IBM Selectric Composer used to try and reproduce a memo

[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

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

I'm not missing your points, you're ignoring mine. If many experts feel that you cannot tell, why are you so certain about these silly line ups people are doing such a great job? As I mentioned, there's significant distortion. (What would be more telling is the comparison of letter details as TNR fonts are not all the same. I'm not sure if the qualityof the memos are good enough to tell this.) Also, are there experts that still say this document is kerned? I honestly don't know and I thought some backtracked on that.

The Post summary is good, but USA Today makes some good points, too.

Also, if the content is false, why is Bush slow to say so? Seems odd that you would have false memos that have accurate information. Surely Bush would know if people are helping him bend rules and if he had ignored orders.

[ATFFL]

All the experts you cite, dougrhess, say the technology was possible.  No one argues this anymore.  None of the experts you cite can point to a typewriter that had all the technology required that has not been tested yet.  They have had a week to find one now.  Every typewriter that it has been said could have produced does not produce a document that matches the documents in question.  When an expert says that it could have have been made on a specific machine, someone should grab that machine and try and reproduce.  It is a simple enough test.

Sure, it could have been produced on an IBM Selectric Composer, but it was not.  It could have been produced on an Executive, but it was not.  If anyone knows of another machine that had most or all of the needed machines, lets try them out.  

Not to mention the documents do not match ones known to have been produced in Killian's office.

[dougrhess]

All the experts you cite, dougherless, say the technology was possible.  No one argues this anymore.  None of the experts you cite can point to a typewriter that had all the technology required that has not been tested yet.  They have had a week to find one now.  Every typewriter that it has been said could have produced does not produce a document that matches the documents in question.  When an expert says that it could have have been made on a specific machine, someone should grab that machine and try and reproduce.  It is a simple enough test.

Sure, it could have been produced on an IBM Selectric Composer, but it was not.  It could have been produced on an Executive, but it was not.  If anyone knows of another machine that had most or all of the needed machines, lets try them out.  

Not to mention the documents do not match ones known to have been produced in Killian's office.

1. Get the name right.
2. I don't agree that the sample provided is that far off the text when you take some obvious issues into account.
3. The final point is the one that I've been asking to be checked and it sounds like it's been done. I think this is the more conslusive evidence (depending on how far off the match is).

[ATFFL]

1. Sorry about the name.  I meant to fix that.  My name gets screwed up a lot, so I know how annoying it is.  Actually confused you with someone from a different forum.  Got his name wrong too.

2. Occam's razor.  MS Word produces an exact copy.  The Selectric Composer is very close on 3 lines, and off pretty bad on one (the second line).  Which is more likely.  MSWord produced the document or the Selectric Composer?  

3. The last one was the kicker for me.  What are the odds that of all the documents produced at the time only 4 , written over the course of months?  Occam's Razor again.  Which is more likely, that an office would only use the advanced features of their typewriter on four memos written about a specific person over the course of three months or the memos were not written in that office at that time?

[dougrhess]

Somewhat of an aside, as I know what people are getting at, but I think people are misusing Occam's (sp?) Razor. His point was not to take the more probable outcome (although that is logical and not something his idea is opposed to). Rather it is about building theories and that theories should be elegant, not cluttered. It has nothing to do with a choice between differing theories that have differing amounts of steps in them. There is no reason to believe that a complex theory doesn't explain a complex world. Saying "God did it" is a simple theory you can use for everything, that doesn't make it a good explanation.