PDA

View Full Version : IBM EXECUTIVE TYPEWRITERS


Boyceofsummer
09-10-2004, 08:50 AM
http://amygdalagf.blogspot.com/2004/09/ibm-executive-typewriters.html

Amygdala



Thursday, September 09, 2004

IBM EXECUTIVE TYPEWRITERS. So now we hear that the Bush Jerry B. Killian documents may be forgeries. Are they? I have no idea. But I do know some things that are nonsense when I see them, such as this:
The experts also raised questions about the military's typewriter technology three decades ago. Collins said word processors that could produce proportional-sized fonts cost upwards of $20,000 at the time.

"I'm not real sure that you would have that kind of sophistication in the office of a flight inspector in the United States government," Showker said.

"The only thing it could be, possibly, is an IBM golf ball typewriter, which came out around the early to middle 1970s," Haley said. "Those did have proportional fonts on them. But they weren't widely used."
What a lot of bullshit. Some "expert." I was typing profusely in the Seventies, and while it's certainly true that they were a minority of typewriters, the IBM Executive C came out in 1959, and could be found in countless offices. Oh, yeah, it was proportional font. So was the Executive A, which came out in 1948. So was the B, which came out in 1954. (See timeline here.)

Here's an A from 1953:

Note specifically:
The IBM Executive uses a unique system of letter spacing... instead of every character taking exactly the same space on the writing line, as on standard typewriters, thin letters get narrower space, wide letters get the wider space needed. So, each word, each line, is more attractive, and more legible, and the overall appearance is outstanding.
It doesn't take a typography expert to recall that the Executive typewriter model, made for decades, was highly popular -- though, yes, in less use than monospaced typewriters -- that millions were made and found in offices everywhere, and at prices commensurate with other upbrand models. They in no way cost "$20,000" or even $2000. They sold new for a few hundred dollars.
"The only thing it could be, possibly, is an IBM golf ball typewriter, which came out around the early to middle 1970s," Haley said. "Those did have proportional fonts on them. But they weren't widely used."
More bullshit. The golfball Selectric came out in 1961. I have no idea how many or few the Army might have bought, but I have no problem believing that by 1972 it might have been more than quite a few.
But Haley added that the use of the superscript "th" cast doubt on the use of any typewriter.

"There weren't any typewriters that did that," Haley said. "That looks like it might be a function of something like Microsoft Word, which does that automatically."
Or it might have been done by a Selectric, which most certainly did superscripts and subscripts. All you had to do is switch golfballs. Doesn't anyone remember actually using these things?

Here is the document in question. Here is the main CBS piece.

Conclusion: does this prove the document isn't a forgery? Of course not. Aside from it being difficult to prove a negative, it's early yet in the examination of these documents. We'll see. There remain valid open questions, and whatever one's desires are to Believe in a particular direction, that doesn't advance verification either of authenticity or falsification of these documents. But I do know that the linked to "doubts" raised by this article are demonstrably spurious in those I have knowledge of and can check, which certainly doesn't give me faith in the reliability of what I can't check (the handwriting assertions).

Read The Rest Scale of the CNS piece: up to you.

LATER: Valid questions remain.

YET LATER: Avedon Carol reminds me of what I knew perfectly well, but had slipped my mind, which is that the Selectrics all had a little lever to pull (upper right, I think) to tighten the kerning when you chose. So that would strongly suggest a possible (though unproven) answer to the Mystery Of The Kerning.

It's also interesting that the White House has been spending the past two days sending out copies of the CBS memos, and discussing them at length, without challenging their authenticity, though that, too, of course, doesn't prove anything at all. If they are forgeries, though, and I were Bush, Rove, and company, I'd sure be mad at my press office for this cock-up in not challenging the documents as such.

EVEN YET LATER: Hmm, well, that's gotten a few more hits than I expected, thanks to such folks as Unfogged, Oxblog, Atrios, Pandagon, and others (yes, I wuv you too). Do, visitors, along with possibly enjoying or frowning at other posts, consider the words at the top of the page, please; as ever, it's a good week for that.
9/9/2004 05:19:50 PM|permanent link| | 5 comments


5 Comments:
The Washington Post weighs in.

Experts consulted by a range of news organizations pointed out typographical and formatting questions about four documents as they considered the possibility that they were forged. The widow of the National Guard officer whose signature is on the bottom of the documents also disputed their authenticity.Yeah, that pretty much clinches it.

By SMASH, at 9/9/2004 10:45:54 PM

It's also interesting that the White House has been spending the past two days sending out copies of the CBS memos, and discussing them at length, without challenging their authenticity, though that, too, of course, doesn't prove anything at all. If they are forgeries, though, and I were Bush, Rove, and company, I'd sure be mad at my press office for this cock-up in not challenging the documents as such.Indeed. Surely, interesting though it is, the authenticity of these records takes second place to the fact the White House and Bush aren't furiously refuting their content at all.

If this whole National Guard issue matters, it matters because Bush has been lying - up to this day - about the events. Anything else is sidetracking from the issue.

By James Casey, at 9/10/2004 01:41:47 AM

I vaguely recall my mom dragging me to her office at NIH around 1970 to learn how to use her mag card typewriter, which was also a Selectric II, and it wasn't new then.

I already had my own Selectric II at home, but it wasn't mag card (in fact, it wasn't even a correcting Selectric). Purchased cheap at government auction, which means it had been in use by the gov for years before I got my hands on it.

By Avedon, at 9/10/2004 06:16:06 AM

Another odd discrepancy: Belmont Club

By Michael, at 9/10/2004 06:43:27 AM

You're ignoring all of the other discrepencies, however. For example, there's strong evidence that this memo was typed at night, but artificial light sources were not available until 1982! Also, Killian's kindergarten teacher says he couldn't read worth a damn and frequently confused his Rs and Ps, yet these memos are letter perfect. And the most glaring thing: the memos are in PDF form! There were PDF printers in the early 1970s, but they cost several million dollars and required a team of trained llamas to provide motive power for the disk drives.

By John W., at 9/10/2004 08:30:01 AM

Post a Comment

Mr. Kotter
09-10-2004, 08:52 AM
Keep hope alive, Comrad....

ROFL

alnorth
09-10-2004, 08:56 AM
Got one simple question for ya, a question that no one on the left can answer, that points to these documents being forgeries more than anything else.

Why the hell are these memos using curlicue apostrophes instead of the straight-line ones? Can you show me ANY 70's-era typewriter that can do that?

Mr. Kotter
09-10-2004, 08:58 AM
Got one simple question for ya, a question that no one on the left can answer, that points to these documents being forgeries more than anything else.

Why the hell are these memos using curlicue apostrophes instead of the straight-line ones? Can you show me ANY 70's-era typewriter that can do that?

No, he can't; and neither can CBS.... ROFL

RINGLEADER
09-10-2004, 09:12 AM
Kerry campaign killed their own story by releasing these docs...that's all everyone's talking about on the tube this morning (not about Bush's service - just about how CBS could be taken in by a hoax).

Matt Helm
09-10-2004, 09:20 AM
I read the article as well as the link and did not see any information relating to the OCR ball that was used for official Navy documents. It may not have been used on all official documents, but there was a number of them that required that specific ball.

Looks like someone is grasping at anything they can again.

Brock
09-10-2004, 09:27 AM
Is this what Kerry supporters are reduced to? ROFL ROFL

jAZ
09-10-2004, 09:56 AM
Why the hell are these memos using curlicue apostrophes instead of the straight-line ones? Can you show me ANY 70's-era typewriter that can do that?
The IBM Selectric....
http://www.ibmtypewriters.com/type.html

Joe Seahawk
09-10-2004, 10:00 AM
This is amusing... ;)

Saggysack
09-10-2004, 10:11 AM
This is amusing... ;)

It is.

Both sides are setting themselves up to fall in either direction of right or wrong.

What I'm trying to say is that if they prove to be not authentic, the Dems go down in flames. If they do prove to be authentic, Bush is screwed and will have to address the issue himself rather than trot McClellan out there to do the dirty work. If he doesn't acknowledge them, he screwed himself.

NewChief
09-10-2004, 10:13 AM
It is.

Both sides are setting themselves up to fall in either direction of right or wrong.

What I'm trying to say is that if they prove to be not authentic, the Dems go down in flames. If they do prove to be authentic, Bush is screwed and will have to address the issue himself rather than trot McClellan out there to do the dirty work. If he doesn't acknowledge them, he screwed himself.

I don't know. It seems that there is already such a cloud over the whole issue that even if the documents are "proven" to be authentic, very few will be swayed one way or the other. People were talking about Teflon Bush, and it's the truth. Rove (and cons in general) is a mastermind at obfuscating the issue and diverting attention away. For instance, people aren't debating whether Bush served or not. They're debating makes of typewriters from the 70s instead. The arguments get so convoluted and drawn out that people seem to forget the original issue and focus on the details.

Donger
09-10-2004, 10:17 AM
The IBM Selectric....
http://www.ibmtypewriters.com/type.html

Which one's the curlicue apostrophe?

jAZ
09-10-2004, 10:20 AM
Which one's the curlicue apostrophe?
About 6 of them... from what I see... the rest are straight line.

Joe Seahawk
09-10-2004, 10:22 AM
Which one's the curlicue apostrophe?

The 4th one up from the bottom.. Can't you see how perfectly that font matches the memo.. :rolleyes:

Like I said.. Amusing.. :)

Donger
09-10-2004, 10:25 AM
About 6 of them... from what I see... the rest are straight line.

That's odd. The only I see that even remotely looks like a curlicue apostrophe is 1353778, and the rest of the type resembles cursive.

You do know what a curlicue apostrophe looks like, right?

jAZ
09-10-2004, 10:29 AM
BTW, one of the regularly cited "document experts" being cited in the media as "Independant" (Sandra Ramsey Lines)...

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=Sandra+Ramsey+Lines&btnG=Search+News

... is a Republican activist/operative with "The Wish List" who's mission and vision is to:
Our vision is to create a powerful force of Political Partners whose financial support ensures the continuous election of pro-choice Republican women to positions at all levels of government across America..
http://www.thewishlist.org/
http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:mHu8HJKT95YJ:www.publicintegrity.org/527/handler-download.aspx%3Fact%3Dtxt%26type%3Dcon%26org%3D574%26year%3D2004+Sandra+Ramsey+Lines+The+Wish+List&hl=en

Saggysack
09-10-2004, 10:30 AM
That's odd. The only I see that even remotely looks like a curlicue apostrophe is 1353778, and the rest of the type resembles cursive.

You do know what a curlicue apostrophe looks like, right?

What about 1353845?

Donger
09-10-2004, 10:34 AM
What about 1353845?

Maybe. It's rather hard to tell.

Saggysack
09-10-2004, 10:42 AM
Maybe. It's rather hard to tell.

Not to me. I see a distinct curve. Anyway...

How about 1353829, 1353054 and 1353953?

Donger
09-10-2004, 10:46 AM
Not to me. I see a distinct curve. Anyway...

How about 1353829, 1353054 and 1353953?

Nope.

jAZ
09-10-2004, 10:46 AM
That's odd. The only I see that even remotely looks like a curlicue apostrophe is 1353778, and the rest of the type resembles cursive.

You do know what a curlicue apostrophe looks like, right?
I'm considering all that aren't straight to be curlicue. My point is that they appear to have existed. Whether the one used in the document is on this list of balls offered by this company today isn't my point.

I'm beginning to believe that the entire "forgery" discussion is in fact an attempt by Freepers (or even Rovers) to muddy the waters on documents that Bush knows reflect his actual military service.

Donger
09-10-2004, 10:49 AM
I'm beginning to believe that the entire "forgery" discussion is in fact an attempt by Freepers (or even Rovers) to muddy the waters on documents that Bush knows reflect his actual military service.

Of course you are. I'd expect nothing less.

KCTitus
09-10-2004, 10:51 AM
I learned to type on an IBM Selectric in highschool. it was nice.

jAZ
09-10-2004, 10:57 AM
I learned to type on an IBM Selectric in highschool. it was nice.
Me too... brings back fond... err... frustrating memories.

jAZ
09-10-2004, 11:00 AM
Of course you are. I'd expect nothing less.
The fact that the WH hasn't questioned the documents or their contents at all... and in fact acknowedged the possiblility they might be accurate by saying something like "whether they are real or not doesn't matter, the American people don't care" (my paraphrase).

Donger
09-10-2004, 11:04 AM
The fact that the WH hasn't questioned the documents or their contents at all... and in fact acknowedged the possiblility they might be accurate by saying something like "whether they are real or not doesn't matter, the American people don't care" (my paraphrase).

That's your proof that Rove is behind this?

KCWolfman
09-10-2004, 11:05 AM
Deny deny deny

Mr. Kotter
09-10-2004, 11:06 AM
That's your proof that Rove is behind this?

Peter Pan peanut butter is proof of Tinker Bell in jAZ's mind.... :rolleyes:

KCWolfman
09-10-2004, 11:06 AM
The fact that the WH hasn't questioned the documents or their contents at all... and in fact acknowedged the possiblility they might be accurate by saying something like "whether they are real or not doesn't matter, the American people don't care" (my paraphrase).
This from the same guy that says Kerry should not address the charges made against him.

Mr. Kotter
09-10-2004, 11:07 AM
Peter Pan peanut butter is proof of Tinker Bell in jAZ's mind.... :rolleyes:

And she's part of the right wing conspiracy too... ROFL

jAZ
09-10-2004, 11:14 AM
That's your proof that Rove is behind this?
Behind what?

Donger
09-10-2004, 11:16 AM
Behind what?

The documents.

jAZ
09-10-2004, 11:18 AM
The documents.
Why would I say Rove is behind the documents if I'm pretty confident they are authentic? I'm not following you.

Donger
09-10-2004, 11:23 AM
Why would I say Rove is behind the documents if I'm pretty confident they are authentic? I'm not following you.

Sorry, perhaps I misunderstood you.

What makes you "pretty confident" that they are authentic?

Do you know where they came from or who provided them to CBS?
Does it not concern you that Killian's family all say that their father didn't write them?
Does it not concern you that Killian also wrote glowing reviews of Bush and his service?

KCWolfman
09-10-2004, 11:27 AM
http://amygdalagf.blogspot.com/2004/09/ibm-executive-typewriters.html

Amygdala



Thursday, September 09, 2004



Well, I'm sold. If it is from a blog, it must be true.

jAZ
09-10-2004, 11:30 AM
Sorry, perhaps I misunderstood you.

What makes you "pretty confident" that they are authentic?

Do you know where they came from or who provided them to CBS?
Does it not concern you that Killian's family all say that their father didn't write them?
Does it not concern you that Killian also wrote glowing reviews of Bush and his service?
All of the questions concern me, but on whole, they have been debunked. As for family members opinions about what they feel their father would do or say, that means very little to me. As for glowing reviews... that's kinda the point of the whole thing isn't it? That Bush's connections were putting pressure on people to cover up his failures with things like glowing reviews?

KCWolfman
09-10-2004, 11:32 AM
All of the questions concern me, but on whole, they have been debunked. As for family members opinions about what they feel their father would do or say, that means very little to me. As for glowing reviews... that's kinda the point of the whole thing isn't it? That Bush's connections were putting pressure on people to cover up his failures with things like glowing reviews?
So the guy was a liar about Bush when he said positive things, but he was reputable enough to believe when he supposedly said negative things about Bush?


Damn, you would think some of the people would eventually trip themselves up with the constant spinning they do. The only thing I can think of is he has a spreadsheet with this crap filled out.

Michael Michigan
09-10-2004, 11:33 AM
All of the questions concern me, but on whole, they have been debunked. As for family members opinions about what they feel their father would do or say, that means very little to me. As for glowing reviews... that's kinda the point of the whole thing isn't it? That Bush's connections were putting pressure on people to cover up his failures with things like glowing reviews?

No wonder you guys lose.

Donger
09-10-2004, 11:36 AM
All of the questions concern me, but on whole, they have been debunked. As for family members opinions about what they feel their father would do or say, that means very little to me. As for glowing reviews... that's kinda the point of the whole thing isn't it? That Bush's connections were putting pressure on people to cover up his failures with things like glowing reviews?

I see.

You believe Killian when he allegedly wrote nasty stuff about Bush, but you don't when he wrote glowing reviews.

Color me so surprised.

So, why do you believe the documents are authentic?

Saggysack
09-10-2004, 11:38 AM
Do you know where they came from or who provided them to CBS?
Does it not concern you that Killian's family all say that their father didn't write them?
Does it not concern you that Killian also wrote glowing reviews of Bush and his service?

1.Nope.
2.Not really, I'm going to take a guess and say that Killian's wife and the rest of hisd family wouldn't know everything he wrote while in the military.
3. Nope

Does it concern you that Maj. Gen. Bobby Hodges, a self admitted Republican stated those were the concerns he remembers Lt. Col. Killian expressing to him at that time?

Mr. Kotter
09-10-2004, 11:42 AM
...Does it concern you that Maj. Gen. Bobby Hodges, a self admitted Republican stated those were the concerns he remembers Lt. Col. Killian expressing to him at that time?

Only insofar as Kerry's credentials are called into question by a life-long Democrat Zell Miller..... :)

jAZ
09-10-2004, 11:43 AM
I see.

You believe Killian when he allegedly wrote nasty stuff about Bush, but you don't when he wrote glowing reviews.

Color me so surprised.

So, why do you believe the documents are authentic?
When the "nasty stuff" is effectively an admission of the pressure he was getting to write the "glowing reviews"... yes.

Why logic goes out the window with you guys, I don't get.

jAZ
09-10-2004, 11:44 AM
Does it concern you that Maj. Gen. Bobby Hodges, a self admitted Republican stated those were the concerns he remembers Lt. Col. Killian expressing to him at that time?
Or that the WH isn't disputing the claims in the document like they have dozens of other times.

Mr. Kotter
09-10-2004, 11:45 AM
Or that the WH isn't disputing the claims in the document like they have dozens of other times.

It's called, "if you give them enough rope, they will hang themselves...." :)

KCWolfman
09-10-2004, 11:46 AM
Or that the WH isn't disputing the claims in the document like they have dozens of other times.
He said while Kerry still refuses to refute claims from Cambodia and regarding his medals.

jAZocrite is in full form today.

Donger
09-10-2004, 11:46 AM
When the "nasty stuff" is effectively an admission of the pressure he was getting to write the "glowing reviews"... yes.

Why logic goes out the window with you guys, I don't get.

Why do you think the documents are authentic?

Saggysack
09-10-2004, 11:47 AM
Only insofar as Kerry's credentials are called into question by a life-long Democrat Zell Miller..... :)

That isn't answering the question. That is deflecting.

It isn't hard for you to type yes or no, or is it?

Zell Miller..... ROFL :rolleyes:

Donger
09-10-2004, 11:47 AM
Does it concern you that Maj. Gen. Bobby Hodges, a self admitted Republican stated those were the concerns he remembers Lt. Col. Killian expressing to him at that time?

I haven't heard that.

Donger
09-10-2004, 11:48 AM
Or that the WH isn't disputing the claims in the document like they have dozens of other times.

Why on earth would they dispute claims in documents that may be fake?

Mr. Kotter
09-10-2004, 11:51 AM
....Does it concern you that Maj. Gen. Bobby Hodges, a self admitted Republican stated those were the concerns he remembers Lt. Col. Killian expressing to him at that time?

No, not really.

Given this guys "self admitted Republican" status is dubious....and that the sheer number or reputable other military sources, overwhelmingly, see to confirm Bush's version of events.

Saggysack
09-10-2004, 11:53 AM
I haven't heard that.

I'm sorry you haven't. :shrug:

jAZ
09-10-2004, 11:55 AM
Why on earth would they dispute claims in documents that may be fake?
Because they don't know if they are fake or not, but they are certain that the claims in the documents are false.

jAZ
09-10-2004, 11:56 AM
Why do you think the documents are authentic?
Because over the last 24 hours, it appears the specific allegations "proving" they are fake have been systematically debunked.

Donger
09-10-2004, 11:58 AM
Because over the last 24 hours, it appears the specific allegations "proving" they are fake have been systematically debunked.

According to whom?

Mr. Kotter
09-10-2004, 11:59 AM
Because over the last 24 hours, it appears the specific allegations "proving" they are fake have been systematically debunked.

And I've got ocean front property in Arizona....just right for you.

And cheap! :thumb:

Mr. Kotter
09-10-2004, 11:59 AM
According to whom?

Why JUSTIN, of course.... :)

KCWolfman
09-10-2004, 11:59 AM
1.Nope.
2.Not really, I'm going to take a guess and say that Killian's wife and the rest of hisd family wouldn't know everything he wrote while in the military.
3. Nope

Does it concern you that Maj. Gen. Bobby Hodges, a self admitted Republican stated those were the concerns he remembers Lt. Col. Killian expressing to him at that time?
The same Maj. Gen. Bobby Hodges who gave his own rating of GWB as "an outstanding young pilot" in his recommendation?

You guys have a forged document from a dead man and heresay from a bitter old man who only gave positive reports on the POTUS when he served. Not much ground to stand on.

Saggysack
09-10-2004, 12:00 PM
No, not really.

Given this guys "self admitted Republican" status is dubious....and that the sheer number or reputable other military sources, overwhelmingly, see to confirm Bush's version of events.

Dubious? ROFL

But Zell Miller, the republican house, er senate waiter has all the credibility in the world to you. ROFL

You're a riot!

Donger
09-10-2004, 12:00 PM
Because they don't know if they are fake or not, but they are certain that the claims in the documents are false.

That's just plain weird.

Mr. Kotter
09-10-2004, 12:04 PM
Dubious? ROFL

But Zell Miller, the republican house, er senate waiter has all the credibility in the world to you. ROFL

You're a riot!

I'm ideological comfortable with Zell, but not an expert or big fan necessarily.

But the people of Georgia have seemingly thought highly of him; that's good enough for me....at least it isn't Taxachusetts.

Saggysack
09-10-2004, 12:06 PM
The same Maj. Gen. Bobby Hodges who gave his own rating of GWB as "an outstanding young pilot" in his recommendation?

You guys have a forged document from a dead man and heresay from a bitter old man who only gave positive reports on the POTUS when he served. Not much ground to stand on.



Forged? How do you know? I didn't know they concluded that yet. Show me those findings you say are true. I would like to see it from legitimate source that has proven they are forged. Not some internet BB personalty that is hoping they are.

He must be bitter because he didn't say the things you want to hear. :hmmm:

I like your desperation, almost at it's finest moment. ROFL

Saggysack
09-10-2004, 12:11 PM
I'm ideological comfortable with Zell, but not an expert or big fan necessarily.

But the people of Georgia have seemingly thought highly of him; that's good enough for me....at least it isn't Taxachusetts.

Actually the rural communities in Ga. vote in full force. Have for years. You should hear what they have to say about him in places like Atlanta, Albany, Columbus and Macon. Not very flattering stuff.

I'll give Ziggy his due on education, that's about it.

jAZ
09-10-2004, 12:16 PM
Why JUSTIN, of course.... :)
Given that we are talking about my opinions, you might just be on to something.

KCWolfman
09-10-2004, 02:08 PM
Forged? How do you know? I didn't know they concluded that yet. Show me those findings you say are true. I would like to see it from legitimate source that has proven they are forged. Not some internet BB personalty that is hoping they are.

He must be bitter because he didn't say the things you want to hear. :hmmm:

I like your desperation, almost at it's finest moment. ROFL
So you believe Bobby now, or you believe Bobby when he wrote official documents regarding GWB's work?

You really are in quite a quandry with your predicament, aren't you?

And how strange your comment regarding "bitter". I don't remember that being your position when jettio or jAZ post their opinions regarding the swiftvets....hmmmm, I wonder why?

Joe Seahawk
09-10-2004, 02:26 PM
So is it just an amazing coincidence that typing out the document in Word and placing it over the original document the words and margins match up identical?

I honestly feel sorry for anybody who is still clinging to the hope that the doc was not a phony.. Just think about it for a minute..

Joe Seahawk
09-10-2004, 02:37 PM
From www.powerlineblog.com


If you type the word "my" in Word or any other word processing program, the tail of the "y" will curl slightly under the "m." This cannot be done on any typewriter, because a typewriter cannot know what the adjacent letter is. A letter on a typewriter must have its own space.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/Aug18memo.jpg



Check out the word "my" in line two, or "any" in line four. That's kerning. It was done on a word processor. As, in fact, should be apparent to anyone who looks at the document. Compare it to a genuine, typewriter-produced memo, as we did yesterday. The difference is obvious.

Kos also never addresses any of the substantive issues: the absurdity, on its face, of writing a memo whose subject heading is "CYA;" the memos' inconsistency with various military usages of the early 1970's; and, most of all, the anachronism in the August 18, 1973 memo, where Killian allegedly writes: "Staudt has obviously pressured Hodges more about Bush." Brigadier General "Buck" Staudt retired in 1972.

HC_Chief
09-10-2004, 02:40 PM
Man, they're digging their own graves

alnorth
09-10-2004, 02:51 PM
Well on the y part, im not sure I agree.

I fired up MS Word, typed out variations of the letter y in huge 72-point font (by itself, with another letter, etc) and in every case, the lower part doesnt actually go farther than the top left corner. The top left corner actually sticks out more.

I'd say the appearance that the lower part sticks out is the result of making it blurry (by running it through a copier 10 times)

Joe Seahawk
09-10-2004, 03:28 PM
The IBM Selectric....
http://www.ibmtypewriters.com/type.html


Here's some more interesting reading on the Selectric..
http://www.donaldsensing.com/2004/09/ibm-introduced-proportional-spacing.html

jAZ
09-10-2004, 03:47 PM
And I've got ocean front property in Arizona....just right for you.

And cheap! :thumb:
You own land near Yuma? Once California falls into the ocean, you might be on to something.

;)

KCWolfman
09-10-2004, 05:40 PM
So did I hear this right?

60 Minutes swears the documents have been authenticated, but they refuse to release the names of those that authenticated the papers?


Dan Rather and anyone who states they believe him based upon this flimsy charade should be embarrased at their thinly veiled attempts at subterfuge.

Frazod
09-10-2004, 06:05 PM
No f#cking way was that typed on a typewriter. It's bent as hell. One glance by a trained eye is enough. How can CBS even begin to claim this is legitimate?

I've been typing one damned thing or another for a living for over 20 years. Started with IBM Selectrics (far and away the best typewriter ever made - blows away everything that came before or after it, BTW) moved through the early dedicated word processors and now work on modern PCs. I've seen it all and used it all at one time or another, and over the years, I've fudged my share of documents as well.

AND I SURE AS HELL COULD DO A FAR BETTER JOB THAN THAT. :shake:

This sort of reminds me of the Iraq prison thing, where the abject stupidity of taking/posing for the photos was nearly as bad as the abuse itself. In this case, the absolute complete amatuerish attempt to pass this shit off as a 30+ year old document is simply pathetic.

It's bogus. Period.

Mr. Kotter
09-10-2004, 09:01 PM
No f#cking way was that typed on a typewriter. It's bent as hell. One glance by a trained eye is enough. How can CBS even begin to claim this is legitimate?

I've been typing one damned thing or another for a living for over 20 years. Started with IBM Selectrics (far and away the best typewriter ever made - blows away everything that came before or after it, BTW) moved through the early dedicated word processors and now work on modern PCs. I've seen it all and used it all at one time or another, and over the years, I've fudged my share of documents as well.

AND I SURE AS HELL COULD DO A FAR BETTER JOB THAN THAT. :shake:

This sort of reminds me of the Iraq prison thing, where the abject stupidity of taking/posing for the photos was nearly as bad as the abuse itself. In this case, the absolute complete amatuerish attempt to pass this shit off as a 30+ year old document is simply pathetic.

It's bogus. Period.

:thumb:

Frazod
09-10-2004, 09:37 PM
:thumb:
These idiots should have called me. For a *ahem* small fee, I could have done up a believable memo that could have painted GW as a cross-dressing buddist. :D

I once forged a teletype message (by cutting and pasting, selecting the correct printwheel and repeated photocopying) that looked absolutely 100% authentic. It was more than enough to convince one of my lieutenants (who was getting out of the service and already had a job lined up) that she had been involuntarily extended on active duty for one year..... :evil:

Mr. Kotter
09-10-2004, 09:56 PM
These idiots should have called me. For a *ahem* small fee, I could have done up a believable memo that could have painted GW as a cross-dressing buddist. :D

I once forged a teletype message (by cutting and pasting, selecting the correct printwheel and repeated photocopying) that looked absolutely 100% authentic. It was more than enough to convince one of my lieutenants (who was getting out of the service and already had a job lined up) that she had been involuntarily extended on active duty for one year..... :evil:

Were you a 71L?

The explanation you offered in the other thread....style, jargon, acronyms, and direct nature of military correspondence was right on as well; four years of writing military orders, operation orders, and evaluations, it took me a few months to get over it too.... ROFL

Frazod
09-10-2004, 10:05 PM
Were you a 71L?

The explanation you offered in the other thread....style, jargon, acronyms, and direct nature of military correspondence was right on as well; four years of writing military orders, operation orders, and evaluations, it took me a few months to get over it too.... ROFL

For my first three years I was a yeoman on the USS Concord. The last three I was a legalman at the Legal Service Office at Great Lakes. I don't know what a "7IL" is, but rest assured I was up to my ass in naval paperwork from the day I hit the ship to the day I got out.

And have been up to my ass in non-naval paperwork ever since.... :banghead:

As for the way that memo was written (beyond what it looks like), in my informed opinion - there is no way in hell it was written by someone who was ever in the military.

Mr. Kotter
09-10-2004, 10:10 PM
... I don't know what a "7IL" is, but rest assured I was up to my ass in naval paperwork from the day I hit the ship to the day I got out.

And have been up to my ass in non-naval paperwork ever since.... :banghead:

A 71L (71 "Lima) in the Army is precisely what you have described.

If you had been in the Army, your MOS (military occupational specialty) would have been 71L. :thumb:

Frazod
09-10-2004, 10:13 PM
A 71L (71 "Lima) in the Army is precisely what you have described.

If you had been in the Army, your MOS (military occupational specialty) would have been 71L. :thumb:

I assume that "Lima" translates to "Legal." Yep, that was me.

Mr. Kotter
09-10-2004, 10:16 PM
I assume that "Lima" translates to "Legal." Yep, that was me.

No, just the designation for the MOS....Lima is military phonetic alphabet for the letter "L"

It was the MOS of enlisted "admin" folks....

You know, "REMFs".... ;)

LVNHACK
09-10-2004, 10:16 PM
I assume that "Lima" translates to "Legal." Yep, that was me.




Nope.....limp as in wrist, and it is you............ :p

Mr. Kotter
09-10-2004, 10:17 PM
Nope.....limp as in wrist, and it is you............ :p

ROFL

Frazod
09-10-2004, 10:19 PM
Oh, bite me, jarhead. nlm

LVNHACK
09-10-2004, 10:20 PM
Oh, bite me, jarhead. nlm


ROFL

Logical
09-10-2004, 10:46 PM
All of the questions concern me, but on whole, they have been debunked. As for family members opinions about what they feel their father would do or say, that means very little to me. As for glowing reviews... that's kinda the point of the whole thing isn't it? That Bush's connections were putting pressure on people to cover up his failures with things like glowing reviews?

ROFL Conspiracy theory at its worst. Young Bush, everyone knew he would one day run for President so they had to create false glowing records to support that future Presidential bid.ROFLROFL

KCWolfman
09-11-2004, 07:31 AM
ROFL Conspiracy theory at its worst. Young Bush, everyone knew he would one day run for President so they had to create false glowing records to support that future Presidential bid.ROFLROFL
Even moreso, Karl Rove knew he would be puppet master one day, so he created the documents of a 20+ year old kid he thought would be POTUS one day.

Cochise
09-11-2004, 07:36 AM
Even moreso, Karl Rove knew he would be puppet master one day, so he created the documents of a 20+ year old kid he thought would be POTUS one day.

Wow, is this why I never landed in jail? Maybe someone is guarding me and I'm going to be president someday :eek:

headsnap
09-11-2004, 11:20 AM
Nope.....limp as in wrist, and it is you............ :p
he is a Martha Stewart fan after all... :)

Frazod
09-11-2004, 11:26 AM
he is a Martha Stewart fan after all... :)

:moon: