Posted on 09/08/2004 9:16:02 PM PDT by Howlin
Even in the 60's, we could do superscripts. You just twisted the roller back 1/2 line and typed the superscripted stuff and then rolled forward 1/2 line to continue.
If you had a cheap typewriter like mine, you never quite got back to the same line.
Someone was saying on another thread that an officer
(Straub) mentioned as giving Killiam flak in 1973 memo actually had retired in 1972. Check this someone and see what the poop is on it.
___________________________
democrat_patriot (449 posts) Thu Sep-09-04 03:27 PM Response to Original message
4. Let 'em run with it. Keeps it in the 'spotlight'.
Also keeps them busy running in circles, versus doing anything constructive.
__________________________________
_random_joel (1000+ posts) Thu Sep-09-04 03:29 PM Response to Reply #4
9. Good answer. Perhaps we need to start "planting" such ideas over there
to keep them occupied. Give them little busy work projects, make sure they can color in the between the lines...
The little Rove in me speaking.
_______________________________
lwfern (198 posts) Thu Sep-09-04 03:30 PM Response to Original message
11. let's insert false hope
I don't have an account there any more, somehow I got banned after one post, but someone who can post there should mention some other (madeup) facts that prove it's a forgery just to keep them busy for a while.
Perhaps hint that the line spacing in the memo didn't follow the official military guidelines?
_______________________________
a_random_joel (1000+ posts) Thu Sep-09-04 03:36 PM Response to Reply #11
16. Then throw them a bone about the use of "CYA"
That was not offical military jargon in the early 70s, right? (Wink, wink)
Then question the paper stock.
Let them burn through paper research...
Then the ink...
That thread could live for weeks.
____________________________________
yellowcanine (1000+ posts) Thu Sep-09-04 03:41 PM Response to Reply #11
17. Great idea - one of them even questioned whether CYA was a term used
in the early 70s. Maybe someone could say that CYA was an expression first used in the movie "Jaws" that came out in 1975.
_________________________________
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2330991
Wanna try something else?
You all make me so proud!
Not all typewriters, as I recollect.
The most popular unit at the time was probably the IBM Selectric. And, indeed, it employed a monospaced font.
Another IBM unit, the Executive, employed proportionally spacing (and was thus hell to correct, requiring perfect transcription). But, as I recall, it was a sans-serif face.
The typeface on these memos appears to be proportional, but it is also a serifed face (Times New Roman or a similar variant). So, I would doubt the machine was an IBM Executive.
27 posted on 09/09/2004 12:35:58 AM EDT by okie01 (The Mainstream Media: IGNORANCE ON PARADE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
Actually, my IBM Exective had a Roman (serif) style font. As I noted in other posts, the IBM Executive type styles though proportional, did not look like regular printed fonts, and the Times New Roman used in the memo does not appear to be an Executive type.
bump for later
This isn't regarding the forgeries, but has anyone else experienced this...I just printed out the May 4th memo, the one with the blacked out address in the first line.
On my printed document, the address "5000 Longmont #8" clearly shows through the marker.
I haven't been able to read all the posts, perhaps this has been noted before?
Even if typed on an actual vintage typewriter, it would not prove that the memos are real, but its hard to think of a legitimate reason why CBS should present what appear to copies of copies of copies, which makes it impossible to really examine the document.
could they do
superscript
like in the may 4 memo?
Nope. Not only that, rocklobster11, but if you look carefully the "th" is a single-strike character, meaning it was created with a special character key, and no such key existed on typewriters of the day. Also note "th" is in the print line in some instances, in superscript in others, and in mixed use on yet a third document.
What makes this even more laughable is that typewriter fonts are readily available in .ttf and the forgeries could have easily been made to look much more authentic than these rip-offs.
While I doubt anyone would have changed balls to make superscript. The only superscript character I see is "th." I believe that even then it would be conceivable that there is existed a ball with a "th" in there, in the same way that some typewriters had commonly used fractions like 1/2 built-in.
I could even go along with the possibility of a proportional spaced typewriter.
However, why is the "th" sometimes scripted and sometimes not? The address centering, done perfectly everytime on a typewriter that certainly had no built-in memory?
Oddly, it appears that the typist used the letter "l" for the number "1." That is how many old typewriters worked. However, I imagine that a typewriter that has a superscripted "th" on it would also have a numeral "1." Moreover, any body who took the bother to get a ball with a "th" and used it from time to time, would also hit the "1" key, even if he were trained on a "1"-less Underwood.
Oooooh, loookeee here, I just founded some of Hitler's Diaries! Do you think CBS will buy them from me?
If you really want authentic, you can still buy good condition IBM Sleectric (originals) and IIs on ebay (my old style boss still uses them for envelopes and preprinted forms). The balls are readily available. Add some NOS ribbons to fool the experts, and you might have bought another 48 hours of play before exposure.
The second line has 111th with the superscript th, and was dated 1968. All the rest have 111th with no superscript. They were obviously written on different typewriters at different times, but it obviously was possible to get a superscript in 1968, as these are official docs.
Here's a link to the doc from the records Bush released. see page 3: http://www.usatoday.com/news/bushdocs/9-Miscellaneous.pdf
I believe that's Longmont, not Longmonth. Apparently it's Lt. Bush's address. So why black it out?
Yes, but the size of the letters was the same, not smaller as in these "memos".
And we definitely couldn't kern then.
Bush didn't live at that address when this was written. He had moved two years before.
1) When did the Post Office start using the 5-digit ZIP code system? Was that in widepread use in 1972? (It may have been; I don't know.)
2) Would 5000 Longmont have been in a 77027 ZIP code in 1972? Or do ZIP codes sometimes shift boundaries? Did the 77027 ZIP code even exist in 1972?
Neat. OK, none of those match the original. Times New Roman is the closest.
Can you try typing, say, the April 18 memo, using nothing but Times New Roman, Adjutant, and Elite? Not the bold, just the regular?
Are you printing and then scanning, or Photoshopping from the electronic file?
Sort of answered my own first question. ZIP codes started in 1963.
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.