0.41 seconds

"Howard Kveck" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
"Tom Kunich" <[email hidden]> wrote:

(snipper)

Quoted message said:

Time Roman, the older typeface was slightly different and was available

in

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the 40's. However, it was never made available to typewriters and was

only

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

used in Linotypes because IT IS A KERNED typeface.

"Some analysts outside CBS News say they believe the typeface on these
memos is New Times Roman, which they claim was not available in the 1970s.

But the owner of the company that distributes this typing style told

CBS

Quoted message said:

News that it has been available since 1931."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/06/politics/main641481.shtml

Such an argument ignores the fact that the script was in a grod-dot network
which is a form of the typeface which was developed by ---Monotype is the
1980's.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That is, it was designed to compress the font together so that wide and
narrow letter are squashed together to use the maximum space on a line.
Typewriters have character stamps that are the same width and so kerned
typefaces look badly when typed with such spacings. They invented

entirely

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

new typefaces for typewriters that would look acceptably attractive.

The IBM Executive typewriters would do proportional spacing.

I wonder why you would say this. Let's assume that you're typing a letter -
a PRIVATE MEMO to one's self - explain how you would proportionally space a
memo. Would you type it out a dozen or more times in order to make sure that
the borders are even?

Aside from typesetters, almost no one could do this. In fact it wasn't even
considered by typists until the advent of the CRT screen on which the
typists result would show and be corrected BEFORE it went on paper.

How do you propose that Killian or his secretary would proportionally space
such a one-off document.

Quoted message said:

Hmmm, maybe those characters are pixelated because they are part of a
computer generated COPY of the original doc. You know, the document got
scanned and made into a jpeg, bitmap or other image file. Which are made

up

Quoted message said:

of PIXELS. The density of which can vary.

Again you show ignorance of the media. Computer generated documents have a
resolution of a 1,310,720 pixels to an entire screen. This is reproduced on
a laser printer or copy machine with a resolution of around 1,440,000 dots
per INCH. This is about 300 times greater resolution than plainly reproduces
the difference between a dot and a line.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Moreover, in at least two of the six documents there is a form of
superscript that wasn't available to anyone before the 1980 save with
extremely tedious work. To wit - a Selectric Composer could have been

used.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So in order to write EACH LINE of the document you would have to:

According to one guy who spent 13 years working on those machines, they
could be put together (in the field) with customizeable key sets that

would

Quoted message said:

do the superscripted letters.

And according to the man who was a professor of computer technology and
wrote the book on computer fonts the chances of this occurring are as close
to zero as to make no difference.

Quoted message said:

Speaking of which, people have made a big
deal about the superscripted letters on these docs as proof of forgery.

But

Quoted message said:

those superscripted "th"s turn up on many other docs that had already been
released. Are those also forgeries?

Firstly they are not in Times Roman

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And remember that TIMES NEW ROMAN typeface wasn't invented until 1980.

1931.

I provided the link to the definitive description of the Times font story.
If you wish to ignore it that's your business but the fact remains that this
wasn't in use on typewritters in the 70's because it is a font that looks
strange and unbalanced unless it is kerned.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So, there is NO questioning the fact that these documents were forged.
Absolutely none.

So you've seen and examined the ORIGINALS that CBS has, Tom, and not
just the computer-generated copies online?

Get a life! Every other network and most of the Liberal blogs as well have
stated catagorically that these are obvious forgeries. But as long as See-BS
is stonewalling you might as well believe anything you wish. I'll bet you
believed Nixon's stonewalling about Watergate as well.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And yes, I designed some of those early video boards, character sets and
graphics generators.

(Oh my.)

Once again, why hasn't the White House disputed what the documents
allege? And did GWB fulfill his obligation in the Guard?

What service were you in Howard and when?

"Curtis L. Russell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message 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.

As well as remember that laser printers vary in the way they reproduce fonts
depending on the language that is used to communicate with them. There are
three or four different methods and the results will be slightly different
depending on the translator written for each.

"Robert Chung" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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.

Look, the typist noticed while typing that the th superscripted and back
spaced and re-wrote it. When I do that in my copy of Word it accepts that as
being something that I want the way I typed it. On my home copy it doesn't
do that so it must be some setup that I'm not familiar with.

Later on when typing, if you have a slow machine, you might miss the
superscripting. I've done this a hundred times myself in every day
documents. I have to type instructions for assembly workers and I don't want
super or sub scripting because it is so small and easy to misinterpret.

Quoted message said:

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.

I just did a copy from the document and guess what - if you hit the DEFAULT
tab in the memorandum heading the result is:

MEMORANDUM FOR 1st Lt.George W. Bush, 5000 Longmont #8, Houston,
Texas 77027.

Try THAT on a typewriter. The TAB is exactly the same spacing as on the
memo.

"Stewart Fleming" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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"...

And perhaps what you're telling us is that if this wasn't typed offhand by a
person with complete default settings that somehow the argument isn't valid?

Let me explain something - the Air National Guard got the dregs of the scrap
from the Air Force. That means that they had nothing but manual typewriters
and nothing more.

If the fact that the typeface is a computer font composed of dots doesn't
convince you then OJ Simpson has a story for you and wants you on his jury.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Robert Chung said:

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?

You are quite correct on this. When I said in an earlier post (or two)
that the main question was whether he'd fulfilled his obligation, I was
thinking of that in terms of *this* issue (the papers).

--
tanx,
Howard

"Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind."
Albert Einstein

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

"John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message 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.

The answer to that is NO.

However, See-BS and a few diehards are arguing that there MIGHT have been a
special Selectric Composer, a person that knew how to use it (strange - LC
Killiam's secretary only remembers a standard manual typewriter) and somehow
they might have gotten a special Times Roman typeface ball made for it and
been able to produce these documents.

And above all close examination of the memos under high magnification
reveals a dot-grid character set which spells only one thing - Word
Processor.

Tom Kunich said:

And perhaps what you're telling us is that if this wasn't typed offhand by a
person with complete default settings that somehow the argument isn't valid?

Not at all; the claim on a Web site regarding these documents was that
anyone could produce them in a few minutes with Word configured with
default settings (i.e. no special configuration). My comment relates in
no way to the authenticity or otherwise of the originals.

Quoted message said:

If the fact that the typeface is a computer font composed of dots doesn't
convince you then OJ Simpson has a story for you and wants you on his jury.

Take a careful look at the top of the PDF document; the sample documents
that were released were _FAXED_ to CBS. Now go and look what happens to
typewritten script when it is put through a fax machine at 200dpi.
Pixellation? Hmmm.

"John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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?

A manual typewriter - no without any question whatsoever. A manual
typewriter spaces with a gear drive and hence can only step full spaces with
nothing in between.

The ANG was highly unlikely to have a Selectric in 1972. For crying out
loud, I didn't even see one until the mid-80's in anything but huge
companies. Selectrics were extremely expensive for typewriters and were
generally only available for the bosses private secretary at large
companies.

"Robert Chung" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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,

Doesn't it matter that someone has gone to such lengths to forge documents?
And isn't it equally silly to think that he didn't put in his time when his
own roommate also missed the physical more than once and when LC Killian's
secretary said that many other pilots missed their physicals as well. In
other words missing the physical was common enough that it wasn't considered
all that bad. Moreover this was in his fifth year of service and close to
getting out. I don't know about other's but when I was a short timer I
didn't pay a lot of attention to orders unless they were important to the
service. There was a lot of shop cleanup that never happened on my shift.
But the bombers alway flew with good computers.

Killian's son was also in the ANG and said that his father always spoke
highly of Bush.

The question should be why are people willing to denigrate the President to
the extent that they would commit criminal forgery?

And if that doesn't frighten the bejesus out of you, perhaps you should
remain permanently in France.

Tom Kunich said:

And if that doesn't frighten the bejesus out of you, perhaps you should
remain permanently in France.

Yikes, *that's* the kind of stuff that frightens the bejesus out of you?
Oh, Tom, don't be such a girlie man.

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

Quoted message said:

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

TritonRider said:

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

Its the performance enhancing drugs he's been testing since crit pro
started posting that are affecting his mental state. He's even developed
a BART like alter ego that surfaces occasionally in response to
particularly stupid rbr posts.

TritonRider said:

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.

Hoover, top 3? Ouch. That's harsh. I think he's unfairly maligned; he
didn't have the data or tools he needed--which is not to say that if he
did have the data and tools, he would have done the right things, just
that he gets an incomplete on that score. GWB ignores data he has
available, and misuses tools in his hands.

Grant was corrupt but if you're going down that road you'd have to include
Harding; no, I think simple corruption isn't quite enough. In order to be
the worst you have to be an "all-around" player.

The only real competition is Buchanan, and even then it's not a clear-cut
thing.

As long as I'm at it, Merckx was better than Coppi.

On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 11:30:09 +0200, "Robert Chung" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Grant was corrupt but if you're going down that road you'd have to include
Harding; no, I think simple corruption isn't quite enough. In order to be
the worst you have to be an "all-around" player.

Grant was not corrupt, although his administration certainly was.
Grant was never seen acting to enrich himself or his friends. OTOH, he
was a pathetic administrator and his some of his friends were more
than able to enrich themselves.

Grant died in the process of producing the book that prevented his
wife from being impoverished. Although I guess you could argue he was
corrupt, but too inept to do it well.

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

Curtis L. Russell said:

On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 11:30:09 +0200, "Robert Chung" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Grant was corrupt but if you're going down that road you'd have to
include Harding; no, I think simple corruption isn't quite enough. In
order to be the worst you have to be an "all-around" player.

Grant was not corrupt, although his administration certainly was.
Grant was never seen acting to enrich himself or his friends. OTOH, he
was a pathetic administrator and his some of his friends were more
than able to enrich themselves.

Grant died in the process of producing the book that prevented his
wife from being impoverished. Although I guess you could argue he was
corrupt, but too inept to do it well.

You're exactly right, and I stand corrected. I meant that Grant presided
over a corruption-riddled administration and he either did not or could
not see what was happening around him, not that he himself was corrupt.
Same goes for Harding (unless you think of having numerous dalliances as
corruption). Thanks for the catch.

On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 02:48:22 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Aside from typesetters, almost no one could do this. In fact it wasn't even
considered by typists until the advent of the CRT screen on which the
typists result would show and be corrected BEFORE it went on paper.

Well, not exactly. The better Selectrics had a small display that
permitted composing over several lines before printing. From memory,
they came out in the late 1970s, which would precede large scale use
of word processing at the desk by several years.

OTOH, they were almost entirely the province of the secretaries typing
for an office. You don't stick what was then a $ 1,800 - $ 2,500
machine in an exec's office. Can't see CYA memos from the ANG finding
their way to the few top of the line Selectrics.

Two people that are evidently even more interested in this sideline
than myself have identified the one 'typewriter' that would come
close. Evidently there was a 1972 $ 3,600 machine (1972 dollars)
called the Selectric Composer (mini-typesetter rather than a true
typewriter) that could come awfully darned close. Except it required
changing font sets to do the superscript as in the memo and when they
got closer to the actual memo it revealed that the Times Roman used by
the Selectric font ball - a rarity - did not come that close to
matching in certain areas.

I agree that this is a sideline, but its the type of thing that swings
elections if allowed (by the Democrats) to continue. It doesn't even
have to escalate and the eventual fraud (my opinion) doesn't have to
be tied directly to the Democrats or anyone associated with the DNC or
the Kerry election group.

This is about swing voters. The Republican Convention created real
momentum and at the point that Kerry has to stop that momentum and
move it in his direction, you have this grabbing the headlines. Terry
Mcauliffe's remarks to the contrary, no one else is linking this to
the Republican side (although it does make interesting conspiracy
theory, all tied to a certainty that Rather and CBS couldn't resist
the bait). This is bad for the Democrats and it only has to live
another couple of weeks to make the difference. THE difference.

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

Curtis L. Russell said:

The only conspiracy this time appears to be the Clinton hold-outs
making sure that there isn't a Democratic incumbent when Hillary wants
to run for President.

This document forgery affair is so obvious that you have to wonder if
they've come from someone who is looking to hurt Kerry rather than
help him.

I doubt that CBS would be fooled by some Republicans providing the
forged documents. Perhaps it was a Democrat looking to torpedo Kerry
to insure Hillary a clear path in 2008.

Stranger things have happened.

Curtis L. Russell said:

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).

You must have seen the movie. Because right after that quote, the two
guys start chumming it up about their tour of duty as secretaries, and
the guy with the patch on his eye confesses to having lost the eye in an
office stapler battle.

gym gravity said:

You must have seen the movie. Because right after that quote, the two
guys start chumming it up about their tour of duty as secretaries, and
the guy with the patch on his eye confesses to having lost the eye in an
office stapler battle.

The real thing could be more vicious...

OTOH, only two guys that I know of actually went really South in the
process. One second lieutenant went really into high grade paranoia.
From our perspective (the linguist bay) the fun part was that he
started to think the people speaking foreign languages were talking
about him. Until then we spoke mostly English (what else?) but after
that we started using Chinese, Vietnamese and Khmer a lot more. That's
when he started blinking a lot and flinching.

He's also the one that flunked aspirin count. We pretty much worked
six days on, one day off, twelve hours a day. The rest of the time we
worked on hangovers. So we had a huge bottle of aspirin. The newbies
were told to count the aspirin - then everyone would deliberately walk
by and grab aspirin from the wrong pile on the counter. He kind of
blew up somewhere on day two.

The burning of the paper and inventive uses of Kaopectate were mostly
inflicted on friends. And I was able to use that I knew varnish burns
with an almost invisible flame to good use as well. Learned that in
language school when my desk accidentally caught fire.

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

Curtis L. Russell said:

OTOH, only two guys that I know of actually went really South in the
process. One second lieutenant went really into high grade paranoia.
From our perspective (the linguist bay) the fun part was that he
started to think the people speaking foreign languages were talking
about him. Until then we spoke mostly English (what else?) but after
that we started using Chinese, Vietnamese and Khmer a lot more. That's
when he started blinking a lot and flinching.

He's also the one that flunked aspirin count. We pretty much worked
six days on, one day off, twelve hours a day. The rest of the time we
worked on hangovers.

I'm not clear about something...you were working on hangovers? or
working on acquiring hangovers?

Quoted message said:

So we had a huge bottle of aspirin. The newbies
were told to count the aspirin - then everyone would deliberately walk
by and grab aspirin from the wrong pile on the counter. He kind of
blew up somewhere on day two.

The burning of the paper and inventive uses of Kaopectate were mostly
inflicted on friends. And I was able to use that I knew varnish burns
with an almost invisible flame to good use as well. Learned that in
language school when my desk accidentally caught fire.

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

gym gravity said:

I'm not clear about something...you were working on hangovers? or
working on acquiring hangovers?

It would depend on the particular 12 hour period.

At least none of us was driving. The only trick was crossing the
highway back to the base. And avoiding the occasional water buffalo.

Tricky part about the last one is that they were easily confused with
some of the bar girls in the daylight. Or vice versus.

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