Sum Ting Wong Here.
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.
The document might indeed be a forgery, but the point about the tiny "th" is just flat out wrong.
Get a load of this ping. Looks like FReepers found the documents were fake.
FYI....the problem is that there are several threads..the original one was started late last night, and many folks haven't a clue...someone needs to sm it up for those just getting here..
If someone will post an AUTHENTIC scan of a 1972-73 document that includes a "tiny TH", I will agree with you. But, the available "type ball" font samples in the graphic above do not support your assertion.
1LT and LTC are the army way.
In the USAF it's (or it used to be) 1Lt and LtCol or LTCol
Again, I hope an experienced admin clerk from the 1970's tunes in!
What about it? No one's saying that IBM typewriters always used proportional typefaces. And if I properly understand the issue, no one's claiming that Selectrics ever did.
That was kinda the purpose of this thread. I TRIED wading through the existing posts, but I felt the Powerline UPDATE needed an UPDATE thread.
In any case, I was simply pointing out that starting a new thread means that people are going to miss relevant points which have already been made on previous threads.
This thread isn't about proportional typefaces. It's about the superscript TH as well as the oddity in the abbreviations. Even the blogsite owner above admits that the "proportional type" argument is probably moot.
I just pinged a whole lot of people to another thread on the subject. Probably sent one to you too. :)
Yeah .. what he said .. I found the same thing and posted it on other threads regarding the spacing and the superscripting ... glad Im not alone .. was about to go make a TFH
Experts detected the forgeries in one of the greatest and most accomplished forgery hoaxes of all time, the Mormon Documents case.
Pinging Bill Kurtis.....
Leni
Let me suggest looking to England where I think the tiny "th" may have been more common. Any British FReepers have old documents with a tiny "th"?
I would also suggest looking at 1972-1973-era birth certificates, those of you with kids that age. Believe me, I'm one of those that LOOKS for holes in my own argument.
I know the proportional type is moot, cuz I used either an Executive or Selectric a few times in 1978 & the proportional type gave me fits. I do not know the year that machine was manufactured, but it was not a spanking brand new machine by the time I got my hands on it.
I'm a terrible typist & make a whole lot of errors, so trying to fix one of my screw ups was way more complicated using that stinkin machine. If I had been a better typist I might know if the machine did the superscript "th", cuz I would have used the machine more. It's very possible, cuz with the platform, chars didn't strike the paper at the same time you hit the key. There was a bit of a lag, which is how it dealt with the letter spacing issue.
Sum Ting Wong Here.
Careful, or Kerry and Dan Rather will be claiming that Karl Rove produced them to make them look foolish.
Note what WASN'T said. The White House did not say that these memos were genuine, only that they did not change the story at all. I think Bush is deliberately LEAVING OPEN the possibility that these memos are forgeries.
But the forgery issue will be driven by NWC. That is the "Network of Water Coolers." (c) 2004, John Armor, because I will use that in a book chapter now underway. NWC includes the Internet, the blogosphere, talk radio, and word-of-mouth among the American public. If NWC determines that CBS deliberately ran a story based on forgeries, the impact will be worse on CBS and its favored candidate, John Kerry, than if the White House had made that charge.
I don't think that Bush made this choice of how to answer these memos by accident. I think this choice was very deliberate, and very wise in the long term.
Congressman Billybob
Latest column, "I'm Mad as Zell, and I'm Not Going to Take It Anymore."
If you haven't already joined the anti-CFR effort, please click here.
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.