Reposting from last bread since I was too late for notables:

Former pre-press anon from last night's notables here.

I've just read a twitter thread that does an excellent job dissecting the suspect Blasey-Ford letter to Feinstein. Check it out:

https://twitter.com/PoxOnTheDNC/status/1044302213760176129

Last night my analysis was looking primarily at the integrity of the PDF file and how it was made. I was looking for digital fuckery like what was abundant in the Hussein "birth certificate." This person's analysis delves a bit deeper into the typography of how the paragraphs and lines of text flow. What is revealed is definitely fucky. It could be that the author of the letter manually flowed each carriage return in areas of the document by inserting manual returns for whatever bizarre reason, but that is not normal. Most people just type what they want to say and allow the text to flow and break on its own. In my typesetting and layout days, I would often manually insert soft returns to make a paragraph appear less ragged and thus more visually appealing, but that's for magazine layout and not something that a lay person would typically do when writing a letter to their Senator.

I now rescind my assessment from last night that the text is consistent with the exception of the first line. It initially appeared to me that the first line had been stretched vertically by whatever scanner was used to capture the document. However, this closer analysis revealed further inconsistency with font sizes throughout the document, particularly in the second paragraph.

While the typeface (font) appears to be consistent throughout the document, font sizes do not. Lines of text vary in size by 1-3pts from any given line of text to the next. The "mimic" overlay at the end of the tweet thread (pic related) demonstrates this handily. Note that the text re-flows very strangely, and that leading (space between lines of text) varies wildly from one line to the next.

I used to have to re-create forms and documents from hard copy quite often. And to exacting standards. I've come to the realization that this document would be very difficult to re-create given all the font size inconsistency from one line to the next.

Fuckery is afoot.

Link to twitter thread:

https://twitter.com/PoxOnTheDNC/status/1044292255815622656

My initial analysis:

>>3160334

>>3169597

Thanks for the bewbage!

Yeah, one of the replies to my post last night mentioned font size inconsistency but at first I just shrugged it off as an artifact of putting the document through a crappy scanner's document feeder. But reading that tweet made me take another look.

>>3169839

Hard to say why someone would intentionally make a document look this way, but more than likely it's not intended. If someone were to want to edit a rasterized document and make it look like an original, though, it's plausible that it would cause these issues.

But why not just re-type the whole thing word-for-word and then paste the signature on? (Assuming that is what the redaction is, anyway.) Shit, that would take me less time than editing a scanned image to replace "Gorsuch" or "Godzilla" or whatever to say "Kavanaugh."

This document is just fucking bizarre.

>>3169630

Thanks!

>>3169846

Could be, though it still seems like more work to me to edit an existing scan in this way than it would be to re-type the whole letter and add in a scan of the signature.

>>3170037

Out of that business now, but I do miss it sometimes. I miss the ink. And the sexy, sexy paper samples. Mmmm…

>>3170296

Wew! That's a lot of Ag!