Posted on 09/09/2004 2:09:48 PM PDT by ctdonath2
Proof the CBS document BushGuardaugust1.pdf is a FAKE:
Original text, slightly adjusted for rectangular fit:
Same text, screen capture of document written in MS Word 2002 with no effort to match original aside from document width:
Overlapping images, with original as B/W negative:
Aside from slight warping presumably due to distortion introduced by a low-quality photocopier, the two texts line up exactly. The "30+ year old proof" against Bush is a fraud.
I know that with the equipment at home, I could duplicat that page EXACTLY from scratch.
The "th" in the superscript is different than what the one done here was with word, if you wanted to change that to duplicate the other one, cut and past with a copy machine would be the easiest to do.
Jeff Birnbaum just hit the bottom line nail on the head --- if these documents are forgeries, there will be a huge backlash to the benefit of Bush!!
Jeff always has a way of cutting to the bottom line.
And yet as per statement read by Brit from CBS, CBS says that they investigated thoroughly and had experts vouch for the docs being authenic. Why do I and other NOT believe their CYA?
Birnbaum (sp?) said if this is a forgery, Kerry is toast.
Symptoms noted, in addition to pallor, include fine tremor at knees and hands, urinary incontinence, dry mouth, stammering speech, pupillary dilation, darting gaze, copious perspiration, persistent gulping, gastric upset and thumb sucking.
You gonna believe CBS' shadowy "experts" or your lying eyes?
Brit just reported on that. Killian Jr. peed all over CBS.
GREAT! I can't wait to hear it- we're delayed. I sent one of the links to James this morning, probably one of quite a few who did! :-)
I seen text like that before, but not in a word processor. It was something like "Mathcad" so you could print up complex formulas. Not very likely to be used to intentionally stick a red herring into a forgery.
Regards, GtG
I'm not sure what you're getting at Gandalf, but don't be shy about questioning anyone's conclusions on this matter, especially mine.
The prevailing assumption is that no manual typewriter then available would have been able to create such a document, which uses proportional spacing on the font.
The IBM Selectric could create proportional spacing, but only on certain fonts. And while it came to the market in 1961, I have yet to see anyone suggest that a lowly ANG in Alabama could have afforded one.
Further, to my knowledge IBM Selectrics didn't have Superscript capability. Here are links to fonts available thru the mid-1970s for the Selectric This is my source for that assumption :
10 Pitch Type Styles: Advocate, Bookface Academic 72, Delegate, Orator, Courier 72, Pica 72, Prestige Pica 72
12 Pitch Type Styles: Adjutant, Artisan 12, Courier 12 Italic, Scribe, Prestige Elite, Courier 12, Elite 72, Letter Gothic
Absolutely. It will mean that CBS, an important spokesman for the Kerry campaign, will have zero credibility with the viewing public.
They are talking about this now on Capital Report on CNBC, but not in terms of the docs being fake, they are only repeating the line of how Bush got out of nam, and his disobeying orders...
Wow. Great work, ctdonath2!
(Thanks for the "ping", Howlin...I might have missed this)
I noticed the different placement of the 'th' in the CBS fake and the Word copy. But when I highlighted the 'th' and made it two points bigger (14 instead of 12), it matched perfectly.
The forger was worried that when their 'work' was 'aged' by scanning and photocopying, that the th would be too blurred or too small, so they bumped up the size a bit. Fourteen is the next size up on the size menu from twelve.
But but but they said they checked it out "thoroughly" and even consulted "experts" who verified doc authenticity.
I guess it's hard (even for CBS) to find good help these days.
If the IBM Selectric was capable of typing superscripts with a special type "ball," do you think a military person would go to that much trouble to type a memo for the file?
I can duplicate the exact memo from scratch with the same everything from home. but I sometimes provide business and have some talent in the area.
It doesn't take much to exactly duplicate that and to then copy it over and over to mess it up and cover some issues.
The easiest way to prove this is a fraud is to go see if there are other existing piles of documents from that person sitting somewhere. If there are not mounds of similar odd documents by the same odd machine, then you have fraud.
Plus if there is a claim that certain machines did that in the early 70s, then go to museums where they exist and prove the truth by typing on one of the similar machines.
These old machines exist somewhere today, guaranteed and this will be an easy hoax to solve.
No. Especially when they didn't do it on the header of the memo. There it says 111th without the superscript. Why change the typewriter ball for one place on the memo and not the other?
The forger was worried that when their 'work' was 'aged' by scanning and photocopying, that the th would be too blurred or too small, so they bumped up the size a bit. Fourteen is the next size up on the size menu from twelve
I assumed the difference was due to warping by the multiple passes of the lens of the copier; but you may be right.
I have in mind a test that I may undertake later tonight to flesh this out a little more...
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.
