Posted on 09/09/2004 9:17:58 AM PDT by mingusthecat
UPDATE: Thanks to all the readers who have written regarding this post. Several have pointed out that the Executive line of IBM typewriters did have proportionally spaced fonts, although no reader has found the font used in the memos to be a familiar one or thought that the an IBM Executive was likely to have been used by the National Guard in the early 1970's. Reader Monty Walls has also cited the IBM Selectric Composer. However, reader Eric Courtney adds this wrinkle: The "Memo To File" of August 18, 1973 also used specialized typesetting characters not used on typewriters. These include the superscript "th" in 187th, and consistent ’ (right single quote) used instead of a typewriter's generic ' (apostrophe). These are the sorts of things that typesetters did manually until the advent of smart correction in things like Microsoft Word. UPDATE 2: Reader John Risko adds: I was a clerk/typist for the US Navy at the Naval Underwater Systems Center (NUSC) in Newport RI for my summer job in 1971 when I was in college. I note the following with regard to the Killian memos:
1) Tom Mortensen is absolutely correct. Variable type was used only for special printing jobs, like official pamphlets. These documents are forgeries, and not even good ones. Someone could have at least found an old pre-Selectric IBM (introduced around 1962). Actually, I believe we were using IBM Model C's at the time, which was the precursor to the Selectric.
2) I also used a Variype machine in 1971. I fooled around with it in my spare time. It was incredibly difficult to set up and use. It was also extremely hard to correct mistakes on the machine. Most small letters used two spaces. Capital letters generally used three spaces. I think letters like "i" may have used one space. Anyway, you can see that this type of machine was piloted by an expert, and it would NEVER be used for a routine memo. A Lt. Colonel would not be able to identify a Varitype machine, let alone use it.
3) US Navy paper at the time was not 8 1/2 x 11. It was 8 x 10 1/2. I believe this was the same throughout the military, but someone will have to check on that. This should show up in the Xeroxing, which should have lines running along the sides of the Xerox copy.
4) I am amused by the way "147 th Ftr.Intrcp Gp." appears in the August 1, 1972 document. It may have been written that way in non-forged documents, but as somone who worked for ComCruDesLant, I know the military liked to bunch things together. I find "147 th" suspicious looking. 147th looks better to me, but the problem with Microsoft Word is that it keeps turning the "th" tiny if it is connected to a number like 147. And finally......
5) MORE DEFINITIVE PROOF OF FORGERY: I had neglected even to look at the August 18, 1973 memo to file. This forger was a fool. This fake document actually does have the tiny "th" in "187th" and there is simply no way this could have occurred in 1973. There are no keys on any typewriter in common use in 1973 which could produce a tiny "th." The forger got careless after creating the August 1, 1972 document and slipped up big-time.
In summary, the variable type reveals the Killian memos to be crude forgeries, the tiny "th" confirms it in the 8/18/73 memo, and I offer my other points as icing on the cake.
ping
FReepers are great!
Hmm. I might be wrong, but I thought I've seen typewriters with little "th" keys. (They also had little "1/2" and "1/4" keys.)
Again, I might be wrong. I hope I am, I hope that these are clumsy forgeries we can use to blast the MSM out of the water. But we should be careful not to jump the gun.
I'd like to know what kind of typewriter HE used!
Now, the media can say "Reported on 60 Minutes" instead of taking the heat for false reporting. Even 60 minutes execs were lukewarm on the story, but Rather kept pushing it. From my vantage point, the media is not giving this the play it would deserve were the documents real. Doubtful the story will survive more than a couple days.
FYI..incoming..
Also, the signature (as compared to another sample of Killian's signature) is obviously a forgery.
ping again and thanks
I earler noted the apparent unfamiliarity of the memo writer with the typical use of military acronyms (especially Air Force specific usage), how things such as unit designators and even rank were typically abbreviated, and the memo writer's untypical formatting of an Air Force unit commander's signature block.
I would like to see a former ANG admin clerk's comments on this.
"All hail the mighty FReepers" bump!
BTTT
Good point. Just like there's been at least a half-dozen posts in the past day about Bush's service from papers around the world quoting the Boston Globe (the Lt. Governer Barnes thing) as if their printing it makes it fact.
Why would there even be a signature on a CYA memo which someone kept 'just as a reminder to themselves'?
Here is the original thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1210702/posts
So would I. The format and headings don't match the old memos that I have in my personal file--they match the new style the USAF stated using in the 90's. See my previous posts for an example.
Over here.
Multiple Personalituy Disorder?
The abbreviations are wrong. It's 1LT and LTC. Always. No exceptions, no variations.
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.