Site Meter

Friday, September 10, 2004

My thought on the alleged Killian memo dated May 4 1972

I don't know anything but that sure looks like it was produced by a typewriter to me.
The font is similar to Times New Roman, the spacing is proportional and there sis a small superscript th. All tend to support the hypothesis that it is a forgery but none amounts to proof.
However the darkness of different letters is different as the the darkness of the same letter in different words. To me this strongly supports the hypothesis that the document was typed. The thing that struck me most was the e in "Colonel" under the signature. It is slightly higher up than the other letters in the word. This happened to me all the time when I tried to type with a typewriter. It seems to me to be evidence that the memo was typed. It wouildn't be hard to fake this using superscript two points and set font to same size as plain text (I can't do that with word but I hate word). Still if the memo was forged and the forger was that clever, why would (s)he use proportional spacing, fancy superscripts and a font similar to Times new Roman ?

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Print it out and use a ruler. Line after line in both the memos I printed are spot on, as best they can be for being Nth generation copies.

Oh, and why? Because they were not smart enough not to do it. Your assumption that the forger was clever is your problem.