Posted on 09/09/2004 6:42:06 AM PDT by Sue Bob
The Globe story is itself based on last night's 60 Minutes report: "New questions on Bush Guard duty." The online version of the 60 Minutes story has links to the memos. Killian died in 1984; CBS states that it "consulted a handwriting analyst and document expert who believes the material is authentic." Reader Tom Mortensen writes:
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 Palatino 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.
I am saying these documents are forgeries, run through a copier for 15 generations to make them look old. This should be pursued aggressively.
(Excerpt) Read more at powerlineblog.com ...
"More interesting to me is that the 04May1972 memo has a neatly done superscript in item 2. Proportional font or not, this is not what typewriters did in 1972."
Not so. The IBM Executive I had included an "st" and a "th" character above the number row in superscript. Made documents look professional, doncha know. It also had a superscript degree sign.
IBM was very good at producing typewriters. Although the Selectric couldn't do proportional spacing, you wouldn't believe the number of specialized type balls that were available for it. While in the USAF, I used a ball that had both English and Cyrillic characters, all upper case, on the same ball. That way, I could type Russian, then the English translation on the line below. Pretty nifty.
The IBM Executive Typewriter could be had with many special characters. The superscript ones I mention were very popular, since they especially lent a professionally typeset look to documents.
It took a little practice to use the machine, but not that much. I learned it in a week, teaching myself.
Again, I'm not saying the documents aren't fakes, but they COULD have been done at the time using common equipment, and the military did have these IBM Executive typewriters. I know, because I saw them.
"How old are you anyway?"
I served in the Army from 73-93; I was in the Pentagon as a 2LT '73-'75. I doubt that usage differed much from the earlier 70s.
I can't testify either exactly when I first heard the phrase; but I wouldn't doubt that it was back in Officer Basic -- the instructors always tried to clue the new LTs in to the workings of the Army!
We had a big block on Army periodicals, references, and correspondence. As some other posters have said, real official correspondence would have been on letterhead; even a CYA-type MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD would have been on letterhead and used the the MFR format.
Just adding my personal experience . . . for what it is worth! ;)
Below is what my co-worker had to say (he's been a computer programmer for years and years and years (in his 60's now) and is one of the smartest people I've ever met:
____________________________________________________
If the photos of those documents are in a proportional font, they are certainly forgeries. Only professional printing had proprotional fonts at that time. It was well into the 80s before proportional fonts came into use and even then few people had them.
__________________________________________________________
Got any superscripts form your Fort Mead days?
Next you'll be telling me you typed in Hangul. ;-)
"An IBM would have been nice.. but I don't think they made it down into the trenches."
And the National Guard gets equipment AFTER it gets to the trenches! ;)
Ummm--Okay--
Has anyone noticed that no one from the White House or the Bush/Cheney campaign has called these fakes? In fact, when Bartlett, the White House spokesman was asked to comment, he didn't say "they are fakes".
I think that if they were fakes, the President's advisor would have said something about it--instead, he argued about what the memos mean.
Seems to me the White House is acknowledging that the memos are not fakes.....I suspect this will be a question during today's briefing of McClellan.
"I did some clerk typist duties in the Army in 75. I had a manual typewriter. An IBM would have been nice.. but I don't think they made it down into the trenches."
I'm sure that's true, but equipment varied. As I said earlier, the headquarters office for my USAF Detachment at Ft. George Meade had three of the IBM Executive typewriters. They were available for requisition. I'm sure they were there because the officer in charge liked pretty type to post on the detachment bulletin board. He requisitioned them and got them. Not every office had the same stuff.
Another good catch...
Of course it should. But it won't since the partisan media's agenda is to elect Kerry. They still haven't pursued the Swift Boat Vets' charges into Kerry. If they have to unearth a two decades old forgery to undermine President Bush, it shows they're grasping for straws. They've tried everything in their power to make Bush's National Guard service look bad and all they've got to show for it is the word of a Democratic Party hack who conveniently recanted previously sworn testimony under oath just for this election.
"Got any superscripts form your Fort Mead days?
"
Can't say I do. I didn't work in the headquarters office. My typing was done on the dual language Selectrics, and I'm afraid they didn't let me take any of them out of the building. [grin]
They really do not "read" like CBS interpreted them, IMO.
And if it wasn't, Rather would have given it the whole hour, not just a fifteen or twenty minute spot.
Don't underestimate the speed of the Internet. I would not be surprised that a smoking gun is found by participants in an Internet forum before a campaign can get conclusive results from an expert.
I have another question: When the military redacts a document, how careful are they to use an opaque marker to cross stuff out? I can easily read the address on http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/BushGuardmay4.pdf
Do you recall whether it could superscript the "th" (make the "th" smaller and higher than the base type) in something like "111th"?
Look at this:
A spokeswoman for "60 Minutes," Kelli Edwards, declined to say exactly how the new documents were obtained other than that CBS News understood they had been taken from Killian's "personal office file." In addition to the order to Bush to report for a physical, the documents include various memos from Killian describing his conversations with Bush and other National Guard officers about Bush's attempts to secure a transfer to Alabama. Killian died in 1984.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A6693-2004Sep8?language=printer
And this:
The new documents surfaced as the Bush administration released for the first time the president's personal flight logs, which have been the focus of repeated archival searches and Freedom of Information Act requests dating to the 2000 presidential campaign. The logs show that Bush stopped flying in April 1972 after accumulating more than 570 hours of flight time between 1969 and 1972, much of it on an F-102 interceptor jet.
White House officials have said there was no reason for Bush to take the annual physical required of fighter pilots because there were no suitable planes for him to fly in Alabama, where he applied for "substitute training" to replace his required service with the Texas National Guard.
Hey! I own a Bowflex! Worked great for me.
I really question how a commander's personal file became part of the official record. There is a faint odor here...
Internesting. MSWord will "intelligently" yank that "th" up into a superscript. The spacing looks suspiciously fine, too. Like, that "on" in "Examination" looks kerned.
That's good enough for me. I think it is extraordinary that they would find a treasure trove in a dead man's file.
Last night, on 60 Minutes, Bartlett wasn't questioning the authenticity of the material--he was debating what it meant.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/08/60II/main641984.shtml
It's over 12 hours since this story broke and no one from the White House or the campaign has questioned the veracity of these documents. The segment was taped ven before that. You think the White House can't verify a document that fast?
I bring this point up because I think there might be a better use of time---actually addressing what the memos say.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.