Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (201125)	9/9/2004 10:20:09 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574096

Proportional spacing was hardly the only argument refrenced. For example one of the links in that post included - "UPDATE 12: In the August 18, 1973 memo "discovered" by 60 Minutes, Jerry Killian purportedly writes: Staudt has obviously pressured Hodges more about Bush. I'm having trouble running interference and doing my job. But wait! Reader Amar Sarwal points out that General Staudt, who thought very highly of Lt. Bush, retired in 1972." Even CBS's is backing off from the claim that the documents were authenticated. "Later, however, Ms. Edwards sent out an email that appeared to revise the nature of the "authentication" process: CBS verified the authenticity of the documents by talking to individuals who had seen the documents at the time they were written. These individuals were close associates of Colonel Jerry Killian and confirm that the documents reflect his opinions at the time the documents were written. So what CBS is now saying is not that the documents are authentic, but that the opinions they express are authentic, based on the hearsay reports of anonymous persons alleged to be close associates of Col. Killian, who recall his views of thirty-two years ago. This is what passes for "authentication" in the mainstream media." thespoonsexperience.com And there is a lot more at powerlineblog.com Edit - Some more MOST GLARING is the omission of an 'SSCI' code the Standard Subject Classification Indicator code which is found on every piece of US military correspondence. The SSCI must appear in the upper right hand corner and include a subject code, the originator's initials, the clerk-typist's code and the date. Every official military document must include an SSCI--this officer (who most likely never typed an official document in his career) forgot to include it and probably could not even remember the correct subject abbreviation code. ALSO ON US MILITARY CORRESPONDENCE THE SUBJECT LINE IS ALWAYS CAPITALIZED-no self respecting military clerk typed this forgery nor would they type the date ‘14 May,1972 ‘ instead of the correct military style of ‘14 MAY 1972’. Other errors: "Lt Colonel"-should be " LC" or " LTCOL" or more correctly "Lieutenant Colonel, (branch of service) Commander-should read "COMMANDING" Message 20506615 and Interview with Farrell Shiver, the owner of Shiver & Nelson, a document investigation lab in Woodstock, Georgia. He agrees with you on proportional spacing but is somewhat dubious about these documents. Message 20506578 ----------------------- he other nitwit claim is the typeface didn't exist then. The fact that Microsoft (and Apple before them) modeled some of their fonts after that office standard, the Selectric, totally escapes them. Yes, Selectrics were expensive. But it was an IBM... Modeled after but not identical. " The reason is that typefaces are proprietary. They are even copyrighted. Times Roman in WordPerfect, for example, is NOT the same as Times New Roman in Word. The vast majority of people don't realize this, but typesetters and publishers do. Little things are dead giveaways, like the angle of the crossbar in a lower case "e" or the angle of the tip of the serif of the uppercase "T" or the shape of the "belly" of the lowercase "a."" Message 20505306 " The images line up exactly with the same copy typed using 12 point Times New Roman in Word. The spacing, kerning, character shapes, positioning of superscripts, line breaks, use/absence of hyphenation, absence of spelling errors, etc. is precisely the same." Message 20505549 I don't think at this time that there is conclusive proof that they where forged, but there is enough reason not to consider them solid documenatry evidence.

To: combjelly who wrote (201125)	9/9/2004 10:26:07 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574096

powerlineblog.com indcjournal.com littlegreenfootballs.com Edit - "A Quick Note (Updated) .. tooting my own horn and offering a general rebuttal to my detractors (partisan and otherwise). I just got done getting interviewed by a mainstream media reporter who basically understood the fact that the expert I tracked down is not just an expert, but pretty much the guy that "wrote the book" on this type of thing (typewriter fonts, forgeries, old typewriters). So a couple of things to the rabid folks that are accusing me (and others) of clouding the issue or fabricating a non-story: 1. As I mentioned, Dr. Bouffard is perhaps the most notable expert in this area. Stop raging against the machine - I reported this story honestly and thoroughly. 2. Dr. Bouffard is evidently a Democrat that plans on voting for John Kerry. Sometimes the truth is more important than partisanship, people. I would have reported my findings honestly if the documents had turned out to be real ... And one last bit of shameless blogospheric braggadacio that I'd like to repeat: This reporter told me (and he was referring to Powerline as well) "You did better than Dan Rather, you did better than the Washington Post; just one guy with a computer!" I'd say that goes for LGF and other portions of the blogosphere today. Kudos to everyone that covered an angle and kept it factual. UPDATE: Also, for all of the people bugging me about the fact that Times Roman has been around since the thirties - yes, yes, in printing presses, not as a proportional typewriter font. You guys can come up with theories and comment or e-mail them to me all day long, but experts that do this for a living will be likely be able to tell you why you are wrong. That's why they are called "experts."" indcjournal.com

To: combjelly who wrote (201125)	9/9/2004 11:35:19 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574096

That I realize that facts aren't all that important in these things. But these "debunking" of those memos is pure fantasy... And its all being orchestrated by Karl Rove. You've got to give them that.......they are very clever! ted

To: combjelly who wrote (201125)	9/9/2004 11:44:21 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574096

That's a nitwit claim, Selectrics got that feature in the early 1960's. No, it isn't. While proportional spacing was available earlier, proportional spacing with superscripts were not available until the late '70s. The documents are clearly, and obviously, forged. As to "not being easy" with today's laser printer, nonsense. Laser printer horizontal cursors are addressable to within the horizontal resolution. Obviously fake to anyone who knows the subject matter.