Posted on 09/09/2004 6:42:06 AM PDT by Sue Bob
You are correct and this whole matter was put to rest 4 years ago. The Dims are out of fresh ideas - what a shame!
It should be easy to get in touch with his secretary or secretaries who worked in his office at that time. They should remember pretty clearly what kind of typewriter they used to type stuff. I still clearly remember the old manual I used to take my Civil Service Clerk Typist Test back in 1964, then got the job with NASA which had the IBM ball typewriter with symbols on it I had never seen before.
"Was CYA used back then?"
yes . . . The acronym was common, as was the tendency to document things for future recall, in case the issue came back to haunt the commander. IOW it was to protect the commander's career, if need be in the future; not to malign Bush's . . .
To simplify the problem, the key to detecting a forgery here may be carriage travel:
Modern non-impact printers have essentially infinitely variable "carriage travel" because, of course, there is no carriage. Variable spacing in typewriters is accomplished by permitting a relatively small number of choices in carriage travel between each character. This has to be designed into the fonts, too.
Therefore, it should be detectable, in a very general way, if a document was written on a typewriter, or if the memos are a "chop."
I don't have a theory other than Evil Dums are liars, and their fellow travelers are liars. Actually it's not a theory but the FACTS.
I think I need more than your assurance that it was. How old are you anyway?
The TODAY show said they "were released by the Whitehouse"
More interesting to me is that the 04May1972 memo has a neatly done superscript in item 2. Proportional font or not, this is not what typewriters did in 1972.
You're right. The IBM selectrics had interchangeable balls with different fonts. I remember a boss I had around that time saying that he wished he had invented it.
What I find particularly interesting is how the media (including Fox to some degree) manages to interpret these memos, and how few of them ever read them entirely. You know, on the Scott Peterson case, which is relatively of no national importance, Court TV and others manage to reproduce transcripts on the screen as they read what's on them. Yet the news media just "describes" these memos, in terms that suit their agenda(s).
That said, however, I'm still troubled by the differences in signatures.
Very true,
The IBM Electric typewriters were a series of electric typewriters that IBM manufactured, starting in the late 1940s. They used the conventional moving carriage and hammer mechanism. Each model came in both Standard and Executive versions; the Executive differed in having a multiple escapement mechanism and four widths for letters, producing a near typeset quality result.
One model of the series was introduced in the late 1940s:
IBM Model A
Two models of the series were introduced in the 1950s:
IBM Model B
IBM Model C
One model of the series was introduced in the early 1970s:
IBM Model D
Modified Standard versions of the A, B, and C models were commonly used as "console typewriters" or terminals on many early computers (e.g., JOHNNIAC, IBM 1620, PDP-1).
Following the introduction of the IBM Selectric typewriter in 1961, which was much easier to interface to a computer, these typewriters were rarely used anymore as "console typewriters" or terminals.
I know because I used them during the mid 60's (while in the US Army, and sold them to the military during the 70's and early 80's.
Nice.
This is looking more and more like Christmas in Cambodia.
It cannot be a IBM selectrics, because they had fixed sized characters. Because the font is proportional, it was most probably either a IBM Executive or a forgery.
I did some clerk typist duties in the Army in 75. I had a manual typewriter. An IBM would have been nice.. but I don't think they made it down into the trenches.
I saw some general differences in some signatures but assign it to fitting a signature into a box. My thought is one was going to cook up documents they'd at least make them damaging to GWB.
For those who haven't read them, here they are. Scroll down to links in this CBS article (which--SURPRISE!--completely distorts the contents):
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/08/60II/main641984.shtml
Sheesh, I take just a few hours off FR, and I'm WAYYY behind....
Killian memos?!? 60 Minutes II?? (who watches that? snicker)...
Seriously though. I have some catching up to do.
The fact that it took a sideshow interpreter to interpret these memos tells me "they're quessing" based on their agenda. It's a dead issue as far as I can see and Blather and friend received their paycheck!
You are correct.
The Selectrics looked nice, but the typefaces are NOTHING like a modern word processor and non-impact printer.
There are even detectable differences in word processing software: Many programs can't grok kerning, so you can tell if a document was prepared on one program or another, even if they use the same font.
You may be right...
But 60 Minutes has obtained a number of documents we are told were taken from Col. Killian's personal file. Among them, a never-before-seen memorandum from May 1972, where Killian writes that Lt. Bush called him to talk about "how he can get out of coming to drill from now through November."
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.