Was Rather Duped by Anti-Bush Hoax?

RatherBiased.com ^ | September 09, 2004

[struwwelpeter]

The 'letterhead' could have been done by the base print shop, but the date is in exactly the same font and spacing. Weird.

Looking back through some old military documents (USAF, USAF Reserves, Army & Army Reserves), I see an interesting evolution in the fonts and date formats.

Alleged letter from W's TANG commander

List of test results from USAF basic training

Proficiency report from USAF

Student rating, Army reserves

Misc. letter, Army reserves.

The TANG letter looks like some of the documents I received in the late 70s, early 1980s. Probably done on an IBM Selectric model from that time period, which didn't have an 'th' character, as I recall.

[Arrowhead1952]

Anyone else wanna play, before Demon-cat shows up?

I figured we would have our share of trolls today. ScoutMockingbird got the ZOT before I got back to this thread.

[Hatteras]

"Damn Font Balls!"

Oh, come now, their great for office parties!

[Palladin]

Sounds like a forgery to me, brought to Dan the Dud by the masters of deceit, the Democrat Natnl Committee, and its operatives McAuliffe, Carville and Begala.

They tried this crap 4 years ago and it didn't fly.

They are desperate, and running out of dirty tricks when they have to recycle old stuff.

Kerry is toast.

[timestax]

RATHERLIES

[Zavien Doombringer]

OOooo, nice posting!

[petercooper]

He typed them up himself.

[Darth Reagan]

I prepared my own forgery of that document. Here's my write up from my site, Federal Review. Links to my version are below:

ARE NATIONAL GUARD/60 MINUTES MEMOS FORGERIES?
That's the theory galluping around the internet today - see Drudge, CNSNews and the first place I saw this, Powerline. It seems that new memoranda, which you can find at CBS's site, are dated 1972 but use a proportional font more common to today's Microsoft Word than to a typewriter in a 1972 Texas Air National Guard office. CBS describes the documents as "previously unseen documents from Killian's personal file." Killian was a Lt. Col. with the Texas Air National Guard. CBS says the docs must be authentic, because "60 Minutes consulted a handwriting analyst and document expert who believes the material is authentic." Who was the expert, Terry McAuliffe?

Take a look at one of these documents, here. You will notice the superscript and smaller "th" in "187th in Alabama". That would be possible with sophisticated typsetting equipment in 1972, but unlikely for a desktop Air Force typewriter.

So, we did our own analysis. Compare this document that I created using Microsoft Word and Times New Roman font. You will notice that all of the line breaks are exactly the same using a 1 1/2" right and left margin (the default) - I did not force the line breaks. I have reduced the document to 93% of the original size to make it look more like CBS's document. You may notice how remarkably similar this is to the CBS "authentic" memo.

Also, you will notice in this memo from Col. Killian that was part of the DOD release, that Killian did have access to the type of typewriter that we would expect in 1972, complete with a non-proportional courier font and a superscript that doesn't look like a word processor's work. This is what we are used to seeing on old government documents.

So, where did the brand new memo come from? Did Killian have access to much better equipment than the Air Force at the time? You can review additional contemporaneous documents here, none of which show the advance typesetting capabilities you find in the CBS memo.

[Protect the Bill of Rights]

Duped my ass. Maybe selectively ignorant.

WHO were the experts? How did they come to their conclusions? What are the credentials of the "experts". Did he mention the previous sworn testimony of Barnes? Did he mention Barnes dubious political record? Did he mention Barnes was approached by the Kerry campaign to make that tape? Did he document the many contributions Barnes has made? Did he apply the same standards as he did to John O'Neill?

What bites my butt is that Rather thinks we are so stupid as not to demand accuracy and truth. Putz.

[Doogle]

white out back then?

yeah it was called another piece of paper...lmao!!!

Doogle

[Darksheare]

You're stupid.
Can I beat you now, or will you like that too much?

[Old Sarge]

I don't claim the kill shot - who bagged him?

[Rider on the Rain]

I'm not so sure Rather was the "victim" of the hoax. I'd say more likely the "perpetrator."

I agree with that.

[Old Sarge]

I do so like y'all's ZOT pics! Well Done!

[MeekOneGOP]

Good shot, Sarge !

He's dead, Jim.
(Click here or on the pic).

[Rutles4Ever]

Hmmmm.... Are any of my fellow Freepers detecting the aroma of "Bubba" coming from the kitchen?

[Fresh Wind]

Obtaining forged documents by using FOIA?

This is not impossible. Suppose the forger (or an accomplice) just happened to drop the fake documents into the archive files, knowing that an FOIA request was in the pipeline. Once the request hit, an innocent archivist would pull out the papers and process them in the normal manner. The DOD and State Department are just full of people who could and would do something like this.

[MeekOneGOP]

ScoutMockingbird got the ZOT before I got back to this thread.

Here is what he said .....

WOW! You mean the same fonts looked the same in the 70's as they do now? WOW!

[sphinx]

Rather's credibility was already bashed by having Barnes on and soft balling the questions, but CBS getting caught up with forgeries is a little too much to hope for.

CBS being discredited (again) would be icing on the cake -- not that the KoolAide drinkers would pay any mind -- but the real issue is who originated the forgery. Kerry has just reshuffled his staff and strategy, and we've just seen a coordinated, all-points attack. CBS is just a bit player, albeit a willing stooge. Who pushed the pawn?

If this is a forgery, it's a potentially criminal matter. The source will have insisted on anonymity, and I would expect a complicit and guilty CBS to hide behind its lawyers. We may not get an answer for some time, if ever.

Of course, if CBS retains any sense of journalistic integrity, we could have a definitive answer today. Odds, anyone?

[leftcoaster]

**
Looking back through some old military documents (USAF, USAF Reserves, Army & Army Reserves), I see an interesting evolution in the fonts and date formats.
**

Your examples also point out that 2-digit year designations were the norm back then. It was only as we neared the change to the new century where one would use four-digit years on dates. A letter writer in the '70's (NOT "1970's") would not worry about confusing the century. Especially in a memo to himself.

Besides, word processors these days automatically type in the 4-digit year for you. Another indication that the CBS documents were written quite recently, on modern machines.