A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

# Bush Disobeyed Direct Order To Get Physical



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 10th 04, 01:39 AM
BUFDRVR
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default # Bush Disobeyed Direct Order To Get Physical

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.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"
Ads
  #2  
Old September 10th 04, 02:00 AM
Brett
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"BUFDRVR" wrote:
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.


IBM Selectric II from the mid to late 1960's could do superscripts and
subscripts (severely impacting typing speed) and it was even possible to
vary the pitch between 10 and 12 characters per inch (but rarely performed
since it you would need to alter the pitch per character).

The interesting comparison would be the letter where Killian recommended
approval of 1st Lt. George W. Bush's Application for Discharge and then find
out who supposedly typed these applications and memos since I doubt a Lt.
Colonel would ever be able be able to vary the pitch as he typed.


  #3  
Old September 10th 04, 02:04 AM
Pete
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.


I think it was "possible", but not likely. Especially on a gov't (lowest
bidder) typewriter. Especially by someone who doesn't type *for a living*.

Pete


  #4  
Old September 10th 04, 02:35 AM
Jack G
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I also noticed another inconstancy - in one of the memos, the expression:
"not later than (NLT)" is used. In my recollection of military
correspondence the correct form should have been: "NLT (Not Later Than)" or
just "NLT" as that was a very common acronym. The parenthetical definition
was provided only after the first use of an acronym in a document. Can
anyone confirm this form?

Jack G.

"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.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it

harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"



  #5  
Old September 10th 04, 03:20 AM
Bob Coe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Jack G" wrote

I also noticed another inconstancy - in one of the memos, the expression:
"not later than (NLT)" is used. In my recollection of military
correspondence the correct form should have been: "NLT (Not Later Than)" or
just "NLT" as that was a very common acronym. The parenthetical definition
was provided only after the first use of an acronym in a document. Can
anyone confirm this form?


That's what I learned in English Composition I as a Freshman :-)


  #6  
Old September 10th 04, 05:23 AM
John Keeney
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.


  #7  
Old September 10th 04, 05:53 AM
Yeff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 00:23:12 -0400, John Keeney wrote:

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".


Kerning - http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=kerning

--

-Jeff B.
yeff at erols dot com
  #8  
Old September 14th 04, 12:04 PM
WalterM140
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

The only fake document in Bush's records jacket is his
"honorable" discharge.

www.vetsforkerry.com


Good one!


My question is, if the discharge dated 10/1/73 is -not- a post facto
fabrication, why did Bush sign a date after that date agreeing to find a
drilling unit in Boston?

And as I often point out, Bush didn't sign the discharge. And there is a photo
of 2nd LT Bush wearing a ribbon not reflected on the discharge.

All this is pretty compelling evidence that Bush didn't perform his duty so as
to deserve an Honorable Discharge, he never in fact received one.

Walt
  #9  
Old September 14th 04, 01:26 PM
Orval Fairbairn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
(WalterM140) wrote:

The only fake document in Bush's records jacket is his
"honorable" discharge.

www.vetsforkerry.com

Good one!


My question is, if the discharge dated 10/1/73 is -not- a post facto
fabrication, why did Bush sign a date after that date agreeing to find a
drilling unit in Boston?

And as I often point out, Bush didn't sign the discharge. And there is a
photo
of 2nd LT Bush wearing a ribbon not reflected on the discharge.

All this is pretty compelling evidence that Bush didn't perform his duty so
as
to deserve an Honorable Discharge, he never in fact received one.

Walt




What about Kerry's ACTUALl post-facto "honorable discharge," dated 1990?
  #10  
Old September 14th 04, 05:06 PM
ian maclure
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 11:04:07 +0000, WalterM140 wrote:

[nothing that hasn't been beaten to death]

Walt yer a idjit.
Every time you post this becomes clearer and clearer.
Ed and the other real flyers here have buried this crap
in a well deserved grave.
Give it up.

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
The Worlds Uncensored News Source

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Juan Jiminez is a liar and a fraud (was: Zoom fables on ANN ChuckSlusarczyk Home Built 105 October 8th 04 12:38 AM
Bush's guard record JDKAHN Home Built 13 October 3rd 04 09:38 PM
George W. Bush Abortion Scandal that should have been Psalm 110 Military Aviation 0 August 12th 04 09:40 AM
bush rules! Be Kind Military Aviation 53 February 14th 04 04:26 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:21 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.