"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)