11/21/2005

6 Responses to “How Buckhead Knew”

1. There was also a stylistic error which was immediately obvious to any old manual typist: all the lines were wordwrapped, none were hypenated at the end of a line. This is almost impossible to do on a manual typewriter without extensive counting at the end of each line, which would not be done for documents such as these.

   jd watson (e27eeb) — 11/21/2005 @ 7:49 pm

   
   

2. Power Line reference:

   “The most illuminating parts of the [Mapes] book are those in which Mapes strikes back at the cyber-lynch mob. Her description of a right-wing veteran of the Paula Jones case, masquerading as an expert on the technology of 1970’s typewriters, should help dispel the myth that this case was a triumph for the fact-checking prowess of the blogosphere. (The blogger’s anonymous assertion, within hours of the broadcast, that the proportional spacing and type font of the Killian memos did not exist in those days was only one of many falsehoods spread by political hit men.) Seeing how documents change shape and appearance after faxing and e-mailing should give pause to even the most ideologically ardent of amateur document analysts.”

   — [Newsweek’s] Jonathan Alter, NYT Book Review (11/20/05)

   http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/20/books/review/20alter.html

   Ed (ca216c) — 11/21/2005 @ 7:52 pm

   
   

3. Seeing how documents change shape and appearance after faxing and e-mailing should give pause to even the most ideologically ardent of amateur document analysts.

   Oh my, of course, yes! I can take a memo typed on a typewriter from 1973, fax it a few times and it will magically look just like a document typed with Microsoft Word at default settings, wordwrap, linebreaks and all!

   Jaysus on a Pony, how stupid does that writer believe we are?

   Mapes, and any one that seriously believes her ramblings, is certifiable.

   Darleen (f20213) — 11/21/2005 @ 8:49 pm

   
   

4. There’s a serious book in here for someone with the time:

   “473 ways to prove Mary Mapes used forged documents.”

   State up front: ‘Yes, I affirm and declare that this book was written with malice and intent to defame, to the point that the sole defense against libel is the truth’.

   Then start stepping. A fair number aren’t “proof”, just indicative, so perhaps a better title is appropriate. But I’m pretty comfortable that nearly anyone can answer ‘Is this font proportional’ and ‘Are there more than 7 character widths present?’ which combine to: not even the fanciest typewriters of 1972 could do this darn it!

   Al (00c56b) — 11/21/2005 @ 9:56 pm

   
   

5. I knew there was a reason I don’t read Newsweek. My goodness, you’d think with competition like that anyone could start a “news” magazine. I continue to be amazed how “professionals” put into print things my sophomore (high school) speech teacher would have laughed at.

   MD in Philly (798da1) — 11/21/2005 @ 10:30 pm

   
   

6. Newsweek is the worst of the news weeklies. And that’s being generous, since calling Newsweek a “news weekly” means that we would certainly have to include among that group tabloids such as the Star and Enquirer — anyone who’s ever read Newsweek and also shopped at a supermarket can tell you that the reporting done by the tabloids is far superior to that found in Newsweek.

   There is a point on which I differ with Buckhead. He scoffs at the idea of the forgeries being the bait in a Rovian trap. I would raise a glass to the evil genius and give him a hearty Bwaaahaaahaaaa! should it ever be revealed that he was behind the Rather sting. Don’t bet against it — perhaps Iowahawk had it right.

   TNugent (6128b4) — 11/23/2005 @ 9:19 am