Originally posted by giant
Alright, fuck it. Let's get into detail.
First, though, you already proved gorverat's point: that you can't forge a typewriter using just word. You have to use more sophiticated software.
Actually, you assume your outcome. The fact that these documents are being questioned is because people think they look like word processing run through a photocopier a couple times. I really don't get how obtuse you are being with regard to this. People are saying it looks like a poor attempt to create typewriting in MS Word. They aren't claiming that it looks done on a perfect replica of a typewriter and that someone went through some insane amount of time and expense to create the false document using sophisticated custom fonts or high end typesetting programs.. They are saying the exact opposite. They are saying it looks fake because it DOESN'T perfectly forge a typewriter.
So if anything, you prove my point. For example someone posted that the Selectric II could be flipped to a vertical spacing of 10 or 12 points. This document had a vertical spacing of 13 points.
But let's see the detail. 1st: kerning tables deal with the spacing of pairs of letters, as opposed to tracking, which is overall spacing. This really is only something that would be of significance on an old bar-style typewritter where the bars get bent or stick together. Anyone that has used an old typewriter knows how bent bars behave, and it's not orderly. Kerning shouldn't even matter so much with pairs since the bigger problem with pairs of bent bars, in my experience, has been them sticking or rubbing against one another, changing the velocity of impact rather than the spacing. With a ball typewriter, I fail to see how hitting the same sequence of letters would consistently affect the kerning in a ball typewriter. They are two different mechanisms.
Again you assume your final conclusion and work backwards. You complain that my kerning issue is correct, but that it wouldn't apply to a typewriter with a ball mechanism. Why would I have assumed that they were emulating an IBM Selectric typewriter? I was speaking about the issue in a general manner. These letters are not from the Air Force Reserve. They are not on official letterhead. They are supposed to be from the private personal files of Jerry Killian who kept these files relating to people under his command.
A kerning table will not solve the problems, and algorithmic kerning is notoriously bad (hence the need to adjust it all the time). The only real way to emulate it is to go in and adjust the text manually, as both grove and I have said. That's why normal people just use a real typewriter and why (in addition to the other problems with variation)typewriter fonts suck ass and always will.
The kerning might be bad at adjusting itself when you are wrapping the text along an arc in say a magazine page being done in INdesign, but we aren't talking about anything complicated here. This is straight up lines of text. Also you have it backwards again. Real typewriters could not do anything resembling true proportional spacing in the manner that computers calculate it with kerning. Typewriters are at best, like pianos which actually are a little detuned so that they can play in all keys and sound okay. A typewriter does not calculate anything and uses a mechanical mechanism that gives an appearance that looks better than pure monospaced font, but certainly not as good as the kerning on even the most basic word processing program.
But as was pointed out from the beginning, your whole kerning argument doesn't wash for a few major, major reasons, notably the fact that if someone created their own font for this they would not be using word and/or left in the features everyone is harping on.
Personally, I'm on the fence and reserving judgement on the memos. But you're google-searching game is really annoying. No one should have to go into this much detail to show how much of a fraud you are day in and day out.
Have fun making your keyboard smoke with the next series of google searches.
Again, we aren't talking about the Magic Bullet and Kennedy or some such nonsense where a leap of faith (custom fonts and so forth) are required. We are not talking about a note so convincing that only the smallest percentage of people doubt it and do so through the most conspiratorial related publications. We are talking about large percentages of people, questioning through mainstream press that these documents looked fake right off the bat. You are the one wandering off into "super elaborate typewriter hoax" land. I hope you enjoy your stay there. The rest of us are in "This looks just like MS Word" land. The features that they point out in the note relate to how Word treats typing, not how a typewriter, Indesign or anything else treat type.