"-=jd=-" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat 11 Sep 2004 11:43:48p, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message
m:


"Dan" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 19:06:25 -0700, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote:


It's beginning to look like the docs are legitimate. The raised "e"'s
can't
be duplicated without a lot of effort in Word.


What "raised e's"? I don't see any.

The August 18, 1973 Memo. The two middle "e"s in the word
"interference". This was caught by an independent expert named Marty
Heldt, but anyone can see it in a blowup or even with a handheld
magnifying glass.



Did Heldt mention what the e's in "interference" are supposed to signify?
What about the "e"'s in the word "feedback" or "agrees" in the same
document? It all looks like the same kind of slight distortion you can
expect from something similar to (for example) a copy of a copy of a copy
of a fax.

Actually it doesn't. I've preformed that experiment myself and it doesn't
recreate that effect.

You can read the article for yourself in Salon.com. Eric Boehlert,
September 10 article.

Also, regarding your response, the "e"s in "feedback" and "agrees" do not
exhibit the same effect as the "e"s in "interference". Which is just more
evidence that it wasn't produced in a word processing program.


Just using the same font is
insufficient to prove legitimacy.

No one said it was.


See the following link, under the section headed "Another CBS Document
Experiment":

http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/

I've seen the animated gif. The problem with the "e"s remains the same.

I've also done some passing of the copies through a very cheesy scanner,
including multiple passes and a single pass with a moire pattern generator
to recreate random distortions. That's not the answer. It had no effect
which would make some "e"s higher and some exactly on line.












k.net
(Remove YOUR HAT to reply directly)