Font Wars

Others argue that the memos couldn't have been produced on MSWord due to miniscule 1-2 pixel inconsistencies. However, your sample from an actual Composer typewriter doesn't even come close to aligning with the 04May "memo". The "AFM 35-13" is two character spaces misaligned - and this doesn't bother you? Criminy!

There's a simple explanation for this - MSWord TimesNewRoman font upper case letters are wider than the Composer's PressRoman. See page 108 of
www.ibmcomposer.org/docs/Selectric%20Composer%20Operations%20Manual.pdf
The M's and W's match MSword's font, not Composer's.

Going to the Composer model is quite a stretch. As I recall (but am frankly too lazy to verify) at least one special-order mathematical "golf ball" was available for the standard Selectric and may have included superscript letters as well as numbers.

But then, according to the family, he was not accustomed to typing - at best a "hunt-and-peck" user. Being in that class, I would hand-write before using a Composer and be reluctant to use a standard Selectric. And I would be very unlikely to change the golf-ball of a Selectric without some overriding need.

It is perhaps possible someone else typed/entered these documents from actual originals, for archiving. But a clerk-typist would usually add his/her initials.

The typeface arguments are getting nowhere. I agree that the forgery allegations are distracting from the more meaty issues, so its time someone simply takes the time to reproduce at least one of these memos on an existing Composer typewriter. If CBS is not willing or able to present the original documents, it ought to be trivial for someone else who has a Composer to type it in and offer a high resolution scan for scrutiny. I have seen a number of "sample" fragments of Composer type offered, which it least squelches the argument regarding the available technology in 1972. But to finally silence this argument, a sample from a Composer is needed that lines up with the original "memos" as well as plain-vanilla MSWord. Until then, I'm not convinced of their authenticity. It is irrelevant whether Killian typed his own memos. As long as this is in question, the facts they allege will remain tainted.

See http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1644869,00.asp

according to the family, he was not accustomed to typing - at best a "hunt-and-peck" user. Being in that class,

This annoys the hell out of me, and is emblematic of the "arguments" for forgery.

I have worked in an office. Even as late as the '90s, there were macho guys that considered typing memos a secretary job -- and thus for the "office girls." That mind-set would have been completely unquestioned in 1970s American military.

The 1970s Army is not corporate America, but I find the idea that a guy of this rank would be typing his own documents preposterous. Typing was a specialized, but menial, skill. He would either have hand written or dictated these things to an underling, who then would have typed them.

Barry - Thanks for reinforcing the point I was making. The PC Rag article contributes absolutely nothing to this argument. OK, Composer does proportional spacing - no argument. But their samples were entered using justification! Why? That would mask the fact that MSWord upper case letters are wider than Composer's. The "memos" did not use justification, so the character width difference is very significant. (Just look at the sample at the top of this thread; it doesn't match the memo - not even close.) The memo's 'W' is wider than Composer's, but matches MSWord precisely!

Why didn't PC Rag simply present a sample without doing the extra work of justification (which requires typing everything twice). Why is their sample so tiny? What are they trying to hide? Hmmm?

"If the 'W' don't fit, you must acquit."

Clearly you have no actual experience using MSWord, or you would not make the claims you make about "operator choice".

You choose to believe in these forgeries; that's your choice. But don't pretend that they're anything but forgeries.

Pointless analysis moved below. Here's the killer.
1) CBS claims handwriting expert Mately authenticates the documents.
2) Mately tells the LA Times he only authenticated one signature, working from a copy, not an original.
3) Mately wrote an article in 2002 explaining that because copiers and computers are so sophisticated, it is impossible to authenticate a signature on a copy.

Whadda ya say about that, Spanky?

Anyway here's the boring rest of the story.

There's this thing called entropy. In this context, the more times you copy something, the more distorted it gets. The distortions, noise, etc., should be essentially random. Therefore, assuming the original memo was written on a Composer, it is not surprising that the copy might not line up with the current replica. However, it is inconceivable that random errors in copying would cause it to converge near-perfectly on an MS Word document.

What someone should try is taking the MS word version, copying it a few times, faxing it, then scanning it into pdf format, and see if the process causes the kinds of variations you are talking about.

You also say "I can pick apart any of his arguments" but you don't even try. How about the centering argument? To center text on a Composer, you type the line once, measure it, convert using a slide-rule-kind of guide, then retype it for real. Repeat for each line. A completely manual process, there is no memory in the Composer. So how is it that the 3 lines of the heading are perfectly centered with each other in both documents, supposedly centered manually 4 months apart?

Why is every other guard document but these 4 typed on stationary with a standard typewriter, while these 4 only are typed on a Composer that cost as much as a luxury car?

P.O.Box 34567?

Staudt?

Can you follow this?
1) Sept. 2002, handwriting analyst Marcel Mately writes an article for "Practical Litigator" explaining that computers and copiers are so good, it is impossible to authenticate a signature from a copy.

2) Friday, Sept 10, 2004, Marcel Mately appears for CBS, validating Killian's signature on the memos.

3) Saturday Sept 11, 2004, Mately tells the LA Times he only verified one memo, and he was working from a copy only, not an original.

Game, set and match.