SilverNRed Posted September 11, 2004 Posted September 11, 2004 If the entire basis for the claim of forgery is the superscripted "th", that's pathetic. Anyone who typed in the 60's and 70's on an IBM selectric (which was pretty much the only machine you'd find in offices) knows that there were typing elements (those little typing balls) that contained those symbols. You simply stopped typing, popped off the standard ball and popped on the symbol ball. Or there were special elements made with those symbols on them replacing the uppercases on the number keys, for certain industries that needed them, for example in scientific notation and the like. The documents were given by someone to the network - they didn't file a lawsuit and then pull the papers out of their OWN files. They had them inspected. So if they are forgeries the network did its due diligence. But again, if it's just the "th" the Bushistas as clutching at straws. I know from personal experience that you could get that symbol with no trouble on a Selectric or any typewriter with a changeable element. Only the typewriters with keys were a pain, you had to stop, roll the platen up a half a line, then type, and the letters would be full sized. On the element they were superscripted and small. 26959[/snapback] There are probably over a dozen significant problems with the four memos as of right now and a lot of the articles discussing those are in this thread and the other one that I started. The 'TH' is possible but CBS did not show that that specific brand of typewriter was being used at the office where the memoes were supposedly written. Last night, Rather showed another document typed in that era with a superscript 'TH'. The problem? It looked completely different - the memo version resembling the Microsoft Word version of superscript. Also, someone has already re-typed said memoes with an old IBM Selectric and posted the results online. They do not match. Then there is kerning, or how the 'y' in word processors can curl underneath the letter before it. That is somehow present in the memoes....somehow. Not to mention the notes refer to an officer who had retired 1.5 years before they were supposedly written. The heading is somehow perfectly centered, all three lines of it. Doing that with an 1972 typewriter would have taken forever. Finally, a man named Hodges, who CBS used to verify that the memoes, has now recanted. Apparently CBS told him they had hand-written memoes and read the contents to him on the phone (this from ABC News). This won't die as bad as Dan Rather wants it to. His shrill counterattack on the people questioning him (those 'partisan political operatives') didn't help. He can't believe the idiot masses on the internet could possibly bring him down.
Nanker Posted September 11, 2004 Posted September 11, 2004 Let's wait until CBS brings forth the originals. All the proof as to their authenticity will be in those physical documents. It's really very simple. If they were typed back in the 70's they'll have typewriter ribbon ink impressed into the fabric of the paper by the typewriter's strikes, and the signature will be written in ink. If they were produced by the miracle of modern technology on a PC, the text will be fused electrostatic toner. The two are as different as Bills and Fins. ANY forensic analysis lab would take all of two minutes to determine the difference. My old typography Professor at RIT - Archie Provan - could tell just by looking at them. It's curious though that they're not printed in something closer to the Courier font. That's a monospaced font that is similar to most government generated memos and letters of the era. One wouldn't expect the Texas National Guard to have cutting edge technology even now, yet alone back in the 70's. Don't feature any secretary - even a Anna Nicole type - fussing over a document like this to get the superscripted ligature instead of an inline and online "th". The General that's identified as pressuring to get Bush special treatment retired the previous year. Curious that he'd have any sway over such matters. Maybe everybody just knew that 15 years later his father would become President. Yeah, that must be it.
IDBillzFan Posted September 11, 2004 Posted September 11, 2004 Let's wait until CBS brings forth the originals. The questions become; do they have the originals, and if so, WILL they bring them forward?
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted September 11, 2004 Posted September 11, 2004 WHERE IS COLUMBO?? "Wait... let me, uhh, get this straight now... YOU said that the selectric typewriter was the only one that could make this mark, no? Well, this IS an interesting puzzle... I, uh, am confused..." COME ON, this sounds like a bad B movie! Who needs real issues when you have the circus? hehe
IUBillsFan Posted September 11, 2004 Author Posted September 11, 2004 The questions become; do they have the originals, and if so, WILL they bring them forward? 27050[/snapback] That's the thing they DON'T have the originals, they've said so. What they do have is "first generation" copies.
IDBillzFan Posted September 12, 2004 Posted September 12, 2004 That's the thing they DON'T have the originals, they've said so. What they do have is "first generation" copies. 27057[/snapback] Then surely the people who gave them first generation copies must have the originals. Oh, man, Dan. All these years on the air and it comes to this. I'd tread carefully.
Wacka Posted September 12, 2004 Posted September 12, 2004 Hey blzrul, What's the flavor of the KoolAid today?
Chalkie Gerzowski Posted September 12, 2004 Posted September 12, 2004 That spewed insanity is enough for you to head to the ignore file......but first, have a tall glass of the special Jim Jones grape drink. If the entire basis for the claim of forgery is the superscripted "th", that's pathetic. Anyone who typed in the 60's and 70's on an IBM selectric (which was pretty much the only machine you'd find in offices) knows that there were typing elements (those little typing balls) that contained those symbols. You simply stopped typing, popped off the standard ball and popped on the symbol ball. Or there were special elements made with those symbols on them replacing the uppercases on the number keys, for certain industries that needed them, for example in scientific notation and the like. The documents were given by someone to the network - they didn't file a lawsuit and then pull the papers out of their OWN files. They had them inspected. So if they are forgeries the network did its due diligence. But again, if it's just the "th" the Bushistas as clutching at straws. I know from personal experience that you could get that symbol with no trouble on a Selectric or any typewriter with a changeable element. Only the typewriters with keys were a pain, you had to stop, roll the platen up a half a line, then type, and the letters would be full sized. On the element they were superscripted and small. 26959[/snapback]
stuckincincy Posted September 13, 2004 Posted September 13, 2004 Has anyone yet managed to point out that '60s vintage typewriters and modern computers print to paper differently? A typewriter uses impact printing, ink- or laser-jet doesn't. Ergo, a typewriter disrupts the fiber of the paper around the letter, and will show clear evidence of the impact. The ink's different too...typewriters use a ribbon, ink- and laser-jets use dyes. 26819[/snapback] Yes they have. That's why the originals are desired.
Paco Posted September 15, 2004 Posted September 15, 2004 Yes they have. That's why the originals are desired. 28208[/snapback] And exactly WHO has the originals???
Alaska Darin Posted September 15, 2004 Posted September 15, 2004 And exactly WHO has the originals??? 31598[/snapback] Secret Squirrell?
swede316 Posted September 15, 2004 Posted September 15, 2004 I don't know who has them, but I know where they are stored...The same place as the Alien bodies from Area 51, the captured Big Foot and the proof of the Loch Ness Monster.
Alaska Darin Posted September 15, 2004 Posted September 15, 2004 I don't know who has them, but I know where they are stored...The same place as the Alien bodies from Area 51, the captured Big Foot and the proof of the Loch Ness Monster. 31621[/snapback] Where the hell is Geraldo when you need him?
VABills Posted September 15, 2004 Posted September 15, 2004 Hey I just heard the dummy's from texas will pay 50K to anyone who can confirm Bush lived up to his obligation. Yeah, I can see it now. Come forward, get publicly abused and still don't get 50K.
Paco Posted September 15, 2004 Posted September 15, 2004 Where the hell is Geraldo when you need him? 31626[/snapback] Hangin' out with Hoffa, more than likely. What I don't understand is...WHY would CBS do a story like this WITHOUT having the original documents. Isn't THAT a signficant question to ask?
_BiB_ Posted September 15, 2004 Posted September 15, 2004 I don't know who has them, but I know where they are stored...The same place as the Alien bodies from Area 51, the captured Big Foot and the proof of the Loch Ness Monster. 31621[/snapback] You've been in my basement?
SilverNRed Posted September 15, 2004 Posted September 15, 2004 Hangin' out with Hoffa, more than likely. What I don't understand is...WHY would CBS do a story like this WITHOUT having the original documents. Isn't THAT a signficant question to ask? 31647[/snapback] Oh, gosh, who knows? And I'm sure it's just coincidence that they did the story less than a week prior to the DNC launching their "Fortunate Son" attacks on the President. /sarcasm The theory that they got the memoes from a Kerry source or a moveon.org source might have something to it. It's possible they won't release the source because doing it would throw the whole election out of whack (and not the way they wanted last week). If the source was just some bitter ex-National Guard member, I don't see why they wouldn't sell him out and save what little face they have left. CBS News, and especially Dan Rather, are absolutely getting slammed from all sides on this right now and it's not going away. Then again, I'm just thinking out loud......
VABills Posted September 15, 2004 Posted September 15, 2004 In fact, no. 25751[/snapback] Care to retract your stupidity yet?
Recommended Posts