LOL. look at the K. What are that odds that the tops of the K would define a perfectly horizontal line, as if they had been cut out of another document with a ruler.
Posted on 09/11/2004 9:25:07 AM PDT by HighWheeler
This has been examined. The memo actually typed on the IBM Selectric Composer - 1968.
Go to this web address and scroll down past the article about the Boston Globe and detail on the sigitures that appear on the memos. Very interesting read. http://shapeofdays.typepad.com/
This IS interesting. It's close, but like with all typewriters, notice the "wavy" quality of "IAW". In the CBS forgery memo, the lines are perfectly straight.
Whoever wrote these documents was trying to shout "THIS IS A FAKE". I see no other explanation for the bizarre variations in the writing of ordinals. I can't imagine why anyone would produce these documents, since I wouldn't think anyone would expect Rather et al. to be so gullible, blind, and stupid.
I would be under the impression that for someone to be charged with forgery or counterfeiting, the forged or counterfeit document must have at least some degree of plausibility. If someone takes a 3"x6" piece of paper and a black and green pen, and doodles a "one dollar bill", is that person a counterfeiter?
I am increasingly wondering if these documents weren't the result of some gullible person stumbling upon some documents that were written up as an absurdist joke (only slightly less absurd than the spoofs posted here and elsewhere). That the media was dumb enough to grab them hook, line, and sinker says more about those who forwarded and published the documents than the person who produced the documents (unless, of course, they were published by the producer).
You are absolutely right. I made a post yesterday making some of the same points, but drew out only a couple of naysayers. My post is at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1212699/posts if you are interested in my take. I bow to you for doing a more thorough job of it.
I noticed a third CBS signature that I do not recognize on the page you linked to. I have only seen 4 CBS memos, of which 2 were signed. Are there more? The rightmost CBS signature does not match the other two: were there two forgers of did they figure out after a while that their fake signatures were unconvincing?
The use of superscript and non-superscript ordinals makes perfect sense if the document was typed with MS Word, and no sense if it was typed with a typewriter. The question is not whether it would be possible to produce that document given 1972 technology, but whether anyone in 1972 would have made all of the decisions that were made in its design and formatting absent any particular reason to do so.
To put it another way: if I were to transport just the document back in time and ask a typesetter to reproduce it, he could probably reproduce a perfect (overlayable) copy using 1972 typesetting equipment. He'd put the letters in a rack, slide them carefully to match the exact spacing shown in the memo, and then clamp them into place. The superscripted ordinals would be a pain, but he could probably manage those as well even if he had to cut some new alignment notches in some letters to get them into the right position.
But the question isn't whether such a document could have been produced using 1972 technology, but rather whether someone who was not at all a good typist would have produced those documents. Indeed, some of the documents would have been suspicious even if they'd been typed on an Underwood from 1969. After all, if someone isn't a very good typist, is it more likely that they're going to produce a memo-to-self with a typewriter or a pen? Myself, I could probably type faster than I could write (I've not use a manual typewriter in ages, but the last time I tried one it wasn't too hard) but in the 1970's someone who couldn't type well could almost certainly write faster. So why would a memo-to-self not be handwritten?
Washington DC local CBS affiliate show just played "Inside Washington" and addressed this story. That is, they addressed the National Guard "controversy."
Did President Bush have preference getting in? Fulfill his obligations?
Moderator says Globe & AP said no, he did not meet obligation.
Screechy liberal female Nina Totenberg said No, he probably did, not but she doesn't care but it is an issue because the SwiftVets have questioned the service of a genuine war hero.
Krauthammer says Pres Bush may have missed a couple of drills but that is not a scandal. He said what IS a scandal is CBS using false documents that can only be produced by a modern word processor.
He was then cut off and the next panelist went off on a tangent about Kerry needing to get back on target.
"If someone takes a 3"x6" piece of paper and a black and green pen, and doodles a "one dollar bill", is that person a counterfeiter?"
You are making some good points. However, in the above case, the act is only validated to be illegal when the perp tries to pass off the bill as genuine, at that moment it is definitively illegal.
CBS is trying to pass a forged document as real, and they were duped by someone else. As Dan Rather says, keep pulling the thread until you find the guy wearing the sweater.
Excellent summary.
The libs are reeling. They can't defend the multiple points of attack on their stupidity, from the Cambodian Christmas, the Purple hearts, the Miltary records, the SwiftVets, to the Internet anlaysis of their every move.
They are going to go into a tailspin fairly soon.
If the Secret Service finds some printing presses and stacks of fake $20's produced by them in your house, you'll be in trouble whether or not you've ever spent any of them. On the other hand, if you try to buy something with a $20 that's so bad it wouldn't fool a two-year-old, I doubt you'd get charged with anything, at least if--when the bogus note was rejected--you actually had real money to make your purchase. Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised if some actors have on occasion accidentally pulled out "stage money" and tried to use it for payment.
To be sure, questions of whether something is 'counterfeiting' are probably easier to answer than whether the production of spoof documents is 'forging'. IIRC, the Treasury has explicit rules about what sorts of bogus money are legal and what sorts are not (basically, the bills have to have some clear feature which would distinguish them at a glance from real ones; that could be size, design, color, etc.) I don't think such explicit rules exist for more general sorts of documents, though.
If the guy who produced these documents were discovered and I were on a jury, I would have to look at what he did with them to decide what, if any, punishment was appropriate. If the guy had anonymously mailed the documents to CBS with an anonymous note that said "Look what I found. Pretty cute, eh?", I don't think I'd convict of anything. To be sure, the guy might have been guilty of trying to waste CBS' time searching for real documents that didn't exist, but anyone who would give such credence to anonymous unconfirmed 'documents' deserves what they get. If, however, the guy was asked by some DNC operatives to forge some documents, then I would probably convice unless the guy could make a plausible case that he didn't support the DNC and deliberately produced a horrible forgery to ensure the DNC got caught. Given that the forgery is so terrible, I would be quite receptive to such a defense.
Until we find out where the document came from and/or through whose hands it passed, though, it probably will do little good to speculate why it was produced (doesn't mean it's not fun of course).
Even if the signatures were produced by someone other than Mr. Killian, that would not prove that the documents were fake. While I doubt that Mr. Killian ever in fact did this, some people with authorize secretaries et al. to sign documents for them; while higher-ups would have an Autopen matrix made for the purpose, others would just have a secretary handwrite a signature.
What proves these documents fake is not the signature (though if it doesn't match Killian's it certainly doesn't help things) but rather the anachronisms. Even if what CBS had was a photocopy of a document (that looked like it was made with an early-1970's copier) that bore an ink-signature that was confirmably that of Mr. Killian, it would be far more plausible that Mr. Killian signed a blank sheet of paper onto which the fake document was later copied, than that the document somehow got formatted as it was, and that Mr. Killian signed a photocopy of it.
I am pinning this exchange into this thread. This Marcel Matley guy is a fraud who either didn't or couldn't point out even a single problem with the document's signatures. He also happens to be connected with the Vince Foster suicide note. Hmmmmmmmm.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
DOCUMENT AND HANDWRITING EXAMINER MARCEL MATLEY ANALYZED THE DOCUMENTS FOR CBS NEWS.
HE SAYS HE BELIEVES THEY ARE REAL...BUT IS CONCERNED ABOUT EXACTLY WHAT IS BEING EXAMINED BY SOME OF THE PEOPLE QUESTIONING THE DOCUMENTS....BECAUSE DETIORATION OCCURS EACH TIME A DOCUMENT IS REPRODUCED.....AND THE DOCUMENTS BEING ANALYZED OUTSIDE OF CBS HAVEBEEN PHOTOCOPIED, FAXED, SCANNED AND DOWNLOADED.... AND ARE FAR REMOVED FROM THE DOCUMENTS CBS STARTED WITH WHICH WERE ALSO PHOTOCOPIES.
DOCUMENT AND HANDWRITING EXAMINER MARCEL MATLEY DID THIS INTERVIEW WITH US PRIOR TO THE 60 MINUTES BROADCAST.
HE LOOKED AT THE DOCUMENTS AND THE SIGNATURES OF COLONEL JERRY KILLIAN.... COMPARING KNOWN DOCUMENTS WITH THE COLONEL'S SIGNATURE ON THE NEWSLY DISCOVERED ONES.
Matley: "WE LOOK BASICALLY AT WHAT'S CALLED SIGNIFICANT OR INSIGNIFICANT FEATURES TO DETERMINE WHETHER IT'S THE SAME PERSON OR NOT. I HAVE NO PROBLEM IDENTIFYING THEM.
I WOULD SAY BASED ON OUR AVAILABLE HANDWRITING EVIDENCE, YES. THIS IS THE SAME PERSON."
Rather: MATLEY FINDS THE SIGNAT'URES TO BE SOME OF THE MOST COMPELLING EVIDENCE...WE TALKED TO HIM AGAIN TODAY BY SATELLITE.
Matley "SINCE IT IS REPRESENTED THAT SOME OF THEM ARE DEFINITELY HIS... THEN WE CAN CONCLUDE THEY ARE HIS SIGNATURES."
Rather: "ARE YOU SURPRISED THAT QUESTIONS COME ABOUT THESE. WE'RE NOT, BUT I WAS WONDERING IF YOU'RE SURPRISED."
Matley: "I KNEW GOING IN THAT THIS WAS DYNAMITE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER AND I KNEW THAT POTENTIALLY IT WAS FAR MORE POTENTIAL DAMAGE TO ME PROFESSIONALLY THAN BENEFIT ME. AND I KNEW THAT. BUT WE SEEK THE TRUTH. THAT'S WHAT WE DO. YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO PUT YOURSELF OUT. TO SEEK THE TRUTH AND TAKE WHAT COMES FROM IT."
"Even if the signatures were produced by someone other than Mr. Killian, that would not prove that the documents were fake. While I doubt that Mr. Killian ever in fact did this, some people with authorize secretaries et al. to sign documents for them; while higher-ups would have an Autopen matrix made for the purpose, others would just have a secretary handwrite a signature."
The only problem is that this was a "CYA" memo to himself, and not made for wide distribution. It that case he would not want a secretary seeing or signing the doc.
LOL. look at the K. What are that odds that the tops of the K would define a perfectly horizontal line, as if they had been cut out of another document with a ruler.
The CYA was unsigned. Though why someone who couldn't type would have struggled to get a letter-perfect memo-to-file from a typewriter rather than just writing out the thing I don't quite understand.
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.