[tbeatty]

That was already posted this morning. Is there a way to upload photos? I have it local but not available on internet. It's from this morning's thread.

[aft_lizard]

If you go to usatoday and look at the copies they have and then watch the video cbs has you will notice CBS doctored the close up of the "superscript"

[Boundless]

There is at least one geniune example of a 1970s "th"
glyph in the known-valid Bush docs, and that's the one
CBS showed.

The typed line is mono-spaced type (not proportional
like the memos) and the "th" is a single character
space wide. It is printed against, but not above, the
upper bound of the character cell available for the
typewriter.

It does nothing to explain the Killian memos.

Note that several other lines in that form use the
in-line "111th". The form was probably typed upon at
different times and places. One of those places had
a typewriter with a "th" gylph, probably on a ball.

[murdocj]

I'm not an expert on the exact definition of "superscript", but you are quite right about the plainly clear differences in what Dan Rather calls "the same superscript". I have a screenshot of the comparison on my site:

http://www.murdoconline.net/archives/001564.html

What we need is a comparison of these new documents with the many thousands of others typed in that office at that time that must be archived somewhere. If we get that, definitions, opinions, and memories will all be out the window. We will be able to see with our own eyes.

[drwiii]

[P-Marlowe]

What CBS is doing is looking for things that might tend to authenticate their documents. But a document examiner does not look for things that are consistent with a real document, they look for things that are consistent with a forgery.

CBS is simply ignoring all the evidence that points to fakery and pointing only to some minor things that might point to the document's authenticity. That is simply dishonest. The evidence that these documents are fake is beyond ANY doubt (reasonable or otherwise). The fact that there might be some evidence that points to authenticity at that point is irrelevant.

And, for instance, the possible superscript evidence that they point to is not even consistent with the documents in question. The other examples in Bush's records were not superscripts, but in line fonts.

Since Killian couldnt' type his way out of a paper bag, there is no way he could have found the small "th" font if his life depended on it. And besides, the small "th" font was not automatically superscripted. That would have had to have been done manually by rotating the return carriage 1/2 turn. There is now way he could have done that twice on the same page.

See BS.

[mrflashrifle]

All the links in CBS's website seem to work just fine with the exception of the 'contact us' tab. Clicking generates an error. It would appear that CBS does not want to be 'contacted' right now.

[TeleStraightShooter]

I wonder if both documents originated from the same Texas ANG office?

From what I gather, Killian's office had one old, shared, typewriter.

The legit - ^th - is indeed underlined.

[Bommer]

CBS is breaking a New TexANG Bush Memo. They have verified 147% that this is authentic alright! Dan Rather is reporting that Bush is going down!

[Malesherbes]

I used to think CBS news was biased. Now I know that they are CORRUPT.

[Frank JT]

Apparently the docs in question bear very little resemblance to the military's requirements for formatting written communications. (The following is copied from the GOP site.) -- Frank JT


Boomchucker
Delegate
Group: Members
Posts: 1
Joined: July 2004 Posted: Sep. 09, 2004 -- 9:30 pm

---

I would say that the so called "document experts" CBS consulted for authenticity of this document should have included an Air Force company clerk. I daresay they would have caught a number of errors. I spent 10 years in the USAR as a 71L Administrative Specialist, honorably discharged as a Staff Sergeant. There is little if any difference in correspondence regulations between the branches of service. I dug out my old AR 25-50 "Preparing and Managing Correspondence" and came up with a number of issues with this document. This document is either a forgery or done by an incredibly inept company clerk.

Problem 1: While it is legitimate to use a typewritten letterhead, the letterhead in this document is incorrect. It should show "Department of the Air Force" as the first line. The use of a P.O. box is very questionable

Problem 2: Military memorandums have an "OFFICE SYMBOL" field as the next line below the letterhead (or suspense date if one is required) on the same line as the current date.

Problem 3. I quote: "Stamp or type the DATE on the same line as the office symbol, ending at the right margin." The date in this document should be all the way over to the right, yet it begins just slightly to the right of center.

Problem 4: The second line of the MEMORANDUM FOR has a glaring error. By regulation: “if the MEMORANDUM FOR address extends more than one line, begin the second line under the third letter of the first word after MEMORANDUM FOR. The second line of this address begins under the fifth character of the line above.

Problem 5: Almost as glaring an error as the superscript "th" is something that no military person would do...rank abbreviation in military correspondence is very specific. "1st Lt." is *never* used. This abbreviation is "1LT" Every rank in every branch of the military is *always* abbreviated with a 3 character abbreviation.

Problem 6: I never saw anyone go to the trouble of typing "not later than (NLT)" The military is awash with acronyms, NLT being one of them. No company clerk would use both the acronym *and* the fully written form in the same sentence.

Problem 7: The beginning of the signature block in the CBS document starts directly below the misplace date field. Actually, the signature block is supposed to start at the horizontal center of the document.

Problem 8: The rank for the commander is incorrect-see problem 5. In a signature block the rank is to be spelled out completely or use correct abbreviations. It should read either Lieutenant Colonel or LTC, not “Lt. Colonel”

Problem 9: The signature block is incomplete. It is missing the branch of service. I should read “LTC, USANG” for Lieutenant Colonel, United States Air National Guard.

That’s nine errors in a 2 paragraph memorandum. If any of the clerks under me in my unit had turned in a mess like this, they’d have been doing pushups until I got tired.
Back to top

---

[Charles Henrickson]

Ra^ther is toa^st.

[Pikachu_Dad]

On a manual typewritter, to superscript the 'th', you would roll the platten back 1 click. It should be fairly obvious.

[Mrs Zip]

ping

[igoramus987]

Doesn't the fake document use proportional fonts, and the real one user monospace ones?