Expert proves the CBS docs created with a typewriter

(Note: If you came here from Buzzflash, you probably want to read the post from October 2 -- "What's the frequency, Karl?" Just scroll down a bit, and you'll see it. A follow-up appeared earlier today, and an extensive piece on the same topic should appear later this evening.)

Did you buy into the widely-held belief that the CBS documents were created with Microsoft Word? If so, you'll feel silly after you check out the current status of the controversy.

Long-time readers know that I have argued from the start that these pages -- authentic or otherwise -- were not created with a modern word processor. Now an expert backs up that view with incontrovertible proof. Dr. Hailey's lengthy, scholarly, but highly readable study demonstrates that the typeface used is not Times Roman or Palatino or any other font usually installed on Microsoft Word. The font is actually one called Typewriter, invented for the Remington typewriter company in 1903. It has existed in numerous variations -- including one designed for machines capable of proportional spacing.

Were such machines used at that time by the Air National Guard? Yes. For conclusive proof, see this document, recently released by the White House. (Odd, isn't it? All relevant paperwork was allegedly released ages ago -- yet new nuggets keep turning up.) The text itself is unimportant. What is important, in this case, is the fact that a document of unquestioned provenance displays the same typeface, and same proportional spacing, which right-wing bloggers found so suspicious.

If you refer back to Dr. Hailey's excellent investigation, you'll see that he was able to produce an exact match for the questioned CBS documents using the Typewriter font. Right-wingers claimed that they were able to produce "clones" using Microsoft Word, but their efforts looked similar only from a distance, not when viewed in extreme close-up.

Does this mean the documents are genuine? Not necessarily. The Washington Post brought up many disturbing arguments involving non-font matters -- for example, the date format may be wrong. And the date given fell on a Saturday.

If a counter-argument can meet the WP's objections (people do go into the office on a Saturday, after all), the documents are genuine. Or -- and this is the possibility I find most intriguing -- someone altered genuine documents.

In other words: Someone played a deliberate game of "Gotcha!"