It is difficult to believe that Killian, with his supposed very limited typing ability (per his wife's description), would use a Linotype machine to compose personal memos for his private CYA file.
Typical Linotype machine:
Posted on 09/11/2004 5:33:30 PM PDT by dickmc
As you may know a thread was started yesterday morning to attempt to summarize the important forgery points.
This original thread is at Evidence Against Rather
This was initiated by SkyPilot and I agreed to help out. This is a continuation of that thread.
The information below needs your review, analysis, and suggested changes
in the form of final edits. If you see things that should be changed,
please retype the suggested revision including the line number in a new reply.
While we have tried to capture the hundreds of comments and posts in the last few days,
the likelihood is that we may have gotten something wrong or missed an element.
This is why your review would be most helpful.
The table below shows where we are at this point:
CAUTION: FOR YOUR REVIEW, COMMENT, CHANGE, AND CORRECTION ONLY AT THIS TIME. SOME ITEMS MAY CHANGE. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THIS NOT BE POSTED ELSEWHERE UNTIL WE ARE DONE!
ISSUES RELATED TO 60 MINUTES DOCUMENTS.
a. Font, type, typography, equipment, etc issues that can be processed from the pdfs alone.
1. proportional spacing not generally available (no confirmation this type of technology was available at TANG)
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. Apostrophes in the documents use curled serifs. Typewriters used straight hash marks for both quotation marks and apostrophes.
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.
11. Words run over consistent with word processor.
12. Times Roman has been available since 1931, but only in linotype printshops and some Selectric typewriters...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.
16. Exact match for Microsoft Word Processor, version disputed, but converted to pdf matches exactly.
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)
22. It would have been nearly impossible to center a letterhead with proportional spacing without a computer (not impossible, but for Killian, who did not type, improbable).
26. Kerning was not available in any office typewriter. For kerning photographic analysis of memo see http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1212812/posts Post 15
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.
47. Regarding superscript - typewriter example had it underlined in the keystroke but the forged document doesn't.
51. The vertical spacing used in the memos, measured at 13 points, is not available in typewriters, and only became possible with the advent of computer driven type word processors and printers.
52. 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.
68. The only device that could have produced the superscripted “th” in that period and proportional type in that timeframe would have been a Selectric Composer. This is not a typewriter but is used for special publication composing and cost some $4,000 then ($23,000 today) and was incredibly difficult to operate. The machine basically consisted of an IBM Selectric typewriter with a 3-1/2 ft. high upright case containing the magnetic tape reader reading long spools of magnetic tape in cartridges. It also needed a special IBM service person above and beyond repairing typewriters. It is not clear that the AirForce had even three units at that time and the TANG clearly did not. To suggest that Col Killian, who could barely type and even if he could, he would never have been able to operate one of these machines is absurd. The operating manual is here at http://www.ibmcomposer.org/docs/Electronic%20Composer%20Operating%20Instructions.pdf.
69. The typed squadron letterhead is centered on the page, an extremely difficult operation to perform manually.
b. Issues that can only be processed by a better or original copy
17. Paper size problem, Air Force and Guard did not use 8 1/2 x 11 inch paper until the 1980s.
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)
c. Issues that relate to custom and usage of text within the documents
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.
10. Date inconsistent with military style type. Date with three letters, or in form as 110471.
15. No letterhead
23. Bush's grade would be abbreviated "1Lt" not "1stLt"
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.
33. Why no three hole punches evident at the top of the page?
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!
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).
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)
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
50. The manual cited in the forged document "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.
54. AF letterhead, in required use since 1948. Instead they are typed. In general, typed letterhead is restricted to computer-generated orders, which were usually printed by teletype, chain printer or daisy-wheel printer, the latter looking like a typed letter. Manually typed correspondence is supposed to use official USAF letterhead. However, even special orders, which used a typed letterhead, were required to use ALL CAPS in the letterhead.
55. The typed Letterhead gives the address as "Houston, Texas". The standard formulation for addresses at USAF installations should require the address to read "Ellington AFB, Texas".
56. Killian's signature block should read: RICHARD B. KILLIAN, Lt Col, TexANG Commander This is the required USAF formulation for a signature block.
57. Lt Col Killian's signature should be aligned to the left side of the page. Indented signature blocks are not a USAF standard.
58. The rank abbreviations are applied inconsistently and incorrectly, for example the use of periods in USAF rank abbreviations is incorrect. The modern formulation for rank abbreviations for the lieutenant grades in the USAF is 2Lt and 1Lt. In 1973, it may well have been 2nd Lt and 1st Lt. In any event, they would not have included periods. Lt Col Killian's abbreviations are pretty much universally incorrect in the memos.
59. The unit name abbreviations use periods. This is incorrect. USAF unit abbreviations use only capital letters with no periods. For example, 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron would be abbreviated as 111th FIS, not 111th F.I.S.
60. The Formulation used in the memos, i.e., "MEMORANDUM FOR 1st Lt. Bush..." is incorrect. A memo would be written on plain (non-letterhead) paper, with the top line reading "MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD". However, Lt Col Killian is known to have relied on hand written notes on scraps of paper and not gratuitous memos to files.
61. An order from a superior, directing a junior to perform a specific task would not be in the memorandum format as presented. Instead, it would use the USAF standard internal memo format with left hand justification as follows: FROM: Lt Col Killian, Richard B. (space) SUBJECT: Annual Physical Examination (Flight) (space) TO: 1Lt Bush, George W. Documents that are titled as MEMORANDUM are used only for file purposes, and not for communications.
62. The memos use the formulation "...in accordance with (IAW)..." The abbreviation IAW is a universal abbreviation in the USAF, hence it is not spelled out, rather it is used for no other reason than to eliminate the word "in accordance with" from official communications. There are several such universal abbreviation, such as NLT for "no later than".
70. Physical is due the last day of the birth month which be 31July; not at the May 14th date ordered in the memo.
d. Issues that relate to the context of the document (people retired, day of week, ANG policy, etc.)
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).
24. Subject matter bizarre
25. Air Force did not use street addresses for their offices, rather HQ AFLC/CC, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433.
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.
34. Mr. Bush would have had automatic physical scheduled for his Birthday – in July! He would not have received correspondence.
63. The title of one of the memos is CYA, a popular euphemism for covering one's...ahem...posterior. It is extremely doubtful that any serving officer would use such a colloquialism in any document that might come under official scrutiny.
e. Other issues (veracity of experts, etc.)
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
7. The blurriness of the copy indicates it was recopied dozens of times, common tactic of forgers (confirmed by CBS).
14. No errors and whiteout (CBS used copies)
32. The Killian family rejected these documents as forgeries. Then where did the “personal files” come from if not the family?
39. CBS validator was only signature expert, not a typewriting expert. Also seems emerging issues on signature. Signature authenticity http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040910-104821-5968r.htm and http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1213174/posts
40. Lt Col Killian didn't type
49. CBS admits that it does *not* have the originals, but only original document signatures can be proven to be real; copies can *never* be authenticated positively.
53. 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". http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/NotedNow/Noted_Now.html
64. The records purport to be from Lt Col Killian's "personal files", yet, they were not obtained from his family, but through some unknown 3rd party. It is an odd kind of "personal file" when the family of a deceased person is unaware of the file's existence and it is not in their possession.
65. Both Lt Col Killian's wife and son, as well as the EAFB personnel officer do not find the memos credible.
65. These memos are totally inconsistent with the glowing OERs for Mr. Bush.
66. Both Lt Col Killian's wife and son relate that Killian wasn't a typist. If he needed notes, he would write them down longhand, but in general, he wasn't paper-oriented, and certainly wasn't a typist.
67. Col. Walter "Buck" Staudt was honorably discharged on March 1, 1972. CBS News reported this week that a memo in which Staudt was described as interfering was dated Aug. 18, 1973. Col Staudt was no longer in the food chain.
Elements that have been deleted from above list
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) [THE BOX NUMBER IS CONSISTENT WITH OTHER CONTEMPORANEOUS DOCUMENTS].
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? [THIS NEEDS VERIFIED WITH A LINK (CACHED??)]
.
.
.
Is there a way to tell if a signature was pasted into a document even if you don't have the original into which the pasting was done? (By "pasting" I mean either that a photocopy of a signature was inserted into another document manually using scissors and paste/tape or a digitized signature was inserted.)
I would think that if the CBS copy was, for example, a second photocopy of the paper that had the signature pasted into it, that converting the document into an image file, say BMP (less distortion introducing compression than JPG or GIF), and turning up the contrast would eventually show a rectangular or similar shape box around the signature.
On the other hand, if it's the tenth photocopy of the paste job it would be more difficult, maybe impossible, to find such a telltale rectangular or similar shape box around the signature by enhancing contrast.
Also, if someone copied a signature onto a transparency or created a digital file with a transparent background, this "enhance the contrast" approach is unlikely to work.
Maybe the forger was sloppy on at least some of the photocopied signatures?
I can find out Monday at the earliest. I know two people who have old IBM workhorses. If I wasn't so lazy, I'd get out some OLD court papers from the '70's.
One thing I don't see addressed in this list:
While the authenticity of a signature or a document can not be proved from a photocopy, they can be disproved from a photocopy.
The slant of the signatures and initials on the CBS documents is slightly different on all three documents when viewed upside down (as is the accepted way of taking a first look at determining whether or not a signature is a forgery).
It should be noted that on 9 signatures known to be those of Jerry B. Killian the slant is virtually identical on all 9 signatures (again viewed upside down).
The slant of the signatures on the 9 known signatures of Jerry B. Killian do not match the slant of the signatures or initials on any of the CBS documents.
Great job!
# 50 is false. See One Hand Clapping blog.
You may be right but some of this has to do with equipment having a Times Roman type face which was apparently not available in many machines. Also a more true proportional spacing. I think the feeling is that only the Selectric Composer could have done it (if not MS Word). Actually, my head hurts from dealing with all this and a fresh set of eyes are needed.
Will an expert in this thread please take a look at this and suggest a satisfactory fix if/as needed. Then post here for others to review and comment.
Some of the links to look at are:
http://shapeofdays.typepad.com/
http://www.indcjournal.com/
http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/weblog.php
Perhaps we also need to add some links to this bullet.
The IBM ad in post #17 shows proportional type but also straight quote marks and apostrophes. When I look at the ad in Photoshop the header says 1954.
I don't know when they started using 'curly' apostrophes in typewriters.
"50. The manual cited in the forged document "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."
Be careful on this one. You need to ensure that AFM 35-13 did not exist in 1972. The Air Force regulation system underwent a really radical change in the early 1990s under then-Chief of Staff General McPeak. A lot of publications were eliminated and replaced by newly created pubs.
The date would have been typed 18 AUG 73 not 18 August 1973.
Second Lieutenant would be 2LT. First is 1LT. All capitals.
At least that's the way it was in '69.
Re Post 50
Please provide URL to blog. Should we just delete 50???
Thanks,
Dick
#27 and #67 seem to be the same
Re 51
Can you supply suggested change including line number if not a new addition.
Thanks,
Dick
  |
Times (New) Roman and its part in the Development of Scalable Font Technology By Charles Bigelow
|
| Charles Bigelow posted this article to the Usenet newsgroup "comp.fonts" in May 1994 in response to the question: What's the difference between Times Roman and Times New Roman? I am grateful to Prof. Bigelow for his permission to publish the article. I have taken the liberty of retitling it. http://www.truetype.demon.co.uk/articles/times.htm Newsgroups: comp.fonts Subject: Re: What's the difference between Times Roman and Times New Roman? From: Charles Bigelow Date: 5 May 1994 "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. In the late 1980's, Monotype redrew its Times New Roman to make it fit exactly the proportions and metrics of the Adobe-Linotype version of Times Roman. Monotype claimed that its new version was better than the Adobe-Linotype version, because of smoother curves, better detailing, and generally greater sensitivity to the original designs done for The Times and Monotype by Victor Lardent, who worked under the direction of Stanley Morison. During the same period, Adobe upgraded its version of Times, using digital masters from Linotype, which of course claimed that it had a superior version, so there was a kind of competition to see who had the most refined, sensitive, original, genuine, bona-fide, artistically and typographically correct version. Many, perhaps most, users didn't notice and didn't care about these subtle distinctions, many of which were invisible at 10 pt at 300 dpi (which is an em of 42 pixels, a stem of three pixels, a serif of 1 pixel, and so on). When Microsoft produced its version of Times New Roman, licensed from Monotype, in TrueType format, and when Apple produced its version of Times Roman, licensed from Linotype, in TrueType format, the subtle competition took on a new aspect, because both Microsoft and Apple expended a great deal of time and effort to make the TrueType versions as good as, or better than, the PostScript version. During the same period, Adobe released ATM along with upgraded versions of its core set of fonts, for improved rasterization on screen. Also, firms like Imagen, now part of QMS, and Sun developed rival font scaling technologies, and labored to make sure that their renderings of Times, licensed from Linotype in both cases, were equal to those of their competitors. Hence, the perceived quality of the Times design became a litmus for the quality of several font formats. Never before, and probably never again, would the precise placement of pixels in the serifs or 's' curves etc. of Times Roman occupy the attention of so many engineers and computer scientists. It was perhaps the supreme era of the Digital Fontologist. As for the actual visual differences in the designs, well, like any good academic author, I leave the detection and analysis of those "as an exercise for the reader". © Charles Bigelow |
BTTT..Rather evidence.
The typographic argument boils down to this: It would be impossible, using 1970's vintage office equipment, to have produced the CBS docs. That case can be made without laying it all out in public.
To say anything more than the minimum in public just plays into the hands of the opposition, and give CBS an opportunity to create counterarguments...or worse, to prepare other "missing" documents that will pass public scrutiny.
To you who post all these details here, a question: why is it necessary for you to lay it all out in public?
I guess #55 has to go also, they used the same address here.
http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/Doc21.gif
Is this letterhead perfectly centered?
Very Interesting. Although it had the spacing feature, it did not have kerning which the memos show to have and also it did not have Times New Roman font.
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.
