word “MEMORANDUM” a user would have to
produce a fraction of a carriage return. The space between the end of paragraph one and
the beginning of paragraph two also requires a fractional carriage return. Anybody
familiar with Word will know that it does not do fractional carriage returns (though it is
possible for people who know what they are doing to simulate one by changing leading).
A more important problem for the theory are paragraphs three and four and the ways they
interact with the left margin. The horizontal lines in paragraph one are horizontal to a
thousandth of a degree. However the left edge of the body copy drifts to the left, well
into the margin. It begins slowly towards the top, between memorandum and paragraph
one, but increases its penetration toward the bottom, so that between the beginning of
paragraph three and the end of paragraph four the defect becomes significant. This
problem also occurs on other memos. Defects of that nature are common in typed pages
and are caused by the page squirming to the right as it passes through a defective platen or is put in slightly crooked and is forced to the right by the page guide. More important,
there is no reasonable way to reproduce this problem using Word (figure 5).

Figure 5: Detail from left edge of memo. Black text is twisting into the margin. I know of no
way to reproduce this with Times New Roman.
The text can only be made to fit by adjusting individual characters and their spaces
(figure 6).

Figure 6: Detail from figure 6 with numbers aligned at the “F.”

I believe that by this point, it should be clear that anybody who “reproduced” this
document using Times New Roman must, necessarily, have created an inexact fit or used
an image management software to make their arguments work. The heading is not
centered. There are multiple partial carriage returns. And the left edge behaves in a
manner completely at odds with digital production. And that only includes the easily
seen. A more careful examination of details shows numerous problems such as figure 6
throughout the documents.


Are there defective characters? Yes.
IBM type balls are made of plastic with a thin metal plating. The plastic is prone to
failure and the plating is prone to breaking (see figure 7).

Figure 7: The above characters have all failed. The flexing of the plastic under its metal
coating causes the metal to pit (the “8”), crack (the “7”), flake off (the “0” and “n”),
collapse (the “i”).

The impact of these broken characters can be seen as persistent inconsistency when they
are typed. The character in figure 8 makes a perfect example. The figure persists in
demonstrating that the character is damaged, but the way the damage is demonstrated is
never the same -- “inconsistent.” Persistent inconsistency marks the difference between
digital damage effects (damaged characters designed to imitate typed characters) and real
damage. Digital damage is persistent and consistent (always very similar). Characters in
the memos universally show persistent damage and show it inconsistently.

Figure 10: Examples of “t’s” taken from two memos implying breakdown of quality over time.

Comparing “t’s” in the top row (04 May) to “t’s” in the middle rows (01 August) shows
significant (statistical) differences in the quality of the cross strokes. In contrast, the left
stroke on the “f” is at least as good as the 04 May memo. There are a total of thirty-nine
“t’s” in the above August example. Of the thirty-nine, twenty-seven (approximately
75%) show little or no left cross bar.

I do not see how the implications of damaged characters can be disputed. If other similar
characters showed the same indications in the same places, it might be arguable that the
damage is caused by random effects from a photocopier, but this is a case where the “e,”
“t,” “R,” and numerous other characters show the unique indicators of damage
persistently and inconsistently. Furthermore, the “t” seems to show increasing wear over
time.


I close this by quoting directly from my conclusions in the second report.

I believe the memos were typed for the following reasons:

1. They cannot have been done in Times New Roman, so the argument that they
were done digitally has no logical support.
2. The evidence of character damage is no longer in question; the “t,” “e,” “a,” “c,”
“R,” “o,” “M,” and “N,” are all clearly defective, and in each case the character
has unique defects. Other characters not discussed also show signs of being
defective.
3. I found good evidence that characters interacted with each other, something only
possible with a typewriter or other device that produces characters one at a time
and involves physical impact.
4. Spacing in the memos is consistent with using a platen and not consistent with Word or similar digital processes:
• spacing of the heading is not centered
• headings do not align
• fractional returns are consistent with adjusting with a platen
• left edge of several memos appears to have drifted to the right causing
characters to penetrate the left margin.
• left margin is ragged in a manner that suggests escapement.
5. False color tests (although new and only tentatively valuable) support the
contention that characters have different tonal values, indicating different impact
pressures during creation. [I do not discuss false color testing in this document.]
6. Apparent interaction between signature and signature block is consistent with a
signature using a loosely held pen and a typed text.

I cannot say whether the memos are authentic. Nor can I say for certain that they were
produced in Press Roman, although most of the evidence indicates they probably were (or
in a derivative) . But I can say that they were not done in TNR, and I am totally
persuaded they were typed.

"Are the memos done in Times New Roman? No."

Yeah, I'm pretty sure there are fonts other than Times New Roman.

Little Green Footballs - One More CBS Document Example

 

[edthecynic]

Documents Suggest Special Treatment for Bush in Guard [post 47]

From your link to post 47:

To: Howlin
Howlin, every single one of these memos to file is in a proportionally spaced font, probably Palatino or Times New Roman.

In 1972 people used typewriters for this sort of thing, and typewriters used monospaced fonts.

The use of proportionally spaced fonts did not come into common use for office memos until the introduction of laser printers, word processing software, and personal computers. They were not widespread until the mid to late 90's. Before then, you needed typesetting equipment, and that wasn't used for personal memos to file. Even the Wang systems that were dominant in the mid 80's used monospaced fonts.

I am saying these documents are forgeries, run through a copier for 15 generations to make them look old.

This should be pursued aggressively.

47 posted on Wed Sep 8 23:59:43 2004 by Buckhead

Every claim made in the post is soundly thrashed in the link to the pdf, complete with photos and illustrations, that I posted. But any mindless drone whose opinion, with no backup, supports the CON$ervative propaganda trumps all absolute proof.

From my linked pdf:

Are the memos done in Times New Roman? No.
In an examination of the possibility of Times New Roman being responsible for the
memos, several characters prove to be mismatches. Most obvious is the “F,” but a few of
the other mismatches include the “1,” “g,” “5,” “#,” and “L.”

Is spacing computer-like? No.
The document does not use Times New Roman default leading or spacing. Figure 3
represents the following processes:

1. Type the document in Word, using Times New Roman, using the format of the
document.
2. Print the document and scan it at 1200 dpi.
3. Insert the Times New Roman onto the memo as a red overlay.
4. Align the number 1’s in the first paragraph.
5. Examine for breakdowns in alignment.
Figure 3: Pre-faxed document with TNR overlay in red. The overlay was typed in TNR with
default leading and centered. I aligned the “1’s” in the overlay.

The extent to which the red text fails to overlay the black text is the extent to which
Times New Roman defaults fail when attempting to reproduce the memo. Certain factors
become immediately clear: (1) the heading is not centered, (2) default horizontal spacing
is not appropriate, (3) default vertical spacing is not appropriate.

Any argument that someone created a perfect copy of the memo in 20 minutes using
Times New Roman should be immediately suspect. Furthermore, without adjusting every
character independently, it is not possible to adjust Word to produce the first line.


Figure 4: The above memo was reset in Word changing from defaults to 12/13.8 pt leading and
adding absolute minimum of .025 spacing between characters. Both spacing configurations require
keyboarding into the document – requiring knowledge of the inner-workings of Word.

The above document should, provide problems for the theory that this document can be
typed in Times New Roman. First, the distance between the date and “MEMO-
RANDUM” is 2-6/7 carriage returns. That is to say, to produce the vertical distance in
the space between the date and the word “MEMORANDUM” a user would have to
produce a fraction of a carriage return. The space between the end of paragraph one and
the beginning of paragraph two also requires a fractional carriage return. Anybody
familiar with Word will know that it does not do fractional carriage returns (though it is
possible for people who know what they are doing to simulate one by changing leading).
A more important problem for the theory are paragraphs three and four and the ways they
interact with the left margin. The horizontal lines in paragraph one are horizontal to a
thousandth of a degree. However the left edge of the body copy drifts to the left, well
into the margin. It begins slowly towards the top, between memorandum and paragraph
one, but increases its penetration toward the bottom, so that between the beginning of
paragraph three and the end of paragraph four the defect becomes significant. This
problem also occurs on other memos. Defects of that nature are common in typed pages
and are caused by the page squirming to the right as it passes through a defective platen or is put in slightly crooked and is forced to the right by the page guide. More important,
there is no reasonable way to reproduce this problem using Word (figure 5).

Figure 5: Detail from left edge of memo. Black text is twisting into the margin. I know of no
way to reproduce this with Times New Roman.
The text can only be made to fit by adjusting individual characters and their spaces
(figure 6).

Figure 6: Detail from figure 6 with numbers aligned at the “F.”

I believe that by this point, it should be clear that anybody who “reproduced” this
document using Times New Roman must, necessarily, have created an inexact fit or used
an image management software to make their arguments work. The heading is not
centered. There are multiple partial carriage returns. And the left edge behaves in a
manner completely at odds with digital production. And that only includes the easily
seen. A more careful examination of details shows numerous problems such as figure 6
throughout the documents.


Are there defective characters? Yes.
IBM type balls are made of plastic with a thin metal plating. The plastic is prone to
failure and the plating is prone to breaking (see figure 7).

Figure 7: The above characters have all failed. The flexing of the plastic under its metal
coating causes the metal to pit (the “8”), crack (the “7”), flake off (the “0” and “n”),
collapse (the “i”).

The impact of these broken characters can be seen as persistent inconsistency when they
are typed. The character in figure 8 makes a perfect example. The figure persists in
demonstrating that the character is damaged, but the way the damage is demonstrated is
never the same -- “inconsistent.” Persistent inconsistency marks the difference between
digital damage effects (damaged characters designed to imitate typed characters) and real
damage. Digital damage is persistent and consistent (always very similar). Characters in
the memos universally show persistent damage and show it inconsistently.

Figure 10: Examples of “t’s” taken from two memos implying breakdown of quality over time.

Comparing “t’s” in the top row (04 May) to “t’s” in the middle rows (01 August) shows
significant (statistical) differences in the quality of the cross strokes. In contrast, the left
stroke on the “f” is at least as good as the 04 May memo. There are a total of thirty-nine
“t’s” in the above August example. Of the thirty-nine, twenty-seven (approximately
75%) show little or no left cross bar.

I do not see how the implications of damaged characters can be disputed. If other similar
characters showed the same indications in the same places, it might be arguable that the
damage is caused by random effects from a photocopier, but this is a case where the “e,”
“t,” “R,” and numerous other characters show the unique indicators of damage
persistently and inconsistently. Furthermore, the “t” seems to show increasing wear over
time.


I close this by quoting directly from my conclusions in the second report.

I believe the memos were typed for the following reasons:

1. They cannot have been done in Times New Roman, so the argument that they
were done digitally has no logical support.
2. The evidence of character damage is no longer in question; the “t,” “e,” “a,” “c,”
“R,” “o,” “M,” and “N,” are all clearly defective, and in each case the character
has unique defects. Other characters not discussed also show signs of being
defective.
3. I found good evidence that characters interacted with each other, something only
possible with a typewriter or other device that produces characters one at a time
and involves physical impact.
4. Spacing in the memos is consistent with using a platen and not consistent with Word or similar digital processes:
• spacing of the heading is not centered
• headings do not align
• fractional returns are consistent with adjusting with a platen
• left edge of several memos appears to have drifted to the right causing
characters to penetrate the left margin.
• left margin is ragged in a manner that suggests escapement.
5. False color tests (although new and only tentatively valuable) support the
contention that characters have different tonal values, indicating different impact
pressures during creation. [I do not discuss false color testing in this document.]
6. Apparent interaction between signature and signature block is consistent with a
signature using a loosely held pen and a typed text.

I cannot say whether the memos are authentic. Nor can I say for certain that they were
produced in Press Roman, although most of the evidence indicates they probably were (or
in a derivative) . But I can say that they were not done in TNR, and I am totally
persuaded they were typed.

"Are the memos done in Times New Roman? No."

Yeah, I'm pretty sure there are fonts other than Times New Roman.

Little Green Footballs - One More CBS Document Example

Somehow you ignored, er ..., er ...., er ...., missed this part of the pdf that absolutely proves the document could not have been made in word. Your own link confirms that the word doc is perfectly aligned horozantally and vertically, but the CBS doc isn't. You can easily see the shift every time your link blinks. Your link knew this which is why they didn't blink the whole doc, and sucker that you are, you swallowed it whole.

From the pdf you ignored:

http://imrl.usu.edu/bush_memo_study/...bush_memos.pdf

A more important problem for the theory are paragraphs three and four and the ways they
interact with the left margin. The horizontal lines in paragraph one are horizontal to a
thousandth of a degree. However the left edge of the body copy drifts to the left, well
into the margin. It begins slowly towards the top, between memorandum and paragraph
one, but increases its penetration toward the bottom, so that between the beginning of
paragraph three and the end of paragraph four the defect becomes significant. This
problem also occurs on other memos. Defects of that nature are common in typed pages
and are caused by the page squirming to the right as it passes through a defective platen or is put in slightly crooked and is forced to the right by the page guide. More important,
there is no reasonable way to reproduce this problem using Word (figure 5).

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

From your link to post 47:
Every claim made in the post is soundly thrashed in the link to the pdf, complete with photos and illustrations, that I posted. But any mindless drone whose opinion, with no backup, supports the CON$ervative propaganda trumps all absolute proof.

From my linked pdf:

Are the memos done in Times New Roman? No.
In an examination of the possibility of Times New Roman being responsible for the
memos, several characters prove to be mismatches. Most obvious is the “F,” but a few of
the other mismatches include the “1,” “g,” “5,” “#,” and “L.”

Is spacing computer-like? No.
The document does not use Times New Roman default leading or spacing. Figure 3
represents the following processes:

1. Type the document in Word, using Times New Roman, using the format of the
document.
2. Print the document and scan it at 1200 dpi.
3. Insert the Times New Roman onto the memo as a red overlay.
4. Align the number 1’s in the first paragraph.
5. Examine for breakdowns in alignment.
Figure 3: Pre-faxed document with TNR overlay in red. The overlay was typed in TNR with
default leading and centered. I aligned the “1’s” in the overlay.

The extent to which the red text fails to overlay the black text is the extent to which
Times New Roman defaults fail when attempting to reproduce the memo. Certain factors
become immediately clear: (1) the heading is not centered, (2) default horizontal spacing
is not appropriate, (3) default vertical spacing is not appropriate.

Any argument that someone created a perfect copy of the memo in 20 minutes using
Times New Roman should be immediately suspect. Furthermore, without adjusting every
character independently, it is not possible to adjust Word to produce the first line.


Figure 4: The above memo was reset in Word changing from defaults to 12/13.8 pt leading and
adding absolute minimum of .025 spacing between characters. Both spacing configurations require
keyboarding into the document – requiring knowledge of the inner-workings of Word.

The above document should, provide problems for the theory that this document can be
typed in Times New Roman. First, the distance between the date and “MEMO-
RANDUM” is 2-6/7 carriage returns. That is to say, to produce the vertical distance in
the space between the date and the word “MEMORANDUM” a user would have to
produce a fraction of a carriage return. The space between the end of paragraph one and
the beginning of paragraph two also requires a fractional carriage return. Anybody
familiar with Word will know that it does not do fractional carriage returns (though it is
possible for people who know what they are doing to simulate one by changing leading).
A more important problem for the theory are paragraphs three and four and the ways they
interact with the left margin. The horizontal lines in paragraph one are horizontal to a
thousandth of a degree. However the left edge of the body copy drifts to the left, well
into the margin. It begins slowly towards the top, between memorandum and paragraph
one, but increases its penetration toward the bottom, so that between the beginning of
paragraph three and the end of paragraph four the defect becomes significant. This
problem also occurs on other memos. Defects of that nature are common in typed pages
and are caused by the page squirming to the right as it passes through a defective platen or is put in slightly crooked and is forced to the right by the page guide. More important,
there is no reasonable way to reproduce this problem using Word (figure 5).

Figure 5: Detail from left edge of memo. Black text is twisting into the margin. I know of no
way to reproduce this with Times New Roman.
The text can only be made to fit by adjusting individual characters and their spaces
(figure 6).

Figure 6: Detail from figure 6 with numbers aligned at the “F.”

I believe that by this point, it should be clear that anybody who “reproduced” this
document using Times New Roman must, necessarily, have created an inexact fit or used
an image management software to make their arguments work. The heading is not
centered. There are multiple partial carriage returns. And the left edge behaves in a
manner completely at odds with digital production. And that only includes the easily
seen. A more careful examination of details shows numerous problems such as figure 6
throughout the documents.


Are there defective characters? Yes.
IBM type balls are made of plastic with a thin metal plating. The plastic is prone to
failure and the plating is prone to breaking (see figure 7).

Figure 7: The above characters have all failed. The flexing of the plastic under its metal
coating causes the metal to pit (the “8”), crack (the “7”), flake off (the “0” and “n”),
collapse (the “i”).

The impact of these broken characters can be seen as persistent inconsistency when they
are typed. The character in figure 8 makes a perfect example. The figure persists in
demonstrating that the character is damaged, but the way the damage is demonstrated is
never the same -- “inconsistent.” Persistent inconsistency marks the difference between
digital damage effects (damaged characters designed to imitate typed characters) and real
damage. Digital damage is persistent and consistent (always very similar). Characters in
the memos universally show persistent damage and show it inconsistently.

Figure 10: Examples of “t’s” taken from two memos implying breakdown of quality over time.

Comparing “t’s” in the top row (04 May) to “t’s” in the middle rows (01 August) shows
significant (statistical) differences in the quality of the cross strokes. In contrast, the left
stroke on the “f” is at least as good as the 04 May memo. There are a total of thirty-nine
“t’s” in the above August example. Of the thirty-nine, twenty-seven (approximately
75%) show little or no left cross bar.

I do not see how the implications of damaged characters can be disputed. If other similar
characters showed the same indications in the same places, it might be arguable that the
damage is caused by random effects from a photocopier, but this is a case where the “e,”
“t,” “R,” and numerous other characters show the unique indicators of damage
persistently and inconsistently. Furthermore, the “t” seems to show increasing wear over
time.


I close this by quoting directly from my conclusions in the second report.

I believe the memos were typed for the following reasons:

1. They cannot have been done in Times New Roman, so the argument that they
were done digitally has no logical support.
2. The evidence of character damage is no longer in question; the “t,” “e,” “a,” “c,”
“R,” “o,” “M,” and “N,” are all clearly defective, and in each case the character
has unique defects. Other characters not discussed also show signs of being
defective.
3. I found good evidence that characters interacted with each other, something only
possible with a typewriter or other device that produces characters one at a time
and involves physical impact.
4. Spacing in the memos is consistent with using a platen and not consistent with Word or similar digital processes:
• spacing of the heading is not centered
• headings do not align
• fractional returns are consistent with adjusting with a platen
• left edge of several memos appears to have drifted to the right causing
characters to penetrate the left margin.
• left margin is ragged in a manner that suggests escapement.
5. False color tests (although new and only tentatively valuable) support the
contention that characters have different tonal values, indicating different impact
pressures during creation. [I do not discuss false color testing in this document.]
6. Apparent interaction between signature and signature block is consistent with a
signature using a loosely held pen and a typed text.

I cannot say whether the memos are authentic. Nor can I say for certain that they were
produced in Press Roman, although most of the evidence indicates they probably were (or
in a derivative) . But I can say that they were not done in TNR, and I am totally
persuaded they were typed.

"Are the memos done in Times New Roman? No."

Yeah, I'm pretty sure there are fonts other than Times New Roman.

Little Green Footballs - One More CBS Document Example

Somehow you ignored, er ..., er ...., er ...., missed this part of the pdf that absolutely proves the document could not have been made in word. Your own link confirms that the word doc is perfectly aligned horozantally and vertically, but the CBS doc isn't. You can easily see the shift every time your link blinks. Your link knew this which is why they didn't blink the whole doc, and sucker that you are, you swallowed it whole.

From the pdf you ignored:

http://imrl.usu.edu/bush_memo_study/...bush_memos.pdf

A more important problem for the theory are paragraphs three and four and the ways they
interact with the left margin. The horizontal lines in paragraph one are horizontal to a
thousandth of a degree. However the left edge of the body copy drifts to the left, well
into the margin. It begins slowly towards the top, between memorandum and paragraph
one, but increases its penetration toward the bottom, so that between the beginning of
paragraph three and the end of paragraph four the defect becomes significant. This
problem also occurs on other memos. Defects of that nature are common in typed pages
and are caused by the page squirming to the right as it passes through a defective platen or is put in slightly crooked and is forced to the right by the page guide. More important,
there is no reasonable way to reproduce this problem using Word (figure 5).

I'm sure that would never happen after running it thru a copy machine a dozen times.

All you need to do is produce proof that a little ANG unit had a typewriter that cost a couple thousand dollars.

Or produce the original documents. Take your time.

 

[edthecynic]

"Are the memos done in Times New Roman? No."

Yeah, I'm pretty sure there are fonts other than Times New Roman.

Little Green Footballs - One More CBS Document Example

Somehow you ignored, er ..., er ...., er ...., missed this part of the pdf that absolutely proves the document could not have been made in word. Your own link confirms that the word doc is perfectly aligned horozantally and vertically, but the CBS doc isn't. You can easily see the shift every time your link blinks. Your link knew this which is why they didn't blink the whole doc, and sucker that you are, you swallowed it whole.

From the pdf you ignored:

http://imrl.usu.edu/bush_memo_study/...bush_memos.pdf

A more important problem for the theory are paragraphs three and four and the ways they
interact with the left margin. The horizontal lines in paragraph one are horizontal to a
thousandth of a degree. However the left edge of the body copy drifts to the left, well
into the margin. It begins slowly towards the top, between memorandum and paragraph
one, but increases its penetration toward the bottom, so that between the beginning of
paragraph three and the end of paragraph four the defect becomes significant. This
problem also occurs on other memos. Defects of that nature are common in typed pages
and are caused by the page squirming to the right as it passes through a defective platen or is put in slightly crooked and is forced to the right by the page guide. More important,
there is no reasonable way to reproduce this problem using Word (figure 5).

I'm sure that would never happen after running it thru a copy machine a dozen times.

All you need to do is produce proof that a little ANG unit had a typewriter that cost a couple thousand dollars.

Or produce the original documents. Take your time.

BULLSHIT
Run your word doc through a copy machine and see if you can reproduce the effect, or produce the original documents. Take your time.

 

[JRK]

From your link to post 47:
Every claim made in the post is soundly thrashed in the link to the pdf, complete with photos and illustrations, that I posted. But any mindless drone whose opinion, with no backup, supports the CON$ervative propaganda trumps all absolute proof.

From my linked pdf:

Are the memos done in Times New Roman? No.
In an examination of the possibility of Times New Roman being responsible for the
memos, several characters prove to be mismatches. Most obvious is the “F,” but a few of
the other mismatches include the “1,” “g,” “5,” “#,” and “L.”

Is spacing computer-like? No.
The document does not use Times New Roman default leading or spacing. Figure 3
represents the following processes:

1. Type the document in Word, using Times New Roman, using the format of the
document.
2. Print the document and scan it at 1200 dpi.
3. Insert the Times New Roman onto the memo as a red overlay.
4. Align the number 1’s in the first paragraph.
5. Examine for breakdowns in alignment.
Figure 3: Pre-faxed document with TNR overlay in red. The overlay was typed in TNR with
default leading and centered. I aligned the “1’s” in the overlay.

The extent to which the red text fails to overlay the black text is the extent to which
Times New Roman defaults fail when attempting to reproduce the memo. Certain factors
become immediately clear: (1) the heading is not centered, (2) default horizontal spacing
is not appropriate, (3) default vertical spacing is not appropriate.

Any argument that someone created a perfect copy of the memo in 20 minutes using
Times New Roman should be immediately suspect. Furthermore, without adjusting every
character independently, it is not possible to adjust Word to produce the first line.


Figure 4: The above memo was reset in Word changing from defaults to 12/13.8 pt leading and
adding absolute minimum of .025 spacing between characters. Both spacing configurations require
keyboarding into the document – requiring knowledge of the inner-workings of Word.

The above document should, provide problems for the theory that this document can be
typed in Times New Roman. First, the distance between the date and “MEMO-
RANDUM” is 2-6/7 carriage returns. That is to say, to produce the vertical distance in
the space between the date and the word “MEMORANDUM” a user would have to
produce a fraction of a carriage return. The space between the end of paragraph one and
the beginning of paragraph two also requires a fractional carriage return. Anybody
familiar with Word will know that it does not do fractional carriage returns (though it is
possible for people who know what they are doing to simulate one by changing leading).
A more important problem for the theory are paragraphs three and four and the ways they
interact with the left margin. The horizontal lines in paragraph one are horizontal to a
thousandth of a degree. However the left edge of the body copy drifts to the left, well
into the margin. It begins slowly towards the top, between memorandum and paragraph
one, but increases its penetration toward the bottom, so that between the beginning of
paragraph three and the end of paragraph four the defect becomes significant. This
problem also occurs on other memos. Defects of that nature are common in typed pages
and are caused by the page squirming to the right as it passes through a defective platen or is put in slightly crooked and is forced to the right by the page guide. More important,
there is no reasonable way to reproduce this problem using Word (figure 5).

Figure 5: Detail from left edge of memo. Black text is twisting into the margin. I know of no
way to reproduce this with Times New Roman.
The text can only be made to fit by adjusting individual characters and their spaces
(figure 6).

Figure 6: Detail from figure 6 with numbers aligned at the “F.”

I believe that by this point, it should be clear that anybody who “reproduced” this
document using Times New Roman must, necessarily, have created an inexact fit or used
an image management software to make their arguments work. The heading is not
centered. There are multiple partial carriage returns. And the left edge behaves in a
manner completely at odds with digital production. And that only includes the easily
seen. A more careful examination of details shows numerous problems such as figure 6
throughout the documents.


Are there defective characters? Yes.
IBM type balls are made of plastic with a thin metal plating. The plastic is prone to
failure and the plating is prone to breaking (see figure 7).

Figure 7: The above characters have all failed. The flexing of the plastic under its metal
coating causes the metal to pit (the “8”), crack (the “7”), flake off (the “0” and “n”),
collapse (the “i”).

The impact of these broken characters can be seen as persistent inconsistency when they
are typed. The character in figure 8 makes a perfect example. The figure persists in
demonstrating that the character is damaged, but the way the damage is demonstrated is
never the same -- “inconsistent.” Persistent inconsistency marks the difference between
digital damage effects (damaged characters designed to imitate typed characters) and real
damage. Digital damage is persistent and consistent (always very similar). Characters in
the memos universally show persistent damage and show it inconsistently.

Figure 10: Examples of “t’s” taken from two memos implying breakdown of quality over time.

Comparing “t’s” in the top row (04 May) to “t’s” in the middle rows (01 August) shows
significant (statistical) differences in the quality of the cross strokes. In contrast, the left
stroke on the “f” is at least as good as the 04 May memo. There are a total of thirty-nine
“t’s” in the above August example. Of the thirty-nine, twenty-seven (approximately
75%) show little or no left cross bar.

I do not see how the implications of damaged characters can be disputed. If other similar
characters showed the same indications in the same places, it might be arguable that the
damage is caused by random effects from a photocopier, but this is a case where the “e,”
“t,” “R,” and numerous other characters show the unique indicators of damage
persistently and inconsistently. Furthermore, the “t” seems to show increasing wear over
time.


I close this by quoting directly from my conclusions in the second report.

I believe the memos were typed for the following reasons:

1. They cannot have been done in Times New Roman, so the argument that they
were done digitally has no logical support.
2. The evidence of character damage is no longer in question; the “t,” “e,” “a,” “c,”
“R,” “o,” “M,” and “N,” are all clearly defective, and in each case the character
has unique defects. Other characters not discussed also show signs of being
defective.
3. I found good evidence that characters interacted with each other, something only
possible with a typewriter or other device that produces characters one at a time
and involves physical impact.
4. Spacing in the memos is consistent with using a platen and not consistent with Word or similar digital processes:
• spacing of the heading is not centered
• headings do not align
• fractional returns are consistent with adjusting with a platen
• left edge of several memos appears to have drifted to the right causing
characters to penetrate the left margin.
• left margin is ragged in a manner that suggests escapement.
5. False color tests (although new and only tentatively valuable) support the
contention that characters have different tonal values, indicating different impact
pressures during creation. [I do not discuss false color testing in this document.]
6. Apparent interaction between signature and signature block is consistent with a
signature using a loosely held pen and a typed text.

I cannot say whether the memos are authentic. Nor can I say for certain that they were
produced in Press Roman, although most of the evidence indicates they probably were (or
in a derivative) . But I can say that they were not done in TNR, and I am totally
persuaded they were typed.

"Are the memos done in Times New Roman? No."

Yeah, I'm pretty sure there are fonts other than Times New Roman.

Little Green Footballs - One More CBS Document Example

Somehow you ignored, er ..., er ...., er ...., missed this part of the pdf that absolutely proves the document could not have been made in word. Your own link confirms that the word doc is perfectly aligned horozantally and vertically, but the CBS doc isn't. You can easily see the shift every time your link blinks. Your link knew this which is why they didn't blink the whole doc, and sucker that you are, you swallowed it whole.

From the pdf you ignored:

http://imrl.usu.edu/bush_memo_study/...bush_memos.pdf

A more important problem for the theory are paragraphs three and four and the ways they
interact with the left margin. The horizontal lines in paragraph one are horizontal to a
thousandth of a degree. However the left edge of the body copy drifts to the left, well
into the margin. It begins slowly towards the top, between memorandum and paragraph
one, but increases its penetration toward the bottom, so that between the beginning of
paragraph three and the end of paragraph four the defect becomes significant. This
problem also occurs on other memos. Defects of that nature are common in typed pages
and are caused by the page squirming to the right as it passes through a defective platen or is put in slightly crooked and is forced to the right by the page guide. More important,
there is no reasonable way to reproduce this problem using Word (figure 5).

You know whats wrong with the left?
no common sense
0
nata
none

Did CBS do the right thing?
If they did why did 4 people lose there job and Dan was forced to retire
simple question needs a simple answer