You have commented 358 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: Politix
IBM Selectric Composer Test Conducted by Blogger
2004-09-11
Hat tip: LGF
But the nagging question remained: Could an IBM Selectric Composer have been used to produce these documents?

I found my answer the same place everybody finds everything these days: Google. Typing "IBM Selectric Composer" into that search site took me to the aptly named ibmcomposer.org, which describes itself as "the only site on the Internet completely dedicated to the IBM 'Selectric' Composer line of typesetting machines." The site, which is run by Gerry Kaplan, includes information, scanned user manuals, and photographs of the only working IBM Selectric Composer I've been able to find. And, fortunately for me, it also includes an e-mail address.

When I first heard back from Gerry, I felt a little bad for having bothered him. He'd been fielding calls and letters all day, he told me, including an inquiry from CNN. But he was a trouper, willing — enthusiastic even — to help out.
And the experiment follows. RTWT, it's wonderful.
Posted by:Chris W.

#14  I expect that with a even a second generation copy an expert could tell you which typewriter (if any) made the document. Metal type is unique to each machine. The FBI used to have some whizzes at this, I expect it's a lost art tho.
Posted by: Shipman   2004-09-11 4:26:42 PM  

#13  ...Martha McCallum at FNC reproduced the memo in a taped bit Friday afternoon and it took her about ten minutes. I LOVED it.
On the other hand, the 'It-doesn't-matter-if-they're-forgeries-we-hae-to-answer-the -questions-they-raise" message has finally nauseated me to the point where CBS is finally, utterly, and completely off my TV, the same way CNN was last year after the revelations came out about how they had known about Saddam's atrocities, but refused to discuss them for fear of losing access.
Boycotts aren't a bad idea, but the fact remains that in today's day and age, so many companies are intertwined that an effective boycott is all but impossible. On the other hand, television and radio are uniquely susceptible to simply being turned off - and nothing gets an advertiser's attention as quickly as discovering that their message isn't being heard because people don't trust the guy giving it.

Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski   2004-09-11 12:51:19 PM  

#12  Assuming Charles printed his recreation of the memo on a 300dpi printer, the "original" and the recreation match to within 1/300th of an inch. Differences around the edges are attributable to lens effects within the copier used to "age" the CBS memo.
Posted by: Robert Crawford   2004-09-11 10:16:50 AM  

#11  Steve I don't agree, the LGF experiments are definitive. No way to get the high degree of match from two machines with completely different designs unless one was specifically designed to duplicate the other. Even if the machines had the same font type, size, and a proportional spacing mechanism, there are still many degrees of freedom that would cause mismatches.
Posted by: V is for Victory   2004-09-11 8:23:32 AM  

#10  Kos makes one fair point: that given the reduced nature of the PDF files made available by CBSNews, one can't do the detailed analysis required (e.g., really close examination of the fonts, exact line spacing etc) to prove or disprove Charlie Johnson's ability to create an exact clone of the memo using MS Word. That's fair, we need a really clean, MAGNIFIED copy of the original memo to do that.

Now, what are the odds of CBSNews doing just that?
Posted by: Steve White   2004-09-11 3:29:02 AM  

#9  Occam's Razor applied would kill 95% of the content in any LLL blog... probably more.
Does bandwith wasting contribute to global warming?
Posted by: True German Ally   2004-09-11 3:22:21 AM  

#8  Brit Hume did indicate that one of the Fox producers tried the experiment using Microsoft Word, and *gasp* getting an exact copy, spacing for spacing, superscript for superscript, forgery for forgery

The spinmeisters now decry critiques of the documents, and BEG us to attend to the message. Uh huh.
Posted by: TiltingWindmill   2004-09-11 3:19:17 AM  

#7  SH - good point. Also, Steve, someone should remind Kos and the other dervishes about Occam's Razor. Except the point probably wouldn't get through since they're in full hands-over-the-ears Felix Unger mode. (Lalalalalalalala...)
Posted by: PBMcL   2004-09-11 3:14:33 AM  

#6  PBMcL, to me the most telling comparison was at the link from this post: the comparison of the letter heads for Memo 1 and Memo 2 were exact when laid across each other. Only a PC could do that.
Posted by: Super Hose   2004-09-11 3:07:10 AM  

#5  For me, the comparisons posted on LGF are a slam dunk. Game over. It would have to be virtually magic to get the exact same font, letter pacing, line spacing, centering, etc. from a 1972 typewriter (of ANY make or model) and from a computer program (using defaults!) from more than 30 years later. From what I saw today, (please correct me if I'm wrong) none of the caable networks have repeated Charles' and others' simple experiments. A graphic showing the CBS version next to the Word version, followed by a merge of the two for an overlay, ought to be enough to convince everyone but the KoolAid drinkers.
Posted by: PBMcL   2004-09-11 2:36:41 AM  

#4  I couldn't help but notice the address for the 111th FIS has P.O Box 34567. Seems 'curious', but could be valid. I wonder if it appears on any other documents.
Posted by: SteveS   2004-09-11 2:08:12 AM  

#3  The DailyKos joker has been spinning like a veritable dervish on this issue, claiming that an IBM Executive typewriter, a model C or D, could do all the things necessary to produce a Killian memo: superscript a smaller 'th', do proportional spacing, get the line spacing as shown, and center the headings as shown. He also thinks that a 'real man' like Col. Killian wouldn't have touched the typewriter himself, but would have had an office 'girl' do it for him.

I rather doubt TANG had 'office girls', more likely a clerk-typist of some kind. I also suspect that plenty of officers would type at least some stuff themselves, and personal memos about politically-charged situations would fit that bill.

But someone here in Rantburg has or had an IBM Executive typewriter -- any comment on whether it could do all this stuff?
Posted by: Steve White   2004-09-11 2:03:05 AM  

#2  Should have added "or even his secretary" after Lt. Col.
Posted by: PBMcL   2004-09-11 1:25:31 AM  

#1  I especially liked the part about how a superscript gets made. I've got a BIG picture in my head of a non-typist Lt. Col. going through that just to write himself a note. Not even close to passing the horselaugh test.
Posted by: PBMcL   2004-09-11 1:14:30 AM  

00:00