Was Bush's Service Record Forged?

[HFishbine]

I have to ask, because it contains a superscript "th" in "111th" and as we all know...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/bushdocs/10-2_2000_Personnel_File.pdf (page 11)

[BurtWorm]

1. Just curious: why is only one "th" superscripted?

Why weren't they all?

(I can't help but be skeptical. I apologize.)

[Walt Starr]

3. Thats a Form AF 7. It stays in the personnel file for years

Each line on that document was filled out by a different clerk on a different typewriter.

Only line 2 of Page 11 is done in the superscripted typeface, and that was clearly typed in 1968, four years prior to the earliest of the disputed documents.

either that, or Bush faked his military records and they're forgeries, but you decide.

[HFishbine]

7. Well, if a superscript "th" is evidence of forgery

in the Killian memos, then I'd have to say that the appearance of a superscript "th" in Bush's service resords would indicate the same.

[kentuck]

36. Walt, that's not beyond possibility....

Bush has faked much of his military records ?

(edit to add comment below)

But, my first thought when I saw the "th" in that second line was that it looked like it was put in later and not typed in at the same time?? So, it that had been changed, why should we think that other parts of the same document were not changed also ??

[HFishbine]

5. Skeptical of what? (EOM)

[BurtWorm]

13. Skeptical of the authenticity of these documents.

Once a plausible doubt is raised, I have to suspend belief until the doubt is disposed of. No one is doing a very good job on this board of disposing of the doubts. In fact several times today, someone has posted something claiming to put an end to the forgery "nonsense" only to make me doubt even more.

My doubt started when I went in search of Selectric literature on the Web that proved superscripts were readily available and easy to do--and found the exact opposite. In fact, superscripts involved backtracking and manually moving the platen, according to this literature. Why would anyone go through that unless they were compulsive about superscripting letters with numerals?

Now, though, Dan Rather seems to have evidence that IBM typewriters had superscript "th"s. And this document that you refer to clearly does have a superscripted "th." We'll see. I hope to have my doubts erased.

[BurtWorm]

15. Let me make clear that I am not at all skeptical of the charge that Bush

went missing, or from the charge that he got into some kind of trouble--probably with cocaine--that fucked up his Guard duty. I just don't trust that these documents are the smoking gun we all desperately want them to be.

[HFishbine]

18. Well

If your skeptiscism is aroused because of a supercript "th" then you are suspicious of Bush's service record too, right?

[BurtWorm]

19. Don't pull that shit on me.

Belief in the authenticity of the CBS papers is a sign of DU correctness? Feh!

I believe in the authenticity of Marty Heldt's documents. I need to be convinced of the authenticity of these.

[HFishbine]

38. Based on what?

Maybe I'm missing something, are you saying you need to be convinced of the authenticity of Bush't official service record?

[goodhue]

20. nothing plausible has been raised

So stop your suspension and come back to earth.
Many manual typewriters had superscript keys.

[BurtWorm]

21. Superscript "th"s? I've never seen a single one.

But if you have evidence I'd love to see it. My doubt is based on what I read in three IBM operator's manuals I found on line today. But I would be grateful to be shown evidence to the contrary.

[goodhue]

25. You were reading IBM operator's manuals because of Faux misinformation?

Dude, I feel for you.
But please consider the source for the spurious suggestion that the memos were anything less than authentic.

[BurtWorm]

26. What do you think about Killian's family disavowing their authenticity?

:wtf:

[goodhue]

27. I think they are loyal repukes spouting party line

who don't know shit about what Killian did or did not write at work in the early 70s

[BurtWorm]

30. And DUers do know shit about what Killian did or did not write?

:shrug:

[goodhue]

32. exactly

The contemporaneous documents authored and signed by Killian plainly speak for themselves.

[HFishbine]

39. Not to mention that Killian's docs corroborate the official record

That seems to argue more for their authenticity than against it.

[yardwork]

28. I don't doubt your sincerity

but it is clear that you were never much of a typist. That's ok. It wasn't a requirement.

However, I was a (fairly inept) typist. I majored in history and typed all my college papers on a non-correcting Smith Corona. Footnotes and citations were a requirement. It was not uncommon to have hundreds of footnotes in one research paper, and every single one of them had to typed as a superscript. I didn't have a special key to do this on my lousy machine, so I backtracked and manually moved the platen. It took about half a second.

The correcting IBM Selectrics that were available at the time could do that and more with a single keystroke. Typing was a highly skilled job in those days before word processors.

There's nothing on any of the newly released documents that wouldn't have been within the skills of any office employee, even as poor a typist as I was at the time.

[BurtWorm]

31. But why type a superscript "th" when it isn't necessary?

It's perfectly well understood what I mean when I type 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th, isn't it? It's always been perfectly well understood, hasn't it?

[the Kelly Gang]

2. no..doesn't this show that all the documents are real and doesn't

it show how damn easy it was for CBS to verify their authenticity.

This guy didn't just type 3 memos and throw away the typeriter.

[patrice]

4. There's another very interesting question here . . . .

If so, by whom, and for what purpose? Try to break your assumptions that you may think you know about those answers (docs = experiment with media-puppets, who does that sound like . . . . ?).

[librechik]

6. indeed, this looks very bad for Bush

forgeries in his military record! I'm shocked! Shocked!

[patrice]

8. You can create superscripts with some old typewriters by . . .

using a button/or little lever that allows you to roll the platen by hand freely (in a direction that puts your line of print slightly lower, so you can type the superscript, you then re-engage the platten ratcheting mechanism to status-quo operation for whatever line spacing you had previously established.)

[goodhue]

9. typewriters have have had superscripts for many years

some "experts" apparently are not aware of that fact

[HFishbine]

10. Now I'm really confused

So a document from the 60's that contains a superscipt can be legitimate but one from the 70's is suspect?

[Walt Starr]

11. That's what FreeRepublic would have you believe

But those freaks have never looked at the military records released by Bush.

[goodhue]

14. neither is suspect

Turn off the tv!
Many old typewriters had special keys for certain superscripts, such as a "th" superscript key.
Some experts apparently to young to remember some typewriters.

[Stocat]

12. superscript in a different Bush Doc

In the item Dated 1968 you can clearly see a smaller font superscript.

[EST]

16. Yup.

How many times, this week, have you had to point this out?

[Walt Starr]

17. Actually, that's teh same doc

It's Form AF7. Your's is just a lighter shade.

They released this document in 2000 and again this year.

[Nederland]

22. But the font is not proportional...

The key question is this:

Is there a typewriter of that era that can do all of following:

1) Proportional fonts
2) Smaller type superscripts
3) The same font as the docs

If we can show a typewriter will all of that we'll have them nailed.

[yardwork]

29. Yes. CBS has already done this.

The issue has been proven.

[Nederland]

33. When

What model is it?

[LastDemocratInSC]

23. Typewriters in the early 1970s could do proportional fonts and the 'th'

Typewriters have been capable of proportional fonts since 1944, and the Times Roman font has been available from the mid-1930s. The raised 'th' character was available as well.

Most Americans don't know this because they only had access to the old clunkers used in high-school typing classes. These fancy features were available on high-end typewriters usually purchased by businesses, the government, or individuals who cared about what they typed and had the money for the machines.

Sheesh, a little understanding of history would go a long way here ...

[goodhue]

24. indeed

[A_Possum]

35. What we need is a retired executive secretary

Those ladies (in most cases they were ladies) were absolutely geniuses at creating beautiful documents.

They didn't need no stinkin' WORD to get their letters to look perfect.

It's really getting weird, how memories are getting twisted about things that happened in my own lifetime.

[against all enemies]

34. How fucking hard is this?

There must be thousands of documents that were typed back then, compare them. Paul Drake could do this during a commercial break.

"Perry, we've got a match."

[spanone]

37. If we go by freeper logic....Yes.