So what evidence remains that the memos were forged?

[rumguy]

I'll admit I have not followed this story as closely as others. But a cursory glance through right-wing and right-wing leaning blogs shows that they are utterly convinced that they are forgeries. Even Andy Sullivan and newly converted Bush-basher is for all intents and purposes convinced they are forgeries. He says Rather should be fired. Instapundit is echoing Hugh Hewitt saying there should be congressional hearings!

So - what is the evidence they have that makes them so convinced? Could someone fill me in on the essential points in this controversy, please?

And why can't this be solved easily? Why can't CBS get the worlds' top experts together and have them look at the documents?

Also - where are the originals? Where did CBS get them? Can't the pentagon go back through Bush's files and see if the originals are there?

I can't believe that this 'mystery' can't be solved fairly easily!

[benburch]

1. It has been solved.

The memoes are genuine, but NO amount of proof will derail the assertion that they are not because to admit to this would be the end of Bush's chances, and they know it.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

2. There is no evidence they were forged

The CBS report last night provided plenty of evidence that they weren't.

[hexola]

23. But is there any info that says they are authentic...?

Proving something is not a forgery and proving it authentic are different...

"No evidence of forgery" does not equal "Memos are real"

[Proud2BAmurkin]

33. CBS stands by them and CBS isn't sloppy.

Until there is a reason to doubt their authenticity there is no reason to doubt their authenticity.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

82. The burden of proof lies on those doing the accusing

we don't have to prove them to be authentic, THEY have to prove them to be forgeries.

And they have not.

[greenohio]

We need to stop defending Dan...

This is a loser for us. Proportional spacing and superscripting aside, the type doesn't match the other 100 documents from that office. We can't fall into the trap of tying Kerry's campaign to whether or not these docs a real.

When repukes bring it up, we should tell them they are petty and should be talking about the issues. What's shrimps plan for health care.

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

[hexola]

63. Wow - are we screwing Kerry?

Tying the campaing to this nonsense may be the goal...good point...yikes...!

[Qutzupalotl]

89. That's easy. Different typewriter.

Lots of offices had different kinds of typewriters.

From your link:
Newcomer said he had produced virtually exact replicas of the CBS documents using Microsoft Word formatting and the Times New Roman font.

Uh, really?

[greenohio]

90. OK so 100 docs produced with...

normal, equal spaced characters and 5 docs produced with proportional spaced characters. Surely these aren't the only five docs from that typewriter. It should be relatively easy to get at least one original from that office from that typewriter. We've managed to come with 100 from all the other typewriters.

The point, once again, is mute.

Those Kerry supporters arguing the docs are real are allowing rove and co to distract the debate from the issues. We can praise Dan Rather for his superscript research. But it is a waste of time, and it makes it look like we need these docs to be real.

[Qutzupalotl]

104. Not true--your cited article is incorrect.

It's filled with inaccuracies, in fact.

[greenohio]

106. Washington Post or Rather

You believe Dan and not the Washington Post, or the AP or USA Today. Fine. I don't trust any of them.

Lets move on people. Let the geeky freepers spend their time talking about fonts and superscript. We should talk about health care, jobs and national security.

[Qutzupalotl]

110. Then do it.

Why are you posting on this thread if you want to talk about something else?

[greenohio]

112. Why are you replying to posts?

I reply who to people who reply to my posts. If you want me to stop posting, stop replying.

Shoot, half the threads are about this stupid thing. Seems like all the activity is on Times New Roman threads.

[greenohio]

113. Why are you replying to posts?

I reply to people who reply to my posts. If you want me to stop posting, stop replying.

Shoot, half the threads are about this stupid thing. Seems like all the activity is on Times New Roman threads.

[Qutzupalotl]

114. Because you're wrong,

maybe?

[spanone]

103. This isn't Kerry VS. Bushco this is CBS VS. Bushco

Let 'em duke it out!

[murielm99]

3. CBS should tell them that they will reveal their sources

when Novak comes clean about Plame.

[the Kelly Gang]

4. every single report of 'forgery' can be dismissed because none

of these people have seen or handled the orginal documents.

As one claim of 'proof' is shot down..like the typewriter and typset, they find another..it's a fishing expedition..basically they are all talking out of their arses.

[Zero Division]

109. Exactly, but few seem to have even heard this IMPORTANT point

I made a post in another thread here with links to an anonymous commenter on another site with a very detailed explanation of why the original documents are absolutely necessary to determine things like proportional type. It's also apparent that the changes that occur in the copies make it easier to type out a document in MSWord that looks like the copied document.

Links:
http://wwwhaloscan.com/comments.php?user=atrios&comment=109508940796305899#1010385
http://www.haloscan.com/comments.php?user=atrios&comment=109508940796305899#1010386

I'm willing to bet there are experts on typography out there who would agree with this, but they've been lost in the "Right Wing Noise Machine".

[Spazito]

5. There NEVER was any "evidence", imo, only speculation...

designed to divert from the content of the memos. Evidence implies something concrete offered, none was offered.

CBS does not have to prove anything, those who claim forgery do and they have provided nothing, nothing that could be classified as credible.

[Ducks In A Row]

6. since there was never any proof, since they're not forged...

zero.

[Nederland]

7. Here you go

Despite what you hear at DU, the evidence of forgery remains compelling because no one has been able to produce a document using a typewriter that matches the CYA memo. By contrast, RW bloggers have shown they can easily produce a document that matches the CYA memo exactly using MS Word. The closest anyone has come to producing a document that matches the CYA memo using a typewriter of that era was done using a IBM Composer. The result is here:



As you can see, the result is no where near as close a match as the MS Word produced doc. As I have repeated said, until someone at CBS or elsewhere can produce a document that matches the CYA memo using 1970's era machinery, this issue will not go away.

[rumguy]

9. Do we know exactly what kind of typewriter it was

I hear IBM Selectric or something like that - how would we even know the exact kind of typewriter used?

There must have been thousands upon thousands of different typewriters in use back then.

[Nederland]

11. No

And you are correct in asserting that it is the problem that there are thousand of different typewriters used back then. However, the political problem is simple:

The RW has produced a MS Word document that matches the CYA memo exactly, and we have produced nothing. Nothing.

Despite what people around here are claiming, the burden of proof is now on us. So long as the RW can produce a document that matches and we cannot, nobody is going to believe us. That's the bottom line.

On the other hand, even if the documents are fake, that doesn't necessarily mean RW dirty tricks aren't at work. Skinner is talking about this possibility right now here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x809521

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

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

[Nederland]

21. Response

Its a hell of a lot closer than anything the Composer or Selectric has produced. That's all that matters.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

25. The composer isn't EXPECTED to produce anything close to an exact match

What's your point?

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

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

[rumguy]

29. Why not just line up the world's top experts on this?

I'm sure that this kind of issue arises in court cases all the time.

And who on our side is actively trying to find a typewriter that produces a similar result?

So as far as I can tell - the superscript criticism was shot down, along with the fact that Times New Roman didn't exist back then - right? Both of those were pretty solidly shot down?

So it's the fact that MS Word can produces a close copy - that's the last remaining leg they have to stand on, right?

[SemperEadem]

91. Photoshop could do it, too...

in fact, it would do a whole lot better job of spacing between words and individual letters than Word ever could... I don't think that MS Word produces a very convincing refute to the docs CBS has not being real.

I'm not convinced that they are forgeries. Dan Rather isn't a Bill O'Rafice--pimping lies to push fear onto a grateful viewing audience.

[LynnTheDem]

60. No they have not

MS Word DOES NOT MATCH; not exactly, not at all.

[Nederland]

80. Response

Not exactly I agree with. But to say that don't match at all? Judge for yourself:



Original in black, MS Word in red.

[Qutzupalotl]

92. WRONG.

That's not a match. Look at the letterspacing around P.O. Look at the top of the capital I. Look at the height of the crossbar of the t.

[athena]

105. Precisely!

As soon as you zoom into any of these documents, you begin to notice a shifting baseline. There is no way to get such an effect in Word, or any other text editor. The shifting baseline is caused by the paper shifting slightly during the typing -- you can see it very clearly in the word "Texas" in the example.

The shifting baseline is all that's needed to debunk the ridiculous allegation that the documents were made on a computer text editor. But of course, the RW pretends not to hear any of this.

[Qutzupalotl]

111. Or says we should "move on"

now that we've caught them in a lie.

[Beetwasher]

115. Look At The Capital "H" on Houston, the bottom left corner

That sort of imperfection is precisely what you get from a typewriter and extremely difficult, if not practically impossible to reproduce in Word.

How incredibly dishonest of our "friend" to post that little sample the way he did. So small as to hide the imperfections. Very, very dishonest.

[Nicholas_J]

71. You dont know the military

They order in bulk, and throw out in bulk. It has been indicated by purchase order that the Air Force startted using the selectric composer for its memos in 1969. THe government tends to standardinze all of its equipment, rather than us one type of equipment in one place, and another type elsewhere.

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

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

[Proud2BAmurkin]

10. CBS demolished MS Word argument

go find another old memo typed on ibm composer, copy it a few times, type it up on an ibm composer, and show your results here.

The old typewriter technologies meant that the balls got loose, shifted positions, etc. No two lines of text would be in exact same positions between typewriters or on the SAME typewriter over time.

[Nederland]

13. Already Done that

go find another old memo typed on ibm composer, copy it a few times, type it up on an ibm composer, and show your results here

The results are in post #7

[Proud2BAmurkin]

22. Those are both typed on composers?

They don't match, which is to be expected.

[hexola]

46. Wasn't their an issue with the Word Wrap fuction...

Like the documents were created with Word Wrap "on" - was that debunked...?

[Beetwasher]

12. This is the dumbest argument ever

First of all, the MS word docs are not even close to being EXACT. Your argument means essentially that ALL documents created back then are forgeries because they ALL can be duplicated to some degree using MS word.

Unless you have the typewriter that the memo was actually written on (and I mean the EXACT, SPECIFIC typewriter), you will never duplicate exactly and even if you did have it, it would still not be exact. Those old machines had idiosyncracies that changed over time because they had mechanical moving parts that wore down etc.

The memo was obviously typed on a typewriter as is evident from the idiosyncracies in the document that were produced by paper shifting and ribbon smudges etc. These things can not be duplicated w/ MS Word.

[Nederland]

16. You can believe what you want

But as Skinner has pointed out, outside the partisan world of DU, we are losing this argument.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

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

[Nederland]

47. Works for me

I like the idea of letting Skinner speak for himself. Here is what he is saying right now:

Proud2BAmurkin (821 posts) Tue Sep-14-04 11:37 AM
Response to Original message

50. "This story has legs because there is obviously something to it"?


You must be joking.

As for experts, haven't you seen the DUers who have exposed them as Repuke activists and shills

There are also experts that say the "forgery" experts are full of crap. Last night's CBS report buried the claims and showed that a word processor would be completely out of the question.


Skinner ADMIN (1000+ posts) Tue Sep-14-04 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #50

52. Unfortunately, he's got a point.

The reason this story has not gone away is because the RW spin actually is compelling.

Proud2BAmurkin (821 posts) Tue Sep-14-04 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #52

55. What part is compelling?

Edited on Tue Sep-14-04 11:50 AM by Proud2BAmurkin
That's a serious question.

I took his post to mean there is something genuinely compelling about the rw claims, not that the rw claims are compelling because people are gullible.

Skinner ADMIN (1000+ posts) Tue Sep-14-04 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #55

70. They are compelling


because the memos do actually look quite similar to something created with Microsoft Word.

I'm not saying that they were created with Microsoft Word. But this story has legs because they look very similar to documents created with Microsoft Word. The media keeps running with this story because they find the argument compelling, and because it suggests something even sexier: Democratic Dirty Tricks.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x809521#809758

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

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

[Nederland]

67. Reponse

At a loss to argue the facts, you resort to personal attacks. Goodbye.

[Beetwasher]

74. LOL!!! My Posts are Filled W/ Facts You Can't Refute! Yes, Run Away!!

Bwhahahahaha!

[Proud2BAmurkin]

78. Skinner didn't say he thought the documents were fake.

He merely acknowledges the repukes have clouded the issue. Lots of enablers on our side have helped them.

Skinner writes......

"CBS believes that the documents are real.

And -- my conspiratorial rantings here notwithstanding -- I do trust their judgement on this. Unfortunately, many in the media do not.

You are correct that this (in the mind of the media, at least) has made all criticism of Bush's Guard Service suspect."

[Nederland]

81. True

But unlike people on this thread, he does believe the evidence of forgery is "compelling". That's far from the dismissive attitude of many people here at DU.

[Qutzupalotl]

93. In other words, Skinner's saying that the lie is clever and devious.

So what does that prove?

By the way...they weren't created in Word. Check my posts.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

17. Exactly. Odds of getting two matching composer documents are ZERO

due to mechanical moving parts that shift, loosen. Anything from the ball to the paper holder.

[rumguy]

18. there are ribbon smudges and other things that indicate a typewriter?

[Beetwasher]

27. Yup

If you look at the date at the top of the memo, you can see the bottoms of the numbers in the date don't line up because the paper probably moved a bit...

[rumguy]

34. Now that's the kind of stuff that's important - at least it

seems as if it would...

How do the the right-wing blogs deal with the fact there are smudges that indicate a typewriter?

[Beetwasher]

38. They Ignore It

n/t

[LiberalFighter]

107. FBI has always testified in courts that a particular typewriter...

was used for a document.

Does that mean it isn't true? Hmmm Maybe all those experts were lying.


You are right... typewriters were and became unique in their characteristics. They would change depending on the individual(s) that used the machine... the type of documents typed... and maintance on the machine.

[benburch]

19. Bullshit.

That is a really weak argument.

1. Of course you can make something that looks like this with Word!!! That was the design goal of the Word Processor; Make something that creates output just like a high end typewriter with the ease of computer editing.

2. You assume that anybody has made a concerted effort to re-create these documents, which I sincerely doubt. I also sincerely doubt that would be accepted as proof of anything, and in fact, would then be cited as "proving" that the documents were a modern forgery made on an old typer.

No, these documents are 100% true and authentic. The administration has NEVER denied them, and surely they would if they did not know them to be real.

[democrat in Tallahassee]

39. weren't there different balls for those typewriters, how do you know

what he used and I did see a document yesterday where you could not tell the word doc from the typewritten doc. Don't ask me where I saw it though.

[allemand]

62. You should quote exactly where this "result" comes from !

"Rather than asking Gerry to cough me up another sample, I simply split the lines of type apart in Photoshop and slid them down to align with the baselines of the corresponding lines of type in the original. Here's the adjusted version."

And you should have quoted the guy who actually did the typing:

"Yes, if I had really tried, I could have matched the spacing (leading). The leading on the composer can be finely adjusted. Don't know if it is down to the single point level, but it probably is since you can set the leading according to the font, and the leading dial goes from something like 6pt up to 14pt."

And it's always advisable to link to your sources:
http://shapeofdays.typepad.com/the_shape_of_days/2004/09/the_ibm_selectr.html

[Nederland]

83. Thank you

I posted the version that was vertically aligned to be generous. In reality, the document produced by the Composer machine wasn't even close to the CBS document because of vertical discrepencies. The version I linked to manually did vertical alignment using Photoshop in order to prove that even if you followed the steps recommended by the typist (i.e. matching the leading), you would still end up with a document that doesn't match.

Here is the original Composer doc:



Here is the Composer doc after using photoshop to try fix the vertical alignment:




As you can see, you can't even make the documents line up correctly even when you cheat and use Photoshop.

[allemand]

85. You are missing the point

Photoshop is absolutely irrelevant here. The important part is the quote of the guy who owns the Selectric Composer:

"Yes, if I had really tried, I could have matched the spacing (leading). The leading on the composer can be finely adjusted. Don't know if it is down to the single point level, but it probably is since you can set the leading according to the font, and the leading dial goes from something like 6pt up to 14pt."

So he could have reproduced it almost exactly.

Please note that the size of the letters is clearly different, as you can see in the line "appointment and additional". The size is different, but the typeface is remarkably similar. One can also easily see the distortions probably caused by the scanning process.

[Nederland]

86. Then let him

If he says he can reproduce the document exactly, let him do it and post the results for everyone to see. This "I can do it just trust me" attitude isn't going to fly.

[allemand]

88. I think that in the end only a scientific analysis will tell if the memos

are forgeries or not. CBS should make the best copies available for such an analysis (and maybe IBM should make a Selectric Composer available).

I am willing to accept the results of such an investigation, but I don't want to jump to conclusions on the basis of amateurism and speculation.

[Nederland]

95. Agreed (nt)

[SemperEadem]

98. another way to shut it down...

forensically test the ink in both documents. Printer ink and typewriter ribbon ink from that era, I'm sure, have different chemical qualities that would prove the authenticity of the documents which CBS has obtained.

[girl gone mad]

96. He left our a comma...

after May on the 2nd line.

[bobbyboucher]

97. Oh gawd. You're saying some tool forged them with microsoft word?

That someone thought they could get away with that? Get a fucking clue. This stinks to high heaven and not because the docs are forged.

What you posted proves not a goddamn thing.

[hippiegranny]

8. Pickles said so

that's good enough for many people, I'm sure.

[Sparkly]

15. Are there contemporaneous files available for comparison

from the same office, ideally?

[rumguy]

20. exactly - there must be

[Shrek]

30. Washington Post did some sort of comparison

And found some other troubling inconsistencies as well.

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

A detailed examination of the CBS documents beside authenticated Killian memos and other documents generated by Bush's 147th Fighter Interceptor Group suggests at least three areas of difference that are difficult to reconcile:

• Word-processing techniques. Of more than 100 records made available by the 147th Group and the Texas Air National Guard, none used the proportional spacing techniques characteristic of the CBS documents. Nor did they use a superscripted "th" in expressions such as "147th Group" and or "111th Fighter Intercept Squadron."

[wuushew]

55. The Killian memos were compared to documents Bush already released

the superscipted th was present in those documents as well, as reported in last Fridays CBS nightly news.

If that document is so clearly a forgery then someone at the Whitehouse is forging government miltiary records and is committing a crime. Why would Chimp be taking the danger of committing a Nixonian mistake? I mean which is it, is Rove a genius or an idiot?

[Qutzupalotl]

94. The "expert" in that WP article is bogus.

Newcomer may have the credentials he claims, but he's obfuscating with bullshit arguments.

In fact, say Newcomer and other experts, the document aired by CBS News does not contain a superscript, because the top of the "th" character is at the same level as the rest of the type. Superscripts rise above the level of the type.
NOT TRUE--he doesn't know what the f**k he's talking about. The "th" has only to sit above the baseline in order to be a superscript. It doesn't have to rise above the cap height.

Besides, the "th" was A DEDICATED CHARACTER ON THE TYPEWRITER, not something created by raising the platen and typing a "t" and an "h". That is what was proved in CBS' document from 1968. The one from 1973 rises higher. So?

And it was definitely not a Word document. Word's superscript is lower:


Of more than 100 records made available by the 147th Group and the Texas Air National Guard, none used the proportional spacing techniques characteristic of the CBS documents.
That's just a LIE. Lots of the documents have proportional spacing.

[partygirl]

26. This is probably a dumb question

but is the burden of proof on the people that are trying to prove it is legit or the people who are trying to prove they are forged?

[Beetwasher]

32. The burden is on the one's making the claim

You claim forgery, you must provide concrete evidence. That doesn't mean "Well it COULD have been done this way, therefore it's a forgery! Prove it's not!" It's almost impossible to prove it's NOT a forgery. They could always claime "Well, it's just a perfect forgery!"

That's like saying "We know a moon landing COULD be faked, therefore NASA must prove it WASN'T faked!"

[Proud2BAmurkin]

35. yup.

eom

[hexola]

43. What about OUR claim....are we exonerated from that logic?

[Beetwasher]

44. "Our" Claim?

CBS did extensive research, interviews etc. and the documents were one part of a preponderance of evidence.

The evidence of forgeries is non-existent.

Should every document created back then be considered a forgery until it's proven otherwise? They can ALL be duplicated now with word processors, so, are they ALL forgeries?

[Nederland]

37. The burden is on CBS

To say that a news organization should be believed without question and without proving their case is idiotic. CBS has been fooled by fake documents before, so its not like they are infallible.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

40. CBS's word on authenticity is better than zero evidence of forgery

.

[Nederland]

49. There is not "Zero" evidence of forgery

There is a MS Word document that matches the CYA memo and absolutely nothing the matches the CYA memo produced by a typewriter.

That's evidence that must be refuted.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

53. Wrong, MS word can be programmed to match ANYTHING, but

no two TYPEWRITER documents will ever match.

[Nederland]

66. True

You'll never get an exact match. But you will get a match more closely than anything we've seen so far from a typewriter. So far, nothing from a typewriter even comes close to the CYA memo. Moreover, the evidence doesn't end with the MS Word doc. The points also being raised are:

1) The existence of kerning, impossible with typewriters.
2) The centered memo heading is an exactly match to another document and looks like it was lifted.
3) The military terms of the memo do not match TANG standards, nor do they match the other documents CBS provided.
4) The date of the memo is well after Staudt left the guard.
5) Bush's address is incorrect and differs from the other docs.

I could go on and on but I'm beginning to feel like people around here just don't get it. If you are looking for absolute proof of forgery you will not get it. However, there comes a time when the preponderance of evidence will convince the average (read: non-DUer) that the documents are fake. With respectable newspapers like the Washington Post and the New York Times looking into this, we are approaching that point now, only fools will deny it.

[Beetwasher]

70. More Crap

There have been plenty of typewriter examples that do come close.

"1) The existence of kerning, impossible with typewriters."

And there was no kerning in the document. Only blurry, smudged generation removed electronic copies or possibly paper movement or a mechanical wear. Lot's of explanations for the supposed kerning.

"2) The centered memo heading is an exactly match to another document and looks like it was lifted."

This is one of the dumbest things ever. Ever hear of letterhead? They typed one and copied it for every memo. Duh!

"3) The military terms of the memo do not match TANG standards, nor do they match the other documents CBS provided."

Bullshit. The terminology is perfectly consistent with other docs fromt the era. Back this claim up with something other than freeper websites.

"4) The date of the memo is well after Staudt left the guard."

Was Barnes ever in the guard? He was the one who pulled strings to get Bush in. Staudt, after having served as a full Colonel still had pull. This is an incredibly stupid argument.

"5) Bush's address is incorrect and differs from the other docs."

Damn, then that's one really stupid forger.

You have yet to explain the idiosyncracies that appear that are evidence of the doc being written on a typewriter. Such as the non-alignment (up/down) of certain characters due to paper shifting or ribbon smudges.

Pathetic bullshit.

[LiberalFighter]

108. Incorrect address??? I don't think so

Dec 1953 -Begin Midland TX 79701 *Military
Jun 1959 -End Midland TX 79701 *Military
Jun 1959 -Begin Houston TX 77027 <5525 Briar Dr> *Military
1965 -Houston TX 77027 <5525 Briar Dr> Studt *Polk
1966 -Houston TX 77027 <5525 Briar Dr> Studt *Polk
Jan 1967 -End Houston TX 77027 <5525 Briar Dr> *Military
1967 -Houston TX 77027 <5525 Briar Dr> Studt *Polk
1968 -Houston TX 77027 <5000 Longmont Apt 8> *Military
1970 -Houston TX <5320 Beverly Hill St Apt 29A > *Polk
1971 -Houston TX <5320 Beverly Hill St Apt 29A> *Polk
1972 -Houston TX <2910 Westheimer Rd Apt 4> *Polk
1972 -Houston TX <2910 Westheimer Rd Apt 4> *Payroll
1973 -Houston TX <2910 Westheimer Rd Apt 4> *Payroll
1973 -
1974 -
1975 -
1976 -Midland TX <2006 A Harvard> *Polk
1977 -Midland TX <2006 A Harvard> *Polk
1978 -Midland TX <1405 W Golf Course Rd> *Polk


The address that the document refers to is 5000 Longmont #8 Houston Texas.

I believe that was the address for his daddy

[LynnTheDem]

65. No

It DOES NOT MATCH MS Word.

Sheesh.

[benburch]

73. Bullshit again

A totally bogus argument, I'm afraid.

I and others have pointed out that of course Word (and any other word processor with the right font) can make something strikingly like these results - That was the design goal for the word processor and the font rendering system.

No, I have to doubt your motives in continuing with this assertion, which you must know to be specious.

[wuushew]

41. A logical person would accept them as legit lacking evidence of forgery

The Niger forgeries were proven to be false by checking the facts of references listed in that document with other sources. In that case it was a very very bad forgery.


The appearance, content, source and timing of these documents clearly invite the acceptance of them as genuine. Lacking specific evidence of the personnel involved, incorrect content or other inconsistencies there is no basis to accept them as anything other than real.


If one was to carryout this spurious method of thought then no document ever published or read by anyone could be accepted as valid. How do I know that my tax return is the real deal? or that my newspaper is? If someone even had the ability via an old typewriter or word processor how does the ability to duplicate closely the appearance of a document lead to the conclusion that said document is not legit?

[hexola]

42. Thats my hangup too...

The have to provide some testimony to their authenticity...if they don't - well why wouldn't they forge them to suit their needs...

[greenohio]

48. Doesn't Matter

This isn't a court of law so the rules aren't cut and dried. It's the court of public opinion and the "common perception" is all that matters. Right now, the common perception is that they are suspect.

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

Shoot proportional spacing and superscript aside, the type doesn't match the other 100 docs from that office. He may have used a special typewriter, but it looks suspect.

Regardless who leaked them or whether or not they are real, this is beginning to be a loser for team Kerry.

We need to re-focus on the issues and let the freepheads dig out the typerwriters.

[greenohio]

51. I think we should drop it and move on

Kerry should say the docs don't matter. All that matters is jobs, health-care and a rational plan for national defense.

[bobbyboucher]

99. Says you

and a bunch of freepers. PROVE IT.

[greenohio]

102. Go ahead, continue your IBM Selectric crusade

Keep this story in the press. Rove and co love it.

We should be talking about the issues. Any other strategy is a loser.

[troublemaker]

57. The burden always falls on the party producing a document. That's basic.

[AngryAmish]

45. Dan Rather stands by the story

That is all the proof that is required. Who do these "bloggers" think they are? Don't they know who Dan Rather is?

[Nederland]

50. Bullshit

Rather has been wrong before. He is not infallible.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

54. He's less fallible than already discredited lying freepers

.

[greenohio]

58. And we should let him go down with it.

I agree, this is a no winner for us. Let the freekers have their day and move on. Arguing over who has the burden of proof or whether or not they are real doesn't help us. This is a perfect example of how the right frames the argument. We should be talking issues, not superscript.

If they are forgeries, then they are. If some people want to believe Dan Rather, then fine. If some people don't believe him, then fine.

Lets talk about healthcare...

[bobbyboucher]

101. Me thinks thou doth protest too much.

There is nothing definetive out there. One side says one thing, and the other side, much further from the originals and with much to loose says something else.

You seem to have your mind made up. Which is suspect even more than the docs.

[TheWebHead]

56. CBS needs outside ombudsman

there are 3 key factors not relevant to if the documents were created on a '70s typewriter or otherwise.

1. CBS does not have the original documents
2. The documents were not obtained from official military channels
3. The documents were not obtained from Killian's family -- according to the family.

This whole flap has caused unquestioned legitimate stories about *'s service (ie. Boston Globe & US News recently) to slide into the mud of CBS's questionable reporting. Why everyone on here continues to defend Rather in wake of this, which has damaged our cause, mystifies me.

[Nederland]

59. Well said (nt)

[wuushew]

64. How does that make them forgeries?

There is no evidence of forgery. The content outlined in the documents is consistent with Bush's character, probable drug use and testimony of fellow Republicans and airmen as to his performance while in the ANG.


Why is the likelihood of them being forgeries greater than the acceptance of being legitimate. Did you spend the same amount of energy debunking the swiftboat accusations?

[hexola]

61. THEORY: Rather set up as pay back for Viet Nam era coverage?

I'm thinking RATHER is the target of this whole thing...not Kerry, not even Bush...

If they are fake - no harm to Bush, or Kerry for that matter...Rather is the one who will take the hit...big time...

Rather is like the Freeper's most hated liberal...Kerry, Fonda, Rather...

Unless this shit came from our side...then - "Lucy you got some splainin to do..."

[LynnTheDem]

68. MS Word myth;

"The documents can be recreated in Microsoft Word".
What the LGFer did to "prove" this was to type a Microsoft Word document in Times New Roman font, and overlay it with the original document.

Dkos Debunking:

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.

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.

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!"

The rest of the debunking:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/9/10/34914/1603

[hexola]

75. There are some problems with the Dkos...

I dont have the time or energy...but safe to say comparing actual text (.doc), to graphics (pdf) - is not a good test...all that stuff about "compressing pixels" sounds pretty dubious...

We need to know about how the pdf were prepared - we they scaled up or down in anyway?

[Qutzupalotl]

100. LGF used compressed pixels to cloud the issue.

I didn't.

[malva]

76. Dkos Debunking

If what you are saying is true, and it sounds highly technical, so without any hesitation, I believe you since there is no reason to believe you are incorrect. Would an original copy of the letter prove your point?

[hexola]

77. Welcome to DU malva!

[malva]

79. thanks

Been here a while, just looking as suggested before jumping in and offering criticism without contemplating a solution.

[Nicholas_J]

69. The real problem the White House will have is that

The memos and pay stubs that the White House released this spring after the MoveOn.Org claims that Bush was AWOL have all of the same elements that they are now using to claim that the CBS memos are forgeries. Two of the memos that the Bush people released last sring have suprtscipted "th" characters after numbers, and all of them have proportional type. All of these memos are purported to originate at the same military base that the CBS memos oare claimed to have originated at. Which creates a problem. If the Killian memos are forgeries, then the Bush memos designed to prove he was on duty are also forgeries. Which is wh the White House has just staed that they are not going to investigate the authenticity of the CBS memos. Right now all of the hullaballoo about the memos is basically gossip, and opinion, and enough of the opinion that they are forgeries is in the air to favor the Bush Administration. Providing scientific proof that the memos were valid would be incontroverable evidence that Bush was not where he was supposed to be. Right now all is supposition.

[Nederland]

84. Interesting

Which creates a problem. If the Killian memos are forgeries, then the Bush memos designed to prove he was on duty are also forgeries.

But what will really be interesting is to watch DU suddenly decide that the evidence of forgery is compelling after all...

[Raster]

87. ONE MORE TIME: There is not, nor has the ever been one, I say, ONE...

...shred of evidence that indicates the documents were forged. Not One! Everything has been a partisan smokescreen designed to cloud the content and the issue: gee-dubya was AWOL and DID NOT meet his National Guard obligations.

Keep in mind the White House refuses to confirm or deny the documents.