IBM 1961 ad ..."proportion letter spacing" PROOF TANG document are REAL?

[ElsewheresDaughter]

[gratuitous]

1. Hey! Are you doin' research and analysis?

You KNOW that the media are just there to provide a megaphone for the people who have the money and the access to use the media. They aren't supposed to "take sides" and show that one party is spouting 100% bullshit. That wouldn't be "objective" -- to treat the truth as the truth and scurrilous rumormongering as scurrilous rumormongering.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

2. Well done....kick!

[ObaMania]

3. Quick... get this off to Britt Hume

[e-mail]

They are doing their typical "some people say" spin on the font thing. 'Specially Fred Barnes who said he was in the military and has never seen official letters or documents that looked like that.

[leftchick]

4. Excellent Find ED!

Now if there were only a media source we could send it to that would use it....Dan Rather at CBS perhaps?

[skypilot]

5. I'd send it to Jon Stewart.

I know that his show isn't really a news show but he's about the only one I trust these days. He could inform people about this and make a joke about it at the same time.

Actually, this should probably be sent to "60 Minutes" also since it is their story that is being challenged.

[librechik]

6. ED--did you send this to ABC/CNN/MSNBC?

please do--a nice clear scan--

[ElsewheresDaughter]

10. no i didn't...i am a techno moron and my computer is an IBM 1995 model

maybe someone with more computer savvy can do it....i wish i could

[Drifter]

7. Doesn't prove anything about these documents ...

The only thing that this ad does, is disprove the statement that proportional spaced fonts were not available (commonly) at that time.

Seems to me the best way to put this to rest is to:

1) find one of these macihnes (someone must have one), and reproduce the document, to see if there is a chance it was done on the machine.

2) Find out if the Army ever bought any of these machines (and the likelyhood that this person would have had one).

If either of these fail, it is likely they where faked (those peices of paper).

If both of these pass it still does NOT prove anything about these documents.

The most important part of these documents is the content. Based on eyewitness testimony, it appears that the content is sound.

Cheers
Drifter

[skypilot]

12. Would go a long way.

"The only thing that this ad does, is disprove the statement that proportional spaced fonts were not available..."

I think that that alone would be quite a blow to their whole "forgery" argument. It would show just how quickly they jumped the gun and started spreading information that turned out not to be true. As usual.

[dansolo]

68. But nobody has proven that they can be faked

Why are we falling into this trap? The memo cannot be reproduced in Microsoft Word. The stupid overlay trick only obscures the subtle differences, but they are there. Now perhaps the memo is fake, but I can tell you with 100% certainty that it wasn't made with Word.

[Stephanie]

8. Send it to the campaign.

They can get it in the right hands.

[tom_paine]

9. What does PROOF have to do with ANYTHING in Imperial Amerika?

Haven't you noticed, there is no such thing as 'lies' or 'truth' anymore in this nation.

No...such...thing.

EVERYTHING is he said/she said.

[Catfight]

11. When is Bush going to hold a press conference to answer why he

lied to America?

[Bridget Burke]

14. When is Bush ever going to answer hard questions about anything?

I've got a sadistic fantasy of turning him over to the Daily Show crew. A montage of his finest moments on film can begin the segment. Stephen Colbert will baffle him with absurd questions delivered in a sane, sober manner. Jon Stewart will preside politely, only occasionally making needed corrections: "When you were elected? That's not exactly what happened."

Finally, turn him over to Lewis Black.

[NJmaverick]

13. Here is the IBM font used for the bush memos

[Egalitariat]

15. That can't be possible

The apostrophes in the memo are "curly", like a little 9. The apostrophe in the font that you posted is a straight vertical tick.

This font was not used to create the memos cited by CBS in their story.

[Bridget Burke]

17. The IBM Executive typewriter is a better candidate.

It had proportional spacing & was in use at the time of the memos. I used one in a no-frills Houston law office, so I doubt it was out of reach for the National Guard.

What's your opinion of the source?

[Blue Wally]

18. IBM selectric

was the machine of choice for the military in the sixties. Unfortunately, they were rare as hen's teeth and only the more important offices had them. During the sixties and early seventies, moist of the documents my clerks typed were on manual Royals and Smith-Coronas. I inpected a reserve unit in the early eighties and they still had those old machines. You could make a case either way as to whether the TANG office which typed the memo had Selectrics or old manual typewriters.

[TahitiNut]

19. The IBM Executive typewriter had FOUR character widths ...

... not true proportional spacing. To the best of my recollection, they were in limited (command offices) use in the military in the late 60's when I was an Army desk grunt (EDP).

[troublemaker]

29. At what point will you STOP posting this? This is not the font

The 4s are DIFFERENT (and this is a fixed width font as well)

[smada]

16. I'll be the contrarian

I initially thought it was riduculous and grasping on the part of conservatives to say these documents were forgeries. It seemed completely implausible and the stuff of conspiracy theorists. And surely, I thought, CBS would thoroughly vet these before dedicated an episode of 60 Minutes to the subject.

Now I've changed my mind. I think CBS was had. Big time. The memos are fake, and about that I have no doubt.

Look at the analysis here. Look especially at the superimposed images.

The memo, supposedly written in 1972, exactly matches one that was written this week in Microsoft Word, with Times New Roman font.

The two most convincing points I've seen are these:

The font used in the memos is Times Roman, which was in use for printing but not in typewriters. The Haas Atlas — the bible of fonts — does not list Times Roman as an available font for typewriters.

The vertical spacing used in the memos, measured at 13 points, was not available in typewriters, and only became possible with the advent of computers.

These are fake. Time to realize it and get over the denial. But maybe not everyone here is a fan of "seeing things as they really are", as Voltaire said.

[geek tragedy]

20. Times New Roman was used in typewriters--I don't know where people

are getting this disinfo.

And no one should go to LGF unless in pursuit of amusement. They're more rabid and dumber than the Freepers.

[LuminousX]

30. I believe it was called Times not Times New Roman

Microsoft changed the name of the font when they created Word to avoid licensing fees or something (don't quote me on the reason the name was changed).

[geek tragedy]

31. I've seen manuals with "Press Roman" and "Albine Roman"

I'll bet they're very similar.

There's no way this guy, in one hour, was able to compare that page to 3000 fonts. None.

[Tims]

59. Only Font Names

can be copyrighted, not the fonts themselves. Font names mean nothing. If you look at the document in the 1961 ad that started this thread, you will see that it is indeed almost identical to the common Times Roman font. There are some width differences between capital letters(the ones in the ad are slightly narrower), but otherwise they are the same. To make a decent comparison one would need to look at the type of IBM typewriters that would have been used around 1972. It would not be that unlikely that they could be the same given that these early computer fonts (such as Times, Courier and Helvetica) where designed to look like the quality typewriter fonts they were trying to replace. Plus people had invested heavily in standard forms which would normally be filled out using a typewriter. These forms were designed around the spacing and font sizes of the typewriters. If the print from a word processor differed from the typewriter, all these forms would need to be thrown out. This was a point not lost on the designers of computer fonts and wordprocessors.

[KamaAina]

57. LGF = Little Green Footballs, right?

And no one should go to LGF unless in pursuit of amusement. They're more rabid and dumber than the Freepers.

Oh crikey. I just recently had dinner with a friend who is a) not a huge Net user and b) actually still undecided. The friend, who is Jewish, described LGF as "a blog that exposes all the anti-semitism in the world". Would that there were such a blog -- but having just been over there, it sure ain't LGF. Did you know they refer to Indymedia as "Nazimedia"? :puke:

Fortunately I will get at least one more crack at this woman before Judgment Day on 11/2. Those "footballs" have a lot in common with the FG attempt last night -- they both miss on the right!!

Edit: Apparently my friend, who lives in NYC and was visiting here, knows someone who is big at LGF -- a poster, apparently, since the friend is female and Charles Johnson ain't.

[geek tragedy]

61. Show her the LGF quiz.

Google it--it's quite entertaining.

Johnson is Richard Perle on elephant growth hormones.

[Raster]

66. I wonder if "Little Green Footballs" is code for their prescribed meds?

Little Green Footballs == Placidil

[Elginoid]

22. they were planted by rovians for cbs to find...

being the only network not already playing ball, they & the dems were set up to be embarrassed.

[rowire]

35. BINGO

These documents were so bad, they had to be created with the sole purpose of being "exposed". The only question now is whether CBS was in on this with Rove, or whether they were duped by Rove. Who gave them these documents? I'd bet CBS's source is somehow connected to Rove.

[Raster]

23. You have no doubt, eh? And your credentials are???

I bet you the docs turn out to be real. So far, all evidence is indicating so, except for the repuke rabble-rousers running around saying they're a fake. I'd also be willing to be that CBS has had several experts verify these documents.

[smada]

26. I didn't know credentials were a prerequisite

to having an opinion. In that case, there would be almost no content on the internet, including DU.

Don't be sour just because you so badly want to believe this hoax. And it is a hoax. Get over it.

[Raster]

32. methinks the lady doth protest too much...

[Bridget Burke]

33. Did you ever use an IBM Executive typewriter?

A no-frills law office I worked in--early 70's--used them. Proportional spacing, you know? I later used the Selectric Composer, but it was a specialized system not likely to be found in an office.

If you have no credentials, do you have any personal experience in the area?

[smada]

37. As a matter of fact I do

have plenty of credentials in publishing, typesetting, graphic design, and printing. Over ten years of experience.

But even if I didn't, it doesn't take any credentials to see what's plainly obvious. These memos are a forgery. Period.

[Bridget Burke]

58. These documents are more than 10 years old.

I repeat--did you ever use an IBM Executive typewriter?

This episode is revealing a lot about certain DU'ers!

[Raster]

65. You're not here anymore because you've been tombstoned...

...you arrogant freeper piece of shite!

[TahitiNut]

25. About the Times font ...

The "Times" font family was invented in the 1930s by Stanley Morison for the (London) Times newspaper. This font was designed to save newsprint by getting more text-per-sqaure-inch than prior fonts, while preserving legibility. Legibility was enhanced by use of serifs (aids in tracking a line of text) and varied stroke widths (which is NOT done on typewriter fonts).

While the name "Times" was trademarked (currently, Times is a trademark of Heidelberger Druckmaschinen AG, and Times New Roman is a trademark of Monotype Typography) the font itself, like most renderings, was widely modeled by other, slightly different fonts with different names (to avoid trademark issues). Virtually EVERY proportionally-spaced font in the mid-20th Century was a clone of either "Times" or "Clarendon"/"Schoolbook" (older and very consumptive of space) or "Swiss"/"Helvetica" (lacking serifs, less legible at smaller sizes).

Looking at the stroke width of the TANG documents, it's obvious to me that those documents were produced on a typewriter and not, as is speciously claimed, on a pixellated word processing system or offset movable type press. (The reason typewriters didn't vary stroke width was primarily due to the wear-and-tear considerations.)

[Eloriel]

41. A quibble

Virtually EVERY proportionally-spaced font in the mid-20th Century was a clone of either "Times" or "Clarendon"/"Schoolbook" (older and very consumptive of space) or "Swiss"/"Helvetica" (lacking serifs, less legible at smaller sizes).


Maybe you didn't write that as clearly as you intended, but it's just not true as written. All typeset typefaces are "proportional" (well, except those specifically intended not to be, as novelty typefaces).

And there are many, many, many that never had anything to do with Times and are NOT knockoffs of Times or Clarendon or Helvetica. Some go back hundreds of years, some are from the 19th and 20th Centuries. Just a few of the standard favorites include: Jansen, Garamond, Goudy, Bookman, Caslon, Baskerville, Galliard, and many, many others. With the advent of computer making typesttingavailable to all, the number and availability of typefaces has exploded (see Adobe typefaces!!).

Legibility was enhanced by use of serifs (aids in tracking a line of text) and varied stroke widths (which is NOT done on typewriter fonts).


This makes it sound like Morison introduced serifs with his Times typeface -- also not true.

[TahitiNut]

43. You're correct.

I was focused on typewriters and (later) early word processing, not offset printing or professional typography. Sloppy of me.

Fonts and faces were a fascination for me in the late 70s and early 80s when personal computer-based word processing exploded. I worked at Xerox (and had inside contacts at PARC), my cousin was a photo-typesetter in SoCal, and I had close friends at Adobe. (Heck, my PC still has over 500 fonts on it. (sigh) I can't bring myself to clean them out.)

[Eloriel]

52. Me too

Love type that is.

When I tried out a friend's Mac early on (a little SE), I absolutely fell in love with it for the simple reason I could change type on the screen and even print it. I HAD to own one, the sooner the better, and soon did. But my love of typefaces came before that -- in a course in college back in the late 60s where we studied typefaces and set our own type for stationery (the old-fashioned way, you can well imagine).

Got burnt out doing desktop publishing, working too many hours a week on that SE I spoke about, so type isn't one of my big loves anymore. I don't even envy your Adobe stash. :evilgrin:

[Flint-oid]

27. No it doesn't exactly match!!!

Here's the 1973 CYA memo to file

Look at the .pdf, blow it up larger, and just look at the letters on the first line.

They are not all aligned. They jump up and down, just like letters used on paper after being hit by a typewriter. Notice the "d" in Hodges is high. Notice the "r" in running is low.

And the impact, and ink bleeding has caused the same letter to appear in different sizes. Again, just look at the first line. The two "s" in pressured are bigger than the "s" in words both before and after it.

[troublemaker]

28. The shifts are copying artifacts

it has to do with subtle angling of the doc being xeroxed. A scanner will do the same thing.

[TrogL]

42. Individual letters would be affected, not whole words

If you go into photoshop and draw a line, you can see the effect of the platen going up and down.

You can also see the effect of different strikes. Pay particular attention to the letter "o".

I was a believe in the forgery angle until I took a lot closer look at the letter heights. You can't fake this in word.

[Turanga Leela]

46. They absolutely do not match.

I've been trying to avoid this whole ridiculous episode. But I caved and went over to the "comparison" at LGF (EEEEWWW)

I don't claim to be a forensics expert, but I am a publishing professional, and I work every day with digital typesetting. What IMMEDIATELY hit my eye is that throughout the original memo, the lowercase d is just minutely off the baseline. That would never happen on a digitally produced document.

If it was a copying/scannung artifact, it would affect random parts of the documents, not the same character throughout the document.

OK, I'm done and moving on.

[Trajan]

50. Great post ....

and welcome to DU ....

[Turanga Leela]

47. They absolutely do not match.

I've been trying to avoid this whole ridiculous episode. But I caved and went over to the "comparison" at LGF (EEEEWWW)

I don't claim to be a forensics expert, but I am a publishing professional, and I work every day with digital typesetting. What IMMEDIATELY hit my eye is that throughout the original memo, the lowercase d is just minutely off the baseline. That would never happen on a digitally produced document.

If it was a copying/scannung artifact, it would affect random parts of the documents, not the same character throughout the document.

OK, I'm done and moving on.

[Wickerman]

34. I got no time for a site where such wisdom as this is found

"Even if these documents weren't fake, they'd only confirm what everyone knows: Bush's past isn't what it might have been. Unfortunately for the left, that's part of the appeal for most Americans. Bush pulled himself up by his bootstraps, by sheer willpower and faith. Most people know about his past as an alcoholic and a screw-up. But, for the most part, they're willing to forgive him because he is making amends."

emphasis mine.

[Union Thug]

Pulled himself up.. hahaha.. excellent point..

The only bootstraps that pulled bushie up were made of gold and had the bush family name engraved in them.

[Trajan]

49. Comparing yourself to Voltaire ....

is a bit of a stretch ....

Especially when using his quotes for abusive ad hominem attacks ...

Perhaps you need to breathe a bit, and put down the kool aid ....

[smada]

55. Since when is quoting comparing

please come up with something less 7th grade.

[James T. Kirk]

64. I agree with Smada. The docs were done in modern MS Word.

I opened up Microsoft Word and started typing the "CYA" memo using nothing but Word's default settings and it came out exactly as it looks on the "1973" memo. The only change I had to make from my normal typing style was to put two spaces between each sentence.

In short, it looks exactly like this image from LGF:



Try it yourself on your computer. I'll wait.

...

Back already? Amazing isn't it?

I was struck by how the appearance of the letters was exactly the same. Remarkably, even the line breaks are the same! If you add to it the fact that the "1973" version has the TH in both superscript and in a tiny font size, it is really obvious that this was made on a modern word processing program.

Read more:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=12526_Bush_Guard_Documents-_Forged

Viacom/CBS is pushing bogus info. Don't be fooled.

[0rganism]

69. So how did you get the letters to wiggle up and down?

Did you yank the page up while it was coming out of your laser printer? Did you touch up the "ss" in "pressured" and "message" with toner afterwards to mimic variations in ribbon strike strength?

The superscript for 187th isn't even close to the one in the memo.

"exactly like" my ass.

[Zorra]

21. These memos are not important. Bu$h went AWOL, and is a DESERTER

regardless of these memos.

It is Bu$h's National Guard records that are important, not Killian's personal records.

[Snellius]

24. Too bad that this whole election has boiled down to a font

I guess all this is important in the short term, gotcha politics at the end of a presidental race. But it's really too bad, with all the important issues that face us, and the threat the Rush Limbaughs in this country will take over for good, that everything now hinges on finding an old IBM Selectric type ball to match the superscript "th" of a forty-year-old font.

I personally don't need any proof to know Bushie Boy's daddy pulled strings. I do care that he sent another generation American soldiers to their deaths for reasons he knew were not true.

[rowire]

36. SELECTRIC FONTS REVEALED

Check out the Selectric Typewriter Museum at http://www.selectric.org/selectric/index.html.


The available fonts are listed there:

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

Special Typing Applications: Light Italic, Script, Printing ANSI-OCR, Symbol 10, 108 OCR, Manifold 72, Symbol 12

To my layman's eye, none of those fonts look quite like Times New Roman, or the font on the CBS memo.

THESE MEMOS STINK AND APPEAR TO BE PLANTED WITH THE SOLE PURPOSE OF EMBARASSING KERRY. RUN AWAY FROM THEM. WE KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT BUSH AND HIS "SERVICE" TO DESTROY HIM WITHOUT THESE PHONY MEMOS.

[John BigBootay]

38. I would like to see this typewriter re-create the docs--

The ONLY reason why I am so skeptical of them is that they MATCH perfectly to one that I can create in MS-Word using all standard formatting.

If you haven't seen the overlays, you might want to look at them. The only slight difference is the placement of the superscipt th-- otherwise it is an EXACT match.

I would be extremely surprised to find that a memo typed on this typewriter matches a memo printed from MS-Word this closely.

The type size, the font, the kerning, the leading, the line breaks, the tabulation--

I'm afraid MY standards of proof compell me to doubt the documents until I can see a three-way comparison. Until then, these docs are inauthentic. BTW-- since when do we believe everything the MSM says?

[monobrau]

39. now they'll call you a freeper

That's right, if you use your brain and actually look into it, the whole mess stinks. But anyone raising questions yesterday was referred to as an idiot or a freeper.
I don't know what the hurry is that people can't wait for a proper analysis of the facts at hand.
A lot of DUr's are being asses about this.
I would prefer to have an open mind.

[smada]

40. ditto

"I would be extremely surprised to find that a memo typed on this typewriter matches a memo printed from MS-Word this closely."

That's what I want to see also, but I already know what the outcome would be. I'm convinced they're forgeries and CBS has a whole lot of egg on its face. They've really taken a blow with this.

[John BigBootay]

48. Freeper-- No. Free Thinker-- YES!

In addition to doubting the authenticity of these docs, I will attempt to regain some credibility with the sheeple of DU by saying that it's also possible that this is a rightwing plot to make dems and/or CBS (i.e. the librull media) look bad.

And guess what folks-- you're doing their work for them-- and handily. They're probably laughing their fat-asses off at you right now.

Suckers.

[ProfessorGAC]

53. Do Free Thinkers Always Insult Others With Whom They Disagree?

Just wondering. I consider myself a free thinker, and i'm not taking a position on this yet. I'm neither sure they're genuine, nor fake.

Another point: Absolute certainty about one's opinion, with no facts to support or refute is, i think, a trait we attribute, with validity, to freepers.

Want to rethink that last statement?
The Professor

[John BigBootay]

54. I get it (and see it) all the time around here--

But you're right about one thing-- I am not absolutely sure they are fake. 99% sure.

But the thing that annoys me about DU is HOW READILY people accept bullshit like these documents (fake or not) as real-- defend the crap out of them even though there is jaw-droppingly obvious evidence (not proof) that they were written on a PC with MS-Word because we WANT TO BELIEVE-- but QUESTION the crap out of anything that we don't want to believe.

I think the far more likely scenario here is the CBS and the DNC are being played for a pack of fools and many folks here are all too willing to play the game.

I just want people to apply the SAME discriminatory thinking to this as they always do to bad news.

Sorry if I offended.

[ProfessorGAC]

56. Fair Enough

I just figured the "suckers" thing was over the line, especially since i'm not fished in by either version. So, for sure, i couldn't be a sucker.

The only suspicious thing about this, is that a forgery that's so obvious that people noticed it ON TELEVISION, went UNNOTICED by professional researchers at CBS news.

That's why i'm not so willing to believe this is all a set up. I believe it to be, at least, equally likely, that this is the only defense available, and a comeuppance for the Nigerian yellowcake forgery.

Like i said, i don't know what the truth is, yet. But, i will certainly show no certitude over this issue. Nice chattin' with ya.
The Professor

[Me.]

44. Show Dan Rather Your Support

[e-mail]

[SidDithers]

45. Other Bush documents had a superscript...

Josh Marshall had this, From a batch of docs released by the White House, found here:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/bushdocs/9-Miscellaneous.pdf



Is this one fake too?

Sid

[Trajan]

51. Great find Sid ....

Thanks ...

[ElsewheresDaughter]

60. EXACTLY!

[Elginoid]

62. but why are the other "th's" on that page NOT done in superscript?

did someone steal the base typewriter between 04sep and 26nov 1968?

if so, i'd like to know *'s whereabouts during that period.

[Gwerlain]

77. Either it was a different typewriter or...

the person using it didn't bother with the "th" key.

Apparently the "expert" who denounced them as "fake" is now pulling in his horns- he says that the typewriter could have been an IBM Selectric "Composer" typewriter, which uses proportional font, and has the "th." This typewriter was available at the time the documents were supposed to have been written. He wants to examine the documents more before he makes a definitive statement.

[LanternWaste]

78. A valid explanation by Josh Marshall

Josh Marshall wrote...

"Thus, we can assume that the same document was typed on by different people and different machines over time. This document has one entry with a superscripted "th" and another further down on the page with a non-superscripted "th" -- which of course suggests that both kinds of typewriters were being used in the Texas Air National Guard system at the time."

talkingpointsmemo.com

Seems a valid and logical explanation to me.

[juajen]

84. That's easy

Because something new is not always used by a typist, especially if she is used to doing it the other way. This easily explains why there are two different ths in the document. Also, you absolutely cannot fake on a computer the unevenness of typing, including the way the platen could slip on a letter, then go back to normal, either by itself or with help from the typist; the unevenness of the letters and the differences in ink dispersion, either by filament or cloth ribbons, which depended on the amount of ink left on the ribbon or filament, overstrikes, the amount of copies being made, and the touch of the typist.

All of these documents were obviously done on a typewriter, probably the Executive model.

I do speak from experience, having been an expert typist from the age of 17. I am now 63 yrs. old, and have used all of the typewriters in question.

[Lone_Wolf]

63. I couldn't duplicate the CBS documents using MS Word

It's VERY doubtful that this was done using MS Word. The closest match I was able to get in MS Word was with Times New Roman Font, Font Size of 11.

I printed it out and there is NO way that this was used to create this document http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/BushGuardmay4.pdf

In addition to the type in the letter being a little more compact than MS Word's Times New Roman font, their are distinct differences in many of the letters and punctuation marks in the CBS document and those in MS Word. For example, the commas are obviously different, the t's are different, etc. I could go on and on.

I'd also say that Squadron Letterhead was used and that Killian put the paper in his typewriter a little skewed (a very easy thing to do in typewriters). As a result the lines in his memo are a little skewed when compared to the letterhead typing in the header region.

I'd say they are legit.

[radicalson]

67. Bail on these fake memos - Rove was at work

You can easily make these memos on MS Word. They were made on MS Word. Check this out.

http://peterduncan.net/CBS_Documents.html

We are going to get screwed on these memos if we don't disavow them and focus on the undisputed facts:

Bush dodged the draft by way of TANG
Bush failed to show for a physical
Bush was grounded
Bush never showed up in Alabama
Bush was AWOL

[vetwife]

73. Dang these under 50 posters are true fake believers aren't they?

[yardwork]

74. Psst. I think radicalson is a forgery! Pass it on!

How many times do we have to out the freepers jumping around here on this subject? CBS has really hit a live wire with this one. Let's keep digging and see what else they don't want us to find....

[radicalson]

79. There Are Several 1000+ Who Agree With Me

Don't be so sensitive. If you had a brain, you would see that this is not helping Kerry. Geez. McAuliffe needs to immediately state that Bush's service record has enough/is missing enough information to prove Bush dodged the draft and went AWOL. He should offer the same thing as Trudeau --- a handsome reward for anyone who can prove that Bush was in Alabama during his NG service. What is everyone's hangup on this f'ing clearly faked memos. Whoever created them wanted to get caught.

[Lone_Wolf]

75. Bullshit

MS word cannot reproduce the CBS documents.

Rove supposedly "leaking" these forgeries is just a disinformation campaign to give plausibilty to the bogus forgery story.

[radicalson]

76. McAuliffe Suggested Rove as the Leaker

You can call me an "under 50 poster" or freeper, but I'm not saying anything outrageous. Terry McAuliffe suggested that some enterprising young reporter examine Karl Rove if they want to find the source of these memos.

[Lone_Wolf]

83. Wow a verbatim quote from the Rightwing Washington Times...

You lifted that right from here...

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040910-104820-8576r.htm

I forget... who owns the Washington Times... Murdoch or Moon?

It is interesting that they seem to be the only newspaper running what McAuliffe said. Here's the results from a Yahoo search to back up my point. http://news.search.yahoo.com/search/news?p=Terry+McAuliffe&ei=UTF-8

I'm "sure" the Washington Times wouldn't misrepresent what Terry said. The Washington Times isn't really known for its fair reporting.
What really worries me is that you quoting almost word for word from a rightwing "news" source and trying to spew it off as fact here on DU.

[dansolo]

80. I tried the same thing.

I was able to get the vertical spacing to match by using 11pt Times New Roman and 12pt between paragraphs. I used 1.5" margins in order to get the wrapping to match. The text lined up exactly vertically, but it did not match horizontally. I also see the baseline slant, which would be impossible to reproduce using Word. There are also numerous artifacts that clearly don't match, like the uniform stroke width in curved letters. Every single curved letter has uniform weight around the entire curve. With Times New Roman, the top and bottom of curved letters have a lighter weight. There is absolutely no way that this document could have been created with Word.

[Lone_Wolf]

85. Agreed... MS Word cannot make the CBS documents

It sounds like we had similar results in our experiment.

[Kal Belgarion]

70. Are you sure that ad isn't a forgery?

I bet I could create an exact copy in MS Word! ;)

[vetwife]

72. This is silly. I believe Rather..If someone would fake documents

They would use a real typewriter. Its not like typewriters fell off the face of the earth just because we have computers. Think about the argument of the nay sayers. IF I was going to forge something I would use a forging instrument that would have been used. Not something that could be disproved so easily if possible. I think Dan Rather and 60 minutes did research..I think before they would turn up documents, they probably have the real deal in hand somewhere not known to us and guess what..The paper would be 30 some odd years old. That is why Dan smiles and says he will stand by the story. Now the Bush lovers can deny deny and quibble but the truth is, the other documents looks the same and I know someone like Rather
has an ace up his sleeve. He went out of his way to say the documents shown are photocopies..But there are orginals and I bet Rather knows where they are.

[Union Thug]

71. That advertisement is obviously forged. /eom

[Union Thug]

81. MS Word vs. Selectric.. it's all so simple...

Word cannot duplicate the imprint of a typewriter nor are printers likely to duplicate the inks used at the time.

I have been publishing in one form or another for years... I tried to duplicate (for purposes of facsimile) a book printed in 1629 using a mac and Pagemaker. While it looks 'good', there's no way to match the inconsistencies in the original letterpress. The same is true with these memos. Word is too consistent. You can't create a convincing period forgery using Word and a laser printer. Aint happening.

[AmerDem]

82. How do we know that wasn't made with photoshop and MSWORD?

BAHAHAHAHAH, just funnin. Thanks for the post!:toast: