I now think the docs are a forgery - please try this yourself

[Must_B_Free]

This may not be what you wanted to hear, but you can do the same test that I did. It's quite simple.

I used the PDF doc from the August 18th 1973 document from CBS website.

Open up MS Word. Make no changes to the settings. The default is Times New Roman.

Retype the document from the 18th word for word. Double space the end of sentences as is standard.

Observations:

1. The font is exactly the same.

2. All line breaks fall at the end of the same words. Even at the end of line 4, where you have the words "is" and "not" - it could easily go either way here with a two or three character word.

3. The superscript form of "th" in "187th" automatically appears, even though you type it in regularly.

4. We shrunk to 92% of the original on a copier and held it up to the light against a print out of the PDF. It seems to line up amazingly accurately.

5. The idea of doing something wrong and keeping notes on it is somewhat suspect. I know, Nixon did it, but a document called CYA is hardly Covering Your Ass, is it?

6. Rove does this type of thing in just about EVERY campaign he has been associated with, doesn't he? He stole letterheads in college and forged docs. Planted a bug in his own office and blamed his opponent. He had the Debate notes mailed to Gore campaign to act like they stole them (returning pants to the GAP? I think not)...

My hunch is that this thing is a Trojan horse created by team Rove. It seems to be exactly what we want, but what it accomplishes is drawing attention from the VERY damaging testimony of Ben Barnes. They tipped off the Freepers to start the whole forgery thread. (hell, they ARE the Freepers)

If you have Word, take a moment to execute this test yourself and report your observations to the thread.

Here is the PDF I used for the experiment.
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/BushGuardaugust18.pdf

[PretzelWarrior]

1. what document? it doesn't matter. the guy's a deserter who kills for fun

he is doomed to failure I don't care if they say it was hand-typed by Rove and given to Rather by Andrew Card dressed as Huggy Bear.

THe issue is this: Kerry didn't touch this story with a ten foot pole. It takes nothing away from all the other questions out there.

Bush is still toast. Currrriiisssspyyyy!

[slojim240]

148. I worked for a security Fed agency and always kept CYA memos.

When the computer was put into our offices, I wrote e-mails to the files and to my superiors so that they knew I was documenting. I never had to take any shit from them.

[Spazito]

2. There is a big difference between a typed document from that era...

and that done by printers of today. Would not the experts at CBS have noted right away there were no pressure points from the key strokes?

[renotyme]

8. not if they only had a copy and not an original

a copy will not indicate pressure marks from typewriter vs laser or inkjet.

they should make their documents and experts available.

[Must_B_Free]

11. We don't know what CBS received or how they got it

Did they have originals or copies of copies of copies etc.. as these appear to be?

But 60 Minutes has obtained a number of documents we are told were taken from Col. Killian's personal file. Among them, a never-before-seen memorandum from May 1972, where Killian writes that Lt. Bush called him to talk about "how he can get out of coming to drill from now through November."

That's all I know about the source. Anyone have any different info?

[hexola]

139. What the hell is a "personal file" - wow, that sounds official...

A "memorandum" - could mean written notes that were never typed...?

[mumon]

25. Looking closer, I don't believe it.

Look at the I's: they differ. Other characters, do, too, which is indicative of different pressure on different words. I think it's legit, frankly.

[trogdor]

41. The superscript "th" sits higher than it would in Word.

I'm looking at it right now. The cross of the "t" aligns perfectly with the tops of the numbers.

Also, if you look at the ones in some of the documents, you'll find that they were made with the lowercase L, which was common practice among typists of that era, since many typewriters didn't have a 1 key, and it was more expedient to train yourself to use the L instead, regardless of whether the 1 key was available.

Edit: The 7 in the provided document extends below the line. No number does this in Word.

The 8 is fatter on the bottom in the PDF, but in Word, the bottom is the same width as the top half.

This was clearly the work of a rather fancy (and expensive) typewriter, not a PC.

[WolverineDG]

64. i learned to type on a manual

typewriter and i'm trying to remember if there was a "th" key on my mom's *pink* electric typewriter she got sometime in the 60's...there were many keys on those typewriters that i only WISH we had on a computer keyboard (other than having to stop & doing a ctrl + W), such as the cents key, a degree key (for temperature), 1/2, 1/4, etc. this way, the typist didn't have to stop, adjust the platen, type the little symbol, then re-adjust the platen & hope you re-aligned the paper correctly. so i think it is plausible that there could have been a "th" or "nd" key on some typewriters.

the letters don't all "sit" on a straight line across....to me, they appear to "jiggle", which is what would happen if you struck a key too hard or not hard enough.

dg

[Virginian]

81. How about the "fi" key. The top of the lowercase f dots the lc i.

You are talking heavy duty typing to have those special features. Our old IBM Selectric didn't have any of those combined letter keys. The composing machines down at the printers did.

[WolverineDG]

135. mom's typewriter

was a smith corona, & had it's own carrying case. she was a secretary for many years & typed so fast sometimes i couldn't see her fingers move.

i'll go back & look at that figure you described to see if i can remember that particular key, but if my mom's smith corona, which she must have bought by the mid-60s, possibly late 50s, had the 1/4 & 1/2 keys as well as the other i described, then it's likely such typewriters were available to the general public by the 70s.

dg

[Zynx]

80. That doesn't look anything like a Word document.

Look at how the numbers at the top are messed up. I've seen typewriters. Also look at "187" the 7 drops below the others. Engineer that with Word. I dare you.

[lancdem]

3. So Rove gave them to CBS?

Is CBS that gullible?

[Catherine Vincent]

4. Your number 6....you have a point.

Rove is a dirty evil bastard.

[Must_B_Free]

16. Other Rovish possibilities

1. Perhaps 1 of the docs is real and other forgeries were are created to cloak it, should it ever emerge. (but at a glance, they all look like MS word to me.)

2. There are real docs that the Whitehouse had and they created forgery forms of these docs and passed them off to discredit the real ones if they ever surfaced. It mucks it up enough that if real versions surfaced, noone would ever believe it - the "forgery" meme is planted.

3. This could be a payback to the Dems fo the Nigergate forgeries. In the spirit of "Ha ha you used forgeries too." Tar for tar, smear for smear.

Remember the best way to do damage control, and the way we have seen the Whitehouse do it for 4 years now is to get ahead of the bad news, release it yourself and thus you have the advantage of shaping the initial impression.

[Qutzupalotl]

104. That could be done post-processing, in Photoshop.

You print out the Word doc, scan it in to Photoshop, raise and lower a letter by a pixel here and there to simulate a typewriter, distress it a little, fax it to yourself, scan it again... there's a lot you can do. Not saying it definitely was done that way, but it could be.

The big question is whether there was a "th" key on this typewriter's keyboard, and whether the person typing it would think to use it in a letter to himself.

I think we'd have to look at the original piece of paper to see if there were impressions consistent with the type ball hypothesis. Until CBS reveals its source (never), we won't be able to settle this definitively, but right now it looks like a forgery (or retyping).

[LuminousX]

137. Or just get an IBM Selectric and type the document

Those dinosaurs are still around. My mom still has one.

[Name removed]

144. Deleted message

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

[Bernardo de La Paz]

129. You lie about the Niger forgeries.

Those forgeries were not perpetrated by Democrats. You have no evidence for your ridiculous claim: 3. This could be a payback to the Dems fo the Nigergate forgeries. In the spirit of "Ha ha you used forgeries too."

[jmowreader]

130. The problem with number three

If this is payback for the Nigergate forgeries, there is a simple rejoinder:

Rove: "Ha ha, you used forgeries too."

Kerry: "Then why did these forgeries come from the White House?"

[Ducks In A Row]

5. Doesn't prove crap.

[papau]

13. I agree - since word was a copy of the IBM typewriter program.

indeed the 1966 typewriter program was rewritten for the 8086 chip in early 70's for the typewriter, and again for the 80188 chip for the IBM PC because that chip was slower and less competition for typewriters - and allowed for upgrade charges!

[LoZoccolo]

19. I am now convinced that the documents are genuine.

Must_B_Free had some good points, but this simple assertion with no text in the body of the message swung me back to the right side.

[Frodo]

52. You may have to swing back.

The latest addition to the pile is that the General Staudt mentioned in the memo (dated mid-73) retired in 1972.

[aquart]

66. Wouldn't make a bit of difference to the influence attempt.

He still had ties and stature in the the Guard.

[LoZoccolo]

67. Doesn't prove crap.

[Frodo]

76. Not "proof"

just evidence that makes it look that much less legit. If that was all there was it would be no big deal. It's just there's now like six or eight things that by themselves would be no big deal. Together they're obviously attracting some attention. And by some people a lot more qualified than I am.

[Toucano]

105. I adore you!

That is just so perfect.

[leftynyc]

146. What does that prove?

Retired generals still have a lot of influence.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

6. I think you're right about #6

I wouldn't put it past Rove to try to link this to Kerry.

[Chomskyite]

7. Why wouldn't Rove have lowered the boom by now?

Since the thing has run about as much as it's going to run, you'd think Rove or his emissaries would have come out already with the irrefutable proof of these documents being frauds. There are no indications this is happening. There are no hints this is happening any time soon.

Why would the White House itself release the documents, too, as though to confirm the CBS copies? If Rove then turns around and says, "CBS gave me these fake documents," he looks stupid for having temporarily thought they were real.

Why are the documents also consistent with all the other facts we know about Bush's doings that year?

How do we know MS Word was not based on the measurements used by the typewriter that produced that memo?

[LoZoccolo]

23. Maybe it's to give more people time to hang themselves...

...by using the documents as a case against Bush*? Maybe he's waiting for Kerry himself to use them? :shrug:

[Must_B_Free]

34. One thought

Why would the White House itself release the documents, too, as though to confirm the CBS copies? If Rove then turns around and says, "CBS gave me these fake documents," he looks stupid for having temporarily thought they were real."

That way he looks stupid AND thus, INNOCENT.

Why are the documents also consistent with all the other facts we know about Bush's doings that year?

Maybe it helps discredit what we know about the other facts. At the very least, it muddies the water so we can't really tell what's going on there.

How do we know MS Word was not based on the measurements used by the typewriter that produced that memo?

In fact, that has been stated. I don't know the veracity, but it sounds plausible.

[Mick Knox]

9. I agree - its a fraud

Walt has showed two other era documents "as proof" that have the superscripted "th" and none of them even closely resemble the document 60 mins had - they fell for it hook line and sinker. They look completely different in the way it was done. If I knew how to PSP them side by side I would but I am looking at them now and this 60 mins thing was a fraud and Rove is ROFL at them.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

10. Oh, please.

Like a bunch of amateurs on the Internet would be able to figure out something that CBS News stuck its neck out over and never thought to investigate. Riiight.

[Thurston Howe IV]

115. Journalists suck, in general

They're not very dedicated to unearthing the truth--that's not their job, man. Remember NYTimes, Washington Post just apologized about being suckered on the Iraq war.

[Walt Starr]

12. Then did Rove forge Dubya's own military record?

The CYA doc:




Bush's AF7 released in 2000:



Superscripted "th" in both documents. Look at the fonts.

[Mick Knox]

17. They look the same to you?

Now even a DUer is saying MS Word at default settings drops the words at the same time?

The "th" dont even look close Walt. NOT EVEN CLOSE.

I'll tell you why RoveCo did it.

To make 60 mins look stupid and discredit the whole legitimate AWOL issues.

Thats why.

[Walt Starr]

38. Line 2

Form AF 7 is filled out by multiple clerical workers over a period of YEARS.

There were at least four different typewriters used in that document.

[TheWebHead]

111. there is a difference in the superscripted th's

the AF7 document doesn't cross the top plane -- it's a smaller font parallel to the other text on that line, the CBS obtained one does have the superscript well above the other text.

[formernaderite]

87. Exactly....it makes every other charge unreasonable now....

...I'm appalled but not surprised.

[Dookus]

22. sorry Walt

I don't see any superscript in your second example. It looks like regular base-line text.

[HFishbine]

26. Maybe I'm blind, but

Where's a superscripted th in the second document?

[0rganism]

32. Look at the first instance of 111th

Also, notice that both the alleged forgery and the other document Walt posts don't use '1', but rather 'l'. This is consistent with typewriters of the day, which lacked a '1' key.

[Must_B_Free]

39. Exactly - there are a number of non superscripted ones but one that is

The one that is superscripted is very low conpared to the Aug 18th PDF.

What strikes me most is the line breaks. It was shocking to see everything reproduced exactly as in the PDF as I typed it into Word.

How did it work in a typewriter? I seem to recall the last electric ones - didn't they let you type past the end of a line then erase the upper part and put the word on the next line, like a word processor would do?

Walt's post of the record looks like typewriter, especially the "1".

[0rganism]

51. Sorry, you're off on a tangent -- also cf my post #44

Walt is pointing out that the "th" superscript function existed at the time. The two documents he cites were obviously from different typewriters.

Why is there one properly superscripted 111th in the second document? I think it was a machine where the clerk had to change a ball to get the "th" superscript. The typist decided not to do this for the next several instances.

Why is the August 18 superscript for 187th done right? Because it was typed on a nicer typewriter that included a "th" key with the default type.

[Must_B_Free]

61. I wonder if they had numeric ones

th, nd, rd? Did they have 1/2 and 1/4 as a single char superscript?

[0rganism]

101. I've seen them with and without, I think most had 1s by the early '80s

On a lot of the older machines, the 1 and the l were deemed similar enough to be redundant, and people were expected to figure it out from context.

As for special characters, even a very old mechanical typewriter I used to bang on as a baby had 1/2 and 1/4 characters. I'm not sure about the distribution of common sub- and superscript clusters, but others on this thread have claimed they were present.

[HFishbine]

120. LOL!

The fist "111th"? Geeez, that is clearly an inline lower case "th." Do we even know the definition of superscript?

As for your "1" key:

[0rganism]

126. So, "we're" a little unclear on superscripts, are "we"?

That's a bummer. Let's see if "we" can tell the difference between and
Are they identical? How is "our" vision today, HFishbine? Can "we" tell which one is the superscript cluster and which one is the inline lower-case "th"?

"We" know, it's really hard. Do, please, take "our" time to figure it out.

For extra credit, see if "we" can find the "1" key on this IBM Selectric I:

Where is it? What's that on the top left, next to the two? Is it a "1"? Is it a "rabbit"? Is it the fraction key?

[HFishbine]

132. LOL! Harder

By pasting only the "111th" and not the words that follow, you fail to show the obvious, that the baseline of your supposed superscript is in line with the "111," the "th" and the words that follow -- no superscript.

A "fraction key?" Yes, that must be it.

[dionysus]

14. WRONG

you obviously missed the very detailed discussion of this today about the high grade (well, for then) typewriters and the whole fixed width font stuff. There were several threads on it. try again.

[LoZoccolo]

27. Man, did you ever tell /him/.

Thanks for linking to the other threads.

[dionysus]

31. too lazy to read the front page of this very forum?

you really showed /me/

since you are...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x779588

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x779640

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x779493

you want me to read em for you too?

[LoZoccolo]

37. Sure.

Hey, you wouldn't happen to have any toilet paper handy, would you?

[dionysus]

43. here you go...

you can cleanse your enlightened brow with it...

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

133. Agreed - there are some VERY knowledgable DUers who debunked this

[Imalittleteapot]

15. Yikes. I started out thinking this was a Rove plant,

after reading http://www.warblogging.com/ - then I was convinced it wasn't. I've been crazy all day about this thing. Now I'm back where I started. I need to be sedated.:scared:

[Norquist Nemesis]

94. Oh for Pete's sake!!!

The simple solution is to find out what kind of typewriter(s) the author of the documents owned. I make that plural because it might have been either office or home typewriter. Either way, it wouldn't be a difficult thing to do.

So, until someone smart, upstanding journalist wants to dig and do a good job of investigative reporting, I'm taking the documents as genuine.

Jeez people. Enough is enough! You shoot yourselves in the foot before you walk into the starting gate! :eyes:

[HFishbine]

18. Helloooo!

I work with type and you haven't made a careful enough examination. Look at the work "File." In Word there is discernable space between the F and i. On the memo, the top of the i touches the middle of the F.

Look at the word "agrees." In Word only the g and r touch, in the memo every letter touches.

There are more. Can you find them or are two examples enough?

P.S. Your theory of a Trojan horse makes no sense, unless Rove has royally fucked up. The WH released these documents too, why would they be in posession of forgeries?

[Must_B_Free]

30. I'm game - I have my samples here - I'll look at those

Unfortunately the pdf looks like 200dpi fax resolution, so it is hard to tell - it's like looking at that picture of Oswald in the doorway and that other guy who lookes just like him.

addressing your points
File - hard to say at this res
g and r don't touch in word. too low res to tell in the pdf.

Anyway, if I went with perceived differences in letters:

- the "ee"s in agrees look higher than the r.

- The "H" in Harris in word looks like the verticals have the same width and in the PDF, it seems like the vertical line on the left is thicker.

- the bottom loop in the g seems to vary in width in the Word version, but not in the fax.

Yes I see differences - tons of them, but notice this to gague the amount of distortion from multiple generations of copies: Look at the I in "I will not rate" in the PDF - the top of it is almost Y shaped.

I don't even see enough consistency between differences of letters in the PDF to say for sure. Very distorted and very low resolution.

Does anyone have an IBM typewriter?

[hexola]

142. The world is full of lying asskissers...

unless Rove has royally fucked up. The WH released these documents too, why would they be in posession of forgeries?

yellow cake...yellow cake...yellow cake...

If somebody in power wants certain info for a certain effect...somebody will find it for them - wether it exists or not...

[Heath.Hunnicutt]

20. NOT forged with Word and I could testify in court about it.

First, let me say this: I am speaking for myself and not my employer.

From 1996-1999, I worked at Microsoft in the Microsoft Office group, although not on Microsoft Word. I am a computer programmer.

The documents do not look like Word-produced forgeries to me, at all.

Your points above, taken in order:

> 1. The font is exactly the same.

Of course they both look like Times. Times New Roman was designed to look exactly like Times. In fact, it was sumply called Times until Microsoft had to settle a lawsuit with Linotype over the intellectual property surrounding this typeface.

> 2. All line breaks fall on exactly the same words.

12pt proportionally-spaced Times would break the same on standard margins and paper. Remember, Microsoft invested a ton of money in making Word act like the tools it was replacing back then.

> 3. The superscript automatically appears.

That doesn't really demonstrate anything. As long as we are on the topic, the superscript "th" of the Killian document looks like a ligature to me. Word does not create a ligature there.

> 4. It lines up amazingly accurately.

Not for me. The 1st and 4th lines don't align with the 2nd and 3rd the same. If you overlap the two documents, it appears that they do because you make all the characters' edges hang out as if they were double-struck.

I tried all kinds of whacky tricks to make it line up, and couldn't get it to do so.

> 5. The idea of keeping a CYA file is weird.

Apparently, Killian kept this file someplace safe and presumably not in his office. I keep files like that. Of course not about my current employer!

> 6. Rove is behind it!

Nothing to be behind, in this case.

Here are some other points against it being a forgery:

7. The baseline of lines of text do not appear even.

In particular, some of the last characters on the lines are moved down a tiny bit. This is what happens when you hit return and the typewriter is waiting until it is "safe" to actually move the platten while the last character of the line is still in motion.

8. The character shapes are not exactly the same.

The Times New Roman "G" and the Times "G" from the Killian document look to be weighted differently at the bottom of the curve. The MS typeface narrows there, but the typewritten face does not appear to.

If you overlap the two letters, they look the same because what you are seeing is the overlap, which appears heavier than each individual character.

[PretzelWarrior]

24. ok. that sounded convincing. let's hope we get more authoritative

comments like this.

[Gin]

29. I think they are real....the story fits shrub to a T..........the damage..

real or fake is done...the message has been on all the stations...and the seed has been planted in the minds of those who were on the fence.

I think he is a coward and should be sent to Iraq to complete his service.

The Boston Globe article did damage too.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

36. "the story fits shrub to a T"

The most convincing evidence to date. Cognitive resonance instead of cognitive dissonance.

[Carolab]

119. Great assessment, and also

Look at the difference in the positioning of the "th" between the two documents. I would add that you could type "th" in superscript as a symbol on the Selectric II. Furthermore, the numerals are different.

[dansolo]

143. Another thing I noticed

Look at the "ght" combination, as in the word "flight". In the CBS document, the "g-h" spacing is smaller than the "h-t" spacing. But if you type in the word in 12pt Times New Roman in Word, the "g-h" spacing is wider than the "h-t" spacing.

[merh]

136. Thanks of this post!

And Welcome to DU :hi:

Enjoy yourself - minds like yours are indeed welcome!

[mumon]

21. maybe

but then there's a chain there...

[napi21]

28. What's with all you paranoid people? Get a grip!!!

This is exactly what goo defence attorneys do...CREATE DOUBT!!!!

There's absolutely no reason to think these doxs are forgeries! NONE!!!

Geesh, I could tell you Shrub was a decendent of the King of England and you'd ask me if I was sure!

[Awsi Dooger]

45. As a gambler, I would give 1/10 odds they are not forgeries

And have more they best of it than any wager I've ever made. The internet is hysterical.

[goclark]

102. We are not Columbo. These are "compelling'

documents.

End
of
Story

[Catherine Vincent]

33. Are you being sarcastic?

[Must_B_Free]

49. no

a friend and I tried this at work for fun.

I think what seemed convincing was typing the memo into the defaut settings in Word and seeing the line breaks fall the same and the superscript automatically appear.

But after reading here it's hard to tell.

It really reminds me of Oswald and that Billy whoever that was supposedly in the doorway, dressed exactly the same as Oswald. Sure looked like Oswald to me

[HFishbine]

121. "Sure looked like Oswald to me"

Ah. Okay. That helps explain.

[dennis4868]

35. I hope your post is a joke.....

very funny....hahahaha.....

[Texas_Dem]

40. Oh my gosh...

I leave for a few hours and look what happens conspiracies, counter conspiracies and such. <sigh>

You don't have to forge a document to prove * failed to show up for duty. Hell, he has failed to show up the past 4 years.

[alcuno]

42. Absolutely. Isn't it more likely than not that * was suspended?

After all, isn't that what's supposed to happen when you are a no show?

[Frodo]

54. I think we KNOW he was suspended from flying.

I'm pretty sure Bush has even admitted this.

[0rganism]

44. I get very different results when retyping the CYA document

12 pt. Times New Roman

1" margin at each side of 8" page

Here are some differences I noticed right off the bat:
1) The character spacing is different -- the first line in the original, for instance, has a slightly offset "m" in Memo, and the "i" touches the "F" as another poster noticed.

2) My first line wrapped like the original, but the second line did not. In the original, the third line starts on "Bush's" and my retype starts the third line on "OETR".

3) The "7" in "187th" has a tail in the original that drops slightly below the line, whereas my MSWord version does not.

4) The superscript "th" in the original rises above the preceding numerals. On MSWord, it's balanced at the same level as the numerals.

5) The non-uniform shading of various letters (e.g. the consecutive "s" in "message" and "pressured", et al) is indicative of a worn actuator on the (frequently used) s key and would be difficult to reproduce with a word processor.

So be careful what you choose to believe!

[Pobeka]

46. Bad news for * either way. Pick your story:

A) Document is legit -- proves Bush avoided draft by pressure applied from his political connections.

B) Document is forgery -- this can become the basis of an allegation that the whitehouse continues to deceive the public by lying to us, sometimes in very clever ways.

[dweller]

47. that damned ANDY ROONEY did it!

he hates us for our freedoms too.

dp

[Cogito ergo doleo]

48. Not Times New Roman

The font is not remotely the same:

[Guaranteed]

53. Well done.

You're absolutely right. I was thinking the same thing.

I was also looking at the superscript, and it comes out differently, too.

[Walt Starr]

55. Do me a favor and compare a 1 in Times New Roman to this document

OOPS, that difference is pretty blatant WITHOUT blowing it up.

:evilgrin:

[enigmatic]

58. Thank You.

I've been watching this thread in a way you would a trainwreck; I hope this puts the whole forgery BS thing to rest.

[zaj]

70. What is this???

[Walt Starr]

75. A blowup of the "2"

First in the document, then in computer generated fonts.

[Imalittleteapot]

50. I've typed it in Word. I've typed in Quark. I've made pdfs.

I've compared all to the memo pdf. After enlarging my documents and the pdf, the only similarity I see is in the Word line break. Otherwise, the asenders and decenders are different. The letter spacing is different. The pdf looks typed on a typewritter to me.
And I selected Times and Times New Roman. Still no similarities in the spacing style. The end.

[Cogito ergo doleo]

56. It does look typed

How else could the r's be so different.

[Guaranteed]

57. The superscript is DEFINITELY not the same

in Times New Roman. You can see how in the document the "th" is well above where it appears in text on Word.

Also, are they saying that this was done with a typewriter? This could clearly not be done with a computer....look at the second "m" in "Memo"...it's all crooked.

[Protected]

60. Print it out and see what happens to the superscript

There's some interesting superimposed images of a printed Word document and the PDF that CBS released here:

http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog

[Walt Starr]

65. Been there, done that, used their document

Didn't match "exactly". In fact, the fonts are quite different and the letters simply do not line up.

[Must_B_Free]

72. Damn!

this is the pdf and word superimposed.

[Walt Starr]

77. BULLSHIT

Anybody can do that crap. Come off it, that's a "superimposed" piece of shit from Little Green Footballs.

You're barking up the wrong tree! I can do that with ANY document from the Bush files.

[Must_B_Free]

91. What is the known character of this site

and are you sure that their "superimposed" image is a fraud? On what basis?

[Protected]

114. I recreated it myself using their Word document:

http://mywebpage.netscape.com/eljay001/bushdoc.html

Feel free to call me a Freeper/idiot/whatever.

[HFishbine]

122. I'm still thinking

But I've ruled out "whatever."

[aintitfunny]

145. I re-typed one of the docs

in Word and could not force the Subscript/Superscript, whatever the hell script NOT to occur when typing 1st - In the document 1st Lt. is not subscript but when I type it in Word it automatically performs this function. Cannot make it not do so. Also the same with 111th in the address heading. Mayhap there is a way around it in Word, but I could not find it. Otherwise could pretty much reproduce the document, but Times New Roman is Times New Roman.

Now I would like someone to attack Bush on real issues, such as the last four miserable f-ing years of his failed, crappy leadership.

[Onlooker]

59. Post your thoughts on the Freeper site

It will save them a lot of time, and lend credence to any claim of fairness they might make.

[brentspeak]

62. Q: Why does line four from paragraph 1 look so different?

The letters on that particular line look "taller" than the three lines above it and the one below it.

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/BushGuardaugust18.pdf

[Cogito ergo doleo]

74. It doesnt look different

All the inconsistencies are the same throughout.

[Must_B_Free]

86. Photocopiers and faxes can distort things

That could be one reason. Especially over multiple generations.

[Fridays Child]

63. Looking at all of this, I'm convinced they're not forged. What is CBS'...

...response to the forgery charge?

[Zen Democrat]

68. Fugeddaboudit - CBS stands by the memos.

Did you ever stop to think that CBS has originals from Killian's
personal files -- and a typewritten memo can be easily distinguished
from a word processed memo? Also, there's the matter of imprints on the paper -- and ink vs. cartridge carbon. CBS did tests to determine the authenticity of the documents.

Take a warm bath with candles and have a glass of wine.

[djg21]

82. I have to agree

CBS has to have something to substantiate the authenticity of the memos. If it doesn't, it has cost itself any credibility it had. Obviously, this wouldn't be good for a it's news division. CBS' story had to be thoroughly vetted!

[ima_sinnic]

69. absolutely not

I have been a typographer, like a couple of posters above, and the PDF was not created in "Word."

However, one thing I have learned over the years is that people outside of the field of graphic arts and typography do not see the subtleties of typefaces. You can run your test to your hearts content but unless your eye has been trained to see minute details, you're just not going to see them. If we could gather around a light table, put the two documents on top of each other and look through a loupe I could show you hundreds of inconsistencies. But, alas, we are confined to cyberspace so you'll just have to take my word for it. Leave the "forgery" theory to the dumb desperate freepers.

[Walt Starr]

73. The Little Green Footballs moron has no typography expertise

He has computer experience and computer generated type experience, but no typography experience.

He also hasn't been around very long because if he HAD he would know, Word PRocessors were designed to imitate that which they were replacing.

So OF COURSE you could get similar results in Word. Unfortunately, similar is NOT exact!

[Must_B_Free]

93. By the way, Walt

there was another picture of Bush with the medal pinned on in the 60 Minutes piece. I think he was wearing only one in that picture. Thought you might be interested in tracking it down.

[hexola]

138. LOL!!!

[Cogito ergo doleo]

78. Well said. n/t

[vivalarev]

71. This is a ridiculous fucking topic...

typing anything into microsoft word, copying and pasting anything into microsoft word, or opening anything into microsoft word automatically converts all the text to a default theme that is consistent with grammatical standards of today. Times New Roman is based on old style font. Microsoft modeled the font from old style typewriters.

to think that you could possibly do a comparison on these memos with microsoft word makes you all look like a bunch of fools.

and to think its a rovian conspiracy is as ridiculous as thinking that bushco launched a missle into the pentagon on 9/11.

they are real documents, printed out using modern equipment. rove was not behind it. you can now remove the tinfoil hats

[dweller]

85. are you sure?

i was kinda hoping a diabolical plot concocted by Andy Rooney forging them might catch on...

Earlier there was a thread about the 500+ posts over at FR about this same topic, trying to dispute/debunk/prove they were forgeries.

i'm beginning to think they overloaded their server space, and their 'crack(pot) team' has come over here to settle it once and for all.

:eyes:
dp

[Walt Starr]

79. Looks like the source for authentication would disagree with you

General Hodges was the final source for authenticating the documents:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x780217

Sorry, the docs are real.

[Guaranteed]

88. Are you sure that wasn't just someone POSING as General Hodges? nt

[Guaranteed]

90. BTW, folks, Walt's post here is THE proof we need.

That's the end of it.

Make sure everyone knows that.

<snip>

A senior CBS official, who asked not to be named because CBS managers did not want to go beyond their official statement, named one of the network's sources as retired Maj. Gen. Bobby W. Hodges, the immediate superior of the documents' alleged author, Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian. He said that a CBS reporter read the documents to Hodges over the phone, and that Hodges replied that "these are the things that Killian had expressed to me at the time."

"These documents represent what Killian not only was putting in memoranda, but was telling other people," the CBS News official said. "Journalistically, we've gone several extra miles."

<snip>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9967-2004Sep9.html

[seabeyond]

100. lol lol lol lol

funny you

[HFishbine]

123. It was an imposter.

I took the picture of the real General Hodges and superimposed it over a picture of the Gen. Hodges who supposedly authenticated and guess what? They match!

[zulchzulu]

83. All you have to do is get the original document used in CBS story

I love your scientific enthusiasm, but merely getting the original documents that were scanned or the original scans of the documents would suffice.

Yeah, we could Photoshop all day and make George Washington look like David Hasselhoff if we want.

You overestimate Rove. :->

[Clinton Crusader]

84. With what little faith I have left

in the media, I do not think Dan Rather would go on TV if there was one iota of evidence that any of this was fake. CBS is almost the only network left that questions anything this admin. does.

Read the other thread that CBS did alot of research and stands behind it. You dont see wingnuts questionning SBL's.

The supreme asshat did NOT fulfill his obligations. PERIOD! There may also be some 'community service' involved here for a crime.

The documents are real.

Just keep humming "Fortunate Son', take 2 aspirins and call us in the morning.
:kick:

[GingerSnaps]

89. We who?

:shrug:

[athena]

92. Look also at "Alabama" and "I will not rate".

"Alab" doesn't line up with "ama", and "I will" doesn't line up with "not rate". Even the "n" in "not rate" is slightly too low. You can also see this in "hodges", "more", "running", "message", "Staudt", "pushing", "rating" ... hell, nothing lines up! It's definitely been produced by a typewriter.

[Must_B_Free]

98. I know what you're saying - just like the Brady Bunch episode

Alice wrote the letters to Jan because she was also a middle child, and they id'ed her by the typewriter signature of the dropped e. But that would tend to be from the typewriters with the piano keys that got bent. The ball type would produce consistently linear type.

If you photocopy a photocopy, you get distortion. I wonder if some of this could be attributed to multiple generations of copy?

http://www.fa.hku.hk/DavidClarkePortfolio/photocopyprintsimages.htm

[athena]

107. Photocopying wouldn't produce the same effect.

It wouldn't systematically cause the ends of words to shift upwards. It would distort things randomly. The shifting of the baseline is the telltale sign that something was written on a typewriter.

Combine this with all the other points made earlier in the thread, and there is no way the thing was written on Word. Besides, as someone stated earlier, if someone wanted to forge documents, they wouldn't do it on Word; they'd just get a cheap old typewriter on eBay.

[footinmouth]

95. Are you all experts in type?

I'm jumping in kind of late. I just found this thread. I worked for a University in the late 60's and early 70's in a department that produced documents. We had many different machines at our disposal and they were all capable of doing super/sub scripting. We had different typefaces available and it was quite do-able to get things to look however you wanted them to look.

IBM Selectric Typewriters had the little type balls and the amount of pressure you put on the individual keys made no difference once it struck the paper. Since I never throw anything out, I still have mine somewhere down in my basement. Trust me when I say that super/sub scripting was available in the olden days. I made the money for the downpayment on our first house typing a document that was chuck full of equations on that machine and that was in the early 70's.

Comparing documents produced today with documents produced decades ago is not the proper way to prove a forgery.

[Must_B_Free]

106. get that damn thing out and retype one of the memos, please

it has finally found usefulness again!

I agree that the pressure made no difference in a ball typewriter, only in a lever kind.

[saracat]

96. Just Join the Bush Campaign will ya?

Stop trying to dirty "our" evidence. These are real documents that have been fully vetted and you think that DU and yourself are going to do a better job?
Fagedaboutit.We are right.We win .Relax.

[gospelized]

108. saracat

thank you!

they've been proven real by now. the people who insist on continuing to prove they're fake are raising questions about what they're really doing here.

[Gregorian]

97. Let's pull other documents, and see what they look like. DUH.

It should be very easy to confirm legitimacy. Just a starter would be to check for superscripts. This should take all of two days to silence.

[ContinentalOp]

99. I hate to kick this thread but...

I wanted to point out one thing that I haven't seen mentioned in any of these numerous threads. Some people seem to be claiming that the IBM typewriters that allowed for proportional spacing, superscript, and fancy fonts like Times were so expensive and rare that the military would never have them. First of all, I question the claim that these machines were really so rare but secondly, wouldn't a military office be one of the first places to have these kinds of high-priced typewriters? Especially in the office of some higher up officer type. There is no way these guys were typing their own memos and I'm sure their secretaries had the best equipment for producing important documents. Lower down the line they probably had cheaper typewriters to fill out standard forms and stuff like that. But wouldn't officers have a need to sometimes issue more polished, formal documents? And wouldn't a secretary who was trained to use proportional spacing and superscript features to produce professional looking documents get in the habit of doing that all of the time?

[Must_B_Free]

103. Random info

I worked in the school library as in the 80s, right before or maybe even during word processors, we had some typewriters that I recall had a little LCD screen and almost acted like a word processor buffer. They could do fancy things like not force you to wrap words, I believe. They could erase letters well; I think they struck them out with a whiteout band.

The older ones from the 70s however, were those big heavy green or maroon ones that had a ball, but not too many fancy features. The had the bell to let you know you were near the margin. I think you had to hit the return key to return the carriage. I seem to remember them having more courier font, but I suppose the ball was interchangeable.

Proportional spacing is not something I would associate with the early 70s standard office equipment, although I believe it was possible, just not probable.

I seem to recall that with the first computer word processors you used a daisy wheel printer for typewriter style results; before laser printers. That would have been in the early 80s.

[ContinentalOp]

109. Sigh...

"Proportional spacing is not something I would associate with the early 70s standard office equipment, although I believe it was possible, just not probable."

It's not a matter of "belief" as it's already been established that these features were possible in the '70s. The question is whether the military would have had such typewriters and my feeling is: of course they would!

No offense, but your references to school libraries are laughably irrelevant. Some school libraries may still be using the early '80s word processors you describe :) My point was the military (you know, the folks with the $500 hammers and toilet seats) would have certainly had the finest typewriters available. Especially in the office of an officer who probably had to issue professional looking documents all of the time. Perhaps there was even some type of secretarial pool with a few fancy machines and typists shared by several officers. What is so hard to believe about that?

[Cogito ergo doleo]

117. IBM Selectrics had proportional spacing 1970's

Just read an article linked from Drudge.

"There are several reasons these experts are skeptical of the authenticity of the Killian memos. First the typographic spacing is proportional, as is routine with professional typesetting and computer typography, not monospace, as was common in typewriters in the 1970s. (In proportional type, thin letters like "i" and "l" are spaced closer together than thick letters like "W" and "M". In monospace, all the letter widths are the same.)"

"Third, the apostrophes are curlicues of the sort produced by word processors on personal computers, not the straight vertical hashmarks typical of typewriters."

http://weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=4596&R=9FCD2F192

I'm not a typewriter expert, but IBM selectrics were common. I don't know what all they had on the type balls but maybe they had superscript? They had curly apostrophes as seen on the list (link below).

http://www.ibmtypewriters.com/type.html (scroll to the bottom to see the legend where it mentions proportional spacing)

http://www.etypewriters.com/history.htm (dates and models of selectrics)

[footinmouth]

118. They most certainly did

The selectrics had many different type balls to choose from. They were capable of a great deal of special typing. Proportional spacing was readily available in those days as were super/sub scripts.

There was also a machine called a "justowriter" or something like that. It had several typefaces available and you typed into a paper punch tape. Then you could print it out in the typeface of your choice. I was working in a state university in the late 60's/early 70's and these machines were probably common in government agencies.

You can probably find both machines in the Smithsonian now, but they were rather common back in the old days.

[DemBones DemBones]

124. I thought there would never be anything better than an IBM

Selectric. Granted, I was 20 when I first used one. But they were revolutionary machines.

Then came Word Processing. What? Cut and paste text using your "typewriter" keyboard, who'd have thought it?

[Bridget Burke]

125. From your 1980's experience, you tell us about the 1970's?

I worked in different office environments in the 1970's & used typewriters with proportional fonts. And you "suppose the ball was interchangeable" on some? Yes, of course. They were IBM selectrics.

Showing my age.

[sandnsea]

128. "suppose the ball was interchangeable"

LOL, out of the mouths of babes. I don't think we could pass typing class without knowing how to do superscript, could we? Showing my age too, I can't remember what I had for dinner last night, let alone how I typed in the 70's. But this memo looks fine to me, nothing in there that I couldn't do at 18 years old.

[henslee]

134. Hey, I kept my selectric balls for years, long after my red selectric

broke and was no longer worth fixing. They used to cost big bucks! And I remember how the new "correcting ribbon" selectrics made my non correcting one obsolete. And I now proudly own a big white eighties style daisywheel IBM that has a green flip up led screen that displays the last line of text for correcting. It is still manufactured but not by IBM and it is still worth about 500. bucks and is expensive to fix.

[girl gone mad]

110. I understand why the Freeepers are playing this game.

But why are we?

Let them waste their time with this kind of conspiracy theory garbage. Here's our opportunity to do some damage while they are busy doing damage control.

[SoCalDemocrat]

112. So Times New Roman is what was on the typewriter head

I don't think Microsoft invented Times Roman font. If you research it, I'm sure you'll discover that it predates the typewriter used to type this report. I'm not ruling out forgery, just pointing out that your test proves nothing.

I believe the document was typed on an IBM Selectric II. Why don't we just have the President refute this article as a forgery if the content is in fact innacurate? That's exactly what the swifties demanded from Kerry, we should demand the same standard be applied here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Selectric_typewriter



The Selectric typewriter was first released in 1961 and is generally considered to be a design classic. After the Selectric II was introduced a few years later, the original design was designated the Selectric I. The Correcting Selectric II differed from the Selectric I in many respects:

The Selectric II was squarer at the corners, whereas the Selectric I was rounder.

The Selectric II had a Dual Pitch option to allow it to be switched (with a lever at the top left of the "carriage") between 10 and 12 characters per inch, whereas the Selectric I had one fixed "pitch".

The Selectric II had a lever (at the top left of the "carriage") that allowed characters to be shifted up to a half space to the left (for inserting a word one character longer or shorter in place of a deleted mistake), whereas the Selectric I did not.

The Selectric II had optional auto-correction (with the extra key at the bottom right of the keyboard), whereas the Selectric I did not. (The white correction tape was at the left of the typeball and its orange take-up spool at the right of the typeball.)

The Selectric II had a lever (above the right platen knob) that would allow the platen to be turned freely but return to the same vertical line (for inserting such symbols as subscripts and superscripts), whereas the Selectric I did not.

[fob]

147. How do you type the "th" superscript, we have a Selectric II here

in our office! I'll try and retype if someone can tell me how to type the superscript, I don't wanna be there in plain view trying to figure it out. There's a lot of eeperfray types about, IYKWIM.

[ibegurpard]

113. Oh good GOD!

Stop and think for a moment...IF it were discovered that they were a forgery then the media would HOT after the story of who did it and why. The blowback from that would be bigger than the actual story.

[GaryL]

116. What crap.

The issue is are they believable? Hell yes. And what the fuck does a wife or son for that matter really know about husband/dad. Well shit, let's ask Hillary. What's really Rovian is to suggest the documents are fake. Chimp has been an underachiever his whole goddamn life, much to our pain, so why would they NOT be authentic?

[phish420]

127. I agree...Rove Implant...nt

[saracat]

131. Yeah and the pilot logs that they just released

that prove he couldn't fly worth shit are also forgeries! And BTW . I had an Uncle who was an IBM exec involved with the military in the 1970's and the IBM selectric was everywhere.!

[Junkdrawer]

140. And funny how *someone* knew to post the documents at FreeRepublic...

and dissect the documents for forgeries.

I think Rove used the FreeRepublic to recruit the Swift Boat liars, and I think he would use the FreeRepublic to "expose" the forgeries.

PS: I've look up CBS's supposed insider who confirmed and verified the documents: retired Maj. Gen. Bobby W. Hodges:

At OpenSecrets.org, his only political contribution was to a conservative Republican congressman.

[NJmaverick]

141. Here is the IBM selectric font that was used for the memo

[henslee]

149. Cant resist a kick.

[devinsgram]

150. This has already been debunked.

[John_H]

151. if it were that easy to tell, hex--er Must_be_free, document experts

wouldn't be disagreeing about this.

[BurtWorm]

152. I agree with you. This is from Rove.

Fortunate Son describes a scene between Hatfield and "The Man from Eufala" (whom Sander Hicks, publisher of Soft Skull, identifies as Karl Rove) in which Hatfield is taken out in a boat into the middle of an Oklahoma Lake and told the ugly truth about Bush--how he has never worked for anything in his life, how everything comes so easily to him, how he even gets out of jail free for crimes that would ruin an ordinary guy. Then the "Man from Eufala" makes clear without saying a word, after suggesting Hatfield just get used to the injustice of it, that it would be very easy to dispose of him, right then and there, in the middle of Lake Eufala.

Rove knows all about Bush's weaknesses. But he uses them as strengths, the way he uses other people's strengths as if they were weaknesses.

[frank frankly]

153. and I think you've lost ALL credibility here, at least with me

sorry, but you are a SUCKER. or worse.