Still MORE thoughts on the alleged "forgeries"
_____________________________________________________________________________

As some of you may know, I have from the first presumed that the CBS
documents were fakes.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
".........I have from the first presumed that the CBS documents were fakes........."



My first reaction was that the documents were fakes planted by the 9/11 inside jobbers.
Until the documents have been examined by experts, I don't think we will know for sure.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I still would have strongly advised CBS not to
use any documentation of unknown provenance, even if I felt that the
documents were genuine.

Even so, I've been looking more carefully into the narrower question
of whether the typeface of the document matches the Time New Roman
font available on any Microsoft Word processor. I'm a graphic designer
by trade, and I know a few things about various fonts.

Obviously, I cannot say that the docs are authentic. And I wish the
scans made available via CBS were of much higher quality. Even so, I
do feel comfortable in saying that -- however these documents were
produced -- they were NOT made with the Times New Roman font commonly
available in Microsoft Word.

Use Acrobat's zoom function to make the characters quite large when
you call up the May 4, 1972 CBS document. Then type in the same
characters in Word. Again, zoom in t the characters. Place the two
windows side-by-side.

In all instances, the lower-case "h" has a COMPLETELY different shape
-- the vertical stroke is much taller in Word. The lower-case "u" is
very different, as is the numeral "3." Note the differences in the
upper serifs of the lower-case "x."

To my eyes, the line thickness has much greater variety in a Microsoft
Word document -- in fact, there is almost NO variety in the typeface
of the CBS documents. Anyone who has dealt with heavily-photocopied
old documents knows that the copying process tends to make thin parts
of characters disappear. WHen the document is drkened to make the thin
strokes visible, the thick strokes tend to become VERY fat. Here, the
line quality is quite even. This tells me that original typeface did
not have much, or any, variety of line thickness.

Note, for example, how comparitively thin the slanted line is in the
numeral "4" in a Word Times New Roman document. Now look at the "4" in
the CBS document. Every part of the "4" is the same thickness.

The letters really do bob up and down as opposed to laying flat
horizontally, a factor which argues for typewritten origin. Look, for
example, at the "a"s in "administrative" in paragraph 2 of the May 4,
1972 letter. There are ways to replicate this effect by computer, of
course...but as I've noted, anyone using Photoshop to make the thing
look authentically typewritten would have used a non-proportional
font.

Does this mean the documents are authentic? Not necessarily. In this
post, I have simply addressed the quesiton of whether they were
produced using Microsoft Word. I feel that any objective person who
has conducted the same examination I have outlined here will agree
that the origin of these documents must be found somewhere else.

(Am I asking too much if I request that respondents in this thread --
assuming that there IS a thread -- stick to this narrow technical
issue, as opposed to the usual battle-of-the-weltanshauungs?)

-- Joseph Cannon CANNONFIRE http://www.cannonfire.blogspot.com