QandO

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palatino
Palatino
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Palatino is a serif typeface created by Hermann Zapf in 1948. Full of grace and strength, Palatino is nearly universally admired. It has been adapted to virtually every type technology, and is probably one of the most used and copied typefaces in existence.

Named after the sacred one among the seven hills of Rome, Palatino is based on the humanist fonts of the Italian Renaissance, which mirror the letters formed by a broadnib pen; this gives a calligraphic grace. But where the Renaissance faces tend to use smaller letters with longer vertical lines (ascenders and descenders) with lighter strokes, Palatino has larger proportions, and is considered much easier to read. See the "typeface" article for more on classification.

The digital type foundries Linotype and Adobe Systems sell authentic versions of Palatino; Palatino Linotype is authorized by Zapf as the definitive Palatino. However, certain hot metal versions of Palatino, of smaller x-height, are both more legible and elegant to many eyes. In the Bitstream font collection, Palatino is called Zapf Calligraphic.

Microsoft distributes a similar typeface, Book Antiqua (originally by Monotype), which is considered by many to be an inferior imitation. In 1993 Zapf resigned from l'Association Typographique Internationale (ATypI) over its hypocritical attitude toward unauthorized copying by prominent ATypI members. However, in an atmosphere of improved willingness to do business with the morally legitimate, Microsoft now also distributes 'Palatino Linotype' in Windows 2000 and XP.

Posted by: Benito Guajardo at September 11, 2004 10:40 AM

http://www.mindspring.com/~fez/palatino/palfaq1.0.txt
Palatino FAQ
Use mostly in MAC os

Posted by: Benito Guajardo at September 11, 2004 10:42 AM

More from FAQ
. It also has the distinction of having been created in at
least five different media (Linotype composing machine, foundry metal,
phototype film, transfer sheets, and digital)

Posted by: Benito Guajardo at September 11, 2004 10:48 AM

Benito: great work ... now the big question. Was it reproduced for typewriters?

Posted by: McQ at September 11, 2004 10:52 AM

From what I have found by googling, Roman is in the serif class of family so there wil be similarities and differences as billy noted.

If additional comparisons and checking is desired, IBM's Composer Manual lists two varieties of Roman types in the Appendix in a capital height's chart: Press Roman and Aldine Roman, 'Medium' for both and also 'Bold' for the former.

Also, there is an Aldine Roman listed for 12 pt., but the Press Roman is only listed up to 11 pt.

Posted by: Dusty at September 11, 2004 12:53 PM

First, the typeface in this blog in the main blog portion is Palatino Linotype.

After viewing the flash slideshow that you reference, I am unconvinced. PL is quite different from TNR. The individual characters are noticeably larger in PL, and I find it to be more readable.

The memos do not appear to be PL. They are, at least to me, obviously a Times Roman family font.

Posted by: Dale Franks at September 11, 2004 12:56 PM

Any explanation for the points that billy brought up?

Posted by: McQ at September 11, 2004 01:00 PM

Yeah, I think he's wrong. I don't see what he does.

Posted by: Dale Franks at September 11, 2004 01:31 PM

I think whether or not a typewriter ever had the right font to do this is moot at this point. INDC, LGF, and Allah have been talking about the way MS Word approximates Kerning, the overlapping of letters into the space of other letters. The smoking gun is the centered header on two of the docs. MS Word's default varriable spacing setting uses a unique (to MS Word) algorithym to approximates kerning. When the text is centered by the program, the algorithym is adjusted and the spacing is different still. Unfortunately for CBS, the two document headers are identical to one another AND they exactly match what MS Word produces by default.

Yes there were typewriters where you could do superscript. Yes you may have been able to get the right font somewhere with the custom superscript keys, or to center a header. But those prove nothing. The fact that the headers on those two docs use EXACTLY the same varriable spacing as MS Word in the centered text means that MS Word for Windows, and ONLY MS Word for Windows could have made those headers.

A typewriter could have barely even made the two document headers match exactly, and only with very careful manual measuring; highly unlikely on two seperate ad-hoc memos from 2 months apart. However, it is physically impossible for any typewriter anywhere, from any point in history to have created variable spaced characters in centered lines, regardless of the font, that EXACTLY match those of MS Word for Windows. Not even another word processor could do that.

Posted by: Dacotti at September 11, 2004 02:05 PM

I dont think it is Palatino Linotype. Look at the number 4. Very different.

My guess is that it is in the Times New Roman Family. I bet a good forensic analysis could determine the software that created it (Mac Version, Word Perfect, Word 95 or Word XP).

Posted by: marq at September 11, 2004 03:14 PM

Yep. This is not Palatino. A simple look at the documents will tell you that; Palatino is a serif face with variable stroke width, but there the similarities end.

I invite the commenter, biilly, to provide screenshots of what's he's seeing as differences. If billy doesn't have easily accessible webspace, I'd be happy to put them up on my site. I'm not seeing these differences either. (OS and, if possible, version of the font file would help too.)

Posted by: jaed at September 11, 2004 10:37 PM

Actually, I take it (partly) back. I think I was looking at one memo and billy at another. They don't all look exactly the same. Looking at the "You are ordered to report for a physical" memo, I'd be more willing to see that as Palatino.

Posted by: jaed at September 12, 2004 12:27 AM

Best forensics over at LGF says MS Word running under OpenOffice gives the best match of all determinable characteristics.

Thought? What happens if you go ahead and type a memo in Palatino Linotype, pull it as a transparent .gif and overlay to the CBS memo as Charles seems to have done?
I'd try it myself but it's midnight-thirty here.

dave

Posted by: dave fitz at September 12, 2004 01:27 AM

check these links out:

http://www.myleftbrain.com/images/super.jpg

and

http://www.etypewriters.com/1954-b-2.JPG

and of course:

http://www-1.ibm.com/ibm/history/history/year_1941.html

IBM announces the Electromatic Model 04 electric typewriter, featuring the revolutionary concept of proportional spacing. By assigning varied rather than uniform spacing to different sized characters, the Type 4 recreated the appearance of a printed page, an effect that was further enhanced by a typewriter ribbon innovation that produced clearer, sharper words on the page. The proportional spacing feature became a staple of the IBM Executive series typewriters.

Posted by: PD at September 12, 2004 01:22 PM

It would seem that we are collectively concluding that if these memos were produced on a typewriter, it most likely would have been an electric typewriter (no evidence of different key pressures as would be seen on a manual typewriter).

But is there any contention about cloth versus plastic ribbons, and the sharpness and smoothness of each character?

Again, only the originals could provide conclusive analysis, but perhaps there is someone knowledgable in scanning artifacts who could speak to the quality of the document?

Posted by: Paul at September 12, 2004 07:32 PM

Of course it's not Palatino. The font metrics are wrong. If you fire up MS Word and start typing in Microsoft Times New Roman MT, you get glyphs overlaying each other, just as Charles Johnson and others have demonstrated. If you change the font to Palatino Linotype, you dont, and the lines break in the wrong places. Plus Palatino sticks the superscript in a completely different place (it's lower down). It's 12 point MS TNR with all the default settings. It took me about 15 seconds to verify this. Jeez, haven't you people heard of experiments? Or Occam's Razor?

Posted by: David Gillies at September 13, 2004 01:56 AM

I used an IBM Executive typewriter back in the 70's and I specifically recall:
- It had proportional type
- It had a (single-character) superscripted "th" with characters smaller than the regular font.
- You could buy an amazing number of different fonts for the typewriter.
- While you could argue that this was an expensive typewriter, I bought mine for $40 as "military surplus" in the mid-70's, so they can't have been too expensive.
- You could control the vertical spacing with a mechanical adjustment.

So, this doesn't prove that the memoes are authentic, but it does (IMO) show that the claims that the memoes couldn't have been typed is off base.

Also, there's some pretty clear evidence that the memoes were probably typed. For example, the characters in the memoes have uneven baselines, which is common on typewriters, and impossible using MS Word. Also, the characters themselves are uneven, which is also typical of typed documents and impossible using standard fonts.

And, of course, the contents of the memoes is consistent with everything else we know about Bush's time in the military -- the only real "news" in the memo's is that it makes clear in a single document the problems that you have to otherwise figure out by figuring out what's missing elsewhere in Bush's spotty military record. And, of course, the White House hasn't said that they documents are forged (or not), and you'd hope that at least one person there would know one way or the other.

That being said, I suppose it's still possible that they memoes are forgeries.

Of course, even if _these_ documents are forgeries, that doesn't actually address the real issues (the National Guard suspended Bush for ignoring a direct order from his CO to get a physical, he didn't serve the time he comitted to but was still given an honerable discharge instead of being sent to active duty as many others were, etc.). That can only be addressed by Bush authorizing the release of all of the missing documentation from his military record. Despite the annoucements that he's released all of the records, he's never actually formally done so, and therefore the Pentagon hasn't actually released everything (e.g. his flight logs, the record of the inquiry after which they suspending him as a pilot, anything at all that documents him serving in Alabama).

Posted by: Laird Popkin at September 13, 2004 07:30 PM

I believe the reason the baselines appear uneven is that the documents published by CBS have been faxed. They're digitized in pure bitmap form, with no anti-aliasing, and at a resolution on the order of 150 dpi, all of which is consistent with being run through a fax machine. They have also been run through crooked. All it takes is for the feed mechanism on a fax machine to grip one corner of the page before the other — a common occurrence, nearly impossible to prevent, at least on cheap models such as the one I own — and the entire page will be tilted a fraction of a degree. That doesn't sound like much, but it adds up over the length of a line of type. On the 18 August forgery (and I'm quite confident in calling it that), the baseline is about three pixels higher at the right end of a line than at the left. This causes a peculiar 'stairstep' effect which causes characters to look inconsistent when reduced to a low-resolution bitmap. The text is nearly horizontal, close enough to fool the eye, but if you try to select part of the image with a rectangular selection tool, you'll see clearly that the lines are slightly higher on the right.

Posted by: Jay Random at September 13, 2004 11:02 PM

one thing that hasnt been discussed is that the heading is improperly done, as we know the Army has a regulation for eveything and I find a memo coming from a Commander could be so messed up, for instance the Heading should have read Department of the Army National Guard on the first line then the unit on the second, and address on the third which would have been the post, state, zip during that time a commander would of had a clerk type all his memoes and a mistake of this nature would have been rare.

Posted by: Henry Rawlings at September 14, 2004 10:46 PM

The documents, allegedly typed in 1973 on an Air National Guard typewriter would most certainly have been typed on an electric machine, most likely an IBM Executive which predated the IBM Selectric models which were equipped with interchangeable ball typefaces allowing for font and language variations. Prototypes of the Selectric were most certainly available in the early to mid 70's and may have been available to the CO or other staff at President Bush's ANG unit right about the time the memos were allegedly typed, but that command was equipped with IBM Executives per the CO's former secretary.

Further, at that time the military was equipping administrative support personnel with IBM Magnetic Card Wordprocessors and Optical Character Reading Devices (OCR).

When documents are photocopied they are fairly accurate facsimiles of the original varying only in scale based upon the enlarger settings on the copy machine. However, OCR devices recognize characters and alter the font to whatever font is selected or to the default font of that particular device if none is selected. OCR devices have been in use in military administrative offices since the early 70's and even at smaller bases like President Bush's ANG unit since the mid to late 70's.

The font seems fairly moot as the document could have been reproduced on an OCR reader then scanned into a modern printer and altered by default settings or selectively.

What makes the documents most suspicious to me is the 3 line header at the top of one and the two line header at the top of the other.

The document ordering President Bush to report for his flight physical appears to have originated with the Commanding Officer's staff and the other appears to have been from President Bush's former CO's Journal as it does not contain the address information in the third line of the header as does the order to report for his physical.

It is also possible that the order to report for his physical was generated by the Flight Surgeon and forwarded to President Bush's CO for Signature as is common practice. The Flight Surgeon would keep track of when Flight Physicals were due, generate the Flight Status Examination Reports to be consolidated with the reports from Operations, etc. in order to create a package which would contain Flight Physical Exam information, Seat Time, Required Courses and Exams, etc. There are more than one department involved in coordinating information regarding a military aviator's fitness and preparedness to fly than just his physical and all of that information goes to his CO. This could account for the variations in documents and the fact that the CO's secretary states she did not type it.

Probably not, the Flight Surgeon's admin assistant may have typed it and forwarded it to the CO for signature and execution.

No one in military aviation, who has devoted a couple of years to learning how to fly jets simply takes it upon themselves to decide not to show up for one's flight physical. President Bush's excuse that the fact his new command did not fly the type of aircraft he was originally qualified in, and this in turn led him to allow his flight status to lapse and choose not to show up for his ordered physical, is the most lame excuse I've ever heard. No military aviator would be permitted to allow his flight status to lapse without a damned good reason. When the military spends a couple of million dollars and a couple of years training a jet pilot, and that pilot is assigned to a unit which does not have their particular type of aircraft attached, then his CO would accomodate him by cutting him a set of TAD (Temporary Assigned Duty) orders for a day or so on a monthly basis, or as otherwise needed, to a command which possessed the appropriate aircraft, and/or instructor qualified personnel in order that the aviator maintain the required seat time in the aircraft he was originally qualified in and/or until he could be qualified on an alternate aircraft. The exceptions to this would be if the pilot chose to give up his flight status, was ordered to give up his flight status, and/or if the type of aircraft the pilot was originally qualified on was being phased out of service and that pilot had no plans on remaining an active guardsman and chose not to commit to an extension of his obligated service in order to devote the mandatory time to compensate for the cost of training on a different type of aircraft.

There must certainly exist more documents than have been uncovered relating to President Bush's decision to give up his flight status. However, he could make that choice at any time. Flying is not mandatory. If at anytime an aviator or aircrewman chooses to give up their flight status and wings they may do so. Though, they are generally strongly counseled not to do so unless they feel they can no longer perform those duties. The aviator or aircrewman would then be assigned to ground duties for the remainder of their time in service or until they request reveiw and reinstatement.

Posted by: Ken Schlueter at September 16, 2004 04:31 AM

I've never served in the military, but I am a professional typographer. The typeface, as best I can tell from my television screen, is not Palatino. It looks more like a member of the rather extensive Times Roman family (The body copy of your morning newspaper is probably set in Times Roman). The giveaway for Palatino is a substantial gap between the vertical stroke and the bottom of the upper loop in the upper-case "P". It ain't there.

Posted by: John at September 17, 2004 03:33 PM

vioxx class action lawsuit - Helping individuals who have suffered a heart attack or stroke from the prescription drug vioxx

vioxx class action suits
vioxx recall lawsuit
florida vioxx lawyers
florida attorneys vioxx
vioxx lawsuits
vioxx litigation
vioxx recall
vioxx news
viox class action
viox lawsuit
viox heart attack
viox lawyer


viox law suit
viox settlement
texas viox attorney

viox law firms florida
viox class action suits
viox recall

Posted by: vioxx class action lawsuit at November 23, 2004 09:14 PM