Posted on 09/10/2004 7:18:39 PM PDT by SkyPilot
Mods and Jim,
I hope you will forgive me, but no one seems to have posted this in one inclusive thread before. This is a list that has been circulating the blogs regarding the evidence of forgery of the CBS documents.
OK? Here we go:
_________________________________________________________________
Some have already been clarified, but here are the running discrepancies:
1. proportional spacing not generally available (no confirmation this type of technology was available at TANG)
2. CBS admits that it does *not* have the originals, but only original documents can be proven to be real; copies can *never* be authenticated positively...repeat: only original documents can be proven real. CBS never had the originals, so CBS knew that it was publishing something that couldn't be assured of authenticity
3. superscripts not generally available
4. Small "th" single element not generally available (not common, but available. Highly unlikely the machines were available at TANG)
5. 4's produced on a typewriter are open at the top. 4's on a word processor are closed. Compare the genuine Bush ANG documents, where the 4's are open at the top, to Rather's forgeries, where the 4's are closed at the top
6. Smart quotes. Curved apostrophes and quotation marks were not available – only vertical hash marks.
7. The blurriness of the copy indicates it was recopied dozens of times, common tactic of forgers (confirmed by CBS).
8. 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.
9. Margins. These look like a computer's unjustified default, not the way a person typing would have done it. Typewriters had fixed margins that “rang” and froze the carriage when typist either hit “mar rel” or manually returned carriage.
10. Date inconsistent with military style type. Date with three letters, or in form as 110471.
11. Words run over consistent with word processor.
12. Times Roman has been available since 1931, but only in linotype printshops...until released with Apple MacIntosh in 1984 and Windows 3.1 in 1991.
13. Signature looks faked, and it cut at the very end of the last letter rather than a fade when pressure would have been released.
14. No errors and whiteout (CBS used copies)
15. No letterhead
16. Exact match for Microsoft Word Processor, version disputed, but converted to pdf matches exactly.
17. Paper size problem, Air Force and Guard did not use 8 1/2 x 11 inch paper until the 1980s.
18. Overlap analysis is an exact match (see #15).
19. Absence of hyphens to split words between lines, c/w 1970's typewriter. (see #8)
20. 5000 Longmont #8 in Houston Tx. does not exist (actually does exist, but Mr. Bush had already moved TWICE from this address at the time the memo was written).
21. Box 34567 is suspicious, at best. This would not be used on correspondence, but rather forms. The current use of the po box 34567 is Ashland Chemical Company, A Division of Ashland Oil, Incorporated P. O. Box 34567 Houston (this has been confirmed by the Pentagon, per James Rosen on Fox News)
22. It would have been nearly impossible to center a letterhead with proportional spacing without a computer (not impossible, but for Killiam, who did not type, improbable).
23. Bush's grade would be abbreviated "1/Lt" not "1st Lt"
24. Subject matter bizarre
25. Air Force did not use street addresses for their offices, rather HQ AFLC/CC, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433.
26. Kerning was not available
27. In the August 18, 1973 memo, Jerry Killian purportedly writes: "Staudt has obviously pressured Hodges more about Bush. I'm having trouble running interference and doing my job." but General Staudt, who thought very highly of Lt. Bush, retired in 1972.
28. Language not generally used by military personnel.
29. Not signed or initialed by author, typist, or clerk.
30. Not in any format that a military person would use, e.g. orders not given by Memo.
31. Is the document original or a copy of an original? Why all the background noise such as black marks and a series of repeated dots (as if run through a Xerox).(Rather explained his document was a photocopy-brings up additional questions of how redacted black address was visible from a several generation copy)
32. The Killiam family rejected these documents as forgeries. Then where did the “personal files” come from if not the family?
33. Why no three hole punches evident at the top of the page?
34. Mr. Bush would have had automatic physical scheduled for his Birthday – in July! He would not have received correspondence.
35. Why is the redacted address of Longmont #8 visible beneath the black mark? This would have been impossible after one copy, but it would be visible if the document was scanned.
36. Why were these exact same documents available for sale on the Internet y Marty Heldt, of leftist web site Tom Paine, as early as January 2004? Is this where CBS obtained their copies?
37. Acronym should be OER, not ORET.
38. Last line of document 4 "Austin will not be pleased with this" is not in the same font and has been added! 39. Handwriting experts are not document experts – apples and oranges.
40. Lt Col Killian didn't type
41. The forged documents had no initials from a clerk
42. There was no CC list (needed for orders)
43. Subject line in memos was normally CAPITALIZED in the military
44. The forged documents used incorrect terminology ("physical examination" instead of "medical")
45. There was no "receipt confirmation box" (required for orders)
46. The superscript "th" in the forged documents was raised half-way above the typed line (consistent with MS Word, but inconsistent with military typewriters which kept everything in-line to avoid writing outside the pre-printed boxes of standard forms).
47. Regarding superscript - typewriter example had it underlined in the keystroke but the forged document doesn't.
48. May 4, 1972 "order" memo and the May 19, 1972 "commitment" memo typeface doesn't match the official evaluation signed 26 May 1972. Or does the TxANG have a new typewriter just for Col. Killian's memorandum
Here is an article about the composer re the memo text:
http://shapeofdays.typepad.com/the_shape_of_days/2004/09/the_ibm_selectr.html
I am not sure whether the answer was yes or no.
and about the expert on fonts backtracking.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/09/11/authenticity_backed_on_bush_documents?mode=PF
I think there are several ways to go:
1. Look at all other published memos from the TANG to see if any have proportional font.
2. Talk to his son to see if the Secretary is still around to find out about what kinds of typewriters existed in the office.
3. Flange up with someone at the TANG who can tell us if the TANG ever had such an expensive machine.
4. Find us an expert who can tell us is there is any way to find some component of fonts or Microsoft that can conclusively prove that it had to come only from a computer word processor. I'm willing to contribute to the pot if necessary.
Any ideas?
Remember the objective is to nail Rather to the corner in such a way that the proof of forgery is so blatantly obvious that even his toes can move. If we can't find the single magic bullet, then the only other option is to hone the h**l out of the Master List until it is so high that it burys him.
BTW, are there any expert blogs or groups that we out to be tying into in a cooperative manner?
Great minds think alike
You might still need at least a better copy of the original - the differences can be obscured by the photocopy noise and distortions
It sounds like my "simple" line of reasoning cannot be used because the IBM Composer did exist at the time the memos were created and it could have created the "glyph overhang" exhibited in the word "interference".
That's too bad.
One possible tack then is to identify some characteristic of the memos which is inconsistent with this machine. (Assuming that this is the only reasonable machine that could have been used.) The detailed knowledge of the characteristics of this machine is not something that I am going to have, so I'm turning in for the night.
I've been thinking about #4. I still say that it might be possible to definitively "prove" forgery with the character widths. Consider this hypothetical scenario (I'm pulling numbers out of the air since I don't have a font program to look at the actual character units):
A: 565 units
B: 540 units
...
D: 579 units
I'm talking about *total spacing* here, not just the width of the glyph. A computer can produce a font with any character spacing, but a mechanical typewriter (yes, even a Composer) might not. It depends on how the unit actually moves the paper. There has to be some sort of mechanical item on the font ball that tells the machine how much to move, and I'm willing to bet that it isn't nearly as precise as a computer is. I'm also willing to bet that font balls would have varied by tiny amounts from run to run.
The kicker though is that mechanical machines were most likely *not* accurate to the twip like a PC is. So, for instance, a mechanical tpewriter (even the most sophisticated ones) might have been able to produce a "D" at 575 or 580 units, but not exactly 579 (or maybe they coult make a 579-unit "D" but not also a 565-unit "A"). The point I'm getting at here is that there is *no way* that all of the character spacings would be the same as in MSWord. Some would necessarily vary, partly because fonts from different manufacturers (or even the same one at different times) vary in spacing even if the actual letterforms don't. I also seriously doubt the machining of either the font ball or the typewriter itself would be that precise or reliable with use. What's more, it should be possible to prevail on someone with access to such a machine to relate just how it mechanically moves the paper according to the font spacing. Like the first link showed, the documents were ucannilly precise, not only with each other, but also with a word processor made thirty years later. In my mind, the only way this isn't a forgery is if Monotype bought *this particular typewriter and font ball* from the Air Force and used it as the basis for the Times New Roman we all now know and love in our PCs.
Not when you add up characters. For each character, there should be an error, a difference in spacing between the MSWord font and the one from the alleged typewriter. There is simply no way that all of the characters could have exactly the same spacing. As you add characters to a line, the error would grow.
Man, I am sweating more than Ashton Kutcher in a Mexican jail with a picture of the mayor's wife and a donkey.
Not to worry. The second that Brit Hume said that they overlaid an MSWord version on it and found an exact match, I knew the jig was up. I've worked in printing and publishing (and still do, but a different aspect of it) and I've put in my time recreating old fonts with a lot of hours spent peering through magnifiers and using font programs (and then writing software to emulate the old typographic systems that originally produced documents with the old fonts). The fact is that fonts change from era to era: the character spacing *never, ever, ever* stays the same (well, now that we have computers, it finally might), but generaly they varied a lot, especially due to trademarks and competition, and also because no one ever cared to precisely reproduce spacing to such a tiny degree. The chance that the spacings would be exactly the same wasn't small, wasn't tiny, it was *identically zero*.
The jig is up.
"The forgers copied them 20 times to make them look old. I can make my last month electric bill look old by putting it through the copier 4 times."
As was pointed out, the black or redacted mark over the address is still readable. This would only be possible on an original copy because any subsequent copy would print out pitch black.
In my experience it's never that small. You tend to really notice it with vowels, *especially the letter "e" (uppercase or lowercase). When you have lines of text, the error tends to become skewed by the commonly used letters (T, S, R, L, and E). I've *seen* it in trying to reproduce fonts. It's extremely difficult work, not something the Monotype could have done by accident when creating the font in our word processors. Also, as I mentioned in my previous argment, typewriters would have varied a little bit, maybe only in fractions of a point, but the effect would have been visible. Monotype would have had to base the curent MSWord font on this particular typewriter and font ball. Another one would have given them different character spacings.
Letter frequences is a strong point (there must be a systemic difference then). I have to conceede you win the argument :-)
We are up to #53
49. Bush joins the Guard in May 1968. Barnes becomes Lt. Gov. in 1969 and at that official capacity helps Bush get into the TexANG. If Bush is already in the Guard how does Barnes help to get him further into the guard
50. The manual cited in the first forged document on line 2 of the first point #1 of “AFM 35-13” doesn’t exist. That line of text reads: “to conduct annual physical examination (flight) IAW AFM 35-13”. “IAW” means “In Accordance With” and “AFM 35-13” would mean Air Force Manual 35-13”. There is no such Air Force Manual 35-13.
51. Retired Maj. General Hodges, Killian’s supervisor at the Guard, tells ABC News that he feels CBS misled him about the documents. CBS told him the documents were “handwritten” and after CBS read him excerpts, he said “well, if he wrote them, that’s what he felt.”
52. Hodges also said he did not see the documents in the 70s and he cannot authenticate the documents or the contents. His personal belief is that the documents have been “computer generated” and are a “fraud”.
I have been keeping this list on my desktop for two days, and have asked folks to freepmail me for updates/corrections/clarifications.
Perhaps a complete thread of all discrepancies should be created - I am now up to #53. I started on Wednesday night.
> People collect and restore these old machines. It's
> interesting that so far, no one has apparently even
> tried to recreate a Killian memo on a typewriter.
It turns out someone has. See:
http://shapeofdays.typepad.com/
Scroll down to:
"The IBM Selectric Composer"
Not lookin' good for the CBS stonewall effort.
Why, yes, I do. Look up the Breaking Hannity thread from yesterday regarding the source to be exposed (by Jeff Gannon of Talon News).
Start at #300 and continue to the end - the thread is gripping!
Ah, just a suggestion - but kerning is best discussed with ligatures.
I faxed the list to Mr Jack Dempsy, the manager of WJHL TV the local CBS affiliate to put him on notice that he was broadcasting bogus reports.
Wow thanks! This is great for those of us who haven't been able to follow the story as close as we would have liked over the past few days.
Many thanks to you for the summary, and to everybody else whose comments will make it air tight and Rather proof.
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.