"BUFDRVR" wrote in message
...
David Lentz wrote:

The memo could have have teen typed on
1970's typewriter.

Don't you mean *couldn't*? I haven't heard the "official" word from any
"typewriter experts", but most people are saying the superscript in 111th
wasn't possible on typewriters of the early 70s.

Are you referring to the "memos" that can seen at
http://wid.ap.org/documents/bush/040908xfer.pdf ?

The first of the four pages shows proportional type fonts (check
the word "examination" in topic 1). Proportional font capability
was an exceedingly rare capability in an early 70's typewriter;
IBM selectrics wouldn't IIRC, there was a higher priced IBM
that would that may have been out at that time.
I have further reservations about this document but would have
to eliminate the nth generation copy effect to say for sure...

The second "memo" uses a superscripted "th" when referring
to the 111th in topic 2. I'm not aware of ANY 70's typewriter
that would have supported that.
A mix of proportional fonting and fixed spacing on the same
line: compare the words "You" and "Ellington" in the first line
of topic 1.
There are also examples of (dang, can't remember the term)
where the spacing between adjacent characters is adjusted
for how the adjacent edges fit together: the "of" in "officer".
People can do this, but wouldn't/not with any equipment
that could rationally been used to produce less than 100 copies.
Computers can do this, but NOT mechanical typewriters.

"Memo" 3, more proportional fonts. More bad things that
could conceivably be nth generation copy artifacts but look
danged suspicious.

"Memo" 4, more of the same.