How Do You Spell That?

Hmmm, it seems there might possibly have been a misunderstanding by Wizbang. If I understand his post correctly, he is using the graphic on p. 9 of a PDF as proof that the document was "photoshopped," and thus forged. But, on p. 8, the professor says that he did not type the "reproduction" on p. 9, but rather he "reproduced" it (electronically with Photoshop, I presume, since his web directory contains several PSD files) in order to determine the font used -- not to show that it could be reproduced with a typewriter (not yet, anyway, that comes later).

Just to complete the thought in my previous comment, here is the explanation by the professor of what the graphic shows on p. 9 (the graphic that Wizbang has magnified to 400%):

"By recreating the characters in the memo, I was able to establish the font family based on the best examples of each character. Once I had identified the font family, I recreated the memo using characters from that font family. Do not misunderstand figure 4. My addition is not typed. It is replicated based on the characters already in the memo. It does not prove that the memos were typed, or that I can type them. It only proves that I know what the font family is and can reasonably accurately reproduce the characters in the memo. The reproductions in the memo demonstrate that and nothing more."

Yikes! I can't keep up. Now it seems the good professor may have added the "clarifying" text above to the "original" PDF document after he got word that his work was being, uh, questioned.

If nothing else, this is all turning out to be a good learning experience for anyone harboring thoughts of becoming a forger. As we're all finding out these days, it's not as easy as it looks. And, trying to cover your tracks? Well, even harder.