60 Minutes Documents on Bush Might Be Fake

CNS News ^ | September 9, 2004 | Melanie Hunter

[Peach]

Thursday, September 09, 2004 2:41 PM EST

By Melanie Hunter CNSNews.com Deputy Managing Editor September 09, 2004 02:34 pm

'60 Minutes' Documents on Bush Might Be Fake

(CNSNews.com) - The 32-year-old documents produced Wednesday by the CBS News program "60 Minutes," shedding a negative light on President Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard, may have been forged using a current word processing program, according to typography experts. Three independent typography experts told CNSNews.com they were suspicious of the documents from 1972 and 1973 because they were typed using a proportional font, not common at that time, and they used a superscript font feature found in today's Microsoft Word program. More to Come

[spokeshave]

"A suitable typewriter did exist at the time, but that will not be the end of the questions. We need to see the original documents, and others from the same office"

Next job is to compare the typefont on John F'n "flip-flop fop" Kerry citations .

Were they typed with a portable or a Selectric.....?

Should be easy to determine.

[JCEccles]

I never saw the "Executive" at use at base level or below in the Air Force--not even in the most remote Det office. That doesn't mean the guard didn't have them or that they hadn't been used and completely disposed of by the time I was walking around with butter bars on my shoulders. But I do find it odd that I never saw evidence of any.

In some ways I am more suspicious of the irregular formatting, improper abbreviation usage, and the "too clean" carbons than I am of the typeface. Just as an antique dealer can tell a 17th Century oak gateleg table from an even very superior 20th Century reproduction by noticing subtle inconsistencies in design and contruction methods, I believe I could tell a genuine 70s Air Force document from a 2004 forgery, but I would have to see and hold the documents themselves, These pdfs obscure some critical signs.

One killer test would be to find an old IBM Executive typewriter and a Selectric typewriter and prepare the same text on each using 12 pitch elite. Then measure and see if the text falls within one-inch borders allowing for a paper size of 8 x 10, not 8 1/2 x 11. If the formatted text only fits 8 1/2 x 11 inch paper, you have your smoking gun. They're forgeries. The Air Force and Guard did not use 8 1/2 x 11 inch paper until the 1980s.

Also, use carbon sets and compare the appearance of the type to the type on the suspect documents. I assure you, NO ONE in the guard or Air Force was using a photostatic copier to prepare file copies of these documents in 1971-1973.

[Grateful One]

You are so right, but I think it all is making Bush look better anyway. I actually hope the (just don't get it) left keeps it up until Nov.

[beida]

From Selectric Typewriter Museum

Selectric and Selectric II Type Styles (Fonts)

These are 600 dpi black and white (not greyscale) scans from the mid 1970s IBM Type Styles and Elements brochure.  There are six pages, each with several fonts. 

10 Pitch Type Styles:  Advocate, Bookface Academic 72, Delegate, Orator, Courier 72, Pica 72, Prestige Pica 72

12 Pitch Type Styles:  Adjutant, Artisan 12, Courier 12 Italic, Scribe, Prestige Elite, Courier 12, Elite 72, Letter Gothic

Special Typing Applications: Light Italic, Script, Printing ANSI-OCR, Symbol 10, 108 OCR, Manifold 72, Symbol 12

[finnigan2]

"I don't think Rather and CBS lied about this. I think, because they are democrats, that they had a predisposition to think that these documents were real and that this bias in judgment contributed to the slip that let this get past them."

- I agree with your assessment. If the documents are forgeries, then there are only two possibilities:
1) A little Dem. mole in CBS, knowing that Rather wouldn't question anything too closely that fit his predisposition to believe the worst of Bush, set him up by inserting these phonies in a pile of other, less damaging, originals.
2) The forgeries actually came to Rather from Karl Rove, who deliberately made sure that their authenticity could be challenged and thus destroy, once and for all, Rather and the Bush/AWOL smear.
The second possibility sounds far fetched but is not out of the question.

[Thane_Banquo]

Huge differences between the sigs. Note that on the left top signature from the possible forgery, the capital J has a a much more straight right edge than in the valid lower signature. Second, and most glaringly, the top right tail on the K in the possible forgery curves up and in, while the top right tail on the K in the true memo curves down.

Nonetheless, there are similiarities that suggest the forger may have seen the original signature and attempted to duplicate.

People's signatures change over time, but not that much. There is a high probability that this was forged.

[xzins]

Like many other officers, when computers and word processors happened, I went out and bought my own until my army office caught up. This LTC had another job someplace, and an LTC is not normally poverty stricken. He could have been working on a top-of-the-line typewriter at work or at home.

Therefore:

1. Sometimes people spell dates out. After 20 years active duty it's natural for me, though, to write 9 Sep 04.

2. The memo giving the order to report for a flight physical is boiler plate. They were generated by some regulation and had to be sent every year to everybody. They were also just as easily ignored....they were pro forma.

3. This signature pasting is a target rich environment. I'd keep digging here. Could it be a signature stamp that he'd had made?

4. Sometimes we did type our own letterhead for some letters. We also used official letterhead. If you were doing stuff on your own at your home, you might just type your own letterhead.

5. Depends on the typewriters in that era. See above...he could have had access to his own. I did it, so there's no reason he couldn't have. HOWEVER, that doesn't mean the technology was available. That's a rich avenue to pursue, imho.

Good post. Thanks.

[rawhide]

Woo-hoo! Freepers, you did it! I love it!

[RightOnTheLeftCoast]

LGF has superimposed the two:



Their version was created on a Mac using MS Word and default fonts, margins, etc. That's a slam-dunk. The chances of margins, fonts, tabs, kerning, letter-sizes, letter-shapes, serifs and other subtleties lining up so perfectly for a 2004-vintage Mac and a 1972-vintage Whatever are absolutely nil.

[ZeitgeistSurfer]

Forged documents? Purjured testimony? The RATs are just getting warmed up. Just wait 'till October. I can guarantee that we will be seeing stores and "evidence" of some or all of the following:

(1) Bush bribery attempts re the National Guard.
(2) Secret deals between Bush's oil company and Saudi.
(3) "Racist" notes / documents / notes with Bush's signature
(4) Affairs with various women
(5) Secret slush funds
(6) Paid appointments to government posts (e.g. ambassadors)

I'm sure I'm only covering a small sampling of what these "patriots" have planned. Remember, don't be shocked by anything that happens in the next six weeks.

[bitt]

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_09/004658.php

I went here to see the documents, but wait til you see the nasty comments by the posters at the WaPost!

[Defender2]

your picyure of dan cr*pper(rather-not capitolised on purpose), the kerry edwards button you have on dan's dress jacket, could you please change the "Old Glory Flag" to the more appropriate "red flag with hammer and sickle", which is more approriate attire of kerry-edwards-rather????

Thanks!!!!

Best FReegards,

D2

:-)

[traviskicks]

In reference to flashing post 216. I don't remember where I saw it, but one of these bloggers was doing something similar to what you were doing and noticed the discrepencies in the 'th'. He was thinking that this might have been a 'special key stroke' on the typewriters and made him worry about the authenticity of his claims, despite the otherwise perfect fit. He was then told by a reader, or figured it out himself - forget which, that when the document is printed the differences go away. In other words, the screen represents the font differently then when it is printed - due to configuration errors or font settings. If this can be duplicated then it will only increase the certainty of these fakes. I wish I had the link to this blogger, but can't remember where it was.

[Kaslin]

I noticed the huge differences from the signatures and especially the one with the J. Some might change their signatures over the years, though my husband had the same signature fore more then 40 years. Here is Killian's signature from the presiden't request to get discharged

[Anti-Bubba182]

Brit Hume will be reporting on this shortly.

[mdittmar]

Fox has got it now!

Sweet!

[mwilli20]

-------------------------------------------------------

The above is a superimposition of an MS Word 2002 document (red) and the "original" memo (gray).

The MS Word document was typed using Times New Roman size 12. I used the standard MS Word formatting. The only deviation: The header was further indented 1/8th of an inch from the default.

In order to superimpose the 2, the original was rotated once and resized twice, once in the horizontal direction and once in the vertical. The relative proportions were NOT changed on either document.

Anybody would like to guess the chances that a 1970's typewriter and a 2002 version of MS Word would yield documents that are so similar???

[Diogenesis]

Developing Brief Partial Summary of the Forgery Elements of the CBS/Rather Faked letter
Insightful Comments Made by FReepers
=================================================

1-- proportional spacing not generally available
2 -- superscripts not generally available
3 - "th" single element not generally available
4 - Smart quotes. Curved apostrophes and quotation marks were not available
5-The blurriness of the copy indicates it was recopied dozens of times, tactic of forgers
6--Signature block. Typical authentic military signature block has name, then rank, then on the next line the person's position. This just has rank beneath the name. 7--Margins. These look like a computer's unjustified default, not the way a person typing would have done it.
8 -- Date usually with three letters, or in form as 110471.
9 - words run over consistent with word processor
10 - may be a Times Roman or similar font not generally available then (per Haas Atlas)
11 - signature looks faked
12 - no errors
13 - no letterhead
14 - exact match for Microsoft Word Processor
15 - Paper size problem, Air Force and Guard did not use 8 1/2 x 11 inch paper until the 1980s.
16 - Overlap analysis is an exact match
17 - absence of hyphens to split words between lines, c/w 1970's typewriter.
18 - 5000 Longmont #8 in Houston Tx. does not exist
19 - Box 34567 is suspicious, at best
20 - it would have been nearly impossible to center a letterhead with proportional spacing without a computer.

[fso301]

Yes, but it's my understanding that these were photocopies .. with the look of being copies of copies of copies. That would make it difficult to get the "feel" of the paper as a typewritten page.

At the time, what was more likely, use of a carbon copy or Xerox?

[pfflier]

Slander hell. It is a violation of FCC regulations and should be prosecuted as such.