From: "Glenn Meadows" 

My Uncle had an IBM typewriter that did stuff like that, it was an IBM...it
was a bear to use..I do remember playing with it when I was a wee
tot....and this was back in the late 50's, early 60's.  (Well, I wasn't so
wee then, born in '49). FWIW.

--
Glenn M.


"Robert Comer"  wrote in
message news:4140bbd9{at}w3.nls.net...
> > As I stated there were typewriters at that time that could do a
> > proportional
> > font.  They cost $20,000 in 1972 dollars.  That would be like a $100,000
> > typewriter today.  And of course we all know that the Government is
always
> > on the bleeding edge of technology and National Guard offices would of
> > course be equipped with $100,000 dollar typewriters for use in routine
> > correspondence.
>
> Hard to tell on that whether they'd have access to that kind of typewriter
> or not.  I do know I was doing wordprocessing on a computer and printer
that
> could have printed that in 1975, but it really doesn't even look like that
> to me either, the vertical spacing is to erratic.  It definitely looks
like
> an offshoot of Times New Roman, but there are subtle differences.  Heck,
> maybe this was a really old, somewhat functional machine that was handed
> down to the guard unit as usually happens, and that would explain why
they'd
> have such a high end type machine.  One things for sure and that's that
the
> PDF is of very low quality, and the typewriter that made it wasn't likely
to
> be modern.
>
> > correspondence but couldn't afford any real Letterhead Stationery.
>
> That's a non-issue for me.
>
> > Then there is the little problem of the superscript
"th".  NOT EVEN THE
> > $100,000 TYPEWRITER COULD DO A SUPERSCRIPT "TH" LIKE IS
IN THIS FAKE.
>
> Actually the high end machines did have that as an option. (and even some
of
> the lower ones with replaceable type elements.)
>
> - Bob Comer (I don't know if it's a fake or not and I really don't care, I
> have enough to not vote for Bush already.  It's an interesting mental
> exercise to look at though. )
>
>
> "Gary Britt"  wrote in message
> news:4140b769{at}w3.nls.net...
> > As I stated there were typewriters at that time that could do a
> > proportional
> > font.  They cost $20,000 in 1972 dollars.  That would be like a $100,000
> > typewriter today.  And of course we all know that the Government is
always
> > on the bleeding edge of technology and National Guard offices would of
> > course be equipped with $100,000 dollar typewriters for use in routine
> > correspondence.  No problem having $100,000 typewriters for routine
> > correspondence but couldn't afford any real Letterhead Stationery.
Yeah
> > Riggghhhhttt.
> >
> > Then there is the little problem of the superscript
"th".  NOT EVEN THE
> > $100,000 TYPEWRITER COULD DO A SUPERSCRIPT "TH" LIKE IS
IN THIS FAKE.
Or
> > course Microsoft Word automatically creates the superscript
"th", and
> > would
> > be an easy mistake for the obviously not to bright forger to overlook.
> >
> > Gary
> >
> >
> > "Robert Comer" 
wrote in message
> > news:4140b591$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> >> You're the first I've heard say that, but no matter.  The font on that
> > page
> >> certainly looks like it didn't come from a modern printer either...
> >>
> >> btw, the first proportional font typewriter was made by IBM in *1944*.
> >>
> >> - Bob Comer
> >>
> >>
> >> "Gary Britt"  wrote in message
> >> news:4140b0d8$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> >> Even a cursory examination of the document which can be found here
> >> http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/BushGuardmay4.pdf shows its FAKE.
> >>
> >> The document is from 1972, and in 1972 people and the National Guard
used
> >> TYPEWRITERS.  Typewriters used a fixed pitch courier font.  This FAKED
> >> document is in a PROPORTIONAL font that only typewriters costing more
> >> than
> >> $20,000 1972 dollars could imitate, and NO TYPEWRITER (not even a
$20,000
> >> one) could create the superscript "th" that is in
this FAKED document.
> >> Microsoft Word of course uses proportional fonts and automatically
> >> creates
> >> the superscript "th" found in this FAKED document.
> >>
> >> CBS and the democraps show their slime again.  This could backfire on
> > Kerry
> >> with such an obviously faked document.
> >>
> >> There are problems with the signature as well that makes experts think
> >> the
> >> signature is a cut a paste job of a signature from another document.
> >>
> >> Gary
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5