Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Bush Service Memos Questioned

Posted by pudge on from the document-verification-is-hard dept.

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.

67 of 619 comments (clear)

  1. Try this by captnitro · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Try this by captnitro · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    2. Re:Try this by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 4, Funny

      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.

      --

      I write in my journal
    3. Re:Try this by bonkedproducer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence in society - M. Twain
    4. Re:Try this by _xeno_ · · Score: 4, Informative
      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:

      Very supicious.
      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
    5. Re:Try this by spitzak · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

    6. Re:Try this by Quarters · · Score: 2, Insightful
      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.

    7. Re:Try this by _xeno_ · · Score: 2, Informative
      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.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
    8. Re:Try this by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --

      I write in my journal
    9. Re:Try this by Zeinfeld · · Score: 2, Insightful
      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.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    10. Re:Try this by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

      --

      I write in my journal
    11. Re:Try this by Cyberdyne · · Score: 2, Insightful
      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.

    12. Re:Try this by joss · · Score: 2

      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].

      --
      http://rareformnewmedia.com/
    13. Re:Try this by crmartin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

  2. CBS must obtain and release originals by jgardn · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    --
    The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
    1. Re:CBS must obtain and release originals by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --

      I write in my journal
  3. But why from the WHouse? by Sebastopol · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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!!!

    --
    https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
    1. Re:But why from the WHouse? by jgardn · · Score: 3, Informative

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

      --
      The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
    2. Re:But why from the WHouse? by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --

      I write in my journal
    3. Re:But why from the WHouse? by Detritus · · Score: 2, Insightful
      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.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    4. Re:But why from the WHouse? by Zeinfeld · · Score: 4, Informative
      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.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    5. Re:But why from the WHouse? by Zeinfeld · · Score: 2, Informative
      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.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    6. Re:But why from the WHouse? by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      --

      I write in my journal
    7. Re:But why from the WHouse? by deanj · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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."

  4. All this on Bush... by GypC · · Score: 2

    ... 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.

    1. Re:All this on Bush... by TykeClone · · Score: 2, Insightful
      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.

      --
      A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
    2. Re:All this on Bush... by jgardn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
    3. Re:All this on Bush... by Otter · · Score: 2, Insightful
      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.

      --
      What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
    4. Re:All this on Bush... by r7 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >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

    5. Re:All this on Bush... by True+Grit · · Score: 2, Insightful
      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.

  5. Just cause it's fake doesn't mean it's false ???? by waynegoode · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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.

  6. Re:Is bush even denying the accusations? by jgaynor · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  7. What US Politics is all about by Coryoth · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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

    --
    Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
  8. More Fuel for the Fire... by DeComposer · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

    --


    Karma
  9. all the sources stem from the freeper article by bandy · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    --
    "You might as well get your son a ticket to hell as give him a five string banjo." -unknown minister
  10. List of websites: by jlgolson · · Score: 4, Informative

    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

  11. Re:Is bush even denying the accusations? by VersedM · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  12. Another distraction by mabu · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  13. Sorry, Sir, We're out of tin foil today by commodoresloat · · Score: 2, Insightful
    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.

    1. Re:Sorry, Sir, We're out of tin foil today by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --

      I write in my journal
    2. Re:Sorry, Sir, We're out of tin foil today by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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."

      --

      I write in my journal
    3. Re:Sorry, Sir, We're out of tin foil today by demachina · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "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

      --
      @de_machina
  14. Re:Is bush even denying the accusations? by jgaynor · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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

  15. A few points.... by automandc · · Score: 2, Insightful
    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.

    --
    I'm a lawyer with excellent karma. Something's gotta be wrong.
    1. Re:A few points.... by SengirV · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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."

      --

      Prof. Farnsworth - "Oh a lesson in not changing history from Mr I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!"

  16. The Philadelphia Project by I_Love_Pocky! · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

  17. Re:Is bush even denying the accusations? by VersedM · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  18. Yeah right... by NEOtaku17 · · Score: 2, Funny

    "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.

    --
    Creative Demolition
  19. Yeah, and by autopr0n · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
  20. How could he deny them? by TheSHAD0W · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  21. An analysis by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 4, Informative


    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

    1. Re:An analysis by gleam · · Score: 4, Interesting
      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
      --
      this .sig is not a .sig.
    2. Re:An analysis by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --

      I write in my journal
    3. Re:An analysis by mdielmann · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
    4. Re:An analysis by peacefinder · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd
    5. Re:An analysis by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      --

      I write in my journal
  22. Some IBM Selectrics had proportional spacing. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 2, Interesting


    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.

  23. Times New Roman was designed in 1932. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 2, Insightful


    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.

    1. Re:Times New Roman was designed in 1932. by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --

      I write in my journal
  24. Re:The actual documents seem to be slashdotted by Zeinfeld · · Score: 2, Insightful
    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.

    --
    Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
    Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
  25. Other damning evidence by Masker · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

    --

    ---------The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.

  26. CBS's reputation is at stake . . . ! by aggiefalcon01 · · Score: 2

    CBS's reputation is at stake...

    Bwaahahahahahahahahaha ...

    --
    Global warming is neither science, nor politics. It is a religion.
  27. Re:The Hand of Karl by SengirV · · Score: 2, Funny
    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?

    --

    Prof. Farnsworth - "Oh a lesson in not changing history from Mr I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!"

  28. Washington Post and ABC News by deanj · · Score: 3, Informative
    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.

  29. Re:The actual documents seem to be slashdotted by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    --

    I write in my journal
  30. Forget proportional spacing. Kerning is the proof. by mc6809e · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  31. Re:The proof: Kerning by deanj · · Score: 2, Insightful
    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!