Dammit, they are NOT "forged documents"

[PurityOfEssence]

No conclusive proof has shown them to be forgeries. The "faith-based" idiocy of our modern world is repeating the phrase to such a degree that it's fact, and that SIMPLY ISN'T TRUE. It's like polls: if enough people think something's true, it is. That's ridiculous, regardless of the margin.

Begala (who bothers me in oh so many ways) is calling them forgeries. So is Novak, and so are many others.

There is still no conclusive proof that they weren't typed at the time they purport to have been, and there's no proof within the information that they're fake. They can't be authenticated because there's no original (that we know of), but they have not been demonstrated to be fakes.

The burden of proof is on the accuser; thus, Rather et Al. were right to withdraw the contention: they couldn't prove their point. Having withdrawn their contention, the burden now rests on all naysayers to PROVE THAT THEY'RE FAKES.

Call them "questionable" or call them any number of other things, but they are not FORGERIES. Letting reactionaries dictate skewed versions of reality with no question is the continuing source of our troubles.

[BootinUp]

1. I believe the dems, Begala et. al.

Have given up that point, and decided to accuse the other side of forgin em, as the best defense.

[PurityOfEssence]

7. It's shocking stupidity like this that makes me scream

Reality is reality. Guesses are guesses.

It's much smarter to hold your fire, let them be emboldened with their fast-and-loose relationship with Earth, and then hit them with an accusation of trumpeting lies. They are not forgeries.

My thoughts? Sounds quite consistent with a non-typist covering his ass after hours. If he used the wrong terminology (Army, rather than Air Force) we can look at all of his other correspondence and see where that leads.

Let them sink themselves, thinking that they can shout down all opposition, even in direct conflict with facts, but don't concede a point that hasn't been made. It makes one look like he/she doesn't know shit from shinola.

Somewhere, there's a photocopy of an earlier generation. It needs to be checked to see if it traces to a proper vintage copier (probably mid- to late 90s, when the memos would have been purloined ahead of their purging) and see where that goes.

No, this shouldn't be the or a major issue of the campaign, but it should NEVER be conceded. This makes us look like we're soft on forgery and out-and-out dishonesty, and that's calamitous.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

2. NYTimes editorial today carefully avoided calling them so

The Times has been really fair and straight up on all of this, and eager to paint Bush as the bady guy at every opportunity all year.
They were very good about pointing out that the nature of the memos is still not certain.

[spooky3]

3. So was NPR this morning. I wanted to scream.

[Stephanie]

4. Exactly! So can we rebut the LIES in Safire's column today?

I mean, is Safire allowed to print any LIE he wishes because he is on the Op-Ed page? Where is the ombudsman in this? The Times should get a ton of letters on this BS.

First, Find the Forger
By WILLIAM SAFIRE
Published: September 22, 2004

WASHINGTON — At the root of what is today treated as an embarrassing blunder by duped CBS journalists may turn out to be a felony by its faithless sources.

Some person or persons conceived a scheme to create a series of false Texas Air National Guard documents and append a photocopied signature to one of them. The perpetrator then helped cause the fraudulent file to be transmitted by means of television communication to millions of voters for the purpose of influencing a federal election.

That was no mere "dirty trick"; it could be a violation of the U.S. criminal code. If the artifice had not been revealed by sharp-eyed bloggers, a national election could have been swung by a blatant falsehood.

Who was the forger? Did others conspire with him or her to present a seeming government document - with knowledge of its falsity and with intent to defraud, which is a felony in Texas? Who was to benefit and how?

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/22/opinion/22safi.html?hp

[Bandit]

11. I notice first he says may be and then he says they did

His first sentence says may be a felony. Then he says "some person or persons conceived a scheme". This is a statement of fact and not conjecture even though it has never been admitted to or proved to be the case. This is how propaganda works. LIES and he should be called on it. Make him tell how he knows this to be the case. I have only heard that they cannot be authenticated. that is a long ways from saying they are a fraud or forgery. He is making a criminal accusation.

[Zookeeper]

16. Thanks! I just e-mailed Safire....

He is either delusional or secretly very ashamed of himself. No one can really be as stupid as he appears to be in his columns.

[bain_sidhe]

17. My LTTE re: Safire's column

No, first, find the originals! Killian's secretary, Marian Knox, clearly stated that, although the memos CBS had acquired had not been typed by her, she HAD typed memos with the same content. The question is, where are the memos she DID type? If supposedly "everything" in George W. Bush's TANG file has been "turned over," why are no memos similar in content to the CBS memos included? Perhaps Burkett's "file purge" story has more merit than his role as the source of the disputed documents would indicate.

(This is my current hobby horse. If they're gonna keep talking about these documents - and it appears that they are, come hell or high water - I'm gonna keep asking this questions. Some time, some one, some where will bite. I hope.)

[City Lights]

5. Crossfire was excellent today on this.

nofacts thought that accusing rove of planting the docs was an outrage. He tried to get Howard Wolfson to agree. Howard said, "Bob, unless you're willing to admit you planted them, we still don't know where they came from." (Not an exact quote, but close.)

[PurityOfEssence]

9. No, it wasn't

The consensus expressed was that they were forgeries, and Wolfson's statements did nothing to dispel that. Begala loves playing on the recess playground, and he's more of a hindrance than anything else.

One can have it both ways: continually remind that they're not "forgeries", since there's no proof, and then hammer anyone as a liar, sloppy with facts or stupid if they insist on defining them as definitely fakes. Call them "discredited" or whatever, but they are not fabrications until it's been shown.

Dammit.

[City Lights]

13. I agree with you on Begala, but I thought Wolfson held his own in

pointing out that no one has proven the docs to be fakes.

[On the Road]

6. There's Actually Evidence They Were NOT Made on a Computer

and if they were made on a typewriter, where's the reason to believe they were forged?

The RW accused and lied to the point where CBS inevitably found they had screwed up in an unrelated way -- namely confirming the chain of custody of the documents.

CBS should have not only reported on the controversy, but on how the forgery claims were debunked. They should have shown how the characters HAD to have been made on a typewriter and then asked where the basis for the forgery charge was. But once CBS had egg on their face, it was difficult for them to take this line. And they hung out to dry all by themselves without defense from other networks or even the Democratic establishment.

This is why Democrats should fight more and not just cave into popular widsom.

[Bolo Boffin]

8. Burkett destroyed the originals - there can be no proof

They might as well be forgeries.

[PurityOfEssence]

12. There CAN be proof

We don't know what happened to the originals, but they were probably purged by then-Governor Bush. The copy that was made from the original was made on a copier somewhere, and probably at a government installation. Paper, toner and other anomalies leave a big honking forensic footprint, so even if it isn't conclusive, it gets much closer to the original, and harder to refute.

Consider the timing of access, age of the copy, paper, toner, flaws in the particular copier (although that's a stretch, as is finding the exact one) and there's much more that can be done.

[Bolo Boffin]

20. We do know what happened to the originals

Burkett said himself that he destroyed them. Go read the USAToday story.

Any memos from Killian wouldn't be in Bush's file anyway; they would be in Killian's papers. So purging Bush's files wouldn't have touched them.

If we had the originals, all of those tests could be done. But Burkett burned them, and burned away any chances he had of showing these documents to be real. So they might as well be forgeries.

[flpoljunkie]

24. Burkett did not say they were originals, just the papers given to him by

some mysterious man; "Lucy Ramirez" told him to destroy the papers she sent him so her DNA would not be on them. They may well have been copies of the originals.

[K-W]

15. Thats crap.

CBS cant prove beyond a doubt that the deocuments are what they said they were, nobody has yet given any concrete evidence that they are in fact forgeries.

Right now, the facts say that these documents could have existed, we just dont know for sure that they did.

Not having proof is not the same as them being forgeries. It is the forgery business that is keeping this story alive. And unless someone wants to make specific alligations of forgery against a specific person with proof this shouldnt be an issue in the news.

[Bolo Boffin]

22. In the absence of the originals (which Burkett destroyed)

there can be no physical proof one way or the other.

The Washington Post printed a graphic which showed the many different ways that the CBS memos do not resemble actual memos from Killian. There's enough there to conclude that these documents are indeed forgeries.

It's time to move on from this issue.

[deckerd]

50. You're wrong

Shall I list the ways? I contacted the ombudsman on this. I haven't heard back!

** The entire story used three computer experts as source.
No print typography experts were contacted. Kurtz lambasted CBS
for not using registered forensic scientists, yet none of the
sources for his article were registered forensic experts on
mechanical type documents.

** One of the computer experts used as a source is a partisan
Republican software designer who thinks anti-war activism is a
form of terrorism.

** The "kerning" they cited from this source is blatantly false.
It DOES NOT EXIST on high-resolution photos of the CBS docs.
"Kerning" isn't the right fucking word for it, according to the SOURCE.

** The superscript "th" is alleged NOT TO BE AVAILABLE DUE TO VERTICAL POSITIONING.

To understand how stupid this sounds, you need to understand how
superscript is generated on a typewriter. It is generated by
PHYSICALLY ROTATING THE DRUM BACK ONE HALF-STEP. NO EXTRA KEYS are
ever offered for the same character ("th") in a positioning relative
to the line of text. This argument relies on the ignorance of the
reader since the source are fully familiar this is a lie. Originally
their lie was even more explicit claiming no "th" was possible nor
available on the verified Guard docs.

** Proportional type cited as proving falsity because the docs they compared it to did not use proportional type and "may not have been available at the time". Other docs typed by Knox used proportional type.

** Font claimed to be MS Word TNR explicitly when it is not.

** Minor variations in wording, etc. attributable to the fact that
Killian was not used to typing his own memos.

Instead of apologizing for their falsehoods and Howard Kurtz defamation of Burkett, now the Post Editorial Board has come out and said they're forgeries, and columnist Anne Applebaum admitted she hoped this would be the death of network news, said she only watched Fox and CNN and was cynical about ANY news program that claimed to have the truth. This is the g*d-damned morally relativistic fascism that these neo-liberals have imposed on society with all this "what is true", "what is the meaning of is" crap! Dammit!!!

If I were Burkett I'd sue the Post for defamation of character. Problem is Burkett's an easy mark because he's incompetent, naive and perhaps a tad unstable.

Nevertheless, I suspect they were forged by rove from originals containung the exact same informationn. Why? The centering issue on the title of the docs up top. This was not the standard address format for, say, TANG letterhead and I find it hard to believe Killian would have known how to center it so perfectly in an informal memo.
If someone can challenge me on that I'd be happy about it.

It's the limp-wristed ignorance and willing to lay down and forget
about the issue because "it might be damaging to us" that I hate!!

[starroute]

55. I'll challenge you on the centering of the address

After reading your post, I began thinking about how easy centering used to be on a fixed-width typewriter (you just centered the carriage and then backspaced half the number of characters you were going to type) and how hard it would be to do it as neatly on a proportional-spaced typewriter. Then I decided to look at the documents to see how well or badly the centering was done and found that it was essentially perfect. That would have taken real skill, at least if it was done, as I believe, on an IBM Executive.

But then I started to notice certain other things. One was that the spacing of the heading looks identical on every memo where it appears. The -P- on the second line is always directly below the -gh- on the first line and directly above the -u- on the third line. And so on, for every letter.

Another was that the headings are always skewed compared to the rest of the typing. They tilt up very visibly from left to right, where the rest of the typing is pretty much on a level.

And a third was that although the headings are centered on a line by line basis, they do not appear to be centered with respect to the text of the memoes. This is harder to be sure of because typewritten lines normally end a few characters short of the end of the line, but comparing each heading to the longest line below it, they seem to be about 1/8"-1/4" to the right of center.

These irregularities certainly amount to one more reason why the memos could not have been done on a computer. But beyond that, they suggest that someone had done up a template with a carefully spaced heading (which was not uncommon in the pre-computer era) and then made a several months' supply of photocopies in which the heading was slightly tilted and slightly offset to the right (which was also not uncommon in those days when photocopiers were regularly a bit out of adjustment.)

This applies only to the 1972 memos, by the way. The final June 1973 heading is different -- it's missing its last line, has a superscript -th-, and is better aligned with the text of the memo. But that would simply support the idea that the typist had run out of their original bunch of photocopies and had done a new bunch from a different template.

[Yupster]

53. Agree Bolob

I think the Washington Post piece this last weekend will be seen as the end of the fight.

Most journalists read the Washington Post, and will go by what they concluded.

[Nederland]

10. One Thing

The burden of proof is not on the accuser, the burden of proof is on CBS. Just think of what journalism would descend to if we went with the principle that any document was authentic until proven fake...

[PurityOfEssence]

14. CBS has withdrawn its contention; now the burden is on the decriers

If you call something real, it's your job to prove it. If you call it fake, it's the same burden.

I know that most of mankind hates the concept of grey, and it's obvious that vast swaths of humanity will literally destroy their lives and throw away their futures for some cuddly feeling of certainty--even if ridiculous--but that doesn't change the rules.

CBS is no longer claiming they're unimpeachable. They screwed up, and they've withdrawn their contention. The truth may well be that they just can't prove them, due to the generations of copies.

The contention that they're fakes is VERY MUCH IN PLAY, and those who rant on about it need to prove it or let it drop.

Everyone has to play by the same rules, or it's an aristocracy. Those who claim it's a fake are not the innocent and aggrieved party now; they are either rapacious, dangerous and duplicitous, or simply idiots. That should not be allowed to continue.

[K-W]

18. You miss the point.

The burden of proof to prove they are authentic is on CBS.

The burden of proof to prove that they are forgeries, ie someone intentionally created fake documents, is on the people who are making accusations of forgery.

There is a big difference between not enough evidence to authenticate and evidence of forgery.

[Nederland]

46. You are correct

The burden of proof to prove they are authentic is on CBS.

The burden of proof to prove that they are forgeries.

I agree with both of these statements. However, until the documents are proved authentic they are useless.

[AmyStrange]

23. you're SO WRONG it's not even funny anymore...

this is the way business is conducted every single minute of every single hour of every single day ALL OVER THE FREAKIN' WORLD. Your ID, your checks, money, wills etc. etc. are ALL considered real until they are proven fake.

It's why ID theft is so prevalent and easy and very hard to get out from under when you're the victim,

d

[Shrek]

33. Wait a minute, that can't be right

What if CNN or Fox came up produced some "documents" that contained damaging "information" about Kerry?

Would you consider those "documents" to be real unless proven otherwise? I wouldn't!

[AmyStrange]

39. nope but I also wouldn't...

outright say they were forgeries without any proof. Besides isn't that kind of what the swifties did?

d

[Shrek]

42. But that's the point!

In post 23, you said:

this is the way business is conducted every single minute of every single hour of every single day ALL OVER THE FREAKIN' WORLD. Your ID, your checks, money, wills etc. etc. are ALL considered real until they are proven fake.

That strikes me as incredibly dangerous. If that's the standard then every right-wing crackpot in the world will suddenly come forward with "documents" about Kerry or Edwards. Good luck proving that the "documents" are false. I really think that the burden of proof lies with those who purport the documents to be true.

And the swifties just prove the same point: they were immediately challenged to back up their charges. No one gave them an assumption of authenticity.

[AmyStrange]

44. Of course it's dangerous...

but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Look at how prevalent ID theft is.

Also, the swifties have said Kerry wrote the reports and who in the mainstream media has called them liars and been able to prove they were liars?

Lots of people with lots of opinions, but no one has proven absolutely their claims were false. The same is true on both sides of the CBS memo controversy, but the day they charge Burkett with forgery and the day he is convicted is the day I will say they ARE forgeries,

d

[Nederland]

47. Money vs. Journalism

Money and Journalism are two different things and operate under different rules. There isn't a single journalism school out there that will tell you that a source or document is true until proven false. Proving the truth is the job of a good reporter.

[AmyStrange]

57. Truth is the same thing under money and journalism...

and other journalist who say something is a forgery have to prove it is a forgery. If CBS has to prove their statements, so do all the other journalist have to prove their statements that they are forgeries. You can't say one set of journalist has to prove their statements, but others don't. Proving the truth is not a job that has to be done by one set of journalist and not another, and thats where your statement loses its validity,

d

[Bandit]

37. I thought that basically was the principle america operated under

Innocent until proved Guilty and factual until proved not. What is so horrible about that philosphy?

[AmyStrange]

41. you don't have to prove money is a forgery...

everytime you try to buy something. If someone says your money is a forgery THEY have to prove it in court that it is a forgery,

d

[hughee99]

19. Exactly!

If they have to be verified to call them authentic, then they also have to be disproven to call them forgeries. Right now, there are a lot of questions about them, but no one as proved that they are real or that they are forged.

[Karenina]

26. WHAT IS CLEAR

IS THAT THEIR CONTENT DOCUMENTS EVENTS ACCURATELY!!!! THEIR CONTENT DOCUMENTS EVENTS ACCURATELY!!!! THEIR CONTENT DOCUMENTS EVENTS ACCURATELY!!!! THEIR CONTENT DOCUMENTS EVENTS ACCURATELY!!!! THEIR CONTENT DOCUMENTS EVENTS ACCURATELY!!!! THEIR CONTENT DOCUMENTS EVENTS ACCURATELY!!!! THEIR CONTENT DOCUMENTS EVENTS ACCURATELY!!!! THEIR CONTENT DOCUMENTS EVENTS ACCURATELY!!!! THEIR CONTENT DOCUMENTS EVENTS ACCURATELY!!!! THEIR CONTENT DOCUMENTS EVENTS ACCURATELY!!!! (Oh dear, do I sound like a skipping cd? Good. PUMP UP THE VOLUME!!!!!PUMP UP THE VOLUME!!!!!PUMP UP THE VOLUME!!!!!PUMP UP THE VOLUME!!!!!PUMP UP THE VOLUME!!!!!PUMP UP THE VOLUME!!!!!PUMP UP THE VOLUME!!!!!PUMP UP THE VOLUME!!!!!

[hughee99]

43. The problem is that everyone already knows this...

These documents were intended to PROVE it. If you can't show that they are authentic, then you can't PROVE it, and we're right back where we started. Everyone knows what happened, but no one can prove it.

[David Zephyr]

21. Thanks. We Must Not Buy Into Their Language.

:thumbsup:

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

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

[AmyStrange]

28. Wrong

all of that can't be proven with copies of copies. Good luck pushing that load of c...

d

[spooky3]

36. Please donate to DU so you can search the site and find

all of the evidence showing that these claims have been thoroughly debunked.

[Iceburg]

45. Prove it -- the WP rag tried/lied in their faux chart ... debunked here

the example they cited from the 19 May 1972 memo turns out to be complete bullshit. While I agree if "kerning" was detected on a document, then that alone would be incontroverable evidence that the document (but not all documents) was generated on a modern day computer system. Unfortunately the quality of the memo reproductions are too poor to say definitively that there is evidence of kerning.
Like the man poster says "there is no proof (yet) that the documents were forged"

[starroute]

56. And the fact that the supposed kerning is -fi- may be significant

Look at the example below of typing on an IBM Executive. You'll see that all the f's in the lower block of type are are either close or very close to the letters after them -- in Glorfindel, father, first, flew, for, and fought. This may have had something to do with the fairly crude nature of the proportional spacing, or it may have been a reflection of old typefaces in which the f's were deliberately joined with the letters after them. But either way, I would guess it was typical of all Executives.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

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

[AmyStrange]

31. they can't be proven to be forgeries either...

using the same logic,

d

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

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

[AmyStrange]

38. not true...

the cops will show you the door unless they have a court order to throw me out.

It's kind of what the term, "possesion is 9/10ths of the law". In the instance you profer, you would have to go to the court to prove your claim and the cops won't do nothing until that happens,

d

[AmyStrange]

40. My "original" deed would trump your copy...

my original would trump your copy and my possession of the house (living in the house) which is not what is happening here,

d

[greenohio]

29. Give it up.

Whether they are real or not, is mute. They are precieved to be fakes. There is no "burden of proof" on any side in the court of public opinion, which is where this is being tried. Move on. When the repukes bring this up, tell them they're being petty and they should talk the issues.

[AmyStrange]

32. nope...

ask them how they know their fake short of admitting they were the one's who faked them,

d

[PurityOfEssence]

35. That's precisely the point I don't want to concede

It can be turned on the right: if they insist on waving them like some bloody shirt when they may very well be real and haven't been disproven, then they are lying. They should rightfully be left as an enigma: possibly true, possibly fake.

To let them take the ground on this one is idiotic.

Learn something from the Republicans: they don't concede anything. It's like the Koch brothers say: I only want my fair share, which is all of it.

The Republicans do not concede elections, judgements or any other form of reality. They do not accept the covenant of laws, and they will push and distort any perception to truth and keep pushing it to the point of sacred and god-given reality. They must be fought at every turn, and they must be attacked on their weaknesses and their strengths.

This can easily be turned on them, because when they yelp at the distinction, one can impugn their grasp of language, reality and fairness. They are either liars or imbeciles to persist with calling "unverified documents" as "vicious criminal forgeries brought forth to overthrow our government", but they must be fought at each turn nonetheless.

[deckerd]

51. NO, Ask them where STONE got them from and what he was working off of!!

Burkett is NOT the source, people. It appalls me to see a new generation of liberals who will believe anything, who are so willing to accept media reports without challenging. Or like Ann Applebaum in the Post, so cynical that they think the truth does not matter, only peoples' perceptions. And we should tear down anyone who claims to have the truth. That's the sort of reasoning that leads to people getting shot, or crucified, by various tyrranies throughout history.

Definitely, it does not matter to TACTICS whether they are true or not. That's because the originals are lost, but we know who the SOURCE is and the SOURCE is a Republican operative.

Does that prove the docs are fake? No indeed. It tells us we need to keep dogging the source until or unless media response is to try and scapegoat a Democrat to prevent the truth about Stone from being publicized. Once a connection is established this story will only prove further damaging to the Republicans. Why don't 80% of people on DU understand this? You can be sure less than 20% of the DNC or public understands this, if you do not.

[spanone]

30. You Are Correct. They could not 'Authenticate' them that is all.

But the right-wing talking points get amazingly distributed and strictly obeyed.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

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

[Sparkly]

49. There were no forged documents about Kerry

They were all bonafide Navy documents. Yet YOUR party smeared them, and thus smeared the Navy's own credibility.

The official documents on Bush tell a different story: of a rich boy who didn't bother to show up for a flight physical, was grounded, and never completed his obligations.

That's what's "real" here, buddy.

[SoCalDemocrat]

they will prove them authentic Nov 3rd

Watch and see. They'll end up authenticating them.

[SoCalDemocrat]

52. they will prove them authentic Nov 3rd

Watch and see. They'll end up authenticating them.

[Andromeda]

54. I TOTALLY feel the same way, POE

I have never felt the documents were forgeries, just a duplicate of the original that got destroyed or "lost."

Everybody is speculating -- but nobody knows for sure and I doubt we'll probably never know. Well, one person maybe but they won't tell.

Maybe in 20 years somebody will come forward and say, "I have it!"

This thing is blown up so out of proportion it's nauseating. People who want to believe that this is a scheme that CBS cooked up with the Kerry campaign can just kiss my grits!

They're gonna say what they're gonna say and the Repubs are going to get as much mileage out of this as they can.

[robcon]

58. I believe they are forgeries.

Too many inconsistencies, too many typographical impossibilities.

[AmyStrange]

59. With all due respect - I believe you are a forgery

now prove me wrong,

d

[starroute]

60. The forgery story has even more inconsistencies and impossibilities

Computers produce regular, consistent, letter-perfect type. The type on the memos is all over the place -- some letters are closer together than others, the baseline jumps up and down, one impression of a letter may be different from another impression of the same letter, the headings are often at an angle with respect to the rest of the memo.

Those things were normal for typewriters (especially pre-Selectric typewriters), but they would be almost impossible to duplicate on a computer. The font of the memos is also not compatible with any computer font but is very similar to some IBM Executive fonts.

And there are certain other peculiarities, such as one I pointed out above -- that three of the memos seem to show the identical heading skewed in the identical way compared to the rest of the text. This strongly suggests a template of the heading had been made up and used to produce a batch of photocopies.

If all these things were faked, someone must have put as much care into the job as you'd use on an Old Master you hoped to sell for ten million dollars. If they intended to debunk them on the grounds that they could be duplicated using MS Word, why not just use MS Word to start with and make both the forging and the debunking easier?

I'll be the first to agree that something screwy is going on here -- but I don't think forgery is part of the picture.