there’s the BS in the story about proportional typewriters existing in 1973. They did, but they ware TYPESETTERS, not used to write memos by secretaries.
Can you imagine a secretary banging out all her memos on a refrigerator sized typesetter costing 100,000$ Didn’t happen. Would never happen.
They STILL are not admitting the papers were FAKE, even after the secretary who supposedly typed them said they were fake!
Who says people are rational creatures? This is certifiable insanity that they won’t let go of
Thanks ....I will use your comment to debunk the liberal.
It is true that the IBM Selectric Composer was introduced in 1966, and it's typefaces could be changed by changing the typeball to produce proportional spaced type. Once more there is the problem with the typeface/s used in the memo being unavailable in the typeballs produced for the IBM Selectric Composer. There is also the impossibility of using the IBM Selectric Composer to produce the automatic kerning of letter pairs seen in the memos.
Contrary to what you can read in Web articles falsely claiming that kerning is the same as or nearly the same as proportional letter spacing, kerning of letter pairs is not something you can find on any typewriter ever built. The only way in which the line spacing of selected letter pairs or true kerning can be done is by typesetting and by computerized digital letter spacing as found in MS Word processing and other computer software. The memos were easily reproducible with MS Word on a personal computer, but impossible to reproduce on an IBM Selectric, IBM Selectric Composer, or and IBM Executive typewriter.
Even if it were possible for an IBM or other type compositor to have produced the typeface/s and letter spacing found in the forged memos, the Air National Guard headquarters and their clerks certainly did not possess or use such machines. Such machines would only have been used in a totally different kind of office whose responsibility would have been to produce graphic designs for Air Force publications. The commanding officer's clerk or secretary certainly would never have had any reason or budgetary appropriation to acquire, use, or maintain such a costly and superfluous piece of graphic arts publishing equipment. I know for a fact that our Air National Guard F-102 Fighter Interceptor Group did not possess or use such a compositor in or outside of the headquarters. I have every reason to assume the Texas Air National Guard acquired their typewriters from the very same supplies of Air Force typewriters as our F-102 Fighter Interceptor Group, Tactical Fighter Wing, and various Air Force wings and squadrons.
I should also be noted how there are numerous other telltale problems with the memos. Although not conclusive by itself, the use of word wrap in the memos should be observed. Most competent typists and secretaries know that you do not break a line where it will separate certain word elements. Instead, the typist breaks the line early to keep the word elements together on the next line. Incompetent typists and computer word processor users fail to notice this requirement windbreak the line in the middle of the pair of word elements. In one of the memos, for example, the date of “14 May, 1972,” was given a line break between the “14” and the “May”, leaving the “14” dangling at the end of one line and the “May” beginning the next line. This is not something a competent secretary would normally do. In a computer word processor, however, the software automatically calculates the end of the line and breaks the line to put “May” on the next line, when a competent user or forger would know better and insert a CTL-Enter command to force the line to break and place the “14” on the next line with the “May” following it. This gives the appearance of a forger who missed something obvious to any competent typist.
Although a Linotype hot lead typesetter was not the only way of composing the type for this type of memo, not even one of these giant hot lead machines would have produced the composing errors found in the memos. The errors we see in these obvious forgeries are consistent with computer word processing which did not exist in 1972.