"Dan" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 19:06:25 -0700, "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.


What "raised e's"? I don't see any.

The August 18, 1973 Memo. The two middle "e"s in the word "interference".
This was caught by an independent expert named Marty Heldt, but anyone can
see it in a blowup or even with a handheld magnifying glass.

"-=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.

"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.

"Dan" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 19:53:16 -0700, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote:

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

Actually, you can probably point yourself to a magnifying glass and see
it
for yourself by printing the docs off of www.cbsnews.com

I have, and I see no "raised e's". Which doc, paragraph and word
has, in your opinion, a "raised e"?

18 August 1973 memo. The two "e"s in the middle of "interference"

Dan

"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...
On Sat 11 Sep 2004 11:16:29p, Dan wrote in message
:

On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 19:06:25 -0700, "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.


What "raised e's"? I don't see any.

Dan


There is a single occurrence of an ever so slightly raised "e" in the word
"Colonel" in one of the documents

That's only one instance. There's also the word "interference" in the 18
August memo. Same thing in the word "me" in second line. In the case of
that word, it may be a matter of the "m" falling slightly below the line.

In both case, it's inconsistent with a word processor.

The scan through the fax theory is reaching. Definitely not the most likely
explanation.

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.


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.


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.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

"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.



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.


--
Telamon
Ventura, California

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.


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.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

"-=jd=-" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat 11 Sep 2004 11:43:48p, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message
m:


"Dan" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 19:06:25 -0700, "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.


What "raised e's"? I don't see any.

The August 18, 1973 Memo. The two middle "e"s in the word
"interference". This was caught by an independent expert named Marty
Heldt, but anyone can see it in a blowup or even with a handheld
magnifying glass.



Did Heldt mention what the e's in "interference" are supposed to signify?
What about the "e"'s in the word "feedback" or "agrees" in the same
document? It all looks like the same kind of slight distortion you can
expect from something similar to (for example) a copy of a copy of a copy
of a fax.

Actually it doesn't. I've preformed that experiment myself and it doesn't
recreate that effect.

You can read the article for yourself in Salon.com. Eric Boehlert,
September 10 article.

Also, regarding your response, the "e"s in "feedback" and "agrees" do not
exhibit the same effect as the "e"s in "interference". Which is just more
evidence that it wasn't produced in a word processing program.


Just using the same font is
insufficient to prove legitimacy.

No one said it was.


See the following link, under the section headed "Another CBS Document
Experiment":

http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/

I've seen the animated gif. The problem with the "e"s remains the same.

I've also done some passing of the copies through a very cheesy scanner,
including multiple passes and a single pass with a moire pattern generator
to recreate random distortions. That's not the answer. It had no effect
which would make some "e"s higher and some exactly on line.












k.net
(Remove YOUR HAT to reply directly)

"-=jd=-" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat 11 Sep 2004 11:47:47p, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message
m:


"-=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.




And Kerry received one or more of his decorations "technically".

Only in the sense that anyone who ever received the purple heart received it
"technically."

Your point?

So what?
Apparently, you come from "the truth" as only you can see it through the
filter of your bias. Wherever Bush was, the ANG apparently did not have
any problem with it, as can be determined by the honorable discharge Bush
received. Or is that particular document "forged" and/or not up to your
standards of truth?

Oh Please. The "Honorable Discharge" dodge isn't going to get you much of
anywhere. O.J. was acquitted. That doesn't make him literally innocent of
murder. As a TNR article recently stated, squeaking by without actually
honoring a military committment to get a "honorable discharge" has a long
history among politicians.

The honorable discharge means that the military turned its back on Bush's
infractions until and unless records show up that can actually confirm that
he honored his committment.




-=jd=-
--
My Current Disposable Email:

(Remove YOUR HAT to reply directly)

"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.

Well, you're wrong, since quickly and efficiently producing superscript on
electric typewriters was a part of basic high school typing classes in 1964.



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.

Well, manifestly, the opinion of some of them IS in.


You are no expert either.

And I said that I was an expert exactly where????


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

What you believe doesn't really concern me.

"Dan" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 20:43:48 -0700, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote:


"Dan" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 19:06:25 -0700, "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.


What "raised e's"? I don't see any.

The August 18, 1973 Memo. The two middle "e"s in the word
"interference".
This was caught by an independent expert named Marty Heldt, but anyone
can
see it in a blowup or even with a handheld magnifying glass.


Sorry, but I don't see it. I see a bunch of distortions from the
multiple copyings. They are *not* "raised" - the bottom is slightly
distorted compared to the first "e" in interference, but the tops are
in exactly the same spot.

Actual "raised letters" - usually referred to as "flying caps", are
due to the platen not being in the correct position after/before a
shift (CAPITAL LETTER) on a regular typewriter. IBM Selectric
"golfball" typewriters don't have this problem, because the upper case
letters are on the opposite side of the ball from the lower case
letters. There is no shifting of the platen involved.

I *do* see a superscript "th", however. No "hunt and peck" typist
would jump through the hoops needed to do this in a MEMO TO HIMSELF!
You have to manually space the page up 1/2 line, CHANGE THE TYPE BALL
to the smaller font, type the "th", manually space the page back down
and then REPLACE THE TYPE BALL WITH THE LARGER ONE!

Do you *seriously* believe someone actually did this - assuming he
actually had the IBM Selectric Composer typewriter to begin with?

Besides, this entire page lines up *perfectly* - horizontally AND
vertically - with the memo text re-typed into Word, using default
settings and margins. Just what do you think the odds are of *that*?

So no, it's NOT "beginning to look like the docs are legitimate"!
They are *clearly* forgeries.

Dan

Experts disagree with you, Dan.

I think I'll take their word over yours. Especially since I learned on a
Selectric II and superscript was taught to be nearly instinctual in 1964
typing classes.

In article ,
"-=jd=-" wrote:

On Sat 11 Sep 2004 11:47:47p, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message
m:


"-=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.




And Kerry received one or more of his decorations "technically". So what?
Apparently, you come from "the truth" as only you can see it through the
filter of your bias. Wherever Bush was, the ANG apparently did not have
any problem with it, as can be determined by the honorable discharge Bush
received. Or is that particular document "forged" and/or not up to your
standards of truth?

I think it is a mistake to spend much time on Kerry's 4 months in
Vietnam since it's his word against others. Better to focus on what
Kerry did when he came back from Vietnam and that is on the record. No
debate about what he did then.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

"-=jd=-" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun 12 Sep 2004 12:01:09a, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message
m:


"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...
On Sat 11 Sep 2004 11:16:29p, Dan wrote in message
:

On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 19:06:25 -0700, "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.


What "raised e's"? I don't see any.

Dan


There is a single occurrence of an ever so slightly raised "e" in the
word "Colonel" in one of the documents

That's only one instance. There's also the word "interference" in the
18 August memo. Same thing in the word "me" in second line. In the
case of that word, it may be a matter of the "m" falling slightly below
the line.

In both case, it's inconsistent with a word processor.


You're asserting it's consistent with a typewriter? If the typewriter had
some defect to cause a letter to misregister, that misregistration would
be consistent, which it is not in these docs.

Again it becomes apparent that you never used a Selectric II.

And I think I'll take the word of a document expert over yours.

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"-=jd=-" wrote:

On Sat 11 Sep 2004 11:47:47p, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message
m:


"-=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.




And Kerry received one or more of his decorations "technically". So
what?
Apparently, you come from "the truth" as only you can see it through the
filter of your bias. Wherever Bush was, the ANG apparently did not have
any problem with it, as can be determined by the honorable discharge
Bush
received. Or is that particular document "forged" and/or not up to your
standards of truth?

I think it is a mistake to spend much time on Kerry's 4 months in
Vietnam since it's his word against others.

More like 3 plus years.

Better to focus on what
Kerry did when he came back from Vietnam and that is on the record. No
debate about what he did then.

That's right. A hell of a lot more for America than Bush ever did.

In article ,
"Gandalf Grey" wrote:

"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.

Well, you're wrong, since quickly and efficiently producing superscript on
electric typewriters was a part of basic high school typing classes in 1964.



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.

Well, manifestly, the opinion of some of them IS in.


You are no expert either.

And I said that I was an expert exactly where????


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

What you believe doesn't really concern me.

And what you believe does not concern me in the least. Suffer at the
work of your whims such as they are.

Well, I've done the comparisons and came to my own conclusions which are
clear the documents were faked on a computer. Someone was very inept to
say the least, but you continue on with your crusade that they are real,
I've said my piece.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

In article ,
"Gandalf Grey" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
..
.
In article ,
"-=jd=-" wrote:

On Sat 11 Sep 2004 11:47:47p, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message
m:


"-=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.




And Kerry received one or more of his decorations "technically". So
what?
Apparently, you come from "the truth" as only you can see it through the
filter of your bias. Wherever Bush was, the ANG apparently did not have
any problem with it, as can be determined by the honorable discharge
Bush
received. Or is that particular document "forged" and/or not up to your
standards of truth?

I think it is a mistake to spend much time on Kerry's 4 months in
Vietnam since it's his word against others.

More like 3 plus years.

Excuse me, 4 months and 2 days. If you don't know the time Kerry spent
in Vietnam best you stop writing and go find out.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...
If we ever gain some expert consensus, its going to be interesting to see,
how it all comes out. I'll predict CBS eventually drops any further
mention of/reliance on the documents and switches to stressing any other
information in the story as sufficient to prove their point. Also, if


Hilarious.

You guys *still* don't get it.

You have a MS Word document that required
millions of calculations to create.

And another document that matches it exactly.

But somehow, someway, you're still not grasping
that it would take *gasp* millions of calculations
to create the same spacings.

You see an IBM typewriter from 1973 with the
claim of "proportional fonts", but you stilll haven't
grasped the difference between a mechnical
device with a few variations and a computer
generated device requiring millions of calculations.


That's liberals for ya.

If you'd exercise yore brains some more,
perhaps you wouldn't need losers like Clinton
to save your asses!

Too funny.,

"Dan" wrote in message
...

Besides, this entire page lines up *perfectly* - horizontally AND
vertically - with the memo text re-typed into Word, using default
settings and margins. Just what do you think the odds are of *that*?

So no, it's NOT "beginning to look like the docs are legitimate"!
They are *clearly* forgeries.


Clearly.

Anybody with even of gram of experience understands this.

I can't believe what morons we're dealing with,
no wonder America is sinking a morass of debt
and destruction.

WHAT THE **** PART OF

"LINES UP EXACTLY WITH DOCUMENT
WHICH REQUIRED MILLIONS OF
CALCULATIONS TO CREATE"

do you morons NOT understand?


What unbelievable pathetic weenies.

Go! Go back to 1960 where you belong!

"Telamon" wrote:

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


Not really? Computer printer manufacturers, and computer font designers,
have spent decades trying to reproduce the output of popular typewriters and
printing presses. Indeed, many computer fonts used today are based directly
on the old typewriter fonts. Companies making word processing programs have
spent decades trying to get similar results from their programs. At this
point, after decades of such efforts, it would really be more surprising if
the results between the two (typewriters and computers) were actually that
different.

Stewart

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
ink.net...

spent decades trying to get similar results from their programs. At this
point, after decades of such efforts, it would really be more surprising
if
the results between the two (typewriters and computers) were actually that
different.


Let me get this right.

You're saying that Microsoft has spent millions of dollars
in order to re-create the mis-begotten spacing of
a thirty-year old mechanical device that was
dependent on a *spinning ball*?

That's what you're saying here?


And..... and I suppose Bill Gates is also spending
millions of dollars to re-create the ever-popular
mainframe "green screen" and punch-card input
for the next version of Windows!

"-=jd=-" wrote in message
. ..


Of course it is a very reasonable explanation. The center of focus - be it
on a copier or a fax machine - is in the center of the document. The
farther away from center you get, the (slightly) less sharp the



This is pretty funny. I can't believe anybody would not
understand that the words *themselves* have variable
spacing, and it matches a MS Word copy exactly.


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1213108/posts
IBM Composer expert can't recreate Bush Memos!


OF COURSE NOT!

YOU KNOW WHY?!?!

BECAUSE THE BUSH MEMOS REQUIRED
MILLIONS OF CALCULATIONS TO CREATE
THE SPACING THAT YOU SEE, THAT'S WHY!


too freaking funny.
I wish liberals could always be this funny

"Telamon" wrote:

This is just what I expected to see.
Looks like the documents are faked
on a computer.


Of course the lines wrap at the same points, Telamon. If you're typing two
documents with similar margins, where else would the lines wrap? The real
proof is in the character alignment. Look at the word "memo" in the CBS
original. Note the letters "m" and "e" raised slightly above the other
characters and the slightly oversized "o." While misaligned characters were
common on typewriters, it would be very difficult to do with a word
processor. And you can see similar character misalignment throughout the
sample (the "ee" in "three months," for example).

Stewart

"-=jd=-" wrote:

You're asserting it's consistent with
a typewriter? If the typewriter had
some defect to cause a letter to
misregister, that misregistration would
be consistent, (snip)


Not really. Any play in the typewriter ball, certainly not uncommon, would
have allowed random character misalignments.

Stewart

-=jd=-" wrote in message
...

"Bouffard thinks that it is FAR more likely (though NOT conclusive) that
the memos are a FORGERY. Dr. Bouffard is one of the foremost experts in
his field."


http://shapeofdays.typepad.com/the_s...m_selectr.html

Here's the kicker! Not only does the IBM Composer
exhibit fundamentally different spacing (as I already knew
because I actually have worked with some of this stuff),
but the centering of the letterheads is *exactly* the same
for each memo.

NOT A FREAKING CHANCE IN HELL THAT
THIS WAS DONE WITH MECHANICAL SYSTEM!

NO CHANCE!
DEAL WITH IT!

"Isle Of The Dead" wrote:

Let me get this right.

You're saying that Microsoft has
spent millions of dollars in order
to re-create the mis-begotten
spacing of a thirty-year old
mechanical device that was
dependent on a *spinning ball*?

That's what you're saying here?


Not exactly, but you're close to what I'm saying. Visit your local
library, find some old computer magazines from the early 80's to early 90's,
and look at how many articles compare the results of various computer
printers first to the old typewriters and later to the printing presses of
the time. In the 80's, saying the output of your dot matrix printer was
nearly the same as a daisywheel typewriter (the popular typewriter of the
time) was the ideal. Later, with the intro of the laser printer, the
printing press appearance became the ultimate goal. Much of what we have
today is the result of those earlier efforts.

Stewart

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
ink.net...

Not really. Any play in the typewriter ball, certainly not uncommon,
would
have allowed random character misalignments.


Microsoft must be doing one bang-up job.

Not only did they copy the original Selectric
fonts with high precision..... but the Bush
documents actually match a MS-Word
copy better than copy from
the physical device they were
cough cough

originally printed on!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1213734/posts

HO!

Dwight! I want some of your drugs!

I'll pay top dollar because you have a WHOPPER
of a delusional high going and I WANT THAT!

"Isle Of The Dead" wrote in message
news:aGU0d.6052

You guys *still* don't get it.

Absolutely agree - you are wrongly posting to rec.radio.shortwave, so you
are off topic.

ha ha ha A handwriting expert for a typewriter

In article ,
"-=jd=-" wrote:

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...

You have no clue how flexible Microsoft Word is, do you?
Bill Gates would HANG HIS HEAD IN SHAME and declare
a DAY OF ATONEMENT if you could not do that.

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

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.