Using Word for Windows to create a forgery is bad.

Using Photoshop to try to authenticate the forgeries is worse.

I read the professor's "report" (which strikes me as being more like "alternate history" than research). If he were really trying to demonstrate that the forged memos could have been produced by using a typewriter, wouldn't he have been smarter to try the replication using an actual typewriter?

[Unless, of course, the result was predetermined, and the "facts" had to be manufactured to meet that expectation.]

[But a Kerry-donor college professor would never stoop so low, right?]

Update: I include here my comment to Paul's post:

The professor's "report" says at one point

Using the hypothesis established from examining the Bush memos, it becomes possible to create a virtually flawless replica. Please understand, however, the replica is not typed. It is produced by examining and replicating the original font used in the memo. It is not a demonstration that I can type a replica memo, it is a demonstration that the font in the memo is probably Typewriter.

(Emphasis mine.)

What is he trying to prove, that he, too, can create a forgery? And that therefore the CBS documents are authentic?

Riiiiiight.....

Update 2: Be sure to read the comments to the post, too. Especially those by the smartest guy I've ever known, John Rylander. Why he's not blogging escapes me completely.

Posted by Russ at 06:13 PM, September 30, 2004 in Politics