Superscript
No typewriter I've ever seen has a superscript "th", as used in such words as "187th."
Nor, might I add, did any typewriter have a superscript "st" (as in "121st"), "nd" ("102nd") or "rd" ("123rd").
Back then, we just rolled the platen half a line up or down for a super- or sub-script.
Just sayin', is all....
Posted by Russ at 06:17 PM, September 9, 2004 in Politics
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.emersons.net/mt/mt-pingback.cgi/619
Comments
Had you have been paying attention to the CBS presentation you would have heard it said that the origonal documents were HAND WRITTEN and that the handwriting had been VERFIED, but I guess you really don't care about the truth. Or maybe you think only the pundits know the truth.
Maybe you would like to change gears and take the Yellow Dog Challenge? Explain to the world how the new overtime law that takes away time and one half for millions and millions of working class Americans who earn over $23,600.oo, but less than $100,000.oo a year will help the working class. And remember: After 9-11, Bush said the way to strengthen the economy is for Working Class Americans to spend more money. Cut our pay then tell us to spend more-- sounds like a flip flop to this old yellow dog.
Remember: even if you cover it up, elephant crap still stinks.
Posted by: Yellow Dog '04 at September 9, 2004 09:30 PM
Had I decided to soil my retinas by watching a CBS hit piece, I'd have to have my head examined.
So, if the originals were handwritten, why are they showing us typed documents? Hint: the military almost never uses handwritten documents.
But let's go with your asserton. Why didn't (or doesn't) CBS just show us the original source material? Answer: they did. It's just that their documents appear to be forgeries.
I haven't believed much from CBS for a long time. Why, now, should anyone believe CBS ever again?
Oh, and remember: no matter the costume it wears, a donkey is still an ass.
Posted by: Russ at September 9, 2004 10:53 PM
Okay, I'll admit I was mistaken about the documents being handwritten, (I went back and watched it again) but there were signatures that have been checked by handwriting experts.
Also: now it seems that there were many typewriters in use in the 1970s that were capable of typing the 'th' in the way it was done on the records and the font was trademarked and in common use on many of those typewriters. (Those features date back to 1941 on typesetting machines, a few years later on typewriters.) These features were common on IBM Selectrics made in the 1960s. Do you think the US Military might have owned some of the most popular typewriters in the world? Maybe a few?
And let's go with the assumption that the documents were forged. If so, then they were most likely forged somewhere in Military Records before they were copied and handed to CBS. After all, no one from the Pentigon, FBI, CIA, or any other agency has spoke up calling them forgeries. Democratic operatives in the US Military, I thought all the military folks were Bush supporters? Or is it that easy to break into a military installation? (Says a lot for our military, doesn't it?) After all, no military personel in their right minds would hand the only copy to a civilian, right?
Lastly, the 'donkey costume thing' you said-- good comeback!
Posted by: Yellow Dog '04 at September 10, 2004 11:50 PM
And let's go with the assumption that the documents were forged. If so, then they were most likely forged somewhere in Military Records before they were copied and handed to CBS. After all, no one from the Pentigon, FBI, CIA, or any other agency has spoke up calling them forgeries.
i don't think you can make the assertion that the forgeries came from the Pentagon, etc. There's no evidence whatsoever to back that up. In the military, they throw you in Leavenworth for doing things like that.
Democratic operatives in the US Military, I thought all the military folks were Bush supporters?
Plenty are, yes. But a 2:1 or 3:1 ratio still leaves plenty of room for Kerry supporters.
Or is it that easy to break into a military installation? (Says a lot for our military, doesn't it?) After all, no military personel in their right minds would hand the only copy to a civilian, right?
I think it's a huge mistake to attribute the forgeries to anyone in the military.
Occam's Razor would seem to apply; what's the simplest explanation that fits the facts? I'm looking at Terry MacAuliffe and Chris Lehane as the perpetrators of this fraud, with Dan Rather a willing (though perhaps gullibly ignorant) accomplice.
Lastly, the 'donkey costume thing' you said-- good comeback!
It just kinda rolled off my fingers onto the keyboard :-)
Posted by: Russ at September 11, 2004 01:15 PM
Imperial Department of Hegemony By Force
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.emersons.net/mt/mt-pingback.cgi/619
Comments
Had you have been paying attention to the CBS presentation you would have heard it said that the origonal documents were HAND WRITTEN and that the handwriting had been VERFIED, but I guess you really don't care about the truth. Or maybe you think only the pundits know the truth.
Maybe you would like to change gears and take the Yellow Dog Challenge? Explain to the world how the new overtime law that takes away time and one half for millions and millions of working class Americans who earn over $23,600.oo, but less than $100,000.oo a year will help the working class. And remember: After 9-11, Bush said the way to strengthen the economy is for Working Class Americans to spend more money. Cut our pay then tell us to spend more-- sounds like a flip flop to this old yellow dog.
Remember: even if you cover it up, elephant crap still stinks.
Posted by: Yellow Dog '04 at September 9, 2004 09:30 PM
Had I decided to soil my retinas by watching a CBS hit piece, I'd have to have my head examined.
So, if the originals were handwritten, why are they showing us typed documents? Hint: the military almost never uses handwritten documents.
But let's go with your asserton. Why didn't (or doesn't) CBS just show us the original source material? Answer: they did. It's just that their documents appear to be forgeries.
I haven't believed much from CBS for a long time. Why, now, should anyone believe CBS ever again?
Oh, and remember: no matter the costume it wears, a donkey is still an ass.
Posted by: Russ at September 9, 2004 10:53 PM
Okay, I'll admit I was mistaken about the documents being handwritten, (I went back and watched it again) but there were signatures that have been checked by handwriting experts.
Also: now it seems that there were many typewriters in use in the 1970s that were capable of typing the 'th' in the way it was done on the records and the font was trademarked and in common use on many of those typewriters. (Those features date back to 1941 on typesetting machines, a few years later on typewriters.) These features were common on IBM Selectrics made in the 1960s. Do you think the US Military might have owned some of the most popular typewriters in the world? Maybe a few?
And let's go with the assumption that the documents were forged. If so, then they were most likely forged somewhere in Military Records before they were copied and handed to CBS. After all, no one from the Pentigon, FBI, CIA, or any other agency has spoke up calling them forgeries. Democratic operatives in the US Military, I thought all the military folks were Bush supporters? Or is it that easy to break into a military installation? (Says a lot for our military, doesn't it?) After all, no military personel in their right minds would hand the only copy to a civilian, right?
Lastly, the 'donkey costume thing' you said-- good comeback!
Posted by: Yellow Dog '04 at September 10, 2004 11:50 PM
i don't think you can make the assertion that the forgeries came from the Pentagon, etc. There's no evidence whatsoever to back that up. In the military, they throw you in Leavenworth for doing things like that.
Plenty are, yes. But a 2:1 or 3:1 ratio still leaves plenty of room for Kerry supporters.
I think it's a huge mistake to attribute the forgeries to anyone in the military.
Occam's Razor would seem to apply; what's the simplest explanation that fits the facts? I'm looking at Terry MacAuliffe and Chris Lehane as the perpetrators of this fraud, with Dan Rather a willing (though perhaps gullibly ignorant) accomplice.
It just kinda rolled off my fingers onto the keyboard :-)
Posted by: Russ at September 11, 2004 01:15 PM