0
   

Bush AWOL documents fake?

 
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Sep, 2004 06:41 pm
Re: fishin
Debra_Law wrote:
ROFL, fishin.

Not only do you claim the documents from the commander's file are forgeries---but they are such lousy forgeries than any idiot can identify them as forgeries. Hmmmm. You don't think the network brass and the producers of "60 Minutes" would have the documents authenticated by experts to cover their own @sses? Maybe the "60 Minutes" ought to pay you a retainer fee and keep you on their staff just to keep them on the up & up. ROFL


I didn't make any claim about the documents one way or the other. I have no way of proving anything baout them without having physical access to them. What I did do was demonstrate what nonsense your supposed "proof" is. Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Sep, 2004 06:45 pm
OK, let's see if we're capable of intelligently discussing what the real issues are here:

1. Bush got a direct order to get a physical and then called up his commanding officer and questioned the order, trying to wriggle out of it.

Who is entitled to question a superior officer's direct orders?

2. Bush disobeyed that direct order, and his failure to get the physical is one of the reasons he was grounded -- so White House spokesman Dan Bartlett lied when he said that Bush got permission not to take his physical.

Bush clearly did not get permission, as that's one of the reasons he was grounded.

3. Bush wasn't just grounded for failing to take his physical, which is what we were always told previously, but he ALSO was grounded for failing to uphold US Air Force/Air National Guard standards. According to the memo, the other reason Bush was grounded was because "the officer has made no attempt to meet his training certification..."

4. I'm still blown away by the fact that Bush approached his superior officer, Lt. Col. Killian, and "discussed options of how (he) can get out of coming to drill from now through November."

Imagine approaching your commanding officer and discussing how you can get out of your required military service! Even better, Bush said he was working on a political campaign in Alabama for his father and may not have time -- MAY NOT FREAKING HAVE TIME! -- to take his physical.

The guy actually invoked the name of his father to get out of his already-watered-down military service and out of a direct order.

And the conservatives' best response so far is "they're forgeries"?!?

Laughing
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Sep, 2004 06:57 pm
they didn't question "the very fine document from british intelligence" that they made colin powell go on about at the u.n. either. and when it turned out to be a post grad thesis, well they didn't care much about that at all.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Sep, 2004 07:01 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Oh.


Can I PLEASE make that my signature? With attribution 'n' all? ;-)
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Sep, 2004 07:03 pm
Oh but I like this one too!!

Brand X wrote:
It is stupid...elections coming down to chads and fonts... Rolling Eyes


(I agree, truly.)
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Sep, 2004 07:28 pm
Re: fishin
fishin' wrote:
What I did do was demonstrate what nonsense your supposed "proof" is.


You haven't demonstrated anything. You haven't proven that the documents were forged based on font size or superscript. You haven't proven that golf-ball typewriters were not available in May 1972. You haven't proven that it was impossible for the typist to superscript the "th." Do I need to have my 70 year old secretary send you an email and explain to you the office equipment available and how people typed documents in the 1970's? ROFL

Maybe the Font on these documents will be more to your liking:

AWOL BUSH
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Sep, 2004 07:29 pm
But Debra, you haven't proven anything, either.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Sep, 2004 07:34 pm
Listen, here's the real reason why this story matters.

This National Guard business is relevant because it reinforces two things we already know about George W Bush.

First, it is further evidence that, throughout his life, he has taken advantage of and benefited from preferential treatment.

We know he got into Yale not on merit but because of legacy (special treatment). We know he got into Harvard Business School not on merit but because of special treatment.

We now know he got into, and out of, the National Guard not on merit but because of special treatment.

He was given an honorable discharge not because he earned it, but because of special treatment.

And while these things happened long ago, the pattern has continued up to this very day.

We know that Bush's failed oil company, Arbusto, attacted investors based not on merit but because of his last name (special treatment).

We know that Bush wasn't prosecuted for securities violations in the sale of his Harken Energy stock not because he was innocent, but because of special treatment.

We know that Bush was given the opportunity to become an owner of the Texas Rangers not because of merit but because of special treatment.

We know -- especially here in Texas -- that Bush was treated with kid gloves by the media in his gubernatorial campaigns and his first presidential campaign. The double standard during the 2000 campaign was especially pronounced. And the special treatment has continued throughout his presidency. Actions that would have resulted in independent counsels and inpeachment proceedings under a Democratic president have gone uninvestigated by Congress and unreported in the media.

Second, it shows that Bush simply hasn't been honest and forthcoming with the American public.

Isn't it amazing that, more than ten years after questions were first raised about his National Guard service, new documents are still turning up?

Unfortunately this is par for the course as far as this crew is concerned.

The Bush administration has a Nixonian compulsion to cover up information that they believe could prove damaging to their ambitions. They refused to turn over information on the energy task force. They threatened a Medicare actuary in order to cover up the true cost of their prescription drug program. They classified portions of a 9/11 report that revealed ties between Saudi Arabia and terrorist groups. And they have relentlessly bullied the press into submission.

And on and on and on...
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Sep, 2004 08:04 pm
Here's a couple of problems with the memo I lifted from Democratic Underground.

1-- proportional spacing not generally available
2 -- superscripts not generally available
3 - small "th" single element not generally available
4 - Smart quotes. Curved apostrophes and quotation marks were not available
5-The blurriness of the copy indicates it was recopied dozens of times, tactic of forgers
6--Signature block. Typical authentic military signature block has name, then rank, then on the next line the person's position. This just has rank beneath the name.
7--Margins. These look like a computer's unjustified default, not the way a person typing would have done it.
8 -- Date usually with three letters, or in form as 110471.
9 - words run over consistent with word processor
10 - may be a Times Roman or similar font not generally available then (per Haas Atlas)
11 - signature looks faked
12 - no errors and whiteout
13 - no letterhead
14 - exact match for Microsoft Word Processor
15 - Paper size problem, Air Force and Guard did not use 8 1/2 x 11 inch paper until the 1980s.
16 - Overlap analysis is an exact match
17 - absence of hyphens to split words between lines, c/w 1970's typewriter.
18 - 5000 Longmont #8 in Houston Tx. does not exist
19 - Box 34567 is suspicious, at best. The current use of the po box 34567 is Ashland Chemical Company, A Division of Ashland Oil, Incorporated P. O. Box 34567 Houston
20 - it would have been nearly impossible to center a letterhead with proportional spacing without a computer.
21 - Bush's grade would "normally" be abbreviated "1Lt" not "1st Lt"
22 - Subject matter bizarre
23 - Air Force did not use street addresses for their offices, rather HQ AFLC/CC, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433.
24 - kerning was not available
25 - In the August 18, 1973 memo, Jerry Killian purportedly writes: "Staudt has obviously pressured Hodges more about Bush. I'm having trouble running interference and doing my job." but General Staudt, who thought very highly of Lt. Bush, retired in 1972.
26 - Language not generally used by military
27 - Not signed or initialed
28 - Not in any format that a military person would use, e.g. orders not given by Memo.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Sep, 2004 08:23 pm
I smell desperation.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Sep, 2004 08:27 pm
I have to prove the history of typewriters?
sozobe wrote:
But Debra, you haven't proven anything, either.


I have to prove the history of typewriters? You can't take my word that IBM golf-ball typewriters were popular with both government and private businesses? [IBM dominated the office equipment industry for decades!]

How about this informative article:

IBM Typewriter Innovation

Quote:
Proportional spacing

Proportional spacing, as developed by IBM, was the last
major advance in electric typebar typewriters. Interest-
ingly, the proportional (or variable or differential) spacing
concept was not new when IBM introduced its product in
1941.
Over one hundred years previously, Progin in his
1833 model allotted different spaces for upper-case and
lower-case letters [2]. A number of other inventors employed
the principle and several manufacturers produced
machines in the 188Os, including the Maskelyne (1889)
[2, 31. Probably due to mechanism complexity and cost,
differential spacing was abandoned around the turn of the
century [2]. Many years later, new impetus for a typewriter
that would more closely reproduce the product of the
professional printer came from Electromatic customers
who desired higher-quality printing at typewriter costs.
Ever since the invention of movable type, each letter in
the alphabet had been given a unique width to make its
appearance pleasing to the eye. The conventional fixed-
escapement typewriter required that all characters be of
equal width. This squeezed large characters such as M
and W and provided more than ample space for the
thinner characters such as i and 1. To provide variable
spacing for different letters, IBM’s first proportional
spacing typewriter
used a rotary type of escapement
mechanism of three separate escapement wheels designed
to provide 2, 3, or 4 units of carriage motion [Fig.
2(a)]. Used in combinations, it was possible to obtain 2,3,
4, 5, or 6 units of carriage travel, which provided a wide
range of possible character widths and a more pleasing
quality of print. A subsequent design employing a multiple-
pawl linear escapement [Fig. 2(b)] was first used in
the Model A Executive and has remained basically unchanged
for more than thirty years.

IBM SELECTRIC~ Typewriter

. . . the basic SELECTRIC Typewriter configuration emerged in
the early 1950s: a spherical single printing element mounted
on a moving carrier . . . .

Since all characters were engraved on a single part, the
SELECTRIC Typewriter offered the opportunity to interchange
type styles. . . .

Supplies innovations in support of typewriters have not
been limited to ribbons. As mentioned, a key benefit of
the SELECTRIC Typewriter was the ability to easily and
quickly change the print element. . . .

Print quality plus -the IBM SELECTRIC Composer

Typebar typewriters with proportional spacing had never
achieved the print quality needed to compete favorably
with “hot-type’’ composition. Previous shortcomings,
IBM believed, could be overcome with a machine based
on single-element principles. This belief culminated in the
announcement of the IBM SELECTRIC Composer, which
amazed professional printers with its superior impact
print quality.


BTW: The Selectric Composer (which also produced proportional font) was available in 1966.

http://www.etypewriters.com/history.htm

http://www.etypewriters.com/1966-composer-b.JPG
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Sep, 2004 08:38 pm
Debra, all I'm saying is that while what you say makes sense, it doesn't prove anything one way or the other... and fishin' was merely pointing that out.
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Sep, 2004 08:45 pm
Re: I have to prove the history of typewriters?
Debra_Law wrote:
BTW: The Selectric Composer (which also produced proportional font) was available in 1966.



Yes it was. And as your very own quote mentions "which amazed professional printers with its superior impact print quality". It was designed for and used by professional printers - not by typical office flunkies.

http://www.ibmcomposer.org/SelComposer/description.htm

"The basic task of the IBM Composer was to produce justified camera ready copy using proportional fonts."

Figure (a) on page 731:
http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/rd/255/ibmrd2505ZH.pdf

shows the type mechanism on the 1941 model capable of proportional fonts and it isn't a ball.

Keep trying though.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Sep, 2004 08:50 pm
Brand X wrote:
Here's a couple of problems with the memo I lifted from Democratic Underground.


Well, that's a step up from FreeRepublic, I suppose. But that unlinked laundry list you post still has considerably less credibility than this,from the Associated Press:

Quote:


Think I'll take a drive down Longmont tomorrow with my Mapquest printout...
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Sep, 2004 08:55 pm
FWIW, more typewriter history:

Quote:
The IBM Electric typewriters were a series of electric typewriters that IBM manufactured, starting in the late 1940s. They used the conventional moving carriage and hammer mechanism. Each model came in both Standard and Executive versions; the Executive differed in having a multiple escapement mechanism and four widths for letters, producing a near typeset quality result.

One model of the series was introduced in the late 1940s:
IBM Model A Two models of the series were introduced in the 1950s:
IBM Model B
IBM Model C One model of the series was introduced in the early 1970s:
IBM Model D Modified Standard versions of the A, B, and C models were commonly used as "console typewriters" or terminals on many early computers (e.g., JOHNNIAC, IBM 1620, PDP-1). Following the introduction of the IBM Selectric typewriter in 1961, which was much easier to interface to a computer, these typewriters were rarely used anymore as "console typewriters" or terminals.


This bit about "forgeries" is a patently ridiculous digression.
0 Replies
 
jomacc
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Sep, 2004 09:18 pm
Quote:
patently ridiculous digression.



From what? The refutation of the Swifties? The quick acceptance of the Texans for Truth after the Swifties were ignored for two weeks by the mainstream? (Which btw was the Kerry campaigns hope, that the media ignoring the 250 signatories would make the issue evaporate). Good thing we know that the Kerry campaign and the overwhelmingly liberal mainstream media don't compare notes........NOT.

Or do we digress to ignore the financial connection between T for T and the Kerry campaign?:

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/special_packages/election2004/9622934.htm?1c

Certainly not illegal, and certainly no more illegal than the donations by fat cat republicans to the Swifties, but in the latter case the donations make the liberal skin crawl, while in the former it seems to be quite the way the game should be played.

Let's see if an independent expert or six can determine if some of these records are faked. We know it is not beyond either side to fabricate evidence, especially if only the "dead" can be called to task for it.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Sep, 2004 09:27 pm
jomacc wrote:
Let's see if an independent expert or six can determine if some of these records are faked. We know it is not beyond either side to fabricate evidence, especially if only the "dead" can be called to task for it.


Go right ahead. A fool's errand.

Quote:
CBS News released a statement yesterday standing by its reporting, saying that each of the documents "was thoroughly vetted by independent experts and we are convinced of their authenticity." The statement added that CBS reporters had verified the documents by talking to unidentified individuals who saw them "at the time they were written."

< snip >

A senior CBS official, who asked not to be named because CBS managers did not want to go beyond their official statement, named one of the network's sources as retired Maj. Gen. Bobby W. Hodges, the immediate superior of the documents' alleged author, Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian. He said that a CBS reporter read the documents to Hodges over the phone, and that Hodges replied that "these are the things that Killian had expressed to me at the time."

"These documents represent what Killian not only was putting in memoranda, but was telling other people," the CBS News official said. "Journalistically, we've gone several extra miles."

The official said the network regarded Hodges's comments as "the trump card" on the question of authenticity, as he is a Republican who acknowledged that he did not want to hurt Bush. Hodges, who declined to grant an on-camera interview to CBS, did not respond to messages left on his home answering machine in Texas.


Washington Post
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Sep, 2004 09:28 pm
PDiddie wrote:
This bit about "forgeries" is a patently ridiculous digression.



hey pd... they can dish it out, but they can't take it. Laughing

it's what a civil war scholar friend of mine calls the "my stainless side" defense. :wink:
0 Replies
 
Centroles
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Sep, 2004 10:24 pm
I'm glad you're back.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Sep, 2004 10:26 pm
I've been following this "Story" since it broke in the blogosphere, forums, and newsgroups last night ... thinking, at first, the possibility the documents were forgeries was just too delicious to be true. As the evening wore on, and as developments cropped up today, my skepticism was replaced by glee. Knowing how The Lefties here react to anything from "The Right Wing Media", and not really feeling inclined to play that particular game at this particular time, I figured I'd just wait for it to hit the Mainstream Media. Well, folks, it has. The "question" of the documents' provenance currently is Google News' lead US News item, and the word "forgery" is right up at the top of every search-engine's "most requested" list. The evidence the documents indeed are forgeries grows and grows and grows. The Washington Post is Front-paging it tomorrow, Nightline tonight is hitting it, with both Killian's widow and son casting doubt, along with the opinions of recognized and accreditted forensic experts. CBS has just announced it is conducting an "Internal Investigation", with a "highly placed un-named source" reportedly quoted as saying something along the lines of "it doesn't look good for the 60 Minutes folks".


Looks like Kerry's boat has a few new holes.

<chuckle>
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/10/2024 at 08:02:50