Bush Service Memos Questioned

Twirlip of the Mists writes "Last night, CBS News released a set of memos dated 1972 and 1973 that are purported to raise questions about President Bush's National Guard service. Some are saying those memos might have been produced with a computer. Blogger Scott Johnson ran with the story first this morning, raising questions about the typography of the memos. Blogger Charles Johnson (no relation) went one step further, actually reproducing one of the memos in its entirety using Microsoft Word's default settings. Matt Drudge is running the story now with a link to a CNS News article that includes quotes from typography experts at font foundries Afga Monotype and Bitstream. There's a round-up of key facts about the story on this blogger's web site." The experts in the CNS News story and others could come to no conclusion, and even if the documents are not originals or photocopies of originals, that doesn't necessarily mean that they aren't faithfully retyped copies of originals. CBS continues to assert the documents are authentic.

Comments

Try this

[captnitro]

While I agree with the assertion that these could be retyped, CBS is claiming that's not what has happened, that these are originals.

I've made a superimposed image of Word vs. the documents. They have been lined up according to the period after the '1' in the first paragraph. The 'originals' are in red, the Word version in blue.

Re:Try this

[crmartin]

Wow. That's pretty close.

Re:Try this

[egoff]

The superscript in 187th settles it - that would be a clear difference in the way type writers and word processors handle this.

Re:Try this

[captnitro]

I hate replying to my own post, but I should note that the difference in the 187'th' has to do with the difference between screen fonts and printer fonts; in the printed version they are aligned perfectly. This was first pointed out by Little Green Footballs.

Re:Try this

[The Importance of]

I suspect the difference in the superscript has to do with print font vs. screen font. On my screen the "th" does not rise above the tops of the other letters, but when I print it, the top of the "th" is higher than the other letters.

Re:Try this

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Note that the superscript "th", which seems to be causing the most tinfoil-hat theorizing among the folks who think modern typography was invented by Bill Gates, doesn't line up at all between the memo and the Word version. Give it up, folks.

Re:Try this

[Twirlip of the Mists]

So wait a minute. You're suggesting that despite the fact that this memo allegedly written in 1972/73 includes proportional letterspacing (very rare at the time), a font that didn't exist at that time and kerning which was mechanically impossible for a typewriter or desktop typesetting system of that era, it's not forged because the superscript in the screen-shot is two points off of the superscript in the PDF?

Ain't just a river in Egypt, y'all.

Re:Try this

[Daniel Dvorkin]

I'm saying that the whipped-it-out-in-Word theory doesn't hold up. Doesn't mean it's not a forgery (though I have yet to see any credible evidence that it was) just that it's not this particular kind of forgery.

Your comments about what was and was not possible for typewriters of the time have already been refuted by many other posters, so I won't bother adding to it. I will, however, point out that your belief that TNR is a product of the Eighties is so ignorant as to make you not worth taking seriously on this topic.

Re:Try this

[Twirlip of the Mists]

I'm saying that the whipped-it-out-in-Word theory doesn't hold up.

A printed copy of the memo whipped out in Word matches the PDF supplied by CBS News perfectly, once you do things like straighten it to compensate for the distressed look of the CBS News PDFs.

It doesn't just hold up, Daniel. It's a fucking out-of-the-park home run.

Your comments about what was and was not possible for typewriters of the time have already been refuted by many other posters

Simply untrue. Be honest. Did you click ONE LINK in the story? Did you read any of the THOUSANDS OF WORDS that have been written about 1970s and 1980s desktop typesetting technology in the past nine hours? Do you know THE FIRST THING about this story? Or are you just coming in here and spewing "WE HATES BUSHIE SO MUCH" all over everybody?

I will, however, point out that your belief that TNR is a product of the Eighties

TNR? The New Republic? OH! Times New Roman.

Okay, smart guy. You tell me when Microsoft Times New Roman was created.

Re:Try this

[Bombcar]

What idiocy. Anyone knows this is slashdot - we should forge things with OpenOffice.org! Damn Microsoft users.

[/sarcasm]

Re:Try this

[yoder]

Even if they are a forgery, which it seems at this time, this is still a good thing because it brings the discussion out again. The bulk of the evidence so far indicates that he was AWOL, but much of that information has not made it to the network news yet. I hope the networks will give this issue the time and merit it deserves.

For those of us who actually did serve, it would be a great disservice if this gets swept under the rug again.

Re:Try this

[bonkedproducer]

Having plenty of documentation available from my own military records - allow me to point out that the standard appearance of "TH" is not superscript even in today's word processor age, but capitals - if this were "real" it should have been typed "187TH" something I used to hate dealing with before I learned my way around Word's autocorrect features.

And another thing while I'm on it, gettting out some of the older paperwork while previewing my post - I notice that rarely is "TH" added, I do see it in a few memoranda I have still, but it is always capitalized, or assumed.

For instance I served in the 35th Maintenance Squadron, 35th Logistics Group, 35th Fighter Wing, MIsawa, Airbase, Japan - almost every document from there is formally typed:

35 MXS, 35 LG, 35 FW, MISAWA, AB, JAPAN.

Looks fishy as hell to me considering it's a lot easier to tack on "th" in a Word Processor compared to an old gov't issue Typewriter.

Re:Try this

[_xeno_]

I was curious about this, so I decided to check it out for myself. I retyped the memo into my copy of Word 2003, and printed out a copy.

I then scanned it back in and wound up with a document that looked surprisingly similar to the "original document." Specically, look at the "187th." It's practically identical.

Oh, and for added fun, try this animation I created showing a copy in Word fading in with the PDF. Note that the PDF is ever so slightly tilted, so things don't line up quite correctly after the first line. But the animation makes it very clear that the two are very similar.

Anyway, to sum up:

• Original document (mirrored on my site)
• Scanned copy I made - this is not an original, it is a copy I typed in Word, printed, and scanned back in to a PDF

Very supicious.

Re:Try this

[bonkedproducer]

Ok, he was AWOL - never served a day supposedly from many of the proponents of the AWOL theory... explain to me why he was fully qualified and allowed to fly solo missions in one of the most expensive jet fighters of it's age?

I am prior AF, I know the amount of training that pilots are required to undergo - if he never did his duty, how did he become qualified to fly the aircraft?

Re:Try this

[spitzak]

My quick opinion is that if this test is real then these certainly are forgeries, produced just as he said.

Though proportional-spaced typewriters existed then and were quite common (despite claims to the contrary by some people here), they were still mechanical devices. There were only 4 (perhaps 5) letter widths possible, and the numbers (the "en-space") were 3 units (this is for the IBM Selectric I am familiar with). This produces obvious alignement vertically between far more letters than the Word output, as there is a 1/3 chance of a letter aligning with one below it. TrueType fonts have 1000 or more possible widths (I may be thinking of PostScript Type 1 fonts).

It is extremely unlikely that a TrueType font matches the widths used by the Selectric for every letter, too.

Since the documents were covered with dirt and distortions, that would indicate an attempt to make a forgery. No excuse about somebody retyping is going to fly.

PS: I'm going to vote for Kerry anyway. Still somebody is being made a fool here. CBS is really going to lose if these are fake, even retracting their claim is not going to help. The Dems can get out of this easily by saying somebody tried to discredit them with fake documents.

Re:Try this

[cpeterso]

When I create a facsimile of a document, it looks nearly like the original document! Amazing!

Re:Try this

[Quarters]

Cold press printing introduced the concept of a measurement system specific to the world of type (points, picas, ciceros, etc...), along with standard nomenclature for various adjustable aspects of type (e.g. leading and kerning)

When typewriters were invented they kept this system to ensure compatibility with what came before. The increase in machine composed documentation via typewriters meant that a refinement for asthetics and readibility were created, such as default margin sizes. When word processors were invented they continued with the now ubiquitous measurement system and pleasing layout defaults.

All you've really proven is that Word is faithful to the established system. Anything more is just pure conjecture.

Re:Try this

[Quarters]

Are you actually claiming that Times didn't exist in 1972? Do you understand where Times came from? It was the font that the New York Times commissioned to make their paper stand out.

There's this element called "lead", see, and people used to carve backwards letters out of it, arrange them in words and rows and then smear ink on them and smash them on paper. Artisans created unique and interesting font designs to make specific applications of the technology pleasing to the eye, easy to read, and unique.

Times has existed for much longer than 30-40 years. Most of the common fonts you see in use now were created a long time ago and then adapted to new printing systems as technology improved.

Re:Try this

[_xeno_]

Actually... It does hold up.

I posted this somewhere else, but just compare the original (note: mirrored on my site) with a scanned copy I made. The copy is simply a retyped version of the memo that I printed to a laser printer and then scanned using a sheet-feeding scanner - similar to a fax machine.

They look like they're identical, including the 187th part. The only thing my copy's missing is the dust and dirt on the paper.

Re:Try this

[Twirlip of the Mists]

It was the font that the New York Times commissioned to make their paper stand out.

Times of London. Nice try, tho. The New York Times doesn't even use Times. They use Imperial for their body type and a custom-designed Cheltenham for headlines and decks.

And no, if you'd been paying attention you'd know that I'm saying that these memos were typeset in not just any Times but in Microsoft Times New Roman. Positively identified by a forensic documents expert around 3:00 EDT today and subsequently confirmed by ...hell, anybody with a copy of Word.

Re:Try this

[Zeinfeld]

So wait a minute. You're suggesting that despite the fact that this memo allegedly written in 1972/73 includes proportional letterspacing (very rare at the time), a font that didn't exist at that time and kerning which was mechanically impossible for a typewriter or desktop typesetting system of that era, it's not forged because the superscript in the screen-shot is two points off of the superscript in the PDF?

I see no evidence of Kerning. The spacing looks to me like it is typewritten, not computer typeset.

Having a key for superscript th was certainly not uncommon, having a proportional printing typewriter was not uncommon either, the IBM Executive model had proportional fonts in 1941.

A Lt Colonel is a pretty high rank, they get to have a few office toys. I would not expect a fancy typewriter in the typing pool, but in a senior officer's private office, hell yes. Also I would expect the notes to be either dictated or for the officer to tell the clerk roughly what he wanted and leave the clerk to do all the tedious looking up order numbers etc then hand him a stack of stuff to sign all at once. The signature looks exactly like what you get when you do that.

It will be pretty easy to check this, the Bushies can just release the microfiche and all questions would be answered. Instead they resist release of the microfiche which can only be because there is something damaging there.

It is an established fact that Bush did not show up for his medical, nobody disputes this. If a pilot fails to take their medical it is a big big deal, the senior officer could well be expected to explain why he allowed an expensively trained officer to walk away. Ordering Bush to take the medical is exactly what you would expect his commanding officer to do.

Re:Try this

[Biscayne]

The Army, Esp. the Army National Guard, gives piece of crap equipment to everybody today, I'm sure things were no different then, The Army hasn't gotten more cheap when it comes to office supplies. BTW, that's a really crappy scan that CBS did. I couldn't get the writing to scan that bad unless it was marked in pen in all the places that look like dust marks. It just looks like it tries too hard to be authentic.

Re:Try this

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Having a key for superscript th was certainly not uncommon

It was EXTREMELY uncommon. The superscript "th" type ball was only available from IBM by a custom order. It was machined to order and sold for an outlandish price.

And the typewriter it fit into could not do proportional letterspacing.

having a proportional printing typewriter was not uncommon either

It was very uncommon; you mean to say that it was not unheard-of. But the typewriters that could do proportional letterspacing did not have removable type balls and therefore could neither have typed the superscript "th" character nor have produced a memo in Times New Roman.

Setting aside the fact that no typewriter on Earth could have produced a memo written in Microsoft Times New Roman.

I would not expect a fancy typewriter in the typing pool, but in a senior officer's private office, hell yes.

A $20,000 desktop typesetter like the IBM Composer? Not a chance. Aside from the fact that these devices required special training, they took much longer to use because everything had to be typed twice. They were used for camera-ready copy for reproduction, not for memos.

The signature looks exactly like what you get when you do that.

Except it doesn't look like any of the other memos that we have that were signed by Lt. Col. Killian in 1972 or 1973.

It is an established fact that Bush did not show up for his medical, nobody disputes this.

That's not the point of these memos. The point is the memo titled "CYA," the one that purports to provide evidence for Ben Barnes' as-yet-unsupported story of influence peddling in the TANG.

Ordering Bush to take the medical is exactly what you would expect his commanding officer to do.

Yes, you would order a junior officer to attend to his medical, but you would do it with an order, you know, a letter, not with an interoffice memo. And you would do it in the month that the junior officer's medical was scheduled (his birth month, in other words), not two months earlier.

Re:Try this

[Tailhook]

Give it up, folks.

Not so fast. Print the th from Word and you see the th raised PRECISELY as seen in the CBS memos.

Game over.

Re:Try this

[Bombcar]

Oh, sheesh. I can't believe you don't understand that Pappy Bush scared that little plane so much that it was afraid to even think of crashing. That's how powerful those Bushies are.

[/sarcasm]

Re:Try this

[Quarters]

The names of the common TrueType fonts are nothing more than copyright CYA. A font developer can copyright the name of a font and their specific curves definition that describe it. Anyone else can clean-room a new knock-off (e.g. print all the letters out, scan them back in, and the create their own curves & hints) and call it something else. Arial = Heletica Times NR = Times Courier New = Courier

Re:Try this

[scowling]

Proportional letterspacing was not very rare, Times Roman *did* exist at the time, and that kind of kerning is *not* impossible -- in my professional opinion as a typesetter, the kerning on the document exhibits attributes that one would expect from a proportional typewriter and not from Word.

And I've read that the IBM Executive was quite common in military office usage.

Re:Try this

[Twirlip of the Mists]

These were, at one time, $5,500, as I remember.

I'm sure they were, at one time. But not in 1972.

And I did see people typing business letters with them.

No, you didn't. An IBM Composer had no memory in it, which means the entire document had to be typed twice: First the machine calculated letter spacing, then the operation set a manual spacing wheel and re-typed the line to actually put words on the page. The machine required special training and took forever to generate even a single page of type. It was only used for camera-ready copy for reproduction.

Re:Try this

[yoder]

I am prior AF as well and I also understand what training is required (I was airborne, but not a pilot). I didn't say he never served a day. I do believe he skipped out of his service though, and I believe that if it is proven that he avoided service he should be made an example of (because he is the President and lied).

I also believe this is not even the worst thing he has done. The Bush/Cheney Crime Family has a laundry list of illegal activities, corrupt dealings, and just fucking stupid mistakes that go back further than just 2000.

Re:Try this

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Proportional letterspacing was not very rare

The "nuh-uh" argument? Typewriters that could do proportional letterspacing were very rare in 1972. The ones that were available were not equipped with Microsoft Times New Roman, a font that did not exist at that time.

Times Roman *did* exist at the time

Microsoft Times New Roman did not.

and that kind of kerning is *not* impossible

It is completely impossible for a mechanical typewriter. Why? Because kerning involves applying variable letterspacing (sometimes negative) depending on what letter you just typed. If you type a T, the o following it has to be offset to the left. No mechanical typewriter ever constructed has ever done that.

in my professional opinion as a typesetter, the kerning on the document exhibits attributes that one would expect from a proportional typewriter and not from Word.

Well, your professional opinion isn't worth much. Set the type in Word using the default settings. Compare and contrast. The letter spacing is identical. Not close, not similar. Identical, point for point.

And I've read that the IBM Executive was quite common in military office usage.

It was indeed. But it didn't produce output in the same font as that used in these memos, Microsoft Times New Roman, and it couldn't produce the miniature superscript "th" seen in these memos. So these memos were not typed on an IBM Executive.

Re:Try this

[crmartin]

Remember that the PDF'ed original is actually a multiply-copied photocopy ... and maybe faxed at least once as well. You'd expect some fuzziness and some optical nonlinearities.

I ain't sayin' it's certain, but I sure wouldn't take the little bit of noise as good evidence against.

Re:Try this

[crmartin]

Times New Roman is an Adobe font that was made to look as much like Times as possible without violating intellectual property laws.

Re:Try this

[crmartin]

Well, we're getting into the battle of the experts, but Dr Phillip Bouffard, who is a certified forensic expert in typography, disagrees with you:

* 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.

Read the whole thing, of course.

Re:Try this

[crmartin]

I was trying to be a little understated.

Re:Try this

[scowling]

It's not MS Times New Roman. The letterforms are subtly different.

As for the rest of your post, you're an idiot. I don't know what it is that you're seeing in those documents, but it certainly is not the kind of variable letterspacing you see in computer typesetting or word processing.

The letter spacing is *not* identical point for point. There are obvious differences. THEY DON'T MATCH UP.

And you are incorrect about the "special order" IBM Executive ball, too.

Basically, you're repeating the same pulled-out-of-their-asses bullshit that's been posted to right-wing masturboard after masturboard.

Re:Try this

[crmartin]

Sorry, I had that backwards. Adobe licenses Times Roman from Linotype, Microsoft licenses Times New Roman from Monotype.

Re:Try this

[scowling]

[It was EXTREMELY uncommon.]

Really? It was used in this Bush record: http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc10.gif

You talk out of your ass.

Re:Try this

[_xeno_]

Simple: One's drawn using Microsoft's ClearType technology, the other was printed using a PostScript printer and then scanned back in to a PDF.

Nothing's been adjusted - WYSIWYG doesn't quite live up to that promise. :)

You should be able to get the same results by loading that RTF into any copy of Word with ClearType enabled. (Although I just tested, and it didn't happen on this machine. *sigh*)

Re:Try this

[N3WBI3]

Umm why Clinton had a draft notice in his hand and dodged it. In 1992 the left cried it was never an issue.

The funny part in all of this is Bush has said thats Kerry's service is more heroic than his own was. He is not running on his war record from 30+ years ago, Kerry is..

Re:Try this

[mc6809e]

I see no evidence of Kerning. The spacing looks to me like it is typewritten, not computer typeset.

Take a close look at the 'f' and 'e' characters in the words "interference" and "feedback" in the 18 August 1973 memo.

They sure look like examples of kerning.

Same thing with the 'f' and 'i' in "officer" appearing in the 01 Auguest 1972 memo.

Re:Try this

[mc6809e]

Proportional letterspacing was not very rare, Times Roman *did* exist at the time, and that kind of kerning is *not* impossible -- in my professional opinion as a typesetter, the kerning on the document exhibits attributes that one would expect from a proportional typewriter and not from Word.

Look at the "fe" sequence of characters in the 18 August 1973 memo in the words "interference" and "feedback".

Sure looks like kerning to me.

Same with the "ff" and "fi" pairs of letters in "officer" in the 04 May 1972 memo.

Re:Try this

[salesgeek]

While I agree with the assertion that these could be retyped

They could also be fake. These documents are not reliable. The real scandal here is the reporter that accepted without question. Additionally, In my military career, not once did I see a plain white sheet of paper used in any official capacity.

Re:Try this

[salesgeek]

Note that the superscript "th", which seems to be causing the most tinfoil-hat theorizing among the folks who think modern typography was invented by Bill Gates, doesn't line up at all between the memo and the Word version. Give it up, folks.

This document was clearly NOT created in the early 70's. Once again, a political shill has been ratted out. Here's a way to NOT help your candidate: forge a document and claim it's authentic. Now it's the republican shills turn to do something stupid.

Re:Try this

[fowlerserpent]

It isn't identical. The original memo is not in Times New Roman. The 187th part isn't identical. Notice that that the 7 in the original descends below the baseline. Anyway, if you look close at other letters, you'll notice they aren't the same letterforms. Could be some other common typeface. Just saying, its not default Word.

Re:Try this

[Cyberdyne]

yeh, its a good thing that other records fro shrub dont contain the exact same font, with the mysterious superscript th

Except that isn't the same font. The spacing is completely different (monospaced rather than proportional), the 4 is also a different type ("open" in your link, "closed" in the CBS scan).

you're a fucking liar.

Perhaps you should have compared the two fonts properly before making that claim.

Re:Try this

[joss]

Some of the documents released by the white house also have TH superscripted. Are those fakes too ?

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/10/politics/campa ig n/10guard.html

I'm impressed by how the right wing is so efficient in calling into question embarrassing memos. Often when the dust has settled, the documents turn out to be genuine, but by that time the story has settled and everyone has forgotten about it. The vast majority of Bush supporters will claim that the memos were fake, and will forget, never hear, or simply disbelieve that if the claims of forgery are discredited.

The exact same thing happened when a memo was leaked about the US dirty tricks campaign at UN in run up to Iraq invasion. The memo was dismissed as a fake in US media, and the story was mostly forgotten. The woman who leaked the memo was later prosecuted http://observer.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239, 910648,00.html

Re:Try this

[bhima]

Your talking to Little Green Footballs!?

Re:Try this

[hey!]

Maybe. But if the document was produced by a typist (executives and I suppose senior officers didn't type their own stuff back then), probably she would have done the superscript, even changing type balls. Typists were paid to produce very correct documents.

I think the overlapping thing is a much more interesting issue, although it is not out of the question that a proportional typewriter with a Times font ball would produce this.

Re:Try this

[yoder]

"Umm why Clinton had a draft notice in his hand and dodged it. In 1992 the left cried it was never an issue."
Of course it was an issue. The wingnuts made sure of that. Now Jr. going AWOL is an issue.
And of course Jr. isn't going to personally besmirch Kerry's record. That is what his 527s are for. Same with Kerry's 527s. Now these "Gentlemen" don't even have to get their hands dirty. They can let others throw the mud and they just stand back and see what sticks.

Re:Try this

[jabster42]

The bulk of the evidence so far indicates that he was AWOL

ok. obvious answer: if there's all this "evidence" lying around, why does CBS have to resort to blatant forgeries?

I hope the networks will give this issue the time and merit it deserves.

So why doesn't CBS bring the Swift Boat Vets and put them on the air? Or why has no one from that group been on the Today show?

-john

Re:Try this

[bonkedproducer]

Look here and tell me that the document wasn't typed in Word.

Oh, and the guy who claims to have found this stuff, well, he has very little credibility so before you go bashing everyone - even a lot of people who want the memos to be real are saying it looks and smells fishy.

Re:Try this

[bonkedproducer]

We've had several experts in this thread explain that the ball needed for the superscripted th did not exist, or if it did it would not produce the image so clearly - the superscripted th also goes against USAF regulations on proper typing procedure.

The officer in question would likely have not had a secretary - higher ranks that Lt. Col. tend to be the ones who get those - and this is a "Memo to File" yet has nto a single peice of proper formatting (Where is the Unit Designation, the signature block, and why isn't it listed as "MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD" something I can find about 10 examples of here in my records, I've never seen a "Memo To File."

Now you would think that if a secretary typed this, who was willing to go to the trouble of changing out the ball of the typerwriter to add that superscripted th - she would have been enough of a stickler to follow official USAF Regulation on formatting and addressing the memo.

Re:Try this

[N3WBI3]

So the lefties who are now flipping out about bush are also being two faced and political in their attacks.. thanks for clearing that up... Thank goodness Im voting 3rd party..

Re:Try this

[Zeinfeld]

Take a close look at the 'f' and 'e' characters in the words "interference" and "feedback" in the 18 August 1973 memo

That is not kerning, that is simply the spacing of the f character being set narrower than the actual width.

Take a look at the other f's, they all have the same characteristic, if you have several fs in a row the tops run together.

This is faux kerning, the width of the character is not variable. The glyph overhangs the space for the next line so that there is not an odd space.

Re:Try this

[yoder]

This is what I think of the SBVs
http://www.yoder.ru/2004/08/swift-boat-vets- who-ma ke-shit-up.html

Re:Try this

[(trb001)]

With regards to your PS, I don't think these documents *should* effect who you vote for. Moreover, the question should one of journalistic integrity, and why in the hell did CBS publish (show) this story without checking it? I know, I know, they claim they did, but if a couple of bloggers can spot inconsistencies within a day, none of the "experts" CBS used could within 6 weeks? Very fishy...

--trb

Re:Try this

[hey!]

Wouldn't need a secretary, just access to the typing pool. Back in the pre computer days, you wouldn't believe how reluctant people were to use a keyboard. It was a huge indicator of low status.

WRT to the "th", after looking at the document, I think that's the weakest argument. For one thing the th is not properly aligned as a word processor would do. This could be an artifact of photocopying, but its a bit of a stretch. If you could show that photocopying could take a straight text line and bump successive characters up and down (as opposed to skewing them), then it would be stronger.

The biggest issue in my opinion is whether a Times clone existed on a typewriter back in the day with proportional spacing. I know for a fact that monospaced clones existed and where exact duplicates of Times other than things like the width of "m" and "i".

WRT to the experts, I'm taking a wait and see attitude. If the FBI forensics testified to this, I'd lend it more credence, but I'm always a bit skeptical when "forensic consultants" come out of the Internet woodwork on events like this.

In the end, we don't need to have the memos to determine that Bush's ANG career was less than stellar. My own feeling on this is that young Bush probably didn't fulfill his obligation -- he certainly didn't take his flight physical, and probably didn't report to a guard unit when he went to B-school like he was supposed to. Sure, the war was winding down, and they had plenty of pilots, but that's no excuse. Would the Republican cut Kerry this much slack if his record was like this? If he were so blase, wouldn't they be infuriated?

Let me make this clear: I don't hold this youthful negligence against the president, who is older and more sober, but I don't like the fact that he won't own up that it wasn't the right thing to do. If he said something like this, "Yeah, the war was winding down, they didn't really need me, so I got off breaking some rules. It wasn't the right decision, and I regret it now," my respect for the man would grow enormously. I wish he'd say, "I didn't want to go, I managed to get out of combat duty. Because of my family I got preferential treatment -- I wasn't the one pulling the strings, but I realize now that somebody born into a regular family wouldn't have got the same treatment I did, and I know know that's wrong. I sometimes think of the guy who maybe had to go in my place, and I'm grateful to him." If he had that kind of courage and insight then I'd become a positive admirer. It would show that his political position was the product of mature thought, not moral blindness.

My problem is with a system in which there are different rules for people depending on who their parents are. I don't hold it against the young people who benefit -- they aren't the ones making and bending the rules. But I do hold it against the older people who perpetuate this. When somebody graduates from being a beneficiary of privilege to being the establishment, and they don't acknowledge that they were a beneficiary, then they become part of the problem. How can you believe in somebody who preaches personal responsibility and meritocracy on a field that's slanted towards them and their family and where the referees are corrupt?

Re:Try this

[Lars T.]

And who says these documents aren't released by the White House also? Karl Rove does still work there, doesn't he? A man who is prime suspect in bugging his own office to win an election for his boss.

Re:Try this

[joss]

OK, I tried it myself. They do look suspiciously similar. However, the versions I tried [2000 and 97, I don't have 2003] and both versions that appear on that website are subtly different, especially wrt to the layout of "187th". Unfortunately I dont have word 2003. If word 2003 lays the 187th out in that way, I will be convinced that this is a forgery [and an amazingly stupid one at that].

Re:Try this

[cmpalmer]

My really old typewriter (don't know the brand or anything, it was thrown out long ago), had a subscripted 'th' key that was probably consistent with the 'th' on the monospaced, courier looking typed documents.

Personally, I think the tinfoil hat conspiracists in the this thread are the ones trying to defend the authenticity of the memos. Occam's Razor would seem to indicate forgery:

There is the slight possibility that: someone at the TexANG had a high end typewriter that provided both proportional spacing, superscripted 'th', kerning, and uneven interparagraph spacing. The one person who had this rare (and possibly impossible) machine happened to be the one who typed these 3 or 4 memos over a few month (year?) period. They don't match military style guidelines. No one can produce a matched document using early 1970's technology. No one has produced authentic non-controversial documents from the same offices in the same style and matching typography.

vs.

If you fire up Microsoft Word and type the document with default settings and print it out, it matches about 99%. Combine with faxes, repeated photocopying, and a bit of smudging and the differences amount to noise (and insanely bitter and partisan bickering on Slashdot).

Gee, which one is more likely?

Re:Try this

[eallison]

apparently, the 'th' moves up on a printed copy, vs. the display on the screen. Saw this on a blog somewhere - not sure where anymore.

Re:Try this

[bonkedproducer]

Are your forgetting the Air Force regulations state that when referring to a unit the "TH" is either assumed or CAPITALIZED (IE 35TH FIGHTER WING)?

Re:Try this

[spitzak]

As I pointed out in another letter, the "test image" certainly does not line up. The starts of words do, but the ends do not. Words get larger while the spaces between them get smaller. I can think of no plausable way a fax could distort the message in such a way.

Reasons for the lineup? It is possible that the person making the lineup microspaced it on purpose to line it up. If so, shame on you, you have completely botched up any argument by making your own forgery.

Another possibility is that Microsoft Word is moving words to match the on-screen pixel positions, and that the original document is Word output, like claimed. It is possible that both were composed with the same font but printed with different printers, one of them PostScript with it's own, slightly different, internal font. It seems likely it is the LGF document, as it seems the spacing is much more irregular there.

I have seen and even typed on a proportionally-spaced typewriter of that era. Now I was 10 at the time and only saw it once or twice, and also saw plenty of fixed-pitch IBM Selectrics so I may be confused. But I don't believe this is output from such a typewriter now. Most of the other arguments are legitimate: the "th", though it could be a letter on the typeball, looks too much like a scaled-down one, back then it would be hand-drawn and probably squashed horizontally. Also the typewriters had only a limited number of widths (I think numbers were 3 units) and this meant matching horizontal positions between lines were much more common than is visible here. The fonts also looked much more like typewriters, often only half the capital letters and a few lower-case ones were modified. I also believe the lower-case L and the upper-case O had to be the same width as numbers so they could be used as 1 and 0, all numbers must have the same width or it is impossible to line up columns. This is quite evidently not true for the lower-case L in the documents.

Re:Try this

[Skjellifetti]

Though proportional-spaced typewriters existed then and were quite common (despite claims to the contrary by some people here), they were still mechanical devices. There were only 4 (perhaps 5) letter widths possible, and the numbers (the "en-space") were 3 units (this is for the IBM Selectric I am familiar with). This produces obvious alignement vertically between far more letters than the Word output, as there is a 1/3 chance of a letter aligning with one below it. TrueType fonts have 1000 or more possible widths (I may be thinking of PostScript Type 1 fonts).

Many folks in this discussion have tried reproducing the memos with MS Word and, given the similarities, cried foul. But that is a meaningless experimiment. Nobody seems to have tried the simplest experiment: Can the memos be accurately reproduced with the proportional-spaced typewriters available at the time? I'll withhold judgement until I see that experiment run.

Re:Try this

[john82]

Two things that bother me about this theory. Both related to the fact that we're talking about an ANG unit.

1) I'd be suprised if an ANG unit would even HAVE an IBM Selectric in 1973. That would have been a state-of-the-art typewriter for an outfit that would not be accustomed to frontline equipment. This is National Guard, its not a unit at Maxwell AFB. It's much more likely that they would have used a non-ball typewriter. Hell, it might not have been electric.

2) This is a purported personal memo from the unit CO (commanding officer) to the file drawer. If, and I think that's a big if in itself, the CO did not type this kind of memo himself it would have been an enlisted troop. Might have been as high as an Airman First Class (A1C). Not exactly what one would consider a conscientuous executive-level typist. Again, this is the National Guard.

Re:Try this

[Rei]

Yes. They've conclusively proven that Times New Roman is close to Times New Roman, when you manipulate it. Give them a cookie.

Re:Try this

[Rei]

Except for the fact that the records of Bush that he released himself contain it as well.

Re:Try this

[Rei]

Gee, why would the 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron want a th character?

The "match" is laughable. Apart from the fact that they manipulated the sizes to make the margins match up, they shrunk it down to a couple pixels. If I were to shrink George Bush's head and a Chimpanzee's head down to 10 pixels, they'd probably look pretty similar, too. At that size, you lose all of the interesting things, such as the fact that the characters don't line up perfectly with each other in the original (aka, typewriter) as they do in the Word version.

Not to mention the fact that they used a Word font that was specifically designed to mimic one of the most common old variable-spacing typewriter fonts.

Re:Try this

[Rei]

If course it existed, and on several typewriters. For example, the IBM Selectric Composer (which also did variable spaced Times New Roman). Quit BSing.

Re:Try this

[cmpalmer]

I will accept that the documents are genuine if someone can produce a document on a circa-1972 typewriter that matches nearly as well as the out of the printer Word doc.

Anyone?

Re:Try this

[Rei]

Really? Oh, please, cite then if it is true. If you can't find a cite, please admit as much.

Re:Try this

[Rei]

Why did you scan at such lower res? Lexographical comparison needs to be done at *high* res. A sketch of Bush's face and a photo of Bush's face will look identical at 10 pixels :P The only thing that has really been shown so far is that the font is Times New Roman (which Microsoft reproduced from old typewriters). Well, duh.

Re:Try this

[EnderWiggnz]

story
In a statement, CBS News said it stands by its story.

"This report was not based solely on recovered documents, but rather on a preponderance of evidence, including documents that were provided by unimpeachable sources, interviews with former Texas National Guard officials and individuals who worked closely back in the early 1970s with Colonel Jerry Killian and were well acquainted with his procedures, his character and his thinking," the statement read.

"In addition, the documents are backed up not only by independent handwriting and forensic document experts but by sources familiar with their content," the statement continued. "Contrary to some rumors, no internal investigation is underway at CBS News nor is one planned."
-----------

so... what were you saying? what fucking level of evidence would you accept?

Re:Try this

[Zeinfeld]

Look at the "fe" sequence of characters in the 18 August 1973 memo in the words "interference" and "feedback". Sure looks like kerning to me.

True kerning is when the space after a later varies depending on the following letter. The font in the document has faux kerning, the space after f is actualy less than the width of the f but it is the same in every case. This is exactly what typewriters did for proportional spacing.

It is also exactly what Word does by default. Kerning is not turned on in Word except as an option. The word document that is alleged to match does not have kerning turned on. If you do turn on kerning the letters shift much closer together and no longer bear any resemblance to the original.

A much better test of whether the document is laser or typewritten is the evenness of the lines. The lower case m is noticably higher than the e, the 8 is off the baseline as well. Also the width of the numerals is identical which matched IBM practice for typewriters, in Word the numerals are proportionaly spaced.

Bottom line is that this document was produced on an upmarket typewriter of exactly the type you would expect a senior US Air Force officer to by for his personal office.

Re:Try this

[cmpalmer]

Well, obviously there is no reason to get furious over it. I don't know for sure, I was just expressing my opinion. I still think that it is suspicious that a first-cut attempt at duplicating the document in Word produces such a close attempt.

I do accept that Word was designed to mimic typewriting and hot-metal type. I do also know that there are hundreds, if not thousands, of different results you can get from different office equipment. I also find it an interesting coincidence that the equipment these letters were purportedly typed on was one that matched Word so closely.

I understand and have read CBS's response and I understand that their entire story was not based on these documents, but it is strongly supported by them. When you are looking at the original documents, it is trivial to decide if they were produced on a typewriter and fairly trivial to accurately determine their age. If CBS wants to CYA (joke intended), they could:

(a) Present the originals for analysis
(b) Provide contemporary documents from the same offices and personnel for comparison
(c) Find someone who can produce similar (or exact) documents from vintage hardware

Neither of these are very hard to do if everything is on the up-and-up.

Finally, I'm not into left wing or right wing conspiracy theories and I'm also not a right-wing ditto-head. I do not vote along party lines. I voted for Clinton in his first term, Libertarian on his second term (out of protest), for Bush over Gore (even though I originally voted for Clinton *because* of Gore), and I will vote for Bush this time. Not because I think he is that great, but as a lesser of two evils. Neither Kerry, or the rest of the inner-circle of the Democratic Party, has said anything believable about how they will do what they say they will do if elected. Sure, I like what they say some of the time, but I don't believe it. Despite the popularity polls around the world, I think the election of Kerry will be seen by other nations (and yes, by Islamic terrorists) as a sign of capitulation and weakness.

Re:Try this

[Zeinfeld]

The officer in question would likely have not had a secretary - higher ranks that Lt. Col. tend to be the ones who get those - and this is a "Memo to File" yet has nto a single peice of proper formatting (Where is the Unit Designation, the signature block, and why isn't it listed as "MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD" something I can find about 10 examples of here in my records, I've never seen a "Memo To File."

A Lt. Col. is only one step below a Colonel who is the commander of an entire regiment. Besides Killian took over from the previous commander who had been a full colonel when he retired.

A base commander gets whatever they want for their private office. They certainly get a private secretary. In those days secretaries were much more common than they are today, even mid level managers in industry had secretaries. A Lt. Col. is a very senior officer, only two steps below general. At that time they even got their own personal servants.

Re:Try this

[Miguelito]

someone at the TexANG had a high end typewriter ...

Not to mention that the someone in this case, just happens to be dead. So, of course, you can't just ask the someone in question if these are really his documents or not.

Re:Try this

[Rei]

It would have been 6 years old by that point. Are you saying that a base commander, two ranks below general, wouldn't have a six year old typewriter and a secretary? Seriously? In the late 60s, a Selectric cost a few hundred dollars. I'd imagine probably $200 or so by the time of the memos - new. Adjusting for inflation, that's under 1,000$, the cost of a cheap desktop PC.

Furthermore, yearly budgets are cut if you have money left over at the end of the year; this usually spurs end-of-year spending on office equipment so that their budgets don't get cut.

Re:Try this

[_xeno_]

It's a document-scanner. I think its highest resolution is something like 600DPI, and my scan was at 300DPI. The idea was originally to scan in a bunch of old technical documents that were lieing around, not document comparison. I just kinda... borrowed it for this experiment.

Secondly, the original document it was being compared with was scanned at a lower resolution, so the higher resolution wouldn't really offer anything.

The original idea was to test the assertion that "187th" printed from a Word document would look the same as "187th" in the original document. The fact that it does and that it so closely matches the rest of the document is suspicious, to say the least.

I'm also glad no one caught my goof yet: the original says "sugarcoat it. Bush wasn't". I accidently transcribed that to "sugarcoat it: Bush wasn't." Whoops.

Re:Try this

[Rei]

Where on earth did you get a cost figure of 20k$ for a Selectric? Perhaps in the late 60s, scaled then for inflation.

Gee, now, why would the 111th want a th ball? How silly of a concept.

But the typewriters that could do proportional letterspacing did not have removable type balls and therefore could neither have typed the superscript "th" character nor have produced a memo in Times New Roman

False and false. The Selectric Composer and Selectric Executive both could.

Aside from the fact that these devices required special training, they took much longer to use because everything had to be typed twice.

Where did you get that? You type it once, and then you tell the typewriter to print it (sort of like a word processor), at least judging from a cursory read of the manual.

Except it doesn't look like any of the other memos that we have that were signed by Lt. Col. Killian in 1972 or 1973.

I'll disagree, and more importantly, the handwriting experts hired by CBS disagree.

The point is the memo titled "CYA," the one that purports to provide evidence for Ben Barnes' as-yet-unsupported story of influence peddling in the TANG.

This memo isn't related to Barnes. Barnes's statements are old news; he testified as much in a deposition a decade ago, and it wasn't contested then.

Re:Try this

[Rei]

And note also how the th is sometimes used, and not others - just like the freepers say "doesn't happen".

This "forged documents" story is such BS, it's not even funny. Essentially everything they've used to try and back up their points is wrong. About the only thing that's been shown is that Times New Roman fonts still look like Times New Roman fonts at low resolution. Well, yeay!

Re:Try this

[Rei]

At that resolution, I could make a sketch of Bush look like a black and white photo of Bush. How on earth at a resolution like that can yon claim "so closely matches"? The only thing that it shows is that the spacing and general shape of the fonts is the same. In short, they're both Times New Roman. In fact, several things clearly *don't* match even in that resolution, as the Word version has lighter serifs and the spacing of letters is more consistant.

Do you know where Microsoft's Times New Roman came from? It was copied from typewriter fonts, licensed from Monotype. They were locked in a fierce battle with both Adobe and Apple, and Times was the standard; all sides worked to get it pixel-by-pixel correct, because it was how their fonts were judged.

Re:Try this

[iocat]

But you can ask his wife and kid if they seem characteristic of him. And here's what they had to say.

But hey, how about this novel idea. We give Bush and Kerry a pass on Viet Nam and any post Viet Nam shenanigans, and we base the campaign on, say, everything they've done since 1980? Or even 1990? Or 2000? I'd even settle on since 9/11? Anything?

I'm starting to think that basing our election on some war that happened 30 years ago is just yet another manifestation of fucking baby boomers making everything about them.

Re:Try this

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Where on earth did you get a cost figure of 20k$ for a Selectric?

The IBM Selectric was a different machine. The IBM Selectric Composer was a cold-type typesetting machine that sold new from IBM for about $20,000.

Gee, now, why would the 111th want a th ball? How silly of a concept.

For starters, because they weren't the "111th." They were the "111TH." Air Force style calls for the unit designation to be in all caps in all official documents and correspondence. The 111th would never need to refer to itself except in all caps.

False and false. The Selectric Composer and Selectric Executive both could.

Okay, you're diverging wildly from the truth here.

1. The Selectric Composer was not a typewriter; it was a typesetter. It did proportional letterspacing but it did not have a Times New Roman type ball. The closest it has was Press Roman, a distinctly different face.

2. There was never any such thing as a "Selectric Executive." You're talking about the IBM Executive, maybe? It did proportional spacing but did not have interchangeable type balls. The output of an IBM Executive more closely resembled Century than it did Times. The two could not be confused. Also, the Executive could not type a superscript "th."

Where did you get that? You type it once, and then you tell the typewriter to print it (sort of like a word processor), at least judging from a cursory read of the manual.

Try a more-than-cursory read. The Selectric Composer was an entirely mechanical device with no electronics in it at all. It had no memory. To set a line of type, you typed the line with the ball disengaged and read the spacing numbers off of the colored indicator. Then you returned the carrier head to the beginning of the line and manually set the spacing wheel, then you retyped the line. Very time-consuming, and it required special training to use.

I'll disagree, and more importantly, the handwriting experts hired by CBS disagree.

CBS has yet to produce any evidence supporting their assertion that either a handwriting expert or a document analyst looked at these memos. Other experts have gone on the record as saying that these documents are most likely forgeries. See today's article in the Post or the one in the Sun Times.

This memo isn't related to Barnes. Barnes's statements are old news; he testified as much in a deposition a decade ago, and it wasn't contested then.

Barnes said that the Bush family or a friend of the Bush family (his story changed halfway through) used influence to get special treatment for George W. Bush. There was no evidence of this allegation, and it was debunked by everybody from the New York Times to the AP to the Houston Chronicle to the Los Angeles Times. His statement was hardly "not contested."

These memos serve two purposes, politically speaking. One of the indicates that 1LT George W. Bush was ordered to undergo a flight exam two months early, an allegation that is not supported anywhere else and that, now, is not believed. The other purpose is to back up Barnes' story of improper influence. But, again, that story is now not believed because the only documentary evidence to support it is a forgery.

Re:Try this

[Rei]

I'll ask again: Where on earth did you get the figure of 20,000$?

They were the "111TH." Air Force style calls for the unit designation to be in all caps in all official documents and correspondence.
That's why in Bush's other national guard records, they used "th", right? Yeah, sure. BTW, care to back that up with a cite?

1. The Selectric Composer was not a typewriter; it was a typesetter. It did proportional letterspacing but it did not have a Times New Roman type ball. The closest it has was Press Roman, a distinctly different face.

The Selectric Composer could handle any font ball that IBM produced. One such font is Aldine Roman, which has the same spacing as Times New Roman, but has denser serifs. It is available in 8, 10, and 12 point sizes, and superscript is 8.

2. There was never any such thing as a "Selectric Executive." You're talking about the IBM Executive, maybe? It did proportional spacing but did not have interchangeable type balls. The output of an IBM Executive more closely resembled Century than it did Times. The two could not be confused. Also, the Executive could not type a superscript "th."

My apologies - you are correct, the IBM Executive. However, the IBM Executive has been produced in various configurations since 1940, of which different fonts were used. Care to back up your claim that they never used such a font and couldn't do superscript? I can't find a font reference for them which explicitly states what fonts they were limited to. Here's an example of one IBM executive's output.

Try a more-than-cursory read. The Selectric Composer was an entirely mechanical device with no electronics in it at all. It had no memory.

It has memory (8k - purely mechanical, of course. It uses set pins on a pinwheel), but yes, you did have to type twice.

his story changed halfway through

Cite or withdraw. He never changed his story.

There was no evidence of this allegation

Apart from the fact that he gave it as sworn testomony in court proceedings at a time Bush wasn't running for president...

it was debunked by everbody

Cites?

His statement was hardly "not contested".

Are you under the mistaken impression that this was the first time Barnes made this claim?

Once again, I'm wondering how you worked Barnes into these memos that are completely unrelated to him.

Re:Try this

[Rei]

Oh, and just to sum up:

"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.""

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5955784/

Seing as the person who was the recipient says that he was told things like this by the person who reportedly wrote this memo, what more do you really need?

Re:Try this

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Cite? Cite? Cite?

Bored now. Moving on. Check out my story in the Post if you want your head to spin some more.

Re:Try this

[Rei]

Cute - when pressed for cites, you don't provide them. I've been providing cites for my points. I'll state once again: Your price is completely wrong, the national guard *did* use superscript (and did in the case of Bush), Selectrics and executives were both likely able to create this notice as-is, the font *was* available, etc.

And, as I pointed out in a subsequent note, the commanding officer of the Lt. Colonel who wrote this stated that the man expressed such sentiments to him.

What more do you want?

Re:Try this

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Seing as the person who was the recipient says that he was told things like this by the person who reportedly wrote this memo, what more do you really need?

We need to know why these memos are forgeries.

We'd also like to know why MG Hodges stopped answering his phone. He hasn't picked up all day.

Re:Try this

[cft_128]

I will accept that the documents are genuine if someone can produce a document on a circa-1972 typewriter that matches nearly as well as the out of the printer Word doc.

How about a 1960's IBM Composer typewriter? An IBM Selectric Composer is the most likely candidate. It has the Times New Roman font with proportional spacing and superscript th's. Read this for more info.

Re:Try this

[crmartin]

At this point, CNN is reporting that the documents are very likely forged, including the opinion of a guy who is specifically an expert on IBM Composers.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/10/bush.gua rd.ap/index.html

Dr Phil Bouffard, one of the top experts in the field, is nearly conclusively certain that they're forged.

http://www.indcjournal.com/archives/000851.php

MSNBC is reporting experts in several areas who say they're forged.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5963843/

The Washington Post has a number of experts who strongly believe the documents were forged.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A996 7-2004Sep9.html

And you've got Kos.

Read the stories. Think for yourself.

And for crying out loud learn to post a link. There's even a little crib in the edit window on Slashdot, for God's sake.

Re:Try this

[crmartin]

Just by the way this guy is offering $10,500 ($10,000 plus some additional contributions) for anyone who can duplicate the memo on a typewriter. he also reproduces page 56 of the Composer manual, which makes it clear that the Composer had to have superscripts inserted manually and could not directly do small superscripted ligatures.

So, lefty, this is your chance. Ten grand. You and Kos can split it.

Re:Try this

[boisepunk]

by independent handwriting and forensic document experts

Very good, except the said document is TYPED and not HANDWRITTEN.

Re:Try this

[nursedave]

Funny - everyone else associated with him says he didn't feel this way, and I figure the personnel officer that knew him for 17 years, his son, and his wife just might, possibly, know more about it than you.

Re:Try this

[ewe2]

Wonderfully clever solution. Now tell me: which version of Microsoft Word was Lt. Col. Killian using before he died in 1984? You think maybe his signature was forged too? This has gotten beyond absurdity.

Re:Try this

[KilobyteKnight]

Re:Try this (Score:1)
by Rei (128717) Alter Relationship on Friday September 10, @13:31 (#10214923)
(http://www.cursor.org/)
Yes. They've conclusively proven that Times New Roman is close to Times New Roman, when you manipulate it. Give them a cookie.

Everytime I read a particularly glaring example of blindly ignoring the facts I would see "Rei" as the author. So for fun I clicked on www.cursor.org and saw exactly what I expected. A tin-foil hat far left liberal conspiracy theory site. Give it up Rei, you've lost this one. You'll get better traction out of something no so obviously false.

Re:Try this

[cmpalmer]

I guess your question got answered. The level of evidence I would accept is CBS admitting that they were duped by obvious forgeries, which they now have.

Also, I had asked that someone provide other contemporary Killian memos for comparison, and The Washington Post did just that. Nowhere close.

Re-reading this /. thread has been very illuminating. There would seem to be a lot of crow on the menu for quite a few posters.

Burkett seems to be a member of the tin-foil hat crowd, as well. Hardly a trusted source unless you really, really want to believe what he says.

CBS must obtain and release originals

[jgardn]

CBS's reputation is at stake. They must obtain and release the originals. That is the only way to satisfy the critics. As it stands now, it is blatantly obvious that CBS hasn't been checking their sources and as such, they can't be trusted to break stories.

Re:CBS must obtain and release originals

[commodoresloat]

What are you talking about? I watched 60 Minutes last night, and CBS did consult documents experts. Just because there are other experts who disagree does not mean CBS did not do their job. They may have been hoaxed here, but it is unclear by whom -- even the white house is not questioning the authenticity of these documents which suggests they are consistent with what the white house knows about Bush's (lack of) service at the time.

What's interesting to me is that these documents have already undergone more scrutiny than the Niger documents that came out almost 2 years ago.

Re:CBS must obtain and release originals

[Twirlip of the Mists]

CBS did consult documents experts

CBS News claims that they consulted one document expert, who remains unidentified. While Dr. Philip Bouffard, widely recognized expert in the field of forensic document identification, is quoted on INDC Journal as saying that he's "90% sure" these documents are forgeries.

Your main point is correct: If these documents are outside forgeries, then CBS News deserves merely to be tortured for their negligence, not burned at the stake.

But the possibility exists that these forgeries were manufactured by CBS News. And that possibility is way too scary to dismiss out of hand.

Re:CBS must obtain and release originals

[TykeClone]

If someone at CBS had done it, they would have done a better job.

Are you sure about that? Look at the NY Times and that Blair(?) guy - he was making stuff up and they didn't catch it for quite some time.

Re:CBS must obtain and release originals

[Zeinfeld]

No, the Whitehouse must allow the release of the microfiche and stop attempting to block the Reuters and AP FOIA requests.

When Bush lost his flying status there would be a mandatory investigation. These memos look to me to be written for the sole purpose of Killian covering his ass with respect to the investigation so that he can show that he made a good faith effort to force Bush to comply.

Bush's personel record must have a copy of the investigation report. That is what the Whitehouse has resisted release of.

Why argue over possible forgeries when the Whitehouse has it in its power to settle this with the one set of documents that is beyond dispute?

Re:CBS must obtain and release originals

[joss]

> Your main point is correct: If these documents are outside forgeries, then CBS News deserves merely to be tortured for their negligence, not burned at the stake.

And what should be done to the Bush administration for taking us to war partly based on the forged Niger documents ?

Re:CBS must obtain and release originals

[Twirlip of the Mists]

And what should be done to the Bush administration for taking us to war partly based on the forged Niger documents ?

Where've you been? The Niger documents were not forged. To the contrary, it was Joe Wilson who played fast and loose with the truth in his article for the Times, "What I Didn't Find in Africa."

Niger document: not forged. Joe Wilson: liar. You: Woefully out of touch with the news. Kay?

But why from the WHouse?

[Sebastopol]

If these are forged, why did the White House release them?

At first I thought it was idiot Democrats trying to smear, now maybe it is idiot Republicans trying to make Democrats look bad.

I can't wait to see if anyone can demonstrate what military typewriters in 1972 were capable of proportional fonts!!!

Re:But why from the WHouse?

[jgardn]

The White House only released the documents that they had. Those documents were obtained from CBS.

Re:But why from the WHouse?

[crmartin]

A-HA! The WH released memos that CBS News faxed them. The WH never had originals at all.

Kevin Drum (blogging from the Left) looked into this.

Re:But why from the WHouse?

[TTop]

Via Atrios The IBM Electric typewriters were a series of electric typewriters that IBM manufactured, starting in the late 1940s. They used the conventional moving carriage and hammer mechanism. Each model came in both Standard and Executive versions; the Executive differed in having a multiple escapement mechanism and four widths for letters, producing a near typeset quality result. [emphasis mine]

Re:But why from the WHouse?

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Not "IBM Electric." "IBM Executive." The IBM Executive and the IBM Composer were the only typewriters that could produce variable-pitch type in 1973. But neither of them could produce superscript "th" in smaller type. They lacked that character.

And neither of them had the Times New Roman font that these memos were typeset in. That font didn't exist in 1973. It also didn't exist in 1984, when the man who allegedly wrote and signed these memos died.

Re:But why from the WHouse?

[Detritus]

My mother used to use one of those models of IBM typewriter at her job. There is no way in hell that you would find one at a typical office, let alone a military installation. It still wouldn't look anything like the images of the memos that have been posted to the web.

Back then, most people in the military were still using grungy old manual typewriters. The military is not noted for being on the cutting edge of office equipment.

Re:But why from the WHouse?

[bandy]

But neither of them could produce superscript "th" in smaller type. They lacked that character.

Got a photo of the keyboard handy? I haven't been able to google up anything better than small bad scans of old adverts.

Re:But why from the WHouse?

[Second_Infinity]

That font didn't exist in 1973. It also didn't exist in 1984, when the man who allegedly wrote and signed these memos died.

Bingo.

Typeface is essential when investigating the authenticity of an old document. Heck, experts can track down which specific typewriter was used in old documents, given enough time - as each typewriter was unique. Now this was not done with a typewriter, but with something electrical - so typeface is especially relevant.

Re:But why from the WHouse?

[Daniel Dvorkin]

You might find this interesting. Or not, if you're determined to believe the memos are forgeries.

During the decades of transatlantic "sharing" of the Times designs, and the transfer of the faces from metal to photo to digital, various differences developed between the versions marketed by Linotype and Monotype. Especially these became evident when Adobe released the PostScript version, for various reasons having to do with how Adobe produced the original PostScript implementations of Times. The width metrics were different, as well as various proportions and details.

In the late 1980's, Monotype redrew its Times New Roman to make it fit exactly the proportions and metrics of the Adobe-Linotype version of Times Roman. Monotype claimed that its new version was better than the Adobe-Linotype version, because of smoother curves, better detailing, and generally greater sensitivity to the original designs done for The Times and Monotype by Victor Lardent, who worked under the direction of Stanley Morison. During the same period, Adobe upgraded its version of Times, using digital masters from Linotype, which of course claimed that it had a superior version, so there was a kind of competition to see who had the most refined, sensitive, original, genuine, bona-fide, artistically and typographically correct version. Many, perhaps most, users didn't notice and didn't care about these subtle distinctions, many of which were invisible at 10 pt at 300 dpi (which is an em of 42 pixels, a stem of three pixels, a serif of 1 pixel, and so on).

Bush is a deserter. Kerry is a war hero. If you can't deal with that, maybe you should look at your basic assumptions.

Re:But why from the WHouse?

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Oh yeah ...

The Times New Roman appeared for the first time on october 3rd 1932 ...

Re:But why from the WHouse?

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Sigh. You're not paying attention. There are lots of implementations, if you prefer that word, of Times New Roman out there. Microsoft's is the one that was used in these memos, as identified positively this morning by forensic expert Dr. Philip Bouffard.

When was Microsoft Times New Roman invented, smarty-pants?

If you want to chastise me for not being sufficiently specific, mea culpa.

Re:But why from the WHouse?

[deanj]

Interesting, but not particularly important to what we're talking about here.

The documents that were distributed were done on IBM typewriters.... typewriters that didn't have the superscript "th". The IBM typewriters then also didn't have proportional fonts.

These are forgeries, but given the tone of your message, you seem to be determined to believe these memos are real.

Sorry, but they're not.

Re:But why from the WHouse?

[mebob]

well from what I've seen I would say it's forged.
BUT I think your wrong on the typeface.
From what understand it was used in 1932 by The Times of London newspaper. I'm not sure if the typeface is exactly the but it has definatly been around some time before 1973 and 1984.

more info:
Typeface notes:
In 1931, The Times of London commissioned the Monotype Corporation, under the direction of Stanley Morison, to design a newspaper typeface. According to Morison: "The Times, as a newspaper in a class by itself, needed not a general trade type, however good, but a face whose strength of line, firmness of contour, and economy of space fulfilled the specific editorial needs of The Times." Times New Roman, drawn by Victor Lardent and initially released in 1932, is the result. The Linotype version is called Times Roman. Research into legibility and readability led to a design that was unique in newspaper typography; it is based on old style (or Garalde) types, and has greater contrast and is more condensed than previous newspaper types. Times New Roman continues to be very popular, particularly for newspapers, magazines, and corporate communications such as proposals and annual reports.

Designers:
Stanley Morison
Starling Burgess
Victor Lardent
Times New Roman is a trademark of The Monotype Corporation registered in the US Patent and Trademark Office and may be

Re:But why from the WHouse?

[Twirlip of the Mists]

From what understand it was used in 1932 by The Times of London newspaper.

I'm reasonably sure I'm right that Microsoft Times New Roman wasn't around in 1932. ;-) Nor was it around in 1984, the last year that these documents could possibly have been produced.

Re:But why from the WHouse?

[bonkedproducer]

Yes, otherwise he would not have been allowed to fly solo missions in one of the most expensive aircraft of it's time.

You see, flying a supersonic fighter aircraft, and being able to accurately drop ordinace from said aircraft, and be capable of low level flight required to be considered fully qualified on it takes a bit more training time that learning how to do combat patrol on a glorified bass boat.

Re:But why from the WHouse?

[Ivan Raikov]

The PDP-1 actually used a modified IBM keyboard, so I'm guessing their key layout is similar to that of the IBM Executive or Selectric.

Got a photo of the keyboard handy? I haven't been able to google up anything better than small bad scans of old adverts.

Re:But why from the WHouse?

[Zeinfeld]

The documents that were distributed were done on IBM typewriters.... typewriters that didn't have the superscript "th". The IBM typewriters then also didn't have proportional fonts.

The IBM Executive had proportional fonts in 1942, it was the workhorse typewriter for much of business for that exact reason. A Lt Colonel is exactly the type of person who would want correspondence to be written in an impressive typeface. The clerk would use the same machine to write all memos regardless of importance.

There were many variations of the typefaces. A business would be very likely to want special characters such as $ and yen, pounds etc. A law firm would have different requirements and so on.

Since these were mechanical machines it was quite easy to change individual striking levers to add special characters of the customers choice. Eva Braun used an earlier IBM typewriter with a special symbol for the SS with the lightning bolt glyphs.

Superscript th was not an unusual requirement. Even if the machine started as stock it was the type of upgrade that happened regularly in the field. The striking pins have to be accessible because every so often a machine will jam.

The arguments about Word documents mean absolutely nothing. The alignment of the two documents does not look all that good to me, the resolution of the images is way less than the difference I would expect.

When self proclaimed 'experts' start making categorical claims such as proportional spacing typewriters did not exist at the time and those claims are proved false it is time to discount their expertise.

Re:But why from the WHouse?

[Zeinfeld]

Sigh. You're not paying attention. There are lots of implementations, if you prefer that word, of Times New Roman out there. Microsoft's is the one that was used in these memos, as identified positively this morning by forensic expert Dr. Philip Bouffard.

I can only find one other case in which Dr Philip Bouffard has provided advice concerning a typewriter font on the net. It involves wierd UFO shit and Bouffard appears to be supporting the claims made by the UFO believers.

Bouffard is mentioned in a number of places in connection with a classification scheme for 4,500 typewriter typefaces. This is not actually a very large number and the system does not appear to be widely used or for that matter used outside Australia. The databases used by the FBI and most international law enforcement agencies list over 80,000 typewriter faces.

The biggest reason to doubt the bouffard claims is that the gif image that has been posted is of such a miserable resolution that it is impossible to see what is going on at all. If the claims had any weight then a better image would be provided.

I do not even agree that the font is definitely Times Roman and it is certainly impossible to make any statement about Kerning given the original resolution on the CBS site. The WH copies are even worse having been faxed in between.

Re:But why from the WHouse?

[Zeinfeld]

My mother used to use one of those models of IBM typewriter at her job. There is no way in hell that you would find one at a typical office, let alone a military installation. It still wouldn't look anything like the images of the memos that have been posted to the web.

Back then, most people in the military were still using grungy old manual typewriters. The military is not noted for being on the cutting edge of office equipment.

OK your mum HAD one of the machines, therefore a clerk working for a Lt Colonel in the US military could not? Prey where is the logic there?

Senior officers in the US military have always been notorious for obtaining toys for their office. Having correspondence look presentable was considered exceptionally important in those days. Something like an IBM Executive is exactly what you would expect a lt Colonel's admin to be using.

Re:But why from the WHouse?

[Twirlip of the Mists]

I can only find one other case in which Dr Philip Bouffard has provided advice concerning a typewriter font on the net.

The significant contributions of Dr. Philip D. Bouffard to the examination and classification of typewriting, Mary W. Kelly, 2004 Meeting of the American Society of Questioned Document Examiners.

He's the recognized authority. Look harder.

The biggest reason to doubt the bouffard claims is that the gif image that has been posted is of such a miserable resolution that it is impossible to see what is going on at all.

What? GIF image? What the hell are you talking about? The documents CBS released are PDFs containing 108-dpi (appx) scans of the memos.

I do not even agree that the font is definitely Times Roman

Well, since you're not a recognized expert in the field of the forensic analysis of typewriting, you'll excuse me if I can't be bothered to give a shit.

Ignore all the evidence you want.

Re:But why from the WHouse?

[SengirV]

Can you imagine what the liberal media machine whould have done had the White House NOT released these documents CBS found/fabricated?

Re:But why from the WHouse?

[aggiefalcon01]

If these are forged, why did the White House release them?

I was under the impression the White House didn't release these documents, the Pentagon / DoD did (allegedly).

If that's the case, then mod the parent of this post down, for not knowing having RTFA.

Re:But why from the WHouse?

[Happy Monkey]

He stopped flying aircraft before his duties were completed, so how is this relevant to whether he completed his duties?

Re:But why from the WHouse?

[deanj]

This is all very interesting, but all completely wrong. Good try though.

See the following:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9 96 7-2004Sep9.html

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Politics/Vote2004 /b ush_documents_040909-1.html

One of the key quotes from the Post article:

" William Flynn, a forensic document specialist with 35 years of experience in police crime labs and private practice, said the CBS documents raise suspicions because of their use of proportional spacing techniques. Documents generated by the kind of typewriters that were widely used in 1972 space letters evenly across the page, so that an "i" uses as much space as an "m." In the CBS documents, by contrast, each letter uses a different amount of space.

"While IBM had introduced an electric typewriter that used proportional spacing by the early 1970s, it was not widely used in government. In addition, Flynn said, the CBS documents appear to use proportional spacing both across and down the page, a relatively recent innovation. Other anomalies in the documents include the use of the superscripted letters "th" in phrases such as 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron, Bush's unit."

One of the key quotes from the ABC News article:

"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."

Re:But why from the WHouse?

[Keebler71]

Reading this, did anyone else have a flashback to the climatic court scene is "My Cousin Vinny"?

Re:But why from the WHouse?

[Zeinfeld]

"While IBM had introduced an electric typewriter that used proportional spacing by the early 1970s, it was not widely used in government. In addition, Flynn said, the CBS documents appear to use proportional spacing both across and down the page, a relatively recent innovation. Other anomalies in the documents include the use of the superscripted letters "th" in phrases such as 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron, Bush's unit."

Read the rest of the posts, it is well established that the IBM Selectric was not capable of proportional fonts in the standard configuration.

The IBM executive was introduced in 1941 according to the IBM web site. This 'expert' is talking through his hat. He is clearly not an expert at all, just some shlub who called up the post and said he was.

This is all very easy to solve, just look at the other correspondence from the Col.

If the memos were untrue the WH would have denied them, 36 hours later they have not. They have attacked them as 'recycled' but they have not repudiated the central claim that Bush refused a direct order to take his medical.

Re:But why from the WHouse?

[Keebler71]

Ding Ding Ding! Congratulations and welcome to the highest level of conspiracy theorists! In breaking out the "must have done it to themselves for reasons to advance some agenda" you have joined the likes of many morons who believe that the US used remote-controlled aircraft and cruise missiles to manufacture 9/11. Not to mention the "UFO-ologists" who believe that some bad UFO hoaxes are part of a government misinformation campaign to discredit the "serious UFO science".

Maybe someone will pity you and toss you a rope so you can climb out of the deductive hole you have gotten yourself into.

Re:But why from the WHouse?

[Keebler71]

Speaking of conspiracy theories... this morning I could have sworn this story was on the front page of Slashdot. When I got into work, it was only under the politics section. I understand that this was a politics.slashdot.org story. I am not too familiar with how /. pushes stories - did this happen because the way I have my preferences setup or was it -no kidding- moved?

Re:But why from the WHouse?

[Keebler71]

Perhaps if it did exist, a clerk might have had one. But these are personal memos, the content of which would surely not been re-typed by a clerk. Having worked as an officer in the admin department of a Naval squadron, I can tell you that yeomen or personnel men get asked to type things all the time... typically awards, letters of commendation and other very official document. Considering the content, there is no way that the LtCol would handwrite (or type) his notes, then pass them on to someone else to re-type.

Re:But why from the WHouse?

[Keebler71]

Senior officers in the US military have always been notorious for obtaining toys for their office.

Again, I have been working around O-5's on a daily basis for 10 years. What are these 'toy's' you are referring to? Are you just making crap up? Whose offices have you seen?

Re:But why from the WHouse?

[deanj]

If the WH had to deny everything anyone threw at them, it would be a 24 hour a day job. You're saying someone is guilty if they don't deny everything someone else says.... that's just silly.

Another thing on this topic: That "Staudt" guy mentioned in that 1973 memo? He retired in 1972.

http://www.latimes.com/la-na-guard15feb15,1,6240 42 2.story

Re:But why from the WHouse?

[Zeinfeld]

If the WH had to deny everything anyone threw at them, it would be a 24 hour a day job. You're saying someone is guilty if they don't deny everything someone else says.... that's just silly.

The Whitehouse has been out there trying to spin the story. Despite being repeatedly prompted to Bartlet, the WH spindoctor refused to provide a straight denial.

Another thing on this topic: That "Staudt" guy mentioned in that 1973 memo? He retired in 1972.

And was still shilling for the Bush familly in Feb this year claiming that there had been no pressure put on him. The fact that he was retired did not mean that he would not still be in contact with his former commanding officer.

The memo states that it is 'obvious' that the pressure on Hodges is comming from Staudt, that might have been mistaken on Killian's part.

Face it guys, when you get down to claiming that the bloody glove don't fit or that the DNA evidence is fake you have already admitted that the crime is very serious.

If you have to call these forgeries then you have to admit that they are very incriminating and demonstrate that Bush told a direct lie. A forger would not create anything less.

So when the typewriter with a proportional font and a th key is found you have to admit that Bush lied about his guard service. A lie, a dirty little lie from a dishonest and dishonorable liar who cannot be trusted to tell the truth on any subject.

Re:But why from the WHouse?

[telstar]

"Reading this, did anyone else have a flashback to the climatic court scene is "My Cousin Vinny"?"

• What is a yute?

Re:But why from the WHouse?

[ksheff]

They don't have to deny anything. Just let the document experts express their doubts.

All this on Bush...

[GypC]

... and nothing on John Kerry's service record or his post-service Vietnam war related activities? Kerry is anything from a hero to a traitor who should have been executed a long time ago, depending on who you believe. Much more interesting stuff.

I think Slashdot's political section is biased.

Re:All this on Bush...

[TykeClone]

Don't forget "admitted war criminal".

All of this stuff has to do with things that happened 30 years ago. We elected (and re-elected!) Clinton who completely dodged the draft - Apparently we were past this 12 years ago.

A much more important comparison between the two candidates is what they have done in the last 3 years, not what they did 30 years ago.

Re:All this on Bush...

[jgardn]

Actually, it shows the difference between Republicans and Democrats. Republicans are more than willing to honor our military and let the small stuff slide. We're even willing to forgive Kerry for lying about his service and for admitting to committed war crimes. It just doesn't bother us because we know the realities of war.

However, the left wants to find any small inconsistency or the smallest lie that Bush told and magnify it. It is important that we have a rock-solid case to defend Bush so that we can keep them focused on the issues, which is where we are focused.

Re:All this on Bush...

[Otter]

A much more important comparison between the two candidates is what they have done in the last 3 years, not what they did 30 years ago.

I entirely agree -- whether it's Kerry's service in Vietnam, Bush's in the National Guard, Clinton's deferment or Dean's 4-F, it's ancient history and it's only baby boomer narcissism that anyone thinks any of this matters.

That said...

Kerry has based his entire campaign on his 4 months in Vietnam. Just last week, he responded to Zell Miller's attack on his Senate votes with "I served in Vietnam! You can't criticize me!" I think it's nuts, but if the Democrats claim that his Vietnam stint qualifies him to be president, then it's certainly inbounds for questioning.

Re:All this on Bush...

[aster_ken]

Could you provide a source for this, please?

Re:All this on Bush...

[TykeClone]

I agree with you there - he's the one that keeps bringing it up!

I'd think that if I'd worked at a job for 20 years, I'd probably have a thing or two to tell a perspective employer other than what I did 30+ years ago.

Re:All this on Bush...

[r7]

>it shows the difference between Republicans and Democrats. Republicans are more than willing to honor our military and let the small stuff slide. We're even willing to forgive Kerry for lying about his service and for admitting to committed war crimes.

Actually I think this better illustrates the differences. Republicans repeat fabrications questioning a Democratic who served in Vietnam and at the same time ignore what everyone knows is Bush's AWOL (an actual crime).

There is perhaps no better illustration of Rep/Dem differences than how lies about AWOL, WMD, the Geneva Convention, ... are ignored whereas an extra martial affair is grounds for Impeachment.

You have to give Republicans credit for being true to their central plans i.e, "might makes right".

r7

Re:All this on Bush...

[Twirlip of the Mists]

How exactly does the B-2 Spirit contribute to winning the war on terror?

We used 'em to bomb terrorist camps in Afghanistan and Iraq. Next time we find a terrorist camp that we can't shut down through diplomacy or economic means, we'll use 'em again.

The range and payload capacity of the B-2, combined with the fact that it can carry satellite-guided JDAM precision munitions, means that we can put ordinance on any given square meter of the planet within a small-but-highly-classified number of hours. Which is an important capability to have.

Iraq such an air defense, but it didn't have the terrorist

Right. You just keep believing that, Sparky.

Mind linking to coverage of the speech where Kerry said, and you quote, "I served in Vietnam! You can't criticize me!"?

I'm not Google. But the phrase you're looking for is, "I will not have my commitment to defend this country questioned by those who refused to serve when they could have." Cincinnati, Ohio, Sept. 8, 2004.

Re:All this on Bush...

[VultureMN]

It is important that we have a rock-solid case to defend Bush so that we can keep them focused on the issues, which is where we are focused.

Huh?

Q. Where are the tons of WMDs about which the administration said "We know they have them and we know where they are" ?
A. Saddam was a bad man!

Q. What about those supposed ties from Iraq to al Queda? Didn't the 9/11 commission find there no real ties?
A. Saddam was a bad man!

Q. Speaking of the 9/11 commission, why did Bush fight its existance for so long?
A. Saddam was a bad man!

Q. Given that Afghanistan was the central point of al Queda, why does this administration focus all attention on Iraq?
A. Saddam was a bad man!

Q. Speaking of al Queda, where the hell is Osama bin Laden?
A. Saddam was a bad man!

Q. Uh. Right. Thanks for your time.
A. Saddam was... Oh. You're very welcome. See, us Republicans come right down to the issues!

Re:All this on Bush...

[autopr0n]

Actually, it shows the difference between Republicans and Democrats. Republicans are more than willing to honor our military and let the small stuff slide. We're even willing to forgive Kerry for lying about his service and for admitting to committed war crimes. It just doesn't bother us because we know the realities of war

1) Kerry didn't like about his service, and 2)I guess republicans "know the realties of war" so much better then the democrats, disputed the fact that Kerry served, and Bush, Chenney, etc didn't.

That said, I could care less about this TANG stuff and I have no idea why fundamentalist Democrats persist in pounding on it. Make's 'em look like a bunch of nit-picky wankers.

These latest allegations looked interesting, showing that bush refused a direct order, etc, but now they just look like cheap "he sought yellowcake from Niger" quality forgeries.

Dems need to be talking about the war in Iraq's turn for the worse, and the crappy economy. This story was never going to cause the problems for bush that the SBVT did for Kerry, and if the documents turn out to be fake it's going to end up damaging him a lot (even though he's not responsible for it, his 'surrogates' are pimping the story)

Re:All this on Bush...

[deanj]

Considering that these documents are forgeries, what this really shows is that the Democrats are so desperate to get rid of Bush that now they're actually forging documents to do so.

Pretty damn pathetic.

Re:All this on Bush...

[Anonymous Coward]

You fucking asshole. A party which would mock the Purple Heart has no fucking right to claim it has any respect for the military and those that served. You are a fucking asshole who should be ashamed to even hint that you are in some way patriotic.

Re:All this on Bush...

[bonkedproducer]

Ya think notice the number of insightful mods, informative mods, etc. Yet, everytime I post anywhere on slashdot about anything remotely political - it's flamebait or troll.

Yesterday, I corrected a poster who claimed that This site contained no HTML formatted articles that the public could access or discuss - he stated it only was an ad for a book on the site. He got a +4 informative, I got a -1 Troll for pointing out that there were literally more than 100 articles on that site freely available, how this many techno-savvy, above average intelligence memebers of our happy little community can be that biased is beyond me. To support a blatent lie, and to mod the rebuttle showing facts as trolling is shameful.

Re:All this on Bush...

[bonkedproducer]

Hmmm.. let's see Kerry stated that knowing all we know now about the WMDs he still would have voted for the use of force.

Can't have your cake and eat it too.

Either Kerry is as bad as Bush, OR like every other person on record before the war, he honestly believed they would find the WMDs that everyone knows he had. But you know most of you don't know jack-shit about chemical, or even conventional weapons for that matter, otherwise you would know that you could hide enough chemical agent to kill millions under the uninhabited areas of Iraq's deserts in a space smaller than a football field.

How do I know - because I was an instructor for NBC protection in the USAF, and a munitions troop for 6 years - I know a thing or two about chemical munitions and conventional explosives.

Re:All this on Bush...

[bonkedproducer]

I have only one comment about your last post quote and reply....

OWN3D! Go Twirlip!

Re:All this on Bush...

[MilenCent]

In which direction? When I saw this story on BoingBoing, I figured it must have been anti-Bush, but isn't the document supposedly forged against him?

I'm frankly confused. Am I supposed to be happy or sad about this? Answer: sad, of course, no matter who did it. Assuming they did. Which is probable. Whoever it is. Oy.

I'm going back to sleep now. Zzzzzz.

Re:All this on Bush...

[MilenCent]

I think it's nuts, but if the Democrats claim that his Vietnam stint qualifies him to be president, then it's certainly inbounds for questioning.

I think there's a very wide array of qualification for president. But "idiot" isn't within bounds. Which is why I (and a lot of other people) am voting for Kerry.

VOTE KERRY: Because... um... well, look at the alternative! Geez!

Re:All this on Bush...

[Happy Monkey]

No, he didn't vote for the use of force, he voted to authorize the use of force. As muscle to back up the inspectors, who he expected would be given time to do their job. The inspectors who were in Iraq until Bush told them to get out for their own safety. And who Bush then said that Saddam kicked out.

Re:All this on Bush...

[GreyWolf3000]

But you know most of you don't know jack-shit about chemical, or even conventional weapons for that matter, otherwise you would know that you could hide enough chemical agent to kill millions under the uninhabited areas of Iraq's deserts in a space smaller than a football field.

Let me start off by saying I'm really not a liberal.

However, according to your comment which I will assume is true, shouldn't we be doing a lot more to find bio/chem WMD's in other parts of the world like North Korea, Sudan, Iran, Palestine, etc.?

If finding WMD's is like finding a needle in a haystack, then I don't think we should have played up how certain we were of finding them. In which case, Bush would have had to make his case for war on other grounds, which may have been sufficient by themselves.

As it stands, the choice to target Iraq specifically looks really irrational.

Re:All this on Bush...

[MillionthMonkey]

Considering that these documents are forgeries, what this really shows is that the Democrats are so desperate to get rid of Bush that now they're actually forging documents to do so.

Two words for you: Niger Uranium

Let's not forget who used forged documents to make a case for war.

Re:All this on Bush...

[N3WBI3]

And in arguing against the first Gulf war he said that authorizing the use of force by the senate is the same as using force... Thats wht Kerry is so focused on Vietnam, anything he has said in the past decade has has said the opposit..

Re:All this on Bush...

[deanj]

Nice conspiracy theory, but it doesn't hold up. Where's the proof the WH was in on that? There is none. There is none, because they weren't into it.

Getting back on topic, turns out that CBS got those things from the Kerry campaign:

http://www.dailyrecycler.com/blog/2004/09/bombsh el l-spectator-post.html

Case closed.

Re:All this on Bush...

[bluGill]

So long as anyone has an air defense network that we might (and this is a very remote might) want to penetrate we need planes like the B-2 than can penetrate them. Once you have such planes you use them, even when you don't need that capability.

Re:All this on Bush...

[j_snare]

VOTE KERRY: Because... um... well, look at the alternative! Geez!

I know that it's probably your sig, but *that* is what I think is the saddest part about this election.

We have a president who's an idiot (though by many accounts a great-big-lovable-teddy-bear moron) and "someone else."

What's really fun is that neither side wants you to actually look at the candidate, they just both seem to want to tell you "you don't want the other guy in office!"

*sigh* I'll tell you that I am voting for Bush, but to be honest, it's mainly because if Kerry wins we might be stuck with him for 8 years, whereas only 4 more with Bush. Add to that the gut feeling I have about Kerry, and I feel it's easier for me to keep Bush in check (stupidity is easier to manage than someone who changes their line constantly), and I pretty much have to.

Though granted, if Bush wins, Hillary might very well run next time.. And THAT thought is truely the scariest of nightmares..

Re:All this on Bush...

[MilenCent]

I know that it's probably your sig, but *that* is what I think is the saddest part about this election.

Actually it's not, I apologize if it seems sig-like.

*sigh* I'll tell you that I am voting for Bush, but to be honest, it's mainly because if Kerry wins we might be stuck with him for 8 years, whereas only 4 more with Bush. Add to that the gut feeling I have about Kerry, and I feel it's easier for me to keep Bush in check (stupidity is easier to manage than someone who changes their line constantly), and I pretty much have to.

The way I see it, Bush is a known quantity, and a hideous one. The fact that he's stupid and easy to manage is not a point in his favor -- he's being managed by big business and his cabinet. Bush himself hasn't done *that* much, but his administration has been extremely revisionist towards the role of the President, deadly for the environment, friendly towards big business above all other sectors of the economy, engaging in stupid, pointless wars over evidence that, had it existed, would have been silly and aggressive even then, poisoning our relations with other nations, repressive towards many sectors of our population, everything just short of censorous of the press, demanding that press conference questions be pre-approved or the organization (not just the reporter) loses access to them, giving us secret laws and delaying the release of presidential documents for iffish reasons, censoring a wide array of material including Supreme Court decisions (!) for spurious reasons... and I can very well go on, that's how many reasons there are to not vote for Bush. But don't take my word for it, check out McSweeney's Daily Reason to Dispatch Bush.

Kerry could be an *awful* president, but he'd still be better than Bush is. In the long run, if Bush is seen by history as anything more than awful, I'm convinced that it'll mean that a trained monkey could do the job and be remembered fondly for it.

Re:All this on Bush...

[True Grit]

Kerry has based his entire campaign on his 4 months in Vietnam.

No he hasn't. The Dem *Convention* focused on his war record to counter the FUD about the Dems always being weaker than the Reps at protecting the country, yadda, yadda. Its bullshit, but a lot of people believe it, so he has to counter that. After the Convention, Kerry has done everything he can to steer the talk to things he believes Bush is weak on. Its Bush's attack dogs that want Vietnam to stay on the table, because as long as thats what we're talking about, we aren't talking about Bush's own screwups and stupidity.

The only people who claim he's talked only about Vietnam, just so happen to say that so they can criticise him. The height of hypocrisy: The conservatives say he only talks about Vietnam, when in reality its the conservatives who keep Vietnam on the front burner by constantly making this criticism. So excuse me if I don't buy this crap anymore.

Motive

[Mark_MF-WN]

There's a lot of motivation right now, both to discredit Bush and to make him look alright. I wouldn't be surprised if this is fake.

Re:Motive

[revscat]

If it's fake, then why hasn't Bush or the White House denied it?

Re:Motive

[Mark_MF-WN]

Denying it would, ironically, give it some credibility (like Microsoft acknowledging Linux as competition). Besides, they probably need some time to look into it.

Is bush even denying the accusations?

[jgaynor]

I said it before today but I'll say it again:

Whether or not you can replicate the doc in word or on your 1907 eniac prototype typewriter is irrelevant if the candidate doesn't come out to deny the allegations . . .

If he DOES come out and call shenanigans then let professionals take a look at the docs and make a judgement - if he won't deny what's being implied then it's fairly obvious that reproduced or not, they're the truth . . .

Re:Is bush even denying the accusations?

[jgaynor]

He can only talk about what he has done

He can refute the absence from rating period, refute the missed physical and explain how he got an honorable discharge after going AWOL without first obtaining a transfer . . . But I'm guessing he won't. The man doesn't even take questions.

Re:Is bush even denying the accusations?

[Detritus]

Memos from the personal file of a (conveniently) dead guy. Even without the evidence that they may be forged, this stinks to high heaven.

What can we expect next from CBS, Hitler's long-lost diaries, discovered in the third-floor broom closet of CBS headquarters?

Re:Is bush even denying the accusations?

[Twirlip of the Mists]

In other news. Old people die.

Actually the headline would read, "Dead person miraculously signs memo written twenty years post mortem."

These memos could not have been put to paper in 1972 or 1973, when they are alleged to have been written. Nor could they have been put to paper in 1984, the year of Lt. Col. Killian's death.

Combine that with the fact that the signatures don't even match, and it looks pretty bad all around for CBS News.

Re:Is bush even denying the accusations?

[jgaynor]

one month and eight days

If bush had to answer questions every month and 8 days the democrats wouldn't be worry about polls at this point :).

Re:Is bush even denying the accusations?

[Daniel Dvorkin]

"Turns out to have been faked"? More like, "are alleged to be fake by people who are desperately trying to preserve the image of the Chickenhawk-in-Chief as a macho warrior when it's obvious to everyone who's paying attention that he's a deserter."

Re:Is bush even denying the accusations?

[VersedM]

Wow, so anything not denied is automatically true... What a creative way of blending logic and innuendo! A fresh new take on guilty until proven innocent.

Kudos on your succint statement of a principle worthy of any of the more heinous repressive regimes of our age.

Re:Is bush even denying the accusations?

[jgaynor]

Wait wait I think you typoed there . . .

The President answers questions several times every day, through his press secretary

should read:

The President ducks questions several times every day, through his press secretary

Re:Is bush even denying the accusations?

[VersedM]

Your statement is akin to a defendant reminding the jury of his presumed innocence after evidence of his guilt was introduced.

Bleh. Your statement is akin to repealing the 5th amendment and forcing all defendents to defend themselves personally rather than leaving the defense to others.

Presumption of innocence has only gone out the window for those that have prejudged (hmm, is that the root word of "prejudice"?) without waiting for all the facts.

Re:Is bush even denying the accusations?

[zulux]

jhaynor is a $NASTY-LIE-OR-FALSEHOOD-HERE

And because jhaynor has not denied it, IT MUST BE TRUE.

Hint: Silence does not imply consent. Just ask any child-hood victim of abuse.

Re:Is bush even denying the accusations?

[jgaynor]

jhaynor is a $NASTY-LIE-OR-FALSEHOOD-HERE

I now deny your statement and ask you to present evidence, since you initial claim was not backed up by any.

Sheesh that wasnt that hard. Had you inserted $evidence, ie Memos detailing my $nastiness, I would have had to providence $contrary-evidence. That's what we'd like to see from bushie now that the ball is in his court.

I like the string reference though :).

Re:Is bush even denying the accusations?

[bonkedproducer]

Good thing you have time to respond, since you're not you know running the country with the highest GNP in the world and trying to run a campaign at the same time.

Re:Is bush even denying the accusations?

[PhyreFox]

You'd have to be blind to not recognize Times New Roman typed in MS Word.

It looks nothing like this.

Re:Is bush even denying the accusations?

[coaxial]

Wow, so anything not denied is automatically true...

Well if it wasn't true, wouldn't you deny it?

Re:Is bush even denying the accusations?

[scowling]

The signatures not matching doesn't mean anything. It's entirely possible that the order to take a physical was one of a stcak of such orders and that they were rubber-stamped. My rubber-stamp signature is quite different from the one I sign manually.

Or the signatures might have been forged (with permission) by a subordinate to save his lazy superior the trouble. Happens all the time.

Re:Is bush even denying the accusations?

[Sloppy]

if he won't deny what's being implied then it's fairly obvious that reproduced or not, they're the truth

No.

Some people play a please-do-not-feed-the-trolls strategy, where an argument must be deemed worthy of refutation, before it is refuted.

It would please me, if the major candidates for president ignored all this useles crap about what they did in the 1970s, unless someone brings up a truly important charge that might have some relevancy today. Being seen with Jane Fonda or snorting some cocaine 30 years ago, doesn't matter.

Bush and Kerry have more important things to talk about, than these inconsequential forged documents or the lying Swift Boat ads. I'd rather they talk about the role and power of federal government, their strategic thoughts on how to fulfil that role, etc. And maybe little details, such as why they each support the Patriot Act, whether or not they read the whole thing before they voted for it or signed it, etc. I want real fire applied to these peoples' feet, not lies about the 1970s.

Just cause it's fake doesn't mean it's false ????

[waynegoode]

and even if the documents are not originals or photocopies of originals, that doesn't necessarily mean that they aren't faithfully retyped copies of originals.

I find it hard to believe I just read that. Technically that is true, but it sounds like "if it turns out the documents are forged, let's still give them the benefit of the doubt that the documents really existed." By the same reasoning, if a reporter makes up a quote and is found out, that still doesn't mean the person didn't say it, so don't reject the quote!

In any investigation, if the documents are fake there is no reason to assume real ones existed.

Re:Just cause it's fake doesn't mean it's false ??

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Exactly- it's on the guy who provided these to CBS now to prove that originals exist.

And the moral of the story is if you're going to forge records from the early 1970s, at least go to the trouble to find early 1970s equipment to do it on.

Re:Just cause it's fake doesn't mean it's false ??

[jgardn]

Excuse me, but this is just stupid. "Just because they are fake doesn't mean they are false". So if I make up something, does that mean it is true?

If these are merely retypings, then the originals must exist somewhere. These are supposed documents written by a dead officer. If the originals don't exist, it was all made up and CBS is untrustworthy as a news source.

Re:The actual documents seem to be slashdotted

[sinergy]

Oh yeah?

Just because you didn't know about it, doesn't mean it isn't real.
Also, a quick typography lesson for all:
Typefaces are a standard. They rarely change. The Times typeface has been in existence for decades, as has Futura, Garamond, etc, etc. They don't change very much over time. Times Roman was invented in the early 1930's.

What US Politics is all about

[Coryoth]

This seems to be what US politics is all about.

Democrats:"Here are some documents relating to dubious military service 30 years ago!"

Republicans:"Liars they are forged! Here are some potential reasons to prove it!"

Which is to say, there are two parties, that are essentially identical (yes, yes, they have their differences, but compared to the differences in other countries, they are trivial), that find pleasantly obscure and largely irrelevant issues to have long and involved debates over, which the media (of course) buys into heavily. Don't let them waste your time! Don't get caught up in senseless hype chanting mantras about being AWOL, or faked documents - it mostly doesn't matter!

Take a step back, ignore "the other side" for a moment, and actually consider what is important.

Do you believe in larger government or smaller government? Good, now realise that it doesn't matter whether you vote Republican or Democrat because, regardless of rhetoric, if you look at the records they do an equally good job of growing government and government spending.

Do you believe conservative or liberal social policy? Good, now realise that it doesn't matter whether you vote Republican or Democrat because, regardless of rhetoric, if you look at the records neither side has actually implemented any significant social policy change in the last 20 years.

Stop getting distracted by soap operas over trivialities designed to distract you from the fact that neither side ever gets around to doing much of anything with regard to all their rhetoric. Stop letting yourself get dragged in to caring about petty debates over non issues. Take a look at what you actually believe in from a purely political philosophy point of view, and spend some time looking at what is going to work the best to see those ideas actually get implemented!

Jedidiah

Re:What US Politics is all about

[r7]

>now realise that it doesn't matter whether you vote Republican or Democrat

Spoken by someone who either doesn't know the differences or doesn't want you to know.

The relatives of 1,000 soldiers who died needlessly in Iraq disagree with you. Those of us who live near toxic waste sites that were slated for cleanup until Bush was appointed disagree with you. Minotities in Florida whose votes were not counted disagree with you. Women who value their right to choose abortion disagree with you. Even judges who value the constitution disagree with you.

r7

Re:What US Politics is all about

[Coryoth]

Spoken by someone who either doesn't know the differences or doesn't want you to know.

Or perhaps spoken by someone used to considering more diverse views, and looking at results rather than rhetoric. Let's have a look at things shall we...

The relatives of 1,000 soldiers who died needlessly in Iraq disagree with you.

Which is interesting, because the democrat candidate has said, many times, that despite the lack of WMD found, he would still have gone to war against Iraq. If you wish to vote for someone who wouldn't have entered a war that has killed 1,000 US servicemen, and many many Iraqi military and civilians, then perhaps you should look somewhere other than the democrats.

Those of us who live near toxic waste sites that were slated for cleanup until Bush was appointed disagree with you.

I freely admit I know very little about that one, though I would be curious as to how differently it would have been handled under the Democrats. And as terrible as this is for the people involved, on the broader scheme of things, this is a very trivial difference.

Minotities in Florida whose votes were not counted disagree with you.

Well, there would have been an inquiry into that if the objections of various congresspersons had been allowed. Unfortunately their complaints required the signature of a US Senator (just 1 would have been enough). I don't honestly know how many senators are currently Democrats, but I do believe the number is significantly greater than 1. Once again, for all the rhtoric and ballyhoo, in practical terms the democrats did as fine a job of making sure those voters remained disenfranchised as the Republicans.

Women who value their right to choose abortion disagree with you.

Yes, because for all Bush's anti-abortion rhetoric he has enacted... wait, what bills did he initiate and see passed on that? Abortion is now illegal in the US because of Bush right? Ignore the rhetoric, and look at what they actually do.

Even judges who value the constitution disagree with you.

Because not a single Democrat senator or congressperson voted for the PATRIOT act. Because seeing a ban on gay marriage written into the US constitution was ever at all likely (Bush could happily back that all he liked to garner conservative christian support, it was never going to happen and he knew it).

Truly the divide is deep and significant.

In turn, I would ask you if you have looked at political debate in other countries much. Have you seen the differences of opinion that can crop up there?

Jedidiah.

Re:What US Politics is all about

[7-Vodka]

Oh come on. That cynical view might be as comforting as it is black & white but don't tell me you actually believe it.

The fact that the two parties are wasting some of their time talking about older issues and subjective matters does not matter.

The fact that the two parties sound a lot alike when they talk about the important issues doesn't matter.

These two conditions result because a lot of americans don't spend any effort to try to pick the right person and probably are also completely unaware of how to pick the right person. They just end up gossiping and voting on whatever crazy impression comes into their heads. That's why for example kerry can't come out and say what he really thinks of bush. The backlash over superficial reasons would be too great.
Think 'Michael Moore' and 'Oscar speech'.

What matters is the track record of the current administration (don't fool yourself their track record won't be any better over the next four years if they're still in power. It will be more of the same.) And, whether it's even possible for kerry's future track record to be as bad as bush's.

Bush's track record is so unbelievably bad that it makes you wonder what he would have to do to make it worse. Would he have to personally go with knife in hand to the middle east and kill some poor people from various countries, then turn round and kill some americans too?
Would he have to actually admit on camera that he doesn't make most of the decisions that a president is supposed to make, that he just sits in board meetings bored out of his mind and then lets other people fill out the paper work which he then sings without bothering to understand?
Would he have to actually release incriminating records of impropriety like those his vice president is refusing to release detailing meeting with crooks and polluters to decide environmental and energy laws?

Maybe, just maybe if he walks around for 4 years with a sign over his head that says "I'm for sale to every corporate interest that bothers to approach me no matter how amoral, evil or unjust. PS: talk to my manager I'm not authorized to make deals."
Oh wait he already almost did that. It's been obvious enough in his actions that he shouldn't need to wear the sign.

Every single, and I mean down to the last one of this administration's action is about three things:

1. money
2. power
3. staying in power

And don't get too excited. It's their money and their power.

Have you ever wondered what it would be like to take the richest and most powerful people in the world, toss out the ones with any scruples, then let the remainder run the U.S.A.?

You've been living it. You wanted to know what the matrix was. This was it.

Re:What US Politics is all about

[autopr0n]

Do you believe in larger government or smaller government? Good, now realise that it doesn't matter whether you vote Republican or Democrat because, regardless of rhetoric, if you look at the records they do an equally good job of growing government and government spending.

"republicans" in general might have done an OK job, but GW bush has done an awful job.

Re:What US Politics is all about

[Coryoth]

What matters is the track record of the current administration (don't fool yourself their track record won't be any better over the next four years if they're still in power. It will be more of the same.) And, whether it's even possible for kerry's future track record to be as bad as bush's.

"Why choose the lesser evil? Vote Cthulhu" -- Cthulhu/Yog-Sothoth '04

I'm not trying to claim that Bush is good, I'm trying to say that voting for something that will be "hopefully less bad" isn't exactly a great way to go. Try voting for what you believe in instead. If enough people did so, it might even make a difference. How about voting for people who aren't supportive of the Iraq war (as Kerry is) is you feel that was a bad mistake (as many do).

Have you ever wondered what it would be like to take the richest and most powerful people in the world, toss out the ones with any scruples, then let the remainder run the U.S.A.?

Because the Democrats are demonstrably different arent they? Stop listening to what they say and start looking at what they do.

Personally, I think the entire US political system is in dire need of ground up reform. It has stagnated - ground to a halt. The US is now incredibly polar and partisan, and screaming at each other over minor random social issues, and misplaced perceptions of what "their side" stands for. All I'm suggesting is to take a step back, stop looking at it as any form of "Us vs. Them", and consider what you can do to build the America that you believe in. No, I don't mean "stopping America going in the wrong direction", I mean actually moving forward in a positive way

Jedidiah.

Re:What US Politics is all about

[Anonymous Coward]

Spoken by someone who either doesn't know the differences or doesn't want you to know.

Spoken like a true party sheep.

The relatives of 1,000 soldiers who died needlessly in Iraq disagree with you.

How do you know they died needlessly? Do you think Iraq was not planning their own terrorist attacks against the US? Do you think that Iraq wasn't providing safe haven and supporting terrorists?

Those of us who live near toxic waste sites that were slated for cleanup until Bush was appointed disagree with you.

Proof?

Minotities in Florida whose votes were not counted disagree with you.

Proof?

Women who value their right to choose abortion disagree with you.

You mean their right to choose murder? If women have a right to choose murder, why can't I do it also? The fact that feminist groups base their 'rights' on the ability to kill unborn children is sickening. Do you realize that 30 million children have been killed by abortion in America? Do you realize the western world which has embraced abortion and birth control is DYING? That is right, there is a 'baby bust' among most nations with a western culture while China, India, and the Islamic world continue to grow. We are killing ourselves and our culture and we have been too blinded by the insanity of killing the young and the family unit to realize it.

A women has a right to choose...to keep her legs closed or use birth control. Every time I have sex with a women I realize that it could be a life long commitment if I knock her up. I would never try to weasel my way out of it either, even if it's a meaningless fuck. Why don't other people have any sense of responsibility?

Even judges who value the constitution disagree with you.

According to the constitution, judges shouldn't be making law, yet they are.

Re:What US Politics is all about

[Coryoth]

[wrt government spending] "republicans" in general might have done an OK job, but GW bush has done an awful job.

Yup, because the last 2 Republican presidents, Bush Snr. and Reagan, who created the previous record for a budget deficit did a much better job of keeping government spending down.

The Republicans will tell you daily that they are all for fiscal responsibility. They will point to the Democrats and say they are believers in big government and "tax and spend" mentality. Except the Republicans seem to be better at increasing spending than the Democrats! And the Democrats? Well, they talk about progressive social spending, but you know, Clinton didn't actaully get around to doing very much of it. In fact, he got around to doing very little indeed on that front. Mostly he reduced the deficit (though that was largely due to favourable economic conditions at the time).

Stop listening to what they say their positions are, because they never actually follow through. All the rhetoric is about giving themselves some points of differentiation. In practice they implement very little of what they talk about.

Both sides use scare tactics of what evils will befall the country should the other get elected - and yet when they get elected, it almost invariably fails to happen. In 2000 there were many bold claims that a vote for Bush was a vote to ban abortion. Certainly Bush has made brave talk of such things. He's had 4 years and a Republican congress and Senate. The scaremongering failed to eventuate.

This time around it's the Republicans claiming that thousands of Americans will fall victim to terrorists should Kerry get elected. Let's get real folks. It's not going to make much of a difference at all.

Get out of the "Us. vs. Them" and "Pick a Side!" mentality and spend some time really thinking about what issues truly matter to you.

Jedidiah.

Re:What US Politics is all about

[Coryoth]

He said he would've still voted to give the President authorization to attack Iraq because he believed it would give the US more bargaining power when he went to the UN. He claims he did not support going into the war without UN support, though.

Fair point. You are quite correct, he has not explicitly said he would have supported a war without UN sanction. I was too hasty.

Thank you for the correction.

I would still like to suggest that the differences are minimal - in the sense that those who are against the Iraq war really should be considering candidates who have actively spoken out against the war - but yes, there remains a somewhat significant difference on that point.

Jedidiah.

Re:What US Politics is all about

[TRACK-YOUR-POSITION]

Gore wouldn't have invaded Iraq, Gore wouldn't have cut hundreds of billions in capital gains taxes while proclaiming we were at war. We'd live in a dramatically different world if Gore were elected president now, and the same will probably be true in 2008 regarding Bush v. Kerry. Sorry, I bought this "no difference between the parties" line back in 2000, but anyone who still buys into it is a sucker--maybe there is no difference between the parties, but there surely is a difference between Bush policies and the alternative.

Stop looking at what's happening from your narrow political ideological point of view (point of blindness?) and take a look at what's happening on the ground in our economy, in our foreign policy. Stop hiding your head in the sands of your pipe dreams, your castles in the sky, and deal with the world as it actually is.

Re:What US Politics is all about

[Coryoth]

Gore wouldn't have invaded Iraq, Gore wouldn't have cut hundreds of billions in capital gains taxes while proclaiming we were at war.

Neither would Nader have done so. Neither would Brown have done so. Neither would have most of the third party candidates. And oddly enough, most of those candidates would have actually set about dealing with some real issues, like health care, like social security, like electoral reform, like reforming foreign policy, like considering the question of whether we wis to grant corporations the full rights of individuals. What you believe should be done about those issues - well, that may vary, but I suspect, if you stop and think, you'll agree that something ought to be done (the current system does not appear sustainable). The difference is that most third parties would actually seek to address those issues (in various ways).

Sure, there are some differences between the parties, but the are few and far between, and a great many issues of real significance are being largely ignored. Try listening to third party candidate debates (there's a very good one between Badnarik and Cobb here) and listen to the variety of important issues you won't hear the major parties talk about.

Jedidiah

Re:What US Politics is all about

[protohiro1]

Yes, you are right. The system his hopelessly broken. Really, really broken. We need to implement serious election reform and we need to do it now. Single Transferable Vote for real proportional representation in the house (and make the constituencies the states, not these easily gerrymandered districts)

We should adopt some kind of ranked voting method (runoff, instant runoff) for the president, governers, etc. This will make third parties instantly viable.

We can flush a lot of corruption in this system by public subsidies for elections (including regulated free airtime and public advertising space). Of course, the people who need to impliment these changes benefit from the same changes not being made....

Re:What US Politics is all about

[N3WBI3]

The relatives of 1,000 soldiers who died needlessly in Iraq disagree with you.

Really you have talked to all their families? In Korea we lost 10K a year.... Guess it would be better if my wifes family was forced to live in hell hole her father had to escape from (N Korea)..

Women who value their right to choose abortion disagree with you.

And Babies who would like to breath fresh air at least once disagree with you.

Re:What US Politics is all about

[(trb001)]

Okay, I spent last night reading this in the Washington Post and talking to a few friends about it and we all reached the same conclusion.

This doesn't hurt Bush, really.

However, this DOES hurt CBS and 60 minutes. I think the important thing here is not whether or not Bush missed a medical exam, but how and why these documents, if it's the case, were forged. This would be shoddy journalism to an extent that bulls past the NYTimes scandal by far.

--trb

Re:What US Politics is all about

[argStyopa]

Do you believe in larger government or smaller government? Good, now realise that it doesn't matter whether you vote Republican or Democrat because, regardless of rhetoric, if you look at the records they do an equally good job of growing government and government spending.

Do you believe conservative or liberal social policy? Good, now realise that it doesn't matter whether you vote Republican or Democrat because, regardless of rhetoric, if you look at the records neither side has actually implemented any significant social policy change in the last 20 years.

Right, so just go ahead and let my guy win since it doesn't matter.

Thanks!

Re:What US Politics is all about

[Coryoth]

Right, so just go ahead and let my guy win since it doesn't matter.

It only doesn't matter whether it is a Republican or a Democrat. A Green, or a Libertarian, or an Independent, or support for electoral reform would all matter. Which of those you might choose to pursue would, of course, depend on your actual political leanings, but there is an option C, so why not use it?

Jedidiah.

More Fuel for the Fire...

[DeComposer]

From http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/:

The conservative blog Powerline has a roiling debate or series of charges that the documents published by CBS last night are forgeries.

The basis of the claim is that the sort of proportional font spacing evidenced in the memoranda wasn't available at the time in question. It only came later with word processors and computers and laser printers. Basically, they say, all people had back then were old fashioned block-type typewriters.

On the face of it, that sounds logical to me. But the editor of the site has now posted the comments of at least one reader who says such machines were actually widely available at the time.

It seems worth noting that the White House accepted the documents as genuine and even began releasing them to other journalists yesterday evening -- though it's not clear to me whether they were releasing their own copies or simply passing on what CBS had given them.

The deeper point is that CBS reported that they had handwriting experts scrutinize these documents to ascertain their authenticity. It seems hard to imagine they'd go to such lengths to have experts analyze them and not check out something so obvious as seeing if they'd been written by a typewriter that was in existence at time. (Hard to imagine or, if true, unimaginably stupid.)

One way or another, I doubt we'll have to speculate about this for very long. This question about what sort of typesets were available in 1973 should be easy enough to settle.

Re:The actual documents seem to be slashdotted

[Twirlip of the Mists]

The font used in these documents isn't Times Roman. It's Times New Roman, a very specific variation on Times Roman. Compare the numeral "4" in Times Roman and Times New Roman.

And Times New Roman didn't exist until after 1984. The alleged author and signer of these memos died in 1984.

Find some old typewriters

[autopr0n]

I'd like to see the output of some high-end typewriters of the era. It's possible that the people who made "Times New Roman" for the PC tried to reproduce the typesetting font, and that typewriter makers in the 70s also perfectly emulated typesetting fonts. Someone needs to find one of those old proportional-width typewriters and compare the output with a freshly printed MS-Word document with the defaults. Until someone does that, the jury is out (at least in my mind)

Re:Find some old typewriters

[bofkentucky]

The thing is some pissant Lt. Col in the TXANG isn't going to have a high end typewriter at his desk (or in his secretary's pool). How about someone pulling out the Requisition orders for typewriters from the TXANG in the early 70's (or reciepts for typewriter ribbon) to figure out what equipment they had on hand.

Re:Find some old typewriters

[Zeinfeld]

The thing is some pissant Lt. Col in the TXANG isn't going to have a high end typewriter at his desk (or in his secretary's pool).

Excuse me? Pissant? Do you know what the rank Lt. Col. means?

A full Colonel is the commander of a regiment, only one step away from being a general. That is not an inconsequential position.

A Lt. Colonel is not much lower in rank and would certainly have a significant command - in this case an Air Force squadron.

Even in the national guard a Lt. Colonel qualified for their own personal servant in those days. There is no such thing as a 'pissant' Lt. Col.

Re:Find some old typewriters

[bofkentucky]

I still stand by my assertion an ANG Regiment CO/EO/Chief of Staff isn't going to have access to some rare and expensive typewriter (an the IBM Golfball typewriter is the only one of that era that can do the superscript th if reports I have read all day are true). He was "stationed in a backwater, defending the skies of Texas" to paraphrase the DNC chairtroll, he isn't going to have the best equipment

He was watching over a regiment of fighters that were being decomissioned as fast as they could because Soviet and Red Chinese SAM technology was good enough to make them drop like flies under combat conditions, not some cushy job in DC paper jockeying for the 3 star down the hall.

all the sources stem from the freeper article

[bandy]

Well, thus endeth the accusations that politics.slashdot is left-wing only.

Re:all the sources stem from the freeper article

[Twirlip of the Mists]

I live to serve.

Re:all the sources stem from the freeper article

[Keebler71]

Speaking of conspiracy theories... this morning I could have sworn this story was on the front page of Slashdot. When I got into work, it was only under the politics section. I understand that this was a politics.slashdot.org story. I am not too familiar with how /. pushes stories - did this happen because the way I have my preferences setup or was it -no kidding- moved?

Re:The actual documents seem to be slashdotted

[Marxist Hacker 42]

That's a typesetter. It didn't have a superscripted th. Times New Roman was invented and copyrighted by Microsoft- and differs from Times Roman by closing the numeral 4 on the top, which these documents do.

Re:Truth is irrelvant

[jgardn]

I believe that Bush honorably served in the military. His record proves it, if you took the time to read it.

Go read this article and tell me what you think about Bush's service.

http://www.thehill.com/york/090904.aspx

Remember, and I'll repeat it 'til I am blue in the face, I personally am proud of John Kerry's service, regardless of whether he deserved no medals or more medals, whether he fought in Cambodia or Timbuktu. I can't question anything he's done because he protected me and my family from things I can't dream about. He's been through stuff that I wouldn't dare put myself into.

This is the official Republican and Bush supporter line: We honor Kerry for his service! We don't question his service because we weren't there! We'll never know all the crap that he had to face, and we'll never be in a position to question heis dedication to our country. When Bush says this, the crowd cheers in agreement and support.

List of websites:

[jlgolson]

Here are a few websites that reference this situation:

UPI: breaking news

littlegreenfootballs.com

AllahPundit here and here and here.

indcjournal.com

cnsnews.com

command-post.org

hftp.blogspot.com

Re:List of websites:

[jlgolson]

PAGE A01 Washington Post

Re:List of websites:

[SengirV]

I noticed that cnn.com is still pushing the (communist/socialist) party line and ignoring any possible forgery angle as of 12:40AM EST Friday Sept. 10th.

Re:List of websites:

[jlgolson]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/09/bush.gua rd.ap/index.html

That's fine, they don't have to report the news if they don't want to. Everyone else will be front and center.

Re:List of websites:

[SengirV]

That's nice. Too bad you had to hunt for it, because it wasn't on the front page, only the negative bush link. And then when you got to the negative article, there were no mention of this article, nor a link to it.

But I'm sure your conscience is now clear and you don't see anything wrong with that.

Re:List of websites:

[jlgolson]

What? I was agreeing with you. I didn't really make that clear though. Fucking cnn.

Re:List of websites:

[SengirV]

LOL - thanks for the laugh.

Another distraction

[mabu]

This is getting out of hand.

It reminds me of a guy who walks into a shopping mall, throws a bunch of pennies on the floor, and while everying is on their hands and knees picking up loose change, he's making off with all their shopping bags.

People get off your knees. Have some self respect and decency and don't fall prey to this big inept pseudo-journalistic, National Enquirer-esque troll that really has very little to do with real issues.

Kerry went to Viet Nam. Bush did not. That's all there basically is. Whether Bush was snorting coke and avoided the health exam, or Kerry was shooting Viet Cong puppies in the back are stupid, distractions that people will forever argue. Let's not get side-tracked by these distractions both parties are vomiting during a time where it's important to pay attention to the real issues and who is best for the country.

Re:Another distraction

[Keebler71]

You seem to think that Kerry's 4 months in Vietnam were somehow more important to the nation that Bush's five years and some months in the National Guard. I somewhat agree with you but realize that the National Guard played a significant role in national defense. First off, national guard aircraft DID serve in Vietnam. In fact, Bush actually inquired as to how he could participate in the program that allowed ANG pilots to fly mission in Vietnam -he was rebuffed for not having enought experience. The ANG's mission through much of the cold war and today is homeland defense. Bush was assigned to an interceptor unit, created to intercept incoming Soviet bombers. This aircraft was not well suited for Vietnam. There have been credible accusations that people influenced the decision to get Bush into the ANG, but I have yet to any "proof" that he similarly manipulated himself into an aircraft that had "less" of a chance of going to Vietnam.

Moreover, the Terry McCauliff ditto-heads have made quite an issue of Bush's ANG service being somehow less-important than going to Vietnam. Now they seem to want to have it both ways - they are accusing the President of missing important air-defense exercises that could have helped the US deter a Soviet attack while he was in Alabama. So which is it? Was being in the ANG important or not?

Re:Another distraction

[(trb001)]

This no longer is a question of "Bush vs. Kerry", this has entered the realm of "Good Journalism vs. Shoddy Journalism". Questions as to the documents' authenticity have been raised after a single day in the news. Why wouldn't CBS provide the names of their fact checkers and analysts so that they can show their proof of authenticity? This doesn't require them to reveal their source, though, I don't know why the source of public military documents would be a problem.

I don't know how you could examine these documents and not question a few things...the superscripting on a typewriter, the kerning, the signature mismatch. Even though it's been stated that non-fixed width font typewriters were used in the early 1970's, that was the first thing I questioned. That alone lead me to scrutinize the rest of the documents.

CBS's integrity has been questioned. In order to restore it, they will have to explain how they obtained the documents and how they proved they were real. No journalist with any integrity would air documents whose authenticity they couldn't prove...you just don't go on the record with something like that.

While restoring a teensy bit of Bush's integrity is nice, this isn't a question of his military service any more. Most of us are questioning CBS, "60 Minutes" and Dan Rather.

--trb

Re:Another distraction

[hackstraw]

Have some self respect and decency and don't fall prey to this big inept pseudo-journalistic, National Enquirer-esque troll that really has very little to do with real issues.

The sad thing is that most of the American public believe that the #1 issue is the "War on terrorism". Bush is actually honest about this "war" in saying that it can't be won. Kerry has to take the opposite view and BSes about how this "war" can be won.

Lets be honest for a minute here. There is nothing that can be done about terrorism, any more than can be done to prevent someone from shooting or stabbing me on the street or breaking into my car or my home. And the latter two examples completely ignore the case where the person wishing to do me harm is willing or even planning to die in the progress of killing me!

Does anyone know how many _tons_ of illicit material (mostly drugs) come into this country from around the world annually? How much of this is caught? How difficult would it be to change the payload from drugs to explosives?

Re:Another distraction

[Bombcar]

How difficult would it be to change the payload from drugs to explosives?


Well, considering that terrorists have stated they want to hurt the U.S., and that they are active in other countries (Russia, Australian embassies, etc), but haven't done anything in the U.S. in the last 3 years means either:

1. They can't get the equipment (bombs) to the places they need them.
2. They don't want to attack the U.S., perhaps because the U.S. didn't react to Sept 11 in the way they planned. Were we supposed to be more like Spain?

And in all honesty, there is something that can be done about terrorism, and everyone will have to admit that if we nuked the entire world then there would be no terrorism anymore. Because everybody would be dead.

Sorry, Sir, We're out of tin foil today

[commodoresloat]

But the possibility exists that these forgeries were manufactured by CBS News. And that possibility is way too scary to dismiss out of hand.

The possibility also exists that they were manufactured by raiders from Remulak, and with only slightly less probability. CBS has nothing to gain from such a forgery, and everything to lose. Their reputation as a reliable source of news -- "liberal bias" or no -- is quite strong, and for them to make up documents like this would be profoundly stupid, especially since the documents themselves do not really add a whole lot to the case already made in the Ben Barnes interview. If anything, the controversy over these documents has distracted attention from the interview itself, which seems to have settled the question about whether Bush pulled strings to avoid military service. All the documents add to this is evidence that there were others in the military who thought this was wrong and that Bush was skipping out on duty.

Anyway, as I've said elsewhere, I think this is all a distraction from the real issue which is where will these candidates lead us in the future, not what mistakes might they have made thirty years ago.

Re:Sorry, Sir, We're out of tin foil today

[Twirlip of the Mists]

CBS has nothing to gain from such a forgery

You don't know the value of an exclusive. The ad revenues for last night's "60 Minutes II" were over the top.

for them to make up documents like this would be profoundly stupid

It was profoundly stupid for Dan Rather to get into a shouting match with the sitting vice president of the United States on live television, too. But he did it, in 1988.

especially since the documents themselves do not really add a whole lot to the case already made in the Ben Barnes interview

Ah, but that's where you have to have been paying attention. Ben Barnes made these exact same claims in 1999, when then-Governor Bush was running for president. His claim was widely debunked. It never even really broke as a story because it never held water to begin with. He alleged that he pulled strings while he was Lt. Gov. of Texas, for instance, but when Bush was trying to get into the TANG Barnes was in Switzerland as UN general envoy to Geneva. That kind of thing.

The reason Barnes is in the news today is because he's got this shit-hot new documentary evidence. Except the evidence turns out to be forged.

the interview itself, which seems to have settled the question about whether Bush pulled strings to avoid military service

Except that Barnes has nothing at all to back up his claims except a set of forged memos with a dead lieutenant colonel's name on them.

Barnes was outed as a liar by both the pundits and the press in 1999. He's back with forged documents. What do you think?

Anyway, as I've said elsewhere, I think this is all a distraction

Agreed. Blame the Democrats who decided to spam the press with the National Guard story again when their candidate took a nosedive in the polls.

Re:Sorry, Sir, We're out of tin foil today

[commodoresloat]

It was profoundly stupid for Dan Rather to get into a shouting match with the sitting vice president of the United States on live television, too. But he did it, in 1988.

We're talking different levels of stupidity here -- one involves premeditated illegal and deceptive action; the second is a moment of anger.

You're going to have to back up your claim about Barnes in 1999 -- I don't see anything on this as I'm researching it. You may be right but it is strange that the only one mentioning it is someone on slashdot, and that no real reporters happened to notice it. Actually the only reference I've seen to his claims in 1999 are almost the opposite -- apparently he said then that the Bush family did not ask him for help! (See here for example; and here is an article from 1999).

The reason Barnes is in the news today is because he's got this shit-hot new documentary evidence. Except the evidence turns out to be forged.

Actually, the legitimate news sources -- sorry, but "Free Republic" and other crackpot right wing conspiracy sites don't count for me -- seem to be treating the confession itself as major news, and certainly CBS did.

We agree this is a distraction; I do blame Dems but also the Repubs, who started this crap with the claims that Kerry didn't serve well enough in the Vietnam War (2 tours of duty, 3 purple hearts, two other medals, as opposed to Bush's possible honorable discharge from the Air Guard and Cheney's 5 deferments... hmmmm). The Republicans made this an issue and yet Cheney stated flat out that he had other priorities than fighting for his country. Bush was too busy getting wasted at the time to have an opinion about it one way or another. So, yeah, I do think it's a distraction, but I am happy to see the republicans hoisted on their own petard here.

Re:Sorry, Sir, We're out of tin foil today

[Twirlip of the Mists]

You're going to have to back up your claim about Barnes in 1999 -- I don't see anything on this as I'm researching it.

May I suggest that you try that new-fangled research tool, the Internet? I know it seems kind of like a fad, but trust me; there's some good stuff on there.

Actually the only reference I've seen to his claims in 1999 are almost the opposite -- apparently he said then that the Bush family did not ask him for help!

His story shifted in the early days from "the Bush family asked me" to "the Bush family used its influence." When pressed, he said that he was actually asked by a Bush family friend, since deceased, whose name now escapes me.

Actually, the legitimate news sources -- sorry, but "Free Republic" and other crackpot right wing conspiracy sites don't count for me -- seem to be treating the confession itself as major news, and certainly CBS did.

Um. Hello, my name is circular reasoning. I'm new in town, and I was wondering if you'd be my friend.

You said, "The media is taking this seriously, especially CBS." Everybody else on planet earth said, "CBS released forged documents." You said, "They can't be forged. The media is taking them seriously, especially CBS."

Duh.

but also the Repubs, who started this crap with the claims that Kerry didn't serve well enough in the Vietnam War

Nobody from either the Bush campaign or the GOP has ever made such an allegation. To the contrary, the campaign and the GOP have repeatedly said that the respect Sen. Kerry's service and thank him for it.

Others not directly affiliated with the campaign or the GOP have made accusations. If you want to attribute those accusations to the campaign or the GOP, then every vulgar, profane, offensive sign ever carried by a disaffected college student becomes the problem of the Democratic Party. Which doesn't help anybody.

The Republicans made this an issue

You haven't been paying attention. The Kerry campaign made it an issue. For six months, it was the issue. Despite having been admonished by high-ranking Democrats to change the fucking subject, Senator Kerry is still making his service an issue.

So, yeah, I do think it's a distraction, but I am happy to see the republicans hoisted on their own petard here.

I'm sorry, but producing forged documents to further a false accusation is hardly being "hoisted on their own petard."

Re:Sorry, Sir, We're out of tin foil today

[commodoresloat]

May I suggest that you try that new-fangled research tool, the Internet? I know it seems kind of like a fad, but trust me; there's some good stuff on there.

LOL, sorry, I didn't realize you were a troll. But this clears it right up, a condescending comment about how you can't be bothered to back up your own outrageous claims, that I should go use the internet to back them up myself, when in fact I included two links in my post that refute your assertions.

Everybody else on planet earth said, "CBS released forged documents." You said, "They can't be forged. The media is taking them seriously, especially CBS."

I was referring to Barnes' testimony, not the documents. But you knew that; you're just looking for crap to act condescending about.

Anyway, it's obvious that you want really badly to believe the documents are forged; I'm sure the legitimate media will clear that question up in the next couple days. They may or may not be forged; personally, I doubt it, and I really doubt that CBS would have forged them -- that, in fact, was your position that I was originally responding to here. In any case, I don't think it has much impact on this debate -- the fact is, Kerry served honorably in Vietnam, and the fact is that Bush got drunk when other people his age were serving their country. Like I said, I think Bush's unprovoked war in Iraq and the resulting disaster for the war on terrorism are much more relevant than his partying and rich-boy privileges from 3 decades ago.

Re:Sorry, Sir, We're out of tin foil today

[commodoresloat]

I wasn't the guy who responded to you above but I'm curious; what's your problem with the Move On ads? The problem with the SBVFT ads are that they are airing blatant lies that have been clearly disproven in order to slander the candidate. I don't know of any Move On ad that represents such a concerted and fallacious smear campaign.

Also the president explicitly did NOT denounce the ad; instead, he attacked all 527 campaign ads (changing the subject), and quite pointedly refrained from attacking the swift boat ad in particular. He simply said they were all "bad for the system."

Most importantly, the Bush connection is not just Ben Ginsburg but also Kenneth Cordier, Merrie Spaeth, and, less directly, Karl Rove. And everyone in DC knows this crap has Karl Rove's M.O. all over it.

Finally, you keep claiming that Bush "denied, debunked, and dismissed" these claims in 2000, yet NOBODY has stepped forward to tell anyone what Bush was actually doing during his missing year. That's because he spent the year partying.

Which really wouldn't bother me so much if he and Cheney were not painting him as some kind of freaking war hero just because he strutted around in a flight suit pretending we had won Iraq! All the while supporting the aspersions cast on Kerry's war record. By the way, Cheney's comment that voting for Kerry will lead to terrorism in the US tells us all we need to know about whether the Bush Administration is willing to capitalize politically on the Swift Boat Veteran lies.

Re:Sorry, Sir, We're out of tin foil today

[commodoresloat]

Wow, troll, you really outdid yourself.

Not one statement made by SBVFT has been shown to be false.

They all have been shown to be false. You have a doctor claiming to have treated Kerry's wounds whose name appears nowhere on the records. You have someone claiming the opposite of what he claimed after the war. And more. Snopes did a fine job summarizing the lies; you can find the evidence plenty of other places too. Also, that was quite subtle how you shifted from claiming there's no link between the swift boats and bush to claiming that the swift boat ads are true. Where do you stand exactly?

He said he denounces these ads and all other soft-money issue ads.

No; he did not specifically denounce the SBVFT ads for being false; he simply said that all such ads are bad for the process. In other words, he evaded the real issue.

There is absolutely no connection between SBVFT and the GOP, the White House or the Bush campaign

Hmm, repeating your assertions won't make them true -- I cited, with links to evidence, three separate connections apart from Ginsburg, which you never refuted or even addressed.

What "missing year?"

That would be 1972. Read the article instead of re-asserting falsities.

Find me one statement that anybody in the administration or the campaign has made to that effect.

Watch the Republican Convention again; I'm sure you videotaped the whole thing. That's practically all these people could talk about, what a strong leader Bush will be compared to that french-looking wimp Kerry. Or you can start with Cheney's assertion that without Bush at the helm after November, terrorists will attack us. All of this horseshit is what I'm talking about; quit pretending Bush is such a strong leader. He's not. He's just simple-minded.

Finally, you quoted the Cheney quote yourself. How do you read it, other than to say that the danger is if we make the wrong choice (in november, i.e. voting for Kerry), the danger is that we'll get hit again? I mean, that is what he's saying, isn't it? And I don't even read the daily Kos! Just what bizarre interpretation do you have for that quote? (Something you read in the Free Republic perhaps?)

Re:Sorry, Sir, We're out of tin foil today

[commodoresloat]

I'm not going to continue point by point refutation since you just ignore my arguments and say "that's not true! this was covered in hundreds of places!" and you don't bother to cite them. This all comes from your blog perhaps?

Look, I feel trapped into defending Kerry here, I don't particularly like him, and I don't think any of this debate over who was better in the 60s is relevant, but having read quite a bit about the swift boat charges, I am quite convinced that they were lying. I havent seen snopes, or salon.com, or any other source that make this claim, convincingly refuted. If you have a source that is convincing I'd like to see it -- the consensus of sources that cover legitimate news seems to be that they are lying, so you have a burden of proof to overcome here, but I'm willing to read it with an open mind rather than being shouted out by someone called "Twirlip" (yeah my nick is silly too but I'm not claiming to be a respected journalist). But don't claim that the "connections" I mentioned above are not legitimate without addressing them specifically. They are not "6 degrees of separation."

As for the memos, maybe they are fake, maybe they're not. Both CBS and ABC Nightline covered the charges that they were phony tonight. It's interesting to me that they haven't either pulled out the original memos or invited more experts to check them out; I assume we will get a more satisfactory answer in the next couple days.

About the Cheney quote - I don't see what is different about what you said and what I assumed it meant. The second sentence just explains his reasoning. The point is the same -- he thinks (or claims to think) that a vote for Kerry will lead to more terrorist attacks (not "bad in the event of attack" like you say, but will lead to attack). It's blatant fear-mongering, and it's silly. There is no evidence Kerry will treat terrorism as a "crime" and not a "war" (as if it couldnt be both), and there's no evidence that will lead to more terrorism if the president does treat it that way. It's an assertion without evidence and it's being used to scare people.

Re:Sorry, Sir, We're out of tin foil today

[commodoresloat]

Poor baby. Forced to go out and read for himself.

LOL. Poor baby. forced to cite his own sources but can't seem to think of any to cite so he just whines at me to go to google.

Here's a suggestion. Why don't you read reputable accounts instead of Salon-magazine hatchet jobs?

Hey moron - here's a suggestion, why don't you cite one if you want me to read it?? Salon is reputable as far as I am concerned, as is the New York Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, CBS, CNN, NPR, and similar sources, all of which seem to agree the swift boat vets are lying. Look, I'm not as closed minded as you seem to think I am on this; I'll read an article if you suggest it, but you seem to prefer to whine about what I'm saying and call me names rather than actually suggest an article. I have read a number of articles on this and they seem to conclude that the SBVFT are lying.

You're talking about people who worked with other people.

I'm talking about people who worked for the Bush Administration and/or campaign. That is not just "people who worked with other people." Your crap about Move On and other 527s is irrelevant. As I said the Swift Boat stuff has Rove's handwriting all over it. You can't say the same of Move On. Even if you could though, it's irrelevant; Move On did not fabricate or outright lie like the swift boat ads did.

No, CBS did not. Nightline did, albeit briefly

I was watching CBS tonight in Los Angeles, and you're wrong; they did mention the charges that the documents were fake. They didn't say much about it one way or the other but they did mention it. I read tomorrow's Post article (assuming you mean the Washington Post and not the New York Post, LOL), and it raises all the questions that were raised here. If it turns out these documents are fake, and really bad fakes at that, I will be very curious to see who faked them. Your theory that "CBS" did it is of course ridiculous; it is possible that some random Jason Blair-like reporter at CBS did this, but it seems bizarre that CBS would not catch such an obvious forgery. It is possible that the Kerry campaign did it too but that too seems ridiculous when the forgery is so obvious (if what some people are saying about typewriters is true). I remember typing on a typewriter in the 70s that had a ball for the type and it did the little th thing, so I don't know. But I'm no document expert here. Anyway it will be interesting to see how it all turns out; but it doesn't matter to you since you've already made up your mind.

No he fucking does not, you ignorant fuckwit.

Calling me names doesn't change what the quote says. Even given your explanation, it amounts to the same thing -- blatant fearmongering. "Kerry can't protect us from the terrorists." It's crap, and you know it, which is why you resort to calling me names. What is really sad about all this is that Cheney has already proved that his administration can only encourage terrorism.

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST.

If you quoted what I said completely, I said that there is no evidence that Kerry will treat it as a crime and not a war AS IF IT COULDN'T BE BOTH. Re read the quote you quoted from Kerry -- he will use our military when necessary. Better yet, read the quote in context of his position on the war on terrorism rather than just the one line you found quoted in the Washington Times. Are you saying that things like "intelligence gathering, law enforcement, [and] public diplomacy" are NOT essential in the war on terrorism? Sorry, man, but I agree totally with Kerry in that quote -- the very problem the current administration has is treating the war on terrorism as solely a military operation and ignoring the rest! Meanwhile we wind up letting terrorists go because we can't build a case against them because we haven't focused on that. And attacking countries that are not involved in al Qaeda thereby

Re:Sorry, Sir, We're out of tin foil today

[demachina]

"He let his flight status lapse because he knew he wouldn't be flying any more and because a physical examination is not a fun thing to do with your day."

He didn't take his physical because this is when the Guard instituted drug testing as part of it. Its ridiculous to suggest he'd risk landing in Vietnam just because taking the physical was not fun.

Its no secret was a frequent cocaine user during this period. He would have been nailed for drug use if he hadn't so he refused. He did and he should have been remanded to regular service for the insubordination and would have if he didn't have connections.

You did know W. was busted in Texas for cocaine possession. Again thanks to family connections he got off with six months of community service at PUSH. I assure you he didn't do community service for poor black folks out of the goodness of his heart. If he'd been poor or black he would have gotten a felony conviction and it would have ended his political career. America and the world would be a better place too.

I imagine the new documents are forged. I wish they'd sneaked by. The problem we have here is the Bush family and their very skilled and ruthless operatives went around destroying all the evidence of his pathetic excuse for a life, including gaining unsupervised and illegal access to his guard file when they destroyed all the really embarrasing documents. As a result there is no proof that he isn't fit to be President, though he isn't, so he has the Teflon coating.

"George W. Bush was born on third base and he thinks he hit a triple" Ann Richards

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."

George W. Bush, December 2000

Re:Sorry, Sir, We're out of tin foil today

[ealar dlanvuli]

"Because if we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again, that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States, and that we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mind set if you will, that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts, and that we're not really at war. I think that would be a terrible mistake for us."

Your summary is completely wrong.

[Because] IF we make the wrong choice [vote for Kerry] THEN the danger is we will be hit again AND we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States.

IF (that should happen [and we made the wrong choice]) AND (we fall back into a pre-9/11 mindset [that terrorist attacks are ciminal not war]) THEN I think that would be a terrible mistake for us.

So he is making three claims:

(1) If [VOTE FOR KERRY] -> [HIT AGAIN]
(2) If [VOTE FOR KERRY] -> devastating to country.
(3) If [VOTE FOR KERRY] and [PRE-9/11 MINDSET] -> Terrible mistake.

Refute, please.

Re:Sorry, Sir, We're out of tin foil today

[Twirlip of the Mists]

[Because] IF we make the wrong choice [vote for Kerry] THEN the danger is we will be hit again AND we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States.

That's not what he said. That's simply not what he said. You're starting with something he did not say and then misinterpreting it.

Cut it out.

Re:Sorry, Sir, We're out of tin foil today

[ealar dlanvuli]

Covering your eyes does not a reply make.

Re:Sorry, Sir, We're out of tin foil today

[Twirlip of the Mists]

You want what? For me to write three thousand words on exactly how what you said Cheney said differs from the facts? Fuck that. Go check the videotape.

How old are you? Seriously, I'm asking. Because you've got this whole "I'm a junior-high-school student, spoon-feed me knowledge" thing going on.

Re:Sorry, Sir, We're out of tin foil today

[demachina]

Well first off I'm more arch conservative or libertarian than anything. I cherish the smallest government possible, but I favor taxing the rich because they can afford to pay and I favor universal health insurance because people shouldn't die because they can't pay for health care.

True conservatives hate the Bush administration too because they are slowly instituting a police state and trampling everyone's civil liberties, and they are bankrupting the U.S. through budget and trade deficits.

Second, I'm not sure there is anything irrational in the part you quoted. Are you saying George wasn't convicted for Cocaine posession and I'm lieing. That would be bad of me, but I'm not and I think you know it.

If somebody is convicted on a felony drug charge, this is a narcotic we are taking about here and not a little weed, it does in fact disqualify someone from the Presidency unless your powerful family pulls strings and gets it brushed under the rug. In many states, for example if you are a black felon in Florida you couldn't even vote after the same conviction.

I'm thinking it was nearly mandatory George go through the Texas governorship on his road to the White House. As Governor he had complete power to make sure all the dirt in his Texas state records could be properly cleaned. Most of the worst of it was in Texas. In particular he could give his operatives unfettered access to his Guard files and presumably he was able to dispose of any remnant of his Cocaine conviction though it was probably destroyed when he finished the community service anyway.

As for "irrational hatred of President Bush" I would say it is quite rational to hate him. He is an arrogant SOB. He's turned most of the world against the U.S. He is destroying civil liberties at rate not seen since McCarthyism (something which also occurred the last time the Republican's had power). He's gotten a thousand American's killed, and thousands scared for life, in Iraq in a war based on lies. I'm all for fighting Al Qaeda but he should have fought that war in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia where the heart of the problem is, and done it right, instead of blowing it off in a rush to take out a grudge on Saddam.

Re:Sorry, Sir, We're out of tin foil today

[ealar dlanvuli]

I worked off the exact wording you provided. I don't really care if that was incorrect [nor do I remember], I was simply arguing from your point without introducing new knowledge. There was no need for me to do so, because what you said contradicted itself.

You were never on the debate team then I take it?

Though insulting your opponents is a guarnteed way to win their support, you should keep doing it.

Re:Sorry, Sir, We're out of tin foil today

[commodoresloat]

As a result there is no proof that he isn't fit to be President

Actually, we do have his four miserable years as president as proof.

Re:Sorry, Sir, We're out of tin foil today

[tgibbs]

I don't think anybody with even a nodding familiarity with typewriters and typesetting can doubt that these documents are forgeries. The interesting question then becomes: who forged them and why?

It's tempting to blame them on Republican agents provocateurs out to embarrass the Kerry campaign, but this doesn't hold water for a number of reasons:
1. They are such bad forgeries that it is surprising that they fooled CBS.
2. The Republicans have too much to lose by stirring up the question of Bush's military service.
3. If they were trying to frame the Democrats for making false claims, the claims in the letters would probably be more outrageous, for maximum embarrassment when the letters were showed to be bogus.

On the other hand, some of the same objections apply to the Democrats: Why such bad forgeries? Why such relatively mild content?

My theory is the following: I believe that the letters were fabricated by an anti-Bush source, but the perpetrator never intended or expected to fool CBS for long. Rather, the letters were mock-ups of documents that should have been present in Bush's military record, but are mysteriously missing, designed to draw CBS's attention to the absence of those very records. The letters are mild because, while they are fabrications, their content is substantially accurate--which is what fooled CBS into taking them at face value. I don't think the perpetrator expected the forgeries ever to become public--he was just trying to get CBS started investigating what was originally in the "holes" in Bush's military record. Unfortunately, the perpetrator underestimated CBS's gullibility.

Re:Sorry, Sir, We're out of tin foil today

[Cyberdyne]

He didn't take his physical because this is when the Guard instituted drug testing as part of it. Its ridiculous to suggest he'd risk landing in Vietnam just because taking the physical was not fun. Its no secret was a frequent cocaine user during this period. He would have been nailed for drug use if he hadn't so he refused.

Wrong - the DoD introduced testing for cocaine in 1980 (after a brief trial program beginning in January 1979) - and do you really think they'd have been dumb enough to give everyone a year's notice when their next drugs test would be by putting it in the annual physical, rather than conducting them randomly?

(There's an element of truth to the "drug testing introduced then" claim - but cocaine wasn't tested for until years later; those tests targetting morphine and amphetamine abuse, which were a problem in Vietnam, perhaps because morphine is included in triage kits hence easy for troops to get. Claiming someone would miss a physical in '72 to avoid drug testing is a sign of having little or no knowledge of the subject.)

A few points....

[automandc]

First, when I first saw the headlines my left-wing conspiracy-nut side immediately suspected the Republicans of faking these, since the documents overall support Bush's story that he didn't break any rules (at least, that was what the Wash. Post seemed to imply this morning, and if they couldn't twist them into a scandal then I don't think anyone could.)

In any case, there are a few reasons why I don't think they are fake:

1. Zoom in on the PDF scans that are available, and the characters seem to support typewriter more than laser printer. First, it seems that there are different ink-levels that one would expect from a ribbon. Compare like letters in different words and you will see that they are darker in some places, or have extra pixels representing "blobs" hanging off of them (bottom serif on the lowercase "n" is a good one). That may be scanning artifact, but it would indicate typewriter.

2. Everyone is making a big deal about the superscript 'th', but IIRC the IBM "golfball" typewriters had the superscripts as special characters (I'm not the first to point this out either). The connectedness of the "th," the fact that they have the same "ink level," and the fact that the entire "th" is no wider than the widest character seems to indicate to me that they were stroked by a typewriter.

3. If the superscript "th" was a function of Word's Auto Format, why didn't it happen in the "111th" in the letterhead?

4. Some of the letters, notably the lowercase "e", look too imprecise to have been laserwritten. Again, very well could be a scanning artifact.

Re:A few points....

[Jhon]

I'm not convinced either. I'm still waiting to see. BUT:

3. If the superscript "th" was a function of Word's Auto Format, why didn't it happen in the "111th" in the letterhead?

I see "111th" in superscript here (page 2 -- in the body, not the letterhead). Maybe the letterhead is real but not the body?

Interestingly, on page 1 of that link, you DO NOT see the superscript TH in 147th (item #3 in the body). BUT, notice there's a space between the 7 and the TH. That is consistant with something MS WORD would do. Interesting that you dont see it on the ST of 1st. Maybe it's a lowercase L and not a 1? They look VERY similar on times new roman. Or maybe the "1stLt." is ran together? I dunno.

I smell the fish, but I'm not ready to eat the chips yet...

Re:A few points....

[nonregistered]

I was working in a Gov office in DC in 1974 and IIRC, the special characters were available by stopping typing with an IBM golfball typewriter, changing the ball to a special ball, typing the special characters, switching back to the regular ball and continuing.

Re:A few points....

[crmartin]

Yeah. It's clear a lot of you guys don't remember typewriters, but the way you got superscript and subscript in general was to roll the platen up or down a half-line. The super- or sub-script would be the same size font, but offset.

You could get a superscript like that by changing the "element" (ie, the typeball). It was amazingly easy -- for 1972 -- as all you had to do was open the little clamp on top (usually meant breaking off a fingernail, even for males), digging the new element out, popping it on, closing the clamp, and then doing it again to go back.

Nobody bothered with this for the "th" in "11th".

According to the Selectric Museum, IBM never made a Times New Roman element. They're slashdotted to within an inch of their lives, but they've put up some static pages with the information you need.

In any case, though, as someone who typed a lot of this stuff in 69-73, I can tell you GI typewriters weren't IBM Executives. They were old-fashioned IBM C typewriters in black or green.

Maybe some PIO officer somewhere had an Executive, but not an ANG office in halfway-to-nowhere Texas.

Re:A few points....

[SengirV]

All of your points can be answered by the following process -

1. Type fake document in MS Word.

2. Print out fake document on ANY printer you want.

3. Photocopy and or fax multiple times until artifacts appear.

4. Say, "Hey Dan Rather, I have a document that get the devil known as W".

5. Have Dan say, "Well, I don't know who you are, but I'll run with it, as long as it gets that Devil W."

Re:A few points....

[Keebler71]

Yes, I am copying the following from a my other post that got burried:

Ding Ding Ding! Congratulations and welcome to the highest level of conspiracy theorists! In breaking out the "must have done it to themselves for reasons to advance some agenda" you have joined the likes of many morons who believe that the US used remote-controlled aircraft and cruise missiles to manufacture 9/11. Not to mention the "UFO-ologists" who believe that some bad UFO hoaxes are part of a government misinformation campaign to discredit the "serious UFO science".

Re:A few points....

[True Grit]

This is ridiculous. Think about it: you're implying that they knew there would be questions about the authenticity, that they had to introduce artifacts to show a typewriter origin, so they made all those copies to introduce artifacts(*), but if they knew authenticity would be important why didn't they just actually print this up on a real typewriter in the first place and avoid the whole problem? Since you believe all the media (except for Fox) is liberal, you seem to assume they are stupid too, and therefore this is easily explainable, but I don't think liberals or conservatives are automatically stupid, and I don't believe CBS would make such a blatant mistake, because any competent journalist would look hard at the authenticity issue knowing thats the first thing the critics will bring up.

*: I don't actually agree with that either. Making copies repeatedly will introduce *random* artifacts, but not the specific characteristics being talked about here (whether "th" is superscripted or not, what kind of font was used, what characteristics certain specific letters - ALL of those letters - have, etc, etc)

Re:A few points....

[SengirV]

and I don't believe CBS would make such a blatant mistake, because any competent journalist would look hard at the authenticity issue knowing thats the first thing the critics will bring up.

I gave the steps to follow to make THIS particular fake document(s). And apparently the person who did make these fakes IS that stupid.

But CBS is STILL sticking to it's story that the memo is authentic. All I need to know is the path this memo took before it was put on CBS:
1. Origin unknown
2. spent a couple weeks at DNC
3. Given to CBS
4. CBS gives it to the White House and told to make it public or they will.
5. Memo released by White House.

Steps 1 & 2 were pretty much not questioned by CBS, so I have no sympathy for them and the asses they have made of themselves.

Re:A few points....

[True Grit]

Interesting, since CBS hasn't publically said where they got those documents.

You see, here's what I think: You've been reading right-wing blogs, or listening to Fox News, and somewhere along the line, you heard someone say it came from the DNC, and to you thats now a fact. Well, I have a few facts of my own: some of these "friends and relatives" that say it couldn't have happened are pro-Bush, and the CBS crew suspected them of lying from the beginning, there are experts saying there were typewriters of the era that could have made these documents, few if any of the experts are going on record as 100% against the documents because they don't have access to the originals, CBS *still* stands by their story, in part because the documents aren't the only thing they based the story on, CBS hasn't said what the origin was, and the DNC says they had nothing to do with this, and as sure as you are that CBS and everyone else is lying, I think you and the bloggers are lying, desperately attacking something you fear might bring your boy down.

Now where does that leave us?

The Philadelphia Project

[I_Love_Pocky!]

You are all overlooking the obvious possibility that the military has had access to modern computers since their time travel experiments in the 1940's. This was clearly typed back in the 60's using a then 20 year old copy of Word 2000. Simple questions call for simple answers.

Re:Truth is irrelvant

[Golias]

Does anyone, regardless of what they believe about THESE documents, really think Bush honorably completed his service?

Yes. I do. He earned more than enough active duty points, in a program which was dangerous and did experience some deaths, to be honoraby discharged from the reserves a few months early. Especially considering that it was at a time when there were a glut of idle pilots and taking an early release was actually doing the military a favor by allowing them to stop paying officer salary to a pilot who has nothing to do but read technical spec documents all day.

Or did you think they just let people stroll into the airbase untrained and fly risky test-flight manuvers in expensive and dangerous jet aircrafts on the basis of their family connecitons?

If he had served his entire stint in a comfy desk job, or had simply joined the ROTC in college and then got permission to quit before he actually would have to serve, like a certain previous President, then I would say you have a point.

But he volunteered for a job which subjected him to years of training - raining which most of the people currently calling Bush "stupid" could not have completed. This training was followed by combat simulations which, while nowhere nearly as dangerous as what the "brown water" Navy men were doing in Vietnam, still occasionally resulted in pilots getting killed. In fact, Al Gore's unit, which was technically doing combat duty in Vietnam, actually had a lower casualty rate than the Texas Air Guard.

Re:Social Policy

[Bastian]

Well, to me trying to implement is as important as actually implementing in determining how much I think a politician agrees with me.

And I guess it also depends on what your threshold for signifigance is. To me, it is very significant that under Bush's watch mercury compounds have suddenly been downgraded from toxic chemical status to "volatile organic compounds" and that manufacturers have been given the right to violate clean air acts.

I also think it is very significant that the Defense of Marriage Act was signed into law with little protest by Clinton.

And on government spending and small vs. big government, I think the real truth is that the two parties have flip-flopped. Or rather, that the Republicans have made such a rapid shift to big government politics over the past 20 years that the Democrats, by not making many changes to their platform during that period of time, suddenly became the small government party.

So I don't think it's really that there is no difference between the two parties. (Hell, look at how many votes fall on partisan lines and try to tell me again that it doesn't matter which side is in power) Instead, I think it's that the disconnect between what each party claims to stand for and what it really does stand for has grown so large that it's getting darn near impossible to remember which party believes in what.

prove they're false

[bandy]

What needs to be done is to find an Executive and type out the memo on it, scan and post it to the net.

The 'd' and 'b' characters are pretty unique and their variation from Times doesn't look like a generational error. I don't see kerning in the memos, either. Word, on the other hand, does a good job kerning the "fe" in "feedback", for example.

Re:prove they're false

[bill_mcgonigle]

What needs to be done is to find an Executive and type out the memo on it, scan and post it to the net.

agreed.

The 'd' and 'b' characters are pretty unique and their variation from Times doesn't look like a generational error. I don't see kerning in the memos, either. Word, on the other hand, does a good job kerning the "fe" in "feedback", for example.

If it is a forgery produced on a laser printer one must consider that 'font substitution' is turned on and that the printer may not use licensed Times New Roman. Variations are expected in a knock-off font, so Times New Roman doesn't look exactly the same on every "PostScript-Compatible" printer.

Bleh

[autopr0n]

Kerry's military history is so last week. Bush's military history is what we're talking about today. Anyway, this is really intresting. And, btw what do the rest of this guy's personal documents look like are they all written in Times New Roman as well?

Re:Bleh

[Zeinfeld]

Anyway, this is really intresting. And, btw what do the rest of this guy's personal documents look like are they all written in Times New Roman as well?

As you point out it is easily checked and that is why we can be certain the right is not going to do the checking. They want to believe that the memos are forged for as long as they possibly can.

There is a very simple way to end all this, all Bush needs to do is to allow access to his military record, something he has refused to do so far. The only documents that have been allowed out have been edited by the WH and its supporters.

Release the microfiche and this is all over - one way or the other. We know the microfiche exists, the WH is resisting release under FOIA. I do not think they would do that if they were exculpatory.

Bush refused a direct order to take a medical shortly after random drug testing for pilots was introduced. Those are the facts, deal with them.

Re:Bleh

[Cyberdyne]

As you point out it is easily checked and that is why we can be certain the right is not going to do the checking. They want to believe that the memos are forged for as long as they possibly can.

So far, every attempt at refuting the proof of forgery has fallen flat on its face - look at the link to an authentic page of Bush's record claiming the font is "identical" to CBS's PDFs - except the linked record is monospaced using "open" 4s, the CBS memos are proportionally-spaced using closed 4s.

There is a very simple way to end all this, all Bush needs to do is to allow access to his military record, something he has refused to do so far. The only documents that have been allowed out have been edited by the WH and its supporters.

There are plenty of pages out there - and it seems Kerry has released no more than 6% (4th paragraph from the bottom) of his own. There is, however, a simple way to end this controversy: CBS can produce the originals, and/or produce their anonymous "document expert" who allegedly authenticated these documents yet disagrees utterly with the leading authority in the field.

The document's already been compared to one authentic page of Bush's record - and isn't even similar. Why would the microfiche copy show anything different?

Bush refused a direct order to take a medical shortly after random drug testing for pilots was introduced. Those are the facts, deal with them.

Actually the fact is that cocaine testing was introduced by the military in 1980 ("By July 1980 methaqualone was dropped and cocaine was added to the test panel"), and wouldn't be done as part of your annual physical anyway (that would be stupid: give everyone a year's notice of their next drugs test?!). This rather bursts the whole "Bush was avoiding a drugs test" theory.

Re:Just cause it's fake doesn't mean it's false ??

[copper]

And even if the documents are retypings, they went to the trouble of faking the signature on it, which by itself is pretty damn untrustworthy.

These don't look like Kerry's memo's..

[slashkitty]

Just look at the Discharge Document and other documents from Kerry. These all use either handwriting or fixed width fonts.

How about going off of current events.

[ageoffri]

I for one am getting tired of what Bush or Kerry did or did not do 30 years ago. What I want to know is current events like an explanation for Kerry's current voting record for the last year? Why he chose not to resign as a Senator?

Re:How about going off of current events.

[CaptRespect]

I would agree. Both Kerry and Bush are surely not the same people they were 30 years ago. Lot's of politicians even completely switch parties in less time than that. So why bother with crap thats 30 years old.

BUT...

This is terrible. It's obvious that CBS doesn't do there homework before bashing Bush. This is more an issue with CBS bias than Bush or Kerry. You'd think a major News network would check to make sure that the documents were real before they went out to rehash an old story that was previously laid to rest about our President. I don't care if they did ask people about the memo or if the signature is real(photoshoped in maybe?) . These "new" memos are obvoiusly fake.

I'm not one to give into conspiracies about anything but this is screaming media conspiracy against Bush.

Re:How about going off of current events.

[Tailhook]

You'd think a major News network...

Why the hell would anyone think that? This isn't new; they just got caught. It happens, now and then. NBC wired domestic trucks with explosives to demonstrate the explosiveness of side saddle fuel tanks. The NYT had a reporter publishing eye-witness accounts of tragedies that were pure fabrications.

If some CBS exec steps on Rather's neck he'll only be about 3 decades late. Rather and his ilk have been broadcasting leftist propaganda long before the typical /.er was conceived.

Re:Social Policy

[Coryoth]

And I guess it also depends on what your threshold for signifigance is. To me, it is very significant that under Bush's watch mercury compounds have suddenly been downgraded from toxic chemical status to "volatile organic compounds" and that manufacturers have been given the right to violate clean air acts.

I also think it is very significant that the Defense of Marriage Act was signed into law with little protest by Clinton.

Oh, I agree there are differences. My point was not that there aren't differences, but rather that they are, for the most part, fairly insignificant. US voters have become so used to splitting hairs, and debates over irrelevant issues as a means to differentiate that they have lost sight of just how similar these parties are.

Yes, the parties are different but compared to pretty much anywhere else in the world the differences between them are on very minor issues.

I'm most familiar with New Zealand politics, so I'll use that as an easy example. In the last election there were several parties standing. There was a party proposing a flat across the board 20% tax rate. There was a party seeking to institute a new top tax rate of 50%. There was a party seeking complete decriminalisation of marijuana and carbon taxes. And yes, all of those parties currently have seats in the New Zealand parliament (though none has a majority). Yes New Zealand has 2 major parties that are fairly centrist and consume most of the votes - but should either of those parties fall to close to the center they risk rapidly losing their votes to the more fringe parties (as has happened in previous elections) giving much greater sway to more radical points of view. Equally, should the electorate itself ever swing significantly, there are significant parties with credible support and reasonable expectations of receiving significant representation in parliament that people may vote for.

Jedidiah.

Re:Truth is irrelvant

[Elwood P Dowd]

"Truth is my god, and Justice his bride."

There are like ten other ways to say that. You weirdo.

Question, though: Does anyone, regardless of what they believe about THESE documents, really think Bush honorably completed his service?

No. And I still don't care. I wouldn't care if Bush had gone to Vietnam and earned three purple hearts, while Kerry neglected his reserve duty.

Yes, I realize you're responding to the linked articles, and your point stands.

Re:Try this -- Abiword works too...

[dameron]

So maybe it was a Linux user who forged these docucments...

Or, could it be something about the common origin of these type of typesetting equipment, fonts, spacing etc.

Far more likely that it's some kind of conspiracy...

If I have time and can risk my poor server I'll post the image like the above that Abiword generated.

-dameron

Not proven yet

[autopr0n]

Well, I'm a Kerry fan and even with biased eyes it looks like it's probably fake. It's still up in the air, (the last peice of evidence we need is to see the output from one of these fancy IBM typewriters that people claim could have been used, if it looks nothing like this, I'd say they're probably faked)

That said, the damage to the Kerry Campaign if these turn out to be fake will be a lot worse then the damage to the bush campaign if they turn out to be true.

Proportional Spacing

[AmBoy00]

Proportional spacing is one of the claims to this memo being fake. But IBM has been able to type proportionally since 1941. http://www-1.ibm.com/ibm/history/history/year_1941 .html

You sayin'

[the_skywise]

The 7 days guy went back in time do to this?

No wait... that can't be right... that'd be longer than 7 days...

Unless he went back 7 days multiple times to age the forgeries!!

I think I've broken my Occams(tm) Razor.

(would somebody care to subscript that tm for me?)

Good idea

[autopr0n]

Looking at the Requisitions could certanly prove that that they did have the typewriters (as long as they're in the right font :), but it wouldn't really prove they didn't.

That said, I doubt we'll find any early 70s typewriter that can exactly reproduce the output of MS Words' default settings.

Yeah right...

[NEOtaku17]

"that doesn't necessarily mean that they aren't faithfully retyped copies of originals"

Yeah kind of like those symbols made in wheat fields...even though we know that people put them there that doesn't mean that they weren't just faithful copies of real alien works.

CBS

[cirby]

CBS has since come out with a new justification for the documents, in which they admit that they didn't have any actual experts check them out, but instead asked some anonymous sources if those memos were the sorts of things the guy might have written.

CBS verified the authenticity of the documents by talking to individuals who had seen the documents at the time they were written. These individuals were close associates of Colonel Jerry Killian and confirm that the documents reflect his opinions at the time the documents were written.

In other words, CBS didn't actually check to see if they were forged. Of course, other documents from the same guy just a little later say that Bush was doing fine and made no mention of the forged memos.

Re:CBS

[Colazar]

In other words, CBS didn't actually check to see if they were forged.

To be fair, if you believe that CBS is telling the truth when they say this:

CBS verified the authenticity of the documents by talking to individuals who had seen the documents at the time they were written. These individuals were close associates of Colonel Jerry Killian and confirm that the documents reflect his opinions at the time the documents were written.

why would they need to check to see if they were fake? They'd gotten their independent confirmation that those documents existed. Now you can question the reliability of those confirmations (and if these documents are shown to be fake, you have to), but now you've increased the number of people who have to be lying. Which is always a stretch.

Note, it is always logically possible (though not at all likely) that these documents existed at some point in the past (and were witnessed by these unnamed people), lost, and then "recreated".

Yeah, I know. I don't believe that either.

Re:CBS

[j_snare]

Unfortunately, the statement from CBS is useless without knowing what questions they asked.

I mean, there's a large difference in:
"Did he have bad days?" or "Did he ever come under pressure?" (as in relation to having trouble running interference, etc)
and:
"Did he ever say anything about Bush, and if so, what?"

And so on..

More information is needed from all parties.

Re:ONE article paying lip service

[bandy]

Oh the debunking has been hilarious. "Typewriters are monospaced!" .... "Uh, ok, some typewriters were proportional - but if I type it into Word, it comes out the same!" .... "And no typewriters had a 'th' superscript!" .... "Ok, some did but the Executive didn't!" ... "It uses a font that didn't exist until 1984!"

Still haven't seen

1. Photograph of an Executive keyboard [IDs keys]
   
2. Memo as typed on an Executive
   
3. Explaination as to why one "th" is normally typed out, not automagiced as per Word's wont
   
4. Explaination as to why the font differs from Times in the 'd' 'b' & 'g' characters.
   

I suspect that 1. will be taken care of in the next couple of days.

Yeah, and

[autopr0n]

Kerry (now that I think about it) really looks like a Tool for not sticking up for Bush's service record the way Bush has for his. He could at least say something like "I don't know what the deal is with Bush's TANG service history, but I don't think that issue affects his ability to be president" Because honestly, it doesn't.

I've never understood why this was an Issue democrats kept brining up. No undecided voter is going to care at all. If it could be shown that he'd lied about something (as these documents purport) then it would be an issue.

Kerry has really disappointed me as a democrat, and I'm worried we might be stuck with bush for another 4 years due to his idiocy. Wish we'd nominated Edwards.

Re:Yeah, and

[jgardn]

Wish we'd nominated Edwards.

You should've nominated Howard Dean. He was the only one you democrats got excited over, and the only candidate with any energy. At least he carried your message honestly, rather than trying to sugarcoat it and dumb it down for public consumption. His classic line was the the one about the flag didn't belong to Rush Limbaugh, Jerry Falwell, or George Bush. I always got a tickly when he said that and I was looking forward to hearing that line every day for the next couple of months.

I would've loved to see George Bush deliver a folded flag to Howard Dean after he said that line in a debate. "Here you go. This one is for you." ;-)

Slashdotted Filebox

[waldoj]

Dang, I hope you didn't Slashdot Filebox. I need to get to that tonight. :)

-Waldo Jaquith

Yes, He Has

[waldoj]

You're talking about Senator Kerry, right? The guy who hasn't answered a reporter's question for one month and eight days now?

Yes, he has -- he does interviews with local media outlets regularly, often several times daily. I believe what you mean is that he has not personally held a press conference for one month and eight days, which is quite true.

-Waldo Jaquith

Re:Yes, He Has

[Twirlip of the Mists]

You're absolutely right. I should have said that Kerry hasn't answered any non-carefully-vetted questions in one month and eight days.

Re:Yes, He Has

[Twirlip of the Mists]

And when was the last time that Bush answered a non-carefully vetted question?

About five hours ago. He took questions briefly at the National Hurricane Center in Miami.

Next?

Re:The actual documents seem to be slashdotted

[sapbasisnerd]

That's a typesetter. It didn't have a superscripted th.

No it's a typewriter, the predecessor of the later IBM Selectric Typewriter some models of which did have superscripted th.

Times New Roman was invented and copyrighted by Microsoft- and differs from Times Roman by closing the numeral 4 on the top, which these documents do. But if what were comparing to is NOT typeset output but rather produced on a late sixties/early seventies vintage IBM Selectric the question is does was there are Selectric type ball with a closed 4, superscripted th and otherwise Times Roman characters? Haven't got a collection of vintage Selectric type balls handy unfortunately but to my eyes I'm not convinced the originals are not what they claim to be, types in 1974 on a Selectric.

General Staud retired in 1972.

[DAldredge]

UPDATE 12: In the August 18, 1973 memo "discovered" by 60 Minutes, Jerry Killian purportedly writes:

Staudt has obviously pressured Hodges more about Bush. I'm having trouble running interference and doing my job. But wait! Reader Amar Sarwal points out that General Staudt, who thought very highly of Lt. Bush, retired in 1972.

The more I look at these "memos," the more obvious it appears that they are inept forgeries.

Posted by The Big Trunk at 07:51 AM | Permalink | TrackBack (212)

Re:General Staud retired in 1972.

[Zeinfeld]

Staudt has obviously pressured Hodges more about Bush. I'm having trouble running interference and doing my job. But wait! Reader Amar Sarwal points out that General Staudt, who thought very highly of Lt. Bush, retired in 1972.

Stadt got Bush INTO the guard was still shilling for the Bush campaign early this year.

"Bush's application, as well as his commission, were handled by then-Col. Walter B. "Buck" Staudt, who said, "Nobody did anything for him.... There was no ... influence on his behalf. Neither his daddy nor anybody else got him into the Guard." Staudt, who retired in 1972 as a brigadier general, said Bush was enrolled quickly because there was a demand for pilot candidates. "

It is completely belivable that Stadt would have remained in contact with his former collegues after leaving the service. The claim that there was a shortage of pilots has been proven to be a lie. So there is every reason to believe that Stadt would have been the person pressuring Hodges - although if you read the memo it is clear that this is a suposition on the part of Killian

Let me get this straight . . .

[kalidasa]

Drudge knows typography experts? Then why the hell is his site - oh, nevermind.

Re:Let me get this straight . . .

[CaptRespect]

I don't understand how you can jab Drudge when he didn't even say anything about it. All he did was post a link to news sites!

Re:Let me get this straight . . .

[kpansky]

Mod parent up +5 insightful and then -5 troll :-)

Does it really matter?

[ad0gg]

Who cares what people did 30 years? How about we focus on things recent like things within the last 5 years. Its time we get off this stupid subject and focus on current events. The only events that should be called up are those of a serious nature. And these include going AWOL, Lying about medals earned, being a nixon aide, drunk driving, or a being trial medical lawyer. So unless any of the candidates are accused of these serious allegations, we should move on to current events.

Re:Does it really matter?

[brusk]

It matters for a simple reason: if they lie today about what they were doing 30 years ago, it's not a dead issue. If in 1980 or 1990 or even 2000 W had said, "Sure, I got out of serving in Vietnam, I blew off some of my duties, but everyone was doing it then," that would be one thing. But he didn't; he has misrepresented what he did and that makes it a live issue.

Re:Does it really matter?

[CaptRespect]

And if Kerry's centerpiece of his campain is that he is War Hero for doing a 4 month tour, then that is fair game and can be questioned also. Especially when that seems to be his only answer to any question.

Proof and disproof

[autopr0n]

There are a few simple ways to help prove that these are legit:

1) CBS (or someone) has the original documents. Take a close look at the documents I mean under a microscope. Are there physical indentations from typewriter keys, or is the ink smooth like that from a laser printer or ink-jet? Presumably there should be lots of physical differences from different documents. Analyze the paper: is it a particular kind? Chemically analyze the ink: is it inkjet ink? Was it from a typewriter ribbon? Showing that the letters had been hammered in would go a long way to showing the document to be real.

2) Get ahold of the kind of typewriters that could print this kind of thing. If it turns out they are as good a match with word as this document, that would definitely settle the question of wether it was possible to print such a thing.

3) Look at army requisition histories (if they exist) if there was a record of the kind of typewriter used being at the base, it would really help. Of course they might just say "5 typewriters" or something.

The steps to show it's a fake are similar, excepting step three. If it could be shown that the typewriters that could do proportionally spaced fonts didn't look exactly like MS words default settings, it would pretty much kill this.

Ultimately, I think this could do a lot more damage to Kerry's campaign if it turns out to be false then it would to bush's campaign if it turned out to be true.

Re:Proof and disproof

[N3WBI3]

You forgot to look at documents written by the same officer at about the same time...

The Hand of Karl

[RobertB-DC]

Yesterday on NPR's Fresh Air, I listened to long-time Austin reporter Wayne Slater talk about his book (soon a movie) "Bush's Brain", about Karl Rove and the power behind the president. Rove is a master of dirty tricks, and damned proud of it. I see his hand at work.

His methods, dating back to Bush's election as Texas' Governor, are to get dirty deeds done in ways that can't possibly be traced back to him or his candidate. Things like the whisper campaign against Ann Richards here in Texas, the "McCain is crazy" rumors in the primaries, and the Steamboat Veterans (whatever) for Truth fiasco now.

What could be better than creating an obvious forgery about Bush's service, and slipping it into some CBS exec's inbox? It fits Rove's pattern perfectly: the president will have a chance to look persecuted, everyone will be angry at whoever was evil enough to try to set up Bush. There will be enough of us liberals who fall into the "we got him!" trap to keep Rove's fingerprints off the whole thing.

I also think Rove is behind the supposedly-unexpected appearance of demonstrators at Bush's appearances... listen to the Fresh Air interview with Slater, especially the part where he sets up a nearly identical disruption of his opponent's event in the early '70s.

Re:The Hand of Karl

[SengirV]

Yesterday on NPR's Fresh Air, I listened to long-time Austin reporter Wayne Slater talk about his book (soon a movie) "Bush's Brain", about Karl Rove and the power behind the president. Rove is a master of dirty tricks, and damned proud of it. I see his hand at work.

WOW!!! you are grasping at straws there don't you think?

I also think Rove is behind the supposedly-unexpected appearance of demonstrators at Bush's appearances... listen to the Fresh Air interview with Slater, especially the part where he sets up a nearly identical disruption of his opponent's event in the early '70s.

Let me get this straight - The W cronies got that woman who was involved in Governer Moonbeams presidential run to disrupt W at the RNC to help Bush out? WOW!!! Do you let the FAR FAR FAR Left NPR do ALL your thinking for you?

Re:The Hand of Karl

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know what the moderators are smoking, but they need to pass it around.

http://slashdot.org/~Futurepower(R)

For someone who didn't start posting until the 6th of September of this year, all of your posts are very anti-Bush, anti-Republican, and anti-government (blame the Republicans).

You are nothing more than a troll.

Re:The Hand of Karl

[RobertB-DC]

I don't know what the moderators are smoking, but they need to pass it around.

I wouldn't reply to this bizarre AC post, but since one of those smokin' moderators modded you up, I'll reply.

http://slashdot.org/~Futurepower(R)
Why did you link to some random dude's page? That's not me.

For someone who didn't start posting until the 6th of September of this year
I've been posting since 2002, and I've got the Journal Entries to prove it. Remember, unless you're a Subscriber, you can't see a person's full posting history.

all of your posts are very anti-Bush, anti-Republican, and anti-government (blame the Republicans).
That's because I'm anti-Bush, anti-Republican, and I blame the Republicans for much of what's wrong with America. I think you have me on this one.

You are nothing more than a troll.
And you are nothing less than an Anonymous Coward. Chacun a son gout.

Re:The actual documents seem to be slashdotted

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Very few Selectrics had porportional fonts available- I learned on Selectric IIs and IIIs back in high school. NONE of the balls we had, had closed 4s, that wasn't a part of the Times Roman font as defined at that time. A few had superscripted th and sts, though, but that was in the late 1980s, not early 1970s. I think I'd go with the experts on this one. Much as I'm for Kerry and against Bush, I want to see the original paper now.

In other news...

[dpilot]

The Pentagon investigation into Kerry's medals is simply a Search for Truth and has nothing to do with election-year politics.

It hits both sides.

It's disgusting from both sides.

It ducks the real issues from both sides.

The press allows it to happen, even fosters it.

Re:In other news...

[night_flyer]

Kerry is running on his medals/war service, so that is what makes it relevant today.

Re:In other news...

[dpilot]

Bush is running on his Patriotism, and that's with a capital 'P'. A 'P'atriot who was AWOL when his country had called him to serve is just a tad hypocritical. This is the same 'P'atriot who cast aspersions on John McCain's patriotism back in the 2000 primary campaign, and IMHO that's *really* despicable, and that's *recent*.

Everybody would like political 'rules of engagement' that allows facts beneficial to them and facts detrimental to their opponent, and disallow the converse.

Re:In other news...

[night_flyer]

Prove that he was AWOL, seriously... the only "proof", so far, is a bunch of (apparently) forged documents.

Re:In other news...

[dpilot]

The AWOL thing has been circulating for years, and has never been satisfactorily answered. Even the proof offered of good service by the White House ducked the assertions at the heart of the AWOL issue.

Meanwhile Kerry's medals have the same status as Bush's TXANG status. No proof other than inuendo, etc, that they are anything other than valid medals.

I'm willing to throw *both* into the water together, and think the nation would be better off if we did so, and not discuss either, again. I'd rather see focus on current events and policies.

Photoshop?

[daveo0331]

Does Photoshop have a "create fake typewritten document" feature?

Re:Photoshop?

[Bombcar]

No, but OpenOffice.org better add one if it wants to be competitive.

Re:Nice try

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Ok- the evidence I've seen indicates strongly that the memos were typed sometime after 1986 and not signed by the guy who died in 1984. Originals may exist and this may be a photoshoped version of the originals to make them more clear- but at this point until we have the originals found and verified by experts, I'd take all of it worth a grain of salt.

Re:The actual documents seem to be slashdotted

[Twirlip of the Mists]

some models of which did have superscripted th

The superscript "th" was available as a custom-ordered type ball. It cost a fortune, and would not have been found in a Texas Air National Guard secretary's typewriter.

the question is does was there are Selectric type ball with a closed 4, superscripted th and otherwise Times Roman characters?

Jesus, dude, I'm really just guess what you mean here. Are you asking wether there were Selectric type balls with Times New Roman on them? The answer is no. The type balls available were: Advocate, Bookface Academic 72, Delegate, Orator, Courier 72, Pica 72, Prestige Pica 72, Adjutant, Artisan 12, Courier 12 Italic, Scribe, Prestige Elite, Courier 12, Elite 72, Letter Gothic. Those are all 10- or 12-pitch fixed-width typefaces.

How could he deny them?

[TheSHAD0W]

These are purportedly memos between National Guard officials; even assuming they were genuine, Bush would never have gotten a chance to see them and therefore couldn't testify to their authenticity. All he'd be able to say is that he performed his duty and was discharged honorably -- which is what he's been saying all along.

Re:How could he deny them?

[EnderWiggnz]

what, like the direct order to take the god damn physical?

yeh - bush would have never gotten wind of that. totally double-secret probation here...

Hmm

[autopr0n]

I agree that it's pretty supicious, but the details of the letters are a little diffrent, even though the overall layout is the same. Take a close look at the serifs on the '1' characters.

That said, on a visual examination, It definetly looks more fake then legit.

Re:Hmm

[_xeno_]

It's possible it's another type face - the problem is that you can't just write it off as being simply dust on the lens, so to speak.

Zoom in closely on the 1 and look at the spots on the paper. The difference can easily be explained away if we assume that one of the random dots created during the scanning process wound up at the top of the 1.

It's just not really possible to make a really good comparison based on the scan of the original document - it's just blurry enough to make it impossible to really come up with what the font is.

However, the fact that the reproduction using Word comes so close is suspicious in and of itself. If it does use another font face, the font face is extremely similar to Times New Roman, and the margins are also practically identical. (Although it appears that maybe they were slightly wider and the font size slightly smaller - it's unclear.)

The test looks fake

[spitzak]

Seperate the channels and look at the "Word" output (red channel) and it appears the words have been moved horizontally to line them up with the original fax. Notice that the first letter in each word lines up much better than the last one, and that the spaces seem to be different sizes between the words (compare "Harris gave" to "gave me" for instance). In addition the blue channel is not the same resolution as the pdf file, it appears to have been scaled down by a non-integer, which blurs and thickens the original letters. Also they put red*blue into the green channel to make it look more consistent.

However I have to say that zooming in on the original PDF documents does reveal some strange artifacts. They seem to have been a 3 or 4 level image, with very even gray fringes around the letters. The "th" is also questionable, though there certainly were symbol balls for the Selectric I'm not really certain if it included a small th that looks so exactly scaled. I would also question if anybody would really title the thing "CYA". Because of these doubts it is rather foolish of somebody to make bogus tests when there may be real proof coming, it will only discredit you.

Re:The test looks fake

[Bombcar]

Littlegreenfootballs.com has the original Microsoft Document he used available for download.

Check it yourself.

Also, OpenOffice.org should add a feature - what year typewriter would you like to imitate?

Re:The test looks fake

[spitzak]

If you look at the test, it is pretty obvious that the start of words line up much better than the ends of words, except at the ends of lines where it is the opposite, or the second-to-last word which are centered. I suspect this is because this is a purposeful attempt to match by using horizontal adjustment, or possibly the supplied Word document does not print the image shown. If it actually matches and does not have any Word microspacing then it is an absolutely amazing coincidence. There is no possible results of faxing and copying that would move, for instance, the end of the word "obviously" while not moving the start of it and not moving the start of the word "pressured" a similar amount.

It does look like the test image has a .6 scaled version of the PDF fax file without adjustment, so I belive the adjustment was done in the Word document or to it's output, and not to the PDF. I believe this was done by using Word's microspacing, though maybe some crazy person just adjusted the image using Photoshop or something...

I have no idea how to see the microspacing or adjust it, and I don't have a copy of Word anyway (it opens in AbiWord though). If the word document contains no microspacing and actually produces a matching image like this, it is a coincidence of astronomical proportions, I think. It is pretty obvious that they have not reproduced the original, but that does not mean the original is real.

Re:The actual documents seem to be slashdotted

[autopr0n]

The Times New Roman appeared for the first time on october 3rd 1932 in the Times. Only fourty years later, while the conditions of printing had completely changed, it was replaced by an other.

[emphasis mine]

Re:ONE article paying lip service

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Wow. You took a double-dose of your idiot pills this morning, didncha?

Re:The actual documents seem to be slashdotted

[Twirlip of the Mists]

I've already taken credit for not being sufficiently specific. I should have said Microsoft Times New Roman, which is the specific typeface used in these four memos.

who gives a flying fuck?

[NanoGator]

""Last night, CBS News released a set of memos dated 1972 and 1973 that are purported to raise questions about President Bush's National Guard service."

30 years ago. Ugh. That's soooOOoo relevent today. This is why I hate politics. Anything is an issue, anything is fair game. Anybody who's basing their votes on this issue seriously needs to reconsider their priorities.

An analysis

[Futurepower(R)]

I'm not saying this is the only possible explanation, but this is what I thought of when I looked at the Bush documents in PDF format that can be seen on the Washington Post web site. The documents brought back strong memories of working with those machines.

Typeface and font used in the letters. -- Much is being made of the proportional font used in the letters. People are saying the proportional spacing is an indication of forgery, because the letters look like Microsoft Word documents.

However, I've often had the experience of walking into a military office and being shocked by the office equipment there. There are numerous ways that people in the military get things that they don't really need. For example, a general may requisition something and then discover that his secretary doesn't want to learn how to use it. So, then it is available to an office of lower rank.

The fonts are consistent with those sold with a kind of upscale IBM Selectric typewriter that was actually a low-cost typesetting machine. (Typesetting was what it was called before everyone could do it on a personal computer.) These machines had a one-use carbon ribbon. The impression of each character was clearer than the clearest laser printer.

I'm a bit confused about the model numbers of the typewriter. It could have been called a Selectric costing then about $2,500, I believe. I seem to remember that they had another name for the more upscale, true typesetting machines. (I wrote computer manuals which I typed on a Selectric and were prepared on those machines.)

There were usually some odd symbols and characters like "th" on the type balls used by the Selectric family of typesetting machines. That's because of the design of the balls. Whereever there was room, there were characters, partly to assure that the balls would be balanced, I suppose, and partly just because there was room.

There's a funny side to the self-consistency in my guess about the machine used to prepare the memos. Back then anyone writing and publishing computer user manuals really struggled with the publishing. Whenever something needed to look professional, we had it typeset. To do that, we did what is called "spec type". On one occasion I spent 11 hours specifying typesetting values for one particularly complicated page.

After you have spent many, many hours worrying about the look of type, you begin to be extremely sensitive to everything about it. (Either that, or you wouldn't be successful.)

Looking at the letters discussing preferential treatment for George W. Bush brings back strong memories. The Selectric was an unbelievably complicated machine that needed frequent service because it depended on everything being adjusted to extremely fine tolerances.

Anyone familiar with this can see something funny about the letters immediately. It's obvious to me. Whoever had the typing machine did not have the maintenance contract. It's easy to know this because the letters are not all level with the baseline. That's what would happen when the Selectric or other typing machine from the same family was not adjusted.

The funny self-consistency is this. It's easy to guess that they got the machine from the general's office after some civilian secretary there decided that the new machine was too complicated to learn. But, since an office of lower rank was not allowed to have such a machine, they did not have the maintenance contract. That could be why the baseline of the type is so messy.

Someone said that the letters were forgeries because they were obviously done with Microsoft Word. It is impossible to simulate the variation of baseline with Microsoft Word; Word is too basic a tool, it is not able to do many of the functions of real typesetting. People who are sensitive to the beauty of type certainly don't use MS Word.

I use Ventura Publisher. It is possible t

Re:An analysis

[BCoates]

The misaligned baseline look is an artifact of scanning a document at an angle. Text scanned at low resolution looks like that, including lots of pdf documents made from recently produced stuff that was extrememly unlikely to be printed using a golf-ball printer.

Re:An analysis

[Fished]

I'm not equipped to analyze this to great depth, but others in this thread have claimed that the "th" character was only available on the selectrics, and that only by custom order, while the proportional typeface was only available on the executive model. Apparently, there was also a primitive typesetting thing more like what you refer to, but that did not do "th" either.

Re:An analysis

[gleam]

Thank you.

Here's what the original blogger gives us as proof that this was rare, courtesy of the ever-accurate freerepublic.com (where "Unfit for Command" co-author Jerry Corsi conflated islam, catholicism, and "boy buggery"):

"Every single one of the memos to file regarding Bush's failure to attend a physical and meet other requirements is in a proportionally spaced font, probably Palatine or Times New Roman. In 1972 people used typewriters for this sort of thing (especially in the military), and typewriters used mono-spaced fonts.

The use of proportionally spaced fonts did not come into common use for office memos until the introduction high-end word processing systems from Xerox and Wang, and later of laser printers, word processing software, and personal computers. They were not widespread until the mid to late 90's.

Before then, you needed typesetting equipment, and that wasn't used for personal memos to file. Even the Wang and other systems that were dominant in the mid 80's used mono-spaced fonts. I doubt the TANG had typesetting or high-end 1st generation word processing systems."

That's absurd, and demonstrably false. You mentioned the selectrics. IBM's electric typewriters had proportional fonts as far back as 1945. Even if the base had a typewriter that was nearly 30 years old, it would still be capable of creating proportional fonts.

Doubters should also remember that today's most popular proportional fonts have been used in typesetting (and on selectrics) since well before TrueType.

Furthermore, Maj. Gen. Bobby Hodges, mentioned in the memos and involved in the back-and-forth, has confirmed that Killian expressed to him the same sentiments contained in the memos.

Regarding the superscripted 'th' argument, this document from Bush's official records also contains a superscripted 'th': http://www.usatoday.com/news/bushdocs/9-Miscellane ous.pdf. The superscripted th is on page three, in the second line of the log.

The White House even admits the authenticity of the documents, so why is this even an issue?

Because people don't want to realize that Bush disobeyed a DIRECT ORDER from his superior officers.

Because people don't want to think that the plane Bush flew continued to be used regularly through 1975, despite Bush and Bartlett's claims that it was "being phased out" and that Bush didn't need to take the physical because the planes wouldn't be used.

The best line I've heard lately, courtesy of Kevin Drum:

This story is a perfect demonstration of the difference between the Swift Boat controversy and the National Guard controversy.

Both are tales from long ago and both are related to Vietnam, but the documentary evidence in the two cases is like night and day.

In the Swift Boat case, practically every new piece of documentary evidence indicates that Kerry's accusers are lying.

Conversely, in the National Guard case, practically every new piece of documentary evidence provides additional confirmation that the charges against Bush are true.

regards, ed

Re:An analysis

[gleam]

supplemental: see http://www-1.ibm.com/ibm/history/history/year_1941 .html, where IBM mentions proportional spacing as becoming "a staple of the IBM Executive series typewriters" starting in 1941.

There were Executives released throughout the 50s, 60s, and early 70s.

-ed

Re:An analysis

[Twirlip of the Mists]

IBM's electric typewriters had proportional fonts as far back as 1945. Even if the base had a typewriter that was nearly 30 years old, it would still be capable of creating proportional fonts.

That is not correct. IBM made a line of typewriters that used proportional spacing: the IBM Executives. IBM also made a line that had interchangeable type balls that could take different typefaces: the Selectrics.

The Executives could not produce Times New Roman type, or, indeed, any variety of Times. The Selectrics could in theory have produced Times if there had been a Times type ball (there wasn't), but the Selectrics were incapable of doing proportional letterspacing.

In order to produce this memo, the typewriter would have had to do both of those things at once. No typewriter has ever existed that could do both.

Doubters should also remember that today's most popular proportional fonts have been used in typesetting (and on selectrics) since well before TrueType.

Yes, on typesetting machines like the Linotype hot-lead typesetters and the IBM Composer line-setting system. Neither of these would have been found in an office, for both cost tens of thousands of dollars and required special training to use.

Furthermore, Maj. Gen. Bobby Hodges, mentioned in the memos and involved in the back-and-forth, has confirmed that Killian expressed to him the same sentiments contained in the memos.

Yes, that's what CBS says. Nobody else has been able to talk to him because he's stopped answering his phone. (Understandably.) Furthermore, CBS acknowledges that MG Hodges never actually saw these memos. They were read aloud to him over the phone. So he has no input into the authenticity of the documents at all either way.

Regarding the superscripted 'th' argument, this document from Bush's official records also contains a superscripted 'th':

And there ends the similarities between that document and these. That document damns more than it forgives, friend. Compare the typography.

The White House even admits the authenticity of the documents, so why is this even an issue?

No, the White House declined to say anything about them at all. They received them from CBS News, looked 'em over, declined to comment, then emailed them out to other reporters this morning.

Because people don't want to realize that Bush disobeyed a DIRECT ORDER from his superior officers.

Um. There is no evidence that any such order was given apart from this memo, and the authenticity of this memo is ... well, I was going to say it's in doubt, but after all we've seen today it really isn't, is it? This memo is not authentic. It may be a reproduction of an actual memo, like somebody sat down in front of a PC and re-typed it or something, but it's not the real deal.

People don't want to believe an extraordinary claim unless there's extraordinary proof. And in this case, not only is there no extraordinary proof, but the proof that was offered is itself false! It has negative truth value, if you will. The fact that this memo is a forgery (along with the other three) sucks credibility away from the claim.

Because people don't want to think that the plane Bush flew continued to be used regularly through 1975, despite Bush and Bartlett's claims that it was "being phased out"

Um. You're not paying attention. When Bush moved to Alabama, there were no open slots on the flight-line. Because Bush's plane was being phased out -- no need for scare-quotes, you see -- and he was in his last year of service, the Air National Guard opted not to re-train him. He let his flight OK lapse because he had no reason not to. This was not unusual at all.

He didn't disobey a direct order because there was no such order. Okay?

The best line I've heard lately, courtesy of Kevin Drum

Sigh. If you've taken to quoting Kevin Drum, there's little hope for you left.

Re:An analysis

[mdielmann]

My mom had a selectric back in the day, and may still have it kicking around. It was probably bought about the time this whole fiasco was occuring. I seem to recall that it did proportional spacing, and had the th symbol, but it's been a long time (I mean, come on, who on /. has used a typewriter in the last 10 years?). It was definitely the golf ball style. I remember popping that thing off just for fun, and probably screwing up the adjustments in the process.

I'll have to check it out, and post any corrections here, if she still has it lying around.

Re:An analysis

[peacefinder]

Regarding the superscripted 'th' argument, this document from Bush's official records also contains a superscripted 'th':

And there ends the similarities between that document and these. That document damns more than it forgives, friend. Compare the typography.

It does help to clarify the matter. The forgery camp has been making blanket statements that superscript "th" was utterly unavailable circa 1972. They have also said that proportional spacing was utterly unavailable circa 1972. It turns out both things were available, but no one has yet found a machine that could do both. (I'm inclined to think that, in 1972, if IBM didn't make one then nobody did... but I could be wrong.)

These documents do look suspiciously modern to my eyes, but I think it will be helpful for everyone to be very clear on exactly what is claimed to be anachronistic: no known typewriter had both a superscript "th" and proportional spacing. Also, the font itself may be anacronistic.

I think the jury's still out on this. It is possible that some obscure custom typebar for the IBM Executive was in use that happened both to resemble TNR, and include a superscripted "th"... but I'm not gonna hold my breath awaiting its discovery. Right now it looks to me like CBS screwed up bigtime.

Re:An analysis

[Twirlip of the Mists]

The forgery camp has been making blanket statements that superscript "th" was utterly unavailable circa 1972. They have also said that proportional spacing was utterly unavailable circa 1972.

That's kind of an oversimplification. Okay, it's not really an oversimplification as much as it is out-and-out wrong. "They" have been saying since early Thursday morning that superscript type balls for the IBM Selectric were available, but only by custom order to IBM and at great cost. "They've" also been saying that the only typewriter that could produce the superscript "th" seen in the CBS memos could not have produced proportional letter-spacing.

I think it will be helpful for everyone to be very clear on exactly what is claimed to be anachronistic

The list is not a short one. Basically everything about these documents is wrong. The format is not correct. The typography is impossible with 1970's-era equipment. The signatures on the two signed memos do not match the signing officer's actual signature. One memo refers to an Air Force manual, AFM 35-13, that never existed; there was a regulation AFR 35-13, but it dealt with supplemental pay for soldiers who were proficient in a foreign language. And, of course, the contents of these memos is suspect because it doesn't jibe with any other account.

And so on, and so on, and so on.

I think the jury's still out on this.

Oh, technically it is. But we're not convicting a man of murder here. There's no reason to err on the side of caution -- either way. Do these documents appear to be forgeries? Yes, definitely. Is there anything about them that suggests they're not forgeries? Nope. Ergo ...

It is possible that some obscure custom typebar for the IBM Executive was in use

It is not possible, actually, according to representatives of IBM's media relations office. They have the records, and they say that no such custom-made Executives were ever produced.

Right now it looks to me like CBS screwed up bigtime.

Yes, either by passing off obviously forged documents ...or by forging them. Not sure we'll ever know which it was.

Re:An analysis

[idiotnot]

I use one nearly every day at work. :-) IBM Selectric III.

Unfortunately, it only does monospace (10 or 12pt), so I can't try and reproduce the document.

We use the typewriter to make labels for audio carts and cassettes. It's just faster than futzing with getting the laser printer to do it.

Re:An analysis

[True Grit]

Do these documents appear to be forgeries? Yes, definitely. Is there anything about them that suggests they're not forgeries? Nope. Ergo ...

Amazing. Twirlip of the Mists has strongly implied the documents are forgeries, despite the CBS experts who say they aren't, despite the contradictory statements here and elsewhere, despite living persons saying the alleged author of these documents had said these concerns to others, but because its Twirlip of the Mists saying so, who everyone knows is a world renowned expert on 1970's era typewriters and typesetters, well of course I'm not even going to listen to anyone else.

Re:An analysis

[True Grit]

I'm not implying it. After three days of research, I'm saying it outright. These memos are forgeries, and inept ones at that.

Wonderful, your 3 days of research trumps everyone else, because you're never wrong, right? LOL.

You weren't listening to anyone before, you shithead.

Oh I *was* listening Mr Twirlip, but I was also taking into account who are the ones running their mouth off right now (besides you). What I see is a lot of net-based right-wing blogs and Bush attack dogs launching attacks on these specific documents but with most moderate sources simply reserving judgement.

Meanwhile CBS still stands by their conclusion, in part because those documents under attack weren't the only source of their story, and some people who initially thought there might be some questions in the document have changed their mind, and interestingly enough, this guy *is* a recognized 30 year expert on typewritten documents. Meanwhile, Mr Twirlip, where is your document forensics resume, hmmm?

All I want is evidence and some kind of consensus from *real* experts, rather than a bunch of foul-mouthed right wing Internet nuts, and for that I'm called a "shithead". Doesn't surprise me a bit, you guys have been working on the Big Lie strategy for so long, and unfortunately, successfully, why quit now?

Re:An analysis

[tgibbs]

The thing that varies most, even among different implementations of the same "font" is the character spacing. So the fact that it is possible to type the same text into Microsoft Word and have the relative lengths of the lines come out exactly the same is very strong evidence.

Somebody has actually tried the same thing on the Selectric Composer. The line lengths don't match. Here is a more detailed explanation of why the exact spacing differs.

The fact that the subscripting of the "th" matches exactly the automatic subscripting rule in Word (which subscripts if and only if there is no space between the digit and the "th") is icing on the cake. Even if there were a ball with a custom superscripted "th" (for the test referenced above, the guy had to switch balls to get the small characters) it would be manual, not automatic as it is in Word.

Re:An analysis

[demachina]

"I'm not implying it. After three days of research, I'm saying it outright. These memos are forgeries, and inept ones at that."

I think you're right Twirp but you have to go to the next step and think about who forged them and why to get to the heart of the story.

1. I imagine you will say its some left wing nut case trying to trash Little George. Problem is I think if they were serious about this they would have done a better job of it. Thinking they would use a computer and try to pass it off for an ancient typewriter is insane. I think they would have got an ancient typewriter. Its not that hard to do.

2. Maybe someone knew what was in the original documents so they wrote them out on a computer to try and restore records long since destroyed. They knew what was in the memos was true and is what mattered and they didn't care that they didn't do a great job forcing them. They weren't forging them, what they were doing was restoring documents Bush and his political operatives destroyed when they were given unsupervised access to his Guard file, and they were definitely given access to his file early in his political career to shred all the dirt that would have destroyed his political career if it got out, especially that he refused his flight physical because they'd instituted drug testing that year and he would have been nailed for Cocaine use.

3. My favorite and preferred theory is Karl Rove is the one that actually forged them and then fed them to CBS through a circuitous route. It would be genius and he is a malevolent genius. He makes the Democrats look bad, he trashes CBS which has been pretty hard on his administration, and most of all he makes the charges about Bush's youth appear fabricated when they are in fact true. They are true just not provable since all the documents have been shredded. In particular there is a tell all book coming soon about George's youth, part of which is sourced from Neal Bush's ex wife and will once again expose George W.'s extensive romance with Cocaine, including small time dealing and a felony conviction, which thanks to connections, was plea bargained to 6 months of community service to poor black folks, which he mostly ducked, and it was purged from his record. His felonious youth should have precluded him from holding office, how does that compare to Clinton lieing about sex. If this books comes on the heals of this forgery uproar it makes it a lot easier to discredit it the book....oh look it must be forgery and lies just like that Guard thing, those Democrats are so desperate.

Re:An analysis

[peacefinder]

Do these documents appear to be forgeries? Yes, definitely. Is there anything about them that suggests they're not forgeries? Nope.

An interesting new development, FYI. Apparently Killian's secretary says she didn't type them, but that "The information in here was correct [...]".

So:
Forgeries? Yes.
Accurate? Maybe.
Confusing? Certainly.

Re:An analysis

[True Grit]

What 'Big Lie'?

• Iraq had nukes and were about to use them.
• Iraq was partially responsible for 9/11 and connected with Al Queda.
• Kerry is a flip-flopper (Kerry changed positions as the laws he was voting on changed from one vote to the next)
• Kerry lied about his actions in Vietnam
• Bush didn't lie about his National Guard service, never mind the abortion and the cocaine use
• Bush's unilateralism has made our country safer
• We can win the war in Iraq if we just "stay the course" (Hint: history is repeating itself again)
• We can win the "war on terror" all by ourselves
• The United Nations is irrelevent
• Average Americans are getting a little poorer every year, but we're still somehow "doing better"
• Subsidizing the movement of jobs overseas helps America
• Letting the rich get richer helps everyone (Widening prosperity gap proves this wrong)
• Democrats are the only ones who like to spend taxpayer money
• Neo-conservatives are actually more fiscally responsible
• There is compassion in Bush's conservatism

The list goes on....

Re:An analysis

[Snaller]

he didn't disobey a direct order because there was no such order. Okay?

Not that you can prove that.

Re:An analysis

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Not that you can prove that.

LOL. Typical crazy-person thinking. Orders are documented, okay? Where's the documentation of this order? It's not a memo created last July in Microsoft Word, I can tell you that for damn sure.

No documentation, no order. Simple.

Re:An analysis

[Snaller]

I.e., you can't disprove what witness say.

Hardly surprising. You lost any crediblity when you said people were being treated nice at Guantanamo.

"He did have complaints about Bush. Bush missed his physical and went off to Alabama with none of the paperwork, I remember Killian talking about that"

Marian Carr Knox, former secretary, of Lt. Col. Jerry Killian

Re:An analysis

[Snaller]

"You lost any crediblity when you said people were being treated nice at Guantanamo."

Been there lately? No? Then shut the fuck up, okay? Okay.

Run out of glib defences for your facist state, have you?

Re:An analysis

[Twirlip of the Mists]

facist

You broke the gauge on my dipshit meter. I expect you to pay for the repairs. Where shall I send the bill?

Less bad?

[dpilot]

I'll go for simply *less effective*, at the moment.

I completely agree with you that ground-up reform is needed. IMHO, if the framers of the Constitution were around today, they'd have some sort of Bill of Responsibilities tucked in there with the Bill of Rights. They'd be explicit about the Right to Privacy. Plus they'd not just try to enforce separation of Church and State, they'd try and enforce separation of Church and Corporation. More likely, 'Persistent Legal Entities' composed of people (corporations, etc) would be defined in the constitution, and their rights with respect to people and the government would be clearly defined, too.

But for the moment, neither Left Wing nor Right Wing should have the effectiveness the Bush Administration has now, especially considering that the populace is pretty much split 50-50. As a matter of fact, the fact that one half is running its agenda roughshod over the other half is a large part of what the current tense climate is all about, IMHO.

As for a 'less effective' government during the War on Terror, it's OK. The machinery of government is quite capabable of running well without advocacy at the helm. Real Leadership is not needed right now. Todd Beamer and the others on the fourth flight didn't need to be told what to do. They *knew* what they had to do, and they did it. I suspect that the rest of us would do the same, in the same circumstances. Nobody in the US wants terrorists to Win, though we do differ on how it should be done. The institutions are in place, and they know how to do their jobs.

Besides, I really don't think Kerry would be an ineffective leader. Though I don't believe he could push any personal agenda like Bush can, having majorities in both Chambers, he could potentially do a better job against Terrorism, because he'd have to work with a hostile Congress, and measure his actions carefully. There might well be *less* partisan bickering under a Kerry Presidency.

If you're heading in the wrong direction, you've got to either stop or turn before you can start going the right way.

Some IBM Selectrics had proportional spacing.

[Futurepower(R)]

See this analysis. There were IBM Selectrics that had proportional spacing.

Most people now know nothing of typesetting, because their computers do a better job than the $40,000 to $1,100,000 typesetters ever did. However, those who know about typesetting know that Microsoft Word and the old Selectrics are imitating the same font. Both are trying to look like typesetting.

Times Roman, for example, was designed for the London Times in the 1770s, for example.

IBM put some quirky symbols on the Selectric type balls because there was room for more than just the standard characters. I don't specifically remember which symbols, and there were many balls with many selections of characters.

The old one-use carbon ribbons used in the Selectrics made a more clean impression than a laser printer, and impression quite like letter press, which is still the standard in fine-looking type.

Only difference is issue avoidance

[dpilot]

If it's a fake, does anyone believe Kerry either knew about it or endorsed it? (Yeah, I heard Kerry typed it, himself! Right!)

So we have xx options:

1: It's real, and there's some explanation for the fonts.

2: It's fake, and some overzealous Democrats did it.

3: It's fake, and someone in the Kerry campaign did it.

4: It's OBVIOUSLY fake, and some overzealous Republicans did it, meaning for it to get exposed.

5: It's OBVIOUSLY fake, and someone in the Bush campaign did it, meaning for it to get exposed.

Let's face it, as others have said, this was all 30 years ago. The only options above that are REALLY meaningful are (3) and (5), because those indicate corruption TODAY directly connected to one campaign or the other. These are the LEAST likely possibilities, IMHO.

The next possiblity is (1), and that makes *some* difference. I won't rank it's likelihood.

The most likely possibilities are (2) and (4), and neither of those makes a whit of difference, at all. There are nutcases in the finges of both parties, and neither Bush nor Kerry should be held responsible for them.

The real effect is that this makes so much noise that the real issues get submerged - again.

Re:Only difference is issue avoidance

[cyberformer]

Don't forget the sixth option: It's fake and someone did it for money, fame or TV ratings.

Also, keep in mind that immediately after the program was broadcast, the White House released memos of its own admitting that Bush failed to meet National Guard Standards. They previously denied that any more memos existed, so we have to wonder what else they're hiding?

Times New Roman was designed in 1932.

[Futurepower(R)]

The Times New Roman typeface was designed by Stanley Morison and Victor Lardent in 1932. Everything that produces proportional characters since then has, at a minimum, tried to imitate Times New Roman exactly. The old proportional spacing IBM Selectric typewriters and MS Word look identical because they are trying to be identical.

Re:Times New Roman was designed in 1932.

[Bombcar]

There is a difference between Times Roman and Times New Roman.

The New one is from 1984. (No, not the book!)

At least, that's what I've heard. Supposedly the 4 is different.

Re:Times New Roman was designed in 1932.

[Twirlip of the Mists]

The Times New Roman typeface

Asked and answered elsewhere. We're talking about Microsoft Times New Roman, a very specific version of Times New Roman with specific letter-spacing. I should have been more specific.

The old proportional spacing IBM Selectric typewriters

There were no proportional-spacing IBM Selectric typewriters. The IBM Executive was a proportional-letterspacing typewriter, but the type that came out of it looked nothing like Times New Roman of any variety, much less Microsoft's.

Re:Times New Roman was designed in 1932.

[Happy Monkey]

You heard wrong, and didn't read the provided link.

Re:Times New Roman was designed in 1932.

[Rei]

You need to start from the beginning.. The model is the Selectric Composer. All Selectric Composers and Selectric Executives can use the font (actually a variant called 'Aldine Roman' (or "Bembo"). It has denser serifs than Times New Roman (something that the Word version looks rather light on)). All selectric models (composer or not) can use a th "ball" (font); it'd add about 30 seconds to a typing job of this size, so its use wasn't consistant. A Selectric cost a couple hundred dollars in the late 60s; by the early 70s, the models we're talking about would be ~6 years old.

It's amazing how many people spout off about this stuff after reading little more than freeper-produced garbage, considering themselves lexography experts.

Re:Times New Roman was designed in 1932.

[iocat]

It's extemely unlikely that the word breaks and MUCH more importantly the line spacing would be identical on a typewriter and MS WORD. Typical typewriters of the day, including the Selectric, had much more line spacing (spacing between the lines) than do modern word processors.

Re:Times New Roman was designed in 1932.

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Times New Roman is a clone of Times Roman carefully designed to have identical metrics as Times Roman.

Apparently false. Scroll down to the part where the author talks about all the different varieties of Times New Roman.

Um... you might want to look up the IBM Selectric Composer.

Funny you should mention that. On the exact same site, a guy (a reporter, evidently, or maybe just a really determined blogger) found somebody with the only known working Selectric Composer in North America. They tested it to see if it could produce these memos. Turns out it couldn't. And they've got lots of documentation explaining why.

Also, the Composer wasn't a typewriter at all. It was a typesetting machine. Completely different.

The Executive's default font is a wide-bowl serif font that doesn't resemble Times. But IBM sold a number of optional fonts for the Executive.

None of which was Times New Roman, ya putz.

Re:Times New Roman was designed in 1932.

[Cobalt Jacket]

Bunch of crock.

Re:IBM Selectric and Executive

[Picass0]

Neither of those typewriters featured superscripts (see the superscript th in 144th).

the quotes ' and " used in these documents, as well as commas, all feature curvy features not on the quotes or commas on either typewritter. Strike two.

BUT by amazing coindicence if you re-type one of the documents in MS Word 2002, Times New Roman 11pt, you will find the font lines up perfectly and are identical in appearance, the words autowrap exactly where line breaks occur in the document, and the 'th' superscripts itself by default.

Forensics on typewriters have been done for years. Court cases have been decided on evidence from typewriters. There is a black and white answer to this, and it will come out before November.

Re:The actual documents seem to be slashdotted

[Zeinfeld]

The font used in these documents isn't Times Roman. It's Times New Roman, a very specific variation on Times Roman.

The Times of London is actually set in Times NEW Roman and that was the original typeface designed in 1932.

The diference in the names is due to the Linotype corporation having applied for a trademark on Times Roman, Monospace then used Times New Roman as their term for the original font.

IBM Composer could do proportional spacing, also.

[Futurepower(R)]

Another thought: The IBM Composer could do proportional spacing, also, and also was very complicated mechanically.

Re:The actual documents seem to be slashdotted

[Zeinfeld]

The superscript "th" was available as a custom-ordered type ball. It cost a fortune, and would not have been found in a Texas Air National Guard secretary's typewriter.

See how we get from A to B?

First proportional fonts did not exist at all. [oops wrong]

Then Times NEW Roman did not exist [oops wrong]

Then the miliatry could not afford them (bought too many $5000 hammers I guess) [oops wrong]

Then the superscript th was impossible. [oops wrong]

Now we are back to claims that a Lt Colonel could not afford a spare golfball for his selectric.

Fact is that by the 1970s there were lots of companies making replacement golfballs for the selectrics. In fact you had to go to a 3rd party to get the golfball with proportional spacing, at least at first.

The idea that a Lt. Col. could not afford a fancy font for his typewriter is ridiculous. It is exactly the sort of thing where the military top brass play one upmanship. Every piece of correspondence would be written using the same machine.

This is pure denial from the right, they know that the documents prove that Bush is a liar and that he disobeyed a direct order to take his medical exam. The only way they can maintain their belief system is to believe the documents are fake.

Re:You see all this in a blurry copy?

[Twirlip of the Mists]

No, there's not. But when you generate a copy of the text using Microsoft Word and do a side-by-side comparison, you find that the lines are set in exactly the same way, with no visible difference. Which would not be the case if these were different fonts, or even different versions of Times New Roman from different foundries.

These memos were set with a font that did not exist when the person who allegedly signed them died.

Just, you know, to keep our eyes on the big picture here.

Re:ONE article paying lip service

[Colazar]

Dude, you've given some fine rebuttals in this thread, but you're crowing way too soon. It is not *proven* that this is a forgery, it merely looks mighty suspicious.

Calling people who still have open minds "idiots" isn't a great way to convince them (or anyone else).

Other damning evidence

[Masker]

I, for one, am willing to bet that these documents (at least the CYA one; what about the others? Anyone re-type those, especially the ones with _signatures_?) are done in Word. It's _way_ too big of a coincidence that they line up exactly like this.

However, there is plenty of other evidence, based on the documents that the White House released earlier, that show that Bush did not complete his service legally, and even that the Air Force pointed this out to his ANG unit.

Now, I know tons of people here are saying "So what, this happened 30 years ago", and that it doesn't matter anymore. However, lying about it over and over and over again, _does_ matter.

And, as for this kind of trivial issue is distracting us from the bigger issues, you'd be right if this wasn't part of a larger pattern of contemptuous lying from Bush to the public. Basically, the guy lies about anything so that he can just do whatever the fuck he wanted to in the first place:

1) Didn't want to go to ANG duty, but still want to be elected? Lie about your service.
2) Want to secure Iraq's oil supply, but populace won't support outright imperialism? Lie about your reasons (and scare the crap out of them).
3) Want to get credit for cracking down on terrorists, but didn't do squat to actually prevent September 11th? Lie about what info you had earlier in 2001.

Bush is a pathological liar, and a danger to this country. He will say whatever needs to be said to push through his agenda. And, that makes it important to stop him, and makes this issue non-trivial.

Re:Other damning evidence

[N3WBI3]

1) Didn't want to go to ANG duty, but still want to be elected? Lie about your service.

Hey CLinton had his number called and lied to get out of it, you speak as if this is something new.

2) Want to secure Iraq's oil supply, but populace won't support outright imperialism? Lie about your reasons (and scare the crap out of them).

Umm for the umpteenth time Oil is fungable if all the Oil in Iraq went to france the cost US companies pay for oil would go down as much as if all the Oil came to the US. If you dont understand market economics dont pretend to know what you are talking about..

3) Want to get credit for cracking down on terrorists, but didn't do squat to actually prevent September 11th? Lie about what info you had earlier in 2001.

Yes because puttiong that information togeter as it has now been done had nothing to do with the fact it actually happened? Look at Perl Harbor, all indications were months in advance something was going to happen, if we let the modern Liberal run things then we would still have comitties on why the radar was not followed up on, and would not have actually done anything about Japan..

Bush is a pathological liar, and a danger to this country. He will say whatever needs to be said to push through his agenda. And, that makes it important to stop him, and makes this issue non-trivial.

Re:Other damning evidence

[another misanthrope]

However, lying about it over and over and over again, _does_ matter.

I heard a lot of democrats saying that during the clinton impeachment too... oh wait, no I didn't.

At least W wasn't under oath ;)

And while we're on the subject of hypocrisy, how many of you guys screaming (not parent post) but Kerry served in Nam voted for Dole because of his service compared to clinton? Sigh...

Re:Other damning evidence

[Masker]

Hey CLinton had his number called and lied to get out of it, you speak as if this is something new.

"Everyone else does it, so why does it matter?" Sorry, but I didn't vote for Clinton back in '92, either. I don't think that people should get to lie about this stuff and not have that held against them. Oh, wait, you just like to lump people into neat categories of "Liberal asshole" and "Republican god", rather than face the messier reality of real life.

Umm for the umpteenth time Oil is fungable if all the Oil in Iraq went to france the cost US companies pay for oil would go down as much as if all the Oil came to the US. If you dont understand market economics dont pretend to know what you are talking about..

So, according to you, the only 2 options are:

1) All of Iraq's oil comes to the US
2) All of Iraq's oil goes to France

What about:

3) Iraq keeps its oil, and the US cuts down on its dependance on foriegn oil by ramping up utilization of non-fossil fuel energy sources

But, hey, if that happened, energy & oil companies (i.e. the backers of Bush & Cheney) wouldn't be able to continue making massive profits.

Yes because puttiong that information togeter as it has now been done had nothing to do with the fact it actually happened? Look at Perl Harbor, all indications were months in advance something was going to happen, if we let the modern Liberal run things then we would still have comitties on why the radar was not followed up on, and would not have actually done anything about Japan..

Have you any evidence that backs up your assertion that a "modern liberal" wouldn't have reacted to the attack on Perl Harbor? I believe that liberals and conservatives alike supported going into Afghanistan. Do you remember? You know, that other war that we're in that nobody talks about anymore? The vote was unanimous.

Second: There's a difference between a) doing absolutely NOTHING to keep an eye on terrorist activities and b) working as hard as you can and learning as much as possible about what terrorists are planing. Bush & Co. did (a): They ignored the Clinton-appointed terrorist adivsor Richard Clarke and FBI memos before September 11th. Which would you rather see, a President that did NOTHING to make terrorism a priority, or one that tried as hard as possible to prevent terrorist attacks, even if they failed? I, for one, would rather see the latter.

But, obviously, you're not concerned with reality, but just your black & white view of it. Critical thinking is _hard_, and if you don't want to do that, then only you will suffer the consequences.

Re:Other damning evidence

[Masker]

I heard a lot of democrats saying that during the clinton impeachment too... oh wait, no I didn't.

First off, you know nothing about me. You're calling me a democrat, when you have no idea. So, the _fact_ that I didn't support Clinton lying about his affair doesn't really matter to you, does it?

Second, there is a fundamental difference between having oral sex performed on you and lying about it and killing tens of thousands of Iraqis and over 1,000 American soldiers because you falsely lead the US citizenry to believe that Iraq is a threat. Sorry, but the latter crime is a repugnant and morally bankrupt action while the former is dispicable, but not even close to in the same category.

At least W wasn't under oath ;)

I have no reply to this. If you can't see the difference between their actions, then I just feel really sorry for you.

And while we're on the subject of hypocrisy, how many of you guys screaming (not parent post) but Kerry served in Nam voted for Dole because of his service compared to clinton? Sigh...

Sorry, I'm not a single issue voter, and Clinton's draft-dodging just wasn't enough of a problem in 1996 to have me not vote for him, when his economic plans were actually working. I didn't really see any compelling reason to go back to Reagan-esque policies when the economy was doing just fine.

I just love how both replies to my comments didn't try to talk about how Bush did or didn't lie, but were just trivial personal attacks. You guys need to get your heads out of your asses and figure out what's important for yourselves rather than just follow your party's line.

Re:Other damning evidence

[N3WBI3]

"Liberal asshole" and "Republican god", rather than face the messier reality of real life.

You may or may not have voted for CLinton in 1992 but 95% of the people making a stink about the ANG did, and they are liberal socialist. I am not a republican and am not voting for Bush *or* kerry in this next election but thatnks for playing.

3) Iraq keeps its oil, and the US cuts down on its dependance on foriegn oil by ramping up utilization of non-fossil fuel energy sources

Nice of you to decide what Iraq should do with its oil. Way to call Iraq a blood for oil war on one hand and ignore your own cliam the next..

Re:Other damning evidence

[Masker]

Nice of you to decide what Iraq should do with its oil. Way to call Iraq a blood for oil war on one hand and ignore your own cliam the next.

What? This is a stunningly stupid remark. Who else should decide what Iraq does with its oil? How about.... the Iraqi people! Basically, Hussein should have been deposed in 1992, and reconstruction should have occurred back then. Then, the Iraqi government could then decide what to do what they wanted with their own oil, unlike how any of the other Middle Eastern countries like Saudi Arabia do. I guess you're arguing that the US should decide what is done with Iraqi oil? But, I don't actually know, because you aren't *making* any arguments, you're just being an ass...

And, how am I ignoring my "blood for oil war" claim? I do feel that this administration has started a war of aggression for control of the second-largest oil and natural gas reserves in the world, in that if there were no oil in Iraq, we NEVER would have sought to depose Hussein; in fact the US government helped put him in power.

Re:Other damning evidence

[N3WBI3]

And, how am I ignoring my "blood for oil war" claim? I do feel that this administration has started a war of aggression for control of the second-largest oil and natural gas reserves in the world

And what do they have to gain by this?

Re:The actual documents seem to be slashdotted

[Twirlip of the Mists]

First proportional fonts did not exist at all. [oops wrong]

Okay, enough with the bullshit. All right?

Two typewriters: IBM Executive, IBM Selectric. Both were widely available in 1972/73. The Executive did proportional letterspacing but did not have interchangeable type balls, so it could not have produced these memos. The Selectric had interchangeable type balls but it did not have proportional spacing, so it could not have produced these memos.

It's really not that hard a concept, you know. You're either the biggest dumbass I've encountered all day -- and that is saying something -- or you're just fucking around.

In fact you had to go to a 3rd party to get the golfball with proportional spacing, at least at first.

Pardon me while I wipe up the spittle from the sudden and uncontrollable laughter. I don't care what kind of type ball you put in an IBM Selectric I or Selectric II, it could not do proportional spacing. The motor drive on a Selectric I/II was fixed at either 10 or 12 letters per inch; there was a lever to select which you wanted to use. But you couldn't use any other spacing, and you couldn't do proportional spacing. Period.

The idea that a Lt. Col. could not afford a fancy font for his typewriter is ridiculous.

The machine that could produce something similar to these memos cost $20,000. It was called an IBM Composer. It was not used for memos because it required special training to use and took forever to produce a finished page. And it still could not do Microsoft Times New Roman, because that font had not been invented yet.

This is pure denial from the right

Oops. Little typo there. You meant to say, "this is pure denial from ME."

Actually, 1932.

[Futurepower(R)]

The Times New Roman typeface was designed by Stanley Morison and Victor Lardent in 1932. Everything that produces proportional characters since then has, at a minimum, tried to imitate Times New Roman exactly. The old proportional spacing IBM machines and MS Word try to be identical. The differences between MS Times New Roman and the 1932 Times New Roman are very small.

Times Roman was designed in the 1770s for the Times of London.

ABC Nightline doing document forge story tonight

[Picass0]

TSIA

Check out this comment.

[Futurepower(R)]

This comment seems right to me. I know I have seen the machines used to type letters. I cannot remember the exact model name.

Re:Truth is irrelvant

[revscat]

Or did you think they just let people stroll into the airbase untrained and fly risky test-flight manuvers in expensive and dangerous jet aircrafts on the basis of their family connecitons?

Oh no, I think he got trained as a pilot. SOMEBODY had to protect Texas from that imminent Mexican invasion. But it sure do seem a tad bit coincidental that Georgie boy walked away whenever they started drug testing. See, from the non-conservaclone side of the fence it looks like Georgie boy was a cokehead back in the day, and when Nixon signed the order making sure every active duty military person got urine tested, Georgie ran for the hills. Or Georgia, to be specific.

It's not like he had anything to worry about; daddy's pals would -- and did -- take care of things.

But of COURSE this is just raving lunacy. Why, Bush was the best soldier since Dwight Eisenhower, I tell you whut! And in any case it doesn't MATTER if he took a walk, because he's a Republican and Sean Hannity just LOVES him, and that's what's important, after all.

Re:The actual documents seem to be slashdotted

[Zeinfeld]

It's really not that hard a concept, you know. You're either the biggest dumbass I've encountered all day -- and that is saying something -- or you're just fucking around.

That would be the cretin you want to get elected to the Whitehouse.

Several people are claiming that they used Selectric golfballs with proportional pitch. Wether or not they are correct is another matter, but I certainly don't see how you claim to know the exact capabilities of every typewriter owned by the US military.

IBM sold selectric golfballs with the th superscript at the time. There is no reason why they could not have offered their IBM Executive series machines with a similar option. In fact it would be even easier since instead of having to machine a custom golfball for an entire font all they would need to do is to substitute a single strikebar.

And no, the typeface is not MICROSOFT anything, Microsoft has never designed a typeface ever. The Microsoft fonts are from Monospace corp.

The 'expert' you refer to is not regarded as such outside the US republican party. There is only one google hit for Bouffard and typewriter that relates to a forensic case and that is a crank case involving UFOs. If he was the ultimate expert in the field you would expect rather more comment on his work.

Re:What's more likely...

[SengirV]

The only evidence I see so far says #1 is true.

Mod Parent Insightful

[aggiefalcon01]

Ain't funny, except that last bit. The parent post (#10206868) is Insightful, because it points out that a lot of supposed evidence on one side outweighs a little of supposed evidence on the other, and to still hold onto the other is almost folly (of course, it's all "supposed", but all things being equal ...)

CBS's reputation is at stake . . . !

[aggiefalcon01]

CBS's reputation is at stake...

Bwaahahahahahahahahaha ...

Re:CBS's reputation is at stake . . . !

[True Grit]

Bwaahahahahaha

Before you fall out of your chair laughing...

Re:CBS's reputation is at stake . . . !

[aggiefalcon01]

Based on other books each author has written, I'd give Bernard Goldberg more credibility points than Eric Alterman. Maybe that's just me.

Re:CBS's reputation is at stake . . . !

[True Grit]

Maybe that's just me.

Yep, its just you. :)

CBS now investigating apparently forged memos

[crmartin]

Drudge

Washington Post and ABC News

[deanj]

The Washington Post

and ABC News now have stories about it.

From the ABC News article:

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.

CBS seriously screwed up on this one.

Re:Washington Post and ABC News

[j3110]

Why not just carbon date the paper and ink?

Would carbon dating not apply? I know paper has carbon.

Maybe some tests on the ink will show if it's from a Lexmark or a ribbon.

Has Bush said these documents were a fake? If not, he may be worried that they are real, and if they are confirmed, he would be made out as a liar as well as a cheat, where both will go away if he just ignores them and they are fakes.

Re:The actual documents seem to be slashdotted

[Twirlip of the Mists]

That would be the cretin you want to get elected to the Whitehouse.

It's two words: White House.

Several people are claiming that they used Selectric golfballs with proportional pitch.

Impossible. The pitch on a Selectric isn't controlled by the type ball. It's controlled by the motor drive. The type ball just rotates and elevates to strike a letter on the paper. There's nothing about it that controls how far the type head advances on each letter strike.

but I certainly don't see how you claim to know the exact capabilities of every typewriter owned by the US military.

I've had sixteen hours now to work on this story. ;-) How many people from IBM have you talked to today?

IBM sold selectric golfballs with the th superscript at the time.

Yes. They were custom items that were machined to order and that cost a fortune. And they also could not produce variable-pitch type, nor could they produce Times New Roman type.

There is no reason why they could not have offered their IBM Executive series machines with a similar option.

Yes, there is: the Executive machines didn't use interchangeable type balls. They used a lever-arm mechanism. Either all Executive typewriters would have had the "th" glyph or none of them would have. None did. IBM never made one with that glyph.

And no, the typeface is not MICROSOFT anything, Microsoft has never designed a typeface ever. The Microsoft fonts are from Monospace corp.

LOL. You mean "Monotype?" Heh. When TrueType came along in the early 1990s (or was it late 1980s?) Microsoft licensed the name and the letter forms from Monotype, now Agfa Monotype. Microsoft implemented the font, which means they determined the letterspacing, kerning pairs and so on.

The CTO of Agfa Monotype, incidentally, is on the record saying that it was highly unusual for anyone to use proportional-pitch type in the 1970's. The technology just wasn't there.

The 'expert' you refer to is not regarded as such outside the US republican party.

Sorry, but that's simply not true. He's so influential in the industry of forensic document analysis that other researchers write papers about him.

There is only one google hit for Bouffard and typewriter that relates to a forensic case and that is a crank case involving UFOs.

Your Google-fu is lacking.

Score -5: TROLL

[tiny69]

I don't know what the moderators are smoking, but they need to pass it around.

http://slashdot.org/~Futurepower(R)

For someone who didn't start posting until the 6th of September of this year, all of your posts are very anti-Bush, anti-Republican, and anti-government (blame the Republicans).

You are nothing more than a troll.

Forget proportional spacing. Kerning is the proof.

[mc6809e]

A lot has been made of the fact that the text is proportionally spaced. Some have pointed out that a few typewriters has this ability.

Fine.

But what about kerning?

"In typography, kerning refers to adjusting the space between characters, especially by placing two characters closer together than normal. Kerning makes certain combinations of letters, such as WA, MW, TA, and VA, look better. "

There is kerning in the memo with SUBJECT: CYA. It happens between the 'f' and 'e' characters of "interference" and "feedback".

The trouble is that kerning requires remembering the previous character.

As advanced as typewriters might have been in 1973, I doubt any had memory.

Re:hey pudge

[SengirV]

Brilliant - Did you attend this rally? http://www.nbc5i.com/news/3719681/detail.html

You idiot

[autopr0n]

Read the page you linked too:

Futurepower(R)'s Latest 24 of 1976 Comments

You expect us to belive Futurepower(R) has posted almost 2000 comments in four days? That's pretty impressive. Of course, by your mesure I've posted 4,400 comments in just three days.

Or it could be that you're just an idiot who dosn't know that slashdot only displays the last 25 or so comments on the user page.

Re:Truth is irrelvant

[Golias]

Such a pity for your argument that there is no evidence whatsoever that supports it.

If he was doing coke at the time he was flying combat simulations, his remains would be in the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico right now (assuming he was even let into the plane, which would not be very likely.)

To even qualify to fly those missions requires a very advanced knowledge of Aviation. He may have been a slacker in regard to his college classes, but he obviously applied himself when it came to his Guard training.

He moved to Georgia to work on a friend's political campaign, and had already earned more than enough points at that point to never have to fly again, so the military was more than happy to accommodate his desire to serve out his time in Georgia.

He didn't serve in combat, but he served, which is more than former President Clinton could say. Weren't you people saying that military service (or lack thereof) didn't matter? You know, back when Clinton was running against a war hero Senator?

**CBSNEWS LAUNCHES INTERNAL INVESTIGATION**

[slughead]

Linkey linkey
If that doesn't work, it'll be here

Wow, it took a blogger to take them down, what does this tell you about the media. No wonder Brokaw wants to get rid of internet news, they catch their lies.

I'm not a republican but this makes me really pissed.

Kerning can be built in

[spineboy]

We had a typewriter that did this - an old mechanical one. The letter placement can happen automatically if the individuals tend to print to the left or right of the given strike space.
Nothing really fancy.

Re:Kerning can be built in

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm afraid that, yes, it is really fancy. What you're describing is fixed (or track) kerning. What we see here is pair kerning: compare the pairs 'fe', 'fr' and 'ee' to see that the spacing in each pair is different - this certainly wasn't available on any mechanical typewriter.

IBM proportional spacing - available since 1941

[spineboy]

www-1.ibm.com/ibm/history/history/year_1941 .html
Not to odd at all it seems

Re:IBM proportional spacing - available since 1941

[Marxist Hacker 42]

None of these used the Times New Roman Font- and these were typeseting machines, not office typewriters.

In the late 1960s the Selectric Executive had such capabilities, but it wasn't until the early 1980s that Microsoft invented Times New Roman, with the closed top 4.

Win-Win

[consciousmind]

It's a win-win for Bush even if they are forged. The media will spin it easily to support Bush. Maybe the terrorists manufactured it to hurt the Bush campaign, yes, thats it.. the terrorists..! I dont really see FoxNews/MSNBC/etc reporting that someone within the Bush campaign has released forged documents, either its the terrorists or the "anti-Bush" people. You wont see this on FoxNews: http://www.torrentreactor.net/torrents/view_24920

Re:The actual documents seem to be slashdotted

[Zeinfeld]

Yes, there is: the Executive machines didn't use interchangeable type balls. They used a lever-arm mechanism. Either all Executive typewriters would have had the "th" glyph or none of them would have. None did. IBM never made one with that glyph.

IBM made many, many different versions of their typewriters. The versions sold in France had accent characters, the version sold in the UK had the pound sign and a modified layout.

You are caught in a lie sir, a lie.

Besides there have been superscript th glyphs found in the other documents already released by the WH, documents that were obviously typed on basic pool machine.

Tou are caught in a lie sir.

Bush didn't release the memos

[jabster42]

They were given to the WH by CBS.

Full Debunking work done

[helleman]

at this link :

DailyKOS

Please read it closely.

I quote :

We're going to make this simple.

First, of course, in order to do this, he first had to reduce the document so that the margins were the same, since the original PDF distributed by CBS is quite a bit larger. Then he superimposed the two documents, such that the margins on all sides lined up.

What he then discovered is that Times New Roman typeface is, when viewed on a computer monitor, really, really similar to Times New Roman typeface. Or rather, really really similar to a typeface that is similar to Times New Roman typeface.

Um, OK then.

Re:Full Debunking work done

[browncs]

The site is down. Says "Maintenance is being done, check back later."

Re:The actual documents seem to be slashdotted

[Twirlip of the Mists]

IBM made many, many different versions of their typewriters.

Um, no. There were not "many, many." According to IBM, there were about a dozen. None of them had the superscript "th" glyph on them.

The versions sold in France had accent characters, the version sold in the UK had the pound sign and a modified layout.

Right. Which has nothing at all to do with these memos, because no version of the IBM Executive had a superscript "th" glyph on it.

You know how Kennedy assassination nuts talk about the "magic bullet?" You're fixated on the "magic typewriter."

You are caught in a lie sir, a lie.

Nope.

Besides there have been superscript th glyphs found in the other documents already released by the WH

Sigh. Those documents were not typed on an IBM Executive typewriter, because those documents are in a fixed-pitch, not proportional-pitch, typeface.

Man. You know, this stuff really isn't that hard. It really isn't that complicated. Do you need me to generate a Powerpoint for you?

Tou are caught in a lie sir.

Tou [sic] are caught in a typo, sir.

Spaz.

Check equipment inventories

[raider_red]

Is it possible to check the equipment inventories for the ANG unit where this was supposedly typed? The military tends to keep better track of equipment than it does of personell, so they might be able to answer to the existence of a proportional font Selectric.

Re:The actual documents seem to be slashdotted

[Zeinfeld]

Sigh. Those documents were not typed on an IBM Executive typewriter, because those documents are in a fixed-pitch, not proportional-pitch, typeface.

Well they sure were not produced on a selectric, not unless someone actually tried to play golf with one of the golfballs.

So it is clear that the 'th' glyph was present on at least some of the manual typewriters on the base.

Your statement from 'IBM' is unsourced, why would someone working for the IBM computer company in 2004 have any expertise in what options the IBM typewriter division was delivering in Texas in the 1960s?

The IBM executive had been made for over thirty years by the time the memo was written and the model used could have been any one of them.

Again, if the memos were fake then the WH would not have re-released the CBS documents, Bush would have said 'I was never ordered to take the medical' and the WH would not have redistributed them.

These facts seem important.

[Futurepower(R)]

One thing you should know is that I introduced some confusion into the discussion by not knowing what the IBM model is called. Most Selectrics did not have the capability of proportional spacing. I don't remember the name of those IBM machines that did.

There seem to me to be several facts that are important:

1) The one superscript TH in the documents is an anomaly whether the document is real or a forgery. Why was it used in only one place?

2) The whole thing that got me started doing an analysis of this was that I thought immediately that I recognized the shift in baseline that can most easily be seen in characters that are repeated, like ll and tt. That cannot be done with Microsoft Word. It is a characteristic of out-of-adjustment IBM machines.

3) There were third-party suppliers of type balls for these machines. Some definitely produced weird characters like TH. Whether I have seen TH, I don't know. I only remember saying to an owner of one of the machines, "Why is that character there?"

4) I don't agree with people who say they can tell that the font is Microsoft Times New Roman, rather than Times New Roman, which was designed in 1932. That argument was introduced when Bush supporters first began to realize that Times New Roman was not a Microsoft invention.

5) The machine that produced the letters may have been an IBM Composer, and not have been called a "Selectric". These are both different from the IBM Executive typewriter.

6) I was a big user of typesetting in those days, and I was supersensitive to typesetting issues then. I was very envious of those who had the top-level IBM machines. I noticed that you would see them in unlikely places. Sometimes they would be bought and the secretary would refuse to learn how to use them, so they would be used by someone else, who obviously could not have afforded them.

Re:These facts seem important.

[j_snare]

2) The whole thing that got me started doing an analysis of this was that I thought immediately that I recognized the shift in baseline that can most easily be seen in characters that are repeated, like ll and tt. That cannot be done with Microsoft Word. It is a characteristic of out-of-adjustment IBM machines.

I honestly don't know much about typesetting, but that one struck me as being odd. Quick question: Does highlighting the character, going Format->Font->Character Spacing and setting the position value count?

Typewriter to produce docs available in 1966

[leftie]

The IBM Selectric Composer was first marketed in 1966. Here's a link to the manual for that typewriter. It does everything required to make those documents...

http://ibmcomposer.org/docs/Electronic%20Compose r% 20Operating%20Instructions.pdf

-The font to produce those documents for IBM Selectric Composers was called "Aldine Roman." A smaple of that font is available at this link (scroll down)...

http://graphicdesign.sfcc.spokane.cc.wa.us/tutor ia ls/process/type_basics/type_families.htm

-Now, go to page 168 of the manual linked above(173 of the pdf), you'll see that Aldine Roman is available in three sizes: 8, 10, and 12. The superscript "th" is made with the 8-point size element font ball.

-The Air Force tested IBM Selectrics in 1969. Here's the link (scroll down)

http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:PZnx1vdH-6o J: https://web1.ssg.gunter.af.mil/ho/documents/chrono logies/Air%2520Force%2520Data%2520Systems%2520Desi gn%2520Center%25201969.doc+selectric+military&hl=e n

The reason the military purchased IBM Selectrics was because 1) It had the ability to "punch through" 6-10 carbon copies. Ask anyone who was in the military at that time about all the carbon copies of documents one had to produce 2) IBM offered the military one time use ribbons that a person could not pull the ribbon and read the documents that had been typed from the ribbon. The ribbons could be either safely thrown away in lower security situations, or burned to destroy in high security work environments.

Re:Typewriter to produce docs available in 1966

[boisepunk]

The said printer does not raise 'th' after a number, and was not able to produce the said font, becuase both features were invented AFTER the memo was supposedly written.

Re:Typewriter to produce docs available in 1966

[ksheff]

According to the site for the IBM Selectric Composer, that machine cost between $3600-4400. Why in the hell would a National Guard unit have a typewriter that would cost more than a new car at that time?

Re:Typewriter to produce docs available in 1966

[leftie]

Air National Guard units are not low priority Army reserve units. The Air Force does not defend the airspace of the continental US. The Air National Guard does. Southern state Air National Guard units were potentially tasked with defending against 1st line Soviet units flying from Cuba.

The Air Force was proven on the net to have started using them in 1969. They could type through 6-10 carbon copies, and had specially designed secure typing ribbons IBM had designed for secure facilities that could not be opened and read to determine what was typed on them.

Re:Typewriter to produce docs available in 1966

[ksheff]

A Selectric isn't the same as the Selectric Composer. There would be no need of having a piece of equipment geared towards typesetting in a regular office environment. They would be useful in DC or where they were creating manuals, but not in a ANG office.

And as far as ANG units not being low priority, I'd say that's BS. My dad was in the ANG in the early to mid 60s and they always had to deal with USAF hand-me downs. Knowing guys that are in it now, I'd say that nothing's changed.

Re:Typewriter to produce docs available in 1966

[leftie]

I personally don't care what your opinion is. I don't care what you conveniently think is BS at this moment because it is convenient for you to make such claims in order for you to rant right wing talking points.

The facts are that the Air Force tested and used the Selectric Composer and was available to Air Force personnel. The Selectic Composer could type the Bush memos.

The facts are that ANG units in the Gulf Coast region were not low-priority units as they were tasked with defending continental US air space in an era in which there was the possibility that any day there could be an incursion from Soviet or Cuban air units based in Cuba.

That is the facts. Unless you have evidence that Killian did not have a Selectric Composer, stop wasting bandwidth with opinions that are completely unsupported by evidence of any kind.

Some readers are amazing...

[Zardog]

What I find a more interesting story is the reaction of a large percentage of the Slashdot readers.

Faced with a real possibility that these documents are indeed fakes, they grasp at almost anything to believe they are not.

That I find very frightening on either side.

Re:Some readers are amazing...

[AmBoy00]

I don't find it interesting at all. Slashdot has been very liberal in its readership for a long time.

As we get closer and closer to the election we're going to see voices get louder and more people being more involved.

The Boston Globe reported articles back in 2000 about Bush's desertion and it got almost no media coverage. Now its coming back around and both parties are using military service as an issue. The Republicans began its swift boat "research" before Kerry even began his campaign.

If this one memo (among all the records and documents and reports already released) is indeed not authentic, I can totally see why the White House would produce it in an attempt to discredit the issue of Bush's military desertion altogether. Plus it would add, and already has, fuel to the fire of a topic that distracts from the failures of Bush's term in office.

Re:The actual documents seem to be slashdotted

[Keebler71]

The 'expert' you refer to is not regarded as such outside the US republican party. There is only one google hit for Bouffard and typewriter that relates to a forensic case and that is a crank case involving UFOs. If he was the ultimate expert in the field you would expect rather more comment on his work.

Wow... excellent use of google. Did you try Bouffard Phillip handwriting or simply "Bouffard Phillip"

Incidentally, I do think I found where you seem to have determined that he is a Republican... this google search returns the following in the results:
Directory - ASQDE Members' Email ... Bodziak, William J. (R), Jacksonville, FL. Bouffard, Phillip D. (R), Painesville, OH. Brondo, Alfredo Rodriguez, (C), Malaga, Spain. Brown, Jerry, (R), Des Moines ...

If you actually clicked on the link, you would see that (R) stands for 'regular member' of the ASQDE (the american society of qualified document examiners) - not 'Republican'.

Just to be sure, I also searched Opensecrets.org... but he seems not to have made a contribution this (or any) election cycle.

Nice try though.

Re:Truth is irrelvant

[cmpalmer]

Here is my personal take.

I think Bush used, to some extent, his family's connections to get in the Guard instead of active duty. In the same situation, I would have done the same. Many, many people did the same. Many also evaded the draft/war in ways that did *not* serve their country at all -- Guard service is military service.

Bush fulfilled his duties well until given the opportunity to work on campaigns for and with his father. That, combined with the phasing out of his preferred plane, led to him asking for transfers and exclusions from required service.

Obviously, from the scarcity of documents, possibility of forged documents, and conflicting reports, Guard units didn't keep meticulous records. Remember that this was before electronic filing and e-mail, so there were ample opportunities for situations where Bush asked one officer for a postponement of a drill or physicial, the request never got formalized, the commanding officer didn't know about and wrote him up, he found out later and the problem was solved.

I say the above because I have several friends who served in the guard in Alabama (non-wartime). Missing drill, bad communication between staff, etc. were very commonplace and no big deal. I also have at least one friend who moved, requested a change of base for his drills, and found out that the local base didn't have a unit with his speciality, and wound up with an excuse to miss monthly drills and just do his two weeks in the summer. Then again, I know someone else who was AWOL for nearly a year and got a general discharge instead of a dishonorable, but it required a lot of butt-kissing across several ranks and offices. Rules were quite loose.

If Bush were up for dishonorable or even general discharge and someone pulled strings to change it honorable, I think we would have heard that accusation already as that is a bigger deal than someone pulling strings to get into the Guard in the first place. Remember that almost all military academy admissions are based on recommendations from congressmen and other politicos -- that is the way it business is done.

Re:Forget proportional spacing. Kerning is the pro

[argStyopa]

That's ironic, because I believe that when this system got messed up, and started remembering whatever it wanted to, this was actually called "Kerrying"

Re:Truth is irrelvant

[Elwood P Dowd]

(Although to be brutally honest: going AWOL is a major offense in my book.)

Not mine. Not when military service is compulsory. I guess the honorable thing to do would be refuse service before you're joined up.

But he supported the war. Blows my mind.

Re:Truth is irrelvant

[Golias]

So far, with the possible exception of the "Christmas in Cambodia", most of the lies regarding war service have not come from either Kerry or Bush, but from those attacking them (the Swifties going after Kerry, Dan Rather and that guy from the Boston Globe going after Bush.)

So far, there has been no compelling evidence to show that Kerry did not earn his medals, nor has there been any compelling evidence to show that Bush did not complete his service to the satisfaction of his superiors.

FOIA

[stonewolf]

The claim is that these documents were the result of a Freedom of Information Act request. The question to ask is whether the news media, and the Pentagon, can prove that these documents were, in fact, sent out in response to a FOIA request.

That should be pretty simple to do. There is a ream of documentation generated for every one of those requests.

If they can prove these documents are the result of an FOIA request then we have two possibilities.
1) the documents are genuine no matter how weird they look, or 2) they were forged by someone in the US military.

If someone in the US military is forging documents to discredit the President, then Bush, and all the rest of the citizens of the US have a whole lot more to worry about than just who wins the election.

On the other hand, Bush's white house aids are handing out these doucments. That certainly implies that Bush knows they are true. That is a public admission that Bush knows he is a deserter.

Stonewolf

www.stonewolf.net

Re:FOIA

[GQuon]

? -> CBS -> Whitehouse -> the media

The 'th'.

[Grendel Drago]

The 'th' prints at a different height than it displays on the screen. Go ahead and try it. The printed copy matches up. Apparently Word, in this respect, isn't precisely WYSIWYG.

I can't believe folks are defending this. Sure, it's probably damaging to the good guys. The bad guys'll have a field day gloating. But, kids, wishing doesn't make it so.

I'm just amazed that a forgery of this type would be so, so incompetently done. The least they could have done would be to, say, look at the already-released documents and make new ones to match them. This has just gotta be embarassing. And CBS calls themselves a news organization? Pfeh!

--grendel drago

Even worse,

[pb]

The biggest give-away is the spots on the paper that are in a straight line -- that's how you know it was done with a printer. At least, the May 4th and August 18th ones.

I can't believe that any "document expert" could miss this--60 Minutes II was bamboozled, at least about the authenticity of those two documents.

I'd be interested to see what an analysis of the other two gives, though.

What I don't get

[neurojab]

Why would a forger go through the hassle of making an MS word document look like it was typed (through photoshop or whatever) instead of just USING A TYPEWRITER? It's not like a typewriter is hard to find.

It just doesn't make sense to me. If I wanted to forge a memo dated at 1973, wouldn't I use the tools available at the time to do it? Using MS-Word to do this is a bit like using an inkjet printer to produce the shroud of Turin.

That leaves three possibilities.

1)The document is genuine
2)The document was forged by an idiot.
3)The document was crafted this way so it would be exposed as a forgery.

I'm not sure which is more likely.

Re:What I don't get

[crmartin]

"Occam's" razor, for William of Occam.

WHite House copies

[LightSail]

The copies that the White House released apparently were copies of the documents that CBS sent to the White House for comment.

The only source for these documents has been CBS.

Hear hear!

[Colazar]

I think I agree with everything you said.

Baseline shift is vertical.

[Futurepower(R)]

It does not. Character Spacing is horizontal. Baseline shift is vertical.

Re:Baseline shift is vertical.

[j_snare]

Actually, they have both options in Word. The tab is called Character Spacing, but they have Position, which is vertical, and Spacing, which is horizontal.

Word Does not Kern bu Default

[Zeinfeld]

If you fire up Microsoft Word and type the document with default settings and print it out, it matches about 99%.

Thus proving that the document does NOT use Kerning. In word Kerning is turned off by default. If you turn Kerning on the aledged match goes away completely.

It is not surprising that two systems that are both trying to emulate the same hot metal original font would look very similar. Several former IBM typewriter repair guys have stated that they replaced strikebars often and replacement keys were easy to get.

Occams razore would seem to suggest that every single one of the objections raized by the repugnants having been dismissed they still continue to repeat them. Don't forget that when we started most of you guys were swearing blind that NO TYPEWRITER EVER DID PROPORTIONAL FONT then when that was disproved seagued seamlessly into NO TYPEWRITER EVER HAD A TH KEY then when that was disproved tried to claim that PISSANT Lt. Col.s DON't HAVE EXPENSIVE OFFICE EQUIPMENT only it wasn't expensive and military officers are notorious for buying things they should not for their personal use then we got down to KERNING! only the word document that is claimed to match perfectly has kerning turned off which is the default in word.

Lets really use occams razor. Has anyone seen Bush at the Alabama guard? Only one and he claims to have seen Bush on a day Bush himself agrees he was not there, a fact supported by other evidence. So nobody saw Bush in Alabama, he certainly did not report for duty in Texas, he certainly did not fulfil his medical. Killians memos are exactly what you would expect someone to write in his position, exactly.

Your "leader" has been caught in a lie sir, a dishonorable lie.

Re:Word Does not Kern bu Default

[idiotnot]

Your "leader" has been caught in a lie sir, a dishonorable lie.

Like wearing a "V" device on a Sliver Star, when those have never been awarded/authorized?

Like getting three different citations written for the same award, the last of which was signed with an autopen unbeknownst to the signer (John Lehman)? (And the Dept. of Navy has opened an investigation into this one)

Like requesting discharge after returning from Vietnam in 1969, and not actually receiving discharge until 1978?

Like waxing poetic about being in Cambodia during Christmas 1968 when Nixon had sent him there? (Kerry's campaign has admitted he wasn't in Cambodia now, and uh, Nixon wasn't president until Jan. 69)

See, this is the main problem with the Kerry campaign. What did or didn't happen in Vietnam is totally irrelevant to what's going on today. Looking at the date, it's 2004, not 1974. Get over Vietnam, already, and focus on what they've done in their respective offices. Bush has never criticized Kerry's service, but the DNC (and Kerry himself) have no qualms about crticizing Bush's. Why is that?

Because Kerry has nothing to run on other than Vietnam. And the Democrats nominated him because they were afraid of Howard Dean. They're in a sorry state of affairs, and anything they can do to prop up their dud of a candidate they'll try.

Re:Word Does not Kern bu Default

[Zeinfeld]

Like wearing a "V" device on a Sliver Star, when those have never been awarded/authorized?

You can tell when the GOP is rattled, they change to a different set of lies. Clearly the fact that Word does not do kerning by default, the fact that the popular IBM Executive Model D is the most likely machine used to create the documents, the fact that the documents have uneven baseline heights typical of typewriters and utterly atrypical of laser printed output, these facts explode their proof of forgery myth.

So now they go back to their earlier dishonorable attacks on a decorated veteran. The documents on file have all supported Kerry's claims. The swift boat liars are simply politically motivated hacks who have told so many lies that have been categorically disproved that it is impossible to believe them any more.

Of course the motive for this is not hard to see, they think that if they can muddy the waters then people will become confused about which one went to Vietnam and was awarded three purple hearts and which went AWOL from the national guard and lied about it afterwards.

Your leader is caught in a lie sir, a dirty dishonorable lie.

Re:Word Does not Kern bu Default

[idiotnot]

I really couldn't care less whether the documents are fake (which the preponderance of evidence seems to show). The point is that it doesn't matter anymore. This election is not about Vietnam, yet that's all Kerry can seem to talk about.

But if it's going to be about Vietnam, because that's where Kerry's people are going to put it, then so be it. Questions about Kerry's service are par for the course. And his own stories do not match up. The truth lies somewhere in the middle.

Fact: Lehman didn't write nor authorize Kerry's amended award. Here's the article.

Fact: The Department of the Navy is investigating whether Kerry wore an inappropriate device on his Sliver Star. This is a separate issue from the Swift Vets, brought by a different group. Here's the Press Release. The mere accusation of wearing an inappropriate device led Adm. Boorda to commit suicide. It's not a light matter.

Of course the motive for this is not hard to see, they think that if they can muddy the waters then people will become confused about which one went to Vietnam and was awarded three purple hearts and which went AWOL from the national guard and lied about it afterwards.

And as I said, it doesn't make a difference to me. I'm not going to accuse Bush of being AWOL. I'm not going to criticize what Kerry did in Vietnam. I'm not going to look to see if his wounds were self-inflicted. It doesn't matter.

Your leader is caught in a lie sir, a dirty dishonorable lie.

Keep repeating it, maybe it'll stick. More likely, you'll sound like a narrow-minded fool.

I don't care. I don't support Bush because of what he did thirty years ago. Why would I support Kerry for what he did thirty years ago?

I voted against Bush in 2000, and my support for him now is based solely on what he's done in office. Kerry, on the other hand, has no principles. And his voting record shows him to be on the wrong side of history time and again. Voted against many weapons systems. Voted against Gulf War I. Supported a nuclear freeze. Supported the Sandinistas. I could go on and on.

Re:Word Does not Kern bu Default

[Zeinfeld]

But if it's going to be about Vietnam, because that's where Kerry's people are going to put it, then so be it. Questions about Kerry's service are par for the course. And his own stories do not match up. The truth lies somewhere in the middle.

That is the whole strategy. You know that Bush is a dishonorable soldier who deserted his post, deserted his post sir, a dishonorable and cowardly act. His oponent is a decorated veteran, awarded three purple hearts so the GOP just has to bring him down.

W. wants to run on his strength as leader even though he read my pet goat on 9-11. So the whole point of these smears and lies from smearboat veterans for bush was so that you could confuse the issue and claim it is all a wash.

You are dishonorable sir, your candidate is dishonorable sir, and caught in a lie sir, a dishonorable lie.

Oh and by the way the Navy has denied having made any decision concerning the GOP attempt to start any investigation of any medals awarded to Kerry.

And yes, we would prefer to be taliking about W's failures in the economy, on terrorism and Iraq.

Where is Bin Laden Sir? Where is Al Zawahiri? Not in Iraq.

Re:Word Does not Kern bu Default

[idiotnot]

That is the whole strategy.

Yes, I know. I watched the Vietnam lovefest that was the DNC.

You know that Bush is a dishonorable soldier who deserted his post, deserted his post sir, a dishonorable and cowardly act.

No, all I know is he was given an honorable discharge after five years service in the Air National Guard. That's the historical record. I understand that you don't like that, but calling names isn't going to make it any less so.

His oponent is a decorated veteran, awarded three purple hearts so the GOP just has to bring him down.

Because he brought it up. The animosity towards John Kerry is mostly rooted in his betrayal of his comrades following the war. Implying that every single one of them committed war crimes doesn't win you many friends.

W. wants to run on his strength as leader even though he read my pet goat on 9-11.

Non-sequitor. I hope you're paying Michael Moore royalties on that, as he seems to be the source for most of your information.

You are dishonorable sir, your candidate is dishonorable sir, and caught in a lie sir, a dishonorable lie.

Thank you. I appreciate being called names. It shows that you have absolutely no argument to make. I'm waiting for the obligatory reference to Hitler.

Oh and by the way the Navy has denied having made any decision concerning the GOP attempt to start any investigation of any medals awarded to Kerry.

Citation of that? Link?

Where is Bin Laden Sir? Where is Al Zawahiri? Not in Iraq.

Hunkered down in rat holes in fear for their lives, just like Saddam was. The entire terrorist world is in shambles and it's George Bush's doing. Now they've got even more to fear with the might of the Russian military after them too. The masterminds of terror will be executed -- there is no other way to deal with them. What's JK's position on execution of terrorists today? I can never get a firm grasp on that one.

Re:Word Does not Kern bu Default

[bluenova]

You know, I'm tired of hearing the "My Pet Goat" crap. The fact that Bush didn't want to alarm the nation impresses me. If the President were to get up instantly, run out of a room full of reporters, and flee to Air Force One, we would have looked panic-striken and weak to the world. Whether it was a concious choice on his part or not, I believe it was the right one. Kerry himself has admitted that he watched television in a conference room for 45 minutes immediately after the attacks. I realize the president has different responsibility, but still...what would Kerry have done differently?

You talk about the "smearboat veterans" for Bush. How is Bush a deserter if Kerry isn't? If you want to use offical government documents, and public record, Bush served over two years in the National Guard full-time. Kerry served an honorable tour in Vietnam, came back and was an activist against the war. Bush went and worked on a political campaign, and was honorably discharge. Everything doesn't have to be a conspiracy. If moveon.org, and other 527 groups have a right to criticize W, the swiftboat veterans have every right to address their concerns about Kerry's leadership abilities, and what transpired during their time with Senator Kerry.

Think for yourself, don't trust Micheal Moore to do it for you...

Re:Word Does not Kern bu Default

[Zeinfeld]

You know, I'm tired of hearing the "My Pet Goat" crap. The fact that Bush didn't want to alarm the nation impresses me.

The video of him reading My Pet Goat sure as hell does not impress anyone who watches it. He is not a leader, he was waiting to be told what to do.

If the President were to get up instantly, run out of a room full of reporters, and flee to Air Force One, we would have looked panic-striken and weak to the world.

Which is exactly what he did next. Bush was AWOL the whole day, flying round on Air Flunkhole One.

Re:The actual documents seem to be slashdotted

[Zeinfeld]

Incidentally, I do think I found where you seem to have determined that he is a Republican...

Nope, I said that his expertise was not valued outside the republican party. Bouffard is actually claiming to be a democrat.

Except that it's not a hoax after all!

[cyranoVR]

Daily Kos: TANG Typewriter Follies; Wingnuts Wrong

Abstract: Somebody did some actual research into the typewriters available in 1973 and found that the document isn't a hoax.

Turns out Football Guy did a bit of resizing/shrinking/nudging to get things to line up...regardless, of course the Times New Roman font looks the same as a 1973 typewriter font - where do you think MS/Apple/Adobe/whoever got their font designs from?!

Of course, as the linked article points out, the various characters in the document look similar to MS Word Times New Roman, but many are distinctly _different_.

One by one, each of the "hoax" claims are being refuted on their face. In 1973, proportinal fonts existed, superscript th existed, etc. etc. etc.

As always it's "villify what you can't deny." Unfortunately, once again the "liberal" media is getting bamboozled by some rightwing bloggers - anyone remember Kerry's "Intern Scandal?" (Drudge: "Developing...")

Meanwhile, the Right Wing Press (NY Post, Washington Times), which dismissed the relevancy of blogs when they were driving Dean's candidacy, is now lauding the "wonderful blogonaughts."

What a joke.

Re:Except that it's not a hoax after all!

[drwiii]

Then someone has managed to send Microsoft Word 2003 (set to default margin, typeface, and font size) back in time to the Texas ANG.

They were downscale typesetting machines.

[Futurepower(R)]

They weren't typewriters. They were low cost typesetting machines. The word breaks and line spacing are identical because they are both imitating typesetting machines, and Times New Roman, a famous font since 1932.

It's not called line spacing. In typesetting it is called leading, or, more recently, ledding, because originally they used pieces of lead to make the line space.

Here's the latest revision of my remarks:

When I saw the Bush documents, I laughed because they are obviously genuine. They have a defect that I learned to recognize: Baseline shift of repeated characters. A long time ago, I talked to an IBM service technician and he explained why it happens in machines like the IBM Selectric and IBM composer.

For an explanation of how this was and is connected with humor, see below.

I examined the documents in PDF format that can be seen on the Washington Post web site.

Typeface and font used in the letters. -- Much is being made of the proportional font used in the letters. People are saying the proportional spacing is an indication of forgery, because the letters look like Microsoft Word documents.

However, I've often had the experience of walking into a military office and being shocked by the office equipment there. There are numerous ways that people in the military get things that they don't really need. For example, a general may requisition something and then discover that his secretary doesn't want to learn how to use it. So, then it is available to an office of lower rank.

The fonts are consistent with those sold with a kind of upscale IBM Selectric typewriter that was actually a low-cost typesetting machine. (Typesetting was what it was called before everyone could do it on a personal computer.) These machines had a one-use carbon ribbon. The impression of each character was clearer than the clearest printer.

I'm a bit confused about the model numbers of the typewriter. It could have been called a Selectric costing then about $2,500, I believe. I seem to remember that they had another name for the more upscale, true typesetting machines, apparently IBM Composer. (Back then I wrote computer manuals which were prepared on those upscale machines.) The more expensive machines, the IBM Composers, used much bigger type balls than the Selectrics, but they were all designed around the same basic idea.

There were usually some odd symbols and characters like "th" on the type balls used by the Selectric family of typesetting machines. That's because of the design of the balls. Whereever there was room, there were characters, partly to assure that the balls would be balanced, I suppose, and partly just because there was room.

There's a funny side to the self-consistency in my guess about the machine used to prepare the memos. Back then anyone writing and publishing computer user manuals really struggled with the publishing. Whenever something needed to look professional, we had it typeset. To do that, we did what is called "spec type". On one occasion I spent 11 hours specifying typesetting values for one particularly complicated page.

After you have spent many, many hours worrying about the look of type, you begin to be extremely sensitive to everything about it. (Either that, or you wouldn't be successful.)

Looking at the letters discussing preferential treatment for George W. Bush brings back strong memories. The Selectric was an unbelievably complicated machine that needed frequent service because it depended on everything being adjusted to extremely fine tolerances.

Anyone familiar with this can see something funny about the letters immediately. It's obvious to me. Whoever had the typing machine did not have the maintenance contract. It's easy to know this because the letters are not all level with the baseline.

Re:They were downscale typesetting machines.

[iocat]

Why would a guy -- who both his wife and kid say couldn't type (a very common situation back then) use a difficult to use Composer to write a letter to his personal file? Why would he have a Times-style font on his Selectric when they shipped with Courier? Why would the leading be so tight on the doc when the Selectric default is much larger? (Yes, I have used Selectrics -- calling them typesetting machines is stretching it; it's a typewriter with a removable ball, but it can't do any formatting seriously).

My point isn't that that document *couldn't* have been produced with 1970s technology, just that it's vastly unlikely that someone writing a memo to file would have gone through the trouble to do it. Therefore the documents are suspect to me. Without seeing the originals, which CBS hasn't either, though, it's impossible to render a final judgement.

Re:They were downscale typesetting machines.

[Futurepower(R)]

Not a Selectric, certainly. A Selectric Composer. They certainly did not use Courier as their main font.

Anyhow, it's all explained in another comment: Someone who knew to baseline shift would...

See especially the Boston Globe article. See this also, for how it happened when I was in the military and my guess how it happened at Ellington AFB:

The conversation might have been something like this:

Officer to secretary: "God damn if I'm going to get my ass in a crack over some lazy son of an ambassador."

Secretary, the next day, with a typed memo: "Let's put this in the records."

Even someone uncomfortable with memos would have been more uncomfortable about being court-martialed.

It is easy to guess that the man's secretary typed their discussions, and the man signed them to protect himself from any allegation that he voluntarily allowed George W. Bush to corrupt military procedure. The issue was very serious; you could be court-martialed if the IG (Inspector General) decided to investigate, and it was found that you were part of an effort to transgress deliberately against regulations, especially in so important a matter. The office of the IG often allowed corruption, but you could never be sure that they would continue. They would prosecute transgressors sometimes for reasons having to do with trying to prevent criticism of the IG office. It could be capricious.

Remember, if her boss were court-martialed, his secretary would have a lot of extra work, and might lose her job.

Neither of them cared or knew much about a lazy, alcoholic (by GWB's own admission) son of an ambassador. Back then, GWB was not important to anyone. They were just acting in their own self-interest.

Re:They were downscale typesetting machines.

[Zork the Almighty]

This is the most pathetic thing I have ever read. Denial is not just a river in Egypt.

New link and more links

[leftie]

Here's the last link again...

https://web1.ssg.gunter.af.mil/ho/documents/chro no logies/Air%20Force%20Data%20Systems%20Design%20Cen ter%201969.doc

Also, here's two threads elsewhere where the whole "forgery" issues has been dealt with in great detail and disposed of....

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/9/10/34914/16 03

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/9/10/35559/91 34

Re:ONE article paying lip service

[Dr. Transparent]

Here, here. I just wanted to be a non-AC to agree with this post.

Take that you pinko-commie green Kool-aid drinking lefties!

The proof: Kerning

[deanj]

Kerning, the spacing between letters in a propotional font, is something a typewriter of that era is not capable of. It has no idea what letter came before it, and therefore can't space the letters the way computers can today. Doesn't matter WHAT font style it's in. Typewriters of that era are simply not able to do that.

That's the smoking gun in all this, and that's what proves those documents are fake.

Case Closed.

Re:The actual documents seem to be slashdotted

[Zeinfeld]

]So it is clear that the 'th' glyph was present on at least some of the manual typewriters on the base.
Sigh. There's never been a manual typewriter that did proportional letterspacing. You're just in complete flail mode now, aren't you?

Seems like you are in complete flail mode. I refute your claim that the th glyph did not exist by pointing out that even the manual typewriters used on the base had it. You then switch to a completely different issue. We know that the th was available on selectrics and manual machines. You are claiming that IBM did not support th on their top of the line proportional font machine. sounds pretty desperate flailing from your side to me.

The IBM Electric 'Executive' Model D has been established to do proportional spacing and was available in any font that IBM carried. The font used appears to be Bold Impact 2. A 'th' glyph was available as a field upgrade. If the clerk was used to using a manual machine with a th glyph they would probably order the same feature on the electric for the base commander's office.

CBS news has just come out and confirmed its story. So the only effect that your flailing and accusations has had is that three times as many people now know that Bush went AWOL and then lied about it.

This type of thinking is ridiculous.

[Shivetya]

The old "just because they can't prove it doesn't mean it didn't happen" is the forte of children and people with an adjenda. It has very little if any relation to actual attempts to discover the truth.

By your logic the Swifties are telling the truth because the Navy records could possibly be in error but even though they are claimed to be an accurate account they aren't "just because"

Un-uh.

If the documents are fake (and I believe so, mainly because the kerning cannot be explained away) there is more reason to believe that similar ones NEVER existed. Worse it makes any factual documents covering the same or similar subjects highly suspect. That is the real result of this train of thought.

The story of the "Boy who cried wolf" is an ideal summary of your thinking and the real result.

Re:The actual documents seem to be slashdotted

[Twirlip of the Mists]

LOL. Good one. Spit Dan Rather's dick out and go see what real reporters are doing. You know, the kind who go find out things and tell you about them, instead of just making shit up?

Maybe Microsoft Word is based on 1970's typewriter

[willutah]

Since no one has figured out how to bash Microsoft on this and this is slashdot, let me take a stab...

The way to explain all this similarity is that Microsoft must have based Normal.dot (the default document) on a 1970's era IBM Selectric typewriter. It's irrefutable. Retype those documents from the 70's in Word, and guess what? Word replicates the typewriter letter for letter, word for word, and line for line. Do you smell an IBM vs. MS lawsuit here?

I am also betting Microsoft must of hired this guy named Jerry Killian when they were programming the automatic word wrap feature. If you compare the ends of lines on a modern Word document, they end just were Mr. Killian would have ended them. I hope his family is getting royalties for this.

Yet another example of Microsoft rehashing old technology. Losers. .......

Now that's more like it!

1966... 1966... 1966... 1966...1966...1966...1966

[leftie]

What part of the year 1966 do you not understand, Boise?

http://ibmcomposer.org/docs/Electronic%20Compose r% 20Operating%20Instructions.pdf

That is the link for the pdf of the manual for the IBM Typewriter made in 1966 that could type those documents

The font has been in existance since 1931.

The said typewiter not only produced the superscript "th" in these 4 documents, it produced the same superscript "th" in several of the documents in George W. Bush's Texas National Guard records released many months ago by the White House when the whole Bush National Guard controversy started. Same superscript "th"... same font... Same proportional type.

Dan Rather showed this on the CBS Evening News broadcast tonight.

Re:The proof: Kerning

[MillionthMonkey]

Kerning, the spacing between letters in a propotional font, is something a typewriter of that era is not capable of. It has no idea what letter came before it, and therefore can't space the letters the way computers can today. Doesn't matter WHAT font style it's in. Typewriters of that era are simply not able to do that.

That's the smoking gun in all this, and that's what proves those documents are fake.

Gee, that's sure some "smoking gun" you've got there, since IBM introduced proportional spacing typewriters in 1941.

"Case Closed," indeed.

Where did the Bush Administration get their copies of the "forgeries" that they released themselves the same day? Oh, from the Kerry campaign. You've got it all figured out.

Someone who knew to baseline shift would...

[Futurepower(R)]

I seldom use Microsoft Word. Office 2000 does not have that feature, that I can see. The control over baseline shift would need to be very fine, and Word has not had fine control, at least up to and including Office 2000. (We are completely converting to Open Office.)

Could you try it yourself? I presume you have a more recent version of Microsoft Office. Focus on the way the doubled letters, like ll and tt, are sometimes, but not always, at a different height. I had a conversation about that with an IBM service technician. The effect is connected with the inertia of the type ball and the fact that the play in the mechanism is affected by where the ball was before it typed a letter. In the word "tell", the look of type from a poorly adjusted machine would be affected by the fact that the first L was typed after an E, and the second L was typed after an L.

But that's a little beside the point. Someone who knew that shifting the baseline would make one person out of a thousand realize that the documents were genuine, would be smart enough to do the job with other software. I've never used Quark Express, but, from conversations with typesetters I know it has extremely fine control.

I'm really happy with what I've said. My revised comments are copied below. I'm just someone who remembers the old machines because he so much wanted one. But my comments are corroborated by a document expert:

See the article in the Boston Globe, Authenticity backed on Bush documents:

"Bouffard, the Ohio document specialist, said that he had dismissed the Bush documents in an interview with The New York Times because the letters and formatting of the Bush memos did not match any of the 4,000 samples in his database. But Bouffard yesterday said that he had not considered one of the machines whose type is not logged in his database: the IBM Selectric Composer. Once he compared the Bush memos to Selectric Composer samples obtained from Interpol, the international police agency, Bouffard said his view shifted.

"In the Times interview, Bouffard had also questioned whether the military would have used the Composer, a large machine. But Bouffard yesterday provided a document indicating that as early as April 1969 -- three years before the dates of the CBS memos -- the Air Force had completed service testing for the Composer, possibly in preparation for purchasing the typewriters.

"As for the raised "th" that appears in the Bush memos -- to refer, for example, to units such as the 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron -- Bouffard said that custom characters on the Composer's metal typehead ball were available in the 1970s, and that the military could have ordered such custom balls from IBM.

" 'You can't just say that this is definitively the mark of a computer,' Bouffard said."

The document expert is missing a point, however. The type balls were VERY expensive, and very brittle. There were people who offered to repair broken type balls, and those people had the ability to put unusual characters on the ball. That was one of the services they offered.

This statement in the article from the man's son is completely credible to me: 'Also suspicious is Killian's son, Gary D. Killian of Houston. "I still contend that my father would not have written these documents. I know the type of man he was -- if he felt he was being pressured, he'd confront it head on, not write a memo about it," Killian, 51, said in a telephone interview. His father died in 1984.'

Back then people often didn't type their own memos. It was very common that someone unusual would have one of the Composers because people who didn't understand them but had power and money would order them, and find that their secretaries would refuse to use them, because they were more complicated. Why would powerful people order them? Because back then a

Re:The actual documents seem to be slashdotted

[Zeinfeld]

LOL. Good one. Spit Dan Rather's dick out and go see what real reporters are doing. You know, the kind who go find out things and tell you about them, instead of just making shit up?

Seems to me that you are the one who is flailing, here, calling people names, tut tut.

Must be hard to face the fact that your candidate is caught in a lie sir, a lie, a dishonorable lie.

Re:The proof: Kerning

[deanj]

Sorry, but that typewriter wasn't in common use in the military at that time and isn't capable of kerning, and certainly not with all the gadgets you'd have to add to get the superscripting. Good shot though.

Regarding the White House comment... What, you're saying that the White House had the documents beforehand? Nope. The White House got their copies from CBS news, which they in turn released:

From the White House press briefing yesterday:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/09/ 20 040910-1.html

"Does the White House regret handing out those documents, taking CBS' word on their authenticity, without checking them, themselves? "

"Well, we did ask, and CBS did not disclose to us, either, where they obtained those documents from," Mr. McClellan said. "We wanted to be open about it, so we provided that information, as we have other documents, to the media.

"We don't know whether the documents were fabricated or authentic," he added. "These are serious allegations and they are being looked into by others."

This whole story is quickly unraveling all around CBS, and no amount of tin-foil hat conspiracy theories is going to help them. Sure will be interesting to see where they got these documents from in the first place.

Yep. Smoking Gun.

Re:The proof: Kerning

[deanj]

Even more experts are coming out saying their fake:

http://www.indcjournal.com/archives/000838.php

Oh my! Here's more evidence you'd probably believe:

http://www.scrappleface.com/MT/archives/001832.h tm l

Kerry's toast. hahahahahaha

Re:The proof: Kerning

[deanj]

And further, CBS's only expert they cited, Marcel Matley, said this:

In fact, modern copiers and computer printers are so good that they permit easy fabrication of quality forgeries. From a copy, the document examiner cannot authenticate the unseen original but may well be able to determine that the unseen original is false. Further, a definite finding of authenticity for a signature is not possible from a photocopy, while a definite finding of falsity is possible.

In this document:

http://d2d.ali-aba.org/_files/thumbs/components/ PL IT0209-MATLEY_thumb.pdf

Even CBS' own expert contradicts himself!

It's refreshing to see technology debunk BS

[TheCeltic]

Well, one group tried to use technology to forge bogus documents and the other used technology to debunk the BS. Nice to see technology revealing the truth. It's also refreshing to see so many Slashdotters who are not foaming at the mouth Liberals that believe everything the media tells them!

normal th's

[bill_mcgonigle]

Explaination as to why one "th" is normally typed out, not automagiced as per Word's wont

The conspiracy theorist would surmise, "the forger realized his mistake in one place and fixed it, but missed another."

The pragmatist would ask, "you expect Microsoft products to work predictably and reliably?" and then pee himself laughing.

And then there are the people who think this is all Carl Rove's doing and it's just a plot to discredit the DNC - they probably have a theory as to why Carl did it this way - some secret code that only other Illuminati would understand.

correction

[tgibbs]

the second link was incorrect. Here is the right one.

charge to be filed: CBS/Viacom in violation of fed

[watermodem]

a group Boycott CBS dot Com has filed suit to:the Federal Election Commission urging immediate action to hold CBS/Viacom in violation of federal election law. Not a lawyer so no idea if it is important just interesting...

The ultimate rebuttal

[neofast.net]

Analisys of the document forgeries

He does it so well... I can't add to it.

Re:Partisan politics vs. verifiable facts

[neofast.net]

here, have a little more fun...

It turns out that USA Today has "copies" of the same documents. Except they aren't the same.

USA Today's Versions

And

CBS's versions

Look them over c arefully. One of the memos which is reproduced is REDACTED to hide an address, the other is not at all. Also notice that you can see through the redaction, which means the redaction was done AT THE POINT OF SCANNING because I have NEVER seen a photocopy which had enough resolution to show through a black marker.

Face it. The whole thing is a very clumsy forgery.

The forger was dumb, but the forger was smart?

[Futurepower(R)]

This discussion is becoming surprising for me. Many experts are being consulted, but I seem to be the only person who has actual experience with the Selectric Composer. It has been a weird experience, slowly realizing I seem to be the world authority on a few tiny details.

I certainly could not have afforded a machine that cost half as much as a new car. But, many years ago, I wrote computer user manuals and published them by having them typeset by a woman who owned a Selectric Composer, and copied on a Xerox machine. Her work was much less expensive than traditional typsetting. She did work for maybe a hundred customers. She would go to people's offices to pick up work.

Consider this quote: "Two letterheads typed three months apart can be superimposed on each other so perfectly that no difference at all can be seen. It's the same deal as before: the red in front was superimposed over the black behind it. You just can't see the black copy because the red copy is perfectly aligned with it. These letterheads weren't centered to within a couple of points of each other. They were centered exactly the same. Three months apart."

The answer is easy. There must be hundreds of thousands of people who know the answer to this question, if they would just think about it, even though they never saw a Selectric Composer. Typewriters had memory back then. You would type repeated text into memory and then just press a button whenever you wanted it played back. Obviously, you would do this with a letterhead, because it was difficult to make a letterhead look just right. If you knew you would be typing numerous items for an organization, you would enter the organization's letterhead first.

The Selectric Composers could vary the letter and line spacing, so don't look for an exact match unless you have one of the machines and are willing to experiment. Also, third parties both sold and repaired type balls for the machines.

One of the documents released by the White House also had a superscripted "th". Why did typists superscript the "th" sometimes and not others? I don't know; maybe just to show they could. Maybe they were experimenting to learn more about their machines. I do know that I had a conversation about that very issue with my typesetter concerning the Selectric Composer. It went something like this: "How did you do that?" [Some answer] "But why did you do that?" She laughed and gave some explanation that did not make a lot of sense to me.

It is useful to keep in mind that Microsoft Word and the IBM Selectric Composer, and all typesetters available then and now, try to imitate as much as possible the Times New Roman typeface, which was designed in 1932. The look close to the same because the designers intentionally made them the same.

It's interesting to note how much the arguments of those who assume the documents are forgeries have eroded.

What do we know with certainty? Here are some facts about which everyone agrees:

1) Something was wrong with George W. Bush's service in the Air National Guard.

2) George W. Bush was an active alcoholic back then. How do we know that? He told us.

The forger was dumb, but the forger was smart? The forger was so dumb he did not think to switch to Courier as he was using Microsoft Word to type the documents? But, he was smart enough to vary the baseline in exactly the way a Selectric Composer would when it was not adjusted?

Re:The forger was dumb, but the forger was smart?

[tgibbs]

The Selectric Composers could vary the letter and line spacing, so don't look for an exact match unless you have one of the machines and are willing to experiment.

You can vary this in Word, too. The amazing thing is that you don't need to. The relative line lengths come out exactly the same with Word's default settings. This would be an amazing coincidence if the document was not prepared in Word. Letter spacing has changed over the years, and even varies among versions of the same font, so it is next to impossible to get line lengths to come out the same in different versions unless you tweak it. In particular, the automatic spacing used by Word today is different, and more sophisticated that what was available even to typesetting machines, much less typewriters, in the '70's. You probably could approximate Word's spacing with the Selectric, but you'd have to work at it.

One of the documents released by the White House also had a superscripted "th". Why did typists superscript the "th" sometimes and not others? I don't know; maybe just to show they could. Maybe they were experimenting to learn more about their machines.

Perhaps so, but then you have to assume that by whim, the typist happened to hit on the same spacing pattern that Word uses to control the automatic superscripting, superscripting only when there is not space between the digit and the "th".

The forger was dumb, but the forger was smart? The forger was so dumb he did not think to switch to Courier as he was using Microsoft Word to type the documents? But, he was smart enough to vary the baseline in exactly the way a Selectric Composer would when it was not adjusted?

The variation of the baseline looks like digitization artifacts resulting from a scanned document not being perfectly aligned. I think the forger probably was smart, but overestimated how smart CBS was. I don't think the forger really expected to fool CBS for long, and he probably never expected CBS to make the documents public. Most likely, he was trying to draw CBS's attention to "the dog that didn't bark in the night" -- i.e. the documents that weren't in Bush's military record, but which should have been if regulations were followed. So he created mock-ups of the documents that should have been there, expecting CBS at some point to figure out that the documents were bogus, but that there was a real issue. Unfortunately, CBS wasn't that bright....

Of course people overlook

[Snaller]

Killian's former secretary says she certainly didn't write these docs, but that her boss:

"He did have complaints about Bush. Bush missed his physical and went off to Alabama with none of the paperwork, I remember Killian talking about that," Knox said. "But it wasn't in memo file."

But since Bush seems to be blind to the truth, it isn't surprising his followers are ;)

The latest about the Bush documents.

[Futurepower(R)]

It is ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT to the Bush documents that some machine that a critic has chosen cannot do typesetting. Just choose another machine that can.

Decades ago, it sometimes happened that I would go to some company that did both typesetting and typing to pick up my typing, and be handed, not pages of typing, but pages of typesetting film. The first time that happened I was scared, because if the company thought that had I ordered typesetting, the cost would be very high. I said something like, "I wanted this typed, not typeset." As proof I said something like, "It's just an informal business letter." The woman behind the counter laughed and said something like, "I was at the typesetter when someone handed me your job, and I was too lazy to get up and go over to the typewriter." "But what about the cost?" "I'm only charging you $4."

The woman thought she was doing me a favor (while wasting her company's typesetting film), but she wasn't. Sure the letter looked wonderful, but typesetting was so psychologically powerful back then that the fact that a letter was typeset would distract the reader from the message. (It should be obvious that I copied the letter from the typesetting film to a piece of paper.)

NOTHING about what you see when you print a document typed in Times New Roman in Microsoft Word has ANYTHING WHATSOEVER to do with either Microsoft Word or Microsoft Corporation.

On the computer I am using to type this, Times New Roman is supplied to me as the file times.ttf, dated 08/29/2002, 05:00 AM. If you look at the file with a tool that can view binary, you will see this message, and a lot of other heavy-duty legal language:

"This typeface is the property of Monotype Typography and its use by you is covered under the terms of a license agreement. You have obtained this typeface software either directly from Monotype or together with software distributed by one of Monotype's licensees."

Microsoft Word ONLY follows the information in this file. You can prove this to yourself by downloading and installing a copy of Open Office from www.OpenOffice.org. Open Office is better in important ways than Microsoft Office, and it is free, as in "You don't pay anything." Type anything you want in both Microsoft Office and Open Office, using the same font, and notice that it looks identical.

Open Office did not automatically superscript the "th". I didn't like that superscripting thirty years ago, and I don't like it now. Only a company like Microsoft, that doesn't really pay attention to anything it does, would make the superscripting of "th" automatic. In 1972 it had already been decades since that was in fashion, although it persisted on some machines, and was used by novices. Even when it was "in fashion" that was only because there was a period when typesetters liked to show off what they could do.

To superscript the "th" in Open Office, I selected the "th" and chose Format/ Character/ Position/ Superscript. The output was identical to the output of the version of Microsoft Word in Office 2000.

This is not surprising, since all of the information is stored in Monotype's font file, and none of the information is stored in the word processor. What chance would there be that Monotype would choose to license a file to Microsoft that would corrupt the most famous font in the world, that Monotype owned?

People thought Times Roman was a work of art in the 1770s when the first version was designed for the London Times. I have spent hours in the rare book room of Oxford University Library, Oxford, England, examining type faces used in books printed as early as the 1620s. (A graduate of Oxford signed an application for me to get a library card.) It is only when you see what went before that you can fully appreciate that Times Roman was an advancement in western civilization.

People thought version 2 of Times Roman, Times New Roman, was an even better work of art when it was designed in 1932.

All of this should indicate that no one should

Re:The latest about the Bush documents.

[tgibbs]

It is ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT to the Bush documents that some machine that a critic has chosen cannot do typesetting. Just choose another machine that can.

However, it is not at all irrelevant that the only typewriter that anybody has suggested to be the origin of the message does not produce text with matching line lengths. Indeed, nobody has managed to find any system of that era capable of reproducing the line lengths, while a modern computer word processor does it perfectly with its default settings. Since algorithms of character spacing have evolved since the 1970's, it is astronomically improbably that any system of that era, known or unknown, typewriter or even typesetter will reproduce those relative line lengths.

"This typeface is the property of Monotype Typography and its use by you is covered under the terms of a license agreement. You have obtained this typeface software either directly from Monotype or together with software distributed by one of Monotype's licensees." Microsoft Word ONLY follows the information in this file.

If you are arguing that the document could also have been produced by another modern word processor, such as Open Office, using the same font definition, that is certainly true, although unlikely. What it could not be is a 1970's vintage system using the letter spacing methods of that time.

All of this should indicate that no one should be surprised if something typeset today looks exactly like something done so recently as 1972.

Anybody who knows about the evolution of character spacing since 1972 would be very surprised if the line lengths were the same, even though the individual characters might look identical.

Mary Carr Knox, Lt. Colonel Killian's secretary, supplied some valuable information

In particular, she has denied having access to any machine office capable of producing the typography in those memos.

That's a weird web page.

[Futurepower(R)]

You said, "However, it is not at all irrelevant that the only typewriter that anybody has suggested to be the origin of the message does not produce text with matching line lengths."

I guess you did not read what I wrote. You seem not to have read even the first sentence that I wrote. Why do you continue to talk about typewriters? All typewriters are completely irrelevant.

I had seen that web site before. It's weird. Here is an example quote:

"One question that came up was whether this was really Times New Roman, or perhaps Palatino, a font very similar to Times New Roman. I looked in my font list (I have hundreds of fonts installed on my machine), and found a font called "Palatino Linotype". Admittedly, this does not say anything about the font that might be used by a sophisticated typesetter in 1972, but it shows that the hoaxer really did use Times New Roman and not Palatino."

I found Palatino and Palatino Linotype on the machine I'm using to type this. The font used in the memos was definitely not Palatino.

The font used to make the memos was definitely not Times New Roman. It's weird that anyone could think that the fonts used in the memos are that font. Only someone who knows nothing about fonts, or someone who is mis-communicating, would say that.

The emphasis on line lengths seems to be because that's the only thing that matches. The fonts are only somewhat similar. Within the lines, there are many cases of spacing mismatches.

His analysis drifts. He begins talking about office machines. By the time he reaches the paragraph above, he is talking about "a sophisticated typesetter in 1972".

I assume, but have not tested on machines of that vintage, of course, that someone typeset the memos, instead of typing them. Maybe they were training a new typesetter. Maybe they were experimenting. Since it happened to me several times that I took typing to someone, and they gave me typesetting instead, I suppose it could happen to someone else.

I thought every base had a printing office. A large enough base, or one with special responsibilities, would have a typesetter, I suppose. I haven't thought about that in many years, of course. Certainly there was a steady stream of typeset documents. Not all of them came from headquarters, I think. I have no idea of the size of Ellington in 1972.

My guess is that you didn't read and understand everything he said. You are linking to him because he seems authoritative. Is that true?

Anyone who claims that Palatino is "very similar to Times New Roman", would probably say that Garamond was very similar, also. In some sense, hundreds of fonts are very similar to each other.

I have more than 5,000 fonts, and many people do. Everyone I've known who has an interest in typography has had thousands of fonts. Only a few hundred are installed, because Windows becomes unstable with more than that. Everyone I've known with an interest in typography has a program that lets them move any font from uninstalled to installed by dragging and dropping.

Re:That's a weird web page.

[tgibbs]

The font used to make the memos was definitely not Times New Roman. It's weird that anyone could think that the fonts used in the memos are that font. Only someone who knows nothing about fonts, or someone who is mis-communicating, would say that.

I disagree. I'm a calligrapher, and I've worked with different typefaces for years. The resolution is so low that it is not possible to exclude specific typefaces other than by gross features, such as presence or absence of serifs or closed or open top to a "4". Due to the coarseness of the resolution, even baseline or fine character widths cannot be judged accurately. Perhaps somebody could do something with sophisticated image averaging (e.g. combining every letter "e" in all documents) but I haven't seen that attempted as yet. Certainly, within the resolution of the image, it cannot be distinguished from Times New Roman, and I can understand why somebody take the trouble to exclude Palatino as a possibility.

The emphasis on line lengths seems to be because that's the only thing that matches. The fonts are only somewhat similar. Within the lines, there are many cases of spacing mismatches.

The relative lengths of lines is the only feature that is absolutely characteristic, not merely of the typeface, but of the specific implementation of that typeface, and that is also sufficiently large-scale to survive any copying distortion/degradation that is not so severe as to render the document unreadable.

My guess is that you didn't read and understand everything he said. You are linking to him because he seems authoritative. Is that true?

No, because of my interest in calligraphy, I've followed the development of computer typography over the years from its very beginnings. His is the only writing on the subject that I've seen that evinces a correct understanding of how letter spacing has evolved over the years.

I thought every base had a printing office. A large enough base, or one with special responsibilities, would have a typesetter, I suppose. I haven't thought about that in many years, of course.

In fact, even after this time, nobody has managed to produce a single non-disputed military memo of the era that looks like it might have been typeset, or even produced on a high-end proportional spacing typewriter. The one typewriter that a few people have pointed to as possibly plausible does not produce matching line widths; it is doubtful that even a professional typesetter of the time could have done so, without making numerous intentional adjustments to tweak the widths. To cap it off, the typist from the office denies having access to any kind of typeset or near-typeset quality equipment that might have produced this kind of document.

Re:Forget proportional spacing. Kerning is the pro

[I8TheWorm]

If I ever saw a post that should be modded up funny, yours would be it.