Rather's defense noted other documents from Lt Bush's record that also had superscripts or proportional fonts. Anyone know which documents these were? I'm curious if they are ones that would have been made on a typewriter (like Killian's memo), or would have been submitted for typesetting for some reason.
"Rather's defense noted other documents from Lt Bush's record that also had superscripts or proportional fonts."
Well, I'm just speculating, but if those were documents released due to some recent request, rather than "discovered!" isn't it possible that they might be records transcribed onto computers in the intervening years?
How the heck long do we keep all this stuff, and how much does it cost the American people to store it?
The superscripts in question are vastly different than superscripts that can be found in original uncontested documents provided by the ANG. The superscripts I've seen from the ANG are in different locations and are understruck unlike the ones in the forgeries.
I haven't seen anything official with proportional fonts.
I notice you just signed up today. . .
Do you think Killian would have "personal memos" submitted for typesetting?
neither had both.
And no document ever produced in 1973 would EVER match up exactly to an indentically typed word document in 2004. EVER. The spacing is like fingerprint. They do not match. They can not match.
I saw them before and they were obviously different. On the real documents the "th" is raised but only that their tops were even with the numbers they were with. The fakes however the "th" obviously was raised so that their tops were elevated above the numbers they were with. danny boy made the horrible mistake of showing both of them on tv side by side. I'm going to bet that this just sets off a new firestorm.