It's Not the Spacing So Much as the Kerning

Powerline (which is probably still down, and besides, I already linked them three or four times) actually thinks that it's the font kerning which is the strongest proof of forgery.

Basically, kerning is tucking letters closely to one another, sometimes even with one letter inside the space of the next letter. For example, in typeset pages, an f followed by an i will actually have the i directly underneath the topmost curve of the f. Same with capital-T and a lowercase i-- the i will actuall fall beneath the T's top bar. The letters overlap, so to speak.

Well, high-end typewriters may have been able to (with difficulty) create proportional spacing, but they can't kern. Kerning is something professional typesetters -- and your word processing program -- do automatically and easily. But a mechanical device can't figure out that "Gee whiz, I can fit the i under the T, so let me just do that."

That's my take. Here's PowerLine's:

A]nother aspect of the type on [the August 18, 1973 memo] suggests, perhaps proves, forgery.

To explain: the letter 'O' is curved on the outside. A letter such as 'T' has indented space under its cross bar. On a typewriter if one types an 'O' next to a 'T' then both letters remain separated by their physical space. When you type the same letters on a computer next to each other the are automatically 'kerned' or 'grouped' so that their individual spaces actually overlap. e. g., TO. As one can readily see the curvature of the 'O' nestles neatly under the cross bar of the 'T'. Two good kerning examples in the alleged memo are the word 'my' in the second line where 'm' and 'y' are neatly kerned and also the word 'not' in the fourth line where the 'o' and 't' overlap empty space. A typewriter doesn't 'know' what particular letter is next to another and can't make those types of aesthetic adjustments.

Thanks to Rational Explications for pointing that out.

posted by Ace at 08:18 PM

| Access Comments