Jenkies! The ol' Times Roman Trick.
Posted on 09/09/2004 11:55:04 AM PDT by GrandmaPatriot
Edited on 09/09/2004 11:59:36 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Assuming it would have been IBM, maybe. However note the proportional font not available on any IBM Selectric models or the Model A,B,C, or D Executive (I think). But I haven't seen a functioning IBM typewriter in over 25 years.
All I can say is that those memos caught my eye. See BS tried to flash them quickly.
"The White House released the same documents yesterday without challenging their provenance."
Well that's a very big sign that the content may indeed be truthful, however, it's the interpretation being given to this record that is disingenuous. I doubt that Bush gives a hoot about most of this, as it is clear that the dims are simply using smoke and mirrors to help kerry change the subject and take the sting out of the Nam stuff, futile that it may be.
Look what you started, man!
See my 96.
He has the original, the duplicate created in MS Word, and an overlay of the 2 ... they're forged.
According to various reports the docments Bush released were given to them by CBS.
When did the Air Force stop using letterhead? You never created your own letterhead back then.
Jenkies! The ol' Times Roman Trick.
Thank you for posting these. The first ones sounds legit enough, but the others don't. I just don't think they are the way military people would write memos. "I'm having trouble running interference and doing my job." What commander is going to put that in writing? That he can't do his job? And "... Staudt is pushing to sugar coat it." Sounds more like modern lingo to me.
"The "th" is a bit differently set"
Yes, I noticed that, too. To persuasively prove that the document is a forgery, it has to exactly match to the Word-generated document.
However, according to the little green footballs website, the "th" turns out to be identical if you print out the document and scan it in again, rather than use a screen capture. This apparently is because the screen font and the printer font apparently differ slightly. (They do not show the improved printed version on their web site, however.)
Quoting from http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog
"(Update: I printed the document and the “th” matches perfectly in the printed version. It’s a difference between screen and printer fonts.)"
There is an interesting implication to the printed version being a perfect match for the (presumably forged) document, but the screen font not being a perfect match. Is it likely that a 1970's-era Selectic typewriter would yield a result that is more similar to today's printed font than the today's corresponding screen font? Possible, perhaps, but pretty unlikely.
yes, but it is next to impossible that a letter typed on a 1970's electric typewriter would match up EXACTLY to the same letter typed in microsoft word.
Unless some nutcase claims "the IBM selectric model x9000 was so much the standard that microsoft copied it's exact layout when it created MS word!"
"Just have a dirty copy machine glass and run it thru about 15 generations and you have an aged looking document."
And if you made all of the generations on the same copy machine, the dots would all be the same size, as they are on the 60 Minutes document. A legitimate 15th generation document from that era would have random dots, not copies of the same dot.
Hmm. Jonah Goldberg at NRO got this from a reader...
We still have an IBM selectric in the office. I powered it up and typed at bit. The Letter Gothic ball has no smaller superscript "th". Interestingly, the repairman's sticker and phone number was on the machine. I called, just now. He was working on one when I spoke to him. He said positively, no ball he has ever seen has had a "th" together. He said, too, that it can't work as there are no keys on the typewriter with a "th". I suggested the 1/4 or 1/2 (which is available) could have been a substitute key if the ball had a "th" or "st", he said no. He mentioned that NASA approached him, years ago, to see about symbology (math symbols etc.) balls that could work. He couldn't help them with that.Source: The Corner at NRO
Is there a difference between an IBM Executive typewriter and an IBM Selectric typewriter?
Besides, the other evidence (page size, creases, signature, etc.) seems to be pretty convincing that these are indeed a fake.
The question is, would we put it past anyone in the Kerry camp that is at the Pentagon (i.e., a Klintoon holdover) to conjure up these documents and release them right at the time that the Kerry camp is "on the ropes"?
Could this, indeed, be the "October Surprise" rushed in early to help the floundering Kerry campaign?
Isn't it a bit odd that each memo seems to precisely supports 1 (or more) of the kook-left's contentions? Isn't it odd that one of the memos "orders Bush" to take a physicaly, something that the kook-left has been hammering as a point?
Isn't it a bit odd that these documents have surfaced over 7 months AFTER Bush ordered any and all documents relesaed (which he did in February)?
Isn't it a bit odd that this late release, itself, blosters the kook-left's false accusation that the evil Bush administration doesn't put out documents?
QUESTION FOR MILITARY FOLKS: Isn't it a bit odd that the people referred to in the letters don't have a rank before the last name? Isn't it rote to include the rank and last name, so it would be LT. Bush, instead of "Bush"?
One might think that CBS would have asked these perfunctory and operative questions before using these documents as the basis for an expose. One might properly think that...if, that is, CBS wasn't bought and sold by the DNC on a nightly basis.
>> In addition to the CNS points, there are questions about ...
> All covered right here on FR last night starting at ...
Roger that. I expect that someone will write a book about
this episode, and zero in on exactly where it started,
which could well be FR.
After the forgery story goes mainstream, there's going
to be further fallout:
* In retrospect, this was an obvious, amateurish job,
that was at high risk of being spotted and stopped if
even one person in the chain of custody had a brain.
Who did it, and why did they think it would get all
the way to air time at CBS?
* The bar has now been dramatically raised for October
surprises. The general public will be predisposed to
discount last-minute revelations, esp from the Kerry
kamp.
* I can predict the DNC spin: "this was an RNC plant!"
Dunno if it's been reported here yet, but CBS has entered
stage 2, denial:
CBS News denies Bush docs forged
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40376
"As is standard practice at CBS News, each of the
documents broadcast on '60 Minutes' was thoroughly
investigated by independent experts, and we are
convinced of their authenticity," said Edwards.
Not - as it turns out:
"Later, however, she sent an e-mail to WND, adding,
"CBS verified the authenticity of the documents by
talking to individuals who had seen the documents at
the time they were written. These individuals were
close associates of [Bush commander] Colonel Jerry
Killian and confirm that the documents reflect his
opinions at the time the documents were written."
Oops.
An absolute LIE and NOT what Dan Rather said on the show.
I would link you to the transcript, but CBS seems to be down now.........LOL.
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.