Skip to main content

View Diary: TANG Typewriter [URGENT]: Is it the Composer? (99 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I posted this on Kevin Drum's: (4.00)
    put here just for archival completeness:


    http://www.flounder.com/bush.htm

    This pro-forgery site has been referred to several times in this thread.  Let me say that I have combed the internet for evidence on this issue, which I have presented on DailyKos, and this link is quite possibly the biggest piece of crap I have yet seen.  Possibly even worse than the original LGF comparison that started it all.

    First, he uses the relative height of the 'th' glyph to demonstrate that Word puts 'th' at a certain height, and goes to great lengths to show how different it is from another CBS memo in an entirely different f-ing font.  A clearly monospaced font, to be precise, though in his brilliant deductions he doesn't quite seem to notice that.  Wow, really?  Different fonts look different?

    Then he compares the proportional font with the entirely different monospaced font and discovers -- I shit you not -- that the spacing is different.  Wow, that is convincing!

    Then he goes on to say that this proves only a computer could have created the proportional font, and lists the places with the vast computing resources necessary in 1972 to create such a wonder of science.

    Then, he goes on about how good the resolution of the (fax of the) typewritten copy is -- it's better than 180dpi!  That proves that it could only have been done on highly advanced equipment!  Why, only the five richest kings of Europe could afford such an advanced machine!  (Hey, poindexter?  What's the dpi on a typewriter?)

    He then finally mentions the existence of proportional-font typewriters, but says they could never do Times New Roman!  And besides, um, Don Knuth only printed his book on computer fonts in 1979!

    And typewriters couldn't tuck letters close together!  (Hint: Google "negative sidebearing", genius, which proportional-font machines were designed with, or just go here.  That link is especially funny because that guy says the memos don't have kerning, and the lack of kerning proves they're fake!)  And curly quotes were impossible, because, um, 7-bit ASCII fonts (used on typewriters? WTF?) didn't have them!

    I don't mean to be rude, but you have got to be f---ing kidding me.  Is this guy for real, or is this a hoax site?

    Do me a favor.  If you have good sites that have pro-forgery evidence to support them -- I would consider the shapeofdays site to be by far the best, on the pro-forgery side -- by all means post them, and I'll link to them from the DailyKos reports.  But if you can't even tell this fancily-worded shitdump for what it is, do not waste my f--ing time.  Gawd.  You owe me fifteen minutes of my life back.

    •  Response to Hunter regarding Flounder Site (none)
      H"First, he uses the relative height of the 'th' glyph to demonstrate that Word puts 'th' at a certain height, and goes to great lengths to show how different it is from another CBS memo in an entirely different f-ing font.  A clearly monospaced font, to be precise, though in his brilliant deductions he doesn't quite seem to notice that.  Wow, really?  Different fonts look different?"

      I think that you missed the point.  For days now the defenders of the memos argued that not only was superscripting available, but that it existed in one of the other Bush documents.  The document that he exposed was the one used as proof of superscripting.  And that document was clearly not a case of superscripting being used in another Bush memo.  The th in that script never rises above the 111.

      H"Then he goes on to say that this proves only a computer could have created the proportional font, and lists the places with the vast computing resources necessary in 1972 to create such a wonder of science.

      Then, he goes on about how good the resolution of the (fax of the) typewritten copy is -- it's better than 180dpi!  That proves that it could only have been done on highly advanced equipment!  Why, only the five richest kings of Europe could afford such an advanced machine!  (Hey, poindexter?  What's the dpi on a typewriter?)"

      Again you miss the point.  He never said that only a computer could produce proportional fonts.  What he said is that if we want to argue that the document was produced by a 1972 computer then we could not do so because the computer printers of that time only printed to 180 DPI.  He is not using this argument to dismiss proportional font typewriters.  In fact, he acknowledges their existence.

      "and although there were some proportional-spaced typewriters (such as the IBM Executive) and print production technologies (such as the VariTyper),"

      H"He then finally mentions the existence of proportional-font typewriters, but says they could never do Times New Roman!"

      Now you are just plain lying.  He didn't say that they could not do Times New Roman.  What he said was:

      "none of these would have produced something that was a near-perfect match for Times New Roman under Microsoft Word."

      H"And typewriters couldn't tuck letters close together!"

      The issue is not if typewriters could tuck letters close together, but if they could tuck one letter under the other.  Clearly they could not do this.  Both the author of the flounder site and the linked site that you give agree that kerning is not enabled by default under Microsoft word. And they both agree that the CBS memos do not have kerning enabled.  But the flounder site author argues that the MS Word Times New Roman font uses a characteristic of MS True Type fonts which allows for a kind of pseudo kerning.  You can observe it for yourself if you go to the 1 August 1972 memo, look at the "from" in the first item and see how the r is tucked under the f.  The flounder author shows a couple of examples from the memos which illustrate this pseudo kerning.  Basically this is irrefutable and the memos have been shown to be forgeries.

      H"Is this guy for real, or is this a hoax site?"

      Looking at some of your explanations caused me to ask the same questions about dailykos.

    •  Fifteen Minutes (none)
      You owe me fifteen minutes of my life back

      Great Minds. When someone posted that same link on TalkLeft, I clicked over and checked a couple of the characters that we have all seen were different in most of the purported Word versions — and damned if they weren't different in this one, too.

      So I hit the "Back" button on my browser, and complained: "That's fifteen seconds of my life that I'm never getting back."

      See — you should have done like I did, and simply stopped at the first incompatability you found, rather than going around trying to catch 'em all.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (123)
  • Community (58)
  • 2016 (45)
  • Elections (37)
  • Environment (35)
  • Media (34)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (33)
  • Republicans (31)
  • Hillary Clinton (30)
  • Law (28)
  • Barack Obama (27)
  • Iraq (27)
  • Civil Rights (25)
  • Jeb Bush (24)
  • Climate Change (24)
  • Culture (23)
  • Economy (20)
  • Bernie Sanders (18)
  • Labor (18)
  • Senate (16)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site