Variable space type does not require a computer interface: it just requires an electric typewriter that gives more space to “m” that it does to “i”, and I have see such typewriters.
Justification is more complex, but could be done a line at a time, as long as a typewriter can remember the whole line, and the typist doesn’t need to see it on the page. (There could be a preview screen).
Incidentally, Linotype machines justified type using purely mechanical means. The spaces contained wedges so that as each line was completed, and before it was cast in typemetal, the line was justified by pushing on those wedges.
Young people, today, always seem to think that the world was invented in their time. This article (blog) notes that proportional font was available on mechanical typewriters long before computers were using it. (Such machines were expensive and unlikely to show up in underfunded government offices, (hence the red flag I mentioned), but they were not physically uinavailable.)
Had variable and proportional type required computer interface, the many books and newspaper clippings I possess from before the 1940s would be figments of my imagination.
Excellent! Any bets on how long it will be before she is hired by Fox or some such? I am putting my money on her becoming a conservative commentator, but maybe she’ll continue as a reporter.
If a man confesses to a crime with a gun at his head, it’s not “to his credit.”
CBS denied any problems and stonewalled any investigation while every other media source ran circles around them, screaming fraud. I don’t believe that their final decision to accept an independent investigation was the result of a calm exercise of integrity.
That said, I give them full credit for permitting a TRUE independent investigation, and accepting the result thereform.
It wasn’t merely the presence of proportional spacing, Tom. It was proportional, justified text using Times New Roman font: the precise default font when MS Word is fired up. To get that convination out of a Selectric requires a lot of ad-hoc assumptions; to get it out of MS Word requires turning it on.
Let’s not forget the source of the documents, Bill Burkett. That should have been a **huge **red flag itself-- the guy is a nut case with a grudge to boot. And he supposedly got the documents from a “Lucy Ramirez”, whom he was never able to prove even existed. I mean, the guy comes off like reeder…
Although I’m young at heart I typed my way through every conceivable machine. I still have my first typewriter (my parents) which is older than I am. Justifying text manually is just about impossible to do and would certainly not be attempted in an office environment. The first typewriter I saw that was capable of justified text had a 1 line LCD screen that you could type on until the line was full and then you would print it. IBM may have made a machine that did this without a screen but I don’t remember seeing it. Any typewriter with enough memory to delete an entire line would have enough memory to do this. It would require hardwired programming.
What we have to look at here is not whether it is possible to justify a document with an older typewriter but is it reasonable to type this way in an office setting. Unless the machine was designed to do it the answer is no.
Just to throw a wrench into the theory that it was done on a computer I would like to point out that the number in the first line “111th Fighter” is not in superscript but it is when printed in the 2nd paragraph. This is inconsistent with my software ((MS Word 97 SR-1). The default is to superscript it. If software was used to produce the document then someone deliberately removed the superscript. Although this is strange I’m not sure how reduced superscript (smaller font) was done on a typewriter unless it was a separate character. Hitting superscript on my typewriters at work simply adjusted the platen to raise the letters (of the same size).
I would also point out that this document had been repeatedly reproduced so that each copy was made from a copy. There is noticeable optical wave and distortion (not to mention dirt).
This is an animated GIF containing two frames. The first is the ‘authentic’ original national guard memo. The second is the same memo typed in Microsoft Word, using the default font, default margin spacings, and default settings for superscript and the like. The date at the top was placed by simply tabbing over using Word’s default tab settings.
They are virtually identical. The likelihood of a document typed on a typewriter 35 years ago matching this closely are virtually nil. If you don’t believe me, try it. If you use a word processor other than word, try to match it.
This graphic was available on the net almost immediately after the CBS story first aired. Within hours or a day or two.
Wait a minute. The woman who supposedly typed the memo says it’s a fake…and Mary Mapes doesn’t think they’ve been ‘disproven’ yet ?!?!? Amazing.
Something else that I don’t think has been pointed out yet. I remember liberals howling their outrage over Karl Rove’s connection to the SwiftBoat Vets for Truth group. They had not a shred of proof, mind you. They just knew somehow that Rove had to be involved and they were disgusted.
And here we have a producer at CBS, ostensibly an objective journalist, peddling forged documents bashing Bush in direct contact with Joe Lockhart, one of Kerry’s key campaign advisors. Breathtaking. And not a peep from the hysterical libs.
Finally, a group of some sixty or so highly-decorated combat veterans get together to offer their opinions about John Kerry and what do the libs call them? A bunch of liars! All of 'em! But the hazy recollection of some 80-year-old secretary who may or may not have typed a long-gone memo some 35 years ago? By God, now that is irrefutable proof! Liberals make me sick. Really.
