CBS: Not Sinking!
Capt. Rather On Bridge!
'Rats Deserting Ship!
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
Now what? How can we get CBS to fess up?
Absent the original documents it would be impossible to say with any certainty that they were typed, not simply printed. A typewriter would, of course, leave an impression in the paper, unlike a printer.
As to the copying, I've posted previously, give me 15 minutes with some of my readily available graphics software and I'll produce a document that looks as old as your request, and would include a standard type font, not this obviously bogus nonsense See BS is pawning off on the American public.
Capt. Rather On Bridge!
'Rats Deserting Ship!
I dunno and it's not my information, I got it from Southack. I posted to him and sent him a PM but haven't heard back yet.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1210702/posts?page=253#253
Add the charge of being a jagoff to Nixon in the press conference ten million years ago. I have never forgotten.
I'd also bet that no authenticated AF document can be found from that time period that contains the Times-Roman font.
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perhaps the whole list needs to start with:
0. The "documents" in question can be trivially recreated,
with high precision, by using Microsoft Word, under default
settings of the program. This places the documents in the
late 1980s if not more recent.
Occam's Razor (the simplest explanation is the most
likely), suggests that this becomes the leading candidate
explanation for the source of these documents, and covers
all of the objections following.
Historical explanations require answering all of the
following.
The Colonel's wife has said that her husband was not a typist (hint: he could not type). Well--perhaps his Secretary did the typing.
Yup-maybe Terry McAlliffe did the typing.
This is the worst case of media bias in history.
We all need to get off this typeface issue. There are dozens of other problems with these memos. By focusing on one issue only, and the WRONG one at that, we make it easier to debunk the truth - which is that the memos are fabrications.
Bump
Number 5 is a problem. I just sent a copy of Courier 10 pt to Howlin that has a closed 4, but it also has a foot at the bottom.
Good stuff. Time to spread this across the internet :D
Thanks for the handy download and print-out. I think I may use it as gift wrap for hardened lefties...
I have a question regarding the MEMORANDUM for the order to Bush to report for a physical. If this is an order to Lt Bush, why isn't it in "official military records"? You wouldn't type an order to someone and then keep it in your "personal files." Don't you think this would be in Lt Bush's files somewhere? I spent 22 1/2 years in the Air Force, and I don't ever remember seeing anyone get an order in the form of a MEMORANDUM.
Re: kerning. It is true that Word has a special kerning function, which typically would be used for extremely large font sizes.
I believe - am not an expert but did my own test on this - that it DOES kern automatically somewhat.
Try this experiment. Using Word Times New Roman at the largest font size available - mine is 72 point - center justify and type the word "moon" (no quotation marks), hit enter, and then type "mono" (no quotation marks). If the program doesn't adjust the spacing, the words should be the same length. They're not.
Moon is a tiny bit longer than mono. (It doesn't matter whether you capitalize the first "m" or not, but do it the same way both times.)
Hugh Hewitt's guest expert, Robert "Corky" Cartwright, Professor of Computer Science at Rice, explains why.
http://www.hughhewitt.com/#postid876
Admittedly, you can adjust the spacing between the letters even more if you use the "kerning" function.
On #7, if actually an n-th generation copy, why?
If supposedly from "Killian's personal files", why
would it not be a 1st-gen scan of the original, or
of a first-gen copy?
> If Mately told CBS that their memos are "not reliable
> representations of the memos" because they are not the
> original and hence can't be authenticated, why did they
> unprofessionally go ahead with the Memo piece without
> getting a copy of the originals to authenticate.
Specifically, why are the supposed re-creations given a
"distressed"/"copied" look.
The point of re-creating marginal documents is to
improve the appearance, and in any case, when done,
needs to be identified as re-creations. These are
forgeries.
Or is CBS going to tell us they are forgeries of forgeries?
Someone needs to add, no typos from a guy who was known as a non-typist.
There is at least one organization that has all the manuals, equipment and other information at their fingertips to answer all relevant questions:
THE FBI
I would assume they are on the case along with experts in the military.
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.
