A simple explanation for the Guard Memos.

[Qutzupalotl]

Killian typed them himself.

Killian was being asked to lie on a report. He had his secretary type up one set of memos, but just in case they got lost, he typed his own, without telling her. If the fate of your career rests in a document, better have a backup. And he was dealing with the Bush family, who are not to be crossed.

It's a good thing he made backups, because the ones Knox typed--that were locked away in his office--have somehow vanished.

This scenario explains:

-the authentic signatures.

-the statement by Knox that she typed similar ones, but not these particular ones.

-the non-standard abbreviations and lack of spaces after some commas (Killian wasn't much of a typist).

-the accurate accounts of events surrounding Bush.

-the White House non-denial denial. Bush "does not recall having seen the documents" and says there are a lot of questions that need to be answered (insinuation)

-why rumors of forgery were started with inaccurate and misleading information (out of desperation). Virtually all of Buckhead's FR criticisms are invalid. He didn't like what the memos prove.

-why experts have vouched for the authenticity of the documents, but people who only know Microsoft Word think it looks kinda like a Word document (but not exactly!)

-the features available on a 1972 typewriter, but which are nearly impossible to replicate on a computer (the font, superscript height, letters jogging up and down, letters slightly different from each other. A forger would have to know that a 1972 typewriter used by the guard had proportional spacing and a superscript key. How many people knew that two months ago?)

Best of all, there is no need to invent a forgery theory.

[Qutzupalotl]

1. *waits for critical posts*

*taps foot*
:shrug:

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. but, but, but

:-)

You said you wanted a doubting thomas here...

[Qutzupalotl]

3. Why, yes, NRK, I think you're right!

:)
Here's why:
-the letters rise and fall individually, like a typewriter and not a computer.
-the letters are slightly different from one another, like a typewriter and not a computer.
-the signature is genuine
-the facts and sentiments are genuine
-the typing could have been done on Knox' typewriter (although not by her)
-a forger would have to know that 1972 typewriters could do superscripts
-rumors of forgery started by right-wing hack with no typography experience
-White House doesn't deny contents, but carefully implies forgery

[Auntie Bush]

12. Good analysis and reasoning NRK. I hope/think you're right! n/t

[grasswire]

4. but.......

...typing in those days was a horrible pain in the neck compared to today. Only a good typist could get through a document without having to make some corrections, which would show up as whiteout marks probably. I'm having doubts that an officer of that era would have had that much typing experience. Everyone can type now, because of computers. Then, not so many people on a career track could type well.

[Shrek]

6. One other thing

If Killian typed them, how did he manage to get his line breaks at the same locations that MS Word does by default? If that's a coincidence, it's a fairly astonishing one.

[Qutzupalotl]

7. Not really.

When Microsoft was creating Word, they used the standard margins and point size of office documents that had been in use for decades.

The widths of the characters are similar to but not exactly that of Times New Roman:

[Shrek]

10. That's not what I meant

How is is that Killian happened to select comparable margins and execute a carriage return at the same exact places that Word uses soft line breaks?

[yardwork]

9. It would be astonishing if the line breaks weren't the same

Line breaks are a standard width. Computer software copied the standard typewriter line breaks.

[yardwork]

8. Actually, the memos are typed poorly

As a typist from the 1970s, I noticed that right off. These memos look like they were typed by somebody who didn't type very often. The superscript in question is a good example. The typist used it in one part of the memo but not in others. Sometimes the acronyms have a period after each letter, sometimes not.

Typing on old electric Selectrics and other similar machines was actually pretty easy to do. Anyone could "hunt and peck" out a memo. It was difficult to do well, if you follow me.

Whoever typed these memo (and I am convinced that they were typed for the reasons give in the opening post here) either (1) was not very skilled at typing, or (2) wanted to make it incredibly obvious that these were typed "wrong."

If they are forgeries, they were forged on a typewriter and the forger deliberately made them look bad. If they are real, it looks like they could easily have been typed by an officer who typed infrequently.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

32. Used the superscript in one part of the memo but not other?

Well, that is very bizarre. Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds, and most anyone would do the same thing repeatedly without thinking about it.
Could this be an intentional thing to make the documents appear forged?

[Qutzupalotl]

33. Possibly, but no evidence of forgery exists.

You can get close on a computer, but not exact.

The most likely explanation is a non-typist like Killian doing the typing. There are other places where he didn't put a space after a comma, little things like that. A forger would have done a better job.

When I say its' "too good to be a forgery," I mean it fits this scenario perfectly.

[Qutzupalotl]

14. I'm not suggesting he typed well or quickly.

One could hunt and peck one's way through a document if career security depended on it.

You'll note the lack of spaces after some commas, nonstandard abbreviations, etc. Knox would not have done that. A forger probably would not have done that. Killian would have.

[Auntie Bush]

15. Yes, typing was a pain in the neck...but if you don't know how and type

with one or two fingers...you are less likely to make a mistake. If your LIFE depended on it...you could do it carefully and without mistakes. And by the way...didn't they teach typing in High School in those days?

[grasswire]

18. typing was an elective, not a requirement

And someone on a career path likely typed rarely even if they took typing in school. Example. I took touch typing in high school. But I typed at < 40 wpm and made a lot of mistakes for many, many years -- until I had a computer. (My speed now is about 140wpm.)

Just an aside.

[okasha]

22. Two points

IBM had lift-off tape by this time. If you made a mistake, you went back and lifted the offending character off the page, typed in the correct one and went on.

At least in my Texas high school, students headed for college were put into typing classes because college papers had to be typed. If Killian went to University, he probably did some of his own typing, however badly.


Okasha

[newyawker99]

26. Hi okasha!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[SoCalDemocrat]

47. it was a short memo

Of course you can type it without mistake. In my HS typing class we learned on the Selectric, and we were taught to learn to type them without errors. Even in my first semester I was hammering out short memo's without errors.

[farmbo]

5. A much simpler explanation: Rove did it.

He held back copies for himself when they sanitized the TANG files in the 90s. But since he couldn't be sure there weren't other copies floating around the Pentagon under the Clinton administration, he snipped, cut & pasted docs which looked legit,but,upon examination, were demonstrably forged.

He then passed them to Killian...a readily impeachable source... who, quite predictably, leaked them to CBS. He simultaneously supplied his internet warrior (Buckhead) with the scientific evidence necessary to expose them as forgeries.

Fox, CNN, Rush and the Right wing echo chamber did the rest.

[Qutzupalotl]

11. I don't see that as simpler.

It posits a theory of an expert forger who would know he could get away with using a superscript key on a 1972 typewriter with proportional spacing.

Closer examination reveals they were not forged. Virtually every theory of forgery has fallen apart. Every recreation is not close enough. The font is not available on PCs, but was available on typewriters at the time, as CBS' expert verified.

(I think you mean they were passed to Burkett, not Killian)

While possible, the simpler explanation is they were typed by Killian himself.

[Rageneau]

20. It's not as simple as it seems

I don't agree that a 'simpler' solution is to assume that Killian typed the docs. A non-typist could/would not have done so good a job -- especially when the docs in question were NOT being typed for the official record but rather for private CYA purposes.

IOW, if Killian (a non-typist) had typed these docs, they would LOOK as if a non-typist had typed them on a common typewriter of the period. In fact, it is precisely because these docs do NOT look as if a non-typist typed them on a period typewriter that makes them suspect.

BTW, this is also the reason why we know the docs were NOT forged by anti-Bush forces. Had they been, they would surely have been better forgeries; they would look as if a non-typist had typed them on an old typewriter.

For that and other reasons, I am persuaded that the 'simplest' explanation for these docs is that original, authentic versions of them DO (or did) exist, were known to or were discovered by the Bushies, who transferred them into MS Word format before copying them a dozen times and leaking them (by proxy) to the Kerry Campaign and CBS.

THAT solution accounts not only for the ersatz appearance of the docs, but also for the way this horribly negative story about Bush has been spun into being a horrible problem for CBS and Kerry. It also accounts for why the docs look as if they were created on a PC; they were. And the person who created them WANTED their authenticity to be questioned.

That amounts to quite a bank shot: With one deceitful action, the Bush Campaign deflates the AWOL issue and innoculates itself against its reoccurance, while at the same time hurting the Kerry Campaign and eviscerating its number one (and only) television critic, Dan Rather.

All of that screams "scheming" to me.

Consequently, I maintain that the 'simplest' solution is actually the Machiavellian machinations of the odious Karl Rove.

[Qutzupalotl]

24. They do look as if a non-typist typed them.

In some places, Killian forgot to put a space after a comma, and used non-standard abbreviations. A real typist, like Knox, would not have done that. That's what she was saying when she said she didn't type these particular ones.

A non-typist like Killian certainly could make mistakes like that.

You're also ignoring the fact that it's not a Word document. See my composite image elsewhere in this thread. The font is not Times New Roman, and Word's superscripting is lower than what is seen here.

What was being alleged in the original post by Buckhead was that these were crude, quick forgeries in Word, and they forgot to undo the superscripting. I am saying that few people knew that a 1972 typewriter in use by the Guard at the time could do superscripting and proportional spacing. In other words, it's too good to be a forgery.

[phish420]

39. I agree - use of apostrophe

an inexperienced typist jotting down a back up of notes would not have such detail to use of apostrophe's in "I'm", "Bush's", "don't", "I'll" and "Won't".
*-note, Word auto-apostrophizes (is that a word?)

Rove Rove Rove Rove

[Qutzupalotl]

42. The typewriter had a curled apostrophe where the straight one usually is.

n/t

[brentspeak]

45. It was DESIGNED to be exposed as a forgery

The forger was not trying to "get away" with anything other than temporarily fooling a careless CBS. Then "Buckhead" or whoever was instructed to magically "discover" the deliberately-inserted tell-tale sign of possible forgery, so as to make the whole thing explode in CBS' face.

[Qutzupalotl]

46. But it hasn't been exposed as a forgery.

The post that started the forgery rumor has been debunked to death, but CNN apparently reads Free Republic. It's now "common knowledge" that they were forgeries--unless you examine them closely. Then you see that they could not have been "done on a PC", as one Bozo said on Hardball just tonight.

[DoYouEverWonder]

13. No Rove probably flipped out when Rather went to the WH

with the story and told Dan Bartlett that they were going to go with it on 60 Minutes.

Rove came up with a devious plan and word went out to MacDougald to come up with the typewriter story. MacDougald might be a major freeper and a lawyer, but a typewriter expert? I don't think so. Most of his suppositions were disproved by midnight that night, right here on DU.

[Qutzupalotl]

16. That is possible.

But I think that would be the extent of Rove's involvement, if indeed there is any.

My personal feeling is that MacDougald acted independently, without checking with an expert, out of sheer desperation to discredit and start a forgery rumor.

Unfortunately for us, MS Word is so ubiquitous that the "superscript" red herring got a lot of traction.

[Shrek]

17. I don't think the "experts" have reached a consensus

I found this Washington Post article to be pretty convincing. Here's an illuminating snippet:

It quickly became clear that the people CBS hired to authenticate the documents had -- and claimed -- only limited expertise in the sometimes arcane science of computer typesetting technology and fonts. Such expertise is needed to determine whether the records could have been created in 1972 and 1973. Independent experts contacted by The Post were surprised that CBS hired analysts who were not certified by the American Board of Forensic Document Examiners, considered the gold standard in the field.

These software experts say differences in font widths and printing styles make it impossible to replicate the CBS documents using the printing technology available in the early 1970s. By contrast, reasonably competent computer enthusiasts have created nearly exact replicas of the documents in 15 minutes employing default settings for Microsoft Word and the widely used Times New Roman font.

While Glennon continues to insist that the documents could theoretically have been printed on a Vietnam War-era IBM Selectric, no one has been able to demonstrate this . Leading font developers say the technology simply did not exist 30 years ago.

One telltale sign in the CBS documents is the overlapping character combinations, such as "fr" or "fe," said Joseph M. Newcomer, an adjunct professor with Carnegie Mellon University. Blown-up portions of the CBS documents show that the top of the "f" overlaps the beginning of the next letter, a feat that was not possible even on the most sophisticated typewriters available in 1972. Newcomer calls the documents "a modern forgery."

Tests run by Thomas Phinney, fonts program manager for Adobe Systems, show that none of the possible font widths available on any typewriter or any IBM device from 1972 are able to produce an exact replica of the CBS documents. "Can they do something 'similar'? Sure," Phinney said. "Could they produce those exact memos? Impossible."

[Qutzupalotl]

25. The Post article is erroneous and reads like a hit piece.

It was riddled with errors, just like the previous one they did.

"The software experts" the Post relied on (Newcomer) is a programmer and not a typographer. He lied in the earlier Post article about superscripting, saying the 1968 guard memo was not a superscript because it didn't rise above the cap height; when it obviously rose above the baseline and was a different size from the t and the h of the normal text. In other words, the typewriter then (1968) had a superscript key; Newcomer says it didn't. He lied.


While Glennon continues to insist that the documents could theoretically have been printed on a Vietnam War-era IBM Selectric, no one has been able to demonstrate this.

Try finding an IBM Executive or Olympia on eBay today. That's my point. Neither could a forger.


Leading font developers say the technology simply did not exist 30 years ago.

Quite the contrary, in fact. Today's technology falls far short of credibly recreating the up and down motion and individual distressings of each letter, fully consistent with a typewriter and easy and natural to do on a typewriter, yet fully unlike a computer font and quite difficult to do. I believe you must concede this point by now, that these are not quick recreations in Word, as the original rumor alleged. They would require advanced editing in a program like Photoshop.

Unnamed source here (probably Newcomer again), is lying. There were at least 9 typewriters at the time capable of doing this, including the one Knox said she used. She said hers had a "th" key like you see in the documents.


One telltale sign in the CBS documents is the overlapping character combinations, such as "fr" or "fe," said Joseph M. Newcomer, an adjunct professor with Carnegie Mellon University. Blown-up portions of the CBS documents show that the top of the "f" overlaps the beginning of the next letter, a feat that was not possible even on the most sophisticated typewriters available in 1972. Newcomer calls the documents "a modern forgery."

Not true. If you superimpose them, you see that they are the same width. The top of one "f" is lighter and smaller, as if it were made by a key hitting a ribbon. It is not a ligature, which is what he is implying. The "fl" he refers to is made because of the long top of the f, but it is the same width as other instances of the f.


The Post used a misleading characterization of a quote:

Tests run by Thomas Phinney, fonts program manager for Adobe Systems, show that none of the possible font widths available on any typewriter or any IBM device from 1972 are able to produce an exact replica of the CBS documents. "Can they do something 'similar'? Sure," Phinney said. "Could they produce those exact memos? Impossible."
Not true as stated. Phinney was saying it's impossible to type the same memo twice. He would be incorrect to say that the font widths in question were available in 1972; they were. However, this area of the article is a paraphrase, which I believe the reporter misquoted. Phinney probably was saying that the font that created the memos does not exist on computers today (which is true--it's not Times New Roman, which started the forgery rumor), so it would be impossible to recreate these memos today, which it in fact is, if you're just using Word, as the rumor alleges. See my composite image elsewhere in this thread. Each typewriter made unique characteristics of each striking of each letter, so in effect even using the same typewriter it won't look the same each time you type it.

I'd need to talk to Thomas Phinney himself to see if he was misquoted or intentionally lying. Right now I think misquoted. The article is definitely wrong as written.

Why would the Post run two "hit pieces" in a row about this story? Professional jealousy? I do not know. But I do know this: it's either very sloppy reporting (low standards of professionalism), or it's a hit piece designed to sow uncertainty, without credible evidence. Newcomer at least is lying. Phinney, I'm hoping was only misquoted. We will have to wait and see, unless you know how to contact him.

[Qutzupalotl]

29. Furthermore,

....Bill Burkett, a retired Guard officer who has accused Bush aides of conspiring with the head of the Texas Guard to "sanitize" the president's military records. Burkett's accusations, which have been denied by the White House and Guard officials, have never been proved.

But they have been corroborated, by Knox herself. She claims to have typed a different version of these documents. Where are they? Must have been sanitized, huh? Who'd have thought? Well, Burkett, and he may have been right.


Earlier in the story (page 2 online), Emily Will says she "raised questions" about whether the typography existed at the time in question. Those questions were answered in the affirmative, but the Post doesn't frame it that way.

She came back with military documents that used a small "th," but the letter combination was not raised above the rest of the type, as true superscript would be.
This is false. They are probably listening to Newcomer, who doesn't know what he's talking about. Superscript just means "writing above" or "above and to the right" of normal type. To be "above", it only has to sit above the baseline, not the cap height. The 1968 documents from the Guard did have a superscript. They were made by a dedicated key, as evidenced by the fact that they are a different size from the "t" and "h" of normal typing.

[AirAmFan]

28. Emerging facts have bypassed this argument. Killian's sec'y REMEMBERED

she had a Selectric with the "th" superscript on the typing ball. And CBS has reported that other Guard documents the Pentagon released with Killian's signature have identical typography.

I find it amazing that people who must know better--including Fox and the Washington Post--still are repeating Freeper lawyer Buckhead's proven falsehoods about the documents. And I also find it pretty outrageous that lazy uninformed people--like Bill Maher on HBO this weekend--are parroting these intentional lies.

I suspect that an upcoming "60 Minutes II" will debunk the initial success of FREEPER fabrications about the documents.

[Qutzupalotl]

31. And this is just wrong

reasonably competent computer enthusiasts have created nearly exact replicas of the documents in 15 minutes employing default settings for Microsoft Word and the widely used Times New Roman font.

Umm, no they haven't. For one thing, it's not Times New Roman. For another, the superscripting in Word is different from the one used on Knox' typewriter. The letters jog up and down like a typewriter on the Guard memo, but this has not been successfully replicated on a computer. And if the alleged forgeries were done on a computer, the replications would be exact. They are not even close.

[RevCheesehead]

19. Occam's Razor principle:

one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything

http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/OCCAMRAZ.html

1. The documents are real, typed by Killian
2. A copy was sent to Dan Rather
3. Someone is sitting on the originals, waiting.


All this superscript, dubious claims of forgery do not hold up.
* said he did not recall seeing these documents (WHY WOULD HE??)
Buckhead and friends hype, with aid of FOX and foxette media.

[crickets]

21. Non-typist weighing in

Hi! My name is crickets and I am a non-typist.

What was my first job, fresh out of college? Data entry. Second job? Exec asst (glorified secretary) for a corporate insurance brokerage firm. I typed memos all day long on *drumroll* an IBM Selectric.

This is the typewriter that was in use at the firm, on every desk, in 1981:
(testament to how good the SII was, as well as how behind the times the firm was)

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3840186297&category=41816

It's just not that hard to type on this machine. Learning to type *well* is another story, however, just about anybody who's worked up any kind of hunt and peck speed typing out papers for college can manage to do it. Mistakes weren't that tough to correct either, unless carbon copies were involved. There was a correction ribbon loaded along with the ink ribbon. If you made a mistake, all you had to do was press the correction key and the carriage backed up one character. Press the character key for your mistake, and presto! It's gone, leaving no mark other than the indentation on the paper.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Selectric

There were non-correcting versions of the Selectric II, but it was not necessary to have the tape loaded in the typewriter on a spool. Manual correction tape was available before the spool cartridge version and was used *because* white out is so messy. (Our office supply cabinet had manual tape, as well as white out, available for times when spools were out of stock.) Mistakes corrected with tape will not show up on a photocopy and usually are not obvious on the original.

Margins and tabs are preset. They stay the same every time you turn on the typewriter until you choose to change them.

My third job, for the same company, involved helping them finally switch over to computers and get everyone trained. ;) My typing still sucks, though - those who actually able to touch type at speed impress the heck out of me.

My $.02, to be taken with a grain of salt if desired. Carry on.

[mbee]

23. Dan Rather may be setting a trap for old chimpy! If his minions

think they have driven home that these indeed are fake maybe
they'll present something else and get caught in the act. Dan is up to something in my view. I certainly hope so anyway.

[Raster]

27. I agree, Killian probably did type them himself. The main attraction....

...still remains: the White House has yet to deny the memos. They know they are correct.

[Qutzupalotl]

30. I'd like to get some more feedback on this scenario.

Anyone?

Beuller?

[hexola]

34. "...a false account of their origin..."

seems to be the sticking point...

[Qutzupalotl]

35. That is unfortunate, but not a deal-breaker.

Burkett was apparently trying to protect his source for the documents. With the media spinning the documents as forgeries, this revelation is unfortunate. However, we may be getting closer to uncovering how they came into his possession, so perhaps we could find the originals, which would settle the authenticity debate.

CBS is putting together a team of outside experts to give a final word on the documents (and probably rebut much of the erroneous criticism in the WP and AP articles). If they get the originals, they could certainly say they were done on an era typewriter, and the signature was not pasted. But even if they have only copies, they will surely detect the jiggling baseline, ribbon ink smears, etc.

[Qutzupalotl]

36. Kick

:kick:

[Qutzupalotl]

37. 'nuther

:kick:

Nobody can refute this?

:shrug:

[skip fox]

38. Does anyone remember the scanner theory? That, too, would explain it all,

if accurate.

Someone, the theory goes, scanned the document. Printing it out, the signature stays the same but the program and printer "adjust" the font, thus the anacharisms or whatever.

Is that what would happen with a scanned typed document?? (I know little about such things.)

If so, that would be the simplest (and most elegant?) explanation and, I think, one which satisfies all the conditions NRK so diligently put forward in original post.

[phish420]

40. Yes, a faxed document has skewed text

I know from working on faxes and scanners, that if the document is pulled through a scanner, the text can, and probably will, make the text skewed, making a NTR font match ALMOST with the original, but not quite, as in the earlier example...try it. Type the memo in word, print it, use a fax machine, fax it to another fax machine and scan that fax into your computer...now overlay it with the original word document...close, but not quite, even though they are the same document.

[Qutzupalotl]

41. It cannot make individual letters jump up and down around the baseline.

It would distort areas as a group.

The letters really were made on a typewriter and not a computer.

[ContinentalOp]

43. Good thread NRK, and I like your avatar ;)

I'm still with you on this. There is more that *could* come out. Let's hope Rather is setting the trap and that more WILL come out. Has tonight's new CBS report aired yet?

[Qutzupalotl]

44. Thanks, ContinentalOp.

I'm hoping the originals surfacing will make the RW media eat crow, and turn the spotlight back on the White House.

I saw the CBS interview with Burkett. He said he didn't forge anything, and thinks they're real. Nevertheless, Dan apologized for going with the story before they could authenticate the documents (which would probably require the originals).

So, for now, I'm sticking with my theory. I maintain that any forgery theory is necessarily more complex.

[Qutzupalotl]

48. CBS update

Because Burkett changed his story, CBS says that it can no longer vouch for the documents. They did not state that they were forgeries; their case fell apart because the chain of custody has not been confirmed.

So there still remains the possibility of the originals surfacing, or of the chain of custody being confirmed.

If you watch news anchors carefully, you will see that most read the teleprompter verbatim, which tell them CBS' own words: they are no longer vouching for the documents. Once the anchors go "off-script" and talk to other media analysts, you begin to hear phrases like "obvious forgeries" and "fake memos"--neither of which has been proven.

I believe I have shown on this thread, and others have shown elsewhere (Kos, etc.), that the memos were not typed on a computer. That a forgery is unlikely because of the level of expertise necessary to properly distress and move each letter, and because of the arcane nature of the knowledge that Knox' typewriter had a superscript key and proportional spacing. A forger is likely to put a space after a comma.

I reiterate that the simplest explanation is that Killian typed them (with some difficulty), to document the pressure he was under.

[cleangreencar]

49. but

The problem here, I think, is that we'll never know. It's probably deeper than we can easily imagine. It's like New Coke. They're not that smart and they're not that stupid.

[Qutzupalotl]

50. Agree, but the originals could still surface.

Then they could be reliably authenticated or debunked.

Until then, your attitude is the right one...leave it as an open question, despite the widespread rumors of forgery.

[Qutzupalotl]

51. Update

Although Knox said her old Olympia typewriter had a superscript key, it did not have proportional spacing. Therefore, her typewriter was not the one used to type the memos.

Mrs. Knox also remembers having a mechanical Olympia typewriter with a raised "th" charadcter in those years, proof that all kinds of things like that existed. These memos were not typed on a mechanical typewriter, however.
http://www.mahablog.com/2004.09.12_arch.html#1095204040837

The "th" in Bush's 1968 Guard files was created by a custom key, like the one Knox used; it was also used in the 1972 & 1973 memos, but with the addition of proportional spacing.

"the IBM model executive, D Executive or the C Executive, did proportional type spacing. It also would do proportional spacing from line to line. And it also would do superscript printing for like the 'th,' which you could, you could have ordered. It wasn’t a standard feature on all the standard IBM D Executives, but if you wanted that key, you could order it."
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/glennon.pdf

Apparently, the Guard unit typed "111th" so often, they did order this customization.

It is still possible that Killian typed these memos without using Knox' typewriter.

[nomatrix]

52. I posted that same explanation

in a thread questioning the use of the word "fake" (Knox said she didn't type it) and to email CNN/Jeanne Meserve on Lou Dobbs. I asked if this is a "cover your ass" or CYA memo, Killian most likely would have typed it himself for his own protection. That would be a more likely explanation. Research brought me to...

http://www.drivedemocracy.org/blog/index.php?p=81#more-81

"President Richard Nixon’s Justice Department investigated possible political payoffs in return for scarce Texas National Guard spots in the early 1970s, leading many fearful officers to scramble and write “CYA” memos of the type written by Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, sources involved confirmed Sunday.

The investigation came while former Texas Attorney General Will Wilson worked for then-Attorney General John Mitchell as head of Justice Department’s criminal division.

The investigation is well known among some former Guardsman and others who remember being interviewed by FBI agents.

Wilson was publicly involved in criminal banking investigations in Texas. It is not known how involved he was in the National Guard-related investigation. But he was a political enemy of former Texas House Speaker and Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes."

[nomatrix]

53. Please read that entire article it explains

"Some news stories have questioned why Col. Walter “Buck” Staudt is mentioned in the memos as pressuring Killian after Staudt had retired. One source said even if you had left the guard you were concerned about the investigation. “You were worried about going to jail, you weren’t worried about your reputation.”

OBVIOUSLY, he knew what he was being pressured to do, could bring him up on charges, so.......


"Why ask someone to type evidence of your wrongdoing? They could blackmail it with you later."



From KOS


"Robert Strong was an administrative officer for the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam years. He knew Jerry Killian, the man credited with writing the documents. And paper work, like these documents, was Strong's specialty. He is standing by his judgment that the documents are real.
"They are compatible with the way business was done at that time," Strong said. "They are compatible with the man I remember Jerry Killian being. I don't see anything in the documents that's discordant with what were the times, the situation or the people involved."

[nomatrix]

54. Retired Army Colonel Gary Lechliter critical research

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/opinion/lechliter.pdf


He exposes the punishable laws broken during * enlistment including recieving pay.

THIS is what they DON'T want you to know.

[nomatrix]

55. SEE Altering Records

Burkett wasn't the only one to see the records altered by Dan Bartlett.

THIS SHOULD BE THE TOPIC!

[Qutzupalotl]

56. Thanks, nomatrix!

Great find!