Are the CBS National Guard Documents Fake? (UPDATED: "At Least" 90% Positive They're Fake)

Are the CBS National Guard Documents Fake?
(UPDATED: "At Least" 90% Positive They're Fake)

Based on Powerline's suspicions of forgery over the documents put forth regarding George W. Bush’s National Guard service, I decided to do some legwork and track down the opinions of forensic document examiners that may have an expertise in old typefaces.

After contacting several experts, a rather notable Forensic Document Examiner named Dr. Philip Bouffard took the time to examine a pdf of the documents and perform an initial visual analysis of their authenticity. Dr. Bouffard has a PhD in Chemistry from the University of Michigan, but got involved in forensic examination of typefaces after working in “graphics” with NCR until 1973 and taking a two-year Certification Program in Document Examination at Georgetown University. After completing the program, he became specifically interested in typewriter classification and went to work for a prosecutor’s crime lab in Lake County, Ohio.

Using something called the Haas Atlas, the definitive collection of various typefaces, Mr. Bouffard (and other forensic document examiners) examined the veracity of various documents for over 30 years. Beginning in 1988, Mr. Bouffard hired a programmer to write a computer database program that catalogues the nearly 4,000 typefaces that appear in the Haas Atlas. This computer program is now a forensic standard that is sold as a companion to the Haas Atlas by American Society of Questioned Document Examiners (ASQDE).

UPDATE: The name of the program that Dr. Bouffard developed is called "The Typewriter Typestyle Classification Program" (C:\TYPE).

• The pdf document is of poor quality. It seems to have been copied and recopied several times, blurring letter characteristics.

• Also, certain types of analysis can only be done on the original documents, which don’t seem to be available, even to CBS.

So Dr. Bouffard is very clear that his analysis is not 100% positive. That being said …

“It’s just possible that this might be a Times Roman font, which means that it would have been created on a computer. It’s very possible that someone decided to create this document on a computer... I’ve run across this situation before … my gut is this could just well be a fabrication.”

• Right off the bat, Dr. Bouffard noted what others in the blogosphere have been talking about – something called “proportional spacing,” which means that each letter does not take up the same amount of width on the page. On old typewriters that do not have proportional spacing, the letter “i” would be as wide as the letter “m.” Except for professional typesetting, proportional spacing was only available on a very few models (an IBM model, "Composer" and perhaps one or two other models) that were not widely available in 1972-73; the vast majority of typewriters did not have proportional spacing. Because of this, Dr. Bouffard’s computer program immediately eliminated “over 90%” of the possible fonts from typewriters that could create such a document, narrowing it down to perhaps 15 fonts used by a very few models.

• Next, Dr. Bouffard began entering individual characters in an attempt to match them to the remaining fonts that were available on proportional spacing typewriters of that era, focusing on numbers. Thus far, one character stood out, the number “4.” In the document provided by CBS News, the number 4 does not "have a foot" and has a “closed top,” which is indicative of Times New Roman, a font exclusive to more modern computer word processing programs. other characters matched the old proportional spacing fonts (available on only a small few typewriters of the era), but this number did not (please note that this is only an initial analysis with numerical characters).

Dr. Bouffard ran this number and could not find a match in his entire database of over 4,000 typewriter fonts that have been maintained and collected into his computer database since 1988. Otherwise, the font is very indicative of Times New Roman, the font that is only available on computer word processing programs.

Once again, let’s not forget the qualifications: it's a bad copy of a copy and we have no original document for review, but, based on the initial analysis of the documents by an industry expert with over 30 years of experience in typesetting and forensic document examination, the documents “could just well be a fabrication.”

In light of this information, I think that it would be highly appropriate for CBS News and the Boston Globe to attempt to obtain a copy of the original document for more thorough vetting, and run a correction/addendum to the story.

I still have two other forensic document examiners that are examining the pdf file, and I will update if/when they get back to me. I also plan to ask Dr. Bouffard more detail about the nature of the "th" on the end of dates, though in our first conversation he indicated that some typewriters had the capability to do something in that format.

UPDATE: Dr. Bouffard called me again, and after further analysis, he says that he's pretty certain that it's a fake.

* He looked through old papers he's written, and noted that he's come up against the inconsistency of the "4" several previous times with forgeries that attempt to duplicate old proportional spaced documents with a computer word processing program.

* Regarding the small "th" after the date, Dr. Bouffard told me that it was possible to order specialty keys that would duplicate the automatic miniaturization completed by word processors after a numerical date, but it was certainly not standard, and wouldn't make a lot of sense in a military setting. "That by itself, while suspicious, is not impossible, but in conjunction with the (font irregularity of the) number four, it is really significant," he said.

* Dr. Bouffard said that signature analysis isn't that relevant because the signature could have easily been copied and pasted onto one of the photocopied forgeries from another document.

* He said that he didn't know who CBS contacted to verify the document's authenticity, but that there is really only one other man that may be more qualified to determine authentic typefaces than himself. I think that the burden of proof may be on CBS to reveal this information.

I asked him to put a percentage on the chances that this was a fake, and he said that was "hard to put a number on it." I then suggested "90%?" Again he said it's "hard to put an exact number, but I'd say it's at least that high, sure. I pretty much agree that that font is Times New Roman."

I hesitate to render verdicts, but based on an initial visual analysis by one of the country's foremost forensic document analysts that specializes in old typefaces, it looks like CBS was duped.

HURRAH! Sean Hannity just reported on this thanks to a caller-Sean credited FreeRepublic.com and said the Freepers are often out in front of a story! Must have said the word "freepers" three or more times! Good WORK and KUDOS to all the rabid investigators here!

Is there any significance to the fact that the 'th' in the very top title line is not the small font superscript like in the body of the document? Would it have been standard procedure to type the 'th' in two different ways.

BTW, this discussion of old IBM Executive typewriters brings back many old memories. Back in the 1970's, in pre-word processing days, I was what was known as a "repro" typist. We typed rough copy on blue-line cardstock, then used razor blades and a light table to mortise in changes. Anyone here recognize the term "walking copy?" The proportional spacing made it possible for use to "justify" the right margin by counting picas at the end of a line, then redistributing them along the spaces between words to extend the length of the line. Proportional spacing also made it possible to insert the word "dogs" into the space where the word "dog" had been.

There was a real art back in those days to being a "repro typist." We groused at the writers and editors who continually asked us to change words, insert copy, and otherwise perform miracles on the printed page!!! An era ended when word processing equipment was invented.

There was no th key on and 1970 era typewriters.

Please read before posting. Does the expert in post #1 say that? No

Then why are you repeating it? There are problems, but we need to avoid making untrue statements.

The Music Department at Georgetown College, Georgetown, Kentucky had one of the IBM proportional font typewriters back in the early 80s. If anyone is in the area, it might be worth giving them a jingle and seeing if they still have it around as a test subject.

OK, I'm getting loopy. Never mind.

"The expert was suspicious about the proportional font, but consider this: wouldn't that be the first thing anyone would notice? How smart would it be for CBS to present a document that couldn't possibly be typed in 1972?"

It would be stupid. But the lamestream press is so used to for years working on "Gentleman's agreement" wink-and-a-nod basis, in which no journalist DARES to criticize a "colleague that anything is acceptable.

The documents were faked.
They were xeroxed and then faxed then rexeroxed to get that nice slick out of focus look.

But on a side note, I have seen the mods get slightly bent about repetetive posts being put on multiple threads, unless it adds something to the discussion.
So, as a general rule, if I feel it doesn't add to the current discussion, I usually don't repost stuff.
(Unless it's a Zot thread.. then it's fair game!)
*chuckle*

Laters, happy FReeping.

"As far as CBS is concerned, the 60 Minute Bush document episode N-E-V-E-R happened. You just watch."

Sad to say, you're probably right. They'll just treat this like NBC treated Lisa Myer's Dateline piece on Juanita Broderick (which I still have on tape, BTW).

Are these images of the actual documents? Cause these images are fake.

Someone made the memos appear old, so that would be less likely a mere retyping.

As I noted to you on the other thread, inspired by your observation, the supposed Bush released memo has apparently the same font and "footless 4". Apparently someone redid that one too - but it isn't made to look old.

I haven't seen anyone comment on the Bush released memo, as it appears at CBS.

Maybe the Bush people did it, maybe CBS. How long ago was the Bush memo released...and if the new memos are forgeries, did th forgers imitate the font to match the retyped memo and this is their fatal flaw?

Not sure if mentioned elsewhere, but two things:

1. The date in para 1 reads "14 May, 1972". There is no comma in my experience with government or military when using official style dating...which should read "14 May 1972." Civies in norml life use May 14, 1972. Suggests confusion on the part of a typist not used to regularly using military style dating.

2. Would a military doc both spell out "no later than" and use the acronym "NLT"? Seems somewhat of overkill. Seems to me NLT would be understood. Perhaps some nitpicking on my part, but it smacks of someone wanting to give military feel to memo via acronyms - but wanting to make sure we get the meaning as well.

**
What if it is fake on purpose? Sort of...

If I was a PA on 60 Minutes charged with creating the digital graphics for this story the following might happen:

After scanning the original documents I find they are illegible digitally. So I retype verbatim screen shot, bring it into PhotoShop, paste, apply a dimestore old XEROX filter, then photoshop out the signature and place it. Deadline met, the stylized graphic for production has been created. In general the networks do not require the actual document be shown, they have often in the past insisted it is ok to display the actual text in whatever format meets their production needs. So long as the content is not changed.

It needs to be confirmed that those images on the web, and in the show are images of the actual documents before this story goes on.
**
Then they faxed the fakes to the WH and published them on their web site as originals. Extremely sloppy and unethical. Especially since they would have affixed signatures to re-created documents that they had prepared.

They could easily do what you suggest by displaying the text of the document in a more readable format but also displaying a copy of the original(s) that allow anyone to review whether their transcript of the original was accurate.

Comparing the memos available on the CBS News website, one finds the author used the superscript "th" in some, and did not use this special key in another.

That key is a single-stroke special character.

It's the smoking gun to this latest bit of phoney-baloney from an overeager media seeking to prop up another leftie.

I've been following this all day and have not been convinced the memos were forged. The proportionate font, the curved apostrophe, even the superscript "th" can all be explained away one way or another.

Your document overlay has convinced me. There is no question that the "May 1972" memo is exactly the same font as the version you just created.

"...They were xeroxed and then faxed then rexeroxed to get that nice slick out of focus look...."

Oh, heck, you wouldn't even have to go through all that trouble; just use a fairly inexpensive program like Paint Shop Pro and one of any of a number of available plug-in filters to achieve the desired effect.

Fifteen minutes or less.

Please read before posting. Does the expert in post #1 say that? No

Then why are you repeating it? There are problems, but we need to avoid making untrue statements.

From the expert's analysis:

I also plan to ask Dr. Bouffard more detail about the nature of the "th" on the end of dates, though in our first conversation he indicated that some typewriters had the capability to do something in that format.

The point I was trying to make, is that most documents would not have had anything like the 04 May 1972. Look at the original and it has this as the unit header

111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron

Yet, in the body of the letter on the second line, this is the format

2. Report to 111^thF.I.S.

Another note on the abreviation of the unit, the unit should have been FIS without periods.

Original thread with the memos.
Here

"The proportionate font, the curved apostrophe, even the superscript 'th' can all be explained away one way or another...."

Please explain, based on fact, the superscript 'th', including its mixed use in one document, and absence from another, and reappearance in a third. How does one in 1972 create a single-stroke special character as found?

Remember, you are working with typewriters in existence 30+ years ago.

True.
But the look of the documents reminded me of an office game variously called 'the unreadable memo' and other such.
Basically you run the memo through the xerox machine and then the fax so many times that it is so garbaged up as to be unreadable.
Was one way of ticking off my old Captain as well, turn in paperwork so illegible that he had to guess what it was for and why he needed it.

Only saw that pulled once, the Cap didn't ask for quite so much paperwork afterwards.

Not to be picky but 5000 Longmont (address) is given as zip 77027. I don't have a directory but shouldn't that be 77056? Anybody got a look-up? Maybe it was different in 1972?

Meanwhile that little "th" looks SO peculiar. It's just possible that a place with "th" in its name would buy wheels containing that character, but...hmmm...no.

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.