"-=jd=-" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat 11 Sep 2004 11:10:02p, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message
m:


"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...
On Sat 11 Sep 2004 09:20:11p, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message
m:


"-=jd=-" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat 11 Sep 2004 06:12:01p, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message
m:


"John" wrote in message
...
Isle Of The Dead wrote:
"John" wrote in message
...


There is NO reliable evidence the documents are fake.


Dude, what part of "computer age"
do you NOT understand?



I USED TYPEWRITERS THAT COULD DO IT BACK IN THE EARLY SEVENTIES
DICKHEAD!

1. It's been established in the last 24 hours that typewriters of
the time could do what we've seen.
2. Isle of the Dead is a known newsgroup psychotic. Don't waste
your time.



It's only been established that some typewriters had the type-font.
What has not been established is if *any* typewriters of the time
could be used to reproduce what someone (according to NPR) has done:
- Type the content of the suspect document using MS Word.
- Print the MS-Word doc on a laser printer.
- Scan the MS-Word doc
- Scan a copy of the suspect document
- Superimpose the two over each other and marvel at how they line
up.

Maybe it's not outside the realm of infinite possibilities that a
chiefly mechanical device in the early seventies has the same
typographical characteristics of a current software based
word-processing program to include type spacing, kerning,
justification, character registration, etc, etc, etc...

I wouldn't be so quick to declare it a definite or even reasonable
probability just yet...

Well, the raised "e" can only be accomplished in Word with great
difficulty.

It's beginning to look like the docs are legitimate. NPR or no NPR.


Apparently the raised "e" can also be attributed to a defect introduced
by multiple-passes through a copier in an attempt to artificially "age"
a document. If you've seen the pdf (I downloaded it from the Washington
Post).

No. That wouldn't effect the "e"s alone.

Try again.


In the single position and no other "e" being affected, I would think it
is an artifact from something other than the device that originally
produced the document.

Now you're reaching.

No need to try again.

Wrong.


The new discoveries along with the Rovian character of the first
criticism out make it clear that the docs are legitimate.


Opinions vary...

Rove doesn't. He's a sleazeball trickster and this is just his style.



Besides that, the docs don't reveal anything that wasn't already known
about Bush's desertion.



And there we have it. Who needs the docs, right? Enough said - I think I
see where you're coming from.

Yeah. I'm coming from the truth. The existing documents without Killian's
documents already prove Bush wasn't where he was supposed to be. Then there
are the missing documents and the picture put together by the AP. Bush was
a technical deserter, Killian docs or no Killian docs. That was never
really a question. The Killian docs are interesting, but they don't change
much of anything.