In article

,
Telamon wrote:

In article ,
"Gandalf Grey" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in
message

gy.com.. .
In article ,
"Gandalf Grey" wrote:

"-=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.

If people can type up the document on a computer and it lines up
with the documents in question then they are fake documents.

And anyone can look at the documents and see that it wouldn't line
up.

It's beginning to look like the docs are legitimate. The raised
"e"'s can't be duplicated without a lot of effort in Word.

The report is that they do line up. Can you point me to a link where I
can see it myself?

What are the settings in Word to reproduce the memos exactly? Tell
me so I can do it myself and see if they line up.

== The difference between information and understanding is thought. ==

John wrote:



It was common back then for military organizations to have only the best IBM typewriters built. In fact the US Goverment was about
the only organization that kept IBM in business back then.

You must be kidding, the military was one of IBM larger customers, but
they certainly were not the "only organization that kept IBM in business
back then." Compared to their overall customer base, the military would
be down the chart somewhat.

I doubt seriously that the military would have need for the high-end
Selectric Composer to crank out everyday memos.

-=jd=- wrote:

On Sat 11 Sep 2004 07:09:28a, "John" wrote in message
:


Dan wrote:

On 11 Sep 2004 01:42:56 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:



In addition to the questionable typographics, we even have the wife,
son and others who worked with the purported author saying they are
suspicious of the documents for a variety of reasons.

I think *this* is the most important evidence of why these documents
are fake. These documents are purported to come from his "personal"
files, yet neither the son nor the widow are the source. Where did
they come from? How do you obtain "personal" files from someone
other than a family member?

Dan


There is NO reliable evidence the documents are fake. The White House
released Months and years ago other documents withthe same typographical
characteristics. How do these so called document "experts" explain
that ?




I have not heard that reported yet. What I have heard was that the Bush
admin released some documents that had the same typographics - but they
turned out to be documents faxed to them by CBS, who has yet to source the
origin of the other suspect documents.!


Have they even shown or said they have the original documents?

clifto wrote:

Dan wrote:

These things are such obvious fakes that, if CBS had *any* integrity
left at all, Dan Rather should be fired on the spot.


The lies continue and compound.

http://progresssivetrail.org/articles/040911Peralta.shtml says,
"1. Times New Roman Fonts did not exist in 1972.

"The Times New Roman font was developed in 1931 by Stanley Morison,
Typographical Advisor to the Monotype Corporation who adapted the
font to the IBM selectric [sic] Typewriter in 1947."

The font *may* have been developed in 1931; Morison was NOT advisor to
Monotype Corporation, but to the Times (newspaper) of London. Victor
Lardent of the Times actually drew the original design.

The IBM Selectric [tm] Typewriter was introduced in 1961. To my knowledge,
there was never a proportional-space version of the Selectric. Certainly
the mechanics of the Selectric would have made proportional spacing
very difficult if not impossible.


The Selectric Composer could do proportional font spacing, but it was a
high-quality, high-end, expensive unit used mostly by commercial
printing firms for producing camera ready type or firms needing
high-quality printing. And they were not easy to use or repair.

Gandalf Grey wrote:



It's beginning to look like the docs are legitimate. The raised "e"'s can't
be duplicated without a lot of effort in Word.


So you imply that it can be done, so if someone were going to all the
trouble to fake up a document using word, then why not go to the "lot of
effort" to make the raised e's so the document appears to be real?

BC,

General Say's '60 Minutes' Mislead Him and Documents are Fake [.]

As Reported by the Washington Post

"Major General Bobby Hodges

One of the main sources for the 60 Minutes report was Major
General Bobby W. Hodges, Lt. Col. Killian's superior. According
to the Washington Post, a senior CBS official called Hodges CBS's
"trump card."

However, according to a September 12 Washington Post story, Hodges
said he was "misled" by CBS and now believes the documents are
forgeries. "Now that I have had a chance to see them, I think
they are fake," Hodges told the Post.

Not surprisingly, Dan Rather didn't mention his trump card in his
report. However, Hodges is mentioned indirectly; he is one of the
"solid sources" upon which Rather relied for the original 60 Minutes
report."

SOURCE= http://www.intellectualconservative....ticle3784.html


+ New Doubt Cast on Guard Documents
Military Official now says CBS Records are Fake
- by Michael Rezendes and Walter V. Robinson, Globe Staff
- John 'ff' Kerry's home town newspaper the Boston Globe
- (The Boston Globe is 'owned-by' the New York Times)
- 12 SEPT 2004
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/09/12/new_doubt_cast_on_guard_documents/


* Bush Papers Phony, says National Guard Official who had worked with
CBS
- by Ralph Blumenthal and Jim Rutenberg, New York Times
- September 12, 2004
- Minneapolis Star Tribune
http://www.startribune.com/stories/587/4976522.html


+ More Doubt Cast on Memos used in '60 Minutes' Report
- by Ralph Blumenthal, Jim Rutenberg, New York Times
- SF Chronical
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/09/12/MNG2S8NPHV1.DTL


So What's the Frequency {Now} Dan ?

Just the Facts ~ RHF
..
..
= = = (Bruno Cattivabrutto) wrote in message
= = = om...
"llortamai" wrote in message ...
http://www.drudgereport.com/


Drudge Report... There's a reliable source!

Yes it is for the most part.

..

-=jd=- wrote:



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).

You can't age the paper with a copier. All that has to be done to prove
the documents are real is to submit the original documents to a chemical
test to see if the paper is acid based or akline based. Paper in the
1970's was acid, paper today is akline. Will CBS produce the original
documents they claim came from Killian's personal files that no one so
far has said just where these personal files exist? Do you suppose that
CBS dosen't want any chemical analysis of the paper for some reason?

"Isle Of The Dead" wrote:

(snip) Not only did they copy the original
Selectric fonts with high precision..... but
the Bush documents actually match a
MS-Word copy (snip)


No, they don't match at all. Not if you look more closely at the actual
characters instead of just the line wraps.

Stewart

"-=jd=-" wrote:

Where the misalignment occurs, the tops
of the characters seem to be consistent
where the bottom is truncated and
vice-versa. (snip)


Not at all. For example, in the example given, the "ee" in "three months"
is clearly raised above the surrounding text (the entire characters,
including the tops and bottoms). That is typical of a heavily worn
typewriter, not a computer.

Stewart

Gandalf Grey wrote:

Not really. We already know everything in the docs that's of any
material value.

Then why was CBS so anxious to build their whole case around these
documents?

We knew he got in via Barnes.

Barnes's daughter says differently.


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.

Chemical analysis will prove it the documents are on paper from the
1970's. Bet CBS won't let the documents be submitted to such an analysis.