Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TigerPaw who wrote (55507)	9/12/2004 12:47:29 PM
From: unclewest	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

TP, I have respected you and your posts for years. There is a helluva lot more to this story than that one opinion. I hope you are looking at some of the other data. uw

To: TigerPaw who wrote (55507)	9/12/2004 4:08:24 PM
From: Gersh Avery	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 89467

> Times Roman characters produced on a lintotype machine in 1960< lintotype?????? I think you mean linotype So someone is suggesting that this officer went to some publisher to have his manuscript typeset .. for his own personal records .. a linotype machine would be used for making a plate for printing. This kind of machine would also produce proportional spacing .. for instance the "i" would take less space than a "m." So then .. you seem to suggest that this guy used some gigantic machine that would cost many thousands of dollars to type up memos for his file cabinet .. Oh yes .. since the linotype would produce a inverse image as a plate, he would then send the plate that he made to the press to make a single print. Edit: BTW .. when did you folks stop talking about the IBM Selectric ll? Have you given up on trying to say these were made on one of those?

To: TigerPaw who wrote (55507)	9/12/2004 4:16:27 PM
From: Gersh Avery	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

here .. take a look at the monster you are talking about: oncampus.richmond.edu

To: TigerPaw who wrote (55507)	9/12/2004 4:35:15 PM
From: Gersh Avery	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

OK .. I broke down and read the article that you linked to .. "So, let's dispense with the "proportional type" theory. I've looked at the PDF files, and IMO the quality thereof is too far removed from the original (the wavy baselines are a dead giveaway) to know what the original type proportion was. " This "expert" can't look at the documents and determine if it's a proportional or non-proportional font????? Yet at the same time believes they are not forged. pure left wing propaganda with no real examination at all. Let's start with these questions for typewriter experts: What year was the first Times New Roman ball produced for the Selectric? How many were produced? Would Killians office to have likely had one? Did the Times New Roman font ball have the smaller superscript characters? If such a ball existed, what year was it first produced? Someone at IBM should have this information.

To: TigerPaw who wrote (55507)	9/12/2004 6:44:01 PM
From: Gersh Avery	Respond to of 89467

>I defer to the real experts.< will you really ???? How about these experts? Only One Expert Sided With '60 Minutes' NewsMax ^ \| 9/12/04 \| Carl Limbacher CBS anchorman Dan Rather claimed Friday that his "60 Minutes" team thoroughly authenticated a document purporting to show a cover-up of George Bush's National Guard record, but produced only one expert to back his finding. And by Saturday, even that testimony had come into question. Rather's lone expert, Marcel Matley, "is primarily a handwriting expert whose expertise in document evaluation has been challenged by the head of the American Board of Forensic Document Examiners," reported the New York Post. What's more, the document in question was a photocopy, not an original, something Matley himself once said precluded any conclusive authentication. In an essay for the American Law Institute unearthed by RatherBiased.com, Matley wrote: "Do not passively accept a copy as the sole basis of a case. Every copy, intentionally or unintentionally, is in some way false to the original. In fact, modern copiers and computer printers are so good that they permit easy fabrication of quality forgeries." In fact, by the time of Rather's Friday broadcast, an array of document experts had spoken out on his earlier report. So, why didn't the CBS News star cite any of their analysis? Because almost none of it backed his reporting. Sandra Ramsey Lines, for instance - a forensic document expert who edits the Journal of the American Society of Questioned Document Examiners - told the Associated Press that she "could testify in court that, beyond a reasonable doubt, her opinion was that the memos were written on a computer." Lines told the AP that she was "virtually certain" that the memos were written on a computer, not a Vietnam-era typewriter. Beyond the particulars of Rather's dubious documentation, new details emerged on Saturday strongly suggesting that the evidence in question had been fabricated. The memo - a complaint by Bush's Guard commander, Jerry Killian, that he was being pressured by his own boss, then-Col. Walter B. "Buck" Staudt, to "sugarcoat" Bush's record -had a 1973 date. According to the Dallas Morning News, however, Staudt retired in 1972.