This is supposedly the deceased commander's signature and there is an obvious difference between the two.
Posted on 09/09/2004 10:49:41 AM PDT by Jack_1
I opened Microsoft Word, set the font to Microsoft’s Times New Roman, tabbed over to the default tab stop to enter the date “18 August 1973,” then typed the rest of the document purportedly from the personal records of the late Lieutenant Colonel Jerry B. Killian.
And my Microsoft Word version, typed in 2004, is an exact match for the documents trumpeted by CBS News as “authentic.”
(Excerpt) Read more at littlegreenfootballs.com ...
Technically it would be possible with a mechanical typewriter I believe. In the case of the Selectric, it would require that the ball (which moves from left to right as each line is typed) increment based on the variable width font after each stroke.
I have no idea if a Selectric actually worked this way but it could have. I have also looked at the original and the Microsoft Word version in Photoshop and they overlay very very closely. We need to put the Selectric issue to bed or at least understand it. Even if a Selectric could do it, the likelihood of a match this good seems remote to me.
I dunno about this. I'm excited that this is a forgery in that we might have some new hard evidence. Having said that, I smell a bit of a trap. They may be waiting for Drudge to report this and the bam!, they will have a secret Selectic with Killians fingerprints on it and Drudge will the tagged as a hypster again.
Crossing my fingers
It kinda looks it. My thing is the dude on Blather is none of the people mentioned in the memos.
I have contacted Drudge, Hannity, Hume, and about 8 Document examiners hoping one of them would look into this and then issue a press release, for publicity.
60 Minutes Spokesperson: Kelli Edwards 212-975-6795
I am certain that I had an IBM Selectric in 1975 that could print the tiny 1/2 and 1/4. I have a vague memory of it also having "th".
Bear in mind, that anyone designing fonts for MS Word, or true-type, would make an effort to make sure that fonts are as close as possible to the "standard." In other words, the fact that MS Word memo matches the 1973 memo, is only proof that true-type font designers did a good job. It is not conclusive proof that they are forgeries.
I'm convinced they are real because (1) they're too particular about names and terminology, etc; (2) they're not very damaging at all to Bush. If they were forgeries, then (1) the forgers probably wouldn't get the terminology correct; and (2) there would be more specific items planted to damage the President, e.g, "Informed Bush that Jack Daniels was not regulation rations for F-102 survival kit."
Can we compare these forged documents with others in President Bush's NG record? Like, are these the only ones in Times New Roman font?
Well, you've got me convinced. Excellent work. I hope a number of things like this accumulate and bury CBS and RATher.
I remember a thread about a year ago when the State Department, I believe, authorized a new font for official memos.
Is there an old Navy book of procedures that states the requirement for Courier font?
Simply amazing.
Guys, I've worked in the post production business and reality TV for years, so I've had a LOT of exposure to the "craft" of fakery, computers, special effects and technology-- and this is simply a jaw-droppingly obvious forgery.
BUT-- I submit to you that the lunatic who foisted this forgery was smart enough to "dirty up" the document, apparently by photo-copying it a few times to build up contraxst, dirt, artifacts, smearing, etc-- all in an effort to make the document appear older than it was.
So he/she was stupid not to go out and get a vintage typewriter, but was clever enough to attempt to make the document appear old.
Just my humble opinion, but the tempest over the typewriter is wasted effort. What might be interesting is whether the memos were altered and copied, and whether the originals are available.
It is my understanding that the memos were provided by the (anti-Bush) family.
SECNAVINST 5216.5C comes to mind.
And I believe Dandy Dan Rather is smearing Bush with forged documents. And I further believe he knows they are forged. and I futher believe... Agh, you get the point. Dan is so sleazy.
FYI....
This is supposedly the deceased commander's signature and there is an obvious difference between the two.
Where'd you get those two? Can you provide a link?
I think you might be right. This seems to too easy. How could the lunkheads at CBS have missed this - though I hope they did!
Two days ago, Keith Olbermann reported as truth a story from a satirical website that said that studies showed that people lose 10% of their IQ after they have children. Yesterday he had to retract that story after the owner of the website contacted MSNBC to tell them it was only a joke.
The MSM is not only biased, it's lazy. It could happen.
I'll go look for it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.