Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Bush Documents?

Expand Messages
  • Gerald Lange
    Let me point out from the get-go here that I am not concerned with political implications of this but simply the technical issue. The first I have heard of the
    Message 1 of 29 , Sep 10, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Let me point out from the get-go here that I am not concerned with political implications of this but simply the technical issue.

      The first I have heard of the possibility of the forgery was this afternoon. Neil Uchitel is a member of this list and called me up to discuss this with me. Here is the link to his blog Digitus, Finger & Co and the item in question.

      http://www.neiluchitel.com/index.php?p=299

      Some of this is a bit of a misinterpretation, e.g. Times Roman dates, and there are other considerations not dealt with but...

      The gist of this is that someone typed out the Bush Documents (regarding his service record) on his computer in Microsoft Word and when printed out they were a near match in the setting to the older documents, which are assumed to have been typed with a typewriter. I would think the probability of an exact matching, given the changes in technology, would be akin to the likelihood of winning the California Lottery.

      I can easily imagine that with today's technology one could configure everything exactly right to match the setting of a typewriter, right down to size, proportional spacing, letterspacing, leading, adjustment to letterforms, etc. However, to find a document that proports to be original but actually conforms to the opposite, today's technology, is more than a bit unbelievable.

      In regard to the various changes to Times New Roman (both technically and more importantly, regarding licensing) see this short piece by Charles Bigelow.

      http://www.truetype.demon.co.uk/articles/times.htm

      Gerald
    • David Goodrich
      Interesting sideline. It is my understanding that there are forensic experts who can identify the specific typewriter that a page was typed on. As one who
      Message 2 of 29 , Sep 10, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Interesting sideline. It is my understanding that there are forensic
        experts who can identify the specific typewriter that a page was typed on.
        As one who once worked with IBM selectrics, I cannot imagine that anyone
        could confuse a typed page with a laser or ink-jet printed page. The
        selectric still created its image by percussion through a carbon ribbon.
        Most selectrics printed typewriter type (courier I think they called it) but
        some printed a sort of generic Roman which I don't recall being a Times. I
        would be surprised if the military weren't still using manual (non-electric)
        typewriters, or at best, still using non-proportional typewriter type.
        The disturbing thing about all this is that trying to reproduce a 1973 (+
        or-) document by computer and laser printer seems so naïve that I cannot
        imagine that even the most inept forger would have attempted it. Perhaps
        some facts are missing.
        David

        -----Original Message-----
        From: Gerald Lange [mailto:bieler@...]
        Sent: Friday, September 10, 2004 9:04 PM
        To: PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [PPLetterpress] Bush Documents?

        Let me point out from the get-go here that I am not concerned with political
        implications of this but simply the technical issue.

        The first I have heard of the possibility of the forgery was this afternoon.
        Neil Uchitel is a member of this list and called me up to discuss this with
        me. Here is the link to his blog Digitus, Finger & Co and the item in
        question.

        http://www.neiluchitel.com/index.php?p=299

        Some of this is a bit of a misinterpretation, e.g. Times Roman dates, and
        there are other considerations not dealt with but...

        The gist of this is that someone typed out the Bush Documents (regarding his
        service record) on his computer in Microsoft Word and when printed out they
        were a near match in the setting to the older documents, which are assumed
        to have been typed with a typewriter. I would think the probability of an
        exact matching, given the changes in technology, would be akin to the
        likelihood of winning the California Lottery.

        I can easily imagine that with today's technology one could configure
        everything exactly right to match the setting of a typewriter, right down to
        size, proportional spacing, letterspacing, leading, adjustment to
        letterforms, etc. However, to find a document that proports to be original
        but actually conforms to the opposite, today's technology, is more than a
        bit unbelievable.

        In regard to the various changes to Times New Roman (both technically and
        more importantly, regarding licensing) see this short piece by Charles
        Bigelow.

        http://www.truetype.demon.co.uk/articles/times.htm

        Gerald










        Yahoo! Groups Links
      • Gerald Lange
        There seems to be some fairly good information (back and forth) on this from various type folks in a new thread over at the typographi.ca list
        Message 3 of 29 , Sep 10, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          There seems to be some fairly good information (back and forth) on
          this from various type folks in a new thread over at the typographi.ca
          list

          http://typographi.com/000911.php#000911

          Gerald


          > Interesting sideline. It is my understanding that there are forensic
          > experts who can identify the specific typewriter that a page was
          typed on.
          > As one who once worked with IBM selectrics, I cannot imagine that anyone
          > could confuse a typed page with a laser or ink-jet printed page. The
          > selectric still created its image by percussion through a carbon ribbon.
          > Most selectrics printed typewriter type (courier I think they called
          it) but
          > some printed a sort of generic Roman which I don't recall being a
          Times. I
          > would be surprised if the military weren't still using manual
          (non-electric)
          > typewriters, or at best, still using non-proportional typewriter type.
          > The disturbing thing about all this is that trying to reproduce a
          1973 (+
          > or-) document by computer and laser printer seems so naïve that I cannot
          > imagine that even the most inept forger would have attempted it.
          Perhaps
          > some facts are missing.
          > David
        • Malcolm Dean
          David:You wrote: The disturbing thing about all this is that trying to reproduce= a 1973 (+ or-) document by computer and laser printer seems so naïve
          Message 4 of 29 , Sep 10, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            David:

            You wrote: "The disturbing thing about all this is that trying to reproduce=
            a 1973 (+
            or-) document by computer and laser printer seems so naïve that I cannot im=
            agine
            that even the most inept forger would have attempted it. Perhaps some facts=
            are
            missing." I've been following this a bit and I second your thoughts: only t=
            he most
            inept forger would have tried this hoax, and CBS would have had to be even =
            more
            inept to fall for it. But believe it or not, after reading dozens of mainst=
            ream media
            articles, listening to various talking heads left and right on the TV, and =
            reviewing a
            number of good blog sites, not one single person has brought up the point t=
            hat
            probably seems so obvious to us that it hardly bares mentioning: a computer=
            printer
            and a typewriter are two completely different printing technologies with ea=
            sy and
            unmistakable signatures. The entire discussion so far has centered around
            typographic and formatting issues (superscripts, proportional letter spacin=
            g, leading,
            etc), based on the comparison of PDF files of the documents in question wit=
            h
            attempts to duplicate them in word-processor programs. That's ridiculous on=
            the face
            of it, for two reasons: 1) The only way to tell if the original documents w=
            ere
            produced on a typewriter or on a word processor is to examine the actual or=
            iginal
            documents, the actual sheets of paper. That would settle the question right=
            there.
            Yet not one commentator has thought to mention that simple fact. And 2) we =
            know
            that given any original document, with a little work we can match it pretty=
            well on a
            computer -- but again, comparing a PDF of the original and a PDF of a word =

            document doesn't tell you much, except that you can make matches. For some =

            actual research on some of the typographic and formatting questions at issu=
            e here,
            and on what features were available on IBM typewriters in the early 70's, s=
            ee http://
            www.dailykos.com/story/2004/9/10/34914/1603

            I'm amazed at the shallowness of the commentators endlessly wrangling over =

            superscripts (which were, by the way, available on some IBM models) while n=
            ot even
            thinking about paper and ink. My personal take on the documents is they may=
            well
            be real, but we'll leave that for more political forums. In any case, I gue=
            ss we'll
            finally find out when one of those million-dollar talking heads decides to =
            actually look
            at the paper and ink!

            Malcolm







            -- In PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com, "David Goodrich" <davidgoodrich@a...> =

            wrote:
            > Interesting sideline. It is my understanding that there are forensic
            > experts who can identify the specific typewriter that a page was typed on=
            .
            > As one who once worked with IBM selectrics, I cannot imagine that anyone
            > could confuse a typed page with a laser or ink-jet printed page. The
            > selectric still created its image by percussion through a carbon ribbon.
            > Most selectrics printed typewriter type (courier I think they called it) =
            but
            > some printed a sort of generic Roman which I don't recall being a Times. =
            I
            > would be surprised if the military weren't still using manual (non-electr=
            ic)
            > typewriters, or at best, still using non-proportional typewriter type.
            > The disturbing thing about all this is that trying to reproduce a 1973 (=
            +
            > or-) document by computer and laser printer seems so naïve that I cannot
            > imagine that even the most inept forger would have attempted it. Perhaps=

            > some facts are missing.
            > David
            >
            > -----Original Message-----
            > From: Gerald Lange [mailto:bieler@w...]
            > Sent: Friday, September 10, 2004 9:04 PM
            > To: PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com
            > Subject: [PPLetterpress] Bush Documents?
            >
            > Let me point out from the get-go here that I am not concerned with politi=
            cal
            > implications of this but simply the technical issue.
            >
            > The first I have heard of the possibility of the forgery was this afterno=
            on.
            > Neil Uchitel is a member of this list and called me up to discuss this wi=
            th
            > me. Here is the link to his blog Digitus, Finger & Co and the item in
            > question.
            >
            > http://www.neiluchitel.com/index.php?p=299
            >
            > Some of this is a bit of a misinterpretation, e.g. Times Roman dates, and=

            > there are other considerations not dealt with but...
            >
            > The gist of this is that someone typed out the Bush Documents (regarding =
            his
            > service record) on his computer in Microsoft Word and when printed out th=
            ey
            > were a near match in the setting to the older documents, which are assume=
            d
            > to have been typed with a typewriter. I would think the probability of an=

            > exact matching, given the changes in technology, would be akin to the
            > likelihood of winning the California Lottery.
            >
            > I can easily imagine that with today's technology one could configure
            > everything exactly right to match the setting of a typewriter, right down=
            to
            > size, proportional spacing, letterspacing, leading, adjustment to
            > letterforms, etc. However, to find a document that proports to be origina=
            l
            > but actually conforms to the opposite, today's technology, is more than a=

            > bit unbelievable.
            >
            > In regard to the various changes to Times New Roman (both technically and=

            > more importantly, regarding licensing) see this short piece by Charles
            > Bigelow.
            >
            > http://www.truetype.demon.co.uk/articles/times.htm
            >
            > Gerald
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > Yahoo! Groups Links
          • Gerald Lange
            Malcolm Yes, that was my original thinking, look at the paper (even the back side of it, typewriters are relief afterall), the signature would be distinctive.
            Message 5 of 29 , Sep 11, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              Malcolm

              Yes, that was my original thinking, look at the paper (even the back
              side of it, typewriters are relief afterall), the signature would be
              distinctive. Maybe "they" actually have. This whole controversy has all
              been brought about because someone typed out the documents on his
              computer and when he transposed them over the copies of the originals,
              they matched his output. In all likelihood, they should not have. The
              problem is, how valid is that original assessment?

              Worse case scenario, what if it all turns out to be valid? Someone, one side or the other, just kissed the Presidency away.

              Gerald

              Malcolm Dean wrote:

              >David:
              >
              >You wrote: "The disturbing thing about all this is that trying to reproduce=>
              > a 1973 (+
              >or-) document by computer and laser printer seems so naïve that I cannot im=>
              >agine
              >that even the most inept forger would have attempted it. Perhaps some facts=>
              > are
              >missing." I've been following this a bit and I second your thoughts: only t=>
              >he most
              >inept forger would have tried this hoax, and CBS would have had to be even =>
              >more
              >inept to fall for it. But believe it or not, after reading dozens of mainst=>
              >ream media
              >articles, listening to various talking heads left and right on the TV, and =>
              >reviewing a
              >number of good blog sites, not one single person has brought up the point t=>
              >hat
              >probably seems so obvious to us that it hardly bares mentioning: a computer=>
              > printer
              >and a typewriter are two completely different printing technologies with ea=>
              >sy and
              >unmistakable signatures. The entire discussion so far has centered around
              >typographic and formatting issues (superscripts, proportional letter spacin=>
              >g, leading,
              >etc), based on the comparison of PDF files of the documents in question wit=>
              >h
              >attempts to duplicate them in word-processor programs. That's ridiculous on=>
              > the face
              >of it, for two reasons: 1) The only way to tell if the original documents w=>
              >ere
              >produced on a typewriter or on a word processor is to examine the actual or=>
              >iginal
              >documents, the actual sheets of paper. That would settle the question right=>
              > there.
              >Yet not one commentator has thought to mention that simple fact. And 2) we =>
              >know
              >that given any original document, with a little work we can match it pretty=>
              > well on a
              >computer -- but again, comparing a PDF of the original and a PDF of a word =>
              >
              >document doesn't tell you much, except that you can make matches. For some =>
              >
              >actual research on some of the typographic and formatting questions at issu=>
              >e here,
              >and on what features were available on IBM typewriters in the early 70's, s=>
              >ee http://
              >www.dailykos.com/story/2004/9/10/34914/1603
              >
              >I'm amazed at the shallowness of the commentators endlessly wrangling over =>
              >
              >superscripts (which were, by the way, available on some IBM models) while n=>
              >ot even
              >thinking about paper and ink. My personal take on the documents is they may=>
              > well
              >be real, but we'll leave that for more political forums. In any case, I gue=>
              >ss we'll
              >finally find out when one of those million-dollar talking heads decides to =>
              >actually look
              >at the paper and ink!
              >
              >Malcolm
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >-- In PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com, "David Goodrich" <davidgoodrich@a...> =>
              >
              >wrote:
              >
              >
              >>Interesting sideline. It is my understanding that there are forensic
              >>experts who can identify the specific typewriter that a page was typed on=>>
              >>
              >
              >.
              >
              >
              >>As one who once worked with IBM selectrics, I cannot imagine that anyone
              >>could confuse a typed page with a laser or ink-jet printed page. The
              >>selectric still created its image by percussion through a carbon ribbon.
              >>Most selectrics printed typewriter type (courier I think they called it) =>>
              >>
              >
              >but
              >
              >
              >>some printed a sort of generic Roman which I don't recall being a Times. =>>
              >>
              >
              > I
              >
              >
              >>would be surprised if the military weren't still using manual (non-electr=>>
              >>
              >
              >ic)
              >
              >
              >>typewriters, or at best, still using non-proportional typewriter type.
              >> The disturbing thing about all this is that trying to reproduce a 1973 (=>>
              >>
              >
              >+
              >
              >
              >>or-) document by computer and laser printer seems so naïve that I cannot
              >>imagine that even the most inept forger would have attempted it. Perhaps=>>
              >>
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >>some facts are missing.
              >>David
              >>
              >>-----Original Message-----
              >>From: Gerald Lange [mailto:bieler@w...]
              >>Sent: Friday, September 10, 2004 9:04 PM
              >>To: PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com
              >>Subject: [PPLetterpress] Bush Documents?
              >>
              >>Let me point out from the get-go here that I am not concerned with politi=>>
              >>
              >
              >cal
              >
              >
              >>implications of this but simply the technical issue.
              >>
              >>The first I have heard of the possibility of the forgery was this afterno=>>
              >>
              >
              >on.
              >
              >
              >>Neil Uchitel is a member of this list and called me up to discuss this wi=>>
              >>
              >
              >th
              >
              >
              >>me. Here is the link to his blog Digitus, Finger & Co and the item in
              >>question.
              >>
              >>http://www.neiluchitel.com/index.php?p=)9
              >>
              >>Some of this is a bit of a misinterpretation, e.g. Times Roman dates, and=>>
              >>
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >>there are other considerations not dealt with but...
              >>
              >>The gist of this is that someone typed out the Bush Documents (regarding =>>
              >>
              >
              >his
              >
              >
              >>service record) on his computer in Microsoft Word and when printed out th=>>
              >>
              >
              >ey
              >
              >
              >>were a near match in the setting to the older documents, which are assume=>>
              >>
              >
              >d
              >
              >
              >>to have been typed with a typewriter. I would think the probability of an=>>
              >>
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >>exact matching, given the changes in technology, would be akin to the
              >>likelihood of winning the California Lottery.
              >>
              >>I can easily imagine that with today's technology one could configure
              >>everything exactly right to match the setting of a typewriter, right down=>>
              >>
              >
              > to
              >
              >
              >>size, proportional spacing, letterspacing, leading, adjustment to
              >>letterforms, etc. However, to find a document that proports to be origina=>>
              >>
              >
              >l
              >
              >
              >>but actually conforms to the opposite, today's technology, is more than a=>>
              >>
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >>bit unbelievable.
              >>
              >>In regard to the various changes to Times New Roman (both technically and=>>
              >>
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >>more importantly, regarding licensing) see this short piece by Charles
              >>Bigelow.
              >>
              >>http://www.truetype.demon.co.uk/articles/times.htm
              >>
              >>Gerald
              >>
              >>
              >>
              >>



              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Malcolm Dean
              Gerald:Latest I read CBS does NOT have the original documents, only photocopies, s= o we re reduced to arguing about what was possible back in the early
              Message 6 of 29 , Sep 11, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                Gerald:

                Latest I read CBS does NOT have the original documents, only photocopies, s=
                o we're
                reduced to arguing about what was possible back in the early 70's. Just to =
                be a
                contrarian, I'm going to say that the transposition test you mentioned that=
                has given
                rise to all this furor is not good enough to debunk these documents -- it's=
                certainly
                suspicious, but not good enough, and I'll tell you why: I bet that if you h=
                ad the time
                and resources, you could dig up an old IBM Executive with a Times Roman bal=
                l w/
                superscripts and proportional spacing, and in turn create something that wo=
                uld look
                very close to the Word document -- thus debunking the debunkers! But that w=
                ould
                take some real research, and the election will be long over by then. No, I =
                think CBS
                has some explaining to do -- not because they're being dishonest, but becau=
                se they
                don't have the originals. They need to back up their claims with irrefutibl=
                e evidence -
                - eyewitnesses, or something, which they claim they have. And the person wh=
                o gave
                them these documents needs to stand up and take responsibility. I take note=
                ,
                however, that the White House has not taken a position on the authenticity =
                of the
                documents, which they certainly would if they knew them to be fakes.

                Malcolm





                --- In PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com, Gerald Lange <bieler@w...> wrote:
                > Malcolm
                >
                > Yes, that was my original thinking, look at the paper (even the back
                > side of it, typewriters are relief afterall), the signature would be
                > distinctive. Maybe "they" actually have. This whole controversy has all
                > been brought about because someone typed out the documents on his
                > computer and when he transposed them over the copies of the originals,
                > they matched his output. In all likelihood, they should not have. The
                > problem is, how valid is that original assessment?
                >
                > Worse case scenario, what if it all turns out to be valid? Someone, one s=
                ide or the
                other, just kissed the Presidency away.
                >
                > Gerald
                >
                > Malcolm Dean wrote:
                >
                > >David:
                > >
                > >You wrote: "The disturbing thing about all this is that trying to reprod=
                uce=
                > >
                > > a 1973 (+
                > >or-) document by computer and laser printer seems so naïve that I cannot=
                im=
                > >
                > >agine
                > >that even the most inept forger would have attempted it. Perhaps some fa=
                cts=
                > >
                > > are
                > >missing." I've been following this a bit and I second your thoughts: onl=
                y t=
                > >
                > >he most
                > >inept forger would have tried this hoax, and CBS would have had to be ev=
                en =
                > >
                > >more
                > >inept to fall for it. But believe it or not, after reading dozens of mai=
                nst=
                > >
                > >ream media
                > >articles, listening to various talking heads left and right on the TV, a=
                nd =
                > >
                > >reviewing a
                > >number of good blog sites, not one single person has brought up the poin=
                t t=
                > >
                > >hat
                > >probably seems so obvious to us that it hardly bares mentioning: a compu=
                ter=
                > >
                > > printer
                > >and a typewriter are two completely different printing technologies with=
                ea=
                > >
                > >sy and
                > >unmistakable signatures. The entire discussion so far has centered aroun=
                d
                > >typographic and formatting issues (superscripts, proportional letter spa=
                cin=
                > >
                > >g, leading,
                > >etc), based on the comparison of PDF files of the documents in question =
                wit=
                > >
                > >h
                > >attempts to duplicate them in word-processor programs. That's ridiculous=
                on=
                > >
                > > the face
                > >of it, for two reasons: 1) The only way to tell if the original document=
                s w=
                > >
                > >ere
                > >produced on a typewriter or on a word processor is to examine the actual=
                or=
                > >
                > >iginal
                > >documents, the actual sheets of paper. That would settle the question ri=
                ght=
                > >
                > > there.
                > >Yet not one commentator has thought to mention that simple fact. And 2) =
                we =
                > >
                > >know
                > >that given any original document, with a little work we can match it pre=
                tty=
                > >
                > > well on a
                > >computer -- but again, comparing a PDF of the original and a PDF of a wo=
                rd =
                > >
                > >
                > >document doesn't tell you much, except that you can make matches. For so=
                me =
                > >
                > >
                > >actual research on some of the typographic and formatting questions at i=
                ssu=
                > >
                > >e here,
                > >and on what features were available on IBM typewriters in the early 70's=
                , s=
                > >
                > >ee http://
                > >www.dailykos.com/story/2004/9/10/34914/1603
                > >
                > >I'm amazed at the shallowness of the commentators endlessly wrangling ov=
                er =
                > >
                > >
                > >superscripts (which were, by the way, available on some IBM models) whil=
                e n=
                > >
                > >ot even
                > >thinking about paper and ink. My personal take on the documents is they =
                may=
                > >
                > > well
                > >be real, but we'll leave that for more political forums. In any case, I =
                gue=
                > >
                > >ss we'll
                > >finally find out when one of those million-dollar talking heads decides =
                to =
                > >
                > >actually look
                > >at the paper and ink!
                > >
                > >Malcolm
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >-- In PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com, "David Goodrich" <davidgoodrich@a..=
                .>
                =
                > >
                > >
                > >wrote:
                > >
                > >
                > >>Interesting sideline. It is my understanding that there are forensic
                > >>experts who can identify the specific typewriter that a page was typed =
                on=
                > >>
                > >>
                > >
                > >.
                > >
                > >
                > >>As one who once worked with IBM selectrics, I cannot imagine that anyon=
                e
                > >>could confuse a typed page with a laser or ink-jet printed page. The
                > >>selectric still created its image by percussion through a carbon ribbon=
                .
                > >>Most selectrics printed typewriter type (courier I think they called it=
                ) =
                > >>
                > >>
                > >
                > >but
                > >
                > >
                > >>some printed a sort of generic Roman which I don't recall being a Times=
                . =
                > >>
                > >>
                > >
                > > I
                > >
                > >
                > >>would be surprised if the military weren't still using manual (non-elec=
                tr=
                > >>
                > >>
                > >
                > >ic)
                > >
                > >
                > >>typewriters, or at best, still using non-proportional typewriter type.
                > >> The disturbing thing about all this is that trying to reproduce a 1973=
                (=
                > >>
                > >>
                > >
                > >+
                > >
                > >
                > >>or-) document by computer and laser printer seems so naïve that I canno=
                t
                > >>imagine that even the most inept forger would have attempted it. Perha=
                ps=
                > >>
                > >>
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >>some facts are missing.
                > >>David
                > >>
                > >>-----Original Message-----
                > >>From: Gerald Lange [mailto:bieler@w...]
                > >>Sent: Friday, September 10, 2004 9:04 PM
                > >>To: PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com
                > >>Subject: [PPLetterpress] Bush Documents?
                > >>
                > >>Let me point out from the get-go here that I am not concerned with poli=
                ti=
                > >>
                > >>
                > >
                > >cal
                > >
                > >
                > >>implications of this but simply the technical issue.
                > >>
                > >>The first I have heard of the possibility of the forgery was this after=
                no=
                > >>
                > >>
                > >
                > >on.
                > >
                > >
                > >>Neil Uchitel is a member of this list and called me up to discuss this =
                wi=
                > >>
                > >>
                > >
                > >th
                > >
                > >
                > >>me. Here is the link to his blog Digitus, Finger & Co and the item in
                > >>question.
                > >>
                > >>http://www.neiluchitel.com/index.php?p=299
                > >>
                > >>Some of this is a bit of a misinterpretation, e.g. Times Roman dates, a=
                nd=
                > >>
                > >>
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >>there are other considerations not dealt with but...
                > >>
                > >>The gist of this is that someone typed out the Bush Documents (regardin=
                g =
                > >>
                > >>
                > >
                > >his
                > >
                > >
                > >>service record) on his computer in Microsoft Word and when printed out =
                th=
                > >>
                > >>
                > >
                > >ey
                > >
                > >
                > >>were a near match in the setting to the older documents, which are assu=
                me=
                > >>
                > >>
                > >
                > >d
                > >
                > >
                > >>to have been typed with a typewriter. I would think the probability of =
                an=
                > >>
                > >>
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >>exact matching, given the changes in technology, would be akin to the
                > >>likelihood of winning the California Lottery.
                > >>
                > >>I can easily imagine that with today's technology one could configure
                > >>everything exactly right to match the setting of a typewriter, right do=
                wn=
                > >>
                > >>
                > >
                > > to
                > >
                > >
                > >>size, proportional spacing, letterspacing, leading, adjustment to
                > >>letterforms, etc. However, to find a document that proports to be origi=
                na=
                > >>
                > >>
                > >
                > >l
                > >
                > >
                > >>but actually conforms to the opposite, today's technology, is more than=
                a=
                > >>
                > >>
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >>bit unbelievable.
                > >>
                > >>In regard to the various changes to Times New Roman (both technically a=
                nd=
                > >>
                > >>
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >>more importantly, regarding licensing) see this short piece by Charles
                > >>Bigelow.
                > >>
                > >>http://www.truetype.demon.co.uk/articles/times.htm
                > >>
                > >>Gerald
                > >>
                > >>
                > >>
                > >>
                >
                >
                >
                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Peter Fraterdeus
                ... Let s reduce it to asking if there are any credible witnesses to the Bush claims that he actually served, rather than creating further hubbah about the
                Message 7 of 29 , Sep 11, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  >http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2004/09/09/memos_show_bush_suspended/index.html
                  > Records released this year when Bush's military service re-emerged as a campaign issue contain no evidence that he showed up for duty at all for five months in mid-1972 and document only a few occasions later that year.

                  Let's reduce it to asking if there are any credible witnesses to the Bush claims that he actually served, rather than creating further hubbah about the peripheral and collateral, which serve exactly the purpose of obfuscation that Mr Rove desires.
                  http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/09/10/calhoun_bush/index.html

                  This whole thing is more like Alice Through the Looking Glass every day.

                  Anyway, sorry about moving the thread further OT , but it is begging for comment.

                  The ETs are ROTFL...

                  ;-)

                  P

                  --
                  AzByCx DwEvFu GtHsIr JqKpLo MnNmOl PkQjRi ShTgUf VeWdXc YbZa&@

                  Peter Fraterdeus http://www.fraterdeus.com http://www.galenaphotos.com

                  http://www.semiotx.com Web Strategy Consulting
                  "Words that work."(tm) Communication Design and Typography
                • hiroshi
                  I don t know the terminology on this but, on the possible typewriter models of this era, were there an automatic line feed feature of sort with some delayed
                  Message 8 of 29 , Sep 11, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I don't know the terminology on this but, on the possible typewriter
                    models of this era, were there an automatic line feed feature of sort
                    with some delayed typing with some character buffers so that it went to
                    the next line w/o the typist worrying about the end of line?

                    If not, one can examine the rate at which the document contains the
                    most efficient use of a line. With the above feature, one would expect
                    a perfect and most efficient use of a line going to the next line (with
                    the maximum word/characters possible per line w/ or w/o proportional
                    spacing).

                    Either way, one got his daddy to get him out of Vietnam... His opponent
                    signed up for Vietnam.
                    I dunno who's more crazy... But we know who's lying...

                    hh
                  • Fritz Klinke
                    I had to testify before a grand jury in California in the late 60s where a woman had used an IBM Executive typewriter to forge a deed. The Executive style was
                    Message 9 of 29 , Sep 11, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      I had to testify before a grand jury in California in the late 60s where a woman
                      had used an IBM Executive typewriter to forge a deed. The Executive style was in
                      wide use during the 60s/early 70s, and I have one here in the office. She had
                      removed the serial number plate, and threw the machine over an embankment in the
                      mountains, where it was retrieved a year later by a police officer investigating
                      a traffic accident at the same spot. IBM was contacted, and they found the
                      repairman's notes concerning repairs, that these guys tucked into a small space
                      in each machine, and were able to trace the machine to this lady who had
                      reported it stolen. By then, there was a criminal investigation on her
                      activities because the family cried foul after her husband's death when a
                      mystery deed showed up giving her all the real estate, but she had used a deed
                      printed after the husband's death. That's where my testimony came in because
                      where I worked had printed the blank deeds (letterpress) and each job had a code
                      number printed on it that we could trace to the exact day it was printed. With
                      the woman's typewriter in hand, experts could prove the deed had been typed on
                      her machine and they had the essential evidence to convict her and she spent a
                      number of years in prison.

                      I also served in the Army at that point in a reserve unit that was all paper
                      work orientated and they banged away on manual typewriters all day long. I think
                      most of the military was very slow to move up to even electric typewriters until
                      long after civilians saw the benefits. We used tons of carbon paper and even
                      copy machines were rare by when I left about 69-70. The IBM Seletric had
                      individual type balls that could be changed out, so various type designs within
                      a limited range could be used, in several point sizes. We used to set books with
                      these as they also had a system with a computer interface that would justify the
                      copy, but it was still strike on, as I believe that was the term used in the
                      industry back then.

                      Fritz


                      ----- Original Message -----
                      From: "David Goodrich" <davidgoodrich@...>

                      > Interesting sideline. It is my understanding that there are forensic
                      > experts who can identify the specific typewriter that a page was typed on.
                      > As one who once worked with IBM selectrics, I cannot imagine that anyone
                      > could confuse a typed page with a laser or ink-jet printed page. The
                      > selectric still created its image by percussion through a carbon ribbon.
                      > Most selectrics printed typewriter type (courier I think they called it) but
                      > some printed a sort of generic Roman which I don't recall being a Times. I
                      > would be surprised if the military weren't still using manual (non-electric)
                      > typewriters, or at best, still using non-proportional typewriter type.
                      > The disturbing thing about all this is that trying to reproduce a 1973 (+
                      > or-) document by computer and laser printer seems so naïve that I cannot
                      > imagine that even the most inept forger would have attempted it. Perhaps
                      > some facts are missing.
                      > David
                      >
                    • Paul W Romaine
                      I hate to comment on topics like this, and I certainly don t want to get into politics but.... The most common forgeries (and some of the best) are those that
                      Message 10 of 29 , Sep 11, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        I hate to comment on topics like this, and I certainly don't want to
                        get into politics but....

                        The most common forgeries (and some of the best) are those that we do
                        (or sometimes do not) *want* to believe. The Mormon "salamander"
                        forgery of convicted killer Mark Hofmann was in this category, and he
                        was *very* good. (The "Salamander" letter purported to describe white
                        magic practices by a young Joseph Smith, which fit well with
                        then-current academic theories about the origins of Mormonism; Hofmann
                        came forward as a concerned believer, selling and donating this and
                        similar documents to Elders of the Church of Latter Day Saints.) The
                        Texana forgeries of the 1970s and 1980s were done purely for greed by
                        David Dorman and dealer John Jenkins (exposed by printer/publisher Tom
                        Taylor). I'm still awaiting a secret diary of Thomas Jefferson to
                        appear on the market, which discusses his relationship with Sally
                        Hemmings. If something fulfills expectations a little too well, it's
                        always a good idea to ask "is it real?"

                        (Another example of the vanity of human wishes: genealogist Elizabeth
                        Shownes Mills at the University of Alabama, pointed out in 2001 that
                        documents faked using Photoshop had been used in support of an
                        application to a lineage society--Colonial Dames or DAR, or something
                        similar--although she avoided details for legal reasons.)

                        The paper documents obtained by CBS were photocopies, showing the
                        usual degradation of multiple generations from a photocopier.
                        Therefore no one, not even an expert, could look for impressions from
                        a typewriter, for watermarks (dandyroll or otherwise), or other
                        physical evidence. There was also blurring of some lines in the copy I
                        viewed, perhaps the result of movement of the page on a copier or
                        scanner, which makes identification more difficult. (Evidence that
                        could be cited either way.) This is a warning, of course, about
                        trusting surrogates--digital or oterwise. Our digital authentication
                        abilities are still pretty crude compared to what had evolved by the
                        end of the 19th C. to foil forgers.

                        It worries me that the document expert (I know a few), interviewed by
                        Dan Rather after the questions were raised, said that he based his
                        determination upon the *signatures*, since he couldn't look at
                        originals. This is worrisome, since good authentication should be
                        holistic in looking at many sources of information as possible.

                        Hiroshi: I'm pretty sure auto line feed didn't turn up until the
                        early-1980s. My third Smith Corona (1982) was one of those daisy-wheel
                        versions with an "AutoReturn" feature. It wasn't available on the old
                        metal Selectric typewriters, but by then I recall seeing some offices
                        outfitted with the newish IBM typewriters (putty and tan gray) with
                        these features. Libraries were always down the food chain for office
                        equipment, so we didn't see these until the late 1980s and early 1990s
                        (but we tended to prefer the Selectrics).

                        A NY Times article mentioned that one of the experts consulted by the
                        Times or AP had written a history of the Selectric typewriter for
                        IBM's journal in the 1980s. Interesting! I rather suspect that many of
                        these little histories (or the information that Fritz mentioned about
                        ownership/maintenance records) are eventually lost.

                        Paul
                      • Silver MayKitten
                        Executives had fixed type bar baskets, not balls. Could you mean a Selectric Composer? They had times roman type balls, but the type produced did not look like
                        Message 11 of 29 , Sep 11, 2004
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Executives had fixed type bar baskets, not balls. Could you
                          mean a Selectric Composer? They had times roman type balls, but
                          the type produced did not look like word Times Roman. For one
                          thing Selectric times roman was a fairly coarse type built on a
                          9 unit M.

                          MayKitten
                          --- Malcolm Dean <malcolmdean2@...> wrote:

                          > Gerald:
                          >
                          > Latest I read CBS does NOT have the original documents, only
                          > photocopies, s=
                          > o we're
                          > reduced to arguing about what was possible back in the early
                          > 70's. Just to =
                          > be a
                          > contrarian, I'm going to say that the transposition test you
                          > mentioned that=
                          > has given
                          > rise to all this furor is not good enough to debunk these
                          > documents -- it's=
                          > certainly
                          > suspicious, but not good enough, and I'll tell you why: I bet
                          > that if you h=
                          > ad the time
                          > and resources, you could dig up an old IBM Executive with a
                          > Times Roman bal=
                          > l w/
                          > superscripts and proportional spacing, and in turn create
                          > something that wo=
                          > uld look
                          > very close to the Word document -- thus debunking the
                          > debunkers! But that w=
                          > ould
                          > take some real research, and the election will be long over
                          > by then. No, I =
                          > think CBS
                          > has some explaining to do -- not because they're being
                          > dishonest, but becau=
                          > se they
                          > don't have the originals. They need to back up their claims
                          > with irrefutibl=
                          > e evidence -
                          > - eyewitnesses, or something, which they claim they have. And
                          > the person wh=
                          > o gave
                          > them these documents needs to stand up and take
                          > responsibility. I take note=
                          > ,
                          > however, that the White House has not taken a position on the
                          > authenticity =
                          > of the
                          > documents, which they certainly would if they knew them to be
                          > fakes.
                          >
                          > Malcolm
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > --- In PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com, Gerald Lange
                          > <bieler@w...> wrote:
                          > > Malcolm
                          > >
                          > > Yes, that was my original thinking, look at the paper (even
                          > the back
                          > > side of it, typewriters are relief afterall), the signature
                          > would be
                          > > distinctive. Maybe "they" actually have. This whole
                          > controversy has all
                          > > been brought about because someone typed out the documents
                          > on his
                          > > computer and when he transposed them over the copies of the
                          > originals,
                          > > they matched his output. In all likelihood, they should not
                          > have. The
                          > > problem is, how valid is that original assessment?
                          > >
                          > > Worse case scenario, what if it all turns out to be valid?
                          > Someone, one s=
                          > ide or the
                          > other, just kissed the Presidency away.
                          > >
                          > > Gerald
                          > >
                          > > Malcolm Dean wrote:
                          > >
                          > > >David:
                          > > >
                          > > >You wrote: "The disturbing thing about all this is that
                          > trying to reprod=
                          > uce=
                          > > >
                          > > > a 1973 (+
                          > > >or-) document by computer and laser printer seems so na�ve
                          > that I cannot=
                          > im=
                          > > >
                          > > >agine
                          > > >that even the most inept forger would have attempted it.
                          > Perhaps some fa=
                          > cts=
                          > > >
                          > > > are
                          > > >missing." I've been following this a bit and I second your
                          > thoughts: onl=
                          > y t=
                          > > >
                          > > >he most
                          > > >inept forger would have tried this hoax, and CBS would
                          > have had to be ev=
                          > en =
                          > > >
                          > > >more
                          > > >inept to fall for it. But believe it or not, after reading
                          > dozens of mai=
                          > nst=
                          > > >
                          > > >ream media
                          > > >articles, listening to various talking heads left and
                          > right on the TV, a=
                          > nd =
                          > > >
                          > > >reviewing a
                          > > >number of good blog sites, not one single person has
                          > brought up the poin=
                          > t t=
                          > > >
                          > > >hat
                          > > >probably seems so obvious to us that it hardly bares
                          > mentioning: a compu=
                          > ter=
                          > > >
                          > > > printer
                          > > >and a typewriter are two completely different printing
                          > technologies with=
                          > ea=
                          > > >
                          > > >sy and
                          > > >unmistakable signatures. The entire discussion so far has
                          > centered aroun=
                          > d
                          > > >typographic and formatting issues (superscripts,
                          > proportional letter spa=
                          > cin=
                          > > >
                          > > >g, leading,
                          > > >etc), based on the comparison of PDF files of the
                          > documents in question =
                          > wit=
                          > > >
                          > > >h
                          > > >attempts to duplicate them in word-processor programs.
                          > That's ridiculous=
                          > on=
                          > > >
                          > > > the face
                          > > >of it, for two reasons: 1) The only way to tell if the
                          > original document=
                          > s w=
                          > > >
                          > > >ere
                          > > >produced on a typewriter or on a word processor is to
                          > examine the actual=
                          > or=
                          > > >
                          > > >iginal
                          > > >documents, the actual sheets of paper. That would settle
                          > the question ri=
                          > ght=
                          > > >
                          > > > there.
                          > > >Yet not one commentator has thought to mention that simple
                          > fact. And 2) =
                          > we =
                          > > >
                          > > >know
                          > > >that given any original document, with a little work we
                          > can match it pre=
                          > tty=
                          > > >
                          > > > well on a
                          > > >computer -- but again, comparing a PDF of the original and
                          > a PDF of a wo=
                          > rd =
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >document doesn't tell you much, except that you can make
                          > matches. For so=
                          > me =
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >actual research on some of the typographic and formatting
                          > questions at i=
                          > ssu=
                          > > >
                          > > >e here,
                          > > >and on what features were available on IBM typewriters in
                          > the early 70's=
                          > , s=
                          > > >
                          > > >ee http://
                          > > >www.dailykos.com/story/2004/9/10/34914/1603
                          > > >
                          > > >I'm amazed at the shallowness of the commentators
                          > endlessly wrangling ov=
                          > er =
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >superscripts (which were, by the way, available on some
                          > IBM models) whil=
                          > e n=
                          > > >
                          > > >ot even
                          > > >thinking about paper and ink. My personal take on the
                          > documents is they =
                          > may=
                          > > >
                          > > > well
                          > > >be real, but we'll leave that for more political forums.
                          > In any case, I =
                          > gue=
                          > > >
                          > > >ss we'll
                          > > >finally find out when one of those million-dollar talking
                          > heads decides =
                          > to =
                          > > >
                          > > >actually look
                          > > >at the paper and ink!
                          > > >
                          > > >Malcolm
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >-- In PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com, "David Goodrich"
                          > <davidgoodrich@a..=
                          > .>
                          > =
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >wrote:
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >>Interesting sideline. It is my understanding that there
                          > are forensic
                          > > >>experts who can identify the specific typewriter that a
                          > page was typed =
                          > on=
                          > > >>
                          > > >>
                          > > >
                          > > >.
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >>As one who once worked with IBM selectrics, I cannot
                          > imagine that anyon=
                          > e
                          > > >>could confuse a typed page with a laser or ink-jet
                          > printed page. The
                          > > >>selectric still created its image by percussion through a
                          > carbon ribbon=
                          > .
                          > > >>Most selectrics printed typewriter type (courier I think
                          > they called it=
                          > ) =
                          > > >>
                          > > >>
                          > > >
                          > > >but
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >>some printed a sort of generic Roman which I don't recall
                          > being a Times=
                          > . =
                          > > >>
                          > > >>
                          > > >
                          > > > I
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >>would be surprised if the military weren't still using
                          > manual (non-elec=
                          > tr=
                          > > >>
                          > > >>
                          > > >
                          > > >ic)
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >>typewriters, or at best, still using non-proportional
                          > typewriter type.
                          > > >> The disturbing thing about all this is that trying to
                          > reproduce a 1973=
                          > (=
                          > > >>
                          > > >>
                          > > >
                          > > >+
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >>or-) document by computer and laser printer seems so
                          > na�ve that I canno=
                          > t
                          > > >>imagine that even the most inept forger would have
                          > attempted it. Perha=
                          > ps=
                          > > >>
                          > > >>
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >>some facts are missing.
                          > > >>David
                          > > >>
                          > > >>-----Original Message-----
                          > > >>From: Gerald Lange [mailto:bieler@w...]
                          > > >>Sent: Friday, September 10, 2004 9:04 PM
                          > > >>To: PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com
                          > > >>Subject: [PPLetterpress] Bush Documents?
                          > > >>
                          > > >>Let me point out from the get-go here that I am not
                          > concerned with poli=
                          > ti=
                          > > >>
                          > > >>
                          > > >
                          > > >cal
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >>implications of this but simply the technical issue.
                          > > >>
                          > > >>The first I have heard of the possibility of the forgery
                          > was this after=
                          > no=
                          > > >>
                          > > >>
                          > > >
                          > > >on.
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >>Neil Uchitel is a member of this list and called me up to
                          > discuss this =
                          > wi=
                          > > >>
                          > > >>
                          > > >
                          > > >th
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >>me. Here is the link to his blog Digitus, Finger & Co and
                          > the item in
                          > > >>question.
                          > > >>
                          > > >>http://www.neiluchitel.com/index.php?p=299
                          > > >>
                          > > >>Some of this is a bit of a misinterpretation, e.g. Times
                          > Roman dates, a=
                          > nd=
                          > > >>
                          > > >>
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >>there are other considerations not dealt with but...
                          > > >>
                          > > >>The gist of this is that someone typed out the Bush
                          > Documents (regardin=
                          > g =
                          > > >>
                          > > >>
                          > > >
                          > > >his
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >>service record) on his computer in Microsoft Word and
                          > when printed out =
                          > th=
                          > > >>
                          > > >>
                          > > >
                          > > >ey
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >>were a near match in the setting to the older documents,
                          > which are assu=
                          > me=
                          > > >>
                          > > >>
                          > > >
                          > > >d
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >>to have been typed with a typewriter. I would think the
                          > probability of =
                          > an=
                          > > >>
                          > > >>
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >>exact matching, given the changes in technology, would be
                          > akin to the
                          > > >>likelihood of winning the California Lottery.
                          > > >>
                          > > >>I can easily imagine that with today's technology one
                          > could configure
                          > > >>everything exactly right to match the setting of a
                          > typewriter, right do=
                          > wn=
                          > > >>
                          > > >>
                          > > >
                          > > > to
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >>size, proportional spacing, letterspacing, leading,
                          > adjustment to
                          > > >>letterforms, etc. However, to find a document that
                          > proports to be origi=
                          > na=
                          > > >>
                          > > >>
                          > > >
                          > > >l
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >>but actually conforms to the opposite, today's
                          > technology, is more than=
                          > a=
                          > > >>
                          > > >>
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >>bit unbelievable.
                          > > >>
                          > > >>In regard to the various changes to Times New Roman (both
                          > technically a=
                          > nd=
                          > > >>
                          > > >>
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >>more importantly, regarding licensing) see this short
                          > piece by Charles
                          > > >>Bigelow.
                          > > >>
                          > > >>http://www.truetype.demon.co.uk/articles/times.htm
                          > > >>
                          > > >>Gerald
                          > > >>
                          > > >>
                          > > >>
                          > > >>
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          >
                          >


                          =====
                          Pagan, Pagan, what are you finding?
                          Yours is the road that winds lonely and far,
                          Strange are the shadows that round you come creeping,
                          Still through the clouds is the glint of a star!

                          From the book, Charge of the Goddess
                          BY: Doreen Valiente



                          __________________________________
                          Do you Yahoo!?
                          Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
                          http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
                        • Malcolm Dean
                          Yes, MayKitten, you re right, the Selectric Composer -- but was the Selectr= ic proportional? or could the Executive have been specially fitted with
                          Message 12 of 29 , Sep 11, 2004
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Yes, MayKitten, you're right, the Selectric Composer -- but was the Selectr=
                            ic
                            proportional? or could the Executive have been specially fitted with
                            superscripts to meet the needs of special clients like the guard, who after=
                            all
                            constantly needed them (ie, "the 111th FIS").

                            Re all these questions see article in the NYTimes this moring at http://
                            www.nytimes.com/2004/09/11/politics/campaign/11guard.html?pagewanted=
                            print&position=

                            Here's an excerpt from the article, and then a final question:

                            "It was the typefaces that consumed much of the news media. For every exper=
                            t
                            who said the documents looked like the work of computers and could not have=

                            come from old-fashioned typewriters because of proportional spacing and som=
                            e
                            type features, there seemed to be another who said they could indeed have
                            been authentic.

                            Dr. Philip Bouffard, a forensic document specialist in Georgia who has comp=
                            iled
                            of database of more than 3,000 old fonts, said people who bought the I.B.M.=

                            Selectric Composer model could specially order keys with the superscripts i=
                            n
                            question. Dr. Bouffard said that font did bear many similarities to the one=
                            on
                            the CBS documents, but not enough to dispel questions he had about their
                            authenticity.

                            A spokesman for I.B.M., John Bukovinsky, said he knew only that the company=

                            introduced proportional spacing to some typewriters in 1944, most notably i=
                            n
                            the Executive line.

                            Mark A. Robb, team leader of the type development group at Lexmark, which
                            embodies the old I.B.M. typewriting and printing division and now focuses o=
                            n
                            printers, said specific machines could be custom fitted with the superscrip=
                            t
                            letters in question and that they frequently were.

                            Some former engineers who worked in the typewriter division said they were =

                            not aware of a standard typewriter that could have produced the Killian
                            documents because the superscript letters in question were so rare.

                            Robert A. Rahenkamp, a former I.B.M. manager who wrote a scholarly history =

                            on its typewriters for a company journal in 1981, said, "I'm not aware that=
                            we
                            had any superscript technologies back in those days'' on standard proportio=
                            nal
                            space typewriters.

                            Bill Glennon, a technology consultant in New York who worked for I.B.M. in =

                            Midtown Manhattan for 14 years and repaired typewriters throughout that
                            time, said that the Executive had proportional spacing and that its typebar=

                            could be fitted with superscript characters. Documents from the period show=

                            the Air Force tested the Selectric Composer as early as April 1969. But
                            spokesmen for the National Guard and Texas Air National Guard said it was
                            impossible to trace the machines that Colonel Killian's unit, the 111th Fig=
                            hter
                            Intercept Squadron, or any unit, used so long ago.

                            Mark Allen, chief of the external media division of the National Guard Bure=
                            au
                            public affairs office, said there was no way to reconstruct the equipment o=
                            r
                            whether Colonel Killian typed the memos or had a clerk type them.

                            "It's sheer speculation as to what might have transpired,'' Mr. Allen said,=
                            "and
                            it's pointless for us to get into that kind of speculation."

                            The debate once again engulfed the campaign in the events of 30 years ago
                            when, Mr. Bush and Senator John Kerry made separate choices that sent Mr.
                            Bush into a coveted stateside post in the Guard and Mr. Kerry into combat i=
                            n
                            Vietnam.

                            Colonel Killian's family and one-time colleagues were drawn into the battle=
                            over
                            whether the documents were real and whether he had felt pressure to give
                            Lieutenant Bush special treatment.

                            Robert W. Strong, 62, was a staff sergeant in the adjutant general's office=
                            of
                            the Texas Air National Guard at Camp Mabry at Austin in 1968, when Mr. Bush=

                            enlisted. Mr. Strong said in an interview Friday he was quite sure that he =
                            and
                            others used Selectrics in the adjutant general's office. He added that he w=
                            as
                            not sure the typewriters and devices were also in the 147th Combat Support =

                            Squadron at the Ellington base in Houston, home of the 111th squadron."

                            Finally, an observation, just to make it more confusing: look at the fascim=
                            ile
                            documents at the Washington Post at http://news.findlaw.com/nytimes/docs/
                            gwbush/bushang.html. Obviously they're in pretty poor shape, but note the
                            "th" superscripts appear only in two places while they are otherwise in nor=
                            mal
                            baseline script. Odd. Questions: Are all the memos typed on the same
                            machine? Note the two official memos for the record are on a paper w/
                            masthead. Are the mastheads typed, copied or printed seperately from the
                            memos? Note the two personal memos are without masthead.

                            My guess: the 4 memos are authentic -- but typed on two machines. Maybe
                            even three.

                            Malcolm












                            -- In PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com, Silver MayKitteAre the <
                            maykitten1@y...> wrote:
                            > Executives had fixed type bar baskets, not balls. Could you
                            > mean a Selectric Composer? They had times roman type balls, but
                            > the type produced did not look like word Times Roman. For one
                            > thing Selectric times roman was a fairly coarse type built on a
                            > 9 unit M.
                            >
                            > MayKitten
                            > --- Malcolm Dean <malcolmdean2@y...> wrote:
                            >
                            > > Gerald:
                            > >
                            > > Latest I read CBS does NOT have the original documents, only
                            > > photocopies, s=
                            > > o we're
                            > > reduced to arguing about what was possible back in the early
                            > > 70's. Just to =
                            > > be a
                            > > contrarian, I'm going to say that the transposition test you
                            > > mentioned that=
                            > > has given
                            > > rise to all this furor is not good enough to debunk these
                            > > documents -- it's=
                            > > certainly
                            > > suspicious, but not good enough, and I'll tell you why: I bet
                            > > that if you h=
                            > > ad the time
                            > > and resources, you could dig up an old IBM Executive with a
                            > > Times Roman bal=
                            > > l w/
                            > > superscripts and proportional spacing, and in turn create
                            > > something that wo=
                            > > uld look
                            > > very close to the Word document -- thus debunking the
                            > > debunkers! But that w=
                            > > ould
                            > > take some real research, and the election will be long over
                            > > by then. No, I =
                            > > think CBS
                            > > has some explaining to do -- not because they're being
                            > > dishonest, but becau=
                            > > se they
                            > > don't have the originals. They need to back up their claims
                            > > with irrefutibl=
                            > > e evidence -
                            > > - eyewitnesses, or something, which they claim they have. And
                            > > the person wh=
                            > > o gave
                            > > them these documents needs to stand up and take
                            > > responsibility. I take note=
                            > > ,
                            > > however, that the White House has not taken a position on the
                            > > authenticity =
                            > > of the
                            > > documents, which they certainly would if they knew them to be
                            > > fakes.
                            > >
                            > > Malcolm
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > --- In PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com, Gerald Lange
                            > > <bieler@w...> wrote:
                            > > > Malcolm
                            > > >
                            > > > Yes, that was my original thinking, look at the paper (even
                            > > the back
                            > > > side of it, typewriters are relief afterall), the signature
                            > > would be
                            > > > distinctive. Maybe "they" actually have. This whole
                            > > controversy has all
                            > > > been brought about because someone typed out the documents
                            > > on his
                            > > > computer and when he transposed them over the copies of the
                            > > originals,
                            > > > they matched his output. In all likelihood, they should not
                            > > have. The
                            > > > problem is, how valid is that original assessment?
                            > > >
                            > > > Worse case scenario, what if it all turns out to be valid?
                            > > Someone, one s=
                            > > ide or the
                            > > other, just kissed the Presidency away.
                            > > >
                            > > > Gerald
                            > > >
                            > > > Malcolm Dean wrote:
                            > > >
                            > > > >David:
                            > > > >
                            > > > >You wrote: "The disturbing thing about all this is that
                            > > trying to reprod=
                            > > uce=
                            > > > >
                            > > > > a 1973 (+
                            > > > >or-) document by computer and laser printer seems so naïve
                            > > that I cannot=
                            > > im=
                            > > > >
                            > > > >agine
                            > > > >that even the most inept forger would have attempted it.
                            > > Perhaps some fa=
                            > > cts=
                            > > > >
                            > > > > are
                            > > > >missing." I've been following this a bit and I second your
                            > > thoughts: onl=
                            > > y t=
                            > > > >
                            > > > >he most
                            > > > >inept forger would have tried this hoax, and CBS would
                            > > have had to be ev=
                            > > en =
                            > > > >
                            > > > >more
                            > > > >inept to fall for it. But believe it or not, after reading
                            > > dozens of mai=
                            > > nst=
                            > > > >
                            > > > >ream media
                            > > > >articles, listening to various talking heads left and
                            > > right on the TV, a=
                            > > nd =
                            > > > >
                            > > > >reviewing a
                            > > > >number of good blog sites, not one single person has
                            > > brought up the poin=
                            > > t t=
                            > > > >
                            > > > >hat
                            > > > >probably seems so obvious to us that it hardly bares
                            > > mentioning: a compu=
                            > > ter=
                            > > > >
                            > > > > printer
                            > > > >and a typewriter are two completely different printing
                            > > technologies with=
                            > > ea=
                            > > > >
                            > > > >sy and
                            > > > >unmistakable signatures. The entire discussion so far has
                            > > centered aroun=
                            > > d
                            > > > >typographic and formatting issues (superscripts,
                            > > proportional letter spa=
                            > > cin=
                            > > > >
                            > > > >g, leading,
                            > > > >etc), based on the comparison of PDF files of the
                            > > documents in question =
                            > > wit=
                            > > > >
                            > > > >h
                            > > > >attempts to duplicate them in word-processor programs.
                            > > That's ridiculous=
                            > > on=
                            > > > >
                            > > > > the face
                            > > > >of it, for two reasons: 1) The only way to tell if the
                            > > original document=
                            > > s w=
                            > > > >
                            > > > >ere
                            > > > >produced on a typewriter or on a word processor is to
                            > > examine the actual=
                            > > or=
                            > > > >
                            > > > >iginal
                            > > > >documents, the actual sheets of paper. That would settle
                            > > the question ri=
                            > > ght=
                            > > > >
                            > > > > there.
                            > > > >Yet not one commentator has thought to mention that simple
                            > > fact. And 2) =
                            > > we =
                            > > > >
                            > > > >know
                            > > > >that given any original document, with a little work we
                            > > can match it pre=
                            > > tty=
                            > > > >
                            > > > > well on a
                            > > > >computer -- but again, comparing a PDF of the original and
                            > > a PDF of a wo=
                            > > rd =
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > > >document doesn't tell you much, except that you can make
                            > > matches. For so=
                            > > me =
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > > >actual research on some of the typographic and formatting
                            > > questions at i=
                            > > ssu=
                            > > > >
                            > > > >e here,
                            > > > >and on what features were available on IBM typewriters in
                            > > the early 70's=
                            > > , s=
                            > > > >
                            > > > >ee http://
                            > > > >www.dailykos.com/story/2004/9/10/34914/1603
                            > > > >
                            > > > >I'm amazed at the shallowness of the commentators
                            > > endlessly wrangling ov=
                            > > er =
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > > >superscripts (which were, by the way, available on some
                            > > IBM models) whil=
                            > > e n=
                            > > > >
                            > > > >ot even
                            > > > >thinking about paper and ink. My personal take on the
                            > > documents is they =
                            > > may=
                            > > > >
                            > > > > well
                            > > > >be real, but we'll leave that for more political forums.
                            > > In any case, I =
                            > > gue=
                            > > > >
                            > > > >ss we'll
                            > > > >finally find out when one of those million-dollar talking
                            > > heads decides =
                            > > to =
                            > > > >
                            > > > >actually look
                            > > > >at the paper and ink!
                            > > > >
                            > > > >Malcolm
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > > >-- In PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com, "David Goodrich"
                            > > <davidgoodrich@a..=
                            > > .>
                            > > =
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > > >wrote:
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > > >>Interesting sideline. It is my understanding that there
                            > > are forensic
                            > > > >>experts who can identify the specific typewriter that a
                            > > page was typed =
                            > > on=
                            > > > >>
                            > > > >>
                            > > > >
                            > > > >.
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > > >>As one who once worked with IBM selectrics, I cannot
                            > > imagine that anyon=
                            > > e
                            > > > >>could confuse a typed page with a laser or ink-jet
                            > > printed page. The
                            > > > >>selectric still created its image by percussion through a
                            > > carbon ribbon=
                            > > .
                            > > > >>Most selectrics printed typewriter type (courier I think
                            > > they called it=
                            > > ) =
                            > > > >>
                            > > > >>
                            > > > >
                            > > > >but
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > > >>some printed a sort of generic Roman which I don't recall
                            > > being a Times=
                            > > . =
                            > > > >>
                            > > > >>
                            > > > >
                            > > > > I
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > > >>would be surprised if the military weren't still using
                            > > manual (non-elec=
                            > > tr=
                            > > > >>
                            > > > >>
                            > > > >
                            > > > >ic)
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > > >>typewriters, or at best, still using non-proportional
                            > > typewriter type.
                            > > > >> The disturbing thing about all this is that trying to
                            > > reproduce a 1973=
                            > > (=
                            > > > >>
                            > > > >>
                            > > > >
                            > > > >+
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > > >>or-) document by computer and laser printer seems so
                            > > naïve that I canno=
                            > > t
                            > > > >>imagine that even the most inept forger would have
                            > > attempted it. Perha=
                            > > ps=
                            > > > >>
                            > > > >>
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > > >>some facts are missing.
                            > > > >>David
                            > > > >>
                            > > > >>-----Original Message-----
                            > > > >>From: Gerald Lange [mailto:bieler@w...]
                            > > > >>Sent: Friday, September 10, 2004 9:04 PM
                            > > > >>To: PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com
                            > > > >>Subject: [PPLetterpress] Bush Documents?
                            > > > >>
                            > > > >>Let me point out from the get-go here that I am not
                            > > concerned with poli=
                            > > ti=
                            > > > >>
                            > > > >>
                            > > > >
                            > > > >cal
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > > >>implications of this but simply the technical issue.
                            > > > >>
                            > > > >>The first I have heard of the possibility of the forgery
                            > > was this after=
                            > > no=
                            > > > >>
                            > > > >>
                            > > > >
                            > > > >on.
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > > >>Neil Uchitel is a member of this list and called me up to
                            > > discuss this =
                            > > wi=
                            > > > >>
                            > > > >>
                            > > > >
                            > > > >th
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > > >>me. Here is the link to his blog Digitus, Finger & Co and
                            > > the item in
                            > > > >>question.
                            > > > >>
                            > > > >>http://www.neiluchitel.com/index.php?p=299
                            > > > >>
                            > > > >>Some of this is a bit of a misinterpretation, e.g. Times
                            > > Roman dates, a=
                            > > nd=
                            > > > >>
                            > > > >>
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > > >>there are other considerations not dealt with but...
                            > > > >>
                            > > > >>The gist of this is that someone typed out the Bush
                            > > Documents (regardin=
                            > > g =
                            > > > >>
                            > > > >>
                            > > > >
                            > > > >his
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > > >>service record) on his computer in Microsoft Word and
                            > > when printed out =
                            > > th=
                            > > > >>
                            > > > >>
                            > > > >
                            > > > >ey
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > > >>were a near match in the setting to the older documents,
                            > > which are assu=
                            > > me=
                            > > > >>
                            > > > >>
                            > > > >
                            > > > >d
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > > >>to have been typed with a typewriter. I would think the
                            > > probability of =
                            > > an=
                            > > > >>
                            > > > >>
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > > >>exact matching, given the changes in technology, would be
                            > > akin to the
                            > > > >>likelihood of winning the California Lottery.
                            > > > >>
                            > > > >>I can easily imagine that with today's technology one
                            > > could configure
                            > > > >>everything exactly right to match the setting of a
                            > > typewriter, right do=
                            > > wn=
                            > > > >>
                            > > > >>
                            > > > >
                            > > > > to
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > > >>size, proportional spacing, letterspacing, leading,
                            > > adjustment to
                            > > > >>letterforms, etc. However, to find a document that
                            > > proports to be origi=
                            > > na=
                            > > > >>
                            > > > >>
                            > > > >
                            > > > >l
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > > >>but actually conforms to the opposite, today's
                            > > technology, is more than=
                            > > a=
                            > > > >>
                            > > > >>
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > > >>bit unbelievable.
                            > > > >>
                            > > > >>In regard to the various changes to Times New Roman (both
                            > > technically a=
                            > > nd=
                            > > > >>
                            > > > >>
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > > >>more importantly, regarding licensing) see this short
                            > > piece by Charles
                            > > > >>Bigelow.
                            > > > >>
                            > > > >>http://www.truetype.demon.co.uk/articles/times.htm
                            > > > >>
                            > > > >>Gerald
                            > > > >>
                            > > > >>
                            > > > >>
                            > > > >>
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            > >
                            > >
                            >
                            >
                            > =====
                            > Pagan, Pagan, what are you finding?
                            > Yours is the road that winds lonely and far,
                            > Strange are the shadows that round you come creeping,
                            > Still through the clouds is the glint of a star!
                            >
                            > From the book, Charge of the Goddess
                            > BY: Doreen Valiente
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > __________________________________
                            > Do you Yahoo!?
                            > Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
                            > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
                          • Silver MayKitten
                            The selectric itself was not proportional, but the Selectric Composer was. The composer was designed to replace the Coxhead/VariTyper typewriter. It was a 9
                            Message 13 of 29 , Sep 11, 2004
                            • 0 Attachment
                              The selectric itself was not proportional, but the Selectric
                              Composer was. The composer was designed to replace the
                              Coxhead/VariTyper typewriter. It was a 9 unit M compared to a 4
                              unit M, and could be operated from a special magnettic tape or
                              a magnetic card that was like a stiff tape, but 3.25X7".

                              It offered a about a dozen families of typefaces in 6-12 point
                              and provided a number of typographic refinements including in
                              times roman superscripts and subscripts.

                              The Executive offered the superscripts 1, 2, 3 and 4 as
                              replacement strikers.


                              MaiK�tzchen.
                              --- Malcolm Dean <malcolmdean2@...> wrote:

                              > Yes, MayKitten, you're right, the Selectric Composer -- but
                              > was the Selectr=
                              > ic
                              > proportional? or could the Executive have been specially
                              > fitted with
                              > superscripts to meet the needs of special clients like the
                              > guard, who after=
                              > all
                              > constantly needed them (ie, "the 111th FIS").
                              >
                              > Re all these questions see article in the NYTimes this moring
                              > at http://
                              >

                              =====
                              Pagan, Pagan, what are you finding?
                              Yours is the road that winds lonely and far,
                              Strange are the shadows that round you come creeping,
                              Still through the clouds is the glint of a star!

                              From the book, Charge of the Goddess
                              BY: Doreen Valiente



                              __________________________________
                              Do you Yahoo!?
                              Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
                              http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
                            • Ph. D.
                              ... But they didn t need them. Until recently ordinal numbers were normally written with the th on the baseline. Manual and most electric typewriters did not
                              Message 14 of 29 , Sep 11, 2004
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Malcolm Dean skribis:
                                >
                                > Yes, MayKitten, you're right, the Selectric Composer
                                > -- but was the Selectric proportional? or could the
                                > Executive have been specially fitted with superscripts
                                > to meet the needs of special clients like the guard, who
                                > after all constantly needed them (ie, "the 111th FIS").

                                But they didn't need them. Until recently ordinal numbers
                                were normally written with the "th" on the baseline. Manual
                                and most electric typewriters did not do superscripts
                                automatically, so ordinals were just written on the baseline.
                                When computer word processing became available, some-
                                one decided to make superscript ordinals the default, and
                                few people change this, so now they have become the norm.

                                It's probably because I grew up without them that I now hate
                                superscript ordinals, and I turn off that feature on every
                                computer I work on.

                                --Ph. D.
                              • cmcgarr1957
                                I haven t heard anyone speak about the superscript that was used on the Bush document. Sounds like many of you know a good deal about typewriters, did a
                                Message 15 of 29 , Sep 12, 2004
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  I haven't heard anyone speak about the superscript that was used on the Bush document.
                                  Sounds like many of you know a good deal about typewriters, did a superscript appear as
                                  an option back then when typing?

                                  Casey
                                • Gerald Lange
                                  Casey Short answer is yes. There is a website on the IBM Selectric. This link has further details
                                  Message 16 of 29 , Sep 12, 2004
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Casey

                                    Short answer is yes. There is a website on the IBM Selectric. This
                                    link has further details

                                    http://shapeofdays.typepad.com/the_shape_of_days/2004/09/the_ibm_selectr.html

                                    and will lead you deeper and deeper into the fray (if you so choose).

                                    Gerald

                                    --- In PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com, "cmcgarr1957" <casey@m...> wrote:
                                    > I haven't heard anyone speak about the superscript that was used on
                                    the Bush document.
                                    > Sounds like many of you know a good deal about typewriters, did a
                                    superscript appear as
                                    > an option back then when typing?
                                    >
                                    > Casey
                                  • Gary Hoffman
                                    ... I have been a lurker on this list for some time, but I can t resist commenting on this subject. I was a legal clerk in the US Army from 1972 to 1975,
                                    Message 17 of 29 , Sep 12, 2004
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Gerald Lange wrote:

                                      > Casey
                                      >
                                      > Short answer is yes. There is a website on the IBM Selectric. This
                                      > link has further details
                                      >
                                      > http://shapeofdays.typepad.com/the_shape_of_days/2004/09/the_ibm_selectr.html
                                      >
                                      > and will lead you deeper and deeper into the fray (if you so choose).
                                      >
                                      > Gerald
                                      >
                                      > --- In PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com, "cmcgarr1957" <casey@m...> wrote:
                                      > > I haven't heard anyone speak about the superscript that was used on
                                      > the Bush document.
                                      > > Sounds like many of you know a good deal about typewriters, did a
                                      > superscript appear as
                                      > > an option back then when typing?
                                      > >
                                      > > Casey
                                      >
                                      >
                                      I have been a lurker on this list for some time, but I can't resist
                                      commenting on this subject. I was a legal clerk in the US Army from
                                      1972 to 1975, roughly the same time frame as these documents were
                                      allegedly produced. I received training at schools located at Ft.
                                      Leonard Wood, Missouri and Ft. Ben. Harrison, Indiana. I then worked at
                                      regimental headquarters of the 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment in Nuernberg
                                      (aka Nuremberg), Germany. Manual typewriters were the norm everywhere.
                                      The regimental commander's secretary, however, used an IBM electric (but
                                      not a Selectric), which had proportional spacing. Superscript was not
                                      available.

                                      When I returned from Germany, I purchased an IBM Selectric 2 along with
                                      several different type balls, which included Courier pica and Courier
                                      elite. Superscript was not an option on any of these. If superscript
                                      were available at the time, you would have to go to extraordinary
                                      lengths to obtain it.

                                      Now, there has been some commentary on the different fonts used in the
                                      letterhead and in the body of the letter. That is not surprising. The
                                      military generally used printed Dept. of the Army stationery, to which
                                      local unit information was added by the typist. The sample at issue,
                                      however, does not conform with any stationery that I recall ever seeing,
                                      particularly at a headquarters level. But, the National Guard may have
                                      been different.

                                      One other observation. In the military, the command would have issued a
                                      special order regarding the physical. The commander would not send out
                                      a personal letter on the subject. That is simply not how it was done.

                                      Regards,

                                      Gary Hoffman
                                    • elweber@attglobal.net
                                      Just a quick addition to Paul s comments --read Tom Taylor s book Tex Fake. This book gives some examples of incredible naivete , by both forgers & their
                                      Message 18 of 29 , Sep 12, 2004
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Just a quick addition to Paul"s comments --read Tom Taylor's book Tex Fake.

                                        This book gives some examples of "incredible naivete", by both forgers &
                                        their customers.
                                        Ed Weber

                                        Paul W Romaine wrote:

                                        > I hate to comment on topics like this, and I certainly don't want to
                                        > get into politics but....
                                        >
                                        > The most common forgeries (and some of the best) are those that we do
                                        > (or sometimes do not) *want* to believe. The Mormon "salamander"
                                        > forgery of convicted killer Mark Hofmann was in this category, and he
                                        > was *very* good. (The "Salamander" letter purported to describe white
                                        > magic practices by a young Joseph Smith, which fit well with
                                        > then-current academic theories about the origins of Mormonism; Hofmann
                                        > came forward as a concerned believer, selling and donating this and
                                        > similar documents to Elders of the Church of Latter Day Saints.) The
                                        > Texana forgeries of the 1970s and 1980s were done purely for greed by
                                        > David Dorman and dealer John Jenkins (exposed by printer/publisher Tom
                                        > Taylor). I'm still awaiting a secret diary of Thomas Jefferson to
                                        > appear on the market, which discusses his relationship with Sally
                                        > Hemmings. If something fulfills expectations a little too well, it's
                                        > always a good idea to ask "is it real?"
                                        >
                                        > (Another example of the vanity of human wishes: genealogist Elizabeth
                                        > Shownes Mills at the University of Alabama, pointed out in 2001 that
                                        > documents faked using Photoshop had been used in support of an
                                        > application to a lineage society--Colonial Dames or DAR, or something
                                        > similar--although she avoided details for legal reasons.)
                                        >
                                        > The paper documents obtained by CBS were photocopies, showing the
                                        > usual degradation of multiple generations from a photocopier.
                                        > Therefore no one, not even an expert, could look for impressions from
                                        > a typewriter, for watermarks (dandyroll or otherwise), or other
                                        > physical evidence. There was also blurring of some lines in the copy I
                                        > viewed, perhaps the result of movement of the page on a copier or
                                        > scanner, which makes identification more difficult. (Evidence that
                                        > could be cited either way.) This is a warning, of course, about
                                        > trusting surrogates--digital or oterwise. Our digital authentication
                                        > abilities are still pretty crude compared to what had evolved by the
                                        > end of the 19th C. to foil forgers.
                                        >
                                        > It worries me that the document expert (I know a few), interviewed by
                                        > Dan Rather after the questions were raised, said that he based his
                                        > determination upon the *signatures*, since he couldn't look at
                                        > originals. This is worrisome, since good authentication should be
                                        > holistic in looking at many sources of information as possible.
                                        >
                                        > Hiroshi: I'm pretty sure auto line feed didn't turn up until the
                                        > early-1980s. My third Smith Corona (1982) was one of those daisy-wheel
                                        > versions with an "AutoReturn" feature. It wasn't available on the old
                                        > metal Selectric typewriters, but by then I recall seeing some offices
                                        > outfitted with the newish IBM typewriters (putty and tan gray) with
                                        > these features. Libraries were always down the food chain for office
                                        > equipment, so we didn't see these until the late 1980s and early 1990s
                                        > (but we tended to prefer the Selectrics).
                                        >
                                        > A NY Times article mentioned that one of the experts consulted by the
                                        > Times or AP had written a history of the Selectric typewriter for
                                        > IBM's journal in the 1980s. Interesting! I rather suspect that many of
                                        > these little histories (or the information that Fritz mentioned about
                                        > ownership/maintenance records) are eventually lost.
                                        >
                                        > Paul
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >


                                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      • Fritz Klinke
                                        Perhaps the short answer should be no. As has been pointed out, manual typewriters, not electric ones, were the norm for the military in that time period.
                                        Message 19 of 29 , Sep 12, 2004
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Perhaps the short answer should be no. As has been pointed out, manual
                                          typewriters, not electric ones, were the norm for the military in that time
                                          period. Selectrics had been around for several years, and the very common
                                          Executive even longer, but were much more expensive and considering the tens of
                                          thousands of typewriters spread throughout the military and government in
                                          general, the change over to newer technology took many years at considerable
                                          expense. The lowly company or battalion clerks were the last to get anything
                                          new. As I was a property book officer in the Army, my small motor pool in
                                          Germany had a dozen typewriters, and I was personally signed out for each one,
                                          along with several million dollars worth of vehicles.

                                          The th, nd, and st superscripts were not on manual typewriters, not normally
                                          used in hot metal work, and appeared mostly in handwriting in my experience. It
                                          has been very annoying to me to see this pop up in computer programs. I don't
                                          recall military forms and orders using the superscripts anyway--dates were
                                          always like 11 September 2004--never abbreviated so as to avoid confusion and
                                          mistakes. I still have my orders and even those of my father when he served in
                                          the south Pacific in World War II and later Korea, and style changed very little
                                          for decades.

                                          Fritz

                                          ----- Original Message -----
                                          From: "Gerald Lange" <bieler@...>
                                          To: <PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com>
                                          Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2004 1:11 PM
                                          Subject: [PPLetterpress] Re: Bush Documents?


                                          > Casey
                                          >
                                          > Short answer is yes. There is a website on the IBM Selectric. This
                                          > link has further details
                                          >
                                          > http://shapeofdays.typepad.com/the_shape_of_days/2004/09/the_ibm_selectr.html
                                          >
                                          > and will lead you deeper and deeper into the fray (if you so choose).
                                          >
                                          > Gerald
                                          >
                                          > --- In PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com, "cmcgarr1957" <casey@m...> wrote:
                                          > > I haven't heard anyone speak about the superscript that was used on
                                          > the Bush document.
                                          > > Sounds like many of you know a good deal about typewriters, did a
                                          > superscript appear as
                                          > > an option back then when typing?
                                          > >
                                          > > Casey
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                        • Malcolm Dean
                                          I m popping in in the middle of the conversation, but two points re your recent posting on the Bush docs. One, at least one other doc in Bush s file from that
                                          Message 20 of 29 , Sep 12, 2004
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            I'm popping in in the middle of the conversation, but two points re your recent
                                            posting on the Bush docs. One, at least one other doc in Bush's file from that
                                            period (not in this group but previously released by the White House) does have
                                            superscripts. Two, as I remember, one of the guys in the office where these docs
                                            supposedly originated has said they used electric typewriters at that time. That's
                                            unfair to throw out as a fact w/out an attribution, but I'm sure I read it in the
                                            Post or the Times recently. I'll try to dig it up.

                                            Malcolm





                                            --- In PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com, "Fritz Klinke" <nagraph@f...> wrote:
                                            > Perhaps the short answer should be no. As has been pointed out, manual
                                            > typewriters, not electric ones, were the norm for the military in that time
                                            > period. Selectrics had been around for several years, and the very common
                                            > Executive even longer, but were much more expensive and considering the
                                            tens of
                                            > thousands of typewriters spread throughout the military and government in
                                            > general, the change over to newer technology took many years at considerable
                                            > expense. The lowly company or battalion clerks were the last to get anything
                                            > new. As I was a property book officer in the Army, my small motor pool in
                                            > Germany had a dozen typewriters, and I was personally signed out for each
                                            one,
                                            > along with several million dollars worth of vehicles.
                                            >
                                            > The th, nd, and st superscripts were not on manual typewriters, not normally
                                            > used in hot metal work, and appeared mostly in handwriting in my experience.
                                            It
                                            > has been very annoying to me to see this pop up in computer programs. I don't
                                            > recall military forms and orders using the superscripts anyway--dates were
                                            > always like 11 September 2004--never abbreviated so as to avoid confusion
                                            and
                                            > mistakes. I still have my orders and even those of my father when he served in
                                            > the south Pacific in World War II and later Korea, and style changed very little
                                            > for decades.
                                            >
                                            > Fritz
                                            >
                                            > ----- Original Message -----
                                            > From: "Gerald Lange" <bieler@w...>
                                            > To: <PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com>
                                            > Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2004 1:11 PM
                                            > Subject: [PPLetterpress] Re: Bush Documents?
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > > Casey
                                            > >
                                            > > Short answer is yes. There is a website on the IBM Selectric. This
                                            > > link has further details
                                            > >
                                            > > http://shapeofdays.typepad.com/the_shape_of_days/2004/09/
                                            the_ibm_selectr.html
                                            > >
                                            > > and will lead you deeper and deeper into the fray (if you so choose).
                                            > >
                                            > > Gerald
                                            > >
                                            > > --- In PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com, "cmcgarr1957" <casey@m...>
                                            wrote:
                                            > > > I haven't heard anyone speak about the superscript that was used on
                                            > > the Bush document.
                                            > > > Sounds like many of you know a good deal about typewriters, did a
                                            > > superscript appear as
                                            > > > an option back then when typing?
                                            > > >
                                            > > > Casey
                                            > >
                                            > >
                                            > >
                                            > >
                                            > >
                                          • Gerald Lange
                                            Fritz From what I can tell, the controversy revolves around what the Texas National Air Guard might have had in 1972–1973. Gerald ... that time ... common
                                            Message 21 of 29 , Sep 12, 2004
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              Fritz

                                              From what I can tell, the controversy revolves around what the Texas
                                              National Air Guard might have had in 1972–1973.

                                              Gerald

                                              --- In PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com, "Fritz Klinke" <nagraph@f...> wrote:
                                              > Perhaps the short answer should be no. As has been pointed out, manual
                                              > typewriters, not electric ones, were the norm for the military in
                                              that time
                                              > period. Selectrics had been around for several years, and the very
                                              common
                                              > Executive even longer, but were much more expensive and considering
                                              the tens of
                                              > thousands of typewriters spread throughout the military and
                                              government in
                                              > general, the change over to newer technology took many years at
                                              considerable
                                              > expense. The lowly company or battalion clerks were the last to get
                                              anything
                                              > new. As I was a property book officer in the Army, my small motor
                                              pool in
                                              > Germany had a dozen typewriters, and I was personally signed out for
                                              each one,
                                              > along with several million dollars worth of vehicles.
                                              >
                                              > The th, nd, and st superscripts were not on manual typewriters, not
                                              normally
                                              > used in hot metal work, and appeared mostly in handwriting in my
                                              experience. It
                                              > has been very annoying to me to see this pop up in computer
                                              programs. I don't
                                              > recall military forms and orders using the superscripts
                                              anyway--dates were
                                              > always like 11 September 2004--never abbreviated so as to avoid
                                              confusion and
                                              > mistakes. I still have my orders and even those of my father when he
                                              served in
                                              > the south Pacific in World War II and later Korea, and style changed
                                              very little
                                              > for decades.
                                              >
                                              > Fritz
                                            • Fritz Klinke
                                              Gerald--Go back and re-read Gary Hoffman s posting in which he stated: I was a legal clerk in the US Army from ... That s what I based my comments on, not what
                                              Message 22 of 29 , Sep 13, 2004
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                Gerald--Go back and re-read Gary Hoffman's posting in which he stated:

                                                I was a legal clerk in the US Army from
                                                > 1972 to 1975, roughly the same time frame as these documents were
                                                > allegedly produced. I received training at schools located at Ft.
                                                > Leonard Wood, Missouri and Ft. Ben. Harrison, Indiana. I then worked at
                                                > regimental headquarters of the 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment in Nuernberg
                                                > (aka Nuremberg), Germany. Manual typewriters were the norm everywhere.

                                                That's what I based my comments on, not what was generally available in the
                                                private sector during that time period. And further, reserve units lag behind
                                                active duty units in acquiring new equipment. A Selectric is not a manual
                                                typewriter any more than the keyboard on a computer makes the computer a manual
                                                computer. We're talking Remingtons, Underwoods, and who ever else made these
                                                machines and were the low bidder.

                                                Fritz

                                                ----- Original Message -----
                                                From: "Gerald Lange" <bieler@...>
                                                To: <PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com>
                                                Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2004 11:35 PM
                                                Subject: [PPLetterpress] Re: Bush Documents?


                                                Fritz

                                                From what I can tell, the controversy revolves around what the Texas
                                                National Air Guard might have had in 1972-1973.

                                                Gerald

                                                --- In PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com, "Fritz Klinke" <nagraph@f...> wrote:
                                                > Perhaps the short answer should be no. As has been pointed out, manual
                                                > typewriters, not electric ones, were the norm for the military in
                                                that time
                                                > period. Selectrics had been around for several years, and the very
                                                common
                                                > Executive even longer, but were much more expensive and considering
                                                the tens of
                                                > thousands of typewriters spread throughout the military and
                                                government in
                                                > general, the change over to newer technology took many years at
                                                considerable
                                                > expense. The lowly company or battalion clerks were the last to get
                                                anything
                                                > new. As I was a property book officer in the Army, my small motor
                                                pool in
                                                > Germany had a dozen typewriters, and I was personally signed out for
                                                each one,
                                                > along with several million dollars worth of vehicles.
                                                >
                                                > The th, nd, and st superscripts were not on manual typewriters, not
                                                normally
                                                > used in hot metal work, and appeared mostly in handwriting in my
                                                experience. It
                                                > has been very annoying to me to see this pop up in computer
                                                programs. I don't
                                                > recall military forms and orders using the superscripts
                                                anyway--dates were
                                                > always like 11 September 2004--never abbreviated so as to avoid
                                                confusion and
                                                > mistakes. I still have my orders and even those of my father when he
                                                served in
                                                > the south Pacific in World War II and later Korea, and style changed
                                                very little
                                                > for decades.
                                                >
                                                > Fritz







                                                Yahoo! Groups Links
                                              • Silver MayKitten
                                                When I was in the navy the newest typewriters we had were Royal manuals, each bearing a decail stating Proudly made in Springfield Missouri USA With the USA
                                                Message 23 of 29 , Sep 13, 2004
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  When I was in the navy the newest typewriters we had were Royal
                                                  manuals, each bearing a decail stating "Proudly made in
                                                  Springfield Missouri USA" With the USA in type the full height
                                                  of the two line sticker. By this time Olivetti was made in
                                                  Italy, Remingtons in Spain and Underwood in Sweeden by --
                                                  believe it or not: Solna.

                                                  Manuals were prefered by the services because they would
                                                  operate durring a power failure, or in the field without taking
                                                  up precious generator watts.

                                                  MayKitten
                                                  --- Fritz Klinke <nagraph@...> wrote:

                                                  > Gerald--Go back and re-read Gary Hoffman's posting in which
                                                  > he stated:
                                                  >
                                                  > I was a legal clerk in the US Army from
                                                  > > 1972 to 1975, roughly the same time frame as these
                                                  > documents were
                                                  > > allegedly produced. I received training at schools located
                                                  > at Ft.
                                                  > > Leonard Wood, Missouri and Ft. Ben. Harrison, Indiana. I
                                                  > then worked at
                                                  > > regimental headquarters of the 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment
                                                  > in Nuernberg
                                                  > > (aka Nuremberg), Germany. Manual typewriters were the norm
                                                  > everywhere.
                                                  >
                                                  > That's what I based my comments on, not what was generally
                                                  > available in the
                                                  > private sector during that time period. And further, reserve
                                                  > units lag behind
                                                  > active duty units in acquiring new equipment. A Selectric is
                                                  > not a manual
                                                  > typewriter any more than the keyboard on a computer makes the
                                                  > computer a manual
                                                  > computer. We're talking Remingtons, Underwoods, and who ever
                                                  > else made these
                                                  > machines and were the low bidder.
                                                  >
                                                  > Fritz
                                                  >
                                                  > ----- Original Message -----
                                                  > From: "Gerald Lange" <bieler@...>
                                                  > To: <PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com>
                                                  > Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2004 11:35 PM
                                                  > Subject: [PPLetterpress] Re: Bush Documents?
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  > Fritz
                                                  >
                                                  > From what I can tell, the controversy revolves around what
                                                  > the Texas
                                                  > National Air Guard might have had in 1972-1973.
                                                  >
                                                  > Gerald
                                                  >
                                                  > --- In PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com, "Fritz Klinke"
                                                  > <nagraph@f...> wrote:
                                                  > > Perhaps the short answer should be no. As has been pointed
                                                  > out, manual
                                                  > > typewriters, not electric ones, were the norm for the
                                                  > military in
                                                  > that time
                                                  > > period. Selectrics had been around for several years, and
                                                  > the very
                                                  > common
                                                  > > Executive even longer, but were much more expensive and
                                                  > considering
                                                  > the tens of
                                                  > > thousands of typewriters spread throughout the military and
                                                  > government in
                                                  > > general, the change over to newer technology took many
                                                  > years at
                                                  > considerable
                                                  > > expense. The lowly company or battalion clerks were the
                                                  > last to get
                                                  > anything
                                                  > > new. As I was a property book officer in the Army, my small
                                                  > motor
                                                  > pool in
                                                  > > Germany had a dozen typewriters, and I was personally
                                                  > signed out for
                                                  > each one,
                                                  > > along with several million dollars worth of vehicles.
                                                  > >
                                                  > > The th, nd, and st superscripts were not on manual
                                                  > typewriters, not
                                                  > normally
                                                  > > used in hot metal work, and appeared mostly in handwriting
                                                  > in my
                                                  > experience. It
                                                  > > has been very annoying to me to see this pop up in computer
                                                  > programs. I don't
                                                  > > recall military forms and orders using the superscripts
                                                  > anyway--dates were
                                                  > > always like 11 September 2004--never abbreviated so as to
                                                  > avoid
                                                  > confusion and
                                                  > > mistakes. I still have my orders and even those of my
                                                  > father when he
                                                  > served in
                                                  > > the south Pacific in World War II and later Korea, and
                                                  > style changed
                                                  > very little
                                                  > > for decades.
                                                  > >
                                                  > > Fritz
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  >


                                                  =====
                                                  Pagan, Pagan, what are you finding?
                                                  Yours is the road that winds lonely and far,
                                                  Strange are the shadows that round you come creeping,
                                                  Still through the clouds is the glint of a star!

                                                  From the book, Charge of the Goddess
                                                  BY: Doreen Valiente



                                                  _______________________________
                                                  Do you Yahoo!?
                                                  Shop for Back-to-School deals on Yahoo! Shopping.
                                                  http://shopping.yahoo.com/backtoschool
                                                • Gerald Lange
                                                  This article has surfaced as the result of this http://www.flounder.com/bush2.htm Whether or not one cares about this current event, or is downright sick of
                                                  Message 24 of 29 , Sep 13, 2004
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    This article has surfaced as the result of this

                                                    http://www.flounder.com/bush2.htm

                                                    Whether or not one cares about this current event, or is downright
                                                    sick of it, the depth of point-on referential information presented in
                                                    this piece on developments in late twentieth century type/printing
                                                    technologies is near staggering. Quite worth taking a look at for that
                                                    reason if none other.

                                                    Gerald
                                                  • Jan Froom
                                                    Shoot.... back in those days there wasn t even the character for the number ONE on typewriters, we used the lower case L . Today you can see there is a
                                                    Message 25 of 29 , Sep 13, 2004
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      Shoot.... back in those days there wasn't even the character for the
                                                      number ONE on typewriters, we used the lower case "L".
                                                      Today you can see there is a distinction between "l" and "1"....
                                                      computers pay attention to the difference.

                                                      Jan in Gilroy

                                                      Fritz Klinke wrote:

                                                      >Gerald--Go back and re-read Gary Hoffman's posting in which he stated:
                                                      >
                                                      >I was a legal clerk in the US Army from
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >>1972 to 1975, roughly the same time frame as these documents were
                                                      >>allegedly produced. I received training at schools located at Ft.
                                                      >>Leonard Wood, Missouri and Ft. Ben. Harrison, Indiana. I then worked at
                                                      >>regimental headquarters of the 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment in Nuernberg
                                                      >>(aka Nuremberg), Germany. Manual typewriters were the norm everywhere.
                                                      >>
                                                      >>
                                                      >
                                                      >That's what I based my comments on, not what was generally available in the
                                                      >private sector during that time period. And further, reserve units lag behind
                                                      >active duty units in acquiring new equipment. A Selectric is not a manual
                                                      >typewriter any more than the keyboard on a computer makes the computer a manual
                                                      >computer. We're talking Remingtons, Underwoods, and who ever else made these
                                                      >machines and were the low bidder.
                                                      >
                                                      >Fritz
                                                      >
                                                      >


                                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                    • Gerald Lange
                                                      Jan Back in those days I was working in online information retrieval. We had some very sophisticated electronic gear and yes, there was an internet at that
                                                      Message 26 of 29 , Sep 13, 2004
                                                      • 0 Attachment
                                                        Jan

                                                        Back in "those days" I was working in online information retrieval. We
                                                        had some very sophisticated electronic gear and yes, there was an
                                                        internet at that time, and yes, there was e-mail, and Boolean search
                                                        strategies. There was no GUI but there were monitors (text-based) and
                                                        keyboards (with full sets of numbers!!!). We were all hooked up
                                                        through main frames that were hardwired to other mainframes. We
                                                        communicated through modems hooked up to dedicated phonelines. This
                                                        was before personal computers but their predecessor, the
                                                        mini-computer, was around. My job duties entailed searching for
                                                        educational and scientific information materials, many of them on
                                                        goverment sponsored networks far, far away. At the time I was even
                                                        considering taking an information retrieval job with the "US Treasury"
                                                        that would have based me in Riyahd. And what they had in terms of
                                                        equipment was quite unbelievable.

                                                        One night when I was working on a project a line came on my screen
                                                        that asked "How old are you." The hairs actually raised on the back of
                                                        my neck. Shades of HAL. I let it go for a bit and then typed in my age
                                                        and asked, just for the hell of it, "How old are you"? After a while the
                                                        answer came back, "I am twelve." Turns out it was a doctor's kid in
                                                        Silver Springs, Maryland playing on his dad's setup and he had
                                                        somehow tapped into the network. That was a bit too much of the future
                                                        for me. Wasn't too much later, I resigned to devote my energies to
                                                        good old letterpress.

                                                        All to say, there was a lot more out there at that time than just a
                                                        bunch of manual typewriters.

                                                        Gerald


                                                        > Shoot.... back in those days there wasn't even the character for the
                                                        > number ONE on typewriters, we used the lower case "L".
                                                        > Today you can see there is a distinction between "l" and "1"....
                                                        > computers pay attention to the difference.
                                                        >
                                                        > Jan in Gilroy
                                                      • John Ayala
                                                        Jan, As I remember, the composer was usually found in typesetting shops. Typically not used by secretaries. As an aside...I remember passing through Gilroy on
                                                        Message 27 of 29 , Sep 13, 2004
                                                        • 0 Attachment
                                                          Jan,
                                                          As I remember, the composer was usually found in
                                                          typesetting shops. Typically not used by secretaries.
                                                          As an aside...I remember passing through Gilroy on the
                                                          way to Hollister. What a wake up for the senses and a
                                                          weary traveler!
                                                          John


                                                          --- Jan Froom <Jan@...> wrote:

                                                          > Shoot.... back in those days there wasn't even the
                                                          > character for the
                                                          > number ONE on typewriters, we used the lower case
                                                          > "L".
                                                          > Today you can see there is a distinction between "l"
                                                          > and "1"....
                                                          > computers pay attention to the difference.
                                                          >
                                                          > Jan in Gilroy
                                                          >
                                                          > Fritz Klinke wrote:
                                                          >
                                                          > >Gerald--Go back and re-read Gary Hoffman's posting
                                                          > in which he stated:
                                                          > >
                                                          > >I was a legal clerk in the US Army from
                                                          > >
                                                          > >
                                                          > >>1972 to 1975, roughly the same time frame as these
                                                          > documents were
                                                          > >>allegedly produced. I received training at
                                                          > schools located at Ft.
                                                          > >>Leonard Wood, Missouri and Ft. Ben. Harrison,
                                                          > Indiana. I then worked at
                                                          > >>regimental headquarters of the 2nd Armored Cavalry
                                                          > Regiment in Nuernberg
                                                          > >>(aka Nuremberg), Germany. Manual typewriters were
                                                          > the norm everywhere.
                                                          > >>
                                                          > >>
                                                          > >
                                                          > >That's what I based my comments on, not what was
                                                          > generally available in the
                                                          > >private sector during that time period. And
                                                          > further, reserve units lag behind
                                                          > >active duty units in acquiring new equipment. A
                                                          > Selectric is not a manual
                                                          > >typewriter any more than the keyboard on a computer
                                                          > makes the computer a manual
                                                          > >computer. We're talking Remingtons, Underwoods, and
                                                          > who ever else made these
                                                          > >machines and were the low bidder.
                                                          > >
                                                          > >Fritz
                                                          > >
                                                          > >
                                                          >
                                                          >
                                                          > [Non-text portions of this message have been
                                                          > removed]
                                                          >
                                                          >





                                                          __________________________________
                                                          Do you Yahoo!?
                                                          New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
                                                          http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
                                                        • Mark Wilden
                                                          From: John Ayala [mailto:jga89655@yahoo.com] ... way to Hollister. What a wake up for the senses and a weary traveler!
                                                          Message 28 of 29 , Sep 13, 2004
                                                          • 0 Attachment
                                                            From: John Ayala [mailto:jga89655@...]

                                                            >As an aside...I remember passing through Gilroy on the
                                                            way to Hollister. What a wake up for the senses and a
                                                            weary traveler!<

                                                            (Footnote: Gilroy is one of the garlic capitals of the world. I pass through
                                                            there twice a week myself. Nice place to visit, but ... whew!)
                                                          • Malcolm Dean
                                                            An interesting article in tomorrow s Dallas Morning news, an interview with= the former secretary for the Texas Air National Guard colonel who supposedly wr=
                                                            Message 29 of 29 , Sep 14, 2004
                                                            • 0 Attachment
                                                              An interesting article in tomorrow's Dallas Morning news, an interview with=
                                                              the
                                                              former secretary for the Texas Air National Guard colonel who supposedly wr=
                                                              ote
                                                              the memos. See http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/
                                                              stories/091504dnpolnatguard.1185eb4ae.html

                                                              Here's the article:

                                                              Former secretary says she didn't type memos

                                                              10:51 PM CDT on Tuesday, September 14, 2004
                                                              By PETE SLOVER / The Dallas Morning News

                                                              HOUSTON – The former secretary for the Texas Air National Guard colonel who=

                                                              supposedly authored memos critical of President Bush's Guard service said
                                                              Tuesday that the documents are fake, but that they reflect real documents t=
                                                              hat
                                                              once existed.

                                                              Marian Carr Knox, who worked from 1957 to 1979 at Ellington Air Force Base =
                                                              in
                                                              Houston, said she prided herself on meticulous typing, and the memos first =

                                                              disclosed by CBS News last week were not her work.

                                                              "These are not real," she told The Dallas Morning News after examining copi=
                                                              es of
                                                              the disputed memos for the first time. "They're not what I typed, and I wou=
                                                              ld
                                                              have typed them for him."

                                                              Mrs. Knox, 86, who spoke with precise recollection about dates, people and =

                                                              events, said she is not a supporter of Mr. Bush, who she deemed "unfit for =
                                                              office"
                                                              and "selected, not elected."

                                                              "I remember very vividly when Bush was there and all the yak-yak that was
                                                              going on about it," she said.

                                                              But, she said, telltale signs of forgery abounded in the four memos, which =

                                                              contained the supposed writings of her ex-boss, Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, who=
                                                              died in
                                                              1984.

                                                              She said the typeface on the documents did not match either of the two
                                                              typewriters that she used during her time at the Guard. She identified thos=
                                                              e
                                                              machines as a mechanical Olympia, which was replaced by an IBM Selectric in=
                                                              the
                                                              early 1970s.

                                                              She spoke fondly of the Olympia machine, which she said had a key with the =
                                                              "th"
                                                              superscript character that was the focus of much debate in the CBS memos.
                                                              Experts have said that the Selectric, and mechanical typewriters such as th=
                                                              e
                                                              Olympia, could not produce proportional spacing, found in the disputed
                                                              documents.... '

                                                              The memos, if real, would show that as a pilot, Mr. Bush defied a direct or=
                                                              der to
                                                              obtain a flight physical, enjoyed the benefit of pressure from high officia=
                                                              ls to
                                                              "sugar coat" his record, and was grounded for failing to meet military perf=
                                                              ormance
                                                              standards.

                                                              Mrs. Knox said she did all of Lt. Col. Killian's typing, including memos fo=
                                                              r a
                                                              personal "cover his back" file he kept in a locked drawer of his desk.

                                                              She said she did not recall typing the memos reported by CBS News, though s=
                                                              he
                                                              said they accurately reflect the viewpoints of Lt. Col. Killian and documen=
                                                              ts that
                                                              would have been in the personal file. Also, she could not say whether the C=
                                                              BS
                                                              documents corresponded memo for memo with that file.

                                                              "The information in here was correct, but it was picked up from the real on=
                                                              es,"
                                                              she said.

                                                              She said that the culture of the time was that men didn't type office-relat=
                                                              ed
                                                              documents, and she expressed doubt that Lt. Col. Killian would have typed t=
                                                              he
                                                              memos. She said she would typically type his memos from his handwritten not=
                                                              es,
                                                              which she would then destroy.

                                                              Mrs. Knox, who left the Guard before Lt. Col. Killian died, said she was no=
                                                              t sure of
                                                              the disposition of his personal files when he died while still serving at E=
                                                              llington.
                                                              But, she said, it would have been logical that a master sergeant who worked=
                                                              in
                                                              the squadron headquarters would have destroyed any such nonofficial documen=
                                                              ts
                                                              after Lt. Col. Killian's death.

                                                              That man, reached Tuesday, declined to comment. "I don't know anything abou=
                                                              t
                                                              the matter," he said.

                                                              She also said the memos may have been constructed from memory by someone
                                                              who had seen Lt. Col. Killian's private file but were not transcriptions be=
                                                              cause the
                                                              language and terminology did not match what he would have used.

                                                              For instance, she said, the use of the words "billets" and a reference to t=
                                                              he
                                                              "administrative officer" of Mr. Bush's squadron reflect Army terminology ra=
                                                              ther
                                                              than the Air National Guard. Some news reports attribute the CBS reports to=
                                                              a
                                                              former Army National Guard officer who has a longstanding dispute with the =

                                                              Guard and has previously maintained that the president's record was sanitiz=
                                                              ed.

                                                              Mrs. Knox also cited stylistic differences in the form of the notes, such a=
                                                              s the
                                                              signature on the right side of the document, rather than the left, where sh=
                                                              e
                                                              would have put it.

                                                              ***end











                                                              --- In PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com, John Ayala <jga89655@y...> wrote:
                                                              > Jan,
                                                              > As I remember, the composer was usually found in
                                                              > typesetting shops. Typically not used by secretaries.
                                                              > As an aside...I remember passing through Gilroy on the
                                                              > way to Hollister. What a wake up for the senses and a
                                                              > weary traveler!
                                                              > John
                                                              >
                                                              >
                                                              > --- Jan Froom <Jan@F...> wrote:
                                                              >
                                                              > > Shoot.... back in those days there wasn't even the
                                                              > > character for the
                                                              > > number ONE on typewriters, we used the lower case
                                                              > > "L".
                                                              > > Today you can see there is a distinction between "l"
                                                              > > and "1"....
                                                              > > computers pay attention to the difference.
                                                              > >
                                                              > > Jan in Gilroy
                                                              > >
                                                              > > Fritz Klinke wrote:
                                                              > >
                                                              > > >Gerald--Go back and re-read Gary Hoffman's posting
                                                              > > in which he stated:
                                                              > > >
                                                              > > >I was a legal clerk in the US Army from
                                                              > > >
                                                              > > >
                                                              > > >>1972 to 1975, roughly the same time frame as these
                                                              > > documents were
                                                              > > >>allegedly produced. I received training at
                                                              > > schools located at Ft.
                                                              > > >>Leonard Wood, Missouri and Ft. Ben. Harrison,
                                                              > > Indiana. I then worked at
                                                              > > >>regimental headquarters of the 2nd Armored Cavalry
                                                              > > Regiment in Nuernberg
                                                              > > >>(aka Nuremberg), Germany. Manual typewriters were
                                                              > > the norm everywhere.
                                                              > > >>
                                                              > > >>
                                                              > > >
                                                              > > >That's what I based my comments on, not what was
                                                              > > generally available in the
                                                              > > >private sector during that time period. And
                                                              > > further, reserve units lag behind
                                                              > > >active duty units in acquiring new equipment. A
                                                              > > Selectric is not a manual
                                                              > > >typewriter any more than the keyboard on a computer
                                                              > > makes the computer a manual
                                                              > > >computer. We're talking Remingtons, Underwoods, and
                                                              > > who ever else made these
                                                              > > >machines and were the low bidder.
                                                              > > >
                                                              > > >Fritz
                                                              > > >
                                                              > > >
                                                              > >
                                                              > >
                                                              > > [Non-text portions of this message have been
                                                              > > removed]
                                                              > >
                                                              > >
                                                              >
                                                              >
                                                              >
                                                              >
                                                              >
                                                              > __________________________________
                                                              > Do you Yahoo!?
                                                              > New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
                                                              > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
                                                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.