Prove to me that the CBS memo's are forgeries.

[trumad]

Prove it or shut the fuck up!

[newscaster]

1. Don't fret.

Even the so-called experts who cast doubt on those documents, are now backing away from earlier assessments. But the most telling point is this.......the White House has agreed that Bush was indeed grounded and they have not denied a single thing in those papers. And they continue to stonewall.

THE DOCUMENTS ARE REAL.

[MUSTANG_2004]

55. No, the most telling point is

that the debate has been changed from Iraq to something irrelevant.

[republicansarewhores]

64. As someone who cannot stand Bush and wants to see him behind bars...

This is pretty compelling evidence as to the fact these may be forgeries. They've been posted everywhere. The first image in the animation is what anyone can type in MS word using default settings with the Times New Roman font (MS Word even drops to the next line in the same line break points if you try this!) The second image is a copy of the document CBS presented, which looks like the MS Word document xeroxed about 20 times to age it.

This doesn't mean Bush wasn't AWOL. It doesn't mean Rather or CBS is behind the forgeries if they are forgeries. The only thing that would prove to me that these documents are NOT forgeries is for someone to present the exact model typewriter these alleged documents were typed on and type the same document, word for word for the sake of spacing and superscript comparison.

The neocon WHORES are clouding the larger issue of Bush's AWOL status with questions about these documents. As a progressive liberal, I am not beyond believing that the documents could be forged, to disbelieve this blindly is to give in to the blind faith sickness of the neocons.

RAW

[fob]

71. I call bullshit. You CANNOT get the 'th' superscript at the same level

on MS WORD that is in the document. The 'th' defaults to a level where the bar that crosses the 't' is even with the top of the 7, the CBS memo has the 'th' almost entirely ABOVE the top of the 7. I don't care how many times you copy/fax/recopy a modern day MS WORD version, the 'th' won't move relative to the rest of the letters. Your MS WORD example above has been manipulated, the default placement of the 'th' is nowhere near where it shows here.

IT CANNOT BE DONE. Try it yourself. Open a new Word document and type 187th, you'll see where it winds up everytime. The CBS document 'th' is much higher because whwile the special character was on the typewriters (or more accurately the type balls), to place it YOU the operator had to spin the carriage MANUALLY to 'superscript' it. That's why the Killian memo 'th' is higher than standard modern-day MS WORD and in a a different position than the 'th' on bush*s own documents that was typewritten. In fact the placement SHOULD be different becaause it was dependent on the person typing.

[republicansarewhores]

75. Foe of Bush...

I presented the evidence I found... if you can find evidence of a typewriter from the 1970s that can reproduce the Killian memo as seen above, by all means... please post the evidence so we can discredit the forgery issue

Until then, the argument you are presenting regarding the "th" doesn't hold much water. the CBS "th" is not "much higher" as you say... it is distorted the same way every other letter is in the memo from xeroxing.

You don't want to believe these are forgeries. The neocon whores don't want to believe Shrub was AWOL. Neither side wants to concede on their beliefs... libs that the memo may be a forgery that doesn't change the fact that Shrub was AWOL, and neo cons that the memo may be a forgery that doesn't change the fact that Shrub was AWOL.

I believe the memo is a planted forgery and that Shrub WAS AWOL. Why is it so impossible for you to believe that somehow CBS was fed a forgery? And why hasn't anyone come up with a typewriter model from that period that can duplicate the CBS memo so the forgery issue can be dismissed? Seems that would be the best way for CBS to end the controversy once and for all and focus on the real issue: Bush's lack of characeter as it relates to his service record and how it relates to his character now.

RAW

[fob]

82. So you didn't question the info you "found" then? I saw the same "info"

and did what they suggested. That is open an MS Word document, DON'T CHANGE ANYTHING, accept the default settings and type the memo's word for word. They said you get an exact match. I did, and you don't. Did you try what I suggested? you don't have to type the whole thing, just type 187th and watch as the 'th' is AUTOMATICALLY superscripted, it DEFAULTS to the same place everytime. It DOES NOT get placed at the level in the memos. So you don't, in FACT, get an exact match. It does look similar but beyond that there's nothing to be drawn.

Go to this site below and look at the second to last line at the superscripted 'th' and then tell me how MS Word can place the 'th' at that level WITHOUT manipulation?

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/BushGuardmay4.pdf


As for the "there were no typewriters that could do this work" bs check out this site below 9this guy/gal actually did their homework
http://web.morons.org/article.jsp?sectionid=8&id=5542

As for your ESP abilites;
You don't want to believe these are forgeries.
they're not very good either. I watched the 60 minutes piece and the evidence presented was credible as was the presenter of the evidence. Ssince then othters have pushed the same ham-handed gobledygook as yourself trying to turn the evidence from credible to 'fake' tot takae everyones eyes off the questions conatined therein. I don't wan't or need to believe anything, if you maintain they are forgeries it is up to YOU to prove it. I'm just reviewing your "work" as presented thtat tries to prove your assertion and it doesn't hold up. They may very well be disinfo provided to CBS to cover the truth, but as yet I've seen no evidence to back up the documents aren't what they were presented to be.

[Spiffarino]

86. I tried it with every serif font

None of the superscript th's came up to the height of the one in the memo.

This is a total bullshit fabrication by the right-wing to deflect the power of the memos. And don't give me any shit about "the wife/brother/son/lover/sister/rabbi" of the deceased says they're fakes. We all know what the BFEE does to whistleblowers. If you don't, watch a rerun of Kitty Kelly and Sy Hersh on Hardball tonight. Tweety tries to get them to reveal sources, and both not only won't, but are adamantly refusing to even describe them. Hersh said, "Please don't push me on this."

The people behind the stories are scared, and with good reason.

[fob]

94. Thank you gtrump for doing republicansarewhores homework,

now maybe r-a-w will question this shit on his/her own next time.

That's what I did too. Just type it as they suggest, it doesn't work! The CBS memo CAN NOT be made with modern-day ms word as the bunkers claim.

[republicansarewhores]

103. BZZZZZZZZZT!!!!! Sorry Foe of Bush, wrong guess!

The "th" may not match up to the top of the "7" on your computer screen as you rant... neither does mine.

But it SURE AS HELL DOES when you PRINT OUT THE DOCUMENT ON A PRINTER.

Try it yourself. I did. Here's a scan of what came out of my printer. I included some of my playing cards for scale.

It seems that the superscript which displays on your computer screen is NOT what ends up being printed out. What prints out is a LETTER FOR LETTER MATCH to the CBS DOCUMENT. This was done on MS Word '97 in Times New Roman with a 12 point font. Every line break is identical. Every letter is identical. The "th" falls EXACTLY where it does on the CBS memo, and it lines up with the "7".



No more shit to question Foe Of Bush.

Please make sure to drop me a line when you have located a typewriter with the magic superscript / spacing feature. I too wish that these documents weren't forged but the evidence doesn't look good.


RAW

[Qutzupalotl]

118. Examine the letterforms.

Look at the capital Y. Completely different. Look at the lowercase i. Look at the heavy, rounded serifs on the capital A. These differences could not have come from photocopying as you suggust.



And Microsoft was trying to imitate documents from this period when it created Times New Roman based on existing type proportions. It's no accident that the line breaks are similar. But as you can see, there are significant differences.



Microsoft's superscript is lower than the one in the CBS document.

In the early 70's, the TANG requisitioned IBM Selectric Composers and Executives, both of which had proportional letterspacing and dedicated superscript "th" keys. So your arguments are pretty much shot.

[fob]

122. Thank you.

Why with all the information to the contrary will people insist on seeing what isn't there?

[fob]

120. I did try it and it's still not at the same spot as the memo, although

it is closer to the memo you copied, it isn't on the memo I posted the link to above. Open that link and try reproducing THAT one on ms word. You'll notice some things right off the bat, the header has 111th and the th didn't superscript, in word it will, so you gotta go back and change that. Or if you type using the lowercase 'l' as a one which was common for the time, the th will not autosuperscript but the lll is much closer together than using the numeral 1. You'll also notice the ones in the memo look more like l's than 1's. Next you'll see 1st Lt bush where the st will auto superscript if using the 1, but not if using l. Then when you get to the nubered paragraphs if you use the number 1, when you get to the end of that paragraph it autonumbers the number 2 and the paragraph reformats to 3 lines! And since the autosequencing messes up the line spacing you have to enter beyond the autoplaced #2 and typing the 2nd paragraph doesn't line up either.

And apparently your need to overlook evidence has blinded you to the link provided regarding the typewriter. Go back and look again. That is just one of the websites that covered the "magic supercript/spacing feature", as you put it. Bottom line is, there are several typewriter models that could do this work, it wasn't out of the realm of technology of the day and in fact was quite common.

You are right on one thing, there is no more shit to question.

[fob]

121. Magic typewriter located in VietNam, circa 1969 - read on...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2356031

[republicansarewhores]

138. WOW!

That thread reveals a document typed with a Copperplate style font and no "th" superscripts even demonstrating the ability! It even shows really awkward and unnatural spacing on the second to last line of Paragraph 2, "t hat your job performance and the experience"...

Goddamn, I'm sold!

If that were used as evidence in court the defense would lose absolutely. Once again... when someone can produce THE TYPEWRITER BRAND AND MODEL THAT PRODUCED THE DOCUMENT IN QUESTION, I WILL RETRACT MY ARGUMENTS AND HAPPILY CONCEDE THEY ARE AUTHENTIC. UNTIL THEN, EVERYTHING ELSE IS BLIND PARTISAN BS that quite frankly, I thought we were all beyond.

RAW

[Zorra]

149. This forgery "controversy" is ridiculous, and is a waste of everyone's

time.

The fact is, Bu$h is a proven DESERTER.

There is massive evidence that proves this, and this evidence is indisputable.

These Killian memos - they sure are helping to keep the fact that Bu$h was AWOL right in front of everyones' nose. On second thought, maybe this "controversy" is not such a waste of time after all.

Freepers are desperately searching for some issue, no matter how irrelevant, to save Bu$h. But the fact is, the tide has turned. Bu$h is on his way out.

It's over.

[fob]

152. So the fact that a typewriter in Viet Nam in 1969 could do your "magic

spacing" is all of a sudden not of interest to you? I don't know about "blind partisan" but what you're hawking is sure BS.

I notice you didn't comment on post #118 either.

So your stance is that since you can recreate the memo exactly in ms word (which you really can't), and I don't have the EXACT typewriter it was written on, despite evidence that typewriters were capable of all the things claimed they couldn't do at the time, that the memos are forgeries and I'M blind to the facts. :eyes:

[Bdog]

80. kudos on the freeperes for discovering fonts...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/9/10/34914/1603
We're going to make this simple.

First, of course, in order to do this, he first had to reduce the document so that the margins were the same, since the original PDF distributed by CBS is quite a bit larger. Then he superimposed the two documents, such that the margins on all sides lined up.

What he then discovered is that Times New Roman typeface is, when viewed on a computer monitor, really, really similar to Times New Roman typeface. Or rather, really really similar to a typeface that is similar to Times New Roman typeface.

Um, OK then.

You see, a "typeface" doesn't just consist of the shape of the letters. It also is a set of rules about the size of the letters in different point sizes, the width of those letters, and the spacing between them. These are all designed in as part of the font, by the designer. Since Microsoft Word was designed to include popular and very-long-used typefaces, it is hardly a surprise that those typefaces, in Microsoft Word, would look similar to, er, themselves, on a typewriter or other publishing device. That's the point of typefaces; to have a uniform look across all publishing devices. To look the same. You could use the same typeface in, for example, OpenOffice, and if it's the same font, surprise-surprise, it will look the same.

So kudos on discovering fonts, freeper guy.

Next, however: do they really match up? Well, no. They don't.

If you shrink each document to be approximately 400-500 pixels across, they do indeed look strikingly similar. But that is because you are compressing the information they contain to 400-500 pixels across. At that size, subtle differences in typeface or letter placement simply cannot be detected; the "pixels" are too big. If you compare the two documents at a larger size, the differences between them are much more striking.

For instance: In the original CBS document, some letters "float" above or below the baseline. For example, in the original document, lowercase 'e' is very frequently -- but not always -- above the baseline. Look at the word "interference", or even "me". Typewriters do this; computers don't. Granted, if you are comparing a lowercase 'e' that is only 10 or 12 pixels high with another lowercase 'e' that is only 10 or 12 pixels high, you're not going to see such subtleties. That doesn't prove the differences aren't there; it just proves you're an idiot, for making them each 12 pixels high and then saying "see, they almost match!"

"This typeface -- Times New Roman -- didn't exist in the early 1970s."

There are several problems with this theory. First, Times New Roman, as a typeface, was invented in 1931. Second, typewriters were indeed available with Times New Roman typefaces.

And third, this isn't Times New Roman, at least not the Microsoft version. It's close. But it's not a match.

For example, the '8' characters are decidedly different. The '4's, as viewable on other memos, are completely different; one has an open top, the other is closed.

So yes, we have proven that two typefaces that look similar to each other are indeed, um, similar. At least when each document is shrunk to 400-500 pixels wide... and you ignore some of the characters.

"Documents back then didn't have superscripted 'th' characters"

That one was easy. Yes, many typewriter models had shift-combinations to create 'th', 'nd', and 'rd'. This is most easily proven by looking at known-good documents in the Bush records, which indeed have superscripted 'th' characters interspersed throughout.

"This document uses proportional spacing, which didn't exist in the early 1970s."

Turns out, it did. The IBM Executive electric typewriter was manufactured in four models, A, B, C, and D, starting in 1947, and featured proportional spacing. An example of its output is here. It was an extremely popular model, and was marketed to government agencies.

"OK, fine, but no single machine had proportional spacing, 'th' characters, and a font like that one."

No, again. The IBM Executive is probably the most likely candidate for this particular memo. There is some confusion about this, so to clear up: the IBM Selectric, while very popular, did not have proportional spacing. The Selectric Composer, introduced in 1966, did, and in fact could easily have produced these memos, but it was a very expensive machine, and not likely to be used for light typing duties. The proportional-spacing Executive, on the other hand, had been produced in various configurations since the 1940's, and was quite popular.

(Note: However, it is not immediately clear that the Selectrics and Selectric IIs could not in fact emulate "proportional" spacing. There is skepticism in some circles that these memos really show "proportional" spacing. Looking at the blowups, it appears pretty obvious to me that there is, but still researching.)

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/9/10/34914/1603

[TahitiNut]

84. Breaking News: "Freepers Claim Constitution Is A Fake"

Fuckwit, TX (PU) - Ima Dumbshit announced that the Constitution is only 20 years old and obviously created using Micrsoft Word!

Next Week: Was there really a person named Gutenberg?

[TahitiNut]

83. If this wasn't so appallingly STUPID, it'd be funny.

So, the claim you're relying on is that the documents provided to CBS were copies of a "WYSIWYG" SCREEN IMAGE produced by MS Word? Do tell. So, it's not even necessary to bother printing the MS Word 'document' onto paper?

Let's never mind the fact that the resolution of the PDF image of the CBS document people are working with is somewhere around 150 dpi, AT BEST. We can even ignore the fact that any copier/duplicator technology used in the years in question might be around 600 dpi, AT BEST, or that the effective resolution of any subsequent copying OR FAXING (at 200 dpi AT BEST) will be further reduced enormously. Let's ignore the contrast sensitivity that eradicates gray-scale along the way. No, we'll IGNORE ALL THAT.

We can also ignore the fact that only net resolutions in excess of 2400 dpi would be anything near adequate for any forensic purpose. Just ignore that.

The MS Word Conspiracy Theorists, relying on impostrous prestidigitation, play stupid screen image parlor games (IGNORING PAPER ALTOGETHER) and expect the dull-witted imbeciles who could barely spell 'komputer' before they discovered the magic that's AOL (as repackaged and sold through Wal*Mart) to drool, grunt, snort, scratch their crotches and say "farfreakingout, Batman!"

(sheesh!) :puke:

[Bdog]

113. Ones and lower case Ls

Typewriter of the day used the same key for lower case L and the number one.

When the documents are not shrunk down you can see the lower case Ls and the number ones are the same. You cant get that with a word processor.

[TahitiNut]

117. SOME "typewriters of the day" used lowercase 'L' for a numeric '1'

The IBM Executive and other pseudo-typeset typewriters had the numeric '1' as well as a set of special usage-specific keys (such as the raised 'th'/'st'/'nd' keys).

It was not at all unusual for typists, even occasional typists (like me) using such 'high-end' typewriters, to habitually strike the lowercase 'L' in lieu of the numeric '1' - merely out of habit.

[maha]

124. Possible

This is the only demonstration I've seen that has any credibility. I tried the same thing with the other memos, however, and it didn't work. And if you compare details of the type, there are lots of discrepancies.

Some technoweenie made an animated GIF of another memo to expose it as a fake, but I think the animated GIF is a fake. There are all kinds of ways to fudge this stuff. When you are working ditigally, type can be expanded or condensed pretty easily, as the type in the Gif I just discussed must have been.

[LifeDuringWartime]

131. are you serious?

they're not the same font!

[bobbyboucher]

2. Laura Bush said they were fake.

Any questions?

You do realize that is all it is going to take for the Kool-aid crowd.

[Cleita]

6. Well, if Laura Bush said so, we mustn't question the

Steppford First Lady. Maybe we should find out where Laura was during the time Bush was supposedly in Alabama.

[Politicub]

8. Wasn't she handing out dime bags? n/t

[ArkDem]

3. This whole mess is only elevating the credibility of CBS.

Everyone can see it's just the far right wing crowd that doubts the authenticity of the documents.

[TarHell]

77. Isn't the WaPo slamming CBS too?

I think that the most important thing is to get the originals released by CBS. In New Hampshire and Ohio, there are laws against influencing elections by fraud, which _somebody_ tried to do here, and there is no provision in evidence law for journalist's sources, so they can be subpoeneoaed.

If they are authentic, that'll shut up the Repukes and the contents of the memos will only be higher-profile.

If they are forgeries (and let's face it, they're a pixel-by-pixel match for only one document generation system that anyone has found, and that's MS Word), they probably came from Karl Rove, and we want to trace it back to the source and expose his dirty-tricks squad.

The worst-case scenario is if they are forgeries and we don't abandon them. The Repukes will try to pin it on Kerry, which is ironic, because the whole problem with Kerry is his high-minded unwillingness to get down and dirty against Rove.

[stanwyck]

4. Neal Boortz is flogging

the notion that the DNC is behind the forgeries. He's not even saying alleged forgeries. I just had to talk to a co-worker who plays hate-radio nonstop. (second marriage now failing-tell me that's just a coincidence). So I got slimed by Neal. He says the Kerry campaign will be over when it's revealed that they (or was it the DNC...seem to be one and the same in Neal's head)forged the CBS documents.
What a whore. Neal used to be just a cranky liberarian who was rational. He actually had some knowledge. He quit doing his homework years ago. And it shows. He's very ill-informed.
Now he's an aging whore who puts out for whoever pays.

[Cat Atomic]

5. Has there been ANY explanation for the fact that

the White House released these documents themselves? Seems to me like that kind of wrecks the whole forgery claim.

[samtob]

12. White House

received them from CBS. There are a lot of theories out there why they were in fact released from the White House.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

7. can't prove it because they're authentic

.

[movie_girl99]

9. a co-workers comment re: forgeries

He said that the Clinton's are behind it (forgeries) and get this....the reason why is to dis-credit Kerry so that Hil can run in 2004. He also added that that's why Clinton has not been campaigning for Kerry. DUH...could the reason be that he's recovering from bypass surgery???

[ArkDem]

10. It is 2004.

[Sparkle]

11. Shouldn't you post that on freakrepublic?

Nevermind. You'd get banned once it's posted.

[bluedeminredstate]

13. It would have been nice if the media

was this dilligent about the swifties and their connections. But no, they let the swifties slime Kerry for nearly a month and just "reported" the allegations.
:eyes:

[John BigBootay]

14. Can't prove it but...

If I was sitting in a jury box with the various "pro" and "con" arguments presented, I think I'd be leaning toward a forged verdict.

The evidence is compelling in many ways.

[DoYouEverWonder]

17. Do you have a credible example?

That hasn't already been debunked?

Besides, the real question is, did George W Bush desert the National Guard? That's the only question that really matters.

[John BigBootay]

49. For better or worse the docs are what is under the microscope

The docs are what we're talking about here.

The quicker people give up trying to "prove" and "disprove" them, the quicker we can talk about more important issues.

I think it's most likely that a clever right-winger has set up the DNC, CBS and the Kerry campaign to hopelessly defend these docs while the other issues go unnoticed.

Credible examples? You have the same evidence I do: You've got the fact that this guy rarely typed according to his wife, so why is he using an extremely expensive typesetting machine? You've got Hodges' retraction. You've got signatures that don't look the same. You've got inconsistent terminology in the body of the docs. You've got Killian's secretary now saying she didn't type the memos-- even though she thinks the content is essentially true. Don't make me go on-- I won't. You know the evidence as well as I. These are probably fake--REGARDLESS of whether they may be factually correct.

And the longer you and Dan Rather insist they aren't forgeries, the longer the story is the fake memos and not Bush's service.

[Qutzupalotl]

51. It's not an "extremely expensive typesetting machine."

Stop drinking the kool-aid. It's just an IBM Executive or Selectric Composer (or similar) TYPEWRITER.

[John BigBootay]

54. Get real.

The IBM Composer cost thousands back in the 70's.

Read this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18982-2004Sep13.html

Oh... and do you prefer lime or cherry?

[Qutzupalotl]

70. YOU get real.

Yesterday we discovered a TANG requisition form from 1972 requesting IBM Selectric Composers. So don't try that bullshit on me.

I read that article that all the Freepers are pointing to. It's full of errors and misleading half-truths, starting with the title. Nobody can PROVE the documents are true; the onus is on people like you to prove that it's fake. So far, you've been unsucessful.

The so-called typographic expert in that article doesn't know what he's talking about. A superscript doesn't have to extend above the cap height, it only has to rise above the baseline. CBS's document did indeed have a superscript, and more importantly, a dedicated "th" key.

[TankLV]

97. Wrong! I had one, I used one. Maybe a couple hundred at MOST.

No where approaching a "thousand" let alone "thousands"!

Nice try - but there are many of us here who were around then and who have direct experience on them.

What you claim is flat out WRONG!

[Bridget Burke]

100. The IBM Executive is more likely than the Composer.

It was much more common & less expensive.

I used both machines back in the day.

[ima_sinnic]

60. "COMPELLING" IN WHAT WAY????

excuse me for shouting but I am so sick to fucking death of STOOGES who know ABSOLUTELY GODDAMN NOTHING about type, typography, fonts, and so on making this STUPID GODDAM PRONOUNCEMENT.

<sarcasm>oh, it looks JUST LIKE Times New Roman--must have been set on a computer. </sarcasm>

Like Times New Roman hasn't been around since 1931.
****Like a word processor makes letters that DO NOT SIT ON THE GODDAM FUCKING BASELINE. And are in fact up and down and of uneven thickness besides.****
Like a stinking 1971 goddam IBM typewriter just could not type a proprotional font with superscripts.

anybody who says they were forged can kiss my fucking ass. I AM A TYPOGRAPHER AND HAVE BEEN SINCE THE EARLY 70S AND I SAY THOSE DOCS ARE FUCKING REAL.

[Endangered Specie]

15. *Shuts the Fuck Up*

;)

[HamdenRice]

16. I was a typist in the 1970s and I am certain they are forgeries

First, let me give you my personal background. I put myself through college in the 1970s mostly by being a typist and secretary -- which was a little unusual, because I'm a guy. I learned to type on an old manual typewriter in junior high school. When I graduated from high school, a friend got me a summer job as a typist with the federal government, even though I couldn't type that well. I guess I had a knack for it, because I became a 120+ word per minute typist on those bulking old machines. In that first job, I used an IBM selectric. I also was an early user of computers -- back when you had to use punch cards! -- in the 1970s. I bought my own first selectric around 1980, and know a lot about them, and other old electric typewriters. This is going to sound too geeky for words, but because I treasure my old typewriters, I have something of an old typewriter collection -- with the oldest being from the 1920s.

Here is the basic problem with the documents. With all typewriters and even computer printers up until about 1983, the space allocated for each letter was exactly the same. This was because of the mechanical limitations of the machines. If you look at any document typed by a manual typewriter, electric typewriter, IBM selectric or even computer printer produced before 1983 or so, the letters in each line of type line up exactly over each other. It is as though you are filling in letters in a grid that pre-exists the document.

Only with laser printers did computers begin allocating to each letter a different amount of space. An "m" takes more space than an "i", for example. This is called "proportional fonts". Because of this letters in different lines of type do not line up. (If you want to see what the old line-up effect looks like using a computer, set your font to courier type -- it is one of the few non-proportional type faces on modern computers and laser printers.)

Also, the only way to get superscript and subscript on an old typewriter was to stop typing, and roll the roller, that holds the paper, one half space up or down, type your superscript character, and then roll it back down. We used to do this for footnotes. Even then, the type was exactly the same size as the non super and non subscript type. It would have been a royal pain in the ass to type, eg, July 17th and make the "th" superscript -- and even if you did, the "th" would not have been smaller, as is common with wordprocessing programs and laser printers.

No one in the military or federal government would have taken the time to use superscript "th" in a date. More importantly, it would have been ridiculously time-consuming to try to get the "th" to be smaller.

The most devastating aspect ot eh Killian documents is that they are proportionally spaced. As a typist from the 1970s, I would say it was utterly impossible to produce the Killian documents with any typewriter or even computer of that era.

The stuff about Times New Roman font, however, is overblown. I had a Times Roman typing ball in 1982, and I'm pretty sure I remember them from the 1970s. But they did not produce proportional fonts.

Just because the memos were not typed in the early 1970s, does not mean they are forgeries in content. Some over-eager person may have tried to retype a 1970s era document to make it legible. I can't speak to content -- only to fonts.

Also, this says nothing about the broader point that CBS and Rather were making. The fact that these documents may be forgeries, does not refute the bigger story about Bush's being AWOL and using influence, which is absolutely irrefutable.

My best guess though is that these documents are forgeries and they were planted in the CBS documents by Rove operatives in order to discredit the entire story.

[DoYouEverWonder]

18. Too bad you didn't spend this much time

examining the Niger documents?

We might have averted a war if you or some other 'expert' had.

[HamdenRice]

21. It took no time

It took no time examining the documents and realizing they could not have been produced in the 1970s -- maybe 20 seconds. All you have to do is see that the letters in adjacent lines don't add up.

What took time was explaining it!

[DoYouEverWonder]

26. It still doesn't change the fact that

Dubya went AWOL and deserted the National Guard.

You should take a fine tooth comb to his discharge papers. He didn't even sign the darn thing. He wasn't available.

[Qutzupalotl]

40. Bullshit.

Proportional type existed on contemporary typewriters.

Next?

[HamdenRice]

43. Saying it ...

doesn't make it so. Just dismissing it as bullshit is wishful thinking. I was a typist in the 1970s, and I can't see how this document could have been produced.

Keep your head in the sand though, you'll feel better.

[Qutzupalotl]

45. Repeating a lie doesn't make it so.

And this bit was ironic:

Keep your head in the sand though

followed by

I can't see how this document could have been produced.


You refuse to acknowledge that proportional typewriters existed in 1972. They did.

[HamdenRice]

48. A forgery meta thread ...

I think that the forgery issue is like a psychologist's inkblot test. It is a small, contained, but somewhat important issue that goes to the credibility of CBS.

People look at the evidence about the forgery issue and come to different conclusions. But what is fascinating is their overall reaction. There are different ways of thinking about this issue.

You are one of those -- as is the person who started this thread by saying prove it or "shut the fuck up" -- who are really not being rational about this, in my opinion. I don't think we can prove it or disprove it, but we can discuss evidence and come up with likely or probably explanations. For me, as someone who worked in offices, and with lots of typewriters and early computers, the idea that this document would be produced in an obscure TANG office for CYA purposes is technologically, and economically preposterous. I have given my reasons elsehwere. The fact that the technology existed is irrelevant -- would an office have used it?

CD burners existed 15 years ago for record and software companies. The technology existed. But if someone told you he had a data CD that was burned on a home computer in 1990, would you believe it?

The forgery issue is important because, for many people out there who need to be convinced to vote for John Kerry, the forgery issue distracts from and lessens the credibility of CBS's bigger story about Bush being AWOL, using influence to get into the TANG, etc.

This should lead to discussion of strategy. How does CBS save its credibility on the bigger story? How do we counter the arguments of confused friends, coworkers etc who might think that the forgery issue discredits the larger issue?

Your reaction is to basically dismiss evidence. You are probably very, very young and dogmatic. You have probably never worked in an office and certainly not in the era before computers. You probably take technology you grew up with for granted. You also probably are surrounded by like minded people, so you don't need to think about how to clarify the issues for republican and swing voter friends, co workers and acquaintances so that the forgery issue does not contaminate the bigger story. Your purity is breathtaking.

You have the audacity to call people who worry about the evidence and strategy as RW DUers or freepers. Youngster, you are far, far to the right of me and probably others concerned about this issue, and I'm sure have never put your ass on the line for a progressive causes -- except to discuss things with college classmates or slacker friends.

For those of us in the real world, this is important and we either have to authenticate the document or figure out how to save the bigger story from the contamination of the forgery.

[Qutzupalotl]

50. Then try.

we either have to authenticate the document

I don't see you attempting that, and you even dismiss evidence that might alter your mindset.

I was a typesetter and before that worked in an office with manual typewriters. I know whereof I speak.

We don't need to worry about how the forgery story will play if the documents are real. We can just stick to the truth. So far, no evidence you or anyone else has put forth has come close to debunking the memos. CBS stands by the story while their jealous counterparts try to tear down with specious reasoning and half-truths.


the idea that this document would have been produced in an obscure TANG office for CYA reasons is technologically and economically preposterous.

Nope, we found TANG requisitions forms from before that time period for IBM Executive and Selectric Composers. Try again.

[starroute]

73. Here's an example of proportional typing from 1962

This appeared in a science fiction fanzine called Niekas. It is an example of proportional-space typing that was probably done on an IBM Executive. The font is very close to that of the memoes, although not identical in every letter.

The same fanzine used a slightly different Executive font in two different sizes. Although I have not found any examples there of the smaller font being used for superscripts, it would certainly have been possible to do so.

[Must_B_Free]

90. The TANGS doc are not proportional then.

They are not set for even edge columns, they simply have different letter spaces "i" is thinner than "m".

[ConsAreLiars]

95. You're thinking of "right-justified"

"Proportional refers to the fact that an i can be printed in less pace than an n or m. In fact en and em were common measurements in old-style metal type-setting involving proportional fonts and this info can be used to obtain "even edge columns," but whether this is done or not is immaterial to whether or not the font character "boxes" are of varying width or not.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

145. There you go again

Assuming. You do that quite a lot don't you? But then again, by your posts that's obvious isn't it? I have read every word of your endless ramblings. Now I would like to know a few things.

1. List all progressive causes you have "put your ass on the line" for. (I'll need references so I can check them out)

2. List every typewritier you have ever used and the manner in which you were trained to use it. (Other than your junior high school typing class)

3. List where and when you got your certification to be classified as "Typewriter/Document Expert". I'll also need references on that too. (working in the typing pool will not be sufficient even if you did mange to work in 40-50 of them).

4. And last but not least, I will need to know when and where you got your Masters in psychology that qualifies you to boldly think you can sum people up because they happen to not agree with you and feed your overblown sense of "I know all"!

If you can provide all this I might be inclined to believe that you in fact do know what you are talking about. If not, I'm with all the others and recomend that you shut the f--- up!

[TankLV]

98. They did. I had one. I couldn't afford a word processor for a long time.

I used them.

Next lie.

[janx]

74. With all due respect--

Just because you were a typist in the 1970s and didn't produce documents that looked like the ones in question, it does not necessarily follow that others didn't.

CBS is a major network that has been around for a long time. It is staking its reputation on this. I might also point out that if anyone knows about checking facts, sources, etc., and if anyone knows about the media (including publishing--type, fonts, typewriters, etc.), it's CBS.

Like Skinner, I'm reserving judgment on this one. But things don't look good for Bush*.

[w4rma]

101. Are you saying that the signiture was forged also, HamdenRice? (nt)

[CharlesJ]

25. This is a disaster........

I don't care who fed the forgeries to CBS. Whether it was a well intentioned dimwit or (unlikely) a sinister Rove, this is a "gift" that will continue to hurt us. And Dan Rather is looking like a total fool denying the obvious. And sorry to say, so are many posters here.

We desperately need an ADULT in charge at both the campaign and the DNC. In this age of the net and cableTV, surely somebody knows how to keep from shooting ourselves in the foot time after time.

[DoYouEverWonder]

28. Then Bush should deny the allegations

or prove that he completed his commitement.

Only Bush can resolve these questions.

I don't see why we have to continue to prove that he didn't serve.

[CharlesJ]

39. You missed the point...

We're losing the war because of stupidity.

Late news has the woman who typed anything Killian needed typing says the CBS docs are forgeries, but she implied the content might have been what he thought.

All nice and well, except once Rather has been exposed as blatently presenting phony facts (the memos) and then denying the obvious, he has permanently lost his credibility among the intelligent undecideds.

For us to argue that Bush didn't meet all his obligations becomes meaningless when the message is corrupted by CBS.

Do you want to win the election, or win a meaningless debate?

[Qutzupalotl]

41. Do you want to cloud the issue?

The documents are NOT forgeries. They were not created in Word.

You are lying or badly informed, and that's sad.

[CharlesJ]

47. we'll have to disagree on that....

In looking at the facts from wide sources, it's a "slam dunk". And Tenet didn't say that.

When you wake up and admit the obvious, we can talk about what to do next.

[Qutzupalotl]

52. The documents are genuine.

The so-called "obvious" evidence you allude to (but don't cite) hasn't held up under scrutiny.

What do your eyes tell you about this image?

[ima_sinnic]

66. don't bother, he's a professional

... a professional disinformation manager, paid by Rove
notice the post count.

[noiretextatique]

133. intelligent undecideds?!

LOL...that's hilarious.

[Walt Starr]

20. Your tired argument about proportional spacing has been debunked

The propotional spacing typewriter was invented in 1941.

Sorry, you are JUST PLAIN WRONG!

[HamdenRice]

23. Source?

No one said that it did not exist. I saw only one machine that could do proportional spacing in 1977 -- a typesetting machine. It was at a freelance typesetter's apartment, and I was editing a literary magazine. The machine was a room sized computer with a massive printer.

But it costed hundreds of dollars to have text typeset using proportional spacing on a typesetting machine. The federal government and military did not use typesetting machines to typeset ordinary memos -- it used typewriters.

Just because the technology existed, does not mean it was in use in typewriters.

[ConsAreLiars]

33. Proportional type was a standard feature in IBM office typewriters in 1960

your assertion that you never encountered any notwithstanding. The facts are quite contrary to your claims. I assume you will look at the evidence and stop claiming that proportional type was limited to high-end typesetting equipment.

See http://www.etypewriters.com/c-thumb.htm for ads from long before the memos were written, like this one from 1960:

[HamdenRice]

34. Your proof? point?

Look, you can believe whatever you want to believe, obviously. Your post is so contradictory, that you just want to believe what is comfortable to you and want everyone with a different opinion to just shut up.

Others might be interested in facts and informed and experienced opinion.

So to reiterate. As someone who typed for a living in lots of offices in the 1970s through the 1980s, proportional fonts were vanishingly rare -- available on typesetting machines, mostly.

The idea that some Lt. colonel writing a desk memo would have access to proportional fonts and small font superscript in 1972 is just preposterous. You can believe what you want to believe, but please don't rudely tell me or other rationalists trying to get to the bottom of this to stop discussing the evidence.

Also, I don't know what your ad proves, because it does not mention proportional fonts anyway.

The ostrich mentality of not confronting the problems in this story are more worrying than the story. If these documents were planted by Karl Rove, wouldn't you want to know that? If CBS can strengthen its case by distancing itself from obvious forgeries, and emphasizing what it can prove (which is the tack Rather is taking) wouldn't you want to know that?

[HamdenRice]

36. One more correction...

You subject line states that proportional fonts were a standard feature in the 1960s. This is just absolutely dead wrong. Even the magnificent IBM correcting Selectric II of the late 1980s (which I still own) -- considered by typewriter lovers as the best typewriter ever -- did not have proportional fonts.

Even the early dot matrix and ink jet printers that came with PCs did not have proportional fonts. You must be very, very young not to know this.

Proportional fonts only became standard features around 1985, when the laser printers became widely available.

[ConsAreLiars]

38. Proportional fonts were standard on IBM Executive typewriters

which were quite common. Your suggestion that it took massively expensive systems to do this when the memos were written was false.

[Samantha]

78. No sale

Software used for word processing was often designed by one vendor, and printers used to print the documents were often designed by other vendors. A good example of this is that one frequently word processed in software on IBM equipment and printed on HP printers. If the command print contained fonts not recognized by the printer, the printer merely selected the closest available font on its cartridge. One might have typed in a proportionate font, as I did in a small town in Cumberland, Maryland, sometimes on a composer in a secretarial bay (which obviously did not take up a whole room) but print to HP equipment. Various printers could be selected, so the results could vary depending on one's selection.

Word's word processing mechanisms copied to a great extent available existing technology, including fonts, pitches and basic functions. The only thing that really differs is how the instructions to perform the functions are programmed (backwards and illogically). Where it chooses to wrap is not unique.

Selectric typewriters did not have proportionate fonts. Many law firms used Selectric. More particular law firms used the Executive.

There has been no substantive proof I have seen or heard thus far that these documents are forged. The only thing there has been is a lot of Republican noise.

[immoderate]

22. You are mistaken about one thing.

IBM was marketing typewriters with proportional spacing in the '60s. I worked on a Selectric Composer in 1972. It was a small newspaper office. Ours was second hand, so they were widely available. I understand that there were other Selectrics that also could deliver proportional spacing.

I would like to see any other military document of the time that uses similar type. I think that could easily settle it for me.

--IMM

[HamdenRice]

24. See my other post labelled "source"

I did not say that the technology did not exist. There were advanced and expensive typesetting machines that could do proportional representation. As you mention, you were working in a newspaper office. For the rest of us, typesetting was enormously expensive -- several dollars per page.

Would a military officer have typeset a day-to-day memorandum?

[DoYouEverWonder]

29. No, he would have had his aide

type it on the office IBM Selectric.

So what?

BUSH = AWOL

Don't you get it?

[HamdenRice]

31. You are confusing two different issues ...

This has nothing to do with whether Bush was AWOL. That has been proven. The question is whether the documents are forgeries. And if they are forgeries, that fact discredits the story for a lot of swing voters. If this is a Rove operation, then it's pure evil genius.

Selectrics did not have proportional fonts. Some very expensive typesetting machines did, but why would this officer take his memo to have it typeset?

[Qutzupalotl]

42. You are confusing two different typewriters.

The Selectric Composer did have proportional fonts. He wouldn't have to take his documents to a typsetter.

[immoderate]

30. I think you are not aware of some of the IBM machines'

capabilities. I have read on another thread that some of the Executive models of Selectric had the capabilities you're talking about. This puts it in the category of office machine.

I actually would be surprised to find that the ANG had one of these machines for office work, but it's entirely possible.

The test I suggested -- find another document should settle it fairly well. If they did have that machine, a lot of stuff must have gone through it. Lack of any other documents produced at that time by such a machine would be hard to believe.

--IMM

[HamdenRice]

32. I did a search on IBM models...

and you refreshed fond memories of the Executive series. I did a search and see that some Executive series could do proportional spacing.

You reminded me of fond memories of Doris Johnson, a secretary who was about 23 when my friend and I were 17. She got us drunk on Martinis one afternoon, and I threw up in the men's room for hours. I thought she was sooooo sophisticated.

She was allowed, on special occasions, to use the IBM Executive for our overall boss.

The problem is that the Executive was a hammer and carriage typewriter:



Even those models that could do proportional fonts could not change font size, because they did not use a typing ball.

By contrast, the selectric could use 10 pitch and 12 pitch typing balls, but could not do proportional fonts.

So you could not have both proportional fonts and a superscript, small font "th" in the same document.

But let's get real here. I worked in many, many offices -- federal government, hospitals, doctors offices, banks, law firms, as an itinerant typist in the 1970s and 1980s. You have no idea how vanishingly rare this kind of text would have been -- and expensive.

The idea of some military officer producing this kind of document in 1972 in his office for a day to day memo, is, from my perspective, impossible.

[starroute]

76. Example of an IBM Executive using two different sized fonts

This is from a 1965 issue of a science fiction fanzine called Niekas. The typing was all done on an IBM Executive. The two fonts are not intermingled, but they do occur on the same page.

[Qutzupalotl]

119. Red herring.

You wouldn't need to change the type ball on an IBM Executive to get a superscript in a different size, because the IBM Executive had a key you could press to get "th", "nd" and "rd".

The IBM Executive was not "vanishingly rare" or expensive. A couple hundred bucks is all. In fact, the TANG requisitioned IBM Selectric Composers and Executives in the early 70's.

You seem to keep flogging the same points, without considering any new ones. Your arguments have no merit. Your experience on a DIFFERENT typewriter is irrelevant.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

37. Enormously expensive?

Are you kidding me? I have no idea if the documents are real or not but to think our federal government would absolutely NOT have this technology because it was too expensive makes me hysterically laugh. We are, after all, talking about the same government that looses hundreds of millions of dollars. A government that spends money like there is no tomorrow. (especially on bullshit that has no benefit to the public) A government that is more than willing to pay 400.00 for a freaking toilet seat and believe they got a bargain deal. So, to say that the technology existed but, was way to expensive for any government official to have ready access to and therefore was just not possible would imply that you honestly believe the government is actually frugal with your tax money. I don't know about you, but I am 100% certain they are not.

[HamdenRice]

44. Try to get the historical perspective ...

The military was indeed burning through an awful lot of money in 1972 -- in Vietnam, not at the TANG base, on the office equipment of some Lt. colonel. The military was stretched thin financially in 1972.

The era of $400 toilet seats was still in the future -- in the Reagan admin.

If you are too young to imagine the 1970s, just look at any movie, or Vietnam era movie of that time. The typical office scene has some guy banging away at a manual typewriter -- or at best on a selectric. That's how I remember the 70s.

Do you really believe that a Lt. Col. making a CYA memo would go to some special site to have his memo typeset and pay for it?

[GodHelpUsAll2]

53. First off

For you to assume I am too young to remember the 70's is a mistake on your part. Where I am quite certain the military was burning thourgh piles of money on Vietnam in the 70's I can not say with 100% certainty that the military was not also burning through money for other things. If you can in fact state that with 100% certainty then maybe you would like to share with the rest of us the "proof" you have. Maybe you, unlike the rest of us non-experts have access to military records and receipts.



p.s I have a small alien in my closet right now begging to use my cell phone to phone home. If you don't believe me. Just watch the movie!


edit for typo

[ima_sinnic]

67. yes he or she would have

because being able to produce a document that looked typeset was a matter of pride--and I know because I was typing then. It was neat to be able to make a document look like something OTHER THAN having come from a typewriter. And don't forget, the military had has huge budgets, like for $700 toilet seats. A proportional-spacing typewriter would have been nothing.

[mopinko]

57. perhaps you missed something

please refer to the original post-

Prove to me that the CBS memo's are forgeries.

Prove it or shut the fuck up!

i see nothing in any of your posts but nicely embroidered freeper talking points. so i think you have to shut up now.

[republicansarewhores]

108. I proved it.

Will you shut up now instead?

RAW

[noiretextatique]

134. you didn't prove it...you got your ass handed to you

by several posters, most notably FoeofBush. i think you should shut up now.

[republicansarewhores]

146. I didn't prove it and got my ass handed to me noiretblu?

Sorry. My ass is still in place and has been from the get go.

I've just had to face another sad truth in addition to the fact the documents are forged. It looks like the neocon whores aren't the ONLY ones drinking Kool-Aid.

RAW


Rather Concedes Papers Are Suspect
CBS Anchor Urges Media to Focus On Bush Service

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 16, 2004; Page A01

CBS anchor Dan Rather acknowledged for the first time yesterday that there are serious questions about the authenticity of the documents he used to question President Bush's National Guard record last week on "60 Minutes."

"If the documents are not what we were led to believe, I'd like to break that story," Rather said in an interview last night. "Any time I'm wrong, I want to be right out front and say, 'Folks, this is what went wrong and how it went wrong.' "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24633-2004Sep15.html


CBS Guard Documents Traced to Tex. Kinko's
Records Reportedly Faxed From Abilene

By Michael Dobbs
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 16, 2004; Page A06

Documents allegedly written by a deceased officer that raised questions about President Bush's service with the Texas Air National Guard bore markings showing they had been faxed to CBS News from a Kinko's copy shop in Abilene, Tex., according to another former Guard officer who was shown the records by the network.

The markings provide one piece of evidence suggesting a source for the documents, whose authenticity has been hotly disputed since CBS aired them in a "60 Minutes" broadcast Sept. 8. The network has declined to name the person who provided them, saying the source was confidential

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24635-2004Sep15.html

[noiretextatique]

147. your "proof" was bogus

regardless of whether or not the documents are authentic. your "proof" was soundly and repeatedly proven to be :hurts:

[republicansarewhores]

148. LOL

You are quite the sore loser aren't you?

RAW

[noiretextatique]

151. the fact the letters may or may not be genuine

doesn't change the FACT that your "proof" was debunked. that's not being a "sore loser"...it's just the truth.

[ima_sinnic]

61. THAT IS A LOAD OF CRAP

you are a plant from some Rovian operation, because I goddam tell you that there certainly WERE proportional typewriters in the early 1970s.
You are a LIAR.

Here, how about this, you lying sack of shit:

FROM 1941: IBM announces the Electromatic Model 04 electric typewriter, featuring the revolutionary concept of proportional spacing. By assigning varied rather than uniform spacing to different sized characters, the Type 4 recreated the appearance of a printed page, an effect that was further enhanced by a typewriter ribbon innovation that produced clearer, sharper words on the page. The proportional spacing feature became a staple of the IBM Executive series typewriters.

http://www-1.ibm.com/ibm/history/history/year_1941.html

what else are you an "expert" on, anyway?

sheesh, you people are SO OBVIOUS. do you think we are as stupid as you or something?

[Sterling]

62. I hope your post stays up.

It had to be said and I think you said it forcefully enough.

[ima_sinnic]

63. I think I have had only one post deleted since DU started

counting deleted posts so I will make the sacrifice, let it stand, and risk one more mark on my record. It will be well worth it just to get these IDIOTS to STFU.

[TahitiNut]

92. Amen!

:thumbsup:

[in_cog_ni_to]

112. Gooooo, ima!!!

:hi:

[Samantha]

69. I believe everything you say is true from your personal experience

here's mine:

I used word processing in the 70s -- ADR word processing and ETC (extended text composition) in a remote area for a company using advanced technology. Proportional printing was not invented with the creation of laser printers. During this same time frame, I used the composer. There were boxes and boxes of different fonts, all of which were designed to recreate the same text alignment used by newspaper publishers. I am not suggesting this type of technology was used by the person or persons who created (originated) these documents. I am saying there has been no definitive evidence presented to date that refute the documents' authenticity. The information supplied in your post is an opinion, not a direct refutation.

Prior to this position and subsequent to this position, I worked in many law firms. I am pretty sure most organizations used the IBM Selectric, and many did not bother with the proportionate font. However, more discerning organizations using the Executive did have alternative fonts with proportionate spacing. Also, during the 70s, IBM had created a memory typewriter. I am sure, as the creator of much of the software and hardware used at this time, IBM did not confine proportionate spacing to one or two word processing mechanisms. My point here is absolutely nothing one way or the other has been proven by these discussions.

What has been clearly illustrated is that the Republicans are using the same PR technique demonstrated during the 2000 recount. Remember the we counted the votes, we recounted the votes, and every time the votes were counted, Bush* won -- remember that? Say something often enough and people start to believe it, regardless of whether it is true or not. Last night the words "forged documents" were repeated so often, that is the phrase most Americans will absorb. It does not really matter whether the documents are authentic or not because a couple more days of this and this whole brainwashed nation will consider them proven forged. That's the pity of it.

[Eat_The_Rich]

72. Sorry but...

IBM typewriters did use proportional spacing a long time ago...

http://www.atrios.blogspot.com/2004_09_05_atrios_archive.html

[TahitiNut]

89. BULLSHIT!

You posted:

With all typewriters and even computer printers up until about 1983, the space allocated for each letter was exactly the same. This was because of the mechanical limitations of the machines. If you look at any document typed by a manual typewriter, electric typewriter, IBM selectric or even computer printer produced before 1983 or so, the letters in each line of type line up exactly over each other.

BULLSHIT!

I have two original personal letters of commendation, typewritten at USARV HQ at Long Binh in Vietnam in 1969 that are both proportionally spaced.

Typewritten.
Vietnam.
1969.
Proportionally spaced type.

!

[republicansarewhores]

109. Why not scan and post them?

To prove your point. You can even black out your name or any other revealing info, at least we can see what it is you are talking about to compare with a visual sample instead of just your post.

RAW

[TahitiNut]

126. See ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2356031

[TexasSissy]

91. Very interesting and informative. Thanks. I, too, recall typewriters

in the 1970s. I took typing in high school, and then had a part-time job (or two?) where I used a typewriter a bit. I recall that the courier ball was the norm, and I seem to recall that courier then (as now) has evenly spaced letters. I even recall the superscript, suprascript thingie, and yes, the letters weren't smaller when you did that. Same ball. Same letters. You just rolled the carriage up a bit. What a hassle. I can't see anyone not in a super-professional office doing that (maybe someone doing a legal paper in a law office).

BUT....I seem to recall hearing that Rather/CBS has stated that IBM has confirmed that it has had this font since the early years, and that CBS has another document, which the White House itself has either released or confirmed, of the same approximate date and which contains some of the same type. Is that not so? I believe I heard that the fancy fonts were available from IBM, but not many businesses had them since they were high end. But I don't know if I heard that exactly correctly. And does the government have anything high end?

You SURE that proportional fonts didn't exist in the late 60s-early 70s? Even those script fonts/balls were evenly spaced fonts?

[Bridget Burke]

102. I was a typist in the very early 70's & you're mistaken.

(Or lying.)

I worked in a no-frills Houston law office that used IBM Executive typewriters with proportional spacing. My embryonic typing skills were truly stretched by the "proportional" concept--I remember it well.

Later I used an IBM Selectric Composer at a small newspaper. It would be silly to use that beast for standard typing although silliness can't be totally overruled.

[goodhue]

123. Proportional typewriters were around in the 1960s

See this thread for proof:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2356031

[Shrek]

19. The problem is

. . . it's just as easy to say "prove they're real!" Since CBS hasn't provided access to the originals, it's hard to argue that they deserve a presumption of authenticity.

Neither side has any proof, only allegations and counterpoints and endless pontificating by bloggers who may not be qualified and may have partisan axes to grind. I doubt we'll see any real proof unless CBS is willing to provide the originals for independent verification.

[MUSTANG_2004]

27. It's fun to follow the debates

But other than that, they're pointless. From day one, most people have known that Bush joined the Guard to avoid Vietnam and then side-stepped his commitment the last year or so. We've also known that his life was made far easier because of who is father is.

Whether these particular documents are authentic doesn't appreciably alter anything we already knew about his Guard service.

My personal opinion (and it's been this way from day one), is that the election is about terrorism, the disastrous intervention in Iraq and the economy. Everything else in the campaign is a side-show.

[nlik]

46. The problem is....

If these were not forgeries it would be so simple for CBS to do a news piece where someone would type up a duplicate of the memo on one of these whiz-bang typewriters available in the early 70's. If its possible it should only take about 30 sec to show it and shut the critics up. The fact that they haven't shown it speaks volumes.

[RandomKoolzip]

96. What speaks volumes for me is the power of disinformation.

If these were not forgeries it would be so simple for CBS to do a news piece where someone would type up a duplicate of the memo on one of these whiz-bang typewriters available in the early 70's. If its possible it should only take about 30 sec to show it and shut the critics up. The fact that they haven't shown it speaks volumes.

Actually, what I think speaks volumes is the mountain of evidence that proves that Bush went AWOL and instead of talking about that, we are talking about typewriter fonts from the 70's.

Hall of mirrors, anyone? House of cards for dessert?

[noiretextatique]

140. af'ngmen...proportional spacing, seletrics vs. eexcutives

ths and the like...who in the hell does all of this serve? hint: gw bush

[EndElectoral]

35. It's a Field of Repub Dreams...say forgery long enough, people buy it

[Sterling]

56. Even on DU it seems

Free republic must be a ghost town right now with all the traffic that has crossed over here.

This really scares them because they know that while "most people" acknowledge that W was a draft doger and daddy's boy that got too drunk to fly so his daddy bailed him out it has never been in the 24hour echo chamber of the media and that is all that matters. Keep up the pressure guys! We are winning!!

[orpupilofnature57]

58. DUBYA NEEDS TA FLUBYA

LOVE THAT MUDDY WATERNO BOSTON AINT MY HOME.

[napi21]

59. You may not have to.

Dallas Morning News interviewed Killian's secretary at the time. Although she said they looked like forgeries to her, she also said THEIR CONTENT IS TRUE OF WHAT WAS GOING ON AT THE TIME TOO. sHE REMEMBER'S ALL THE YAK-YAK AT THE TIME ABOUT BUSH.

Now, I can't predict what the media and the public is going to do with that info, but if her comments can put focus on the REAL issue "is the information true" then it won't matter if the documents are real or not.

[NotTooSimpleSimon]

68. it won't matter if the documents are real or not?

I believe it will. If the public sees that these were forged then it won't matter what they contain. The mere exposure of forgeries being created this close to an election will bode ill will to the suspected forgers.

[NotTooSimpleSimon]

65. I think the people with the documents need to cough up the originals

Nothing can be determined from copies of anything. Where are the originals? With the originals at hand the detractors are toast.

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[A Gobert]

88. Didn't have an enough attention span to actually read it

did you? That's two posts, dork.

How many posts did you start with here?

Or is there a rule that I have to post recipes or discuss the weather for my first 100 posts?

When my kids lose the argument they start calling names too.

[TankLV]

99. We have to agree with meisje.

You are soooooo transparent.

Nice try, tho.

Thanks for playing!

On edit:

And guess what sherlock?

Looks like we are right about you!

Enjoy the worms!

[charliebrown]

81. This is the blog that started it all.

http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/


He did the same memo on ms word default and sorry to say it is an Exact match.

Not GOOD!!!

[TexasSissy]

93. If only CBS would've had some of their OLDER SECRETARIES LOOK AT IT FIRST!

Just shows to go ya....some young whippersnapper created that document, maybe, and s/he didn't know enough about old typewriters to realize that they were different from computers (can anyone be that stupid?)

But Rather and other CBS staffers are older. Shouldn't they have known that? Hmmmmm. But Rather's a man....and men didn't type back then. Well, occasionally, maybe, to hack out a story here and there, but certainly not to do it well or pay any attention to the typing aspect, since that was something women did for a living.

Seems they should've run it past a few of the older secretaries at the CBS office to see if the document looked like something they would've typed or run across in the older days. I bet they would've spotted the problems.

[dansolo]

110. The LGF blog came to the wrong conclusions

If you look at their website, they have made an animated image that goes back and forth between the two documents. The problem is that by doing so, he has disproven his own theory. Take a look very carefully at the two different images. The total with of the text of the original memo is wider than the reproduction, but the vertical spacing is smaller. There is no way to make the two documents match exactly. If you make the text match, the spacing is off, and if you make the spacing match, the text is off. And on top of that, if you print both documents, you can't get the baselines to match. The text drifts slightly over the course of a typed line. If you line up the beginnings of the lines, the baselines of the ends are off. This is a typical artifact of a typewritten page, because the page is held by friction, and the impact of the keys/ball causes the paper to shift slightly. This cannot be reproduced with a current word processor & printer.

[meisje]

87. CBS needs to release the memos!!!!

or we are in some deep doo doo

[republicansarewhores]

104. For everyone playing the superscript / spacing game...

You have to PRINT the document you have typed in MS Word to see it is a dead on match. The Superscript "th" does not display on the screen the way it prints to paper. What prints out is what matches the CBS documents alleged to be forgeries.

Here's the text here. Set your MS word program to Times New Roman, 12 point font and paste this into your default page without adjusting anything else. Then print the page and compare it to the CBS document:

****************************************

Memo to File

SUBJECT: CYA

1. Staudt has obviously pressured Hodges more about Bush. I’m having trouble running interference and doing my job. Harris gave me a message today from Grp regarding Bush’s OETR and Staudt is pushing to sugar coat it. Bush wasn’t here during rating period and I don’t have any feedback from the 187th in Alabama. I will not rate. Austin is not happy today either.

2. Harris took the call from Grp today. I’ll backdate but won’t rate. Harris agrees.


****************************************

I really wish people would stop arguing about this when the proof has been presented as difficult as it is to accept and instead cite exactly which make and model will duplicate the memo as identically as MS Word does in the above example.

RAW

[pschoeb]

105. Sorry this doesn't work

First I printed out the memo from CBS
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/BushGuardaugust18.pdf

then I copied your text, adding in the double space after : and each numbered item. I think the HTLML ignores spaces so they didn't come out in your post.

When I put them in Word at 12 point Times New Roman and printed, the two items were not comparable, the 12 point Word font was way too big. So I reduced it several times and compared. 10.5 point was too samll, 11 point was close but too big. So the font size would need to be about 10.8 or 10.9, but Word will only do half point incremements. But even if one could do this in Word this would cause some spacing issues. Also of course, I had to take the margins in by 1/2" from the default to get the lines to break at the right words at 11 point.

no one should trust the overlays people have put up as images.

[republicansarewhores]

107. Maybe you should instead...

Open the .PDF in PHOTOSHOP, save it as an IMAGE FILE (.jpg or whatever you like) and RESIZE IT until you can match the OVERLAY that has already been PROVIDED in the animation above. The line breaks alone are evidence enough until you actually resize the text in the PDF file so that it can be overlayed on top of the MS Word document providing a PERFECT MATCH.

Scanners cause reduction in SIZE when you copy something and then save them as PDFs. This is what happened to the document that CBS released in .PDF format.

You will go insane trying to resize the Microsoft Word document to fit against the .PDF because of font size limitations like those you cited.

Pretty simple solution when you adjust for the alternative solution huh?

RAW

P.S. Why can't anyone who claims they worked as a typist in the 70's and insist typewriters during that time could accomplish this spacing/superscript come up with the manufacturer and model number used to allegedly type this original document instead of wasting time trying to debunk what has already been proven with the overlay?

[maha]

125. Been Done

This guy set the same paragraph in MS Word and ona 1970s IBM Selectric Composer, and they look just alike:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1644869,00.asp

Also, if you have to go to that much bother to make the overlays work, it kind of kills the veracity of the overlays. Fact is, working digitally you could take two documents with very different typesetting and smudge them various ways to make them appear identical. Anything that was ever set into type in any way can be replicated digitally, in fact, if you want to do it. That does't prove the original was fake.

I've scanned lots of stuff without it causing a reduction in size, btw. You can scan to reduce or scan to enlarge or scan same size.

[Bridget Burke]

106. I know we're not supposed to notice post counts.....

But why do most of the memo debunkers have such low ones?

This is just a general statement. No names have been mentioned.

[in_cog_ni_to]

111. Things that make you how...hmmmm.

Hmmmmmmm.

[Silverhair]

114. Here is your proof.

It is a bit technical, but the guy is a genuine expert and explains it fairly well. It involves much more than the superscript. Check out this site: http://www.flounder.com/bush2.htm

He is NOT a Bush supporter.

[Beetwasher]

116. Already Been Thoroughly Debunked

This guy is full of shit. Why do you say he's not a Bush supporter? Because he says so?

His argument about font is complete bullshit and anyone w/ half a brain would realize he's full of shit right there. The reason the fonts are similar is that the fonts on MS Word are BASED ON THE FONTS and FORMATTING FROM TYPEWRITERS! Duh.

His arguments re: kerning are bullshit. His "pseudo-kerning" is a load of crap. There's no "pseudo-kerning" on the docs in question. What he concludeds erroneously is kerning is probably the result of a variety of things including smudging, paper movement, imperfections due to mechanics and copy degredation. To determine that the characters are kerned using generations removed electronic copies is to be disengenuous AT BEST.

The docs were almost certainly done a typewriter and it's obvious to anyone w/ eyes. Examination of the type reveals a myriad of idiosyncracies and imperfections that can only be explained by being done on a typewrtier.

See This post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=810021&mesg_id=811469&page=

Notice the imperfections on the "P" in P.O.? The "H" in Houston? The "T" in Texas? The "I" in interceptor?

Does that mean they are NOT forgeries? No, just that they weren't done in MS word. If they were done on MS word (and if in fact they are forgeries) then the forger is a brilliant idiot. Brilliant because he reproduced a great facsimile of an old style typewriter using MS Word and he's an idiot because he could have gotten an old typewriter on ebay for 5 bucks and done it much easier.

You people need to get over this MS Word crap. If you want to say they're forgeries, fine, but you'd look more credible if you just accepted that it was done on a typewriter and you're going to need more concrete evidence.

[HEIL PRESIDENT GOD]

115. Real or Fake

The memos are not going to affect how people vote. The only thing at stake is maybe a 1% share of CBS news ratings. Let's get back to the real points!

[mccormack98]

127. Disagree - the controversy keeps Bush off-message

I don't care if the press likes the memos or hates 'em as long as they keep talking about them. The latest Newsweek poll has Bush's "trustability" rating falling. The controversy is doing its job. Ba-bye, Bush!

Bill

[The_Casual_Observer]

128. While we are at, how about those fake moon landings?

OJ Simpson was even in a movie about it once. There is much left to investigate IMHO.

[HEIL PRESIDENT GOD]

130. You mean

"Shadows pointin' ever' which way but there's only just one sun?"

Oh wait, that's in a song about Lee Harvey Oswald.

[The_Casual_Observer]

132. Your point is well taken, another look-see at Jim Garrison investigation

might also be fruitful to the discussion.

[Name removed]

129. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

143. Enjoy your brief stay

ssimmons, is that u?

[Wednesdays]

144. "Communist News Service"

Hmm...let me guess which side of the Kool-aid aisle you're from.

Enjoy your short stay here.

[noiretextatique]

135. it's just noise, like the white house "trashing" story

which proved to be false. the usual trickery by the usual suspects. too bad too many (even here) continued to get snowed by these dopes.

[Snivi Yllom]

136. CBS may admit it shortly

I think their lawyers are re-wording their statement very carefully as I type this.

[Hilary08]

139. People, PLEASE.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE.

Conservative operatives have managed to call into question a decorated Vietnam vet.

They managed to raise enough of a stink to defend Bush against allegedly fraudulent military documents. Nevermind that, at best, even IF proved forgeries, even the best Repug spin on that only amounts to: Bush was able to defend Texas borders against Oklahoma. Yeehaw, what "strong, courageous" platform. :wow:

But now, LA Times, WaPo, and such journalists abandon the "journalistic integrity" for which they call Rather on, because they are blinded by the glare of ratings and possible Pulitzer nominations for scooping an elderly news anchor.


WHO IS HOLDING THE TIMES RESPONSIBLE? Who is holding ABC's Brian Ross responsible for his latest smear on CBS?

CBS is facing attacks on all fronts, so they're out. NBC/CNN/etceteras sure as hell don't want to go down in flames if the documents are proved forgeries.


SO MAYBE IT IS UP TO *US* TO RAISE JUST AS MUCH OF A COMMOTION OVER ABC'S BRIAN ROSS. What is his background? Is going on the hunt for any CBS-incriminating info really the best display of journalistic integrity? Surely if there's as much dissatisfaction from our half as the other, someone will have to listen.

And don't even get me start on the DLC (Determined to Lose to Conservatives)'s handling of all this.

[noiretextatique]

141. hi hilary

:hi: your sanity is quite refreshing, considering the lemming-like mentality on display by a few determined posters here. welcome :toast:

[Nederland]

137. The burden is on CBS

I'm sorry trumad, but documents are not assumed authentic until proven otherwise. That's just basic journalism.

[chomerics]

142. Andrew Card made the forgeries himself!!!!

I was watching John Stewart last night and they had a guy on talking about the forged pappers. Stewart asked the guy if Card knew about the letter before hand. The guy on the show had a earpiece in, but he was saying Card ran a few campaigns over the years. There was one in 75 or 76 where the same thing happened had again in the 80's. He then stopps mid-sentence and changes his mind. I am kicking myself for not TIVO'ing it.

This is my first post to DU, and I'm not as up on Andrew Card as others are, but think about it. Card gives the memo to the dead guy's wife, the wife gives the memo to Rather and then says she didn't. Who is going to go after a widdow? Who is going to accuse a widdow of a US veteran??? Rather stands up behind the forgery to get the truth out, he knows what happened and he won't back off his story. I know you guy's are all for conspiracy theories, but I am positive this is from the Bush camp, it has his stench all over it.

Is there any was to look up Card's political campaigning history and see what other "bombshells" were discovered by the "other side?"

When you really sit down and think about it, it makes perfect sense and it is a brilliant move by Card. Card know's his shit and he's playing all the games. It's up to us to expose him for what he truly is, he's good but not that good.

[Hippo_Tron]

150. It doesn't matter, by questioning it the GOP has raised "uncertainty"

For those small few who will now not vote for Bush because he was AWOL from the national guard, their Republican friends can convert them back by saying that it's all lies from the liberal media. The real issue is that George Bush is a chickenhawk and John Kerry is not.