On 17 Sep 2004 23:06:58 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:


1. Bush more than likely benefitted from preferential treatment in the ANG 30
years ago.


Wow JD - really going out on a limb there. You're so brave.

"Dan" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 18:01:46 -0700, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote:

They are complete sentences, even if the second is missing a "you".
At least as complete as "Noted".

"Will come back to eat your crow?" is NOT a grammatically correct
sentence,
tard.

Jesus man, learn to read. I know I left a "you" out.

Wow! A big discovery on your part.

"-=jd=-" wrote:

(snip) I just have to wonder why
you work so hard at ignoring the
obvious? (snip)


I've already stated, several times, my reasons for doubting the claims
that the documents are fake. So, since we're just walking over ground we've
already covered, I'll let those earlier statements stand without additional
repetition.

Stewart

Sir Cumference wrote in message ...
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?

But if they were going to go through all that trouble of raising the
"e," why screw up other points in the document (superior "st" or "nd")
which people lept on to claim it was a Word document to begin with? It
would take a lot less effort to tell the computer not to make those
combinations superior than it would to make every "e" raised up just
the right way.

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.

Sir Cumference wrote in message ...
Gandalf Grey wrote:

"Sir Cumference" wrote in message
...

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?


CBS wasn't making "a case." They had a report. Part of that report was
documents. But the actual knowledge of Bush's military days predates the
CBS report and has nothing to do with the CBS documents.

But CBS and Dan Blater were relying heavily on their forged documents to
support their claims in their report. Now they have egg all over their
faces.

We knew he got in via Barnes.

Barnes's daughter says differently.


That's a claim from a once removed source. Claims as such don't really hold
much water.



That is a claim directly from Barnes' daughter. I heard her on a radio
interview, she has been interview many times.

Barnes' daughter is a once removed source. That's what he was trying to say.



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.


Now you're assuming what you're attempting to prove.

Care to clarify that last statement?

Ya right!


"llortamai" wrote in message
...
http://www.drudgereport.com/

32-year-old documents produced Wednesday by CBSNEWS 60 MINS on Bush's
guard
service may have been forged using a current word processing program.

typed using a proportional font, not common at that time, and they used a
superscript font feature found in today's Microsoft Word program, Internet
reports claim... Developing...