"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Gandalf Grey" wrote:

"-=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.

Try again yourself. The "a" letters in several words were affected the
same way.

That still wouldn't be explained by multiple passes.

Try again.


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

You believe what you want. They match up all to well.

No, as a matter of fact they don't.

If you go to other
sites in the links you can see what the best of the IBM typewriter of
the time can do reproducing the memo's and you can see for yourself that
they match up far worse than the suspect documents and their computer
generated brethren with the character misalignments I expected to find.

Not to mention that nobody in their right mind would go through the
gymnastics need to create the superscript of just a few characters in
the document. The "th" would have been just regular typed letters.

You obviously never used a Selectric II.


If you were writing a math paper where the superscript was part of a
formula you might but not in a memo such as this.

That's absurd. You're reaching.


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

These "docs" do portray Bush in a more negative light.

Not really. We already know everything in the docs that's of any material
value. We knew he got in via Barnes. We knew he got jumped ahead of his
capabilities. We knew he wasn't where he was supposed to be. We knew he
failed to show for the physical, etc., etc.

I don't care if
they are real but I do care if they are fake because then someone is
trying to smear the President.

If.


It's pretty clear that they are forgeries.

No it's not.