Posted on 09/29/2004 4:24:33 PM PDT by dickmc
The CBS Memo Forgery Report has now covers the recent Hailey "typewriter could do it" posting and Killian's secretary interview from the Dallas Morning News. Interestingly, the reported Olympia typewriter may well have been able to do a ligature "th" according to a previously unnoted post on the net at http://www.newsroom-l.net/blog/archives/000098.html for September 11 at 1:27 A.M. However, as pointed out in the Report, the Olympia could not do proportional typing.
A link to the Report's updated final draft is shown at the end of this article. Rather than take your time with all the areas covered in detail, only the changes are highlighted here. If you want to see the entire report in its "final" form, you can use the links at the bottom to see it as a doc or pdf.
Changes beyond editorial minutia:
New Observations section in the Executive Summary:
1. CBS is commended for posting the Documents on their www site and thereby allowing access to them by all interested parties, including this Working Group. The few of us with gray hair in the Working Group fondly remember Walter Cronkite's reporting of the Apollo Moon Program. All of us on the Working Group hope that this Report's Recommendations will be received in the spirit offered and will help CBS News return to that level of esteem.
2. This Report's scholarly result is clear, unmistakable, and unambiguous: The CBS Documents clearly arise from an unbelievably incompetent and naive forger. There is no doubt of this as evidenced in the Executive Summary and the 52 succinct analysis points in the FINDINGS section, painful as this will be for CBS.
3. Nonetheless, the forged Documents do indicate a notable, almost Sirenesque sophistication in "story development," a factor that no doubt enhanced their appeal. For example, using Bath in an early memo, a name redacted in most, but not all, of the real document portfolios.
4. The validation of the Documents did not meet the rigor and thoroughness that would have been expected.
5. It is noted that advocates of "underlying truth" obstinately now assert that the forged Documents represent contemporaneous notes and feelings. If this were the case, notes could have been produced. Reconstruction of documents and signatures would still be a fraud. If "feelings" are all that remain, a rounded slate of interviews would have been appropriate. We observe, but make no further comment on, whether the "facts fitted the story" or the "story fitted the facts" as this is a journalistic matter for the Panel.
6. The undeniable purpose of the forged Documents was to influence a major Federal election. This makes operation of your Independent Review Panel, and CBS's subsequent actions, an extremely serious matter indeed. A chilling fact is: If the forger had used a typewriter and better researched Texas ANG protocols, that goal might well have been achieved!
7. The production and use of the forged Documents was calculated, wrongful, and quite possibly in violation of state and federal laws.
Modified Recommendation re Texas Law:
5. As the forging and the use of forged military documents, especially during a Federal election, is a serious and possibly criminal issue: formally notify the U.S. Justice Department, the Federal Election Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, and the appropriate State of Texas jurisdictions of the details relating to the acquisition and use of the Documents and fully cooperate with any subsequent investigation(s) and, if applicable, any resulting prosecution(s).
Addition to Item 7. re Hailey in Findings:
Dr. Hailey of Utah State recently surfaced the concept that the CBS Memos could have been produced on a typewriter by using a different font family. However, it is the position of the Working Group that Dr. Hailey's approach is fatally flawed circular logic in that it involved downloading an electronic font and then using a proportionally spaced word processor to simulate typing the 04 May CBS Memo. If such a hypothetical proportionally-spaced typewriter actually existed, Dr. Bouffard's definitive search for a typewriter would have already turned it up in Item 4. For Hailey see http://imrl.usu.edu/bush_memo_study/index.htm Although Hailey elaborately analyzed letter density from the photocopied-faxed CBS Memos, no letter misalignments were noted, a key telltale of typewritten documents, as contrasted with the well aligned word processor letters in the CBS Memos.
New Item 49. re Killian's secretary and Olympia Typewriter in Findings:
49. The secretary for Lt Col Killian's group, Mrs. Marian Knox, has stated that: "These (CBS Memos) are not real. They're not what I typed, and I would have typed them for him." According to the September 15 Dallas Morning News: "She said signs of forgery abound in the four memos….the typeface on the documents did not match either of the two typewriters that she used during her time with the Guard. She identified those machines as a mechanical Olympia typewriter and the IBM Selectric that replaced it in the early 1070s….Mrs. Knox also cited stylistic differences in the form of the notes, such as the signature on the right side of the document…She said that the culture of the time was that men didn't type office-related documents, and she expressed doubt that Col. Killian would have typed the memos." See the http://www.dallasnews.com/s/dws/news/dmn/stories/091504dnpolnatguard.1185eb4ae.html September 15th issue of The Dallas Morning News. Mrs. Knox did mention a "th" for the Olympia. But that would have been the single key ligature described earlier; not the word processor superscript used in the CBS Memos. For more information on that typewriter see http://www.newsroom-l.net/blog/archives/000098.html for September 11 at 1:27 A.M. However, neither the Olympia nor the IBM Selectric could have produced the proportional word processor spacing used in the CBS Memos.
.
It would be most helpful for other Freepers to stand with us as additional "signers".
You would supplement the twelve we already have, and the additional four that have committed. A total of 20 to 25 would be great, as well as very helpful.
As you can see in the download, the electronically signed names would only appear on the personal copy of Thornburgh and Boccardi, who form the CBS Independent Investigative Panel, and on Heyward's and Lee's personal copy. Signatures would NOT be on the companion copies for their staffs nor on the www posting.
If you are willing to sign, and standup with those who have signed, please indicate below in a reply and I will get in contact with you by Freepmail.
.
The final drafts may be downloaded here as a MSWord97 document or here as a pdf. Editorial and other comments are still being gratefully received. Our final release date and mailing will likely be next Monday. We have already talked with Thornburgh's office.
.
FGS
So Burkett says. But how likely is that? Doesn't that attract attention? Why wouldn't he wait until he got home to destroy them in private?
It's BS.
---Why wouldn't he wait until he got home to destroy them in private?---
'cause the pOlice might pull him over on the way and discover the dangerous documents and who knows what...
Is it legal to have an open fire in the city limits....(burn the originals in Kinkos lot).....Maybe he broke another law.
:^D
This isn't directly related to this thread, but regarding this Prof Hailey -
Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't see anything in his CV, publications, or experience that reflect any qualification to do this type of analysis.
To me, this makes it even more absurd that he has a link to this 'analysis' on the UofU IMRL department page:
http://imrl.usu.edu/IMRL/index.htm
The mission and expertise of the IMRL isn't even remotely related to typography or document verification. However, having the 'analysis' hosted on a university server gives it a (faux) appearance of credibility.
Please joing me in writing to the director of the UoU IMRL and/or Dean of English and inquire as to why they are spending public funds doing psuedo-research into subjects that they have no expertise in:
http://english.usu.edu/Document/index.asp?Parent=614
Even if it accomplishes nothing other than to get this tripe removed from the university server it will be worth it. The liberal blogs are full of comments touting this BS as "the most respected analysis of the TANG documents".
We're taking all the care that we can re signature confidentiality.
The letters that carry the signatures are only going as
single copies to: Thorburgh, Boccardi, Heyward, and Lee.
These are stamped with a red box saying "Personal Cover Letter
Not for Distribution or Copying". Depending on the recipient
two to four additional copies will be enclosed
without the signatures and labled on their envelope:
"Copies for distribution and filing". There will be a
card clipped to the personal cover letter with my contact info.
As you well know, we don't have any control over what
happens to their personal copy, but we do know if the
signatures leak, it had to be one of the four. If anyone gets
"leaked" I suspect it will be me. I'm not real happy about that
prospect but that's the way it is.
The www download version will not have the signatures
and, unless you all feel differently, the signature letter
will not be sent to even the signers.
When this gets all done, I intend to remove the signature
document from my computer to guard against hacking. This is
even though I have a firewall and do not act as a server.
The letter packages are going by signed FedEx. Thornburgh's
and Boccardi copies are not going via CBS News but to Thornburgh's office.
(His secretary was very nice on the phone, even called me Sir.
I was impressed with their competence when we discussed
how to send the report.)
If there are any other added security ideas that make sense,
please let me know.
Regards,
Dick
Looks like you've got it covered pretty well, and to tell you the truth, I'm not that concerned about being "outed" anyway.
FGS
If not too late, please contact me.
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.