Memo signatures are genuine

[Qutzupalotl]

A recent Washington Post article by Michael Dobbs and Howard Kurtz is riddled with inaccuracies and flagged with the deceptive headline, "Expert Cited by CBS Says He Didn't Authenticate Papers." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18982-20... )

The signature expert, Marcel Matley, didn't say the memos were fake. He simply explained that he is a handwriting analyst by profession and thus not qualified to prove the typewritten portion is authentic. But this clarification is being spun in cable media as him "backing off".

What Matley did say is that in his opinion, Killian's signatures on the documents are genuine. The question is, how did Killian's signature get on the documents? Killian has been dead since 1984. The only remaining theory to prop up the forgery angle is that a genuine original signature was obtained, somehow cut and pasted perfectly into a document containing accurate accounts of real events in Killian's writing style using available typing equipment, and recopied on available copy equipment. That's pretty far-fetched, as one would need to be an expert in early 70's typographic capabilities, knowledgeable about the intimate details of Bush's missing period, and able to imitate the writing style of Jerry Killian. Not even the CIA is that good.

I refer you to Occam's razor; the more likely scenario is that Killian wrote and signed the documents himself. They are genuine, and Rove is really pissed. Naturally, he wants us to question the documents and ignore the allegations they make.

Killian's personal secretary came out to say she would have been the one to type these documents for him, but doesn't remember doing so. Memories aside, why is it inconceivable that Killian would type such a sensitive letter himself? Especially when it concerned the son of a prominent ambassador to the U.N.?

The post interviewed a hack "expert" (Newcomer) who says CBS' evidence of superscript keys in 1968 isn't a superscript at all. This is a lie, since the "th" is a different size from the other characters in the same line. Therefore, a superscript "th" must have been a dedicated key available in 1968--five years before the memos in question were written.

They're even trotting out Laura Bush, who says they are "probably" forged. One wonders who would give her such a cleverly written line that stops just short of a lie.

A weak point of contention raised in the Washington Post article--and this is so damning for Bush, they must be getting desperate--is that the address on one of the memos is one Bush would not have used until "late 1973". It was the address of one George H.W. Bush, whom you may remember is the father of the young man in question. It is not inconceivable that Killian would use a stable address to notify a man moving from one address to another about such an important matter as reporting for duty. If the younger Bush was not showing up, it would make sense for Killian to escalate the problem to the parents, who would certainly know how to contact their son to help him avoid a court martial. Some have even suggested that Bush was having problems with drugs during this time, a period which is blurry by any investigative standards. Such a theory might explain his mysterious appearance at his father's address.

Killian was signing an affadavit for us. These documents are the equivalent of Killian's sworn testimony from the grave. Those who are spreading the previously debunked talking point that they are forgeries are showing his efforts a disservice. He has given us a gift. Look at the facts in the documents. They accurately reflect what happened. Even the secretary does not dispute that. And the White House has yet to give a straight answer for any of it.

[BlueEyedSon]

1. They're photocopies, maybe the "originals" were cut and pasted -

including signatures cut from OTHER documents.

DUH.

[Qutzupalotl]

3. How would they make the type align and match exatcly?

in both the body text and the name & rank?

Once again..."pasted perfectly into a document containing accurate accounts of real events in Killian's writing style using available typing equipment, and recopied on available copy equipment. That's pretty far-fetched, as one would need to be an expert in early 70's typographic capabilities, knowledgeable about the intimate details of Bush's missing period, and able to imitate the writing style of Jerry Killian. Not even the CIA is that good."

[BlueEyedSon]

4. Pasting a photocopy signature is cake.

Who says the docs that CBS has were made on period equipment?

[Qutzupalotl]

5. I do.

The artifacts...spots...are characteristic of early 70's photocopy machines. Even recent analog copiers aren't that bad.

Yes, it's possible to fake any document on a computer, but if they are fakes, they are damned good ones. And do you now mistrust every document, since it could be faked on a computer?

[BlueEyedSon]

6. Nah, its easy.

The question remains: if someone went through the thought process and trouble to "age" the docs, add an authentic signature image, etc.... why not use a mono-spaced (i.e. old-style) font?

[Qutzupalotl]

7. The Texas ANG requisitioned IBM Selectric Composers

so this is entirely consistent.

The documents were created on a typewriter using an old-style proportional font. If anyone tries to tell you it's Microsoft's Times New Roman, kick them in the nuts for me.

[Qutzupalotl]

9. The font's widths don't matter. They are fairly standard

and consistent with proportional-spaced typewriters of the period, such as the IBM Executive. The superscript key that caused so much consternation originally was extant on those typewriters, which the miliary used at the time. Just ask DUer Hubert Flotz. Hell, even in 1968, Bush's Guard documents had a superscript character. So all they had to add in 5 years was proportional spacing. Guess what, they did.

The so-called address discrepancy (Bush's father's address) is easily explained by remembering that this is when his coke problems emerged.

So we have: authentic typography, authentic signatures, authentic dates and events, and a writing style consistent with witnesses' memories of the man.

Forgery, my ass. These are as good as sworn testimony by Killian himself.

Now, about those contents, Mr. President??

[Must_B_Free]

11. CBS stated first gen copies

that means the copies in their posession were made from the originals.

[Qutzupalotl]

13. Then that makes it even more convincing.

If these are first generation copies from originals, they were done on a 70's era Xerox. The spotting I see is consistent with that.

It also means there was no cutting and pasting of a signature, as some have speculated. The cut lines would be evident.

[Union Thug]

2. I saw the interview with the handwriting analyst..

and he never implied that the docs were forgeries, nor did he say much about the typewritten text at all...exactly as cited above. His job was to analyze the handwriting, which, he believes to be authentic.

The corporate whores are twisting wildly trying to cover up the truth of the matter.

F* 'em.

[Qutzupalotl]

8. Jim Dyke lied.

It's hard to keep up with all the lies flying around.

Responding to the video, which the DNC plans to air at campaign events and on its Web site, RNC spokesman Jim Dyke issued a statement calling it "as creative and accurate as the memos they gave CBS."
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/15/bush.guard.memos/

The memos they gave CBS. Do you have any facts at all to back up that assertion, Jim? I thought not. So now you try to smear CBS and the DNC in one blow. Well, the CBS documents stand on their own merits. I wish your president could.

[Must_B_Free]

10. But, but "Men can't type"

"and terrorists don't have pot bellies and white shoes!"

[Qutzupalotl]

12. Indeed, Killian probably typed them himself.

For a CYA memo? I would. What if Knox's memos were mysteriously "disappeared"? I'd sure as hell want my own backups.

It seems the simplest and most rational explanation for the authentic signature, authentic events, and authentic sentiments of Jerry Killian at the time.

[A_Possum]

14. I agree

I've thought about this a good deal. There are two really big soft holes in the theory that the copies were made on a word processor.

One is, if they were, they had to have been done by a forger who was extremely skilled and extremely familiar with typewriters of that date. Any overlay (like yours) of the copies with the word documents shows this clearly. There are WAY too many subtle variations and distortions in the copies that are consistent with a typewriter, from the floating of letters above the lines to the way the letters are distorted at the tops and bottoms (due to the curve of the roller) and not distorted to the left and right (because the roller is flat in that plane), to the way the spaces between letters vary, as a typewriter would produce them manually. It's not that none of this couldn't be done with Word and scans and such, it's that it's been done so perfectly over 5 separate documents--which could only be done by a master forger.

So...who are they trying to imply has done this? Burkett, the guardsman from Abilene. Somehow--the news theory is going--from his brief look at these documents in a trash can a decade ago, he has not only remembered the specific gist of these 5 memos, but he's reproduced a typeface, a typewriter forgery, Killian's verifiable signature and the "fuzzy" look by making multiple copies...all from his small ranch 21 miles away from the Kinko's in Abilene.

Occam's razor. I fully agree.

Either there is another source we don't know about, or Burkett is the source and has the originals.