Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: TC Rider; Dog; bootless; sinkspur; Mo1; Howlin; Timeout
Putting your post over here, too:

To: bootless; sinkspur; Mo1; Howlin; Timeout
I found this over at Powerline...

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.

This is major news....spread the word!!! Posted by The Big Trunk at 07:51 AM | Permalink | TrackBack (26)

159 posted on 09/09/2004 12:10:02 PM EDT by Dog

414 posted on 09/09/2004 9:13:54 AM PDT by Howlin (I'm mad as Zell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 359 | View Replies ]


To: Howlin

That needs to be in a stand alone thread Howlin....do the honors....and put it breaking news.


416 posted on 09/09/2004 9:16:12 AM PDT by Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 414 | View Replies ]

To: Howlin; pabianice
Here's an interesting tidbit from yet another thread on this subject. I posted a link to this thread there, and asked the writer to post his point here, but he hasn't yet, so I will - 8-)

Posted on 09/09/2004 7:55:59 AM PDT by pabianice

On a previous thread the author makes excellent points about the anachronism error in the "memos" the Liberals have recently "discovered" regarding George Bush's alleged "desertion" and "dereliction of duty" while in the Texas ANG.

A look at these memos shows another problem. A big problem. To understand it, you have to understand a bit about the military. In official documents of any kind, proper rank abbreviations are strictly enforced, to the point that, if they are incorrect, the document has to be destroyed and rewritten. A document forwarded with incorrect acronyms is returned for resubmittal.

The "memos" the Liberal Gang has "discovered," showing Bush to have been a shirker, all carry a consistent incorrect abbreviation for his rank. The only acceptable abbreviation for a USAF or ANG first lieutenant is "1LT." I have also seen, rarely, it written "1/LT," although this is the exception. All the "recently discovered" memos about Bush say "1stLt." While I am Navy and not Air Force, to the best of my knowledge, this is not allowed, let alone a mispunctuated memo addressed to Bush as "1stLt.3244754FG."

I am willing to bet a week's pay that these memos are forgeries.

417 posted on 09/09/2004 9:16:45 AM PDT by BreitbartSentMe (Now EX-Democrat!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 414 | View Replies ]

To: Howlin

The only thing that bothers me about this whole "forgery" thing is that the White House has not denied that these memos are authentic. In fact, Bartlett has as much as admitted they're genuine.


418 posted on 09/09/2004 9:17:14 AM PDT by sinkspur ("Can someone tell me where to find an ordained archpriest?"--Cardinal Fanfani)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 414 | View Replies ]

To: Howlin

The is a discussion on msnbc now about these documents.Peter Hoff says it is strange how the documents just reappeared 20 years after a man has died.Hoff said a number of Republican files went missing during the Clinton there are those in the Pentagon, associated with the Clinton administration, who are messing with files of the President.


423 posted on 09/09/2004 9:28:21 AM PDT by tapatio (Society is always taken by surprise at any new example of common sense.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 414 | View Replies ]

To: Howlin
correction

The is a discussion on msnbc now about these documents.Peter Hoff says it is strange how the documents just reappeared 20 years after a man has died.Hoff said a number of Republican files went missing during the Clinton administration and wants an investigation to see if there are those in the Pentagon, associated with the Clinton administration, who are messing with files of the President.

427 posted on 09/09/2004 9:31:52 AM PDT by tapatio (Society is always taken by surprise at any new example of common sense.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 414 | View Replies ]

To: Howlin

I saw that at the "Kerry Spot" on NRO (via "PowerLine"). I worked my way thru college in the mid 70's as a typist. I can tell you, those IBM Selectrics were very rare before 1980...and they certainly couldn't type that tiny "th". No way this document was created earlier than widespread appearance of word processing in the 1990's.

Good work, Freepers!


439 posted on 09/09/2004 9:57:17 AM PDT by Timeout (My name is Timeout....and I'm a blogaholic)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 414 | View Replies ]

To: Howlin

As other Freepers have stated, the IBM Executive had both proportional spacing and superscript "th".


451 posted on 09/09/2004 10:14:37 AM PDT by mcg1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 414 | View Replies ]

To: Howlin

bttt


568 posted on 09/09/2004 3:04:55 PM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 414 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson