Here's what you can do with a Selectronic

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Which one is the Selectronic, and which one is MS Word?




http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1644869,00.asp

Those documents could have easily been created on a typewriter available in 1972. I'm not saying they were.

[Justin]

There's more than just that.

Here's a letter that someone e-mailed to CBS over at the protestwarrior website's forum:

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

There's more than just that.

Here's a letter that someone e-mailed to CBS over at the protestwarrior website's forum:

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The points regarding whether this could have been created using 1972 technology seem to miss the point. It easily could have been, regardless of its actual authenticity.

[Justin]

You are right that it could have been duplicated with 1972 tech. But then we get into the whole mess over wether or not the specific typewriter that was very expensive to have and maintain was at the TANG at the dates that this document was purportedly written.

[The Vorlon]

Which one is the Selectronic, and which one is MS Word?




http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1644869,00.asp

Those documents could have easily been created on a typewriter available in 1972. I'm not saying they were.

The Armed forces are anal retentive about record keeping.  It seems to me the following are logical questions to ask:

1)   What type of typewriters were issued to ANG administrative units in the early 70s..?

This seems to me the obvioius first question to ask.  After we get the answer, we then ask question 2

2)    With the type of typewriter issued to ANG units in the early 70s, could these documents have been produced.

If the answer to # 2 is "yes" it does not prove them to be originals, but if the answer to #2 is "no" it proves them to be fakes.

Surely to god the vast investagative resources of CBS can determine the make & model of Typewriters the ANGs used in the early 70s, and I am sure they can type a letter to match...

Or not....

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Which one is the Selectronic, and which one is MS Word?....

Those documents could have easily been created on a typewriter available in 1972. I'm not saying they were.

Then why didn't that web page simply reproduce the Bush documents instead of showing us a sample of how Microsoft Word can match an IBM Selectric?  Why didn't he attempt it?!  How hard can it be to type in the two short paragraphs of the Bush 'CYA' memo?  

Stop letting people hood wink you by changing the subject by showing you a solution to a question that is not even being asked - The issue is NOT whether MS Word can duplicate an IBM Selectric (no one is even questioning that) or vice versa, rather the question is if an IBM Selectric (or any other 1974 typewriter) can reproduce the Bush documents.

[cwelsch]

I find the 1/LT versus 1st LT thing telling.  Small details are the hard part, usually.

Like you can tell the difference between an Englishman and an American pretending to be English with phrases like "at the weekened" and "at hospital" or with the pronunciation of "herb," "vitamin" or "jaguar."  Tell-tale details that don't really matter - so nobody remembers to do them - yet are very important.  You can also tell which actors in America are Canadian when you hear them (mis)pronounce a few key words, mostly on the vowels O and A.

Being in the military entails a whole vocabulary and style of communication.  They use so many abbreviations that it just comes naturally.  While I can't say that 1st LT doesn't make sense, it seems like strong mark against its authenticity.  There would be a strong habit of using the specific military vocabulary.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I find the 1/LT versus 1st LT thing telling.  Small details are the hard part, usually.

Like you can tell the difference between an Englishman and an American pretending to be English with phrases like "at the weekened" and "at hospital" or with the pronunciation of "herb," "vitamin" or "jaguar."  Tell-tale details that don't really matter - so nobody remembers to do them - yet are very important.  You can also tell which actors in America are Canadian when you hear them (mis)pronounce a few key words, mostly on the vowels O and A.

Being in the military entails a whole vocabulary and style of communication.  They use so many abbreviations that it just comes naturally.  While I can't say that 1st LT doesn't make sense, it seems like strong mark against its authenticity.  There would be a strong habit of using the specific military vocabulary.

Forget vocabulary and other subjective reasoning.  

We have an objective standard - the Bush documents.  And I want to see someone reproduce them.

[MODU]

No one seems to be able to find the "magic typewriter" yet to reproduce this document.  Maybe IBM should be challenged to pull off the task.  hahaha . . . go into their museum and pull out their early machines and type away.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Surely to god the vast investagative resources of CBS can determine the make & model of Typewriters the ANGs used in the early 70s, and I am sure they can type a letter to match...

Or not....

Vast investigative resources of CBS?

I never knew you were so funny Vorlon.

Given the way that network news divisions have been subjected to budget cuts, I don't think a fast investigation of a story that hadn't been already researched for them by somebody with a axe to grind is beyond the capabilities of TV news.  Talking heads and spot coverage are one thing, but detailed investigative journalism is expensive and/or time consuming to do and doesn't do any better ratings wise than the talking heads and the spot coverage.  It's no surprise that TV news is generally junk.

[dougrhess]

I find the 1/LT versus 1st LT thing telling.  Small details are the hard part, usually.

Like you can tell the difference between an Englishman and an American pretending to be English with phrases like "at the weekened" and "at hospital" or with the pronunciation of "herb," "vitamin" or "jaguar."  Tell-tale details that don't really matter - so nobody remembers to do them - yet are very important.  You can also tell which actors in America are Canadian when you hear them (mis)pronounce a few key words, mostly on the vowels O and A.

Being in the military entails a whole vocabulary and style of communication.  They use so many abbreviations that it just comes naturally.  While I can't say that 1st LT doesn't make sense, it seems like strong mark against its authenticity.  There would be a strong habit of using the specific military vocabulary.

If you look at other memos of the time from Bush's files 1st Lt was used all the time. Go look. I'll provide the link if you need it, but hey you seem to know all about this. ;-)