Skip to comments.Vanity: Underlined superscript "th" on legitimate memo
Posted on 09/12/2004 7:14:01 PM PDT by saquin
Sorry. I never post vanities. This is my first one.
I'm having an online argument with someone about "the memos". They're claiming Dan Rather said there are many documents from the time period, some released by the WH, with "the same" superscript "th" as the memo in question. I pointed out that it's not the same. The one Rather showed was underlined and the superscript did not extend above the level of the other letters.
I know I saw a picture of this somewhere but can't find it. Does anyone have a link to it?
No idea of a link to it, though.
Here you go: http://www.flounder.com/bush.htm
Just send your friend to this site. http://www.flounder.com/bush.htm
It addresses the th in the CBS example and everything else. If anyone reads this and still thinks the memo is genuine, they are simply in complete denial.
Thanks to both of you. You saved the day! :-)
There is enough doubt that CBS must produce the original of this memmo. No 3rd or 5th or 30th generation copies, faxes or scans. And the original needs to be verified by a number of outside experts.
If they can not produce the original they should not have run this story.
I know you wanted a link, not my opinion. Sorry.
Thanks to you too. (Sorry I was typing my reply while you were posting) :-)
No problem, I was typing while the other two replies were submitted.
This is the best link ever on the subject. He explains the CBS underlined "th" as not a superscript, but a ligature.
I didn't read all the information you were linked to. But I wanted to add some info if not covered. The reason the th is different after 111th vs. super script is because when the 111 is actully lower case L's like original typewriters used then MS Word does not super scrip the th. Only when the actual number 1 is used does Word superscript the th. You can see by the memo in the link the 1's are different.
Man, talk about folks being up to speed. Look at all the links to flounder.
There is no longer any doubt. flounder has nailed it to the wall and framed it. It is now one hundred percent certain and unarguable. You cannot prove a copied document is genuine, but in this particular case you can prove absolutely that no process known to man could have produced those documents before 1981.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.