Bush National Guard Memo may be a fake

http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewPolitics.asp?Page=\Politics\archive\200409\POL20040909d.html

linked from Drudge Report

I've seen experts swear to anything. I'll wait until I see something from someone reputable.

"W" didn't just come out from the Texas feilds, If there was this dirt on him they would have used it long ago.
I think it was fabricated. Or was nothing the Left could have used, like a clerical mistake.

Um, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the White House produce copies of some of this documentation themselves?

Firscherscherling said:

Um, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the White House produce copies of some of this documentation themselves?

Click to expand...

LOL!!!!!

And Dan Bartlett and Toby Ziegler just thought they'd cop to it, because it'd be fun!

Actually, it looks like the WH didn't release the memos - someone erred in saying that.

(from Kevin Drum)

One of the things to take note regarding this exchange is that the same people who bought into the SBVFT charges last month without question will all of sudden become super-sleuths and skeptics.

I'm not sure about the proportional-font claim, as my eyes aren't keen enough to make that out, but I do know this is a untrue ...

But the use of the superscript "th" in one document - "111th F.I.S" - gave each expert pause. They said that is an automatic feature found in current versions of Microsoft Word, and it's not something that was even possible more than 30 years ago.

Click to expand...

I had an old typewriter as a kid that had common superscripts ('th' and 'st' for example).

Let's see how this pans out.

Introducing the IBM Selectric Typewriter.

Released in 1961 it had special features including variable pitch fonts and superscripts (subscripts too!).

Those "experts" cited in the OP are a complete joke. It took me all of 5 minutes to find this.

They never said it didn't exist...

"It was highly out of the ordinary for an organization, even the Air Force, to have proportional-spaced fonts for someone to work with," said Allan Haley, director of words and letters at Agfa Monotype in Wilmington, Mass. "I'm suspect in that I did work for the U.S. Army as late as the late 1980s and early 1990s and the Army was still using [fixed-pitch typeface] Courier."

Click to expand...

Starscream said:

Introducing the IBM Selectric Typewriter.

Released in 1961 it had special features including variable pitch fonts and superscripts (subscripts too!).

Those "experts" cited in the OP are a complete joke. It took me all of 5 minutes to find this.

Click to expand...

Hang on a sec. . Before you get all excited.. Don't get your undies in a knot just yet lol

Where does that webpage say that the Selectric 1 had superscripts and subscripts? I didn't see it anywhere on that page. The Selectric 2 didn't come out until much later. I've used those typewriters. What the article means, if my memory serves me correctly, by allowing the platen to turn freely is that you could scroll the paper out, insert the symbol, then automatically return to the line you were typing on. The Selectric (either model) did not have the "th" superscript or subscript symbol on it.

The other key point in the CNSNews article was the substantial cost of the machines, far more expensive than would most likely end up in the office of a flight inspector. Highly unlikely.

The lack of letterhead makes it equally suspicious.

The fact that the army used a different font up until the 80's makes the claims dubious at best. The apparently forged signature (they do have a point about the "K") add to this.

To me, this adds up to a big line of hullabaloo to be honest with you. Again, it's back down to the facts. Which facts substantiate the memo, and why wasn't this trash brought up years ago?

It's too convenient that it magically showed up after the SBVFT campaign. To say it's suspicious would be putting it mildly. Sounds like absolute rubbish to me. There's no way that document would pass through the scrutiny of forensics experts, or stand a snowballs chance in hades of standing up in a Court of Law. That's my hunch on the subject.

Keep it coming guys, I'm sure this will all get straightened out in a couple of days once all the excitement and hack detective work dies out.


Looks like the conservative bloggers are in a dizzy over this. How much you want to bet they challenged the SBVFT claims as much?

Starscream said:

Keep it coming guys, I'm sure this will all get straightened out in a couple of days once all the excitement and hack detective work dies out.


Looks like the conservative bloggers are in a dizzy over this. How much you want to bet they challenged the SBVFT claims as much?

Click to expand...

Would you mind addressing my post? You got all excited and started wiggin' out, but I would be interested to see where you are getting your facts from. You presented it as fact that these machines have these capabilities, but not even the webpage you presented as "evidence" supports your claims.

I've used these machines myself. Where is your evidence?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1211332/posts



A Freeper posted this on the Freerepublic board. It is interesting:





Original text, slightly adjusted for rectangular fit:



Same text, screen capture of document written in MS Word 2002 with no effort to match original aside from document width:



Overlapping images, with original as B/W negative:



Aside from slight warping presumably due to distortion introduced by a low-quality photocopier, the two texts line up exactly. The "30+ year old proof" against Bush is a fraud.

drfeelgood said:

Would you mind addressing my post?

Click to expand...

Hold on a second. I'm want to see some more claims. Just keep them coming.

Great job dittomonkey You never cease to impress me, like I said in that reputation I just gave you.

One must never jump to conclusions without having all the facts. I can't say that enough. Facts are key to understanding.

Starscream said:

Hold on a second. I'm want to see some more claims. Just keep them coming.

Click to expand...

Ok. I'll be waiting patiently and see what develops. I'll look forward to your response. You might like to address dittomonkey's post while you're at it.

drfeelgood said:

Ok. I'll be waiting patiently and see what develops. I'll look forward to your response. You might like to address dittomonkey's post while you're at it.

Click to expand...

I will. It just shows you guys will take any claims as "facts". Keep them coming.

An Animation of the Docs.

I will. It just shows you guys will take any claims as "facts". Keep them coming.

Click to expand...

I would like to see where either myself or Dr. Feelgood said anything of the sort. All either of us said was that it was interesting.

Nice try though.

dittomonkey911 said:

An Animation of the Docs.

Click to expand...

How can I reproduce the same results? I've got all the needed software.