[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Your vote was never in play. I suspect the voters perceptions will be "what this again? How desperate is Kerry?"

Kerry isn't bringing it up, though - the media is. The 527 is, this time, tailing the media instead of originating the allegations.

I can't read minds, myself, so I won't presume to know how the average voter will react to finding out that Bush got a cushy assignment in Nam via his political connections and then couldn't even live up to that.

BlackGriffen

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Kerry isn't bringing it up, though - the media is.

And there is a difference?

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
And there is a difference?

Conspiracy theorist!

BG

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Conspiracy theorist!

BG

OK, going with that theme, there is some interesting speculation here about the authenticity of the letter these new stories are based upon. It's all based on a letter supposedly typed in 1973 by a dead man. But people are wondering whether this document might have been created on a computer. The problems that do seem odd to me are that:

The letter includes a superscript date. What typewriter has superscript?

The document has no letterhead at all and nothing to positively identify it.

The apostrophe's are the curly type. The military used IBM typewriters -- the type with the uniball. They use straight apostrophes.

I don't have the kind of graphics eye to verify this, but the text may have spacing that cannot be duplicated on a typewriter. I'm no expert, but it does look awfully even for a typewriter. There are also absolutely no typos or corrections. That's an odd thing for a quick memo to file written on a typewriter.


Just passing it on.

[BlackGriffen]

Interesting, but it doesn't seem conclusive to me. Did he use his own personal type-writer?

I don't have an eye for this, and the memo will have to be examined for authenticity (dating the ink and paper is a good idea, IMHO).

BG

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
OK, going with that theme, there is some interesting speculation here about the authenticity of the letter these new stories are based upon. It's all based on a letter supposedly typed in 1973 by a dead man. But people are wondering whether this document might have been created on a computer. The problems that do seem odd to me are that:

The letter includes a superscript date. What typewriter has superscript?

The document has no letterhead at all and nothing to positively identify it.

The apostrophe's are the curly type. The military used IBM typewriters -- the type with the uniball. They use straight apostrophes.

I don't have the kind of graphics eye to verify this, but the text may have spacing that cannot be duplicated on a typewriter. I'm no expert, but it does look awfully even for a typewriter. There are also absolutely no typos or corrections. That's an odd thing for a quick memo to file written on a typewriter.


Just passing it on.

Typewriters -- the majority of them -- have had superscript capabilities since WWII, AFAIK. Some placed them above mid-line, same size font, other level-line same size font, mid-level smaller font, line-level smaller font, and so on. Further, most of the same typewriters also had proper quotation and apostrophe marks. Lastly, proportional-width typewriters (rather than monospaced) have been around since 1940 or 1942 (I'll do some searching to see if i can find the date for sure).

The question, really, is what type of typewriter was supposedly used.

Maury

[spacefreak]

BAMM! Here we go...

Before you fall for Dems� spin, here are the facts

What do you really know about George W. Bush�s time in the Air National Guard?
That he didn�t show up for duty in Alabama? That he missed a physical? That his daddy got him in?

News coverage of the president�s years in the Guard has tended to focus on one brief portion of that time � to the exclusion of virtually everything else. So just for the record, here, in full, is what Bush did:

The future president joined the Guard in May 1968. Almost immediately, he began an extended period of training. Six weeks of basic training. Fifty-three weeks of flight training. Twenty-one weeks of fighter-interceptor training.

That was 80 weeks to begin with, and there were other training periods thrown in as well. It was full-time work. By the time it was over, Bush had served nearly two years.

Not two years of weekends. Two years.

After training, Bush kept flying, racking up hundreds of hours in F-102 jets. As he did, he accumulated points toward his National Guard service requirements. At the time, guardsmen were required to accumulate a minimum of 50 points to meet their yearly obligation.

According to records released earlier this year, Bush earned 253 points in his first year, May 1968 to May 1969 (since he joined in May 1968, his service thereafter was measured on a May-to-May basis).

Bush earned 340 points in 1969-1970. He earned 137 points in 1970-1971. And he earned 112 points in 1971-1972. The numbers indicate that in his first four years, Bush not only showed up, he showed up a lot. Did you know that?

That brings the story to May 1972 � the time that has been the focus of so many news reports � when Bush �deserted� (according to anti-Bush filmmaker Michael Moore) or went �AWOL� (according to Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the Democratic National Committee).

Bush asked for permission to go to Alabama to work on a Senate campaign. His superior officers said OK. Requests like that weren�t unusual, says retired Col. William Campenni, who flew with Bush in 1970 and 1971.

�In 1972, there was an enormous glut of pilots,� Campenni says. �The Vietnam War was winding down, and the Air Force was putting pilots in desk jobs. In �72 or �73, if you were a pilot, active or Guard, and you had an obligation and wanted to get out, no problem. In fact, you were helping them solve their problem.�

So Bush stopped flying. From May 1972 to May 1973, he earned just 56 points � not much, but enough to meet his requirement.

Then, in 1973, as Bush made plans to leave the Guard and go to Harvard Business School, he again started showing up frequently.

In June and July of 1973, he accumulated 56 points, enough to meet the minimum requirement for the 1973-1974 year.

Then, at his request, he was given permission to go. Bush received an honorable discharge after serving five years, four months and five days of his original six-year commitment. By that time, however, he had accumulated enough points in each year to cover six years of service.

During his service, Bush received high marks as a pilot.

A 1970 evaluation said Bush �clearly stands out as a top notch fighter interceptor pilot� and was �a natural leader whom his contemporaries look to for leadership.�

A 1971 evaluation called Bush �an exceptionally fine young officer and pilot� who �continually flies intercept missions with the unit to increase his proficiency even further.� And a 1972 evaluation called Bush �an exceptional fighter interceptor pilot and officer.�

Now, it is only natural that news reports questioning Bush�s service � in The Boston Globe and The New York Times, on CBS and in other outlets � would come out now. Democrats are spitting mad over attacks on John Kerry�s record by the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

And, as it is with Kerry, it�s reasonable to look at a candidate�s entire record, including his military service � or lack of it. Voters are perfectly able to decide whether it�s important or not in November.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Interesting, but it doesn't seem conclusive to me. Did he use his own personal type-writer?

I don't have an eye for this, and the memo will have to be examined for authenticity (dating the ink and paper is a good idea, IMHO).

BG

Yes, they should be tested. I just took a look at an IBM Selectric II typewriter that is roughly the type that would have been used at about that time. It can't do superscript. Those were state of the art typewriters at the time -- very expensive indeed.

Of course, the more obvious question is why something in somebody's personnel file would be written on a blank sheet of paper? In my experience, everything in the military is on some kind of letterhead or form.

This is kind of interesting. It's from a very conservative website, so take it for what is worth. This person typed the same words in Microsoft Word. The top one is the "1973" document, and the bottom one is the WS Word document. The point is to look at the type spacing. Wordprocessors space letters differently from typewriters.





Oh, and the address of the files is mac.com. So it must be a trustworthy source.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
Typewriters -- the majority of them -- have had superscript capabilities since WWII, AFAIK. Some placed them above mid-line, same size font, other level-line same size font, mid-level smaller font, line-level smaller font, and so on. Further, most of the same typewriters also had proper quotation and apostrophe marks. Lastly, proportional-width typewriters (rather than monospaced) have been around since 1940 or 1942 (I'll do some searching to see if i can find the date for sure).

The question, really, is what type of typewriter was supposedly used.

Maury

Thanks for the info, Maury. I guess that this is what happens when one takes an extremely biased source prima facie. I've done it, too, but the king of dismissing sources for their bias should know better.

BG

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Thanks for the info, Maury. I guess that this is what happens when one takes an extremely biased source prima facie. I've done it, too, but the king of dismissing sources for their bias should know better.

BG

Not really. I worked in government offices with typewriters. They couldn't do the esoteric things that Maury claims.

I'm not quick to declare things forgeries. You know what I think about conspiracy theories. But I think these are quite likely forgeries.

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Not really. I worked in government offices with typewriters. They couldn't do the esoteric things that Maury claims.

I'm not quick to declare things forgeries. You know what I think about conspiracy theories. But I think these are quite likely forgeries.

Ahh, here we go from 1941:

IBM announces the Electromatic Model 04 electric typewriter, featuring the revolutionary concept of proportional spacing. By assigning varied rather than uniform spacing to different sized characters, the Type 4 recreated the appearance of a printed page, an effect that was further enhanced by a typewriter ribbon innovation that produced clearer, sharper words on the page. The proportional spacing feature became a staple of the IBM Executive series typewriters.

Not so esoteric now, is it?

Maury

[Spoogepieces]

Originally posted by deedar:
Face it. Bush ran away from service when his country "needed him."

The country didn't "need" anyone to fight the unjust war that Vietnam was. Still, to play your game, Kerry ran away even after serving in the most luxurios capacity he could.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
Ahh, here we go from 1941:



Not so esoteric now, is it?

Maury

Like I said, I am looking at an IBM Selectric II typewriter. Link It is the type that the military used at the time. It can't do superscript. When I was in the Army, I mostly used the IBM Selectric III, which wasn't introduced until the 1980s. That couldn't do superscript either. At least, not of the smaller font type that this document has. You did superscript with the same size font. Anything else would require changing the golfball, and nobody would do that in mid-memo.

Both the Selectric II and Selectric III use white out ribbon to correct errors. Few typists can type a page without any errors, and you can always see the correction. Moreover, I would defy anyone to type that perfectly on an electic typewriter.

Sorry, that document screams word processor.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Yes, they should be tested. I just took a look at an IBM Selectric II typewriter that is roughly the type that would have been used at about that time. It can't do superscript. Those were state of the art typewriters at the time -- very expensive indeed.

Come again? Did you even research this, or just pull it out of your butt? A quick Google search leads to this site:

The Selectric II had a lever (above the right platen knob) that would allow the platen to be turned freely but return to the same vertical line (for inserting such symbols as subscripts and superscripts), whereas the Selectric I did not.

Heck, my father owned one of those - I vaguely recall the ability to type a "th" character, though my recollection on this is definitely hazy. I wonder if it's still in my father's basement?

Of course, the more obvious question is why something in somebody's personnel file would be written on a blank sheet of paper? In my experience, everything in the military is on some kind of letterhead or form.

Considering that the memo was title "CYA" it wasn't meant to be sent out to anyone, just filed, so I'm less certain of the necessity of that criterion.

BlackGriffen

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Like I said, I am looking at an IBM Selectric II typewriter. Link It is the type that the military used at the time. It can't do superscript. When I was in the Army, I mostly used the IBM Selectric III, which wasn't introduced until the 1980s. That couldn't do superscript either.

Both the Selectric II and Selectric III use white out ribbon to correct errors. Few typists can type a page without any errors, and you can always see the correction. Moreover, I would defy anyone to type that perfectly on an electic typewriter.

Sorry, that document screams word processor.

SIMEY! I used YOUR OWN LINK and here's what it says:

The Selectric II had a lever (above the right platen knob) that would allow the platen to be turned freely but return to the same vertical line (for inserting such symbols as subscripts and superscripts), whereas the Selectric I did not.

Not only that, but we don't know for sure what model typewriter was used at the time, in that office, on that day -- and if WAS the Selectric II, it COULD do superscripts according to YOUR link.

Maury

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Come again? Did you even research this, or just pull it out of your butt? A quick Google search leads to this site:


Heck, my father owned one of those - I vaguely recall the ability to type a "th" character, though my recollection on this is definitely hazy. I wonder if it's still in my father's basement?


Considering that the memo was title "CYA" it wasn't meant to be sent out to anyone, just filed, so I'm less certain of the necessity of that criterion.

BlackGriffen

See my correction above. You can raise the text by half a line. Theoretically, that lets you do superscrips, but the real reason is to fit text into boxes on pre-printed forms.

When you do that, the font remains the same size. The only way to change the font size is to change the golfball, which is a real hassle. It's not something you would do just to make a pretty superscript.

The memo shows a small superscript, the type easily done with a word processor.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
SIMEY! I used YOUR OWN LINK and here's what it says:



Not only that, but we don't know for sure what model typewriter was used at the time, in that office, on that day -- and if WAS the Selectric II, it COULD do superscripts according to YOUR link.

Maury

See above. I'm staring at a Selectric II. It is not 15 feet from where i am sitting. I just checked it out again. It cannot do what that memo has without changing the golfball in mid-memo.

And yes, that was the government typewriter.

[sideus]

'60 Minutes' Documents on Bush Might Be Fake /// 32-year-old documents produced Wednesday by CBSNEWS 60 MINS on Bush's guard service may have been forged using a current word processing program // typed using a proportional font, not common at that time, and they used a superscript font feature found in today's Microsoft Word program, Internet reports claim

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/007760.php

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
See above. I'm staring at a Selectric II. It is not 15 feet from where i am sitting.

Ah, that makes things convenient. Would you do us the favor of actually looking at the type-ball and seeing if there is a "th" character?

BG

[Silky Voice of The Gorn]

<nonpartisan>Not for nuthin, but when a presidential race starts getting mired in the minutia of typewriter technology, we have surely crossed over from the ridiculous to the sublime. Get me some popcorn, this is fun!</nonpartisan>

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Ah, that makes things convenient. Would you do us the favor of actually looking at the type-ball and seeing if there is a "th" character?

BG

Certainly. I just checked by, as you say, pulling off the golfball. Not only is there no th character, there is no th key on the keyboard.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Certainly. I just checked by, as you say, pulling off the golfball. Not only is there no th character, there is no th key on the keyboard.

That certainly is troublesome for that particular memo. Unless the guy was using his own typewriter (perhaps at home?), or his office used a non-standard typewriter, this is very problematic for the story behind that memo.

BlackGriffen

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Certainly. I just checked by, as you say, pulling off the golfball. Not only is there no th character, there is no th key on the keyboard.

What's the model number of the typeball on your Selectric? If I remember, I think they have it printed right on the top if you look down at it.

Maury

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
That certainly is troublesome for that particular memo. Unless the guy was using his own typewriter (perhaps at home?), or his office used a non-standard typewriter, this is very problematic for the story behind that memo.

BlackGriffen

Obviously, we'll have to see. My guess is that this is going to be enough to at least get them looked at carefully, maybe including the tests you mentioned.

BTW, just to be clear, I DON'T think that CBS is the one potentially forging documents. It's just that in a charged political atmosphere there are too many people eager to do their bit for King and Country, whether by honest means or not. The scoop-hungry news media can be easy prey to this regardless of leanings. Remember the forged memos found in Baghdad that the (usually quite reliable) Daily Telegraph ran with? This may be the same kind of thing.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
What's the model number of the typeball on your Selectric? If I remember, I think they have it printed right on the top if you look down at it.

Maury

IBM Selectric II. The golfball itself is courier 72.

[chris v]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Yes, they should be tested. I just took a look at an IBM Selectric II typewriter that is roughly the type that would have been used at about that time. It can't do superscript. Those were state of the art typewriters at the time -- very expensive indeed.

Of course, the more obvious question is why something in somebody's personnel file would be written on a blank sheet of paper? In my experience, everything in the military is on some kind of letterhead or form.

This is kind of interesting. It's from a very conservative website, so take it for what is worth. This person typed the same words in Microsoft Word. The top one is the "1973" document, and the bottom one is the WS Word document. The point is to look at the type spacing. Wordprocessors space letters differently from typewriters.





Oh, and the address of the files is mac.com. So it must be a trustworthy source.

It wouldn't take all that much work to kern the Word file until it appeared similar to the original letter. That doesn't prove much. Still, this forgery allegation is interesting. If it turns out to be fake, and someone within the Kerry campaign knew so in advance (both very big ifs) there will be hell to pay. Seems like it would be a rather stupid move.

Edit: FWIW, I just typed the first three lines of the letter in Times, and my results were nothing like the letter, kern-wise.

[dialo]

using a conspiracy theory to plant the seeds of doubt.

Of course, you'd also have to have us believe that a forger went to the trouble of changing individual letters (look at the big version and you can see clearly what I mean), yet didn't change the spacing or subscript, although those have already been shot down, too.

[sideus]

Interesting.

[BlackGriffen]

Well, it's looking more and more like 60 Minutes fcked up.

The Boson Globe's report, however, relied on nothing but documents that came from the Bush administration. So, if the Globe's documents are false, the administration has some splainin' to do.

BlackGriffen

[SimeyTheLimey]

Interesting

After contacting several experts, a rather notable Forensic Document Examiner named Dr. Philip Bouffard took the time to examine a pdf of the documents and perform an initial visual analysis of their authenticity. Dr. Bouffard has a PhD in Chemistry from the University of Michigan, but got involved in forensic examination of typefaces after working in �graphics� with NCR until 1973 and taking a two-year Certification Program in Document Examination at Georgetown University. After completing the program, he became specifically interested in typewriter classification and went to work for a prosecutor�s crime lab in Lake County, Ohio.

Using something called the Haas Atlas, the definitive collection of various typefaces, Mr. Bouffard (and other forensic document examiners) examined the veracity of various documents for over 30 years. Beginning in 1988, Mr. Bouffard hired a programmer to write a computer database program that catalogues the nearly 4,000 typefaces that appear in the Haas Atlas. This computer program is now a forensic standard that is sold as a companion to the Haas Atlas by American Society of Questioned Document Examiners (ASQDE).

What did Dr. Bouffard think of the documents?

* * *



UPDATE: Dr. Bouffard called me again, and after further analysis, he says that he's pretty certain that it's a fake.

Here's why

* He looked through old papers he's written, and noted that he's come up against the inconsistency of the "4" several previous times with forgeries that attempt to duplicate old proportional spaced documents with a computer word processing program.

* Regarding the small "th" after the date, Dr. Bouffard told me that it was possible to order specialty keys that would duplicate the automatic miniaturization completed by word processors after a numerical date, but it was certainly not standard, and wouldn't make a lot of sense in a military setting. "That by itself, while suspicious, is not impossible, but in conjunction with the (font irregularity of the) number four, it is really significant," he said.

* Dr. Bouffard said that signature analysis isn't that relevant because the signature could have easily been copied and pasted onto one of the photocopied forgeries from another document.

* He said that he didn't know who CBS contacted to verify the document's authenticity, but that there is really only one other man that may be more qualified to determine authentic typefaces than himself. I think that the burden of proof may be on CBS to reveal this information.

I asked him to put a percentage on the chances that this was a fake, and he said that was "hard to put a number on it." I then suggested "90%?" Again he said it's "hard to put an exact number, but I'd say it's at least that high, sure. I pretty much agree that that font is Times New Roman."

I hesitate to render verdicts, but based on an initial visual analysis by one of the country's foremost forensic document analysts that specializes in old typefaces, it looks like CBS was duped.

[chris v]

You know, if I wanted to forge a document to look as though it was produced on an IBM Selectric, I'd go to the flea market and buy one for $5.00. Occam's razor? Or a really, really stupid forger?

[Krusty]

The outcome if this issue is largely irrelevant, IMHO.

No bearing on current issues or future plans for the country. I'm with chris v on this ... why would the Kerry campaign take the risk of knowingly forging docs ? How much of a boost would it really give Kerry if they did turn out to be true ? Not much, IMO. Can't imagine that the potential rewards would outweigh the risks (especially a blatant signature forge ?) Makes no sense to pull this sort of stunt.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by chris v:
You know, if I wanted to forge a document to look as though it was produced on an IBM Selectric, I'd go to the flea market and buy one for $5.00. Occam's razor? Or a really, really stupid forger?

Probably a really, really stupid forger. I really doubt this is either anyone part of the media or the Kerry campaign (at least not officially). I don't think either would be as stupid as to try this, or as clumsy.

On the other hand, that is exactly what people said when some klutzy guys were found wandering around the DNC headquarters late one night in 1972. Never underestimate people's talent for stupidity.

[davesimondotcom]

I doubt the Kerry Campaign would do this directly, even indirectly. Perhaps some partisans would, but involvement from the campaign would be extraordinary.

However, I wouldn't put it past an ambitious journalist to forge a document like that. Refer to the "Bush did nothing to stop them" "phantom boos" story last week. Refer to NBC's blowing up of Ford trucks and saying they are prone to explosions. Etc. Etc.

[Krusty]

And meanwhile ... a major new offensive is underway in Samarra, Fallujah and Mosul. Yet its passing virtually unnoticed as the nation bickers over this ridiculous issue.

http://www.iht.com/articles/538146.htm

Oh, and Costa Rica has also just informed the US gov't that it is quitting the coalition too.

[dialo]

I [used to] officially think they are faked* [correction below] [...removed...]

Krusty:
why would the Kerry campaign take the risk of knowingly forging docs ? How much of a boost would it really give Kerry if they did turn out to be true ? Not much, IMO. Can't imagine that the potential rewards would outweigh the risks (especially a blatant signature forge ?) Makes no sense to pull this sort of stunt.

I'm with Krusty here. I would like to know where CBS got them from.

EDIT: OK, after reading more elsewhere, I think they are real again.

[Joshua]

Here's a Microsoft Word version of the memo laid over the "original" CBS memo:



According to the guy behind the comparison (link), the minor differences are between the screen copies; when both are printed, they appear identical.

And if you're doubting the kerning/leading/etc. settings, you can download the Word document used here.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by dialo:
EDIT: OK, after reading more elsewhere, I think they are real again.

After reading more where?

BG

[Krusty]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
After reading more where?

BG

Ditto ...

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Krusty:
And meanwhile ... a major new offensive is underway in Samarra, Fallujah and Mosul. Yet its passing virtually unnoticed as the nation bickers over this ridiculous issue.

http://www.iht.com/articles/538146.htm

Oh, and Costa Rica has also just informed the US gov't that it is quitting the coalition too.

Yes, I'm rather weary of the whole campaign. Too much about Vietnam (which is partly Kerry's fault) and not enough about current events. And the more Bush can keep attention off the chaos in Iraq, the better for him, even if it means enduring questions about his Guard service, which no one is going to change their vote over anyway. It astonishes me that in light of what's actually happening on the ground, Bush can run on the idea that he'll do a better job on national security.

Meanwhile, Kerry bumbles along, talking about namby-pamby concepts like a Department of Wellness, and Teresa is proving to be politically deadly. As things stand, I think his only chance is a slam dunk in the debates.

[Joshua]

A quick run through some major news sites shows that the BBC, CNN, NY Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, and The Guardian, are all silent on the possibility that these memos are forgeries.

[RAILhead]

Well, the more you dig, the worse it looks for CBS and Mr. Rather Biased. It really does appear as though the docs are fakes, and crimminy, that doesn't bode well for CBS.

I feel quite certain the Kerry campaign wasn't behind this -- or I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt that they wouldn't stoop that low -- but this will definitely be a story worth watching as it's bound to get more and more interesting.

I wonder how Mr. Rather Biased will spin this one?

Maury

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by Joshua:
A quick run through some major news sites shows that the BBC, CNN, NY Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, and The Guardian, are all silent on the possibility that these memos are forgeries.

It probably has to do with the fact that they trust the fact checking of a colleague news organization over that of some random internet site. If there's any validity to the questions of authenticity, though, they'll pick it up within 48 hours to a week. Don't count on them to put it on the front page like the original story, though.

BlackGriffen

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
I wonder how Mr. Rather Biased will spin this one?

Maury

Just like Bush spins his bad news - blame a subordinate. Rather, unlike Bush, might actually fire him, though.

BG

[chris v]

Dan Bartlett told �60 Minutes� that Democrats were �recycling the very same charges we hear every time President Bush runs for re-election."

Heh. How many times HAS president Bush run for Re-election? Governor Bush ran for re-election, once.

Sorry, off topic. I thought it was funny.

[BlackGriffen]

Well, in spite of a Joshua's impotent btching, and just as I predicted, the NYT has covered the questions on the authenticity of the docs. I'll excerpt the part I think covers new ground:

[...]
In an interview with The Associated Press on Thursday, the officer's son, Gary Killian, said he doubted that his father had written some of the memos. "I am upset because I think it is a mixture of truth and fiction here,'' Mr. Killian said.

CBS said in a statement that it stood by its story and the memos' authenticity.

"As is standard practice at CBS News, the documents in the '60 Minutes' report were thoroughly examined and their authenticity vouched for by independent experts,'' the statement said.

Still, throughout the afternoon and evening, questions arose about the authenticity of the memos as various forensics experts told news organizations, including The New York Times, that the fonts of the documents resembled those of modern-day word processors, specifically Microsoft Word.

Farrell C. Shiver, a forensic document examiner based in Georgia who said he was a Republican, said the superscript "th's" throughout the memos were "something you would expect to find being done with a computer" and were "not consistent with something that you would expect to find from someone typing a document; they used typewriters in that particular time."

Mr. Shiver also said he was suspicious of the spacing in the memos and the curves in their apostrophes.

But he said that while the font seemed unusual for the period, "that does not prove that the documents are not genuine."

Philip Bouffard, a forensic document specialist from Ohio who created a commonly used database of at least 3,000 old type fonts, said he had suspicions as well. "I found nothing like this in any of my typewriter specimens," said Dr. Bouffard, a Democrat. He also said the fonts were "certainly consistent with what I see in Times Roman," the commonly used Microsoft Word font.

However, Dr. Bouffard said, a colleague had called his attention to similarities between the font in the memos and that of the IBM Selectric Composer of the early 1970's.

But he said it would be unusual for Mr. Bush's commanding officer to have had the IBM machine because of its large size.

Dr. Bouffard said he would see if the fonts match more closely on Friday. "The problem I'm going to run into if this matches and Times Roman matches, to the extent of what we are able to see on these poor miserable copies that are passing around,'' he said, "then I don't think anybody's going to be able to say for sure.''

A senior executive at CBS said said, "We are convinced our source who got the documents had access to them and we trust the source.'' He added, "Can we produce the typewriter they came from in 1972 or 1973? Obviously not.''

The executive said the documents had been "vetted as thoroughly as possible.''

"We did have a number of experts,'' he said, adding that the producers also showed the documents to numerous people who worked with Colonel Killian and who said the memos were consistent with what he thought and representative of the sorts of documents he produced back then.

"It would be unbelievable for a forger to have written documents that could so closely reflect what the people closest to Killian said,'' he said, "that this is his tone of voice, what he thought back then, this is the situation back then. It would be a little odd to think that these things could have just surfaced.''

CBS News executives also produced a document released earlier by the White House about Mr. Bush's service that was clearly from a typewriter and had a superscript "th'' in it. CBS said it proved that some typewriters did indeed have superscript keys. But the characters were hard to make out after so much reproducing of the document, a problem, the CBS News official acknowledged, with the documents in the initial "60 Minutes'' program; those documents were not originals and have been copied repeatedly.

CBS News declined to say how it obtained the memos.

Mr. Killian, who served in the Guard with his father, said one memo looked legitimate. But he said he doubted his father would have written the one referring to sugarcoating Mr. Bush's performance record.

"It just wouldn't happen," he told The A.P. "The only thing that can happen when you keep secret files like that are bad things.''

The White House itself did not contest the memos' authenticity and handed them out to reporters. It continued on Thursday to handle questions based on the memos, particularly about the accusation that Mr. Bush failed to take a physical "as ordered." The physical exam was required for Mr. Bush to remain a pilot.
[...]

Also note that later in the article, White House spokesman McClellan completely avoids the issue of whether Bush disobeyed an order.

I wonder if any font balls can be found that have curvy apostrophes and a "th" character. If not, what plausible explanation is there for the bulky machine?

Interesting to note that the White House hasn't (yet) contested their authenticity.

BlackGriffen

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
You forgot to turn the page. Page 138 was hire Carville, 139 was rehash the coke accusations.

Page 140 is the page that directs Liberals to refocuse on Bush's Guard service.

Does page one FORTY ONE say to get some lunkhead to use a 21st century computer to falsify 1972 Bushy military records?

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Yes, I'm rather weary of the whole campaign. Too much about Vietnam (which is partly Kerry's fault) and not enough about current events. And the more Bush can keep attention off the chaos in Iraq, the better for him, even if it means enduring questions about his Guard service, which no one is going to change their vote over anyway. It astonishes me that in light of what's actually happening on the ground, Bush can run on the idea that he'll do a better job on national security.

Meanwhile, Kerry bumbles along, talking about namby-pamby concepts like a Department of Wellness, and Teresa is proving to be politically deadly. As things stand, I think his only chance is a slam dunk in the debates.

Bushy's Security Review in the following areas:

1) Restoring America�s Alliances

Shattered alliances, alienated close allies, and made us less safe. America and American troops paying most costs of Iraq war.

2) Preventing the Spread of Dangerous Weapons

Stood by as North Korea and Iran further developed nuclear programs. Bush administration will take up to 13 years to finish the job of securing former Soviet weapons and materials at current pace.

3) Strengthening America�s Military to Meet New Threats

Failed to adequately plan for wars of the 21st century. Sent troops into Iraq without proper equipment and supplies.

4) Achieving Energy Independence From Mideast Oil

Ignored our increasing and dangerous reliance on Mideast oil. Refuses to get serious with Saudi Arabia about its role in funding terrorism.

5) Taking the Burden off the American Military & Taxpayer

Go it alone strategy means United States has contributed nearly 90% of forces on the ground and paid the vast majority of costs. No strategy to relieve the burden on the American military and taxpayer.

6) Planning for Iraq�s Future

Has failed to present a plan to secure Iraq's future. Ignored post-war planning recommendations of its own State Department. Of the $18.4 billion allocated for reconstruction by Congress, less than $350 million had been spent as of June, and more than half of that was for security and law enforcement.

7) Building Security In Iraq

Current training programs are lagging far behind schedule. As of late June, the Iraqi army was one-third the size U.S. officials promised it would be, and seventy percent of police officers had not received training.

8) Fighting the War on Terrorism

Failed to go after bin Laden at Tora Bora. Pursued ad hoc strategy. Own Secretary of Defense says we lack metrics to measure success. Ignored the advice of military experts. Single focus on Iraq - let Afghanistan become the forgotten front of the war on terror.

9) Building Bridges to Arab and Muslim Countries

Alienated large portions of the Arab and Muslim world against America. Administration's actions have squandered American credibility.

10) Making Bold Intelligence Reforms

Has taken no real action on critical reforms. Basic coordination of agencies, databases still not finished with no central system in place.

11) Protecting the Homeland

Failed to fund critical homeland security programs. Cut security training at nuclear facilities, killed chemical plant security plan.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Well, in spite of a Joshua's impotent btching, and just as I predicted, the NYT has covered the questions on the authenticity of the docs. I'll excerpt the part I think covers new ground:

Also note that later in the article, White House spokesman McClellan completely avoids the issue of whether Bush disobeyed an order.

I wonder if any font balls can be found that have curvy apostrophes and a "th" character. If not, what plausible explanation is there for the bulky machine?

Interesting to note that the White House hasn't (yet) contested their authenticity.

BlackGriffen

CBS needs to come clean on where they got them, and they need to produce the originals so they can be independently tested. There are too many questions.

And just to reiterate, the superscript issue isn't that typewriters of the era couldn't raise text, it is that they couldn't automatically reduce the size of the reduced text. Microsoft Word does that automatically.

The reason that was so glaring to me was that I recently spent some time in a law firm which had a template in Word to recreate the look of footnotes produced on a typewriter. Basically, they had an old fashioned partner who preferred that look. People used to type _/ and then backspace and superscript the footnote number above the _. But the font of the superscript was the same as the rest of the text. The only way to change the font size on a typewriter was to change the typeball, and nobody did that in mid-memo.

There are other problems as well such as the lack of letterhead. Military official documents are not written on plain paper in my experience. The Air Force is not a small business. My dad was in the Air Force at that time. We even had his squadron's letterhead at home -- stacks of the damn stuff. I have a bunch of it because I used to draw pictures on it as a kid. Even their notepaper had the SAC symbol on it! Some of the memos also refer to Bush as 1 st. LT Bush. That's bizarre, the correct (and easier to type) abbreviation for his rank is 1LT Bush.

It also just looks wrong. Typewritten documents just don't have the look of something written on a wordprocessor. Leaving aside the proportional text, and the Times New Roman font (not available at the time, people used Courier), they are just too perfect. I'm no expert but I see enough typewritten documents to see that the letters imprint with enough irregularity that they don't look laserprinted. Just type an address label to see what I mean. I'd also expect to see at least one error corrected.

All in all this has enough holes to fly an F-102 through. But I don't expect CBS to retract it any time soon. 60 Minutes is their flagship show, and they used it to attack a sitting president in an election campaign based on obviously forged documents. They look like complete and utter idiots and incompetents, and they have their pride. Journalists strike me as being like cats. They get huffy when they are embarrassed.


Edit: I just saw this on ABC News Not only does the family of the (conveniently dead) author say that he didn't type, but also:

"These documents do not appear to have been the result of technology that was available in 1972 and 1973," said Bill Flynn, one of country's top authorities on document authentication. "The cumulative evidence that's available � indicates that these documents were produced on a computer, not a typewriter:"

Among the points Flynn and other experts noted:

__ The memos were written using a proportional typeface, where letters take up variable space according to their size, rather than fixed-pitch typeface used on typewriters, where each letter is allotted the same space. Proportional typefaces are available only on computers or on very high-end typewriters that were unlikely to be used by the National Guard.
__ The memos include superscript, i.e. the "th" in "187th" appears above the line in a smaller font. Superscript was not available on typewriters.
__ The memos included "curly" apostrophes rather than straight apostrophes found on typewriters.
__ The font used in the memos is Times Roman, which was in use for printing but not in typewriters. The Haas Atlas � the bible of fonts � does not list Times Roman as an available font for typewriters.
__ The vertical spacing used in the memos, measured at 13 points, was not available in typewriters, and only became possible with the advent of computers.

[aberdeenwriter]

WHY I WILL VOTE FOR KERRY/EDWARDS!

1) Restoring America�s Alliances

Kerry will launch a New Era of Alliances for a post 9-11 world, to restore America's place in the world and make us safer.

2) Preventing the Spread of Dangerous Weapons

Kerry has a comprehensive plan to secure nuclear weapons and nuclear materials worldwide. Will secure all nuclear weapons and materials in the former Soviet Union and complete Global Cleanout of bomb material within four years.

3) Strengthening America�s Military to Meet New Threats.

Kerry will strengthen our military, including doubling our Special Forces capability to fight the war on terror; improve our technology; and task our National Guard with Homeland Security. Add 40,000 new soldiers to the active-duty Army -- not to increase the number of soldiers in Iraq -- but to prevent and prepare for other possible conflicts.

4) Achieving Energy Independence From Mideast Oil

Kerry has a detailed plan to end America's dangerous dependence on Mideast oil to secure our full independence and freedom. Will stop using kid-gloves with countries that launder money for terrorism.

5) Taking the Burden off the American Military & Taxpayer

Kerry plans to internationalize the security and reconstruction effort by making Iraq part of NATO's global mission and by involving allies in rebuilding the country, providing troops and financial commitments.

6) Planning for Iraq�s Future

Kerry has a strategy to implement an international effort to coordinate reconstruction efforts, draft the national constitution, and organize elections. Work with allies to forgive Iraq's multi-billion dollar debts. Convene a regional conference with Iraq's neighbors in order to secure a pledge of respect for Iraq's borders and non-interference in Iraq's internal affairs.

7) Building Security In Iraq

Kerry will launch a massive training effort to build a professional Iraqi security force, including a major role for NATO.

8) Fighting the War on Terrorism

Kerry will launch a bold, comprehensive strategy to disrupt and destroy terrorist networks, double our Special Forces capability to fight the war on terror, reform our intelligence, crack down on terrorist financing, secure our homeland and prevent the emergence of new terrorists.

9) Building Bridges to Arab and Muslim Countries

Kerry has a plan to win the war of ideas in Arab and Muslim countries.

10) Making Bold Intelligence Reforms

Kerry has a plan that demands accountability, separates analysis and operations, and creates a Director of National Intelligence with real control of all national intelligence personnel and budgets.

11) Protecting the Homeland Plan to keep America safe.

Kerry will give our first responders all the tools they need. Detailed port security & bio-terrorism strategies.