Gunner wrote:
On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 16:28:51 -0700, Koz
wrote:


Hehehe.....Selectrics do the TH in superscript (if you have the right
ball) which foils at least half their premise. Can't remember exactly
but I seem to remember the better models did have variable spacing
(kerning) of the text (my memory only, not guaranteed). I believe that
was one of the selling points to pay the big bucks for a selectric
rather than the other brand.


1. Were Selectrics common in military offices at that time?
2. Are there any other documents from that same office at the same
time to compare?

I believe at this time..the answer to both, is no.

Gunner

Wrong on both counts, Gunner.

See other posts as to commonality of Selectrics in military offices.
See other documents, previously released by the Bush administration, for
superscript TH usage. So the TANG had a typewriter with a ball that had
that superscript character.

As to proportional spacing; the freepers argue that machines of the era
were incapable of kerning. True, in a strict sense, but the memo shows
no indication of true kerning. Proportional spacing was easy with old
Selectrics, though. Mine has a lever to the left of the roller with
four positions; 10, 12, PSN, and PS. I can use proportional spacing
with any ball, but it looks better if the ball is marked PS. The
letters center better in their proportional spaces. The freepers now
admit that the memo in question has simple proportional spacing, and
that earlier, officially released documents show use of the superscript
TH, but argue that the earlier documents didn't have proportional
spacing. Big deal. Flip of a lever.

One thing my typewriter doesn't do perfectly is align the letters
horizontally. It's very difficult to make a ball with all the letters
in perfect register, so some are a little high, some a little low. All
mechanical typewriters I know of have this problem. Looking at an image
of the memo printed in today's newspaper, the letters don't line up
horizontally.

I think the document was produced by a typewriter similar to mine. Now
as to when that was done and by whom, you may carry that as far as you
feel comfortable. But I don't think the document itself offers
substantial evidence of forgery.

Anyway, Gunner, the answer to both your questions is "yes". I may have
anticipated some other questions. What do you believe now, and why?

Dale Scroggins