Some Question Authenticity of Papers on Bush - WaPo

[TacticalPeek]

washingtonpost.com
Some Question Authenticity of Papers on Bush

By Michael Dobbs and Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, September 10, 2004; Page A01

Documents unearthed by CBS News that raise doubts about whether President Bush fulfilled his obligations to the Texas Air National Guard include several features suggesting that they were generated by a computer or word processor rather than a Vietnam War-era typewriter, experts said yesterday.

Experts consulted by a range of news organizations pointed typographical and formatting questions about four documents as they considered the possibility that they were forged. The widow of the National Guard officer whose signature is on the bottom of the documents also disputed their authenticity.

The documents, which were aired Wednesday night on "60 Minutes II," bear dates from 1972 and 1973 and include an order for Bush to report for his annual physical exam and a discussion of how he could get out of "coming to drill."

The dispute over the documents' authenticity came as Democrats stepped up their criticism of Bush's service with the National Guard between 1968 and 1974. The Democratic National Committee sought to fuel the controversy yesterday by holding a news conference at which Sen. Tom Harkin (Iowa) pointed to the documents as a fresh indictment of Bush's credibility.

CBS News released a statement yesterday standing by its reporting, saying that each of the documents "was thoroughly vetted by independent experts and we are convinced of their authenticity." The statement added that CBS reporters had verified the documents by talking to unidentified individuals who saw them "at the time they were written."


more
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A9967-2004Sep9?language=printer



"at the time they were written."

Bwaaahahahahahahah!

:evilgrin:

[Cha]

1. "at the time they were written."

So that's a Good thing!

[TacticalPeek]

3. Indeed,

From this, I leap to the conclusion that there are contemporaneous accounts available to the press from folks willing to talk about Shrub at an interesting period of his, er, 'development'. This would suggest that President aWol is in for a very exciting remainder, campaign-wise.

:)

[ElsewheresDaughter]

36. 1971 IBM Selectric II typewritter/ 72word processor...had changeable fontS

[Rose Siding]

2. "Shape of Earth; Views Differ"

The Post's headline is fitting of Krugman's jibe.

[manteuffel1]

18. Even the WP

So now even the WP is a shill for the Bushies?

[cal04]

4. On sludge website

CBS NEWS executives have launched an internal investigation into whether its premiere news program 60 MINUTES aired fabricated documents relating to Bush National Guard service, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

"The reputation and integrity of the entire news division is at stake, if we are in error, it will be corrected," a top CBS source explained late Thursday.

The source, who asked not to be named, described CBSNEWS anchor and 60 MINUTES correspondent Dan Rather as being "shell-shocked" by the increasingly likelihood that the documents in question were fraudulent.

Rather, who anchored the segment presenting new information on the president's military service, will personally correct the record on-air, if need be, the source explained from New York.

[Julian English]

5. Take a gander at this thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x780217

[htuttle]

7. Ha!

From the article:

A senior CBS official, who asked not to be named because CBS managers did not want to go beyond their official statement, named one of the network's sources as retired Maj. Gen. Bobby W. Hodges, the immediate superior of the documents' alleged author, Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian. He said that a CBS reporter read the documents to Hodges over the phone, and that Hodges replied that "these are the things that Killian had expressed to me at the time."

"These documents represent what Killian not only was putting in memoranda, but was telling other people," the CBS News official said. "Journalistically, we've gone several extra miles."

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

13. Both stories dated the same day.

Schizophrenic reportage.

Methinks they're fucking with us.

[shanti]

67. right

they could actually HAVE the original docs, with the original language, retype them with a few obvious forged errors and pass that off. of course, the officer in charge would agree on the phone with what was typed. however, would he agree if he actually saw the document?

taking off my :tinfoilhat:

[Purveyor]

6. Whatever the truth...another clusterfunk blowing up in Kerry's face

The neocon dominated talking formats will make this another blight on the Kerry campaign...

Any chance we can still take the Senate?

[still_one]

8. bullshit

this was released by CBS, NOT THE KERRY CAMP!!!

[Purveyor]

11. Doesn't matter who released it...

It will be represented as from the "Kerry Camp" by the neocon radio.

It has been presented as a release from the "Kerry Camp" all day long leading up to the charge of "forgery" and it will be represented as a 'forgery' by the Kerry campaign, even if it isn't.

[aquart]

23. You can't stop a liar from lying. So?

Nothing Kerry does will stop them from lying so why should he care, or bother? If he alters something, they will alter the lie.

Which merely makes them irrelevant.

[digno dave]

53. i tend to agree, this is why White House is laying low, letting Dems

put all their stock in this issue. Then once it is debunked, it will blow up in their face and the White House will then pounce.

[goclark]

64. It is NOT from the Kerry Camp

If I also recall, I heard them say it was released from the WH as well.

Why would the WH release something that they thought to be false-unless they did it themselves.
I would put nothing pass them.

[grasswire]

9. what planet are you from?

'nuff said.

[Purveyor]

14. One you might want to land on...

I've watched these neocon bastards since 1992 and I pretty much know how they operate.

Burrow your head into the sand a little deeper, perhaps right up to your ass, but I see where "this one" is going.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

83. If you think the NeoCons have only been operating since 1992...

...maybe you need to try living on another planet. Preferably one that provides oxygen in the atmosphere.

The term "NeoCon" is just the current one used to describe this rightwing group. They've been with us for quite some time under a variety of names.

[Old and In the Way]

10. Not likely.

Thanks for the concern, though.

[Purveyor]

12. Stay tuned...

[chaumont58]

15. What if it is a repuke dirty trick?

A more likely source for a poorly forged document(if it is forged) like this would be chimpie's dirty tricks boys. I am an USAF vet(56-60) and when we typed the date, it was usually in the form ddmmmyy. That document says 18 August 1973. Documents in my time would have referenced the date as 18 Aug 73. The unit I was in in Europe was the 48th Tactical Fighter Wing. It would have been refered to as 48TFW. I don't think anyone would have said 48th, with the th being subscripted, whatever the term is.
It didn't take long for the cries of forgery to come out. Maybe a little too convenient for me. If it were to be proven to be a forgery, it would give the chimpies a pass from here on out. They would(and their enablers in our great press corpse) would call each and evertything not totally toadying to chimpie as a forgery.
Chimpie's crew is among the most evil people ever to grace our country. There is no bottom to what they will go to get their chimp reelected. If nothing else, chimpie out of office in January 2005 may be looking at a war crimes trial. In my mind, he sure as shit is a war criminal.

[shanti]

21. actually

it is brilliant. evil, but brilliant all the same. they KNOW that chimpy is guilty as charged. too many witnesses. what better strategy than to make an offensive strike (they love this, we know), putting out an obviously forged document, and discounting it. the real doc never surfaces. end result? no document, case closed.

[digno dave]

56. Remember Rove's planting of a bug in his own candidate's office?

When Clements was running against MWhite for TX governor Rove planted a bug in Clements office right before the first debate and got stympathy for his candidate.

[alarcojon]

66. The only problem with that

is that the WH would have to count on CBS to miss the "obvious forgery" and broadcast their story anyway. That, or CBS would have to be part of the conspiracy.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[felix19]

41. Bingo

Obvious, obvious, obvious forgeries. And they came out of an RNC shop. They've been vetted by Rs as "authentic." Vouched for. The White House itself has distributed them.

CBS was taken in -- whether they are/were willing accomplices remains to be seen.

This is one of many, many Dirty Tricks we're up against.

And when it comes out that the Texas Homeboy Operation of the Rove Slime Machine put these OBVIOUSLY bogus docs in circulation -- which will come out eventually -- how much you want to wager there will be lots of chortling and backslapping among the Rs over just how clever and effective this little trick was.

And who is talking about Bush's Failure to Appear in Alabama, Texas or Massachusetts now?

[happyslug]

46. When I was in the ARMY National Guard in the 1980s

We OFTEN made mistake as to the date, writing 18 AUGUST 82 instead of 18 Aug 82 for in our Full time CIVILIAN job the employer wanted the Month typed out OR wanted in Month/Day/Year not the Military's Date/Month/Year.

Remember the person who is typing this out is doing "Military" Typing 2 days out of 30 NOT every day. Mistakes as to date FORMAT are common is National Records and once you typed it was hard to undo so you just left it in.

In my opinion Mistakes like writing out the whole name of the month would fit into a mistake a part-time National Guard member would do.

One more factoid, this is BEFORE the personal computers so most MEN DID NOT TYPE NOR KNEW HOW TO USE A KEYBOARD. Furthermore WOMEN WERE NOT YET IN THE AIR FORCE IN ANY GREAT NUMBERS, thus most of the typing were done by men whose full time Civilian Job did NOT include typing or the use of a keyboard (Women did most of the jobs requiring both) thus you had the situation where you had a man typing these reports who typed only 2 days out of 30. Errors will crept in from Civilian usage in addition to jut plan habits one picks up from working in the Civilian Market Place.

[chaumont58]

96. My first thought was calling the docs fake is how they handle their ....

people. I don't care for chimpie, so this is not something that could affect me. But to his followers, the idea that chimpie is not a total warrior/king/god would be difficult even for them to swallow. The best way is to say the docs are forgeries, move on, people, nothing more to see here. Its gospel now in L Dot land that they are forgeries. Its how they cope.
It will be interesting to see what are the topics on the Sunday talk shows. Which will get more play, chimpie's missing service, or the 'fake' documents? MY guess is that Fat Tim, Staphlocaucus, all of FuxNewsChannel will play big on the fake issue.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

72. "We" who?

[progressivebydesign]

16. Hello??? WHO would have had all the exact info to do this?

I mean, really.. any of us know enough dates and details about Bush's time there? NO! Do any of us know the names of various people involved? NO! They are pissing in the wind (I've always wanted to say that), on this one. NO ONE but the people involved would have had enough info to do this... I call bullshit. They're real.

[shanti]

22. the only ones that know this

are the ones involved....:eyes:

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[amandabeech]

17. If Rather is forced to retract this story because the docs are fake,

then I hope he tells us how or from whom he got those docs or someone leaks. And I hope that Gen. Hodges will agree to be interviewed.

I wonder whether in fact the docs are paraphrases of what Col. Killian told Gen. Hodges and others, or are paraphrases of memos and orders that Killian actually wrote, but were scrubbed from records when Bush was Gov. of Texas. Someone on Killian's or Hodges' staffs, or maybe one of Killian's buddies might remember what Killian said or wrote, and sent in the new docs in some way that would be difficult to trace in order to stay out of trouble.

Or perhaps Killian had a "day job" where the IBM Executive Typewriter was used and these memos were typed by a secretary there.

Edit: spelling

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ksec]

20. family members dont make good witnesses.

I see where someones Mother doesnt believe her son could do such a thing.

Well its settled. He didnt. His Mom said so...

[Stocat]

27. superscript in a different Bush Doc

[Turley]

28. Interesting find Stocat

Although the obvious question is why it is superscripted (is that a word) in one place but printed normally in two others. Typing error?

[ET Awful]

29. Actually it appears to be a form that is updated regularly. . .

kind of like a pass book for a savings account.

It was probably typed by different people at different times.

[Turley]

31. Duh

Stupid me. Should have seen that straight off.

[ET Awful]

38. Not stupid at all. . .

The first time I looked at it, it took me 2 minutes just to find the superscripted th :)

[ElsewheresDaughter]

30. 1972 IBM Selectra typewritter had changable fonts...i used one when

i worked at Avildsen Tool and Dye in downtown manhattan in 1971/72

i heard that someone is question the font on one of the documents?

[Almost_there]

37. Times New Roman & proportional fonts didn't exist in '73

Here is the ABC report that pretty much refutes the entire authenticity of the memos. Times New Roman was used solely in Print shops, not typewriters, and font size 13 didn't exist as a type font either. To me, it seems to be a fake, but, I don't think its going to hurt, since it simply brings up his service, even if it doesn't necessarily proove he wasn't there, it brings up the question.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Politics/Vote2004/bush_documents_040909-2.html

<snip>
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.

~Almost

[ElsewheresDaughter]

40. " or on very high-end typewriters that were unlikely to be used by NG"

they were used in 1972!

[Almost_there]

57. I tend to think its a fake

I am leaning towards this being a fake, if only because it has become almost difficult to defend it not being fake. The superscript being a different font size, not only shifted up (call it TNR 8pt), the font size of 13 (the only type size I've ever seen is 10 or 12), Times New Roman, instead of Sans Serif or Courier, and proportional size font. Sure, the case can be made that its real, but, to me its a stretch. I would think this should have been typed on Courier 10 or 12, non proportional, no superscripts, and then it would ring a bit truer. Also, interesting how there are no 'dots' on the document's bottom 1/10, as if they got tired of scattering them around and left the bottom blank. :shrug:

~Almost

[ElsewheresDaughter]

60. look at and read this 1961 IBM ad and please think again...how old are u?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

68. You can "lean" all you want...

...but try doing it on a forum that will accept your "theories".

[ItsThePeopleStupid]

124. of superscripts, proportional fonts, and Times New Roman

I was a secretary in the 60s and 70s. To do superscripts, you simply rolled the carriage up a little and typed, while holding the carriage in place. Changing font size from pica to elite was done by moving a lever.

The article says Times Roman, not Times NEW Roman.

As to proportional fonts, they were first used in 1941 by IBM:

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.
http://www-1.ibm.com/ibm/history/history/year_1941.html

[LiberalFighter]

126. I did the same thing with a Smith Corona

moved roller 1/2 for th back in early 80's and I was in my 20's

[Iceburg]

54. BULLSH*T .. JK was discharged in 1970

His discharge notice displayed here
http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/Honorable_Discharge_From_Reserve.pdf
is written in a proporational serif font (of which Times Roman is one of may variations).

[Almost_there]

59. This is a printed form... look at filled in type

The form itself is proportionally printed, absolutely, but, look at the name line, the date line, the signature line, they are all typed onto the form at a later time, and they are done with a non-proportional typed font, Courier 10, I think, that actually reinforces the case for the Shrub documents to be fake. The Honorable Discharge form is printed at a printer, then typed in later with the person's name, date, and "signed" by a typewriter.

So, this doesn't quite prove the case against the documents being fake, but, it does hurt it for them being real.

~Almost

[Media_Lies_Daily]

70. Oh, please stop. Haven't you embarrassed yourself enough?

[Almost_there]

80. Embarrassed myself? Let me check... nope.

Well, I guess I will have to assume that every "so called" expert is a complete liar in this matter, from the multiple sources I have sited previously, and your dig of me embarrassing myself should make me go and bleat along with you that "its theoretically possible that the person was using this sort of typewriter" therefore, it MUST be real.

Actually, I tend to agree with experts, and I think that this IS a fake. Why? Because of everything that was already posted, and the news sources behind it. CBS won't disclose its source, ABC, NBC, Wash Post, et al. all claim that there are "problems" with the document. Please tell me how a typewriter CHANGES FONT SIZE? Explain that to me. If you can do so, I will surely accept this as real. However, when it was brought up yesterday evening as a fake, I looked at the document, saw the superscript as smaller, and wondered along with those "silly experts" as to how this was possible. So, I will go bury my head in the sand and await your enlightened reply.

~Almost

[Media_Lies_Daily]

87. "Experts"? "News sources"? "Problems"? Try reading your...

..."debunkers" a bit more closely...you'll find a great deal of speculation without any actual proof to back up their claims that the documents are forgeries. Lots of smoke and mirrors with nothing to back it up.

Typical NeoCon tactics, and you fell for it. Sad, really.

Keep your head buried in the sand...we wouldn't want to bother your "beautiful mind" with actual facts.

[HoosierModerate]

104. Almost There - I'm With You

I guess when Rather himself issues a retraction - THEN you will believe they are forgeries, right? Get ready - I predict a retraction of the documents within 48 hours.

I assume that you will come back here and admit how you were wrong.

If not, who has their head in the sand?

[NormanConquest]

109. Stunning prediction...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x783464

[HoosierModerate]

113. WOW!

That is some chutzpah, as my grandfather would say.

Well, at least he has guts. I hope that he hasn't been fed some baloney by his underlings.

Drudge is reporting that CBS is conducting an internal investigation, and quoted an executive who stated that if there was a retraction to occur, it would be delivered by Rather.

The line has been drawn in the sand. We'll see.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

131. That will teach you to rely on Drudge as a news source.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

130. How does that sand taste this evening?

[Iceburg]

74. Soak this up almost_there then go back from whence you came

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Selectric_typewriter

[Almost_there]

111. See, iceburg, try reading the news sources.

I have read your ad, and YES! The typewriter existed. However, it wasn't in wide circulation, I think the Selectric II and III were the prevelant models, and they didn't have proportionate font, and the changing of font SIZE???? HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THAT? What? He removed his 12 point ball and put on an 8 point ball, scrolled up 1/2 line, inserted "th" for his "111", put BACK the 12 point ball (well... hmm. Wait a minute! It looks to be font size 13! That makes it tough, doesn't it? Did they MAKE a font size 13? Hm. Get back to research, Iceberg! Must be out there!)

All I am saying is that this APPEARS to be a forgery. And I have come to that conclusion by reading from several experts previously posted in this thread across virtually EVERY news source.

Just because we don't want something to be true doesn't make it not true. One person in the ABC article even says something like "while the typewriters existed, they were not in wide government circulation". Does that mean this guy didn't have one? Not at all. He may well have. But, does it make it slightly more likely that it is a fake? I think it does. Does the superscript look funny? Yes, it does. Other documents have the "th" following with no font change, no superscript. Does that proove its fake? Nope. The date formats to some in service appear odd. They have stated it should have read "08 Aug 72" NOT "08 August 72" Standard 3 character month abbreviation. Does THAT make it false? Nope.

HOWEVER, taking all of these points, along with advice from experts, along with this guy's wife (who ads about 1/100 of a single point of belief) it makes me think that it is PROBABLY (not certainly) a fake.

Now, please, tell me to stick my head in the sand, to go and lead my life of oblivion, to wait for every news source in the world to keep lying to me, blah blah blah. Perhaps I am not jaded enough, or, perhaps you are simply way too far jaded and when actual "facts" arise, and you don't like them, you just keep looking for more information that will support your idea.

When I am wrong, I totally admit it, and if I am wrong on these documents, and they are real, I'll fess up and say I was duped! But, just because I don't WANT them to be fake doesn't make them real.

~Almost

[HoosierModerate]

114. Those of us who aren't lemmings are outcast at the margins.

If you don't drink all the kool-aid of a single ideology, they call you stupid and naive. Welcome to the free-thinkers club - population: less than 20% of our country.

The good news is that we decide the elections.

You are analyzing this situation based on facts. It shouldn't make you want to vote for W. if you believe these are fakes. That really isn't an issue.

But it may make you want to vote for W. if the Democratic Party keep insisting something that is almost certainly fake is authentic.

It isn't the act itself that is at issue, but rather the lengths the party will go to to insist on their skewed reality.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

132. There's a difference between being an "outcast" and being dead wrong.

[HoosierModerate]

102. Not 1970

You are very mistaken. That document that your referenced was dated 1978. He may have left active duty in 1970, but he wasn't discharged until 1978.

To further debunk your assertion, that form has a rev. date at the bottom (3/77). Thus, that form was printed by the Navy sometime after March of 1977.

It does nothing to support your claim.

[truth2power]

62. But see document in post #27.

There IS a superscript on line dated 7 Sep 68(?). Also note the difference in date configurations: 7 Sep 68 (dmyy) and 69 Dec 29 (yymdd).

[amandabeech]

63. I think that it's really difficult to tell which font this is.

The pdf document may have been a copy of a copy. I think that the typeface looks a little blurred, but some of the letter simply do not look like the New Times Roman if you look at it closely. Also, NTR features a lot of thick and thin curvy lines on the letters. The pdf doesn't.

As to the proportional typeface, it has been pointed out here and in Freeperville, that the IBM Electric Executive typewriter (older than the Selectric) used proportional typeface.

As to the superscript, an earlier post here shows another Bush National Guard document with a superscript "th" that was typed in the late '60s.

As to the 13 point spacing, I wonder if it is possible that the scanning and copying enlarge the document a bit so that the typeface appears as a 13 point.

[tabasco]

75. I was in the Army.

We had top of the line typewriters like the Seleectric. In fact, all of our typewriters were IBMs. So why is it unlikely that the Guard had this typewriter?

[lapfog_1]

125. Crock of Shit

I was using IBMs in 1972, in *HIGH SCHOOL*, with an entire
collection of type face balls. Very useful for greek symbols
(they had an entire type ball of them) and superscripted and
subscripted characters. As for the font used, you need to figure
out if it's "Times Roman" or "Times New Roman" (you used both
in your post).

Also, look at this little gem from the internet
http://subjunctive.net/klog/2004/02/

Look at "Font Change" for a brief history of Times New Roman.
Being an older font than even Courier (and, oddly, Times Roman),
it seems quite probable that Selectric had a type ball with this
font. If IBM didn't, there were even "after market" suppliers
of type balls.

If I was using one (Selectric) in High School, I think it's quite
likely that a National Guard unit would have also had one.

[Cicero]

101. Yeah, but how did you change the fonts?

I've heard it asserted that you would have to remove the ball, put in a smaller type one, scroll up a half line, type, scroll back down, and then put the original ball back in place. Seems like an awful lot of effort involved for a quick memo.

Of course, I could be totally wrong here.

Later,

[TrogL]

112. You're not changing fonts, you're using a special character

the "th" would be one keystroke, not two. If someone is typing a lot of memos with "th", "rd", "st" and "nd" they would put in the typeball with those characters (probably in place of the usual shifted numbers (remember, on a typewriter they are NOT like they are on a computer keyboard) and leave it there for the duration.

I had a typewriter with little numbers for footnotes and another one with French accents.

[hunter]

116. My mom had one of these typewriters...

I'm pretty sure a superscript "th" was on there. I rember using it for the kid's style "newspapers" I sometimes wrote. Some of the fonts you could get for these machines were quite fancy -- having greek letters, etc.

But oh, what a lot of noise here. I hesitate to kick these threads.

[truthspeaker]

32. Some allege Bush never stopped drinking

They spread rumors, we spread rumors.

[RobinA]

33. In A Way

it doesn't really matter if they are forgeries or not. If the story can become "Those documents might be forged," it takes the wind out of the real point of the story. Then a month later after a zillion experts look at them and after the whole thing dies down, there's a short article on p. 32 stating that experts cannot determine that the documents are, in fact, forgeries.

[tom_paine]

34. Yet another Bushevik LIE introduced into the Imperial Pravda

"some people say...some people say...some people say...some people say...some people say...some people say..some people say....some people say...some people say..."
--Fox Reichsnews on "Outfoxed"

Can a nation remain free without a Free Press?

[donkeyotay]

95. Pravda hard at work again

Just like Cheney's "vote right and we won't hurt you" remark. Talking heads on that night's news said that it was an effort to derail Kerry's attempt to return to economic issues, yet they still went ahead covering Cheney instead of those issues.

Now we will have forgery-gate. The republicans or undecideds have already decided that this is just the latest case of democratic sleaze. Dan Rather will be burnt at the stake for being a liberal.

CAN A NATION REMAIN FREE WITHOUT A FREE PRESS?

Score another one for Pravda. Add another notch to their stolen election belt.

[Turley]

35. It looks more and more like they're forged.

Gerge Steph over at ABC says that's their view. NBC saying much the same and WaPo as well.

The next big question will be of course who did the forging. This needs to be cleared up asap as the story will detract from the real message everyday that it stays on the front page.

If CBS was indeed duped, are they under any obligation to maintain the privacy of the document supplier? We should push CBS to name the person who supplied the docs so we can get to the bottom of things and get this off the front pages.

Sooooo, who would have a vested interest in pulling this kind of con job?

[librechik]

39. it looks more and more like CBS will allow people to say

they were forged, whether they were or not. What if we have evidence that the selectric could have done the justified margins and the superscript (and we do)---But CBS ignores our evidence, and says ahhh waaaahh I guess we were duped. Sorry.

What do we do then?

[Turley]

42. Admittedly

I have zero expertise on such things and I'm merely putting a wet finger in the wind. That being said, it's a fairly ominous lineup which is saying the docs seem forged. WaPo, ABC, NBC, etc. etc. I'm guessing CBS's competition is enjoying the moment but at the same time giving CBS room to extract themselves somehow with an apology and retraction.

Again, I have no clue about the technical side of things, but it simply seems that the afore-mentioned news-outlets have provided copius expert testimony that the docs are forged and they sure wouldn't be doing that 48 hours after the broadcast unless they were darned sure. As a layman they've basically convinced me.

Frankly I think the editors at 60 Minutes are probably reviewing their retirement plans right about now. But it still would be very, very interesting to see who perpetrated this con-job. Like a certain someone in Wash DC?

[Spazito]

43. The ONLY one with the original documents is CBS...

everyone else, including ABC's so-called experts are making judgments on copies of copies which is totally ridiculous. CBS had experts examine the ORIGINALS and they verified them as authentic, I would tend to believe them over freepers and anyone else that has NO access to the originals.

This is a deliberate diversion, imo, to take attention off the content of the documents which are simply further proof of what was already known and verified by documents released by the Pentagon earlier.

[Turley]

44. I would bet money they're fake

Too many major news organizations are betting reputations on this. There is no way they'd risk their reputations just to get one over on CBS. No way.

That's what I base my opinion on. No technical smarts, but I know what kind of risks big companies will take and what kind they won't.

[LynnTheDem]

47. IBM basic typewriter with proportional spacing since 1940s

They are not forgeries.

[Spazito]

48. Speculation is fine, we all can do that based on nothing more than...

"gut instinct". It does further the diversion to benefit the bush camp while doing little to look at the content of the documents. My point was CBS has the originals and those originals were vetted by experts. It is interesting that you say major news organizations are betting reputations on this, I disagree, they have NOT said they are forgeries, they are saying others are saying they MIGHT be. CBS is also a major news organization and would be WELL aware of the flack they would get from the bush camp on the publication of the documents and have put THEIR reputation on the line yet they felt confident, after 6 weeks of checking, to go ahead with the story.

[Turley]

52. Still betting money

CBS News (not to be confused with 60 Minutes) is also saying the docs might be forged.

I'm happy to leave it at my "gut instinct". It has served me well over the years quite frankly.

My concern is that we spend too much time and capital trying to prove these docs are authenticate and then end up getting burned in the end.

Like I've said, every day that this issue is front page news is hurting us. CBS needs to act quickly to either 1) provide real evidence that the docs are real and which satisfies the other newsies as well as the public at large or, 2) in the event of forgery, unveil the forger's identity.

Maybe it was just some college kid. But you never know, it could get more interesting than that!

[Media_Lies_Daily]

73. Right. "Gut instinct" beats facts every day. Right. Sure. Okay.

[Turley]

93. Facts?

We have a TV program which has made certain claims without being particularly forthcoming about who its experts are.

An array of news organizations, including 60 Minute's own parent CBS News, are now questioning those claims. They are doing so using their own named experts.

If a stand-up guy like George Stephanopoulos has come to this conclusion, you gotta be asking yourself what's going on here. I just don't want to see us all get burned.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

128. Based on Dan Rather's commentary tonight....

...you didn't know jack-squat, did you? If you think I'm rubbing your nose in it, you're 100% correct.

Ans as far as George Stephanopoulos being a "stand-up guy", he crossed over to the Dark Side quite some time ago.

[Almost_there]

61. Copies of the documents are posted...

ABC news has posted copies of the originals that CBS has, and the copies are good enough for me to think that they are forgeries. The "originals" would be just as fake as photocopies.

:shrug:

~Almost

[LynnTheDem]

45. And bush's CO

Is also just a forgery. rotfl!!!

They are not forgeries.

[JCMach1]

51. This is all Republican noise... anyone who EVER typed

with an IBM in 1970's or early 80's knows what they could do...

[htuttle]

55. That's one of my hopes

These machines were SO widespread that a lot of people will know someone who worked on one, and know what it could do.

Hell, THOUSANDS of high school students in the 70's and 80's learned to type on the Selectrics, myself included.

[LynnTheDem]

49. The USAF was using IBM selectrics by 1969

The Air Force was using testing this model in April 1969 according to their own information.

"690400
A Service Test was completed for the International Business Machines (IBM) "Selectric" typewriter and Magnetic Tape "Selectric" Composer."

http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:PZnx1vdH-6oJ:https://web1.ssg.gunter.af.mil/ho/documents/chronologies/Air%2520Force%2520Data%2520Systems%2520Design%2520Center%25201969.doc+selectric+military&hl=en

So there goes the rightwingnut bullshite about the USAF NOT having access to IBM selectrics, huh.

They are not forgeries.

[Almost_there]

65. So, nothing will convince you otherwise?

I'm simply playing devil's advocate here, but, there are multiple forensic experts who claim that these documents were printed on MS Word.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/06/politics/main641481.shtml

<snip>
Independent document examiner Sandra Ramsey Lines said the memos looked like they had been produced on a computer using Microsoft Word software. Lines, a document expert and fellow of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, pointed to a superscript — a smaller, raised "th" in "111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron" — as evidence indicating forgery.

Microsoft Word automatically inserts superscripts in the same style as the two on the memos obtained by CBS, she said.

"I'm virtually certain these were computer generated," Lines said after reviewing copies of the documents at her office in Paradise Valley, Ariz. She produced a nearly identical document using her computer's Microsoft Word software.

<snip>

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Politics/Vote2004/bush_documents_040909-2.html


More than half a dozen document experts contacted by ABC News said they had doubts about the memos' authenticity.

"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.

<snip>

So, if these two independant experts doubt the authenticity, I am not going to. Its a moot point, anyway. It would have been interesting had they been real, but, I think we all know (and Bush admits!!) that he didn't show up for his final year of service, that he lost his flight status (did he get that back to fly the plane out to the aircraft carrier? haha), and that he was sent to the guard under suspicious criteria.

~Almost

[Media_Lies_Daily]

76. "Independent" examiner? Right. I've got a bridge to sell you, too.

[HoosierModerate]

84. Look closely

That "independent examiner" that you are huffing about was contacted by CBS. The people who broke the story.

Are you suggesting that they contacted a right-wing examiner to look at the documents?

[Almost_there]

107. So, numberous independant experts won't convince you.

OK, you win. If multiple news sources with their own independant and in house forgery experts claim this to be fake, they all must be lying. Why? Because you WANT IT TO BE REAL? So, that makes it real? Your what? Hopes? Wishes? Belief that everyone who has the audacity to disagree with you MUST be wrong, therefore they are forgeries?

When will evidence become proof? In this case, I feel it will be never. No amount of evidence of forgery will show you that these documents might be fraudelent. So, therefore, I must be wrong because I disagree with you, when the amount of evidence YOU have is 60 Minutes standing behind their assertion that they are correct, and anyone thinking otherwise is wrong. This actually sounds like the Bush White House! If you disagree, you are wrong.

Seriously, take a step back, find me any source other than an IBM ad saying they have proportional type from the 1940's, that shows not only proportional type, but, Times New Roman, size 13, superscript WITH CHANGING FONT SIZE, and I will believe it! Until then, sorry, I am sceptical.

If I am wrong for believing that someone could forge this, well, call me a traitor. I am allowed my opinion, I have stated it, I have brought what I would call "evidence", you have simply slammed it, wanting the documents to be real, ignoring any expert as "a right wing hack" (on EVERY news source? EVERY ONE?) and calling me essentially a brainless moron. No problem, scream away, the louder you shout, eventually I am sure I will start bleating along with you and follow you. Otherwise, allow me to express my opinion, no matter how unpopular in this forum, since I thought I had done so kindly, with back up documents and links to numerous news sources.

Seriously, I don't like "in fighting" here, I think we are all here for the same reason, right?

~Almost

[Occulus]

98. And HOW independent is Ms. Lines?

The WISH List 22-3145929 Sandra Ramsey Lines Paradise Valley AZ 85253 Self Forensic Document Examiner

OUR MISSION

The WISH List raises funds
to identify, train and elect
pro-choice Republican women
at all levels of government -- local, state and national.

OUR VISION

for the 21st Century
Our vision is to create a
powerful force of Political Partners whose financial support ensures the continuous election of pro-choice Republican women to positions at all levels of government across America.

http://www.thewishlist.org /

thx to LynnTheDem for this little gem of a find.

[ET Awful]

105. The Selectric Composer COULD do both left and right quotation marks

as indicated on page 19 of the manual http://www.ibmcomposer.org/docs/Selectric%20Composer%20Operations%20Manual.pdf

It also used proportional spacing.
It also used special characters (such as the superscripted th, along with symbols like the copyright, trademark, degree, and other symbols.

It's all in the manual for the unit, and, as LynnTheDem pointed out the Air Force did have such typewriters.

Also, other documents from Bush's own production of records have shown the superscripted th.

[Catfight]

50. Bush offering excuses but never taking "OWNERSHIP" of his

actions and inactions! Good for Tom Harkin!

[Turley]

58. What I thought was funny

The memos come out but BushCo doesn't question their autehnticity, i.e. Bush himself probably thought they might be legit!! He better than anyone knows how much he loafed.

[freedom_to_read]

69. talk about running interference

Look, maybe, MAYBE these are forgeries. but this piece of so-called "news" looks much more like aggregious shilling for Bush.

let's take a closer look, shall we?

"Some Question Authenticity of Papers on Bush"

this is one of those classic "experts suggests kerry will cause world to end" type of article. they don't come out and make a claim, just raise the possibility, and do so with slanted, insinuating language.

"Documents ... include several features suggesting that they were generated by a computer or word processor rather than a Vietnam War-era typewriter, experts said yesterday."

what experts? who? name someone, quote someone...

"Experts consulted by a range of news organizations pointed typographical and formatting questions about four documents as they considered the possibility that they were forged."

yes they considered it and... again, what experts? quote someone?

"the widow of the National Guard officer whose signature is on the bottom of the documents also disputed their authenticity."

Quote? what exactly did she say when she "disputed" this?

"The dispute over the documents' authenticity came as Democrats stepped up their criticism of Bush's service with the National Guard between 1968 and 1974 ..."

oh, I see so this has nothing to do with the FACTS, it's all just a democratic ploy...

"CBS reporters had verified the documents by talking to unidentified individuals who saw them ..."

I see, so your I should believe your unnamed "experts," but not those shady "unnamed individuals who saw them..."

This is utter rot masquerading as journalism.

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[HoosierModerate]

82. You wanted names, quotes, facts and figures - here you go.

From ABC News:

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.

From CBS News (Yes the ones that published the story):

Independent document examiner Sandra Ramsey Lines said the memos looked like they had been produced on a computer using Microsoft Word software. Lines, a document expert and fellow of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, pointed to a superscript — a smaller, raised "th" in "111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron" — as evidence indicating forgery.

Microsoft Word automatically inserts superscripts in the same style as the two on the memos obtained by CBS, she said.

"I'm virtually certain these were computer generated," Lines said after reviewing copies of the documents at her office in Paradise Valley, Ariz. She produced a nearly identical document using her computer's Microsoft Word software.

From CNSnews:

Three independent typography experts told CNSNews.com they were suspicious of the documents from 1972 and 1973 because they were typed using a proportional font, not common at that time, and they used a superscript font feature found in today's Microsoft Word program.

"It was highly out of the ordinary for an organization, even the Air Force, to have proportional-spaced fonts for someone to work with," said Allan Haley, director of words and letters at Agfa Monotype in Wilmington, Mass. "I'm suspect in that I did work for the U.S. Army as late as the late 1980s and early 1990s and the Army was still using Courier."

The typography experts couldn't pinpoint the exact font used in the documents. They also couldn't definitively conclude that the documents were either forged using a current computer program or were the work of a high-end typewriter or word processor in the early 1970s.

But the use of the superscript "th" in one document - "111th F.I.S" - gave each expert pause. They said that is an automatic feature found in current versions of Microsoft Word, and it's not something that was even possible more than 30 years ago.

"That would not be possible on a typewriter or even a word processor at that time," said John Collins, vice president and chief technology officer at Bitstream Inc., the parent of MyFonts.com.

"It is a very surprising thing to see a letter with that date on it," and featuring such typography, Collins added. "There's no question that that is surprising. Does that force you to conclude that it's a fake? No. But it certainly raises the eyebrows."

Fred Showker, who teaches typography and introduction to digital graphics at James Madison University in Harrisonburg, Va., questioned the documents' letterhead.

"Let's assume for a minute that it's authentic," Showker said. "But would they not have used some form of letterhead? Or has this letterhead been intentionally cut off? Notice how close to the top of the page it is."

He also pointed to the signature of Killian, the purported author of the May 4, 1972, memo ordering Bush, who was at the time a first lieutenant in the Texas Air National Guard, to obtain a physical exam.

"Do you think he would have stopped that 'K' nice and cleanly, right there before it ran into the typewriter 'Jerry," Showker asked. "You can't stop a ballpoint pen with a nice square ending like that ... The end of that 'K' should be round ... it looks like you took a pair of snips and cut it off so you could see the 'Jerry.'"

The experts also raised questions about the military's typewriter technology three decades ago. Collins said word processors that could produce proportional-sized fonts cost upwards of $20,000 at the time.

"I'm not real sure that you would have that kind of sophistication in the office of a flight inspector in the United States government," Showker said.

"The only thing it could be, possibly, is an IBM golf ball typewriter, which came out around the early to middle 1970s," Haley said. "Those did have proportional fonts on them. But they weren't widely used."

But Haley added that the use of the superscript "th" cast doubt on the use of any typewriter.

"There weren't any typewriters that did that," Haley said. "That looks like it might be a function of something like Microsoft Word, which does that automatically."

And More:

Former military officers and others with knowledge of military correspondence contacted CNSNews.com Thursday to present their own critique. Among the problems they cited:

* The documents are not on a standard letterhead. Instead, they feature a typewritten and centered address with a post office box rather than an actual street address of the squadron. The address is P.O. Box 34567, which coincidentally includes five consecutive numbers.

* Dates in the letters - "04 May 1972" and "14 May, 1972" - are inconsistent and do not follow military form. The military prefers the following example, according to ex-officers: 4 May 72. It doesn't include a zero preceding the date or a comma following the month.

* The lines "MEMORANDUM FOR:" and "SUBJECT:" that begin the May 4, 1972, document, weren't officially used in the 1970s. According to one retired military officer, the correct format then was most likely "REPLY TO ATTN OF:" then "SUBJECT:" and finally "TO:" preceding the text of the message.

* Bush's name was listed in the memo as "1st Lt. George W. Bush." But other military documents, including those posted on Sen. John Kerry's website use a different format. Bush's name would have likely appeared as "1LT Bush, GW" or "1LT G Bush."

* There shouldn't be disparities in the May 4, 1972, letter such as, "111 F.I.S." and "111th F.I.S.," according to ex-military officers. Also, the acronym "F.I.S.," which stands for Fighter Intercept Squadron, shouldn't have included periods.

* The signature block with Killian's name lists his rank as "Lt. Colonel," when in reality most military commanders abbreviated that title as "LTC" or "Lt. Col.," according to retired officers. The signature block also includes the word "Commander" when "Commanding" was the preferred reference.

There you go - names, quotes, everything you need. Pretty good journalism if you ask me. Much better that CBS practiced.

They are fake. Don't support them any longer. You are hurting your cause.

[OKNancy]

99. I don't see a link

in your post. Where on ABC, where on CBS?
Nevermind CNS, they are unreliable.

[Joe Momma]

71. if CBS had original docs...

couldn't they simply test the ink and/or primer on the documents? There has to be a chemical difference between inks used in 70's era typewriters and modern printers.

[lynne]

94. The original doc's would tell the tale as they feel different on the back.

A typewritten document has a "bumpy" feel to the back because the paper was physically struck by the ball or key. A document printed on laser or inkjet is smooth on the back as it has not been struck.

I've done a lot of typing over the past 35 years. I began on the old version with the arms that struck the paper . I progressed to the IBM Selectric about 1972/73.

The superscript "th" is the one factor I cannot get past. Not only is the "th" higher on the page in the documents, the font is smaller in size than the rest of the letters on the page. On a selectric, you could not change the font type or size unless you stopped typing, removed the ball, inserted another ball with a different font and then continued.

For an IBM Selectric to have possibly done that, it would have had to have a specific "th" key and the "th" would have been on the ball element. There was no such key. Nor was there a key of "nd" for 2nd or a "st" for 1st or "rd" for 3rd. One would think that if there had been a specific selectric key to denote a superscript "th" they would have included superscript keys for all other numerical denotations.

I'm just a lurker around here but I do know a good bit about the 1970's era Selectrics. The superscript "th" makes me think that the documents are fake.

[HoosierModerate]

77. People Believe What They Want To Believe

Newbie here. A midwestern moderate who stopped by to see what the folks at DU were saying about these documents.

Let me preference my remarks by saying that I am leaning to W., but I am still giving Kerry a chance, listening to his plans and am looking forward to the debates.

But I am really disappointed in this issue relating to the NG documents. I'm sorry, but they're fake. The first one with the superscripted "th" with proportional Times New Roman font dated 1972. I'm sorry, but within the first 5 seconds of looking at that document, I was thinking "this can't be". Open Microsoft Word and type out the exact same words with the defaults. You will end up with a document that looks almost exactly like the memo. That isn't a coincidence. A 1972 typewriter will not produce a memo that looks just like a 2004 word processor. Think, people.

What really bums me out is that this is going to hurt Kerry. And I am 99% sure that he had nothing to do with it. Some moron of the left (I know there are morons on the right also, so don't freak out) pulled this out of his butt in the style of Richard Nixon. And it has a good chance of blowing up in the Democrats face, just like Watergate (I'm not comparing the two as equal).

I also think a lot of the people on this forum are drinking the kool-aid. They are believing anything, and grasping at straws to support their beliefs in what appears to be a avalanche of contradicting evidence.

IMHO, you only hurt your cause with this type of thinking. Look at the issues based on the facts, and try not to let your emotions rule. I think most Americans aren't too impressed with W's National Guard record. It isn't an incredible military career, by any stretch. But when some idiot of the left trots out forged documents to make that case, you have to repudiate it and not support it. Otherwise, your overall cause will suffer.

CBS is going to issue some type of correction, most likely stating that at least some of the memos are forged. Kerry is going to repudiate the documents and ask that the person who supplied them be investigated.

I hope that most of you do to. It is the only way that this issue won't blow up in the Dems face.

[Bridget Burke]

85. Friendly advice to Democrats from a W* supporter?

Thanks a lot. It's comforting that the Republicans are so upset about further proof of their Wartime President's chickenhawk past.

Please let me know how much of 1972 you spent working on an IBM Executive typewriter. Proportional spacing & all. That's how I earned my living.

[HoosierModerate]

90. Republican? Don't think so.

In 1972 was was watching Huckleberry Hound and Fred Flintstone.

I am not a Republican. I voted for Clinton in 96. I have voted for Evan Bayh (my state senator) every election he has run in, including two terms as governor.

So don't go jumping the gun there, pal. You are showing your blatant partisanship

This is what I am talking about. Everyone is so partisan they MUST grasp onto every story that helps their cause, facts be damned. And then attack others who don't believe the story, because of some simple facts.

How does this help your cause of getting Kerry elected?

As I said, open up MS Word. Type out that memo with the default settings. Presto, a near duplicate. Coincidence? Sorry, don't buy it.

Drop the kool-aid. There are tons of issues out there to help your cause. This isn't one of them. The longer you hold onto it as a possibility, the more foolish you will look in the end.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

89. Please deposit your offal on a forum willing to take it.

[Occulus]

108. WOW

"But I am really disappointed in this issue relating to the NG documents. I'm sorry, but they're fake. The first one with the superscripted "th" with proportional Times New Roman font dated 1972. I'm sorry, but within the first 5 seconds of looking at that document, I was thinking "this can't be". Open Microsoft Word and type out the exact same words with the defaults. You will end up with a document that looks almost exactly like the memo. That isn't a coincidence. A 1972 typewriter will not produce a memo that looks just like a 2004 word processor. Think, people."

Actually, we've BEEN thinking about it. The whole point of a word processor on a computer is to produce a professional looking document that can look typed. That doesn't mean that every document that does look typed came from a computer equipped with Word.

Secondly, we've seen people posting here who actually did use these typewriters back then, and are certain they could have come from that typewriter. Then we have this ad, purportedly from 1961:



Look at all those curly quotes and proportional letters! Wow! And you said it wasn't possible in 1972.

Who should I believe- you, or my lying eyes?

"What really bums me out is that this is going to hurt Kerry."

Did these "forged" documents come from the WH? Why would the WH release forged documents that make the Prez look bad? Unless, of course, this is a little game they're playing with the Kerry campaign, the media, the public, etc.

And noooo, I wouldn't put that past the Bush* campaign, either.

"I also think a lot of the people on this forum are drinking the kool-aid. They are believing anything, and grasping at straws to support their beliefs in what appears to be a avalanche of contradicting evidence."

Like repeating what "some people say", perhaps?

All we need to show the documents could be authentic are the actual typewriters themselves or, in lieu of that, people who worked on them. If the typewriters in question could produce these artifacts (curly quotes, superscript, etc), why are "some people" claiming they must be fake?

Seems to me that "some people" have a vested interest in convincing the public that these are fakes when they don't necessarily have to be fakes. This is actually easy to prove; what we need to do is find out where they were typed (in what office, I mean), and find out the typewriter models used in that office at that time. Simple, really.

As to whether the docs themselves are forgeries, well, given a few hours and some motivation, I myself can use the Gimp to insert anything into any scanned document, and use filters to make it look decades old. Run it through a copier a few times, and poof! A custom-made fake. I've done it before, just to see if I could.

Could they be fakes? Maybe. But the preponderance of the evidence points to their authenticity.

[HoosierModerate]

110. See all of the issues raised in Post #82

I concur that proportional spacing existed prior to 1972 on typewriters. That isn't what I am contending. It is numerous inconsistencies. Apostrophes, Fonts, Spacing, Superscripts (that are a different font size by the way - superscripting with normal font size is what typewriters of that day were capable of, from what I gather), the language used, etc., etc. There are just so many reasons why these documents shouldn't be believed at face value.

The answer will be known soon enough. CBS is either going to have to produce the documents with proof of their authenticity (which they haven't done other than to claim "expert" analysis). Date test the paper, date test the ink, etc.

Or they will have to retract. One or the other.

We will all soon know. If CBS runs away from the story, they are fake. It is that simple.

[janx]

119. Curly apostrophes, proportional spacing, superscript, and

various fonts were all available from the typewriters around then.

The fact that it was a typewriter doesn't mean that it was an ancient one--which is the assumption that freepers and other right-wingers glommed onto in their denial of the truth. FAKE! FAKE! FORGERY!

Nah. I've been around enough typewriters over the years and have had enough experience in old-style typography to know otherwise.

Also, every single time a copy is made of a document, the type size gets distorted slightly. You'd have to look carefully at the original to gauge anything like accurate size of the font.

But you're right. We'll see if CBS retracts the story. I very much doubt they will.

[Judi Lynn]

78. So what are we to grasp from the fact his friend verified he had told him

the same things? Is his friend a fraud, as well? From the Washington Post article, and also appearing in other places in the last day or so:

A senior CBS official, who asked not to be named because CBS managers did not want to go beyond their official statement, named one of the network's sources as retired Maj. Gen. Bobby W. Hodges, the immediate superior of the documents' alleged author, Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian. He said a CBS reporter read the documents to Hodges over the phone and Hodges replied that "these are the things that Killian had expressed to me at the time."

"These documents represent what Killian not only was putting in memoranda, but was telling other people," the CBS News official said. "Journalistically, we've gone several extra miles."
(snip)

We just OPT to ignore the fact his immediate superior, Bobby W. Hodges already verified having heard Killian go over these items?

Please!

[shawn703]

79. It doesn't matter anymore if the documents are real or fake

The Republicans succeeded IMHO in getting enough doubt out there that unless Killian rises from the grave and said he wrote the memos, the average Joe won't believe them. I don't think the attention span of the American public is long enough to wait for an explanation on how the typewriters of the day could create the memo.

I think there are two scenarios for what happened:

The Republicans put this stuff out there to inoculate * from any more criticism of his National Guard service, because now the general public will think first that any charges were just made up. I wouldn't put it past Rove to type these up himself for that purpose, although I think CBS would have to be a willing accomplice (how could they possibly have experts certify these things are authentic, if the supposed evidence of forgeries are that evident?)

The other is that the documents are real, Bush and company knew about them LONG before CBS got a hold of them, so they had plenty of time to come up with a defense that generates sympathy and makes him look like a victim.

[freedom_to_read]

81. yep

you're right, whether it's (a) or (b), they -- as the right wing media loves to put it -- "accomplished their goals." *sigh*

[yellowcanine]

100. You are right about that - Note it is not the WH shouting fake - which

they WOULD do if they thought that. And why should they when that worm Fred Barnes will do it for them? Divert. Divert. Divert. Attack. Attack. Attack....

[K. F. Gibbons]

86. This guard thing well have no impact on Bush at all.

The republicans have full control of the American Political Debate.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

91. Whatever you say.

[malachi]

88. Some Question Authenticity of WaPo

[funnymanpants]

92. Who would create such crude forgeries?

If the documents are forged, it does present a conudrum: who would fabricate such crude forgeries? If you went to all that work to forge a document, how could you make such stupid mistakes? Why wouldn't you use a typewriter? Almost everyone knows that you can't do superscript with most typewritters.

In addition, the content of the memos seems believable (a Republican acturally verified the content). So why would you do your research on the content and make such a stupid mistake?

This is strange.

[Cravat]

97. More crap.

Buddy of mine just sent me some garbage about the papers coming out of Kerry's camp. If this is true then it is over.

I think it is just a pre-emptive freeper strike to make this stuff stick.

I won't post the link but google up: Bombshell Spectator Post

[noamnety]

103. As a teacher, I love this stuff

I just gave one of my graphics classes this whole mess to sort through as an assignment. This is so exciting, to give them a real world problem that relates to current events!

I am hoping they never look at fonts the same way again.

[janx]

106. Excellent idea! Hint: see which one of them first notices the

underline on the superscript in the original...Common in some Selectric fonts back in the seventies.

[noamnety]

121. oooh thanks

good tip there. I am loving this, the kids all think I'm crazy for being so excited about ligatures on fonts today.

It's dang hard feeding them enough info to make it a good project, though, without giving them any sources like this or the freepers that could sway their opinion, or letting them know which side I support.

[janx]

127. They'll learn better if they don't have internet boards to sway

their observations. It's great that you found such a good project for your students from all of this.

[OKNancy]

115. Dan Rather states unequivocally that the documents

are true and authentic. No retraction will be made.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x783464

[barb162]

117. I saw him this morning on the news

and said there will be NO retraction, the facts check out, the experts used verified the papers, etc. And he said the real story is the commander in chief.

[skip fox]

118. Heck, this guy had to have more than 4 memos typed on that machine!!!

There's a ton of paper out there waiting for a reporter to grab. Hundreds of performance reports, reports on every blessed thing. And a ton of carbon copies as well! Probably every guardsman from that period has a copy of something typed on that machine. No???

[glitch]

120. Oh yes - and as I've said before - threads like this are more interesting

- not for the original link, most here know the wapo is compromised, but for the influx of posters attempting to support it.

You guys have got to try and be more subtle. Unless you're trying to bore us into apathy. In which case, keep it up, it could work.

:evilgrin:

[bobbyboucher]

122. Everyone, to their ignore buttons, this is one of those threads

that exposes idiot interlopers by the dozen. Put them where they belong.

[oldcoot]

123. Why not look at the paper?

Instead of the typing, why not look at the paper? Old paper has a very distinct look to it. Perhaps an examination of the paper will revel the truth.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

129. After Rather and CBS News got finished tonight, I'd say quite a few....

...folks are fighting for space under their favorite rocks this evening.

That includes quite a few posters on DU (including Freepers posing as DUers) that went out of their way to be as divisive and ugly about this issue as possible.

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

133. I don't think the one on the WaPo site is authentic, no....

...from what I know of Air Force correspondence there are some things in the documents that don't look legit to me.

Which makes me wonder who forged them and why. I don't think CBS did..they wouldn't be so stupid.