IBM Selectric Composer used to try and reproduce a memo

[ATFFL]

Well, we have all been asking for it, and it has now been tried.  Took a little research to find these, but someone has tried to reproduce a memo on the machine everyone is saying was used to type the original.

http://shapeofdays.typepad.com/the_shape_of_days/2004/09/the_ibm_selectr.html

Here are some snips for those who want to save themselves the time that it would take to read them all.



That is the result fo the attempt to produce it on the IBM Selectric.  Realizing that the spacing could be adjusted to match better the lines were copied in photoshop and each individual line was aligned on top of the oroginal document.  This is the result:



Close, but not perfect.  Not as close as people are making with MS Word.

Here is how the superscript was made:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Some comments on the centered header on all the memos:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Finally, an image of the centered letterhead created in MS Word.




There is more information that I have not presented here.  I encourage all of you to read the entire thing before commenting.  


A few reference links.  

The Selectric Typewriter Museum:
http://www.selectric.org/selectric/indexold.html

Comments from the owner of that site.
http://www.selectric.org/selectric/

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The "1"s in the memo were really "l"s. Whoever made this attempt wasn't doing a very good job.

What happened to the argument that typewriters don't have closed "4"s?

[qwerty]

I think that the soar thumb sticking out is the superscript "th". Only a computer can do that - as stated above, with a typewriter you would need to change the ball and it would be off center.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I think that the soar thumb sticking out is the superscript "th". Only a computer can do that - as stated above, with a typewriter you would need to change the ball and it would be off center.

Some typewriters had "th" keys

[ATFFL]

The "1"s in the memo were really "l"s. Whoever made this attempt wasn't doing a very good job.

What happened to the argument that typewriters don't have closed "4"s?

Umm, where are you getting the thing with the "1"s and "l"s?

Could you stick to the content of what I posted.

Someone used the machine that several people have cited on here as using to produce the memos.  They did everything they could to get them to match up.  If that included using alternate "ls" and "1"s that is a good thing, not a bad thing.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Anyways, the important thing is, it looks a lot better if they adjust the vertical and horizontal spacing. They don't seem to have the "th" superscript key, so oh well there. Maybe they could create it anyways using a regular "th" and moving up and then down manually, which would be easy to screw up. If these documents were geniune, they were probably written by an experienced secretary. There's some learned skill involved in using these things.

[ATFFL]

All of your points are dealt with in the article.

The "th" required a lot of work to produce.  He describes how much in the article.  He also says why it might be off.

Military protocol requires that the typist, if not the author, initials the memo so people know that it was typed by a third party.  these are not present on the documents.  This can be real important when passing orders or making sure secret information stays within the proper clearance levels.  Either the typist forgot these or they were typed by the author, or they were forged.  A professional military secretary is not going to forget something so important.  The author was not a known typist, and this is not an ordinary typewriter.

A regular "th" used to make a superscript would be the same size as the other letters.  They are clearly not in the document in question.

That the documents were respaced to try and match up is a good bit of investigative journalism.  A hack would have just said they don't match and left it.

It looks close with spacing adjusted.  MSWord looks better.

Occam's razor, jfern.  If one method produces a 95% match and one a 100% match which one is more likely to have been used?

[MODU]

The "1"s in the memo were really "l"s. Whoever made this attempt wasn't doing a very good job.

What happened to the argument that typewriters don't have closed "4"s?

Those are definitely "1's."  Look at the top of the character.  You will see that there is only hash to the left of the top of the character, completing the "1."  You can see the "I" shape in the second part of the example in the word "Interceptor."

Nice try though.

[ATFFL]

I am surprised this is not getting more attention here.  This is a test sme of us have been calling for.  Here it is and the Selectric Composer is out as a source for the documents.

[NHPolitico]

It's pretty much been established that the only way this could have been done is with a lot of effort and skill and a very expensive typesetter machine. Does the profile of such a user fit Killian? Of course not.

It's been theorized that these may have been hand-written notes and were turned into a Word document. CBS doesn't want to admit they did this, but it's the only way they could try to grab back some credibility.

[dougrhess]

I am surprised this is not getting more attention here.  This is a test sme of us have been calling for.  Here it is and the Selectric Composer is out as a source for the documents.

It is interesting. The question will always remain about what kind of typewriter was used and how much variation there would be between mechanical machines. For instance, the first lines line up pretty well the second lines and the lines with "th" in them are the odd ones, but I'm not sure what that tells us. Also, the lining up of the centered letterhead is done how with the CBS memos? The docuents don't have very clear borders or margins in the pdf files I've seen. Do they mean the centering of each line between the two shouldn't line up? If so, why is that (vague typing class memories here)? Otherwise, it's not surprise that two lines from the same typewriter line up when you try to.

As for rules and what people follow, see the post above this one on straightdope.com about people never sticking to the rules on every occaision: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=5259925#post5259925

[ATFFL]

I just found out what jfern did.  He saw the images I used, and assumed I was pulling them from freerupblic (a known highly partisan site.)  Thus he figured the arguement about the "1"s being "l"s was part of it.  Knowing this is a weak argument he set it up and knocked it down.  A total strawman argument and not a part of the case beign asserted here.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I just found out what jfern did.  He saw the images I used, and assumed I was pulling them from freerupblic (a known highly partisan site.)  Thus he figured the arguement about the "1"s being "l"s was part of it.  Knowing this is a weak argument he set it up and knocked it down.  A total strawman argument and not a part of the case beign asserted here.

In the original document "l"s were used instead of "1"s. Look at it closely.

[MODU]

I just found out what jfern did.  He saw the images I used, and assumed I was pulling them from freerupblic (a known highly partisan site.)  Thus he figured the arguement about the "1"s being "l"s was part of it.  Knowing this is a weak argument he set it up and knocked it down.  A total strawman argument and not a part of the case beign asserted here.

In the original document "l"s were used instead of "1"s. Look at it closely.

Again, go back to my post regarding the line where it says "Interceptor."  You have the capital "I" on the same line as the "1."  It is clearly different characters.  

Look for yourself.  Zoom in using Adobe.

[dougrhess]

I am surprised this is not getting more attention here.  This is a test sme of us have been calling for.  Here it is and the Selectric Composer is out as a source for the documents.

You should read this (and my response to you above) since you think things are so definitive:
http://www.tabloidcolumn.com/bush-national-guard-memo.html

[Gabu]

I don't really know whether  this thing is authentic or not and I really don't care one way or another, but an obvious question I've been wondering is this: if people have access to a typewriter from that time period and if this paper really was a forgery intended to look genuine such that nobody would know that it was a forgery, why would they have not simply used a typewriter to write the thing to begin with?  It seems weird to me that they'd use MS Word in their attempts to forge it when that program obviously works differently than a typewriter.

[dougrhess]

Another interesting link on these typewriters. They were readily available.

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/IBM-Selectric-typewriter

[ATFFL]

I am surprised this is not getting more attention here.  This is a test sme of us have been calling for.  Here it is and the Selectric Composer is out as a source for the documents.

You should read this (and my response to you above) since you think things are so definitive:
http://www.tabloidcolumn.com/bush-national-guard-memo.html

You continue to miss the point.  If there was a typewriter that can produce an exact replica of the document, why has no one done so yet?  I understand it may take time to check all possible typewriters, but many can be eliminated just because the font was not made for them.

The IBM Selectric Composer has been cited by many people as being able to produce the document.  It did have every feature available that was needed for the document.  To test if an IBM Selectric Composer did make the document in question someone attempted to recreate the document.  The document is not a match.  Thus the IBM Selectric Composer can be ruled out as having produced the original.

I am not saying that no other typewriter had all of the necessary features.  However, to this point no one else has come up with a typewriter that had all the features.   There remains the theoretical possibility of such a typewriter, but no one has yet to produce one.

So, find me a typewriter that has the TNR font available, superscripting, kerning, proportional spacing and capable of precise centering and we can run the same test.  An actual typewriter, not a theoretical one.

If the technology existed in another machine, produce it.  None of your previous replies have mentioned a specific machine capable of all the required elements, only that such technology existed.  It clearly did in the Selectric Composer.

The Selectric and Selectric II have both been tested.   http://www.selectric.org/selectric/

And an example comparing the Selectric to the document in question, from the same site as above.  http://www.selectric.org/selectric/fonts/prestigeelite72.gif

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I am surprised this is not getting more attention here.  This is a test sme of us have been calling for.  Here it is and the Selectric Composer is out as a source for the documents.

You should read this (and my response to you above) since you think things are so definitive:
http://www.tabloidcolumn.com/bush-national-guard-memo.html

You continue to miss the point.  If there was a typewriter that can produce an exact replica of the document, why has no one done so yet?  I understand it may take time to check all possible typewriters, but many can be eliminated just because the font was not made for them.

The IBM Selectric Composer has been cited by many people as being able to produce the document.  It did have every feature available that was needed for the document.  To test if an IBM Selectric Composer did make the document in question someone attempted to recreate the document.  The document is not a match.  Thus the IBM Selectric Composer can be ruled out as having produced the original.

I am not saying that no other typewriter had all of the necessary features.  However, to this point no one else has come up with a typewriter that had all the features.   There remains the theoretical possibility of such a typewriter, but no one has yet to produce one.

So, find me a typewriter that has the TNR font available, superscripting, kerning, proportional spacing and capable of precise centering and we can run the same test.  An actual typewriter, not a theoretical one.

If the technology existed in another machine, produce it.  None of your previous replies have mentioned a specific machine capable of all the required elements, only that such technology existed.  It clearly did in the Selectric Composer.

The Selectric and Selectric II have both been tested.   http://www.selectric.org/selectric/

And an example comparing the Selectric to the document in question, from the same site as above.  http://www.selectric.org/selectric/fonts/prestigeelite72.gif

TNR - typerwriters have it and similar looking fonts (the PDFs aren't high enough quality to be sure which font it is)

Superscripting - It's a raised "th" key

Kerning - Where's the kerning?

Proportional spacing - Been available on typewriters since the '40s

Precise centering - A basic learned skill

[12th Doctor]

Even if this could have been done, the question to ask is: "Where could he have come accross once of these machines that would have cost roughly $15,000 in today's money"?

The Lt. Col.'s wife has said that her husband was no typist and the TANG would have never have been able to aford one of these machines.

[ATFFL]

I am surprised this is not getting more attention here.  This is a test sme of us have been calling for.  Here it is and the Selectric Composer is out as a source for the documents.

You should read this (and my response to you above) since you think things are so definitive:
http://www.tabloidcolumn.com/bush-national-guard-memo.html

You continue to miss the point.  If there was a typewriter that can produce an exact replica of the document, why has no one done so yet?  I understand it may take time to check all possible typewriters, but many can be eliminated just because the font was not made for them.

The IBM Selectric Composer has been cited by many people as being able to produce the document.  It did have every feature available that was needed for the document.  To test if an IBM Selectric Composer did make the document in question someone attempted to recreate the document.  The document is not a match.  Thus the IBM Selectric Composer can be ruled out as having produced the original.

I am not saying that no other typewriter had all of the necessary features.  However, to this point no one else has come up with a typewriter that had all the features.   There remains the theoretical possibility of such a typewriter, but no one has yet to produce one.

So, find me a typewriter that has the TNR font available, superscripting, kerning, proportional spacing and capable of precise centering and we can run the same test.  An actual typewriter, not a theoretical one.

If the technology existed in another machine, produce it.  None of your previous replies have mentioned a specific machine capable of all the required elements, only that such technology existed.  It clearly did in the Selectric Composer.

The Selectric and Selectric II have both been tested.   http://www.selectric.org/selectric/

And an example comparing the Selectric to the document in question, from the same site as above.  http://www.selectric.org/selectric/fonts/prestigeelite72.gif

TNR - typerwriters have it and similar looking fonts (the PDFs aren't high enough quality to be sure which font it is)

Superscripting - It's a raised "th" key

Kerning - Where's the kerning?

Proportional spacing - Been available on typewriters since the '40s

Precise centering - A basic learned skill

If it is so damn easy to find a typewriter that can do all of these, I expect you will be providing a list of them shortly.

I concede that each individual technology was available.  What we need is a typewriter that is capable of producing all of them at the same time.  The Selectric Composer did have that capability; it has been tested and eliminated as a source of the documents.

Please stop telling me that they were available at the time.  This is a documented fact that they were.  No one is still arguing that they were not.  

I know what each of them are.  I am not asking for a definition, I am asking for you (or anyone) to locate a machine that is capable of using all them simultaneously.

We also then have to deal with the problem that these new memos have features not found in documents known to have been produced by Lt Colonel Killian.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18982-2004Sep13.html

That is the Washington Post and it requires a free subscription.  Use an e-mail address you can accept spam at.

The known, control samples lack superscripting, proportional spacing and kerning (proportional spacing is a pre-requisite for kerning).  If genuine these four memos would be the only ones known to have been produced by LtC Killian that had those features.  This would mean that

So you know as you look for a typewriter with all the required abilities, kerning is the ability of one letter to appear inside the area of another.  Here is an example:



Notice how in the second one, the kerned example, the "w" leans over the bottom edge of the "A"?  That is kerning.  It is extremely rare and is the ability that most of the typewriters that could have produced the documents lack.


At this point I am certain the documents are forgeries.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The "1"s in the memo were really "l"s. Whoever made this attempt wasn't doing a very good job.

What happened to the argument that typewriters don't have closed "4"s?

Those are definitely "1's."  Look at the top of the character.  You will see that there is only hash to the left of the top of the character, completing the "1."  You can see the "I" shape in the second part of the example in the word "Interceptor."

Nice try though.

He's takling about lower case ell's, not upper case aye's, altho I'm not certain in which contxt, the original or the attempt to duplicate it.  Given that some inexpensive typewriters had no "1" key to save the expense of that key,  it would bereasonable to expect that someone who learned to type on such a machine would use lowercase "l"'s even if they had a "1" key on their machine.

[Gabu]

At this point I am certain the documents are forgeries.

Nobody has yet responded to my question as to why, since these do appear to be forgeries, they were done in such an obvious manner.  Why didn't they just get a typewriter from the '70s, since they appear to be available, and type it out on there?  It seems to me that it would have been practically more work to make these in MS Word than it would have been to make them on a typewriter.

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

Nobody has yet responded to my question as to why, since these do appear to be forgeries, they were done in such an obvious manner.  Why didn't they just get a typewriter from the '70s, since they appear to be available, and type it out on there?  

Because the liberal that forged these documents was extremely stupid.

---

It seems to me that it would have been practically more work to make these in MS Word than it would have been to make them on a typewriter.

Actually, you can reproduce them in Word as fast as you can type.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Nobody has yet responded to my question as to why, since these do appear to be forgeries, they were done in such an obvious manner.  Why didn't they just get a typewriter from the '70s, since they appear to be available, and type it out on there?  

Because the liberal that forged these documents was extremely stupid.

LOL!