That was quick (I'm joking, but I just linked to this in another comment minutes ago.)

I'm actually surprised how incompetent they are.

It wouldn't be hard to pick a non-proportional font. One can even get typewriter fonts.

I suspect smart people could still have figured it out, but it might have taken days instead of minutes, and it wouldn't be a slam dunk.

Ace--

I put up some coverage earlier today about the Teresa Kerry "idiot" comment, and my opinion on the whole forged doc thing (Basically, I'm still skeptical they're forged, but only because if they're not, I don't want the blogosphere getting labeled conspiracy nutjobs-- we need lots of experts to look at this stuff. INDC is a great start).

Keep up the coverage here, man-- bite their legs, don't let go. You own the truth.

However, you yourself should see this:
http://garfieldridge.blogspot.com/2004/09/jesus-christ-action-figure-aka-daves.html

You'll laugh. And then you'll burn in hell.

Cheers!
Dave
Garfield Ridge.

Thanks. BTW, that's not just "an" analyst, that's about "the" analyst. he invented the computer database program that identifies forgeries based on old fonts ...

What I find fascinating is how clean and sharp the letters are. No filled in "a"s or "e"s or "o"s, and none of that blurriness you get from a cloth ribbon that's hasn't been replaced in months. Now it is true there were those one-time plastic ribbons that made sharp impressions, but those were expensive and reserved for special documents. (And figured in the plots of too many bad detective stories of that era,too.)

Which means that this guy Killian knew way back then that he was typing some really important documents, and took extra care to use the best typewriter and ribbon he could find. And he even scrounged up the special characters type-ball so as to include that superscript "th" in one of them. Ya gotta admire that attention to detail.

Be careful about assuming that Timnes New Roman is a modern font.

This history:
http://www.truetype.demon.co.uk/articles/times.htm

suggests otherwise.

I've only scanned it, and it doesn't mean that it was avaialbe widely for typewriters at the time, but I caution against claiming that it didn't exist in the 70's.

I'm no expert, but I read that link the last time someone posted it (Allah, or LFG, can't recall). People who have been claiming knowledge of fonts have been making the sharp distinction (which you have apparently missed, Phil) the difference between Times Roman and Times New Roman. The former has been around since the 1940's. The latter is a creation of the computer age. Apparently (again, I'm no expert) there IS a difference.