# Bush Documents Forged? - Typewriters in the 1970's **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [September 10, 2004, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-documents-forged-typewriters-in-the-1970s/263847 "2004-09-10T00:11:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![GorillaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2004, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-documents-forged-typewriters-in-the-1970s/263847/81 "2004-09-13T00:11:03Z")
> [@dangermouse1956](#): > > Folks, this is all really simple. Put politics aside and think for a minute. These were _memos,_ just typed out quickly as a memo would be. No one was worried about typesetting. The two ‘self-memos’ are inded completely left-justified, except for the date. The two which were intended for somebody else to see have greater care taken over the formatting. Could you explain that, in the context of the ‘fake’ allegation? > [@](#): > > CBS won’t release what they have for analysis, and they won’t identify even _one_ “expert” who will stand behind an opinion that they are genuine. Contrast that with the sheer numbers of others who _will_ stake their reputations on the opinion that they’re crudely-executed fakes. I’m still amazed that centuries of fighting for the independence of the press, and the right to retain anonymity of sources, is being held up as ‘proof’ of fraudulence. > [@](#): > > … [Here](http://instapundit.com/archives/017759.php) you can see an animated GIF that alternates between the memo and what [Charles Johnson](http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/) was able to whip out in a couple of minutes on Word GIFs do not give the clarity necessary to make any such comparisons. Especially when they’re as miniscule as the one you link to. Give me a PDF of the Word file claimed to match, and I’ll do the looking for myself. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2004, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-documents-forged-typewriters-in-the-1970s/263847/82 "2004-09-13T00:56:33Z")
There are typewriter experts in the world who are specialists in determining what make and model of typewriter was used in producing a document. (They even take into consideration such clues as commonly made errors in a document.) The “expert” or “experts” who said that typewriters in the 1970s did not have proportional spacing is not an expert at all and her or his testimony relating to all matters having to do with typewriters of the period should be called into question. > [@](#): > > **Reality Chuck** : There is one clear issue that needs to be addressed – not the proportional fonts (yes, the typewriters existed, **but they were rare and very expensive; only a small number of offices used them).**(bolding added) That is just not a true statement. I worked in a four person advertising office briefly in 1968 in Nashville. My typewriter was the _Executive_. I had to make 11 carbons of everything. It was a nightmare. I will forever remember that the _m_ took up three spaces and the _l_ took up one. It drove me up the wall. I resigned after two weeks. When I discussed this particular typewriter with other women, they would moan commiserate with my experience. These typewriters were well known for being horrible to use. > [@](#): > > **Reality Chuck** : Not the fact that one document has a superscripted “th” – a clear Microsoft Word feature… And that means that typewriters of the 1970s _couldn’t_ also have had them? ---
**Author:** ![dangermouse1956](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/41988e/32.png) [@dangermouse1956](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dangermouse1956)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2004, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-documents-forged-typewriters-in-the-1970s/263847/83 "2004-09-13T02:20:38Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > I worked in a four person advertising office briefly in 1968 in Nashville. My typewriter was the Executive. I had to make 11 carbons of everything. It was a nightmare. I will forever remember that the m took up three spaces and the l took up one. It drove me up the wall. I resigned after two weeks. When I discussed this particular typewriter with other women, they would moan commiserate with my experience. These typewriters were well known for being horrible to use. _Exactly_ why this memo was highly unlikely to have been typed up on such a machine. They used plain old typewriters for that sort of thing. > [@GorillaMan](#): > > The two ‘self-memos’ are inded completely left-justified, except for the date. The two which were intended for somebody else to see have greater care taken over the formatting. Could you explain that, in the context of the ‘fake’ allegation? The issue isn’t whether it was possible to have produced those memos. The issue is: was it anywhere in the realm of likelihood (?) that someone would have taken _that_ kind of painstaking care, which then was reserved for typesetting, over a dang _office memo?_ > [@GorillaMan](#): > > I’m still amazed that centuries of fighting for the independence of the press, and the right to retain anonymity of sources, is being held up as ‘proof’ of fraudulence. Now, that’s just a plain old _non sequitur._ In this case, there is no reason that an “expert” who makes his living doing this kind of thing would want to remain anonymous–unless, of course, he made a really big mistake. But that’s not what happened. If you just google around and follow a few links, you’ll find out that CBS had these documents verifued over the _phone._ That’s right. The telephone. All we’re asking is a little evidence that shores up the other side of the argument, which isn’t an unreasonable thing to ask. Around these boards, it’s downright mandatory. > [@GorillaMan](#): > > GIFs do not give the clarity necessary to make any such comparisons. Especially when they’re as miniscule as the one you link to. Give me a PDF of the Word file claimed to match, and I’ll do the looking for myself. Happy to oblige. There is a much larger [animated GIF](http://mysite.verizon.net/vze6vxcr/) that overlays the 18 Aug memo with the Word document, for comparison. But, of course, the “originals” (I use quotes because no one but CBS knows if any true originals exist) are on the internet for all to see. First, here is the .pdf scan of the [19 May memo](http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/BushGuardmay19.pdf), provided by CBS. Acrobat reader required, of course. Here is the [Word document](http://homepage.mac.com/cfj/19-May-1972.doc) in .doc format. Next, here is [CBS’s scan](http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/BushGuardaugust18.pdf) of the 18 Aug “CYA” memo, and the associated [Word document](http://homepage.mac.com/cfj/18-August-1973.doc). ---
**Author:** ![dangermouse1956](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/41988e/32.png) [@dangermouse1956](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dangermouse1956)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2004, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-documents-forged-typewriters-in-the-1970s/263847/84 "2004-09-13T02:32:59Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > I worked in a four person advertising office briefly in 1968 in Nashville. My typewriter was the Executive. I had to make 11 carbons of everything. It was a nightmare. I will forever remember that the m took up three spaces and the l took up one. It drove me up the wall. I resigned after two weeks. When I discussed this particular typewriter with other women, they would moan commiserate with my experience. These typewriters were well known for being horrible to use. _Exactly_ why this memo was highly unlikely to have been typed up on such a machine. They used plain old typewriters for that sort of thing. This was a _memo,_ people. > [@GorillaMan](#): > > The two ‘self-memos’ are inded completely left-justified, except for the date. The two which were intended for somebody else to see have greater care taken over the formatting. Could you explain that, in the context of the ‘fake’ allegation? The issue isn’t whether it was possible to have produced those memos. The issue is: was it anywhere in the realm of likelyhood (?) that someone would have taken _that_ kind of painstaking care, which then was reserved only for typesetting, over a dang _office memo?_ > [@GorillaMan](#): > > I’m still amazed that centuries of fighting for the independence of the press, and the right to retain anonymity of sources, is being held up as ‘proof’ of fraudulence. Now, that’s just a plain old _non sequitur._ In this case, there is no reason that an “expert” who makes his living doing this kind of thing would want to remain anonymous–unless, of course, he made a really big mistake. But that’s not what happened. If you just google around and follow a few links, you’ll find out that CBS had these documents verified over the _phone._ That’s right. The telephone. All we’re asking is a little evidence that shores up the other side of the argument, which isn’t an unreasonable thing to ask. Around these boards, it’s downright mandatory. > [@GorillaMan](#): > > GIFs do not give the clarity necessary to make any such comparisons. Especially when they’re as miniscule as the one you link to. Give me a PDF of the Word file claimed to match, and I’ll do the looking for myself. Happy to oblige. There is a much larger [animated GIF](http://mysite.verizon.net/vze6vxcr/) that overlays the 18 Aug memo with the Word document, for comparison. But, of course, the “originals” (I use quotes because no one but CBS knows if any true originals exist) are on the internet for all to see. First, here is the .pdf scan of the [19 May memo](http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/BushGuardmay19.pdf), provided by CBS. Acrobat reader required, of course. And here is the associated [Word document](http://homepage.mac.com/cfj/19-May-1972.doc) in .doc format. Next, here is [CBS’s scan](http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/BushGuardaugust18.pdf) of the 18 Aug “CYA” memo, and the associated [Word document](http://homepage.mac.com/cfj/18-August-1973.doc). We report, you decide. Or something like that. This really is a no-brainer. ---
**Author:** ![dangermouse1956](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/41988e/32.png) [@dangermouse1956](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dangermouse1956)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2004, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-documents-forged-typewriters-in-the-1970s/263847/85 "2004-09-13T02:35:18Z")
Dang–sorry about the double post. I hit the wrong button. ---
**Author:** ![drhess](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/94ad74/32.png) [@drhess](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drhess)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2004, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-documents-forged-typewriters-in-the-1970s/263847/86 "2004-09-13T02:39:13Z")
Looking at that large gif, I’d have to say they don’t look alike at all. But all that proves is that the memo/photocopy/pdf/gif process makes the memo look like crap. Not to mention whatever nasty shape the typewriter might have been in (if it is real). I mean, look at the lowercase “b” in both. It’s perfect in the Word file and “gunky” in the “memo”. ---
**Author:** ![hammerbach](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/73ab20/32.png) [@hammerbach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hammerbach)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2004, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-documents-forged-typewriters-in-the-1970s/263847/87 "2004-09-13T03:45:41Z")
> [@GorillaMan](#): > > … > I’m still amazed that centuries of fighting for the independence of the press, and the right to retain anonymity of sources, is being held up as ‘proof’ of fraudulence. > … There is a difference between a source and a verifying expert as far as anonymity goes. How do you trust a professional (presumably paid) opinion, if it is anonymous? And if an expert opinion is disinterested, why should it be anon? I can understand the need for anonymity for a source, but why should a verifying expert need this protection? I stand ready to be educated in this matter, if I misunderstand… In other words, why should I simply accept an opinion without knowing that opinion’s provenance? ---
**Author:** ![dangermouse1956](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/41988e/32.png) [@dangermouse1956](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dangermouse1956)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2004, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-documents-forged-typewriters-in-the-1970s/263847/88 "2004-09-13T16:50:38Z")
> [@drhess](#): > > Looking at that large gif, I’d have to say they don’t look alike at all. But all that proves is that the memo/photocopy/pdf/gif process makes the memo look like crap. Not to mention whatever nasty shape the typewriter might have been in (if it is real). I mean, look at the lowercase “b” in both. It’s perfect in the Word file and “gunky” in the “memo”. Of course it’s gunky, **drhess,** but it’s not the .gif process that does that. It’s the fact that the forger–doing what I would have done in his shoes–FAXed and/or copied the “memo” through several generations to make it look old. In addition, it’s easy to change the overall size of a paper you’re copying by X%. Just take that into account. Both you and **GorillaMan** can ask anyone who knows computer graphics about the overall quality of a .gif when reproducing a simple two-color document. There’s no reason for it not to be quite good. Again, the whole reason the “originals” are so fuzzy is that they were subjected to multiple generations of copying/FAXing. ---
**Author:** ![Mollie\_Magill](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mollie_magill/32/20882_2.png) [@Mollie\_Magill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mollie_Magill)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2004, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-documents-forged-typewriters-in-the-1970s/263847/89 "2004-09-13T17:18:45Z")
> [@dangermouse1956](#): > > Of course it’s gunky, **drhess,** but it’s not the .gif process that does that. It’s the fact that the forger–doing what I would have done in his shoes–FAXed and/or copied the “memo” through several generations to make it look old. In addition, it’s easy to change the overall size of a paper you’re copying by X%. Just take that into account. Here’s a stupid question. If the alleged forger were going to go through all the trouble to fax and refax and copy and recopy the memo to age it, why didn’t this person take the first step and reset the font to Courier and avoid half these font arguments in the first place. This person cannot be both smart and stupid. I still state you will never know for sure until the originals are located and analyzed. Until that point, the unevenness of the lines, which is unreprodcible on a word processor, makes me lean to these documents being composed on a typewriter. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2004, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-documents-forged-typewriters-in-the-1970s/263847/90 "2004-09-13T17:59:31Z")
> [@Maus Magill](#): > > This person cannot be both smart and stupid. Well, yes a person _could_ be both smart and stupid. Smart people do make stupid mistakes. ---
**Author:** ![drhess](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/94ad74/32.png) [@drhess](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drhess)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2004, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-documents-forged-typewriters-in-the-1970s/263847/91 "2004-09-13T18:08:38Z")
> [@dangermouse1956](#): > > Of course it’s gunky, **drhess,** but it’s not the .gif process that does that. It’s the fact that the forger–doing what I would have done in his shoes–FAXed and/or copied the “memo” through several generations to make it look old. In addition, it’s easy to change the overall size of a paper you’re copying by X%. Just take that into account. > > Both you and **GorillaMan** can ask anyone who knows computer graphics about the overall quality of a .gif when reproducing a simple two-color document. There’s no reason for it not to be quite good. Again, the whole reason the “originals” are so fuzzy is that they were subjected to multiple generations of copying/FAXing. I’m well aware of all that which makes me wonder why people think the overlay is proof of something? Is it just the distance between lines and letters (kerning and ledding) that they think is important? They seem to think the “match up” of the fonts is important, but as you admit (and which was my point) that cannot be done. ---
**Author:** ![ianzin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/ed655f/32.png) [@ianzin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ianzin)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2004, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-documents-forged-typewriters-in-the-1970s/263847/92 "2004-09-13T18:10:15Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > These “facts” prove neither that the letters are forged nor that they are authentic. / But, as usual, the conspiracy theorists are off and running at the mouth… I think **Broomstick** has said it all. Good summary and analysis. The points put forward by the ‘suspicious / probably forged’ camp don’t amount to any kind of reasoning, but are typical of lame conspiracy theories. The same kind of ‘points’ were/are made in connection with documents pertaining to Roswell, JFK, UFOs and so on. The fact that some element in document wasn’t done the ‘normal’ way (for a given time, place or organisation) doesn’t prove anything. I’ll bet there are thousands of secretaries and bureaucrats preparing documents every single day which include some flaws, errors, mistakes, personal idiosyncrasies and other features which depart from someone’s version of ‘normal’. So what? Besides, as every lawyer knows, for every opinion about what’s normal and standard, you can usually find an opposite opinion of equal authority. It’s all very well for large organisations to have a set of documentation standards, but most documents produced will depart from those standards rather than conform to them. I spent years working as a so-called documentation ‘expert’ in various companies, inlcuding those with military or government standards to adhere to, and devising a set of standards is far easier than getting them implemented on any sort of consistent basis. But this doesn’t stop some researchers getting excited about 30 or 5 years later, waving a set of standards around and saying “Look! This document was prepared in a way that doesn’t conform to the standards in force at the time!!!”. If document anaylsis experts can get access to the original documents, and run forensic tests, then they might come up with some definitive answers. Otherwise, it’s more or less impossible to know the truth. ---
**Author:** ![drhess](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/94ad74/32.png) [@drhess](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drhess)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2004, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-documents-forged-typewriters-in-the-1970s/263847/93 "2004-09-13T18:57:58Z")
> [@ianzin](#): > > If document anaylsis experts can get access to the original documents, and run forensic tests, then they might come up with some definitive answers. Otherwise, it’s more or less impossible to know the truth. I agree. Here’s a pdf I made with MS Word showing lots of common fonts that with some playing around with just the font size can be made to look pretty close even without all the blurring and distortion of copying and faxing. [http://dougrhess.com/SerifFonts.pdf](http://dougrhess.com/SerifFonts.pdf) ---
**Author:** ![pilot141](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e0b2c6/32.png) [@pilot141](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pilot141)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2004, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-documents-forged-typewriters-in-the-1970s/263847/94 "2004-09-13T19:12:46Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > Why? My flight physicals were always due on the anniversary of my last one, whenever that happened to be. They’ve never correlated with my birthday. Well, my FAA physicals are due on the anniversary of my last one, but my Air Force and Air Force Reserve flight physicals were always tied to my birth month. The Air Force does this to ensure a steady stream of folks going to the flight doc rather than having a few months be really busy and then have nobody due for a while. You can always go in early for your physical (up to 60 days IIRC), but the last day of your birth month was your “drop dead” date. For example, if you were born on June 15th you would have from May 1st through June 30th to get your flight physical done. I don’t know what this means in relation to the memos, I’m just saying that Air Force flight physicals ARE tied to your birth month. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2004, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-documents-forged-typewriters-in-the-1970s/263847/95 "2004-09-13T20:03:48Z")
Another issue is the exact justification. The standard for ending a line on a manual typewriter is that once you reach a certain point on the right side of the page, a bell dings, and you’re expected to finish whatever word you’re on. This is also the rule implemented by typewriters which place the carriage returns automatically. Now, a human can improve on this rule: If you’re almost at the end of your word when the bell dings, for instance, and your next word is “in”, you include the “in” before the next line. But a computer word processor like Word, the rule is to finish the word if and only if it will fit before some absolute cutoff margin. So here we have three different rules for where to put linebreaks: The typewriter rule, the inconsistent human “rule”, and the computer rule… And the memo matches the third. ---
**Author:** ![dangermouse1956](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/41988e/32.png) [@dangermouse1956](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dangermouse1956)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2004, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-documents-forged-typewriters-in-the-1970s/263847/96 "2004-09-13T21:10:23Z")
> [@ianzin](#): > > The points put forward by the ‘suspicious / probably forged’ camp don’t amount to any kind of reasoning, but are typical of lame conspiracy theories. The same kind of ‘points’ were/are made in connection with documents pertaining to Roswell, JFK, UFOs and so on. Who said anything about a conspiracy? No need to make this all complicated. It’s very, very simple. Paging Dr. Occam… ---
**Author:** ![bughunter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/aeb1de/32.png) [@bughunter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bughunter)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2004, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-documents-forged-typewriters-in-the-1970s/263847/97 "2004-09-13T21:11:48Z")
The “computer rule” for exact justification can easily be mimicked by a human who knows where the right margin is and doesn’t want to exceed it. Any critical thinker that is on the ball will recognize immediately that the GIFs that **dangermouse** links to prove nothing. Why? Beacuse we didn’t see the process of creation of the “modern” frame of that GIF. It is equally likely that the documents are authentic and someone went to a great deal of effort to compose a modern “forgery” after the CBS report in order to create confusion and distract the media attention from the issues, and make everyone talk about the minutia of kerning and fontography. It’s also quite possible that, hey whaddayaknow, Times New Roman is Times New Roman and if you type the exact same text with the exact same carriage returns, the two documents look very much alike even if created 32 years apart. Gee - what a shocker! In fact, given the history of partisan politics since 1992, I am far more likely to believe one of the above scenarios than I am likely to believe that _60 Minutes_ would attempt to forge a document. So if one or more of the documents cannot be validated, that still does not change the fact that Bush evaded serving in Vietnam by seeking ANG duty, got promoted to the head of the line for such duty, was attached to a champagne unit, then failed to meet the obligations of even that. But then, the American public does not have much of a record of critical thinking, nor does the media for that matter. ---
**Author:** ![dangermouse1956](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/41988e/32.png) [@dangermouse1956](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dangermouse1956)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2004, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-documents-forged-typewriters-in-the-1970s/263847/98 "2004-09-13T21:32:06Z")
> [@bughunter](#): > > It’s also quite possible that, hey whaddayaknow, Times New Roman is Times New Roman and if you type the exact same text with the exact same carriage returns, the two documents look very much alike even if created 32 years apart. Gee - what a shocker! It’s this sort of thinking that keeps everyone from recognizing what’s happened here. Anyone old enough to remember typewriters should recognize this instantly as a forgery. **bughunter** , you couldn’t just go and type with Times New Roman 32 years ago. _Especially_ not in a military office. Sheesh. ---
**Author:** ![bughunter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/aeb1de/32.png) [@bughunter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bughunter)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2004, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-documents-forged-typewriters-in-the-1970s/263847/99 "2004-09-14T00:09:10Z")
Huh? Critical thinking is “keeping everyone from realizing what’s happening here?” When did GQ turn into GD? I remember typewriters. I learned to type on an IBM Selectric, and I remember PITA proportional-spaced Selectrics – and hating them. I also remember secretaries who swore by them. And as for typing in Times Roman in 1972 – actually, [it appears](http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/09/11/authenticity_backed_on_bush_documents/) [as if](http://www.webreference.com/dlab/9802/serifII.html) [you could](http://www.linotype.com/7-510-7/stanleymorison.html), at least within the limits of resolution that the politically-motivated distractors can provide. From [this document](http://www.truetype.demon.co.uk/articles/times.htm): > [@](#): > > In the late 1980’s, Monotype redrew its Times New Roman to make it fit exactly the proportions and metrics of the Adobe-Linotype version of Times Roman. Monotype claimed that its new version was better than the Adobe-Linotype version, because of smoother curves, better detailing, and generally greater sensitivity to the original designs done for The Times and Monotype by Victor Lardent, who worked under the direction of Stanley Morison. During the same period, Adobe upgraded its version of Times, using digital masters from Linotype, which of course claimed that it had a superior version, so there was a kind of competition to see who had the most refined, sensitive, original, genuine, bona-fide, artistically and typographically correct version. Many, perhaps most, users didn’t notice and didn’t care about these subtle distinctions, many of which were invisible at 10 pt at 300 dpi (which is an em of 42 pixels, a stem of three pixels, a serif of 1 pixel, and so on). I state my point again: the evidence and arguments presented **prove nothing** about the validity of the documents, except the lengths some people will go to to distract the discussion away from Bush’s ANG service record. Without the original documents themselves, it will be extremely difficult to determine the authenticity of those personal memos. ---
**Author:** ![dangermouse1956](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/41988e/32.png) [@dangermouse1956](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dangermouse1956)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2004, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-documents-forged-typewriters-in-the-1970s/263847/100 "2004-09-14T01:12:23Z")
Okay. Everyone take a deeeeep breath. Now, as my eleventh grade teacher used to say (believe it or not), “let’s all put on our thinking caps.” **bughunter** , your own links prove my point. My point isn’t that it was impossible to print in Times New Roman 32 years ago. My point is that one couldn’t just go and do that like you can today _unless you were in the typesetting business._ We’re talking about plain old ordinary typewriters here, people. It was either pica or elite monospaced type, period, certainly not those fancy things certain secretaries used. We’ve taken Occam’s Razor, thrown it out the window. and replaced it with Occam’s Sledgehammer. Doesn’t anyone remember the [Hitler Diary](http://medienkritik.typepad.com/blog/2004/09/do_german_media.html) forgeries? Does history _have_ to repeat itself for some people to learn? There are so many other things wrong with those memos that concentrating on a typeface alone would seem to be just a “diversionary tactic,” **bughunter.** These boards were put here to “fight ignorance,” not for political point-of-view battles. I have no interest in that here, and it doesn’t belong here. Let’s talk _reason._ Bush’s ANG record is NOT the issue under discussion. It’s the veracity, or lack thereof, of these particular documents. And there’s a hell of a lot wrong with them, not just some typeface that was not commonly used in offices 32 years ago. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-documents-forged-typewriters-in-the-1970s/263847.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-documents-forged-typewriters-in-the-1970s/263847.md?page=6)