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
Well then, you're right. Have Jim kill this thread, with all its new replies, opinions, and finds. We can't have 2 threads on FR about this story.
Am I the only one that thinks its too wierd to have a box office box...34567?
> Have Jim kill this thread, ...
If your serious, you do request it, but not until you've
captured all the data.
> We can't have 2 threads on FR ...
Like that's never happened before :-)
I'm somewhat surprised no one has started a site
to capture a table of all this stuff.
"Is it possible that the documents were transcribed from earlier versions by Killian, at some point (after the 1970's), using a word processor?"
I would say that is a possibility, but I doubt it. I think these are intentional(recent) documents concocted to hurt President Bush. Besides, if someone had a hypothetical original by Killian, it would be foolish to retype them with a word processer.
I do stand by what I noted on my own military documents from the same time frame that some IBM type balls had closed 4s not open ones. Also, the ones with closed 4s had no footers. So, that particular arguement about these being forgeries doesn't stand up. However, there are many other, more convincing, that do.
Who said that it was an IBM Selectric typewriter? A stateside guard base likely had older equipment. Likely a manual Royal or similar. Someone on another thread mentioned a federal repository of guard documents. If documents from the same base can be acquired, it would be trivial to determine the make and model of every typewriter on that base. At one time the FBI even boasted of a capability to match a specific typewriter to the letters that it produced. They had a whole department dedicated to it.
---Kerning is off by default in MS Word, and a non-kerned effort generates
a match that is more than adequately close. ---
It's off on the working screen because screen resolution can make it look funky. Try the print preview. You'll see a difference and the print will be slightly different again. It's subtle sometimes. Screen resolution is generally taken to be 72dpi. Laser printers print at 300-600 dpi.
As far as kerning in the documents go, look at how the a is nestled between the M and y in the 19 May document.
All typewritten letters I've ever seen are dented where the typewriter keys hit the page.
I just examined a letter that was typed in 1975, and the back of the paper clearly shows the dents--most especially the dots over letters like "i' and "j", and also the periods and commas--all can be seen to have distressed the page, even now nearly 30 years later.
If the paper of the original is distressed, that does still not guarantee the letter is authentic--a forger could have used an impact printer driven by a computer.
But if the original is not distressed, that by itself would likely mean the letter was not typewritten.
I already e-mailed the local CBS affiliate and said I won't watch ANY CBS programming--not Letterman, not football, NOTHING, until Rather is GONE.
And I'm sticking to it.
re item 47 - underlining of superscript 'th' - if memory serves, I think that was really a the bottom edge of the key hitting the paper, not an actual part of the key face character. Too - because it hit high on the round roller, they tended to be lighter at the top - almost fading out as the paper curved away from the key face.
A 'ball' type typewriter, even if the ball had a superscript 'th' wouldn't have that underline, but I don't think it could raise the characters above the line - especially without that tell-tale fading towards the top.
I thought that is what you wanted with your "duplicate thread" post.
I never was a professional typographer, did some typesetting but mostly camera and stripping, so it's good to have your comments.
Thank you--a most interesting addition. I must admit---most of this is "too Geek for me" stuff. But in this case it is relevant.
Here is my question:
Everyone now is investigating font types, IBM Selectrics from 1970, pixel frames, type space, etc. Especially CBS.
Did they give this extensive of an investigation into these things before they were questioned?
Has anyone bothered to check what the USAF or ANG correspondence manuals called for regarding typed correspondence? I can speak from 25 years of service with USCG and USN that the standard in the late '70s and early '80s was Courier 12 for correspondence. My recollections are that we had Courier 10, Helvetica, and always an OCR ball for personnel forms. But that was pretty much it. Any typewriters that were out in offices always just had Courier 12 so that by default people were using the right type.
Can someone confirm #8 and #10.
---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.---
Absolutely! Just like Columbo! He figures out how the crime was committed and so solves the crime. The question remaining is who. If Rather doesn't want to go down he better start making sense.
Bookmarked.
Another item of interest is the fact that under the Privacy Act of 197X (someone else will need to come up the the exact date), it would be ILLEGAL for Col. Killian to maintain ANY coorespondance of a personal nature about ANYONE. Any veteran of this period should remember the multitude of Privacy Act Statement forms that were sprinkled throughout our records. The jist is that copying anyones personal information was/is punishable under the UCMJ.
> Try the print preview.
That's an important point. Only printing directly to paper,
scanning and comparing is likely valid. Screen drafts,
screen print previews, print-to-PDF, etc., are all apt to
have sublte but damaging differences, even vs. the fairly
coarse CBS docs.
I run into little placement issues all the time in Frame.
I can make most of them go away by drilling down and
selecting "use printer metrics", but only the final
result (on paper) is the final result.
I'd also suggest guessing that the originals were not
printed on a PostScript printer. PCL (HP) is the most
likely guess for printer page description language.
> I thought that {deletion} is what you wanted with
> your "duplicate thread" post.
Not at all. I just wanted you to know about it in
case it had additional useful content for your list.
> I never was a professional ... so it's good to have
> your comments.
I'm not. I'm just concerned about some posts I've
seen with a "Kerning is the Killer" type theme.
Kerning may be evidential, or may be irrelevant.
It's risky to focus too much on it.
I believe that FOX news is looking into this--but I am not certain. The problem you will find is no matter what standard type of typewriter or typewriter ball (remember those?)--the enemy will always say there must have been a unique "other" type on the Colonel's desk.
Get it?
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.