Bush's Guard memo's are fake?

Originally posted by PistolPete
The people that really matter, undecided voters are going to see sympathy for Bush.

Yup! Democrats are going to shoot themselves in the foot with this - and republicans are going to ride it all the way to another 4 years. If Democrats were smart, they would go public and say they are fake, just so that the swing voters don't have a reason to feel bad for Bush and vote for him.

There is no proof that its fake. Only the possibility. If they are real it will mark the defeat of Bush. So naturally the republicans are going to try and push the fake scenario through just like they did the Florida election results.

LOL - cling as you might, they are fake, and Kerry is going to lose.

Don't you think if they were real that everyother news station would be reporting the same thing? It would be the biggest story of the year. Yet not a single other one is willing to risk it's name.

The fact is, this is the last desperate act of a wounded animal (DNC).

I can hear the lady now.....

LALALALALALALALA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But as a true republican you are ignoring the fact that the whitehouse hasn't disputed the memos authenticity or the claims. That speaks volumes. The man is a criminal. Most of us knew it long before this story ever came up.

Originally posted by Indy
But as a true republican you are ignoring the fact that the whitehouse hasn't disputed the memos authenticity or the claims. That speaks volumes. The man is a criminal. Most of us knew it long before this story ever came up.

First off, I am not a republican. I am a conservative if you must label me something. I agree with the Democrats on some issues such as abortion but that is niether here nor there.

The white house hasn't disputed them because they don't have to. It's aparent to everyone but you and the most loyal democrat/liberal.

Besides, if Bush came out denying it, then all of you liberals would imediatly start saying "OHHHHHHHHHHHHH look - He's denying it!!!! He must be guilty!!!!!!"

So why even say anything. Everyone but the embarresed CBS group are saying it's fake. The more democrats bring it up, the better Bush looks.

Originally posted by Indy
But as a true republican you are ignoring the fact that the whitehouse hasn't disputed the memos authenticity or the claims. That speaks volumes. The man is a criminal. Most of us knew it long before this story ever came up.

Two points if you watched them their answer to most things is silence. Second point is do you really think that this is something new�.most intelligent people already assumed most of what is there, so do you really think this will effect anything. However, if they are faked then you are watching history as this would become the standard for political dirty tricks, don�t you think.

Mad Man if you label yourself as a conservative they why do you support such a liberal president? Just because he runs under a republican ticket doesn't make him conservative. Liberals can't spend money as fast as he does. Liberals can't come up with government programs and handouts the way he does. He is a much bigger liberal than Clinton ever was. Don't think for a minute that he is conservative because that is so far from the truth.

Grady.. if you remember back when that document was posted on this website I jumped on it pretty quick and did a very detailed analysis of the document including detail on the fonts and the lack of evidence to support that type of superscript in a typed document. But I also pointed out that MS Word doesn't do superscripts like in that document AND there is curling in the fonts which I don't find in any computer fonts. There is a possibility of it being a forgery. There are things that look odd but to me it looks like it were typed on a typewriter. But that doesn't mean it was done 30 years ago. I have no other government documents to compare it to. Of course when I see my dad in a week or two I can ask him. He worked in the Guard back then and often used manual typewriters. Having used government issued equipment decades ago he might be able to get a good idea of it looks valid or not.

You guys shouldn't be so fast to try and dismiss this document. Conservatives are trying to quickly dismiss it as a fake and trying to insult people that think otherwise. Liberals are trying to say its authentic and labeling everyone who thinks its fake as a Bush lover. Be like me and have an open mind and examine the evidence before you make a fool out of yourself either way by blindly following the party line whether it be as a conservative or a liberal.

Originally posted by Indy
There is no proof that its fake. Only the possibility. If they are real it will mark the defeat of Bush. So naturally the republicans are going to try and push the fake scenario through just like they did the Florida election results.

It doesn't matter if it's fake or not!

Bush is the clear winner in November and the Dems know it, so they'll go to any lengths to discredit the president.

By the way, check out SkepticOverlords postings at the beginning of this thread.

Give'em hell American Mad Man!

[edit on 11/9/04 by Intelearthling]

Spoke to 3 aunts that were secretaries in the 70's. All thought the controversy was strangs since they had superscript in the 60's on several different brands of typewriters.

I am so tired of the republicans this election, what a hateful party it has become (dems are not far behind but at least they don't try to scare people).

I will be glad when this election is over and we have a winner. Of course if someone tries to steal the election again I hope we all use our "god given" right to bear arms and rise up.

Originally posted by nativeokie
.................All thought the controversy was strangs since they had superscript in the 60's on several different brands of typewriters.

......................

If I�m not mistaken, the controversy isn't over the simple presence of superscript, but the extreme change in font size for the superscript.

The Republicans came out against the document very strongly stating as a matter of fact that among others;

A) No typewriter was capable of producing superscript at that time.

B) The spacing was not credible..

C) The paper size was not in use.

D) The Roman Times font was not in use.

I emphasize "matter of fact." because debunking just one of that unequivocal statements goes to the lack of credibility of the charges, and consequently discredits the denials. All four of the above are wrong.

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
................All four of the above are wrong.

do you have any links to this?

How blind can you be....

These memos can be produced exactly....an exact overlay duplication....
with Microsoft Word on its default settings.

This is all the proof one should need that they are phony.

Test it yourself rather than once again accepting the media's spew as if it were gospel.

Oh wait. If it's bad for Bush you don't care if it's true, do you.

Here's a link to get you started if you want to forge your own "Texas ANG documents"


Have fun...

Originally posted by nativeokie
Spoke to 3 aunts that were secretaries in the 70's. All thought the controversy was strangs since they had superscript in the 60's on several different brands of typewriters.

That was my experience.

(g) Perhaps the "font experts" should start talking to secretaries!

I'm also amused that people don't realize that computers COPIED the typewriter fonts and that an effort was made to duplicate the existing fonts because many people were feeding forms into the printer and needed the fonts to be EXACTLY the same as the typewriter.

[edit on 12-9-2004 by Byrd]

Originally posted by keholmes

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
................All four of the above are wrong.

do you have any links to this?

I have already provided the link to the superscript and font issues. The other can be found via a multitude of news stories on the issue. As I said, the naysayers came out with statements which unequivocally stated that these specific attributes of the letter were not available n 1973. Proving any of those incorrect means that these naysayers have lied.

(edited incorrect doc supplied)

The other documents can be found here: users.cis.net...

That effectively puts the issue to rest, wouldn't you say? Or would you prefer to back the charge that his records released by the White House are fake?

As for the argument that he could not have been ordered to attend a medical evaluation as made by two others in here, this document is damning, and goes to provide validity to the 60 minutes document.



[edit on 9/12/04 by SomewhereinBetween]

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
����.That effectively puts the issue to rest, wouldn't you say? Or would you prefer to back the charge that his records released by the White House are fake?

As for the argument that he could not have been ordered to attend a medical evaluation as made by two others in here, this document is damning, and goes to provide validity to the 60 minutes document����.

The fact is I don�t doubt the basis for the documents, as I�ve stated most intelligent people already suspected this information what I doubt is the validity of the documents themselves. As for your damning document�.I didn�t see an superscripts in it I wonder why�.obviously you�ve proved they had them right?

by the way here is one of your linked docs and it uses th but again no superscript as you've already proved they had, right? so why didn't they use it. you own links don't seem to support your own claim how do you rectify that?
users.cis.net...




[edit on 12-9-2004 by keholmes]

Originally posted by keholmes

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
����.That effectively puts the issue to rest, wouldn't you say? Or would you prefer to back the charge that his records released by the White House are fake?

As for the argument that he could not have been ordered to attend a medical evaluation as made by two others in here, this document is damning, and goes to provide validity to the 60 minutes document����.

The fact is I don�t doubt the basis for the documents, as I�ve stated most intelligent people already suspected this information what I doubt is the validity of the documents themselves. As for your damning document�.I didn�t see an superscripts in it I wonder why�.obviously you�ve proved they had them right?

by the way here is one of your linked docs and it uses th but again no superscript as you've already proved they had, right? so why didn't they use it. you own links do seem to support your own claim how do you rectify that?
users.cis.net...

I am always one to oblige, especially when intelligence is questioned. Pay attention to the second line of service, what do you see?



The ball is in your court again and for a final time. was this particular document created 3 decades ago or was it created by the Bush administration?

Don't ever doubt the validity of my statements, I am not one to shoot from the hip.

Very interesting document. It appears the th can indeed be different on one of those old machines.

But I must ask a question to some of our more um, "mature" members with experience on these machines:

It appears to me that the "th" is just smaller, and does not go above the characters that surround it, like on Word or the documents in question. It looks like it may have been a seperate key or character on the ball. Can anyone with more experience on these old typewriters verify this?

Originally posted by Seth Bullock
Very interesting document. It appears the th can indeed be different on one of those old machines.

But I must ask a question to some of our more um, "mature" members with experience on these machines:

It appears to me that the "th" is just smaller, and does not go above the characters that surround it, like on Word or the documents in question. It looks like it may have been a seperate key or character on the ball. Can anyone with more experience on these old typewriters verify this?

Maybe because of the years of photocopying and faxing?