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
Most DoD documents from the early 50's to the early 80's were "there hole punched" to accomodate the document at the page so it could be filed. File system used to take up rooms and shelves before the wonderful age of computers.
You must be young.
Thanks--I am tired.
Woooahhh, Nelleeeee!!!!!
Too bad for CBS that looking at the content alone debunks the documents, never mind the technology debate (thought it's important to establish).
I think it looks worse that they overlooked the content like Staudt having retired in 1972 and the simple amount of research it would have taken to reveal that orders weren't issued in the format they presented.
I'm afraid CBS was complicit and nothing will ever explain away what they have done here.
I don't know what the correct word is, but Microsoft Word adjusts the spacing differently between letters than IBM Executive typewriters, according to this guy. As I understand what he is saying, each letter has its own width, while on the IBM Executive there were only 4 or so widths for letters.
http://www.hughhewitt.com/#postid876
BTW, I tried "To" and "Yo," the upper arm of the T and Y do NOT hang over the o. It looks like it because the T is just a tad narrower than the Y.
Exactly, I spent 22 and a half years in too, 18 of them in the AF and Orders are official and have a specific format, a memo is just that and does not have any official imperative. The use of "CYA" in the subject line is something that no officer would do. I have also written many OERs APRs and other correspondence including reprimands and they looked nothing like this pile of crap. Finally, I read elsewhere that CBS claims that these came from the colonel's personnel file. That is flat out BS. The official correspondence I wrote on subordinates or for any other reason did not get into MY personnel file. I have the command folder personnel file from when I retired and all of the paperwork applies to me only. The other official copy now resides in the bowels of whatever repository they send them to, and tain't no one but me can give access unless I were to be submitted for another extended background investigation (security clearance).
analysis of the bush memo
http://img41.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img41&image=60minbusted.swf
BTTT
---Not true about Times New Roman. Last night Southack posted something that showed that Times New Roman was available on the 1972 IBM Executive, a high end typewriter---
That runs counter to what I remember and also this little bit of font history. I'd be curious as to the source of those "IBM Executive fonts". I really doubt their authenticity.
---"Times Roman" is the name used by Linotype, and the name they registered as a trademark for the design in the U.S. "Times New Roman" was and still is the name used by The Monotype Corporation. The face was developed by The Times newspaper for its own use, under the design direction of Stanley Morison. Originally cut by the Monotype Corp. in England, the design was also licensed to Linotype, because The Times used Linotype equipment for much of its actual production. The story of "The Times New Roman" can be found in Stanley Morison's A Tally of Types, published by Cambridge University Press, with additional, though not quite the same, versions in Nicolas Barker's biography of Stanley Morison, and in James Moran's biography of SM. (There should be an apostrophe in that name, "Times' Roman", I suppose, though no-one uses it.)
During WWII, the American Linotype company, in a generous spirit of Allied camaraderie, applied for registration of the trademark name "Times Roman" as its own, not Monotype's or The Times', and received the registration in 1945.
In the 1980's, all this was revisited when some entrepreneurs, desirous of gaining the rights to use the name, applied to Rupert Murdoch, who owned The Times; separately, a legal action was also initiated to clarify the right of Monotype to use the name in the U.S., despite Linotype's registration.
The outcome of all of the legal maneuverings is that Linotype and its licensees like Adobe and Apple continue to use the name "Times Roman", while Monotype and its licensees like Microsoft use the name "Times New Roman".
During the decades of transatlantic "sharing" of the Times designs, and the transfer of the faces from metal to photo to digital, various differences developed between the versions marketed by Linotype and Monotype. Especially these became evident when Adobe released the PostScript version, for various reasons having to do with how Adobe produced the original PostScript implementations of Times. The width metrics were different, as well as various proportions and details.---
http://www.truetype.demon.co.uk/articles/times.htm
Thank God Someone Decided to Do A Summary
Suggest strongly the following:
1. Keep this list the top thread for as long as needed. I guess Jim would need to agree to do that.
2. No extraneous posts. This list should ONLY be for the maintenance of a list including suggested additions or deletions. Nothing about boycotts, hates on CBS, cartoons, unnecessary graphics, etc. etc. Let's all keep this thread for the Master List only. Where possible add links rather than a lot of text repeated elsewhere.
3. Master poster (SkyPilot if you would or your named designees) to keep the list up to date periodically with additions or subtractions to the Master List as he deems necessary by simply posting or reposting a revised Master List in the thread.
4. Split the list into the following sections:
a. Font, type, typography, equipment, etc issues that can be processed from the pdfs alone.
b. Issues that can only be processed by a better or original copy
c. Issues that relate to custom and usage of text within the documents
d. Issues that relate to the context of the document (people retired, day of week, ANG policy, etc.)
e. Other issues (veracity of experts, etc.)
Suggest also that someone store the pdfs on a site so that we are all working off the same documents and before CBS decides to delete them.
"This election is hotter than a Arkansas wind on a bare back goose."
Good. I think that the strongest argument is not that it COULD not be done by a 1972 era machine, but that it WAS NOT done by an 1972 era machine.
HODGES SAID HE WAS MISLED BY CBS
Retired Maj. General Hodges, Killian's supervisor at the Grd, tells ABC News that he feels CBS misled him about the documents they uncovered. According to Hodges, 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."
Hodges also said he did not see the documents in the 70's and he cannot authenticate the documents or the contents. His personal belief is that the documents have been "computer generated" and are a "fraud".
By the way, I see a parallel effort at:
A compendium of the Evidence (Rather forgery)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1212812/posts
Check out this thread Danny boy, and bring your experts to dispute it. Here on FReeRepublic. I'm sure Mr. Robinson would let you speak your mind, and show your evidence. Would be a good show, don't ya think, Kenneth?
Jim, could you ping Dan Rather? At least let Google cache it...lexus/nexus...
5.56mm
Thank you for your help---you have a VOICE in the blogsphere--even if you are one of the great unwashed (as a Yale professor called us) who does not have a Journalism degree.
I was just as surprised as you are to see "Times New Roman" attributed to an IBM machine.
Ask Southack. I've asked for more detail and as yet had no reply.
> ... the IBM Executive there were only 4 or so widths for letters.
That's not surprising. In real typography, including
computer typefaces, every glyph in the set can have
different metrics. That gets complicated to compute.
IBM would want to have kept it manageable.
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.
> BTW, I tried "To" and "Yo," ...
Roger that. Note that I am not saying the kerning
issue is meritless, just that it may be weak.
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.