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

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

"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.

No but others have. Follow the links it's obvious that a Selectric II
could not create those documents.

It's already been established that IBMf and OTHER typewriters had both
superscript and proportional spacing.

Try again.



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.

Your the one reaching.

Actually, I'm not. Since there are now printed document experts who are
saying that it's quite possible for the docs to have been turned out on
typewriters of the period, the burden of proof now falls on the doubters.
Plus, since superscript on even so cheesy an IBM model as the Selectric II
was no more than a flipped lever away, and since even when I was learning
how to type [1964] that lever flipping was taught to be almost instinctual,
you ARE in fact reaching.

No you are reaching. I did not say it's not possible just unlikely.

But isn't it far more unlikely that someone would go to the time and
effort to match pre computer typewriter fonts, but miss superscript
charcters?




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.

It's clear to me that they are when you look at an Selectric II created
document, a computer generated document and the suspect document the two
that line up the best is the computer generated and suspect. It's pretty
clear the suspect documents were created on a computer not a typewriter.

Not to the experts. And you're no expert.

The opinion of the experts are not in yet.

You are no expert either.

Since we will have to wait I'll believe my eye's over your bias any day.