0.41 seconds

On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 10:38:08 +0200, "Robert Chung" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Using MS Word, re-create the memo dated "04 May 1972." Easy, or hard?

OK, did the entire memo. The only issue - which may be either from a
slightly different font set or from the copy process - is the
superscript on the 111th is slightly lower in an original Word 2003
document.

All of the remainder can be easily reproduced.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Curtis L. Russell said:

On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 10:38:08 +0200, "Robert Chung" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Using MS Word, re-create the memo dated "04 May 1972." Easy, or hard?

OK, did the entire memo. The only issue - which may be either from a
slightly different font set or from the copy process - is the
superscript on the 111th is slightly lower in an original Word 2003
document.

All of the remainder can be easily reproduced.

Great. Can you post the .doc (or a .pdf)?

Robert Chung said:

Curtis L. Russell said:

On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 10:38:08 +0200, "Robert Chung" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Using MS Word, re-create the memo dated "04 May 1972." Easy, or hard?

OK, did the entire memo. The only issue - which may be either from a
slightly different font set or from the copy process - is the
superscript on the 111th is slightly lower in an original Word 2003
document.

All of the remainder can be easily reproduced.

Great. Can you post the .doc (or a .pdf)?

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=12526_Bush_Guard_Documents-_Forged

On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 16:11:16 +0200, "Robert Chung" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

You've said you have no problem whatsoever with any aspect of this memo.
So type it in and tell us how easy it was to match the format as it
appears.

Easy enough. The only issue is the spacing that is used as a default,
and something easily changed. I personally changed the spacing when
I'm forced to use Times Roman. Doesn't even require actual kerning.

That done and understanding that the experts have said the memo was
copied several times (i.e. there is somewhat wavy text at times), the
only thing that is different in Word 2003 is the superscript, which is
identical but slightly lower. Doubt if multiple copies would cause
that. OTOH, I don't have a prior copy of Word to check that issue.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Dan Connelly said:

Robert Chung said:

Curtis L. Russell said:

On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 10:38:08 +0200, "Robert Chung" <[email hidden]>
wrote:

> Using MS Word, re-create the memo dated "04 May 1972." Easy, or hard?

OK, did the entire memo. The only issue - which may be either from a
slightly different font set or from the copy process - is the
superscript on the 111th is slightly lower in an original Word 2003
document.

All of the remainder can be easily reproduced.

Great. Can you post the .doc (or a .pdf)?

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=12526_Bush_Guard_Documents-_Forged

Right. That's why I was specifically asking about the 04 May 1972 memo,
not the 18 Aug 1973 memo.

On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 17:48:59 +0200, "Robert Chung" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Great. Can you post the .doc (or a .pdf)?

No easy way. To create it is easy enough for anyone, though. Just
increase the spacing in the font to get the spacing on the memo, tell
it to reverse the autocorrection on the first superscript and type the
rest. It comes close for all practical purposes except for the one
item. So I don't see anything special about it.

I'm curious if anyone has Word 97 to check the superscript to see if
it is higher in previous versions. I'm not aware that there is any way
to change this easily as a setting and since the superscript in Word
2003 is about dead flat with the top of the numbers, it isn't
something that would shift that high just from copying.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Curtis L. Russell said:

I'm curious if anyone has Word 97 to check the superscript to see if
it is higher in previous versions. I'm not aware that there is any way
to change this easily as a setting and since the superscript in Word
2003 is about dead flat with the top of the numbers, it isn't
something that would shift that high just from copying.

After reading that web reference, I did a print and its correct - the
superscript does print higher than the normal text (and higher than on
screen) and is the same as the pdf. Its pretty much a match dead-on.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Curtis L. Russell said:

To create it is easy enough for anyone, though. Just
increase the spacing in the font to get the spacing on the memo, tell
it to reverse the autocorrection on the first superscript and type the
rest. It comes close for all practical purposes except for the one
item. So I don't see anything special about it.

Bingo. And that's exactly what I do see as special. You have to tell it
specifically not to automatically superscript the "111th" and the "1st,"
but then you *do* have to let Word superscript the "111th" in paragraph 2.
You also have to specifically insert a soft return on the "MEMORANDUM"
line after the word "Houston" and tab over even though it appears that
there's enough space at the end of the line for the word "Texas." If you
were forging a memo out of whole cloth, why would you do that? You did
what you just did because you were copying an existing memo and trying to
match it--but there'd be no need to do that if you were making it up. And,
for the numbered paragraphs you have to reverse the autoformatting or else
it indents and hangs the paragraphs.

Each of these things is simple and easy, but in total they require a
certain amount of conscious decision-making. So why would a forger
consciously undo the superscripted "111th" and "1st," and insert soft
returns, and over-ride the default formatting, and not override the 111th
in paragrph 2?

Alternatively, if you turned off all formatting everywhere (though you'd
still have to hit the return and tab after "Houston"😉 you'd have to
highlight and superscript the "th" in "111th" in paragraph 2. Why would
you superscript only one of them?

Why pay so much attention to formatting and then do it on a word processor
rather than digging up an old typewriter?

Not-so-BTW, I'm not claiming that the memos are authentic. I'm claiming
that you can't make a judgement about its authenticity based on typefaces
and fonts and kerning and special superscripted characters. Tom's been
focusing on those things, but that's a red herring. The real issue is the
format of the letter, not the shape of the characters.

Curtis L. Russell said:

On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 17:48:59 +0200, "Robert Chung" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Great. Can you post the .doc (or a .pdf)?

No easy way. To create it is easy enough for anyone, though. Just
increase the spacing in the font to get the spacing on the memo, tell
it to reverse the autocorrection on the first superscript and type the
rest. It comes close for all practical purposes except for the one
item. So I don't see anything special about it.

The key phrase here that you missed is "using the default settings"...

Stewart Fleming said:

The key phrase here that you missed is "using the default settings"...

Yeah, but to be fair, the forger, if there was one, might not have used
default settings.

My only real point was that people were focusing on typefaces and fonts
and the arcana of kerning when it seems the documents in question had been
photocopied and faxed and re-faxed multiple times. I actually don't know
whether the documents are authentic or fake and in some sense, I don't
really care--my opinion of the President is determined by what he's done
in the last four years, not what happened in 1972 or 1973.

On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 20:07:59 +0200, "Robert Chung" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

You did
what you just did because you were copying an existing memo and trying to
match it--but there'd be no need to do that if you were making it up. And,
for the numbered paragraphs you have to reverse the autoformatting or else
it indents and hangs the paragraphs.

None of it is surprising or unusual to me. It is common for people to
have different, conscious conventions for titles and other parts of a
header versus what you see in the body. That's why many places have
everyone type their letter and then send it to the secretary/admin
assistant for final formatting to maintain consistency.

None of the items that you mention are unusual or in any way represent
unusual levels of attention. I regularly have to reverse autofills and
autocorrects. Hard and soft tabs fall into the "whatever" area for me.
So I still think it is probably a forgery. More importantly, there are
enough red flags and issues for CBS to hold off using these memos.
They used them anyway and now refuse to do a open review - which will
IMO play to an image of Dan Rather crouched over his pile of memos
snarling and growling while many people (the polls I've seen are about
5-1) believing the memos are probably fake.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Stewart Fleming said:

The key phrase here that you missed is "using the default settings"...

To be accurate, my Word is not using the default settings. The only
thing that I changed in actual settings was the font spacing. This is
something that I generally do not have at the default. For all I know
I corrected it to the default.

Reversing the autocorrect is hardly deviating from the default
settings. There are a lot of items/conventions that do not look
appropriate when in a title or header line. I reverse the autocorrect
all the time.

The issue is that this memo appears far more likely to, at best, be a
re-creation and, at best, with the original person signing the
recreated memo at a date other than what is on the document. Not a
good thing when the purpose of this was to show a 'CYA thought' at the
time.

What it is not likely to be, based what evidence available, is an
original memo from the period with an original signature. It may very
well be a complete forgery. CBS chose to ignore this or not vet it
enough to catch what others did catch. And they then chose to not
contribute to an open review of the memos.

As to what was possible on a military IBM of that period, most I
remember used the same old basic font ball. There wasn't a lot of
creative use of unique font balls. We have the two primary IBM font
balls down the hall (for forms) and neither are remotely like this
memo.

Most of us that used the IBM Selectrics for memos did not know how to
set centered text (notice that some of the headers are autocentered on
the margins, not where most people would do a title if centering by
space bar). I think some of you people arguing this memo didn't spend
much time in the IBM Selectric world or in the world of offices and
typing in general. For one thing, most non-secretaries in the military
would probably use a mill - an all capital typewriter used by the
military for most internal uses.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
And someone that did a lot of typing in the military from 1971 to
1979, mostly on mills and continuous paper.

Curtis L. Russell said:

Stewart Fleming said:

The key phrase here that you missed is "using the default settings"...

To be accurate, my Word is not using the default settings. The only
thing that I changed in actual settings was the font spacing. This is
something that I generally do not have at the default. For all I know
I corrected it to the default.

Reversing the autocorrect is hardly deviating from the default
settings. There are a lot of items/conventions that do not look
appropriate when in a title or header line. I reverse the autocorrect
all the time.

The issue is that this memo appears far more likely to, at best, be a
re-creation and, at best, with the original person signing the
recreated memo at a date other than what is on the document. Not a
good thing when the purpose of this was to show a 'CYA thought' at the
time.

What it is not likely to be, based what evidence available, is an
original memo from the period with an original signature. It may very
well be a complete forgery. CBS chose to ignore this or not vet it
enough to catch what others did catch. And they then chose to not
contribute to an open review of the memos.

As to what was possible on a military IBM of that period, most I
remember used the same old basic font ball. There wasn't a lot of
creative use of unique font balls. We have the two primary IBM font
balls down the hall (for forms) and neither are remotely like this
memo.

Most of us that used the IBM Selectrics for memos did not know how to
set centered text (notice that some of the headers are autocentered on
the margins, not where most people would do a title if centering by
space bar). I think some of you people arguing this memo didn't spend
much time in the IBM Selectric world or in the world of offices and
typing in general. For one thing, most non-secretaries in the military
would probably use a mill - an all capital typewriter used by the
military for most internal uses.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
And someone that did a lot of typing in the military from 1971 to
1979, mostly on mills and continuous paper.

Wow, this thread is fascinating. It reminds me of a quote from the
movie, "I'm Gonna Git You Sucka". A fine film in which Chris Rock makes
his second appearance on the big screen as a customer in a fast food store.

"goddamn, a secretary". But this quote didn't make the list of
memorable quotes at imdb: http://imdb.com/title/tt0095348/quotes

gym gravity said:

Wow, this thread is fascinating. It reminds me of a quote from the
movie, "I'm Gonna Git You Sucka". A fine film in which Chris Rock makes
his second appearance on the big screen as a customer in a fast food store.

"goddamn, a secretary". But this quote didn't make the list of
memorable quotes at imdb: http://imdb.com/title/tt0095348/quotes

If you mean me from the 'lot of typing', the answer is no. However, a
Chinese Mandarin Intercept person does a lot of typing every day. The
mills meant you could get up to about 100 wpm on piece of [censored]
machinery, soley on no need to hit the cap key. (The continuous feed
paper meant that you could light up the bottom of the paper and watch
it burn to the top while waiting to see how long the guy typing would
take to notice - it was fairly safe as other than the paper and the
people, nothing could catch fire).

OTOH when on the U.S. side of the world I was located close enough to
the officers to see the Selectric side of life - when dropping off
real work. When they learned to feed a piece of paper through the
typewriter without wrinkling, they got promoted or a ribbon, I can't
remember which.

My real experience with Selectrics when I started in business and had
my own secretary - before my own network eliminated most of them.
Diablo dot matrix printers, IBM PCs with streaming Tallgrass
harddrives and thick cable enet.

Was always impressed with a real secretary that could take a letter
with a mistake, line it up perfectly, erase and correct. Real skill
set.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Curtis L. Russell said:

On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 17:48:59 +0200, "Robert Chung" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Great. Can you post the .doc (or a .pdf)?

No easy way. To create it is easy enough for anyone, though. Just
increase the spacing in the font to get the spacing on the memo, tell
it to reverse the autocorrection on the first superscript and type the
rest. It comes close for all practical purposes except for the one
item. So I don't see anything special about it.

I'm curious if anyone has Word 97 to check the superscript to see if
it is higher in previous versions. I'm not aware that there is any way
to change this easily as a setting and since the superscript in Word
2003 is about dead flat with the top of the numbers, it isn't
something that would shift that high just from copying.

Given that men have been using movable type for hundreds of years, and
standards of typefaces and spacing used in business correspondence
haven't changed all that much in the last several decades, the
question shouldn't be do the memos look like they were produced in MS
Word? Of course they do -- the defauls in Word are set up to look
like normal typography.

Rather, the question should be was the Air Force using typewriters
that could produce text that looked like the memos. If yes, then the
memos may be real. If no, then they are fake.

JT

As a footnote,the real question is was Bush AWOL but he cannot be
trusted to answer that truthfully.

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

Given that men have been using movable type for hundreds of years, and
standards of typefaces and spacing used in business correspondence
haven't changed all that much in the last several decades, the
question shouldn't be do the memos look like they were produced in MS
Word? Of course they do -- the defauls in Word are set up to look
like normal typography.

Rather, the question should be was the Air Force using typewriters
that could produce text that looked like the memos. If yes, then the
memos may be real. If no, then they are fake.

That's not completely accurate. There are a variety of spacings that
are commonly used out of Word that are not commonly used with
typewriters. There are settings that come more from the publishing
world than that of typewriters and secretaries. The whole issue of
kerning is a publishing issue, and is approximated by only the most
expensive typewriters. Kerning is on the opposite side of fixed type
spacing typewriters. There are attributes that are commonly used with
Word (centered on margins, as an example, in common memos) that were
not common with typewriters, or easily done until the typewriters that
held memory. Even then, it was more a feature available to the
secretary and not the common user that would more likely space over to
start a centered title.

For the record, at least two people close to this person said he would
be more likely to handwrite than type such a memo. He evidently was
not a power user of the IBM Selectric.

That said, the conclusion is that it is remotely possible that the
Times Roman font was available for a military typewriter. If I read
the article right, the only typewriter that it would be available on
would be the Selectric and the font ball would have been a rare one at
that time.

IOW, the odds are are that it is a fake or, at best, a 'replica' of an
original memo.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

Rather, the question should be was the Air Force using typewriters
that could produce text that looked like the memos. If yes, then the
memos may be real. If no, then they are fake.

As a footnote,the real question is was Bush AWOL but he cannot be
trusted to answer that truthfully.

As I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, I actually don't think these are
the right questions at all. Whether the memos are real or fake, or whether
he fulfilled his military obligations 30 years ago or not, won't affect
most opinions of his accomplishments over the last four years, or their
expectations about his actions in the future should he win the November
election. The questions you've listed are merely side issues that detract
from the real question, the central question in this entire debate: is he
the worst President ever, or only somewhere in the top three?

Quoted message said:

From: "Robert Chung" [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

The questions you've listed are merely side issues that detract
from the real question, the central question in this entire debate: is he
the worst President ever, or only somewhere in the top three?

Not even close, but maybe top 10.
Andy jackson, Hoover and Grant pop to mind quickly for top 3.
Bill C

Curtis L. Russell said:

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

Given that men have been using movable type for hundreds of years, and
standards of typefaces and spacing used in business correspondence
haven't changed all that much in the last several decades, the
question shouldn't be do the memos look like they were produced in MS
Word? Of course they do -- the defauls in Word are set up to look
like normal typography.

Rather, the question should be was the Air Force using typewriters
that could produce text that looked like the memos. If yes, then the
memos may be real. If no, then they are fake.

That's not completely accurate. There are a variety of spacings that
are commonly used out of Word that are not commonly used with
typewriters. There are settings that come more from the publishing
world than that of typewriters and secretaries. The whole issue of
kerning is a publishing issue, and is approximated by only the most
expensive typewriters. Kerning is on the opposite side of fixed type
spacing typewriters. There are attributes that are commonly used with
Word (centered on margins, as an example, in common memos) that were
not common with typewriters, or easily done until the typewriters that
held memory. Even then, it was more a feature available to the
secretary and not the common user that would more likely space over to
start a centered title.

Dude, I work in desktop publishing a lot and am familiar with kerning,
tracking, leading, superscripts,etc, etc. As I said, could
typewriters produce text that looks like the text in the memo? And did
the unit in question use them?

What is common in typewriters is not the point. The point is, did
units like the Air Foce use typewriters that could produce text like
the memos. IBM has prodcued typewriters that could do proportional
spacing, for example. Did the Air Force have them? Are there other,
authenticated memos that look like the memo in question? Just because
my family or yours had a typewriter doing monospace only is not
relevant.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Quoted message said:

From: John Forrest Tomlinson [email hidden]
Date: 9/14/2004 6:48 PM Eastern

Quoted message said:

Dude, I work in desktop publishing a lot and am familiar with kerning,
tracking, leading, superscripts,etc, etc.

Why does "Dude" coming from JT just seem so wrong to me?
Bill C