Re: # Bush Disobeyed Direct Order To Get Physical

[BUFDRVR]

David Lentz wrote:

>The memo could have have teen typed on
>1970's typewriter.

Don't you mean *couldn't*? I haven't heard the "official" word from any
"typewriter experts", but most people are saying the superscript in 111th
wasn't possible on typewriters of the early 70s.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Brett]

"BUFDRVR" > wrote:
> David Lentz wrote:
>
> >The memo could have have teen typed on
> >1970's typewriter.
>
> Don't you mean *couldn't*? I haven't heard the "official" word from any
> "typewriter experts", but most people are saying the superscript in 111th
> wasn't possible on typewriters of the early 70s.

IBM Selectric II from the mid to late 1960's could do superscripts and
subscripts (severely impacting typing speed) and it was even possible to
vary the pitch between 10 and 12 characters per inch (but rarely performed
since it you would need to alter the pitch per character).

The interesting comparison would be the letter where Killian recommended
approval of 1st Lt. George W. Bush's Application for Discharge and then find
out who supposedly typed these applications and memos since I doubt a Lt.
Colonel would ever be able be able to vary the pitch as he typed.

[Pete]

"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
> David Lentz wrote:
>
> >The memo could have have teen typed on
> >1970's typewriter.
>
> Don't you mean *couldn't*? I haven't heard the "official" word from any
> "typewriter experts", but most people are saying the superscript in 111th
> wasn't possible on typewriters of the early 70s.

I think it was "possible", but not likely. Especially on a gov't (lowest
bidder) typewriter. Especially by someone who doesn't type *for a living*.

Pete

[Jack G]

I also noticed another inconstancy - in one of the memos, the expression:
"not later than (NLT)" is used. In my recollection of military
correspondence the correct form should have been: "NLT (Not Later Than)" or
just "NLT" as that was a very common acronym. The parenthetical definition
was provided only after the first use of an acronym in a document. Can
anyone confirm this form?

Jack G.

"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
> David Lentz wrote:
>
> >The memo could have have teen typed on
> >1970's typewriter.
>
> Don't you mean *couldn't*? I haven't heard the "official" word from any
> "typewriter experts", but most people are saying the superscript in 111th
> wasn't possible on typewriters of the early 70s.
>
>
> BUFDRVR
>
> "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it
harelips
> everyone on Bear Creek"

[Bob Coe]

"Jack G" > wrote
>
> I also noticed another inconstancy - in one of the memos, the expression:
> "not later than (NLT)" is used. In my recollection of military
> correspondence the correct form should have been: "NLT (Not Later Than)" or
> just "NLT" as that was a very common acronym. The parenthetical definition
> was provided only after the first use of an acronym in a document. Can
> anyone confirm this form?

That's what I learned in English Composition I as a Freshman :-)

[John Keeney]

"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
> David Lentz wrote:
>
> >The memo could have have teen typed on
> >1970's typewriter.
>
> Don't you mean *couldn't*? I haven't heard the "official" word from any
> "typewriter experts", but most people are saying the superscript in 111th
> wasn't possible on typewriters of the early 70s.

Are you referring to the "memos" that can seen at
http://wid.ap.org/documents/bush/040908xfer.pdf ?

The first of the four pages shows proportional type fonts (check
the word "examination" in topic 1). Proportional font capability
was an exceedingly rare capability in an early 70's typewriter;
IBM selectrics wouldn't IIRC, there was a higher priced IBM
that would that may have been out at that time.
I have further reservations about this document but would have
to eliminate the nth generation copy effect to say for sure...

The second "memo" uses a superscripted "th" when referring
to the 111th in topic 2. I'm not aware of ANY 70's typewriter
that would have supported that.
A mix of proportional fonting and fixed spacing on the same
line: compare the words "You" and "Ellington" in the first line
of topic 1.
There are also examples of (dang, can't remember the term)
where the spacing between adjacent characters is adjusted
for how the adjacent edges fit together: the "of" in "officer".
People can do this, but wouldn't/not with any equipment
that could rationally been used to produce less than 100 copies.
Computers can do this, but NOT mechanical typewriters.

"Memo" 3, more proportional fonts. More bad things that
could conceivably be nth generation copy artifacts but look
danged suspicious.

"Memo" 4, more of the same.

[Yeff]

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 00:23:12 -0400, John Keeney wrote:

> There are also examples of (dang, can't remember the term)
> where the spacing between adjacent characters is adjusted
> for how the adjacent edges fit together: the "of" in "officer".

Kerning - <http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=kerning>

--

-Jeff B.
yeff at erols dot com

[WalterM140]

>> The only fake document in Bush's records jacket is his
>> "honorable" discharge.
>>
>> www.vetsforkerry.com
>
>Good one!

My question is, if the discharge dated 10/1/73 is -not- a post facto
fabrication, why did Bush sign a date after that date agreeing to find a
drilling unit in Boston?

And as I often point out, Bush didn't sign the discharge. And there is a photo
of 2nd LT Bush wearing a ribbon not reflected on the discharge.

All this is pretty compelling evidence that Bush didn't perform his duty so as
to deserve an Honorable Discharge, he never in fact received one.

Walt

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
(WalterM140) wrote:

> >> The only fake document in Bush's records jacket is his
> >> "honorable" discharge.
> >>
> >> www.vetsforkerry.com
> >
> >Good one!
>
> My question is, if the discharge dated 10/1/73 is -not- a post facto
> fabrication, why did Bush sign a date after that date agreeing to find a
> drilling unit in Boston?
>
> And as I often point out, Bush didn't sign the discharge. And there is a
> photo
> of 2nd LT Bush wearing a ribbon not reflected on the discharge.
>
> All this is pretty compelling evidence that Bush didn't perform his duty so
> as
> to deserve an Honorable Discharge, he never in fact received one.
>
> Walt



What about Kerry's ACTUALl post-facto "honorable discharge," dated 1990?

[ian maclure]

On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 11:04:07 +0000, WalterM140 wrote:

[nothing that hasn't been beaten to death]

Walt yer a idjit.
Every time you post this becomes clearer and clearer.
Ed and the other real flyers here have buried this crap
in a well deserved grave.
Give it up.

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

[Theecmo]

Here Here!!

"ian maclure" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 11:04:07 +0000, WalterM140 wrote:
>
> [nothing that hasn't been beaten to death]
>
> Walt yer a idjit.
> Every time you post this becomes clearer and clearer.
> Ed and the other real flyers here have buried this crap
> in a well deserved grave.
> Give it up.
>
> IBM
>
>
__________________________________________________ __________________________
___
> Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 -
http://www.uncensored-news.com
> <><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source
<><><><><><><><>
>




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----